politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This isn't the solution. Stop corporations from buying homes. Lower interest rates at the banks
There's a proposed law to stop hedge funds but not a single Republican and most Democrats will ever let it happen.
But yes, this is a band aid on a gun shot wound.
Or he could build 500,000 homes that can only be sold to individuals/families and can not be rented.
This article is just about a tax credit to assist with down payments for first time homeowners, but building more homes is part of plans that are already in motion. It's not like this is the only thing they've done or proposed. A more comprehensive summary of different actions on housing the administration has taken here if you're interested:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/09/fact-sheet-president-bidens-budget-lowers-housing-costs-and-expands-access-to-affordable-rent-and-home-ownership/
Not necessarily saying everything they've done is enough, just that what the article talked about isn't the only thing by any means.
A lot of the barriers to building more housing is at the local level unfortunately. There's some direct building by the federal government in those programs, but bigger than that is essentially funding to bribe local governments in the form of grants they get if they lower barriers to building more housing. When it comes to things the federal government doesn't have the power to really change directly (like local zoning laws) they often have to resort to tactics like that. Funding in exchange for the policy change we want. You see a lot of changes to loans and mortgages in there, because a lot of mortgages are provided or supported by the federal government, so for those the federal government does have more leeway to try to alter those terms to make home buying easier.
I hope the law restricting use of homes as a hedge fund investment gets more traction too, write your congressman and senators. Primary out people that don't support it, etc etc. Also for affordable housing local elections are so important. Try to figure out local government leaders positions on improving housing supply and ending nimbyism.
I think everyone is just exhausted. I think what everyone wants is to see these massive corporations finally get kicked in the gut like we have been for the last 40 years. Not saying its rational, but my psyche does feel like freshly tattooed skin and the artist won't stop wiping it.
Oh me too don't get me wrong, just trying to add some context. I really want that bill banning hedge funds from buying homes to pass. I also like pointing out the huge importance of local elections. Those people have way more control of things like affordable housing in your area. And often the most important decision, especially if you're in a place dominated by one party, is made in some primary election in like the middle of summer with little advertising and a 10% turnout.
Should build them all Paris Texas.
You fucking said it. What was it, like 50% of all homes bought in the past few years have been corpos? How the hell is giving people a bit of money to buy houses with going to drive down prices? It'll just mean people will ask more money for their houses in the areas it's available to.
It's the government giving money they got from taxpayers to corporations that are buying up housing but having a half a million people launder it.
But that's against capitalism! /s
Stopping corporations from buying homes lowers demand for owned houses but equally reduces supply of rentable houses, because that is what corporations do with them. So you are hurting the people who can't afford to buy to help the statistically richer people who can.
Lowering interest rates just increases demand and thus prices which helps the rich people who currently own homes while being a wash for the statistically poorer people buying first time homes because they don't care if it's the bank or the seller who gets their money.
The only real fix is to increase supply. Build new houses or renovate abandoned/unused buildings into housing of some sort. Even building new apartment complexes helps because it gives more options to people deciding between buying or renting.
You're very wrong. Hedge funds buy houses to rent them out at market rates, which go up as home prices go up. They aren't running a charity.
The current situation is good only for those who can afford multiple investment properties, and it's at everyone else's expense.
Seriously... And there isn't exactly an issue with finding places to rent, the issue is with what those greedy fucking corporations ask for rent. $3000/mo for a tiny p.o.s "luxury" apartment, or a shack mislabeld as a house is an absolute joke. If I had that kind of money I wouldn't need to rent ffs...
If the corporations are asking market rates for rent then it doesn't matter if they are greedy or not, they will set rent at the same level an individual would.
If they are setting rent above the market rent then you can just go somewhere else for cheaper so it isn't a problem for you.
If they don't buy the property the supply is higher... meaning prices come down and individuals can purchase at lower costs. They artificially jack up the demand on an equal supply.
That's only looking at house demand. It's true as long as you only look at prices for purchasing houses, which is an activity done by relatively rich people. You are indeed helping people with enough wealth to purchase a house.
My point is that the corporations are not just sitting on these houses, they are turning them into rentals. So they are increasing the supply of rentals, lowering the price to rent. And renters are typically poorer than the people with enough wealth to purchase a house.
So the ban would help the relatively richer people and hurt the poorer.
And the steps of buying "under prices" homes alorithmically inevitably (and intentionally) means they are manipulating the housing market to NOT correct.
I.E., if prices start to fall, corps swoop in to pick up supply because their estimates say these properties will be worth more. Their act of doing it insures that it happens, and individuals are forced to compete if they want housing security.
The same goes for the rental market. Even without the blatant collusion tools already exposed, Corp market evaluations to min/max their rental prices ensures that others follow suit.
It's market manipulation all around by those that have enough capital to force everyone else to play by their rules.
Everything is at market rates, what is changing is supply and demand. Fewer houses available to rent = higher rents. That is the market. If there are more houses available to rent, rent will be lower than it otherwise would be.
The market is not "places to rent", it's "places to live." If the cost of buying a home falls, the cost of renting a home will fall as well to compete. If what you are saying is true, the cost of renting should have gone down as more private equity gets into the residential market. The opposite has happened.
You understand that when someone buys a home to live in, demand shrinks along with the supply, right?
If you look at the market as "places to live" then banning corporate home purchasing does nothing to supply or demand and thus does not change the price at all. There are still the same number of people who need housing.
Everything we're talking about is relative to what prices would be otherwise. Rent has increased because there was massive inflation, that doesn't prove or disprove the impact of corporate homeownership.
Taking (corporate) buyers out of the market is what reducing demand means. Not to mention the corporate buyers are the ones buying up real estate so they can profit off the difference between the rent they charge and the loans they pay off. They're very much unnecessary middlemen. I'm not saying smaller landlords don't do that too, but corporate involvement is one of the reasons investor buying power so heavily outweighs resident buying power.
Real estate values have been massively outpacing inflation for decades. Inflation is normal, and has always been a force in economics. Such a huge portion of the middle and working class being unable to own a house is not normal, and since we haven't had a population explosion or a collapse of the construction industry, a bubble is the best explanation.
The corporate buyers are just buying the houses to rent out. They are switching the home from owned to rented. The corporation isn't a living person who lives in the house they bought. They only impact demand in the amount they switch, which only matters if you're splitting up owned vs rented, because that's what they change. If you're combining all housing demand to be all people who need housing, the corporations have zero demand for housing, they don't impact overall demand at all.
There's always a profit motive at any level, prices are going to be a result of market forces, we don't give them extra because they're a corporation. If a corporation is acting monopolistically, that should obviously be banned, and it is.
There's a larger structural question on whether ALL landlording is "unnecessary middlemen" but that as a solution would be such a huge change and involve seizing property and such that I think that's outside the realm of the possible. If we're allowing some landlords, profit is just going to be part of rental payments as it already is.
You're fucking full of it. Nobody but the rich can afford to fucking buy RIGHT NOW. That would make houses more affordable so NORMAL WORKING PEOPLE people CAN buy instead of rent. But because it's not a perfect solution for everyone we shouldn't do it? You sound like a corporate toady, bro.
My solution of building more houses to increase supply helps everyone who needs a place to live and hurts the people who own one or more houses right now.
Your solution helps the people rich enough to have a down payment on hand while hurting those too poor to be able to afford a house.
If we are talking about helping "NORMAL WORKING PEOPLE" my solution does that and yours does not.
There is no reality where we can build fast enough to actually lower demand enough that prices lower. At least not in southern California, where I live.
Yes, we need to build. But realistically, new construction is snapped up at exorbitant "luxury" prices. People always claim it "frees up other supply" of older homes, but that's complete bullshit.
Yes, if suddenly 30 high rise condos buildings just appeared at the same time, prices may actually be favorably impacted. But reality says that builders are going to maximize their returns, and avoid flooding the market with new homes all at once.
There is no reality where banning corporations from buying houses lowers prices either. Prices are going up in the medium term no matter what. All the more reason we have to actually solve the actual problem.
You do understand that this isn't an either/or situation, right?
Sure, but I am saying that the banning policy hurts poorer people to help richer people so I wouldn't do that.
I'm saying to build more because it accomplishes the goal people say they are trying to achieve but aren't.
Increase supply of homes by taking residentially zoned property out of the hands of corporations who are using it to extract wealth and use it as collateral to amass more wealth. This is an incredibly basic concept that you clearly understand and went so far out of the way to argue against that I'm actually impressed.
You are only thinking of people rich enough to be able to buy a house. I'm thinking of all people who need housing. If you want to reduce the cost to live overall, and not just shift it from rich homeowners to poorer renters, you need to increase supply, period.
Who said anything about renters?
Me, I'm saying if you ban the practice of buying houses to turn into rentals, you are reducing the number of rentals thus increasing the cost to rent.
You are right that nobody is talking about renters, but that is the problem. If you only focus on bringing house prices down, you settle on a solution that brings house prices down while increasing rent prices. You think you're helping poor people buy houses but you're actually helping upper middle class people buy while screwing the poor people who still have to rent.