undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjjav2y ago0 comments

> OK, so it can appreciate with inflation. So it doesn't go up or down, it just stays the same.

And how would you implement that?

So basically there needs to be a government agency which tracks the inflation adjusted price of your home. Ok that's easy. But this agency now also must have the power to prohibit you from selling your home for any price other than their official inflation-adjusted price. If they don't have this power, then someone could offer you more for your home and thus you made a profit, and your goal fails.

Would you expect to have voter support for such a price fixing scheme from any side of the aisle? Would you even want to live in such a world?

I keep asking because often these threads go into something like "Oh you just stop making homes an investment and problem solved.", but that word "just" is moving some pretty big mountains there. If you drill down on what that really might mean, it never comes out to something realistic to implement.

> So now demand has gone WAAAAY down.

Demand does not go down. Your scheme just favors owners living in their home as opposed to corporations buying them to rent them out (which I fully and enthusiastically support!). But actual number of homes and actual number of families wanting to live in them didn't change, so demand didn't change.

> We wouldn't let a couple of private companies buy all the drinking water

(Off topic to this thread but this is happening, scarily enough.)

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

grecy2y ago· 3 in thread

> And how would you implement that?I keep asking because often these threads go into something like "Oh you just stop making homes an investment and problem solved.", but that word "just" is moving some pretty big mountains there. If you drill down on what that really might mean, it never comes out to something realistic to implement.

Only humans can buy residential property, and only one residential property for one human.

>Demand does not go down. Your scheme just favors owners living in their home as opposed to corporations buying them to rent them out (which I fully and enthusiastically support!). But actual number of homes and actual number of families wanting to live in them didn't change, so demand didn't change.

Number of entities that want to purchase residential property has now gone WAY down. No corporations, nobody owning multiples. There are not more homes total, and there are not less people needing a place to live, but there are less entities trying to buy homes.

The price WILL go down.

tlb2y ago

What will people who want to rent do? Who will they rent from?

s1artibartfast2y ago

Ive heard this argument several times from people, and I dont think it is very coherent.

It doesnt account for renters, it doesnt account for down payments, and it doesnt account for the cost of new construction.

There wont be anywhere for people with no down payment and no credit to rent, and new housing wont be built.

When pressed on this, people in the past have resorted to the idea that then the government will provide low income rental market.

grecy2y ago

I believe renting is the weakest part of my idea, but I don't see why it can't be solved.

Maybe humans are allowed to own some maximum number of properties for the purposes of renting it out, and that number will decrease over time.

Maybe banks can own houses and rent them out at some capped amount.

Maybe the government can own houses and rent them out with the express purpose of "rent to own", with absolutely no intention of "earning a profit".

I don't have all the answers, but I think it's pretty clear that companies owning 40% of ALL residental homes in a city and making massive profit renting them out does not make housing affordable, and it does not allow people to have their basic human needs met. Therefore something needs to change.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse