this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
471 points (97.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26753 readers
1469 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Considering how crazy expensive accommodations have become the last couple of years, concentrated in the hands of greedy corporations, landlords and how little politicians seem to care about this problem, do you think we will ever experience a real estate market crash that would bring those exorbitant prices back to Earth?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cheesus@lemmy.world 229 points 1 year ago (15 children)

No, unless we separate housing from investment, it will never be affordable. I don't foresee the political will to make it happen.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 90 points 1 year ago (7 children)

This is the biggest issue right here. Houses weren't always investments and making them investments was a terrible idea that's now difficult to fix.

Real estate has become a huge part of stock market and GDP figures. People's retirement funds have become other people's mortgage and rent payments. Affordable houses for some would mean economic decline for others, and no political party wants to create economic decline.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe, but really the issue is construction of new houses. Cities are much cleaner now so people want to live in them. They used to be filled with factory smoke and animal feces.

Yes, more than now. No I don't care that you saw some poop yesterday. The streets were literally caked with horse poop. You wouldn't even notice dog poop.

And most jobs used to be physical, so the average person would have some experience in carpentry. If houses were too expensive, you would find a friend or relative with some expertise and build something yourself. So houses outside the city were cheap because you could build new ones, and houses inside the city sucked (and were cheap).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] donut4ever@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

System is working as designed, my friend.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 45 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Still trying to understand how everything has to be crushed under capitalism. Food. Health care. Housing. Travel. It all there to spin up cash.

Can’t wait till they figure out how to monetize air 🫠

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Can’t wait till they figure out how to monetize air

Saw this at a Walgreens last week.

[–] degrix@lemmy.hqueue.dev 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

These are really popular with people traveling to Colorado ski resorts and getting altitude sickness. They’re useful to grab to avoid getting sick and combating the symptoms if you do.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] MossBear@lemmy.world 105 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I honestly think were heading for a total societal collapse. If the people with power and resources were the sort that were inclined to use it for good, they would have done it already. Given that we haven't seen this, it's reasonable that this accumulation at the top will continue unabated and that more and more people will fall into poverty and despair.

This is a recipe for revolution, and revolution is largely incompatible with stability, especially in the near term.

I wish this wasn't the case. I suspect this century''s deaths will dwarf last century's.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 48 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Look at other countries. Huge slums / shanty towns get built and normalized long before revolution.

If you're living in a plywood shack, but still have a phone with data, some games to play, ebt / food bank to eat, you're not about to pick up arms. At least most people in that spot won't.

[–] MossBear@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Maybe you're right, but it's also possible that people in those places have been living with those conditions all their lives and it creates a kind of apathy. If you take away everything from people who thought they'd have a kind of middle-class future, we don't quite know what that looks like yet. I suspect it won't be exactly the same.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The younger generations today are already giving in to that apathy.

[–] MossBear@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

We'll see what happens then. Apathy and despair is one possible combination. Anger and despair is another. They have very different results.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] who8mydamnoreos@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not without some real force or change, middle class has invested to much of their retirement into the housing market to allow the prices to tank. Those who have are not going to risk it for the have nots.

[–] ashok36@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Imagine storing all of your nation's wealth in real estate that is actively decaying by the minute instead of into companies that make products and provide jobs. What a stupid fucking idea.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ThisIsMyLemmyLogin@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

No. As the effects of climate change become worse, people will migrate to cooler places, which will only push up prices in those places. Poor people will be left to live in uninhabitable and uninsurable areas, while the rich will get to live in comfort.

Climate change is essentially a class struggle, like everything else in life. As long as the 1% don’t have to suffer, nothing will be done. To get the rich to do something about climate change, it will have to affect them directly.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] eyy@lemm.ee 51 points 1 year ago (4 children)

No. Expensive housing is a genie in a bottle.

Once sufficient people have purchased a house at the high price, it would be in their interest for prices to remain high. Corporate entities that buy up houses will actively lobby to make sure housing prices stay high, and the average Joe who paid that much for a house will be happy it stays that way.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 1 year ago

I think were closer to seeing people be forced to rent every comoddity they need to live than we are to seeing full home ownership.

[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (17 children)

The solution is simple, but will never happen. Make it illegal to own a home you don't live in.

[–] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Or at the very least make taxes paid proportionally more for each home you own past 1

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] fabio1@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

I bought an apartment about 15 years ago. I finally finished paying it about 3 years ago, and recently got an offer to move to Ontario. With the current house prices and what I was offered there (about 80k), I could barely make rent for my family. I really wanted to move but had to say no because of stupid absurd rent prices. What’s weird is that if I wanted to rent the place I bought I would not be able to afford it either. This is bullshit.

[–] BossPaint@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This is kind of just something that krept into my mind but I think with a slowing birthrate that we may just end up with too many homes at some point in the next 25 years.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] space@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are 2 big obstacles we need to overcome. The first is corporate ownership of residential property. This needs to go away.

The second big issue, we need to build higher density housing, and get rid of the enormous parking spaces that take up our downtowns. Not everyone needs a house. And you can absolutely build medium density housing that doesn't feel cramped. Sure, living in an apartment is not perfect, but you are closer to the places you want to go, and public transportation is more feasible. It's a win-win for everyone.

[–] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem with high density housing is that the quality is shit. The quality is shit with lower density housing too, but things like thin walls in apartments goes a long way to people wanting to join in the sprawl. Developers fight tooth and nail against any regulations that are focused on QOL or environmental improvements (like "passive house" standards) and promise that they will make it cost far more than necessary if they are so burdened.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] elscallr@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah but the market is going to have to absolutely tank first. There's a lot of money in that bubble, and it's going to be fucking painful when it does. But it'll get there.

[–] DosCommas@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When it tanks people would be laid off and have no money for houses. Basically 2007 all over again. The rich would swoop up all the cheap real estate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

After the climate mass deaths, migrations and/or wars, there should be plenty of land.

Although it might not be habitable.

[–] extant@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Plenty of unoccupied land, but not unowned.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Perhaps, but what is ownership without a state to enforce it? Companies/landlords would need to occupy and defend it themselves.

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The problem is not affordable housing, there's plenty of that in the US, the problem is getting people to states where housing is affordable without significant drops in quality of life due to lack of access to services and such.

Like, you could buy land in Detroit for the price of a decent car, put a trailer on it and you're already on the property ladder, but you're in Detroit.

[–] JAC@reddthat.com 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This sounds great, but when people start moving, pricing goes up. There's too much investing and too little self-ownership of housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suspect that a strong push for fully remote work would help the US with housing costs due to a chunk of the workforce moving out of the cities and into the boonies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vaggumon@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Not until people get off their asses and show the 1% they have no real power. In order to make an omelet, you need to break some eggs. It is long past time to crack some shells.

[–] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The only way that the 1% lose their power is if the rest of us unanimously decide they no longer have power. Which is why there is so much effort put into preventing any kind of agreement.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Pat12@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

No. With climate change more land will be unlivable, there will be more conflicts and more immigration (legal and illegal). Housing will increase because demand is high and supply will shrink further b

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No. Not because of overpopulation or such, but because the powers that be have simply discovered how lucrative it is to use housing as a business investment, and the fact that everyone NEEDS housing, no exceptions.

This is essentially a supply problem, so the "supply side" of this equation is the side with all the power. The end.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Illegal_Prime@dmv.social 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Just keep building, and change zoning laws to make that easier.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Only if capitalism falls. Otherwise zero chance. Sry.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] gzrrt@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

No, at least not in countries (e.g., the USA) that rely on the state to micromanage every aspect of zoning, and which therefore allow NIMBYs to derail progress at every possible step.

In a better world we would draft new laws to throw out our entire zoning system, and start over with something much more flexible at the state or national level- ideally based on the approach Japan uses, which defaults to mixed-use for every building and makes NIMBYism structurally impossible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I mean I do kind of expect the world to completely collapse within 20 years, so kinda?

A cave or a half-destroyed building in an overgrown city are free right? Doesn’t get cheaper than that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

No.

I never wanted to be a homeowner personally, but earlier this year I noticed that four AirBNB's had materialized just on my little block in America, so I bought a condo. I paid $40,000 more than it cost ten years ago, but it's beautiful, I like it, and it gives me the ability to stay where I want to long-term, so here we are.

The Federal Government is not going to act on the forced scarcity of housing, so expect the issue to be handled similar to the way states handled COVID. Some states had good policies. Most had shitty policies, but overall, the outcomes were negative to some degree, and that's almost certainly what will occur with housing over time.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We're starting to see prices decrease right now, since high interest rates are holding. The big analytics firms think we will see a return to affordable housing in 2024 as long as the fed continues to raise interest rates. The reality for larger cities is that prices will most likely stabilize and possibly decrease slightly, but never return to reasonable. Lots of people are in 2% mortgages right now on homes with inflated values. Those people are never moving unless life forces them to. So while rising interest should decrease housing affordability and force prices back down, inventory will remain low, keeping prices pretty stable. Areas with abundant inventory should see a return to normalcy, but for big popular cities, this is probably the new normal. Unfortunately nobody has a crystal ball, and we can't be sure of anything. But this is what the experts think.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The point is that those price declines would benefit only the wealthy who had the money in cash, but regular people are not having so much savings and for them even those "lower" prices are actually higher when considering the interest they will pay to the banks.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›