Not a single person who has lived in my duplex since I bought it can afford to buy me out for what I’ve got in it, let alone what I could get on the open market.
That’s because of land lords. You are the problem. People could afford to buy a house on a working class income in my parent’s generation. But now you’re using your own price speculation as evidence that we must maintain a class of renters instead of dealing with out of control prices?
Fuck no. The government should eminent domain it all for the original price plus normal inflation and put it on the market at that price. If it’s older than 50 years or has had significant changes made to the original plan then we discount it. Houses are the only product we pay more for as they fall apart and it’s entirely because real estate speculation is a thing.
People rented in your parent’s generation too. My dad was born and raised in London 1931. They rented every house he lived in (good thing too because four of them were destroyed in The Blitz). My Mom was born in 1942 and raised in New York. Do you think most New Yorkers owned their homes even in 1942? And there was a point back then when they couldn’t afford rent and had to live on an actual homeowner’s screened-in porch for a summer.
There will always be a need to rent rather than buy. The price of rents is the issue, not the fact that they are available. And attacking someone who is not part of some corporate rent-raising scheme is unhelpful.
Yeah and tenements were an exploitation too. The problem of housing for sale and housing for rent are inextricably linked. Yeah getting rid of all rental housing is too far.
Totally get how you thought I was using price speculation as justification for landlords, but I was actually trying to make the opposite point. I bought this house because I wanted to own my own home, and I couldn’t afford a single family home, but could half a duplex that was in such a state of disrepair when I bought it that it took me calling 12 insurance companies before one would underwrite it. It’s now one of the nicer houses on the block. The point I’m trying to make is this was a terrible financial decision - I probably earned under minimum wage for the time I put into property maintance and would have earned more on the money in other investments. It’s one of the only homes I could afford on the working class salary I was earning (granted, ~10 years ago).
The eminent domain strategy is an interesting one, but one that has a lot of flaws. For example, under the plan you listed I wouldn’t get enough money back to pay off my mortgage with the bank - expanded economy wide, that would lead to mass lay offs across the banking sector. I could see how you might like that long term (less people working in banking), but we’d need to account for it in the short term or it would spiral the country into a recession like 2008. The house I own in is in an area not many people want to live long term and prefer renting - it’s mainly graduate students and young professionals planning on moving in a few years. And how do you deal with the politics of it - the vast majority of the country, right or wrong, would never support a plan like that. And when I talk about affording it, I’m not just talking about the upfront costs. Most of my renters over the years putting down the first months payment takes some saving. I’ve been pricing out a new furnance and AC, and it’ll run me over $8k. They couldn’t afford that one time cost to keep the house maintained. These are just a couple points that could all be addressed, but mainly sharing because there are dozens more that would also need addressing and to point out that there is no simple solution to this problem.
Yeah maybe that’s a bit extreme. I don’t think the debt bubble would cause a bank collapse, we’ve had people get caught underwater before and a reduced price eminent domain would be similar to TARP in 2008. But we really do need to reign it in. And that’s going to involve some people taking a bath on their loans. It’s the one inescapable problem of solving housing inflation. There’s always going to be X number of people who bought recently and will end up underwater. And the two answers are the government subsidizing their loan and the government forcing a sale where they would recover most of the loan. Legislation that isn’t just another subsidy would likely subsidize the loan on a primary residence and force a sale to the government on other properties that are underwater and unable to be refinanced.
That’s because of land lords. You are the problem. People could afford to buy a house on a working class income in my parent’s generation. But now you’re using your own price speculation as evidence that we must maintain a class of renters instead of dealing with out of control prices?
Fuck no. The government should eminent domain it all for the original price plus normal inflation and put it on the market at that price. If it’s older than 50 years or has had significant changes made to the original plan then we discount it. Houses are the only product we pay more for as they fall apart and it’s entirely because real estate speculation is a thing.
People rented in your parent’s generation too. My dad was born and raised in London 1931. They rented every house he lived in (good thing too because four of them were destroyed in The Blitz). My Mom was born in 1942 and raised in New York. Do you think most New Yorkers owned their homes even in 1942? And there was a point back then when they couldn’t afford rent and had to live on an actual homeowner’s screened-in porch for a summer.
There will always be a need to rent rather than buy. The price of rents is the issue, not the fact that they are available. And attacking someone who is not part of some corporate rent-raising scheme is unhelpful.
Yeah and tenements were an exploitation too. The problem of housing for sale and housing for rent are inextricably linked. Yeah getting rid of all rental housing is too far.
Totally get how you thought I was using price speculation as justification for landlords, but I was actually trying to make the opposite point. I bought this house because I wanted to own my own home, and I couldn’t afford a single family home, but could half a duplex that was in such a state of disrepair when I bought it that it took me calling 12 insurance companies before one would underwrite it. It’s now one of the nicer houses on the block. The point I’m trying to make is this was a terrible financial decision - I probably earned under minimum wage for the time I put into property maintance and would have earned more on the money in other investments. It’s one of the only homes I could afford on the working class salary I was earning (granted, ~10 years ago).
The eminent domain strategy is an interesting one, but one that has a lot of flaws. For example, under the plan you listed I wouldn’t get enough money back to pay off my mortgage with the bank - expanded economy wide, that would lead to mass lay offs across the banking sector. I could see how you might like that long term (less people working in banking), but we’d need to account for it in the short term or it would spiral the country into a recession like 2008. The house I own in is in an area not many people want to live long term and prefer renting - it’s mainly graduate students and young professionals planning on moving in a few years. And how do you deal with the politics of it - the vast majority of the country, right or wrong, would never support a plan like that. And when I talk about affording it, I’m not just talking about the upfront costs. Most of my renters over the years putting down the first months payment takes some saving. I’ve been pricing out a new furnance and AC, and it’ll run me over $8k. They couldn’t afford that one time cost to keep the house maintained. These are just a couple points that could all be addressed, but mainly sharing because there are dozens more that would also need addressing and to point out that there is no simple solution to this problem.
Yeah maybe that’s a bit extreme. I don’t think the debt bubble would cause a bank collapse, we’ve had people get caught underwater before and a reduced price eminent domain would be similar to TARP in 2008. But we really do need to reign it in. And that’s going to involve some people taking a bath on their loans. It’s the one inescapable problem of solving housing inflation. There’s always going to be X number of people who bought recently and will end up underwater. And the two answers are the government subsidizing their loan and the government forcing a sale where they would recover most of the loan. Legislation that isn’t just another subsidy would likely subsidize the loan on a primary residence and force a sale to the government on other properties that are underwater and unable to be refinanced.