this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7497 readers
48 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Since the housing market looks like a crowd of people just signing mortgages as fast as possible just to then turn around and charge that mortgage plus a little bit.

I shouldn't pay someone's mortgage like seriously this is just adding an unnecessary problem to the real problem of "living somewhere"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Nemo@midwest.social 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Sorry, rent-seeking. It's when capital buys a scarce or exclusive resource in order to charge consumers for access to it indefinitely. Finite expenditure for potentially infinite revenue.

It's generally considered extremely immoral when used on the means of survival. Not just profiting off the misery of others; but making others miserable specifically in order to profit from temporary relief of that misery.

Despite the name, it doesn't usually apply to real estate (since there's usually other real estate available); rather, that provides a good analogue for the model. A better example is buying the patent to a lifesaving medication and then charging exorbitant prices for it.

But there are cases when it definitely does apply to real estate, such as when the local primary employer also owns most of all of the housing stock in commuting range of where they enploy people. Think mining "company towns" or, say, the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago around the University of Chicago in the 80's and 90's (and, after a couple decades to let the outrage die down, again today). They control their employees' homes, giving them outsize leverage in labor relations, but they also can charge unfair rents due to their monopoly.

[โ€“] jarfil@beehaw.org 4 points 8 months ago

Right, wasn't sure if you meant that or something else.

In real estate, people often forget that houses are not forever. They require maintenance, sometimes full refurbishment to bring them up to code, then eventually they become condemned, with extra cost to clear the land, and even the land itself may need utilities renewed. They're long lasting, but ultimately perishable goods (in most cases).

Even in captive audience situations, the calculation is not as simple as comparing mortgage to rent, since rent is the final expense, but mortgage is only a part of it. Depending on how long the housing lasts, how expensive is the upkeep, and what is its final resale value, rent as high or even higher than mortgage, can be the cheaper option.

In some cities with controlled rent, and historical building protection laws, owners have been known to purposefully leave a building unoccupied and in disrepair, just so it would get condemned and they could build a new one in its place. Some cities have struck a deal where owners can tear down the inside of a building, as long as they preserve the facades.

There is definitely a bunch of people speculating, and housing seems to follow a periodic bubble cycle, but then they burst, leaving most of the small and naive investors as bag holders.