Economy U.S. economy has already seen 75% of the impact from Fed’s hikes, IMF says

[Rob Battisti]

There isn't demand for Tokyo-style density in the suburbs even if it were legal to build. The second pic actually is what relatively high density looks like in suburbs (though that's Atlanta proper). But this is funny. You're insisting that my position is something that it isn't, I correct you, and you keep insisting. You don't seem to realize that I am an individual person and not just a figment of your imagination. My positions that I am willing to defend are the ones I come up with, not the ones you dishonestly attribute to me so you can continue to justify your arrogant idiocy.

You call me dishonest when you sit there and say housing is the most affordable it’s ever been. I’d laugh if I thought you were joking.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What limitations would you put on AUDs on existing suburban neighborhoods?

I support people being free to make their own decisions. Theoretically, it's possible they can make bad ones, but that's not a reason to restrict freedom, and I actually think markets can handle this well (and you won't see a proliferation of ADUs where there is no demand for them, nor are people likely to intentionally make them ugly or inappropriate to the local economy).

You call me dishonest when you sit there and say housing is the most affordable it’s ever been. I’d laugh if I thought you were joking.

Well, I made a true statement, though I understand that you would prefer that people not know the truth here.

 

[Yehudim]

If anything they don't get enough of a bad rap.

The solution is precisely to build rowhomes and ADUs and multiplexes and other forms of housing that allow for more density. You really think allowing people to build tiny homes in their yards is an extreme policy? That's wild to me. Really don't see how allowing people to build ADUs has anything to do with safety or community culture unless the whole point of these communities is to exclude the have-nots. But that's what got us here in the first place.

Developers can't develop if homeowners want to block them to preserve neighborhood character which based off this post it seems you actually agree with.

I’m actually shocked that Rob, who I thought was a libertarian, hit us with that.

 

[PaleMoonlight]

I thought Tom Cruise’s spy team was doing the analysis. Disappointed.

Not sure what happened to housing market but houses here in so cal are still at all time high even after the high interest rates. If rates ever go down, prices would even be higher.

Lol at dems vs republicans. Cali is a democrat state and only the high earners can afford a house here.

 

[560ti]

You think low supply is saving the housing market? I think its the opposite, we need more supply don't we?

Low supply is saving it in the sense of price is being competitive if not slightly increasing even with high rates.

Like for example in my ZIP code if there's 800 serious buyers for the year but only about 300 houses going to be for sale for the year then prices will be high. Not only that if 15 or 20% of the buyers have to pull out in the next 12 months due to credit cards getting too high, job layoffs (which have been bad this quarter in my area) or an unexpected emergency expenses then the demand will still far exceed inventory

On the flip side if my zip code had a health supply (which would be 11 to 1200 house supply) then prices would have to go down especially if you needed to unload the house quickly. Buyers could be a lot more patient and picky since inventory and fear of missing out wouldn't exist. The bottom 15 to 20% of buyers pulling out would be way more impactful since the inventory is already in the buyers favor

 

[Yehudim]

The zoning laws of my municipality.

What’s also not lost on me is you’re arguing for something which will diminish home value. Home equity is one of the last means of wealth building in a society of inflation. So you’re arguing for people to what policies against their self interest while saying they’re wrong for feeling that way.

Rob has gone full NIMBY, but from a libertarian angle. Libertarianism is officially over.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Rob has gone full NIMBY, but from a libertarian angle. Libertarianism is officially over.

I’ve become the very thing I hoped to destroy

 

[Rob Battisti]

I support people being free to make their own decisions. Theoretically, it's possible they can make bad ones, but that's not a reason to restrict freedom, and I actually think markets can handle this well (and you won't see a proliferation of ADUs where there is no demand for them, nor are people likely to intentionally make them ugly or inappropriate to the local economy).

Well, I made a true statement, though I understand that you would prefer that people not know the truth here.

Looks like I made an equally true statement then.

Glad you think it’s okay to put a tent city in my backyard!

 

[Rob Battisti]

I’m actually shocked that Rob, who I thought was a libertarian, hit us with that.

There are limits to what I believe one should be able to do. Those mainly pertain to safety and in this case monetary wellbeing.

If property wasn’t such a driver of wealth for everyone because of our inflationary monetary policy I would only care about the safety side.

I could fit probably 8-12 tiny homes in my backyard but that’s just insane.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I’m actually shocked that Rob, who I thought was a libertarian, hit us with that.

There are very few principled libertarians. It's mostly just Republicans who don't want to own it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Looks like I made an equally true statement then.

Glad you think it’s okay to put a tent city in my backyard!

I mean, I support freedom, and I believe markets work. Sorry if that offends you so much.

 

[SoSo]

I think what we need is dezoning, and it's happening in a lot of places that really need it. There's a lag between legalizing building and actually having building (and probably another one between more construction and price declines, though not as long). I think over the next decade, we'll see a lot of improvement on the issue in CA (and a resulting drop in homelessness). We're still getting some challenges from local NIMBY assholes, though.

I think you're right on the dezoning, wrong on the homelessness though.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I’m actually shocked that Rob, who I thought was a libertarian, hit us with that.

"I may be believe in property rights but I draw the line at property owners investing in their own property."

 

[terrapin]

It would help the ones who can afford to install dwellings which isn’t the majority of them. For the rest, their property values would sink.

"I may be believe in property rights but I draw the line at property owners investing in their own property."

im with you on this one man.... its MY property. fuck off and let me do what i want on it. i do anyway though and just dont ask permission.....

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is kind of like the deficit issue. Most of the public wants lower deficits, lower taxes, and higher spending. It's logically impossible. Similarly, making it illegal to live anywhere unless you're rich doesn't make everyone rich; it just makes housing costs soar and leads to more people being homeless.

Yeah, you can't have low supply, low interest, and affordability.

I guess you just don’t see a negative to living next to it.

I think voters should have a say and I certainly would vote against it. I work hard for safety, peace of mind, a good neighborhood and a place to call my own. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to not see those things surrounding my home.

It is too much to ask, way too much to ask. You're asking to have a veto over a property owners ability to invest in their own property. Imagine if your neighbor said you couldn't build a pool because it was a safety issue.

I think I can see your point, but that's one of the areas where people come to obfuscate. I know you're not doing that by the way. You can say oh, it's only 1 to 3% of the problem. But you know what that means really right? That means thousands of homes are being taken by corporations that normal people could have gotten...
Just saying it's only two or three percent of the problem doesn't really evaluate the human cost.

Those corporations don't just sit on those homes, they rent them out to people. The problem isn't that corporations own homes, its that supply is low and therefore rents are high. If we had an excess of supply and some were owned by corporations they'd be rented out for a low price which would fulfill a market niche.

There are limits to what I believe one should be able to do. Those mainly pertain to safety and in this case monetary wellbeing.

If property wasn’t such a driver of wealth for everyone because of our inflationary monetary policy I would only care about the safety side.

I could fit probably 8-12 tiny homes in my backyard but that’s just insane.

One of the best things you could do to improve your home value would to to add another unit like with an ADU. Converting a SFH into a duplex and adding an ADU would probably double the value of the home at least. Its necessary to have safety protocols and certain minimum standards in regards to minimum unit sqft and air conditioning and whatnot but that's not what you're arguing for. When you speak of "safety" you really mean that allowing these things would mean undesirables could move into the neighborhood.

 

[terrapin]

Yeah, you can't have low supply, low interest, and affordability.

It is too much to ask, way too much to ask. You're asking to have a veto over a property owners ability to invest in their own property. Imagine if your neighbor said you couldn't build a pool because it was a safety issue.

Those corporations don't just sit on those homes, they rent them out to people. The problem isn't that corporations own homes, its that supply is low and therefore rents are high. If we had an excess of supply and some were owned by corporations they'd be rented out for a low price which would fulfill a market niche.

One of the best things you could do to improve your home value would to to add another unit like with an ADU. Converting a SFH into a duplex and adding an ADU would probably double the value of the home at least. Its necessary to have safety protocols and certain minimum standards in regards to minimum unit sqft and air conditioning and whatnot but that's not what you're arguing for. When you speak of "safety" you really mean that allowing these things would mean undesirables could move into the neighborhood.

corporations buying houses purely for profit is part of why supply is low though man....

you also said it doesnt matter if homes are built for the haves because they then move out of where they are so the have nots have more available to them.

this is a profound lack of imagination and really just greed working out for the little guy. i dont accept this as any kind of real way forward for humanity. how about we rape those public lands and sell them not for profit but for the needy by developing tiny or small home communities affordably built maybe out of aircreet in a way that is beautiful and community producing? profit being the bottom line is a sickening depraved motivation. we can and should be doing better obviously but our priorities are so warped that we cant think outside of our false god -- profit.

you might ask if i put my money where my mouth is? well yes do. i am in an upper middle class neighborhood only because i have not ever tried to get money or put money first. i have never let money be the motivation of the living i make and do a TON of stuff pro bono. but also i could get 650 a month easily for the van living people in my field. cheapest apartment round is 1600.00 .... they have access to power and water and a restroom. but im doing it to help them get into a home so its just 150 a month to cover electricity and water.

we have to change how we live and think as a society. we support sickening depraved amounts of greed as if its reality but its only the reality we make. these and way better ideas are what we would hear on national television if we had anything like a sane society. and we would be filled with joy fulfilling it.

 

[SandisLL]

Rob has gone full NIMBY, but from a libertarian angle. Libertarianism is officially over.

There I will ask you how you understand the role of Central Bank's Key interest rate etc requirements for commercial Banks and ....their own intereses, developers goals and landlords expectations.

For example how you compare these things:
To have CB ( be this FRS, ECB, BoE or BOJ ) Key rate 3,0% versus 3,3% ?

Liquidity requirements change for commercial Banks? By 1 %....

 

[Islam Imamate]

corporations buying houses purely for profit is part of why supply is low though man....

Its not, they account for only a very small number of home purchases and the main reason they are doing so is because low supply makes renting out SFH very profitable. People want to have a corporate boogeyman to blame, whether its institutional investors or big developers. But in reality the reason we have low supply is because of exclusionary zoning and NIMBY homeowners who will do whatever they can to impede new multifamily developments near them. The delays that NIMBYs and local governments impose on developers incurs enough costs that only large developers can afford to wait them out and even then only if they are putting out luxury developments.

What we need is to cut the red tape in regards to development so as to allow developers big and small to build a wide variety of multifamily developments across the major metro areas of the country. Only then will we get enough supply and enough variation to meet market demand for housing.

you also said it doesnt matter if homes are built for the haves because they then move out of where they are so the have nots have more available to them.

this is a profound lack of imagination and really just greed working out for the little guy. i dont accept this as any kind of real way forward for humanity. how about we rape those public lands and sell them not for profit but for the needy by developing tiny or small home communities affordably built maybe out of aircreet in a way that is beautiful and community producing? profit being the bottom line is a sickening depraved motivation. we can and should be doing better obviously but our priorities are so warped that we cant think outside of our false god -- profit.

you might ask if i put my money where my mouth is? well yes do. i am in an upper middle class neighborhood only because i have not ever tried to get money or put money first. i have never let money be the motivation of the living i make and do a TON of stuff pro bono. but also i could get 650 a month easily for the van living people in my field. cheapest apartment round is 1600.00 .... they have access to power and water and a restroom. but im doing it to help them get into a home so its just 150 a month to cover electricity and water.

we have to change how we live and think as a society. we support sickening depraved amounts of greed as if its reality but its only the reality we make. these and way better ideas are what we would hear on national television if we had anything like a sane society. and we would be filled with joy fulfilling it.

Its good that you're helping that couple out but if we want to provide housing at scale in a market economy then we need to make it easier for developers to build housing to meet market demand. At the end of the day the true greed that is ruining the housing market is not that of the developer trying to meet market demand, its of NIMBY homeowners who think that allowing multifamily units will hurt their property values and thus block them wherever they may crop up. This constituency believes that they are entitled to live in unchanging SFH neighborhoods without the presence of renters, the lower class, or anyone else coded as undesirable.

 

[terrapin]

Its not, they account for only a very small number of home purchases and the main reason they are doing so is because low supply makes renting out SFH very profitable. People want to have a corporate boogeyman to blame, whether its institutional investors or big developers. But in reality the reason we have low supply is because of exclusionary zoning and NIMBY homeowners who will do whatever they can to impede new multifamily developments near them. The delays that NIMBYs and local governments impose on developers incurs enough costs that only large developers can afford to wait them out and even then only if they are putting out luxury developments.

What we need is to cut the red tape in regards to development so as to allow developers big and small to build a wide variety of multifamily developments across the major metro areas of the country. Only then will we get enough supply and enough variation to meet market demand for housing.

Its good that you're helping that couple out but if we want to provide housing at scale in a market economy then we need to make it easier for developers to build housing to meet market demand. At the end of the day the true greed that is ruining the housing market is not that of the developer trying to meet market demand, its of NIMBY homeowners who think that allowing multifamily units will hurt their property values and thus block them wherever they may crop up. This constituency believes that they are entitled to live in unchanging SFH neighborhoods without the presence of renters the lower class, or anyone else coded as undesirable.

I think your solutions are fine and that they are also not in contradiction to what I have said but they also are not as far reaching or is diverse or creative as what I have said, or love based.... I don't see anything you've written here in contradiction to what I've written, just that it's a smaller picture.

I never meant to imply that letting people live in your backyard was an answer either... Nor do I think multiple family dwellings are the only answer. It was an example that money should not be what's driving us in this world and that success should not be measured by that and that we're so sick and perverted in our culture that money driving us makes our world very small in the solutions we can come up with and our thinking is very tiny and limited. I was making the point that I live in the neighborhood I live in because I don't make decisions based on getting more money. I make decisions based on helping human beings instead and it's better.

I've read articles where developers lobby against tiny homes and aircreet homes and all kinds of other solutions. They do this because there's less profit to be made in some of those solutions. So I'm not saying the organization you brought up isn't a part of it. But I know for a fact developers are underhanded dirty greedy sons of b****** and that all kinds of backroom deals are made that aren't better for the people starting with public lands being sold off cheap to developers so that everybody's wheels get greased.

Developers don't look at a population and say how can we serve this population the best that we can? Developers sit down and say we have this much land a available to us. How can we maximize the absolute most profit that we can out of this development plan? That's wrong.

And you didn't address my point about percentages of homes that corporations are buying. You just restated that it was a small percentage again. But that's not a reply to what I said. What I said was every single home that they buy is a problem and does hurt a family or a person..... I have a really hard time relating to your answer because it's really what I replied to stated again with no differences or distinctions. It is an absolute fact that every single home bought by corporations for that purpose and rented out is a home that someone was trying to get into and was passed over because the corporation has all that money power behind them and are preferred. I just can't relate to saying that doesn't matter because it's a small percentage. Add to that the list of foreign investors doing the same thing.... Why not name how many homes have been bought like that and then think about all those families that it has affected? A property bought by a corporation to rent out is a home that can't be bought by a human being to live in and build wealth in.

I don't have the numbers in front of me but breaking points did a couple segments about this over the last 2 years and the numbers were not small, it is significant and it is hurting real people in real time.

But anyway the main point I'm making is that we can talk all we want about how the economy is great and that's fine. It is looking better. I don't see any reason to deny that but no one should breathe ancollective sigh of relief when we have this other massive problem going on. That is quite serious and we should be talking about that.

I think the reason I got attacked above and labeled as a Republican is because I called Democrats out on wanting to really push the narrative that everything's all better now because of Joe Biden in order to win an upcoming election. This happens every election cycle. It's like a poison and a cancer. And I just can't be motivated by petty things like that. I think we should be talking about the problems that are really hurting people and working to solve them because those people really matter. But Democrats are stepping in line in order to cheer for their president and I get it. I like Joe Biden. I'm going to vote for him. That isn't the point. We can't let partisan things like that get in the way of really discussing issues that hurt real people.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its not, they account for only a very small number of home purchases and the main reason they are doing so is because low supply makes renting out SFH very profitable.

They also don't restrict the supply of available housing since they are renting the houses out rather than holding them empty.