Economy Great Article Breaking Down the US Housing Crisis & Why Government Isn't Doing Anything About It

[lifelessheap]

I asked a very direct very specific question. Pointing to home ownership rates in red states isn't an answer to the question "what is the republican solution on housing? why don't republicans even talk about housing?"

hey genius - do you think the higher home ownership rates in red states might be due to higher affordability that results from lower demand to live in those red areas?? So is your solution to housing to make everywhere in the US less desirable to live?

Try to build in California. LoL. It fucking sucks. I did owner/builder for my house and it was insane. California makes it hell to build.

Red states are way more relaxed.

 

[blackheart]

I don't really know what to tell you. Corporations are trying to make a profit; they're not engaging in some kind of economic kamikaze to hurt you. Corporations buying homes are a symptom of the problem rather than a cause. That is, there is insufficient supply to meet demand in certain high-value markets, which causes spiraling price increases that make homes a desirable investment. If you want to fuck them, fix the supply restrictions (and, indeed, you see that listed as a Risk Factor in some of their Ks).

Artificial demand being driven by corporations. Corporations have an infinite supply of money from the fed. There can never be enough supply to meet an infinite level of demand and cash from Corporations.

You never question your underlying assumptions. You treat your underlying assumptions as if those assumptions are just describing acts of nature.

How come many other countries don't have a problem with Corporations buying up large swathes of housing and dramatically driving up prices Jack?

There is no policy solution to fixing supply problems. That authority is delegated to cities/counties/HOAs. And those authorities are captured by the interests of existing homeowners who are the ones restricting supply.

"Go out and start a grass roots movement so that people rise up in all 3,000 counties!" Isn't a serious solution to the problem. It's never going to happen.

 

[blackheart]

Try to build in California. LoL. It fucking sucks. I did owner/builder for my house and it was insane. California makes it hell to build.

Red states are way more relaxed.

Yeah, because cali is the nimby capitol of the country. People restrict new builds to protect their existing home values. People in red states are living in less desirable places, so their homes aren't worth nearly as much, so people don't care as much about stopping new development.

 

[ferrisjso]

I don't really know what to tell you. Corporations are trying to make a profit; they're not engaging in some kind of economic kamikaze to hurt you. Corporations buying homes are a symptom of the problem rather than a cause. That is, there is insufficient supply to meet demand in certain high-value markets, which causes spiraling price increases that make homes a desirable investment. If you want to fuck them, fix the supply restrictions (and, indeed, you see that listed as a Risk Factor in some of their Ks).

Profit is "economic kamikaze to hurt you". It is a cancer that requires corner cutting forever and slowly destroys a society.

You think the market is natural not a legitamization of atrocitys and that is really the crux of the disagreement with "capitalism is the end of history' types".

 

[brothir]

Profit is "economic kamikaze to hurt you". It is a cancer that requires corner cutting forever and slowly destroys a society.

That's very strange because the idea of profit has existed for a long time and yet there are more humans who live longer than ever before and have access to goods and services never seen before in human history. That's a very specific kind of destruction we're looking at.

 

[lifelessheap]

Yeah, because cali is the nimby capitol of the country. People restrict new builds to protect their existing home values. People in red states are living in less desirable places, so their homes aren't worth nearly as much, so people don't care as much about stopping new development.

I built in Butte County. In a rural area. Nobody wants to really live there. They still made it hell. LoL

 

[Jack V Savage]

Artificial demand being driven by corporations. Corporations have an infinite supply of money from the fed. There can never be enough supply to meet an infinite level of demand and cash from Corporations.

Man, your worldview is based on so much factual inaccuracy that it's hard for a normal person to communicate. So many different misconceptions to clear up.

You never question your underlying assumptions. You treat your underlying assumptions as if those assumptions are just describing acts of nature.

My dude, I used to have some of the same misconceptions that you do. I questioned them and learned. I think you probably will too, but it can't come from me because you're too reflexively hostile.

How come many other countries don't have a problem with Corporations buying up large swathes of housing and dramatically driving up prices Jack?

Probably because that’s not an actual thing.

There is no policy solution to fixing supply problems. That authority is delegated to cities/counties/HOAs. And those authorities are captured by the interests of existing homeowners who are the ones restricting supply.

The policy solution is to simply allow more housing to be built where there is demand for it. And we're seeing a lot of progress on that here in CA.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Profit is "economic kamikaze to hurt you". It is a cancer that requires corner cutting forever and slowly destroys a society.

You think the market is natural not a legitamization of atrocitys and that is really the crux of the disagreement with "capitalism is the end of history' types".

I would say that capitalism is like toilet paper--the ultimate solution to the problem it was designed to solve. But if you can show how the shells work, maybe we can take a look.

 

[ferrisjso]

I would say that capitalism is like toilet paper--the ultimate solution to the problem it was designed to solve. But if you can show how the shells work, maybe we can take a look.

Well they both cause massive deforestation so they've got that in common.

 

[Broke Lester]

Former drug addict??? Lmaoo whaaaaat? Only thing I've ever been addicted to is this sticky icky. Reach harder buddy

This thread is for the OG Conor fans, that watched and were inspired by his incredible rise starting in 2014. Not the social media kiddies that jumped on the bandwagon between his Floyd and Khabib fights and beyond.

We watched one of the most incredible runs in MMA history, carried out by one of the most charismatic, entertaining and self-confident fighters of all time. For many of us, he directly inspired us to do better in our own lives. We were fans because of his incredible drive, self-belief, determination, focus, and charisma. Not because Conor was obnoxious, menacing, a drug addict, throwing dollies through bus windows, and just a never ending controversy producer. No, we were fans because we knew we were watching something truly, truly special.

It probably sounds stupid, but in 2014 I was working on the road in the trades and watching the early part of Conor's rise inspired me to change my life and get my head back in the game. I was tired of not having a home. Tired of the tradie lifestyle of gas station food, cigarettes and beer. And then here was this guy just a handful of years older than me, coming from obscurity and a working-class Irish family, taking the world by storm and knocking out world-class fighters while picking the rounds. It was directly because of his fights in 2014 that I took a hard look at myself, moved back to my home state, got my life together, went back to school and finished my degree. Sure, it's not as grandiose as "Conor inspired me to go out and win a world-title in [insert sport here]" and then I went out and did it. But it was a huge change in my life at that time that changed the course of my life for the better.

It's become very clear recently, that Conor is a drug addict. It's also become very clear in the last two years, that we will never ever see a glimmer of the old motivated and driven Conor again. In retrospect, you could argue that that was clear even further back. You could say that was clear in the aftermath of the Floyd fight. Maybe even the Khabib fight. But there was always doubt for us, always another reason to hang on to hope that we may see it one more time. But with Conor's media appearances lately as a shaky, twitchy, incoherent coke-head, it is absolutely clear that the final nail has been put in that coffin and we are never going to see even a sparkle of the old Conor again.

It's 2024 now - 10 years since he began his inspiring UFC run to first-ever double champ. I finished my degree years ago. I'm making my MMA debut this summer at an age where most fighters are considering their retirement plans within a handful of years. Life has changed dramatically for all of us in that time. There's nothing we can do to stop time from marching forward. Just don't be sad that it's over, be glad that it happened.

I've always found this edit to be the purest distillation of what it felt like watching Conor's prime. Enjoy -



Edit -

Just wanted to add some specific special memories from his run. His fight against Chad Mendes was on my birthday. I had already moved back home at that point. A handful of buddies and my dad got together at a bar to watch the fight. Between the Sinead O'Connor (rip ) walkout, and the spectacular finish after it looked like Conor was in trouble, it was truly a special moment. We went absolutely fucking wild after Conor found that final left hand.

Lastly, my little brother (also rip Cam ..) and I were both huge mma fans. We got into the sport together. In the lead up to the Aldo fight, he was released from an extensive rehab so he had completely missed Conor's rise. I was telling him all about Conor and how he was going to kill Aldo. My brother wasn't buying it, and he definitely knew Aldo. He wasn't able to watch the fight live, but I was at a sports bar watching like always. I called my brother IMMEDIATELY after Conor landed that insane left straight just screaming "13 SECONDS!!! 13 SECONDS!! 13 SECONDS!!!!" while the entire bar was just going fucking bananas all around me. I'm barely able to hear my brother shouting back "NO WAY. NO FUCKING WAY".

Two of the happiest moments of the last 10 years of my life. Thank you Conor. Anyone else have any special memories from Conor's run? Would love to hear them.

But it's cause of the Republicans.
Lol at Conor being your role model, how fuck'n lost were you?
Hopefully you'll post your fights, champ.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It's not really possible to eliminate homelessness by making it illegal.

What actually happened was a large increase in demand for housing, followed by soaring prices, followed by a lot of new construction, followed by the fastest-falling rents in the country. Markets generally work if you let them.

Was this just a general statement unrelated to my post? If so, why did you quote me? I said nothing about eliminating homelessness or the cause of homelessness.

I don't really know what to tell you. Corporations are trying to make a profit; they're not engaging in some kind of economic kamikaze to hurt you. Corporations buying homes are a symptom of the problem rather than a cause. That is, there is insufficient supply to meet demand in certain high-value markets, which causes spiraling price increases that make homes a desirable investment. If you want to fuck them, fix the supply restrictions (and, indeed, you see that listed as a Risk Factor in some of their Ks).

I mean, I guess that’s a position to have. It’s an odd one if you also believe wealth inequality should be reduced and people should be given a chance for home ownership versus having to compete with corporations.

Artificial demand being driven by corporations. Corporations have an infinite supply of money from the fed. There can never be enough supply to meet an infinite level of demand and cash from Corporations.

You never question your underlying assumptions. You treat your underlying assumptions as if those assumptions are just describing acts of nature.

How come many other countries don't have a problem with Corporations buying up large swathes of housing and dramatically driving up prices Jack?

There is no policy solution to fixing supply problems. That authority is delegated to cities/counties/HOAs. And those authorities are captured by the interests of existing homeowners who are the ones restricting supply.

"Go out and start a grass roots movement so that people rise up in all 3,000 counties!" Isn't a serious solution to the problem. It's never going to happen.

He’s a heartless technocrat corporatist.

Want a house? Stop being poor and learn to compete with Blackrock or live in someone’s backyard.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Damn it, I really am now a communist.

 

[ferrisjso]

Damn it, I really am now a communist.

You know being a Communist doesn't mean you have to agree with Karl Marx on everything right? We have lots of disagreements with the one common thing being that capitalism is bad and needs to go away.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Was this just a general statement unrelated to my post? If so, why did you quote me? I said nothing about eliminating homelessness or the cause of homelessness.

You said something about the effects of it, which then inspires thought about the cause if you're inclined to think.

I mean, I guess that’s a position to have. It’s an odd one if you also believe wealth inequality should be reduced and people should be given a chance for home ownership versus having to compete with corporations.

Why would support for inequality reducing policy be an odd position for someone who wants to reduce inequality?

He’s a heartless technocrat corporatist.

Want a house? Stop being poor and learn to compete with Blackrock or live in someone’s backyard.

Rob lying about my position. Must be a day ending in Y.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You know being a Communist doesn't mean you have to agree with Karl Marx on everything right? We have lots of disagreements with the one common thing being that capitalism is bad and needs to go away.

Horseshoe. You end up on the same side as extreme rightists on most issues.

 

[Islam Imamate]

@Islam Imamate I appreciate your attempt to steelman their position. Can you link me anything from Trump, or another major Republican politician, or from the RNC, that resembles the positions you're steelmanning for them? I don't want to do a "housing policy of the gaps" type of thing. Like just inferring what it could be. I don't hear a single word from the Republican party about how they're going to address this.

Here's an article from years ago that talks about the issue and the lack of YIMBY Republicans.

A small but growing number of Republicans have reached out to the YIMBY coalition. The results are promising, especially in San Diego, California’s second-largest city and one of the least affordable cities in the nation. In response, Republican mayor Kevin Faulconer has enthusiastically embraced the YIMBY cause, pursuing an ambitious effort to promote housing development. From streamlining permits to granting extra density so that housing can be made less expensive, Faulconer’s YIMBY push has earned him bipartisan accolades. In March, San Diego’s Democrat-dominated city council voted 8-1 to approve Faulconer’s proposal to eliminate minimum-parking requirements near transit, which can add considerably to housing-construction costs.

Faulconer stands alone among conservative YIMBYs at the local level, but Republicans in state government have many models to draw on. The GOP controls more state legislatures than ever before, and in many states where it holds a majority, it can preempt excessive local regulation—or pass pro-development legislation of its own. In Utah, lawmakers recently passed Senate Bill 34, a bill championed by Republican State Senator Jacob Anderegg designed to encourage more housing construction in the increasingly unaffordable Salt Lake City metro area. The bill combines carrots and sticks, rewarding municipalities that make room for needed housing and withdrawing coveted state highway dollars from those that don’t.

Even in blue states, though, Republican YIMBY energies are stirring. In California, key Republicans have signed on to SB 50, an ambitious bill that would allow more housing to be built near train stations and bus stops. In Massachusetts, the state’s popular Republican governor, Charlie Baker, is campaigning for legislation that would make it easier for towns to update out-of-date zoning regulations. In neighboring New Hampshire, Republican state representative Dave Testerman recently sponsored a bill to allow for the development of “tiny homes” in residentially zoned areas, partly in an effort to keep young families in the increasingly high-priced state.

He’s a heartless technocrat corporatist.

Want a house? Stop being poor and learn to compete with Blackrock or live in someone’s backyard.

People who want to prevent the building of more housing units are the ones condemning the working class to competing with or renting from Blackrock. Lower supply makes housing a safer investment for corporations which means corporations will own a larger % of housing.

I don't know why the idea of allowing folks to build more housing is so controversial, you'd think arguing for property rights would appeal to right wingers.

Damn it, I really am now a communist.

Not at all, commies want everyone to have equally shitty housing whereas you just want that for the out-group while the in-group gets to live in SFHs subsidized by the out-group.

 

[ferrisjso]

Horseshoe. You end up on the same side as extreme rightists on most issues.

That is bullshit. Only on foreign policy and that is only because they are too dumb to realize they are working against capitalist order because they've accepted taxpapyer myth and think money given to other countries is coming out of their pocket.

 

[terrapin]

This is exactly what I mean. You're trying to make the thing people are working tirelessly to eliminate a natural part of life that can't be resisted.

This is exactly what he's doing. Instincts rule and there is no point in using reason or compassion to curtail them. It's a cruel world he is advocating for. In perfect consistence with that he sees no use in religion either.

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is exactly what he's doing. Instincts rule and there is no point in using reason or compassion to curtail them. It's a cruel world he is advocating for. In perfect consistence with that he sees no use in religion either.

He advocates for similar policy that you do though, allowing people to build more housing to meet demand.

Meanwhile the other side is arguing against that and believes that busybody neighbors have a right to tell you what kind of home you can and can't build on your own property.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know why the idea of allowing folks to build more housing is so controversial, you'd think arguing for property rights would appeal to right wingers.

One of the big revelations for me was seeing rightist concern about debt immediately disappear after Trump took office. One of the primary arguments I used to get into here was about recovering from the GFC and how counterproductive austerity was at that time. I thought proponents were wrong but were making legible mistakes. But then after the election, all the arguments about how short-term deficits were an existential threat to the country were just dropped, which made it clear to me that there is no underlying ideology here, or a very weakly held one. Rightists don't really believe in markets, for the most part. It's just a more politically palatable way to frame various positions and moods. And, in fact, support for markets is inherently kind of anti-rightist.