"Steal a little, they throw you in jail. Steal a lot, they make you a king".
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
780 points (100.0% liked)
196
16488 readers
1536 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I remember when the NES Mini first came out a few years ago I was on Nextdoor and some lady was trying to sell off 5 of them for twice what they were worth. Several people commented on her post saying not to buy from scalpers, and she kept getting upset saying she "bought them for her son who didn't want them", but then wouldn't say anything else when someone asked why she thought her son needed 5 of them when he apparently hadn't even wanted one in the first place lol
i was lucky enough to pay MSRP for both models, these are pretty decent for playing most original games. the original controllers made by nintendo make it even better.
scalpers are pathetic beings who ruin everything for everyone. i will never forgive them for what happened during the GPU thing.
sell off 5 of them for twice what they were worth
Technically she was selling for twice the retail price. An item is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
Just to be fair. Many homes are modified aka flipped. Not saying they do a great job….
Yeah, at least in my market, that’s what usually happens. A markets prices don’t change fast enough for an investor to make a buck by doing nothing at all. People make money by flipping houses in neighborhoods that are desirable or are becoming desirable.
It's strange how the term has changed. When I was a kid I was dragged to real estate seminars, and "flipping" was specifically not modifying the homes, that was "rehabbing". Flipping was literally just buying cheap and selling for a profit, maybe taking better pictures or making minor adjustments to improve curb appeal. I specifically remember this guy Ron LeGrand, whose motto was "The less I do, the more I make".
Land value tax would fix this
And abolishing exclusionary zoning, parking minimums, and other anti-housing land use policies
A land value tax is an absolute must, same goes for the rest of what you'll said.
But it isn't a magic wand. The culture still needs to catch up, as many unfortunately still see being a landlord as an actual valid job. And even under a land value tax system landlords could still exist. Nowhere near as exploitative, but they'd still exist.
The concept of a free market relies on a hidden assumption that the choice between products is a free and easy one with a low switching cost. Housing is none of those things. It takes time, money, energy, you need to be able bodied or able to afford movers. If you have a job you might be stuck in a given area. People are heavily de-incentivized from moving, and that's always going to be the case no matter how housing is made and distributed.
As a result, landlords will always have enough room to exist in a housing market, even if it is a land value tax system. So if by "LVT would fix this" you mean stop landlords from existing, LVT is only a stepping stone.
A VERY good stepping stone, but only a stepping stone.
I think part of the problem is that what we refer to as landlording includes two separate roles: landlording and property management. The former isn't a legitimate job, gathering its profits from economic rents borne of land and housing scarcity, while the latter is a legitimate job, earning its profits from the labor of managing and maintaining rental housing.
And so with a sufficiently high LVT, approaching the full rental value of land as Henry George proposed, and a much more YIMBY regulatory environment, I think we would likely see landlords converge towards being mere property managers.
That said, you are fully correct that the non-zero costs of moving would still give landlords a little leeway to rent-seek, and I'm curious what solutions may exist to remedy that.
Regardless of whether it 100% solves landlording, I do think LVT and YIMBYism do largely solve real estate "investment" as the meme talks about. Since LVT and abundant housing stop the "line goes up" phenomenon, and LVT in particular punishes real estate speculation, I think they would largely, if not entirely, eliminate the phenomenon of people buying up land/property just to resell later after appreciation. Because, well, housing wouldn't appreciate under a sufficiently heavy LVT and a strong YIMBY regulatory environment.
think part of the problem is that what we refer to as landlording includes two separate roles: landlording and property management.
Agreed, 100%
That understanding and change of language will have to be a part of the cultural shift needed to fix it.
I think we would likely see landlords converge towards being mere property managers.
It would certainly help a lot. But after a certain point it would just be diminishing returns due to the aforementioned switching cost.
That said, you are fully correct that the non-zero costs of moving would still give landlords a little leeway to rent-seek, and I’m curious what solutions may exist to remedy that.
I think the remedy for that has to be a little more intentional than leaving it to the effects of a LVT. Corporations should not be permitted to own any form of housing. Multi unit residences should be co-ops/non market housing. If there isn't enough, then the government needs to make more.
So individuals can still own houses, and medium/high density housing is still affordable/plentiful enough.
There seems to be growing sentiment (at least on the internet) to get corporations banned from owning housing, and that's good. But it still needs to pass the hurdle of legalized bribery and our congress failing to represent us. A given policy has 30% chance to pass regardless of public support or disapproval. And policy that benefits the rich obviously has much better chances of passing. This problem within congress is a huge blocking point.
Regardless of whether it 100% solves landlording, I do think LVT and YIMBYism do largely solve real estate “investment” as the meme talks about. Since LVT and abundant housing stop the “line goes up” phenomenon, and LVT in particular punishes real estate speculation, I think they would largely, if not entirely, eliminate the phenomenon of people buying up land/property just to resell later after appreciation. Because, well, housing wouldn’t appreciate under a sufficiently heavy LVT and a strong YIMBY regulatory environment.
100% agreed.
I feel like there has to be a half-life for scalping. If I buy a new-in-box item that has limited supply and immediately flip it, that’s definitely scalping. If I sit on it for 30yr and then flip it, is that really scalping? I dunno. I buy a lot of old mint board games to actually play them. I have to pay a huge markup. I don’t know that it’s necessarily right from a commerce perspective to expect someone who’s held onto something for 30yr and kept it in good shape to not get something extra for that time and work.
Ah yes, the long hours and backbreaking labor of letting something sit on a shelf.
Consider it a storage fee.
I was responding to the prior commenter's reference to "time and work."
There’s a huge difference between throwing something on a shelf and taking care of it. You’re assuming I have a house to let something sit on for 30yr. That’s an incorrect assumption. You’re assuming I have unlimited space in my apartments and moving trucks. That’s an incorrect assumption. You’re assuming all storage is created equal. My climate controlled apartment and external garage with a crack in the foundation prove that to be an incorrect assumption.
Apparently you have all of those things and that’s fucking awesome. I’m happy for you. Not everyone is as privileged as you and some of us have to make decisions about what we keep and where we keep it.
It's still not significant time and work even if you're just paying someone else for climate-controlled storage.
You used the phrase “paying” while saying it’s not much work? Where do you think money comes from if not time and work? It sounds like you don’t have to worry about money but most of us do. That’s another incorrect assumption.
It sure doesn't if the money comes from sitting on products waiting for people to pay more due to scarcity.
I really don’t understand your perspective on commerce. You seem to think that everyone has unlimited space in a house that they own or the money to fund movers to keep shifting things around all the time and that no one ever has to get rid of anything ever and everyone can always afford everything ever or companies are always making everything they’ve ever made. I think you’re just trolling so I’m done with this conversation.
I really don't understand your perspective on literacy.
I think everyone should have access to books and audio. It’s very important for people like yourself to consume a lot of material so you know there are people that don’t have infinite money to buy and store all the things. I know that comes as a shock. Would you like some resources that might expose you to other new ideas that will help develop yours?
🙄
Parasites
You can't just buy a house and sell it for a higher price. You are either flipping it to raise its value which is a lot of work or sitting and holding the house and waiting for it to appreciate. Product scalpers don't have to-do either, nor do they have to pay interest on the loan like they would a mortgage.
Product scalpers rely on sudden bulk purchase of a limited supply batch of products. Unless you're a mega millionaire you can't do that with housing. So I don't think you should consider it unethical to buy a second home and rent out. It is a valid source of income.
So I don't think you should consider it unethical to buy a second home and rent out. It is a valid source of income.
>:(!!!!
Might be the first person to express that opinion here. Usually you’re not allowed to be a cop, landlord, or employer.
You can absolutely buy a house and sell it for a higher price, and do nothing to it or very minimal modifications. I work in the title industry and see it literally every day. LLC or trust buys house with cash, turns around and sells house a couple weeks later for like $100,000 more, while doing nothing to it or very minimal repairs or aesthetic/curb appeal changes.
Pretty much no one actually means people that rent out a single house with this.
When there are enough vacant houses to give every homeless person a home that only stay vacant because some shitty corp decided to gamble with the housing market, with the government doing nothing to prevent this and being too incompetent to provide more than a fraction of the apartments they promised, one would assume that people wouldn't build strawmen to make themselves feel better but actually for once take action against the people ruling our lives.
I feel like this is a meme made by someone who hasn’t really spent time browsing Zillow and seeing what’s for sale, what gets bought, and what gets flipped.
People “investing” in a single family home usually make money by cleaning / renovating the property to some degree. Even if a neighborhood is coming up, if you buy a home and just sit on it, you’re probably going to make less money than if you just invested in a mutual fund.
I work in the title industry and see houses being bought by LLCs and trusts with cash and then sold weeks later for $100,000 more with only curb appeal modifications or no repairs at all. It's pretty common.
Along with the obviously flawed logic of this meme, it would have made more sense to leave the quotations off scalper and kept it only for investor
☭
It just depends if it's something people need
Replace scalper and investor with: 'cunt'
Silly investors, must learn from my secret method to obtain true inner haopiness:
- Buy house during shortage when prices are insane
- Everything breaks and you struggle through replacing it all one by one
- Prices go down more than offsetting your efforts with loss
- ????
- Profit. Emotionally. Because you're happy with the heap of wood sticks plywood and fancy paper over your head that keeps you dry and comfy and weren't planning to sell it anyway.