This has come to the forefront in America since Covid and has become the reason why a lot of American’s (younger Millenials and Gen Z) can’t buy homes, beyond Gen Z being unable to find gainful employment (1/3 in unemployed). I think stating holes in their argument like “there are good landlords out there” or “what about this specific instance” is literally arguing against a rule with exceptions. That’s not what this post is talking about. They are talking about the “corporations” who are just some rich older person or couple that are buying one, two, or three extra properties and renting them out. Frankly that’s the biggest reason why housing costs have skyrocketed.
The US Federal Reserve is trying to curb this by keeping the Prime Lending Rate (PLR) high, but Trump is putting pressure on him because lowering the PLR would look good for him on paper because it would look like he did something immediate to alleviate the economic pressure we’re feeling in America, directly because of him and his policies. BUT, that would be catastrophic to us “poor” (people making less that $240K/year; 90% of Americans), and I think you can see why. Yeah, if American’s with large savings accounts (years ago the figure was (0% of Americans have less than $1000 in savings, so just imagine how it is now) all of a sudden saw that the mortgage on a house dropped from . . . lets just take the average cost of a “starter home” @$210K . . . $1,762.34/month to where it was prior to the pandemic at (~3%) $1,347.87, the rich Americans that were already buying those extra houses would just buy more extra houses and charge YOU, a poor American, that ~$1500/month and still charge you for any maintenance they have to do (depending on how your state renter laws are set up).
But even with all that, we still have the issue of how much houses cost. And because of the aforementioned “extra houses,” we have seen a skyrocket in the cost of houses. I won’t do a deep dive on it, but I will sum it up and link to a podcast you can listen to: an average home “should” cost ~$120K in today’s money, but because of the MASSIVE bubble created, that home now costs ~$400K. Why? because of people buying extra homes, and those same people who don’t have jobs being able to make it to zoning meetings to tell the planners they only want “big” homes in their areas to increase the selling price of their own home. That then has a cascading effect: let’s say this happens somewhere in California like a suburb of San Fransico. That means that people no longer can afford to live there so they move to let’s say Dallas. Now Dallas has less supply and more demand and the sellers jack up their prices arbitrarily because they want more profit. Then the buyer rents it out and keeps increasing rent prices so they can keep making more money.
This is what the X Poster is complaining about. Not an immigrant charging reasonable rent prices or “good” landlords, because the truth is, those aren’t the type of people typically renting out houses to poor people who couldn’t afford to buy it.
based in that you actually brought facts and context to the discussion.
housing values detached from inflation starting in the early 1990s, which is when housing starts started to decline and population and economy grew a lot.
it’s too much money chasing too few homes due to economic changes in the 1980s and 1990s that vastly financialized the economy and homes became investment class assets rather than fixed assets, which they had been historically. Fixed assets typically retain value over time only see returns that are approximate to inflation, like a savings account. Homes used be savings accounts, now they are more like stocks.
all of this can be fixed with changes in economic policy. but nobody wants those changes because deflating the housing market would cripple the economy because so much wealth is locked up in housing values. housing values are so high, and rents are so high, because people are willing to pay those prices and people are actively against new housing supply construction.
markets where housing supply has been less restricted, saw far less price inflation than those markets where housing was highly restricted.
What you said is how experts (not me) have proposed we make these changes. On top of that, we the people hold tremendous power to change these things, too. Ignoring that real lasting change needs to be made at a federal level, we can go to zoning meetings to change what is allowed in our areas. Does it seem like a tough ask? Yes. I understand that. But as of now, besides voting because our lives depend on it, we can get out there and make meaningful changes in our community.
As far as the economic changes. I think more people than you’d expect want it. The issue is us younger people making it to those places to make our voices heard. Just illustrate the point even if it’s not related, Minneapolis employees are having to take PTO or unscheduled and unpaid time off to get to these protests. And they’re lucky if they don’t get fired when they go. But we have a ton of people that want this change. It’s like the “Haves and Have-Nots.” The issue is that the people who have things have the capacity to make it to these meetings and make those local decisions. They’re also the people that are frankly in office at a federal level.
Believe me, as one of these have-nots that is trying to buy a house right now and isn’t able to put a ton of money in the stock market, the game is just different for me. I welcome a crash and so do the people around me at my age. Will some of us lose our jobs? 100%, but we are already seeing people lose their jobs to keep this bubble from bursting. So to us, the only people that would lose out are the rich people with a ton of liquid assets that would deflate in value, not us.
I don’t think you realize what you’re wishing for, which is ok if you didn’t live through it as an adult, but the 2008 housing crash was so much more devastating than you probably realize.
So, so many lives wrecked.
I want to see more housing inventory come to market and see some price corrections for sure, but the scale of crash you’re talking about wishing for, the only reason you could possibly desire it is from stark naivete of a young person who doesn’t understand the scale of the disaster you’re advocating for.
We need more housing inventory, less NIMBY blocking it, and stiff taxes on investment homes that disincentivize people or companies from owning tons of homes.
We want a market correction, not a crash. They’re different.
So, I do. I know exactly what I’m asking for. When the crash happens, people will die. Lots of people will die. Not just lives being wrecked. Not just people losing jobs. People will die.
Here’s the thing. We’re already seeing that. The alternative is that things continue to go up in price and people can’t afford basic necessities like insulin. At the current rate of inflation starting from 2022, a person with diabetes would spend >$2million in the next 50 years just on that. By 2070 that would be over $120K/year.
So my argument is, what’s better? Having people with money lose some of it and ultimately get bailed out, or let Americans die en masse so that the rich can keep their money?
As for my part about people dying due to a crash, yeah, that happens. But my argument is that we are dying already and that rate is going to increase because of the cost of everything. Would you rather keep everything together with duct tape and just hope the bottom never falls out, knowing that it will fall out, but keeping millions of Americans in poverty and kill them fast? Or would you want to embrace the crash knowing that now we can rebuild? Because that’s what happens in the economic cycle.
Because again, the things they warn us about; people losing homes, jobs, access to healthcare, etc. These things are already happening so that they can continue to make stock go up and keep their bank accounts fat. They’ve subsidized their massive salaries and stock portfolios by laying off hundreds or thousands of workers so they can (a) show a ton of profit or (b) use the money they “saved” by firing workers to jump into AI because this means they can pay themselves more. T-Mobile just laid off ~500 employees after many rounds of layoffs since 2023 in October and more have already been announced. Cisco laid off ~8000 people in less than a year between 2023 & 2024. The Federal Govt. has laid off how many in the last year? All in the name of profit. We’re already dealing with the things they warn us about.
So really, what are we afraid of? All of these things we worry about happening are already happening? The reality is that crashes don’t hurt most Americans, just the ones working in corporate (which I do). I know what I’m asking. But what alternative is there?
Edit:
I should mention, yes, all the things you say we need are true. But my argument is that you are really still just asking for a crash. A correction/deflation, etc. that’s a crash if we want to “correct” the market as much as we need to.
As for the parts about housing inventory and NIMBY, yeah. I totally agree. But that doesn’t make me want a crash any less. Like, yeah, it’d be cool if housing were a little less, but with most American families bringing in $45-$60k/year, they need it to come down a lot, along with the cost of everything else. Which would happen with a crash.
But the problem is most of my peers disagree with me. The majority of people in my city are against opening up zoning restrictions. My opinions is in the minority, and I am not economically powerfully enough to have much influence over politicians or voters.
And this includes many of my so called leftist progressive peers. many of my leftist friends are adamantly against zoning reform, and they, like landlords, want more restricted development. when i express my opinion on expanding housing supply they tell me I’m greedy and evil and that what we need is rent controls and no new development and that nobody should be allowed to move here who doesn’t already live here. and this is all local politics, not federal stuff.
I guarantee you that the guy who does existential comics includes ‘small business’ landlords in his formulation. He literally included them in that number.
The other landlord in this thread is rubbing all on you because you immediately diverted the conversation away from the core economic relationship being discussed.
I’m not currently a landlord and don’t intend to be one ever again unless my circumstance sharing housing with someone else.
You simply don’t think economic relationships should exist at all, and probably think people shouldn’t have to breathe oxygen or eat food. I mean that’s a nice sentiment, but good luck making any of that real I guess?
This has come to the forefront in America since Covid and has become the reason why a lot of American’s (younger Millenials and Gen Z) can’t buy homes, beyond Gen Z being unable to find gainful employment (1/3 in unemployed). I think stating holes in their argument like “there are good landlords out there” or “what about this specific instance” is literally arguing against a rule with exceptions. That’s not what this post is talking about. They are talking about the “corporations” who are just some rich older person or couple that are buying one, two, or three extra properties and renting them out. Frankly that’s the biggest reason why housing costs have skyrocketed.
The US Federal Reserve is trying to curb this by keeping the Prime Lending Rate (PLR) high, but Trump is putting pressure on him because lowering the PLR would look good for him on paper because it would look like he did something immediate to alleviate the economic pressure we’re feeling in America, directly because of him and his policies. BUT, that would be catastrophic to us “poor” (people making less that $240K/year; 90% of Americans), and I think you can see why. Yeah, if American’s with large savings accounts (years ago the figure was (0% of Americans have less than $1000 in savings, so just imagine how it is now) all of a sudden saw that the mortgage on a house dropped from . . . lets just take the average cost of a “starter home” @$210K . . . $1,762.34/month to where it was prior to the pandemic at (~3%) $1,347.87, the rich Americans that were already buying those extra houses would just buy more extra houses and charge YOU, a poor American, that ~$1500/month and still charge you for any maintenance they have to do (depending on how your state renter laws are set up).
But even with all that, we still have the issue of how much houses cost. And because of the aforementioned “extra houses,” we have seen a skyrocket in the cost of houses. I won’t do a deep dive on it, but I will sum it up and link to a podcast you can listen to: an average home “should” cost ~$120K in today’s money, but because of the MASSIVE bubble created, that home now costs ~$400K. Why? because of people buying extra homes, and those same people who don’t have jobs being able to make it to zoning meetings to tell the planners they only want “big” homes in their areas to increase the selling price of their own home. That then has a cascading effect: let’s say this happens somewhere in California like a suburb of San Fransico. That means that people no longer can afford to live there so they move to let’s say Dallas. Now Dallas has less supply and more demand and the sellers jack up their prices arbitrarily because they want more profit. Then the buyer rents it out and keeps increasing rent prices so they can keep making more money.
This is what the X Poster is complaining about. Not an immigrant charging reasonable rent prices or “good” landlords, because the truth is, those aren’t the type of people typically renting out houses to poor people who couldn’t afford to buy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bajyEFHK0M&t=1198s Here’s another video that’s kinda related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc
based in that you actually brought facts and context to the discussion.
housing values detached from inflation starting in the early 1990s, which is when housing starts started to decline and population and economy grew a lot.
it’s too much money chasing too few homes due to economic changes in the 1980s and 1990s that vastly financialized the economy and homes became investment class assets rather than fixed assets, which they had been historically. Fixed assets typically retain value over time only see returns that are approximate to inflation, like a savings account. Homes used be savings accounts, now they are more like stocks.
all of this can be fixed with changes in economic policy. but nobody wants those changes because deflating the housing market would cripple the economy because so much wealth is locked up in housing values. housing values are so high, and rents are so high, because people are willing to pay those prices and people are actively against new housing supply construction.
markets where housing supply has been less restricted, saw far less price inflation than those markets where housing was highly restricted.
What you said is how experts (not me) have proposed we make these changes. On top of that, we the people hold tremendous power to change these things, too. Ignoring that real lasting change needs to be made at a federal level, we can go to zoning meetings to change what is allowed in our areas. Does it seem like a tough ask? Yes. I understand that. But as of now, besides voting because our lives depend on it, we can get out there and make meaningful changes in our community.
As far as the economic changes. I think more people than you’d expect want it. The issue is us younger people making it to those places to make our voices heard. Just illustrate the point even if it’s not related, Minneapolis employees are having to take PTO or unscheduled and unpaid time off to get to these protests. And they’re lucky if they don’t get fired when they go. But we have a ton of people that want this change. It’s like the “Haves and Have-Nots.” The issue is that the people who have things have the capacity to make it to these meetings and make those local decisions. They’re also the people that are frankly in office at a federal level.
Believe me, as one of these have-nots that is trying to buy a house right now and isn’t able to put a ton of money in the stock market, the game is just different for me. I welcome a crash and so do the people around me at my age. Will some of us lose our jobs? 100%, but we are already seeing people lose their jobs to keep this bubble from bursting. So to us, the only people that would lose out are the rich people with a ton of liquid assets that would deflate in value, not us.
I don’t think you realize what you’re wishing for, which is ok if you didn’t live through it as an adult, but the 2008 housing crash was so much more devastating than you probably realize.
So, so many lives wrecked.
I want to see more housing inventory come to market and see some price corrections for sure, but the scale of crash you’re talking about wishing for, the only reason you could possibly desire it is from stark naivete of a young person who doesn’t understand the scale of the disaster you’re advocating for.
We need more housing inventory, less NIMBY blocking it, and stiff taxes on investment homes that disincentivize people or companies from owning tons of homes.
We want a market correction, not a crash. They’re different.
Here’s the thing…
So, I do. I know exactly what I’m asking for. When the crash happens, people will die. Lots of people will die. Not just lives being wrecked. Not just people losing jobs. People will die.
Here’s the thing. We’re already seeing that. The alternative is that things continue to go up in price and people can’t afford basic necessities like insulin. At the current rate of inflation starting from 2022, a person with diabetes would spend >$2million in the next 50 years just on that. By 2070 that would be over $120K/year.
So my argument is, what’s better? Having people with money lose some of it and ultimately get bailed out, or let Americans die en masse so that the rich can keep their money?
As for my part about people dying due to a crash, yeah, that happens. But my argument is that we are dying already and that rate is going to increase because of the cost of everything. Would you rather keep everything together with duct tape and just hope the bottom never falls out, knowing that it will fall out, but keeping millions of Americans in poverty and kill them fast? Or would you want to embrace the crash knowing that now we can rebuild? Because that’s what happens in the economic cycle.
Because again, the things they warn us about; people losing homes, jobs, access to healthcare, etc. These things are already happening so that they can continue to make stock go up and keep their bank accounts fat. They’ve subsidized their massive salaries and stock portfolios by laying off hundreds or thousands of workers so they can (a) show a ton of profit or (b) use the money they “saved” by firing workers to jump into AI because this means they can pay themselves more. T-Mobile just laid off ~500 employees after many rounds of layoffs since 2023 in October and more have already been announced. Cisco laid off ~8000 people in less than a year between 2023 & 2024. The Federal Govt. has laid off how many in the last year? All in the name of profit. We’re already dealing with the things they warn us about.
So really, what are we afraid of? All of these things we worry about happening are already happening? The reality is that crashes don’t hurt most Americans, just the ones working in corporate (which I do). I know what I’m asking. But what alternative is there?
Edit: I should mention, yes, all the things you say we need are true. But my argument is that you are really still just asking for a crash. A correction/deflation, etc. that’s a crash if we want to “correct” the market as much as we need to.
As for the parts about housing inventory and NIMBY, yeah. I totally agree. But that doesn’t make me want a crash any less. Like, yeah, it’d be cool if housing were a little less, but with most American families bringing in $45-$60k/year, they need it to come down a lot, along with the cost of everything else. Which would happen with a crash.
You’re not wrong. I do some of those things.
But the problem is most of my peers disagree with me. The majority of people in my city are against opening up zoning restrictions. My opinions is in the minority, and I am not economically powerfully enough to have much influence over politicians or voters.
And this includes many of my so called leftist progressive peers. many of my leftist friends are adamantly against zoning reform, and they, like landlords, want more restricted development. when i express my opinion on expanding housing supply they tell me I’m greedy and evil and that what we need is rent controls and no new development and that nobody should be allowed to move here who doesn’t already live here. and this is all local politics, not federal stuff.
I guarantee you that the guy who does existential comics includes ‘small business’ landlords in his formulation. He literally included them in that number.
The other landlord in this thread is rubbing all on you because you immediately diverted the conversation away from the core economic relationship being discussed.
I’m not currently a landlord and don’t intend to be one ever again unless my circumstance sharing housing with someone else.
You simply don’t think economic relationships should exist at all, and probably think people shouldn’t have to breathe oxygen or eat food. I mean that’s a nice sentiment, but good luck making any of that real I guess?
Breathe into a paper bag or something