Utopia Talk - Politics - The problem of housing

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Jan 16 23:17:23 UTC 2026

Utopia Talk / Politics / The problem of housing

Habebe
rank Fri Jan 16 05:00:02
It's crazy to think if you asked someone from 1900 what they thought of today.

For relatively little money we have smart phones, wireless.ear buds, TVs are cheap AF now, power tools etc.

But if you told them what we pay for housing, which hasn't really advanced that much in practical terms, sure the stuff in them has gotten nicer, central thermostats, but that's not the costly part of a home, they would probably think we are bonkers.

It's a great business, it's a great investment, but it's ridiculously priced.

I seen an actual shed in someone's backyard in LA going for like $2k a month IIRC.

Im better then you
rank Fri Jan 16 05:28:43
I'm glad most see Trump's 50 year mortgage as a "Fuck you peasant" as it was meant to be.

Sam Adams
rank Fri Jan 16 05:36:26
You can't make more land. Houses are always going to be expensive on a crowded planet.

Plus they are much nicer. Sure there are some 100 year old homes(Mainly rich peoples) that are as nice structurally as modern homes but the vast majority were shit boxes that have long since been replaced.

Sam Adams
rank Fri Jan 16 05:41:42
And even the nicer old structures didn't contain nearly as nice stuff inside. Not many rich people in 1900 had even half of what my house has in 2026. No AC. shitty lighting. Small windows. No jacuzzis anywhere.

And oh my God look at a 1900s kitchen. Savages!!

earthpig
rank Fri Jan 16 06:13:54
We haven't been building enough housing to keep up with demand since the 1970s. There are some local markets that have, primarily in conservative areas it turns out. But, overall, vastly insufficient.

Idiots, usually progressives, but in this case Trump has joined them as well, keep thinking the solution to insufficient supply is to subsidize demand.

Trump's proposed demand subsidies:
[x] 50 year mortgage proposal
[x] The obsession with lowering rates

And two tax cuts that are specifically good for his real estate investor colleagues:
[x] cap SALT deduction for primary residences, make it unlimited for investment properties
[x] cap mortgage interest deduction for primary residences, make it unlimited for investment properties

There is one, EXACTLY ONE, thing that can make housing affordable again.

BUILD
MORE
HOUSING

That's it. Everything else is a distraction.

Forwyn
rank Fri Jan 16 06:35:19
Deport 10 million people :)

Dukhat
rank Fri Jan 16 08:45:23
Foreskin with a brain-dead far-right take as always.

FUCK YOU

Dukhat
rank Fri Jan 16 08:45:59
Forwyn is the original Samantha Fulnecky

Paramount
rank Fri Jan 16 08:49:38
Well, you can’t build too many houses because then the value of housing would decrease. People who have bought houses and apartments as an investment will not like it.

murder
rank Fri Jan 16 15:18:02

^ Paramount correctly identifying the problem.

-

Forwyn
rank Fri Jan 16 16:28:55
Poor Cuckhat. He fucking LOVES illegals

Sam Adams
rank Fri Jan 16 17:31:42
Cuckhat we can also shoot some far left retarded lesbians to get to that 10 million

Sam Adams
rank Fri Jan 16 17:36:09
"People who have bought houses and apartments as an investment will not like it."

Plus the increased traffic, crowds, noise. It's great to use left wing tools against them. Can't build there! There's an owl.

Rugian
rank Fri Jan 16 18:47:16
Hehe. Yup.

Anyway, housing prices are very much a function of the cost to build them.

Land costs are arguably tied to the values of their highest and best uses, so if completed houses sold for 50% less than they do today then land owners would have to lower their selling prices as well. But there isn't much you can do about construction costs, including labor and materials, that run at a minimum of $200k per unit. That alone sets a baseline of how much new inventory needs to go for on the open market.

kargen
rank Fri Jan 16 19:18:46
Part of the problem is people do not want to leave the overpriced overpopulated huge cities. There are good sized cities scattered all across the country that have affordable housing, really good job opportunities and good communities. But it isn't NYC or LA so fuck em.
Also first time buyers are wanting their forever home now instead of the starter home.

murder
rank Fri Jan 16 19:54:08

Most people prefer to stick close to family and friends. Most have to.

murder
rank Fri Jan 16 19:58:29

States could always prohibit building new single family homes.

-

murder
rank Fri Jan 16 20:02:05

^ crazy idea or no?

It should allow the building of more multi-family units without depressing the price of existing single family homes.

Am I wrong?

-

Rugian
rank Fri Jan 16 20:14:42
^ Good luck going against the deeply-ingrained mentality that home ownership is an integral aspect of middle-class Americana.

Forwyn
rank Fri Jan 16 20:32:47
The problem isn't single-family homes, it's that new developments are funded by investment funds that are turning these into rental blocs.

You could of course force them to liquidate, but who is pony-ing up for future developments? Historical data unfortunately shows that rental prices only increase when the hedge funds are cut out, because no one else is meeting the demand.

earthpig
rank Fri Jan 16 20:58:24
"The problem isn't single-family homes, it's that new developments are funded by investment funds that are turning these into rental blocs."

this, like the chinese red herring a few years ago, is a popular talking point with an easy to understand bad guy, but is a miniscule percentage of single family home construction.

earthpig
rank Fri Jan 16 21:28:12
"It should allow the building of more multi-family units without depressing the price of existing single family homes."

The missing middle should be encouraged, or at least not broadly de facto prohibited. SFRs get built, and apartment buildings get built, not a lot in the middle. Duplexes to fourplexes rarely get built. Critically, 2-4 unit properties have middle-class-achievable financing available.

We don't need to "ban" building anything, nor do we need to exclusively build anything. We just need to build in general and remove things getting in the way.

Pillz
rank Fri Jan 16 21:37:02
Pretty sure in major cities it's a much bigger problem than your statement gives it credit for.

Turning residential housing (single family or condos) into investment properties has definitely driven up the cost of rent. It also destroys supply for homes (or condos in particular) for home buyers in cities.

Another problem, again, in cities, is the fact that we're intentionally promoted this condos-as-rental-investments phenomenon by building almost exclusively condos and not apartment buildings.

The result is that people who need to live in the city (generally lower income people who rely on public transit and/or can't afford to buy outright) are stuck in an inflated housing market while people with higher incomes buy properties outside of the metropolises and move to cities in the GMA, and as these people have more individual purchasing power and disposal income, businesses in metropolises suffer and close, leading to fewer employment opportunities, especially with smaller businesses.

This means that 1) small businesses have to close down 2) workers are left to compete for a smaller number of jobs 3) these jobs are with major corporations 4) workers who rely on the availability and flexibility of those jobs now have to restructure their lives around the faceless and impersonal reality of corporate policy 5) it depresses wages through consolidation of employment

Pillz
rank Fri Jan 16 21:44:35
And obviously the massive waves of unchecked immigration are a key factor, as supply gets even more squeezed, and these entrants are concentrated in cities.

4 pajeets are gonna split a 1 bedroom for 1600.

If you can rent 1 unit for that price... Why not all of them?

And then people who want a simple 1 bedroom to themselves are priced out of the market.

Habebe
rank Fri Jan 16 22:16:55
The funny part is actual houses can made relatively cheaply, much like tvs we can get better products for way less.

I see alot of companies and startups trying to build homes inexpensively, and seemingly they do.

But they then plop it on land worth its weight in gold.

patom
rank Fri Jan 16 22:39:29
Where O where are the Leavitts of today? Post WWII they built Levittown NY on Long Island. Then built 16,000 more in Levittown Pa. Where they had to build everything streets, sewage, everything needed. They even built a large shopping center. All in about 10 years.
There were other projects built post WWII.
One of the most needed today would be small houses at reasonable prices. Just imagine if someone built mini homes with solar on their roofs, super insulated. They could be built in a factory on an assembly line and trucked in ready to set on foundations.

earthpig
rank Fri Jan 16 22:48:24
"Turning residential housing (single family or condos) into investment properties has definitely driven up the cost of rent. "

Goal posts just moved. I was specifically responding to SFRs built-to-rent for corporate buyers.

However, to your comment. When a landlord buys a SFR or condo to rent it out, they are increasing the supply of rental housing and decreasing the supply of homes available to own. You specifically contend that INCREASING the stock of rental homes INCREASES rent? A supply increase causes an increase in prices? Normally the argument made is that investors buying SFRs/condos represents an increase in demand to own them, which in turn increases the price of them, not the rent.

Case in point, in many markets we are seeing SFR/condo rents going down a lot faster than we are seeing apartment rents going down. What's happening is home/condo sellers aren't getting the price they want/need (in my market, currently, around 50% of homes listed for sale, are de-listed without selling), so "plan b" is to rent it out. But when EVERYONE gets that same bright idea ("I know, I'll just pivot to plan b and rent it out!") at about the same time, bam, supply increase, causes price decrease.

show deleted posts

Habebe rank	Fri Jan 16 05:00:02 It's crazy to think if you asked someone from 1900 what they thought of today. For relatively little money we have smart phones, wireless.ear buds, TVs are cheap AF now, power tools etc. But if you told them what we pay for housing, which hasn't really advanced that much in practical terms, sure the stuff in them has gotten nicer, central thermostats, but that's not the costly part of a home, they would probably think we are bonkers. It's a great business, it's a great investment, but it's ridiculously priced. I seen an actual shed in someone's backyard in LA going for like $2k a month IIRC.
Im better then you rank	Fri Jan 16 05:28:43 I'm glad most see Trump's 50 year mortgage as a "Fuck you peasant" as it was meant to be.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Jan 16 05:36:26 You can't make more land. Houses are always going to be expensive on a crowded planet. Plus they are much nicer. Sure there are some 100 year old homes(Mainly rich peoples) that are as nice structurally as modern homes but the vast majority were shit boxes that have long since been replaced.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Jan 16 05:41:42 And even the nicer old structures didn't contain nearly as nice stuff inside. Not many rich people in 1900 had even half of what my house has in 2026. No AC. shitty lighting. Small windows. No jacuzzis anywhere. And oh my God look at a 1900s kitchen. Savages!!
earthpig rank	Fri Jan 16 06:13:54 We haven't been building enough housing to keep up with demand since the 1970s. There are some local markets that have, primarily in conservative areas it turns out. But, overall, vastly insufficient. Idiots, usually progressives, but in this case Trump has joined them as well, keep thinking the solution to insufficient supply is to subsidize demand. Trump's proposed demand subsidies: [x] 50 year mortgage proposal [x] The obsession with lowering rates And two tax cuts that are specifically good for his real estate investor colleagues: [x] cap SALT deduction for primary residences, make it unlimited for investment properties [x] cap mortgage interest deduction for primary residences, make it unlimited for investment properties There is one, EXACTLY ONE, thing that can make housing affordable again. BUILD MORE HOUSING That's it. Everything else is a distraction.
Forwyn rank	Fri Jan 16 06:35:19 Deport 10 million people :)
Dukhat rank	Fri Jan 16 08:45:23 Foreskin with a brain-dead far-right take as always. FUCK YOU
Dukhat rank	Fri Jan 16 08:45:59 Forwyn is the original Samantha Fulnecky
Paramount rank	Fri Jan 16 08:49:38 Well, you can’t build too many houses because then the value of housing would decrease. People who have bought houses and apartments as an investment will not like it.
murder rank	Fri Jan 16 15:18:02 ^ Paramount correctly identifying the problem. -
Forwyn rank	Fri Jan 16 16:28:55 Poor Cuckhat. He fucking LOVES illegals
Sam Adams rank	Fri Jan 16 17:31:42 Cuckhat we can also shoot some far left retarded lesbians to get to that 10 million
Sam Adams rank	Fri Jan 16 17:36:09 "People who have bought houses and apartments as an investment will not like it." Plus the increased traffic, crowds, noise. It's great to use left wing tools against them. Can't build there! There's an owl.
Rugian rank	Fri Jan 16 18:47:16 Hehe. Yup. Anyway, housing prices are very much a function of the cost to build them. Land costs are arguably tied to the values of their highest and best uses, so if completed houses sold for 50% less than they do today then land owners would have to lower their selling prices as well. But there isn't much you can do about construction costs, including labor and materials, that run at a minimum of $200k per unit. That alone sets a baseline of how much new inventory needs to go for on the open market.
kargen rank	Fri Jan 16 19:18:46 Part of the problem is people do not want to leave the overpriced overpopulated huge cities. There are good sized cities scattered all across the country that have affordable housing, really good job opportunities and good communities. But it isn't NYC or LA so fuck em. Also first time buyers are wanting their forever home now instead of the starter home.
murder rank	Fri Jan 16 19:54:08 Most people prefer to stick close to family and friends. Most have to.
murder rank	Fri Jan 16 19:58:29 States could always prohibit building new single family homes. -
murder rank	Fri Jan 16 20:02:05 ^ crazy idea or no? It should allow the building of more multi-family units without depressing the price of existing single family homes. Am I wrong? -
Rugian rank	Fri Jan 16 20:14:42 ^ Good luck going against the deeply-ingrained mentality that home ownership is an integral aspect of middle-class Americana.
Forwyn rank	Fri Jan 16 20:32:47 The problem isn't single-family homes, it's that new developments are funded by investment funds that are turning these into rental blocs. You could of course force them to liquidate, but who is pony-ing up for future developments? Historical data unfortunately shows that rental prices only increase when the hedge funds are cut out, because no one else is meeting the demand.
earthpig rank	Fri Jan 16 20:58:24 "The problem isn't single-family homes, it's that new developments are funded by investment funds that are turning these into rental blocs." this, like the chinese red herring a few years ago, is a popular talking point with an easy to understand bad guy, but is a miniscule percentage of single family home construction.
earthpig rank	Fri Jan 16 21:28:12 "It should allow the building of more multi-family units without depressing the price of existing single family homes." The missing middle should be encouraged, or at least not broadly de facto prohibited. SFRs get built, and apartment buildings get built, not a lot in the middle. Duplexes to fourplexes rarely get built. Critically, 2-4 unit properties have middle-class-achievable financing available. We don't need to "ban" building anything, nor do we need to exclusively build anything. We just need to build in general and remove things getting in the way.
Pillz rank	Fri Jan 16 21:37:02 Pretty sure in major cities it's a much bigger problem than your statement gives it credit for. Turning residential housing (single family or condos) into investment properties has definitely driven up the cost of rent. It also destroys supply for homes (or condos in particular) for home buyers in cities. Another problem, again, in cities, is the fact that we're intentionally promoted this condos-as-rental-investments phenomenon by building almost exclusively condos and not apartment buildings. The result is that people who need to live in the city (generally lower income people who rely on public transit and/or can't afford to buy outright) are stuck in an inflated housing market while people with higher incomes buy properties outside of the metropolises and move to cities in the GMA, and as these people have more individual purchasing power and disposal income, businesses in metropolises suffer and close, leading to fewer employment opportunities, especially with smaller businesses. This means that 1) small businesses have to close down 2) workers are left to compete for a smaller number of jobs 3) these jobs are with major corporations 4) workers who rely on the availability and flexibility of those jobs now have to restructure their lives around the faceless and impersonal reality of corporate policy 5) it depresses wages through consolidation of employment
Pillz rank	Fri Jan 16 21:44:35 And obviously the massive waves of unchecked immigration are a key factor, as supply gets even more squeezed, and these entrants are concentrated in cities. 4 pajeets are gonna split a 1 bedroom for 1600. If you can rent 1 unit for that price... Why not all of them? And then people who want a simple 1 bedroom to themselves are priced out of the market.
Habebe rank	Fri Jan 16 22:16:55 The funny part is actual houses can made relatively cheaply, much like tvs we can get better products for way less. I see alot of companies and startups trying to build homes inexpensively, and seemingly they do. But they then plop it on land worth its weight in gold.
patom rank	Fri Jan 16 22:39:29 Where O where are the Leavitts of today? Post WWII they built Levittown NY on Long Island. Then built 16,000 more in Levittown Pa. Where they had to build everything streets, sewage, everything needed. They even built a large shopping center. All in about 10 years. There were other projects built post WWII. One of the most needed today would be small houses at reasonable prices. Just imagine if someone built mini homes with solar on their roofs, super insulated. They could be built in a factory on an assembly line and trucked in ready to set on foundations.
earthpig rank	Fri Jan 16 22:48:24 "Turning residential housing (single family or condos) into investment properties has definitely driven up the cost of rent. " Goal posts just moved. I was specifically responding to SFRs built-to-rent for corporate buyers. However, to your comment. When a landlord buys a SFR or condo to rent it out, they are increasing the supply of rental housing and decreasing the supply of homes available to own. You specifically contend that INCREASING the stock of rental homes INCREASES rent? A supply increase causes an increase in prices? Normally the argument made is that investors buying SFRs/condos represents an increase in demand to own them, which in turn increases the price of them, not the rent. Case in point, in many markets we are seeing SFR/condo rents going down a lot faster than we are seeing apartment rents going down. What's happening is home/condo sellers aren't getting the price they want/need (in my market, currently, around 50% of homes listed for sale, are de-listed without selling), so "plan b" is to rent it out. But when EVERYONE gets that same bright idea ("I know, I'll just pivot to plan b and rent it out!") at about the same time, bam, supply increase, causes price decrease.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: