Manuel_D 3 days ago

If loads of housing is built and the price of housing starts dropping, firms won't want to invest in housing because they'll lose money. Unfortunately, a lot of politically active home owners also want to keep the price of housing from dropping so this is a harder thing for local governments to put into practice.

  • mcntsh 3 days ago

    Why would housing be built in the first place if the price starts dropping?

    • xnx 3 days ago

      Same reason most things (cars, furniture, laptops, vegetables) are made and sold: because they can be sold for more than they cost to make.

    • terminalshort 3 days ago

      Same reason anything else keeps getting built when the price drops. Builders are not investors. As the price drops the cost of acquiring new land to build on also drops. As long as a builder has a margin between land + construction cost, they will build.

    • HDThoreaun 3 days ago

      A huge part of the cost of building a house right now is the excessive regulation. By deregulating we will be able to build houses for less money and so builders will be able to sell them for less money. In addition apartments and especially larger apartment buildings are straight up illegal in many areas even though demand is high. Legalizing these units which are much cheaper than SFHs would allow all housing prices to decrease as some of the people competing for SFHs instead buy a condo.

AnimalMuppet 3 days ago

Because if you get zoning out of the way, we can keep building, and keep building, and keep building.

Let them keep buying. But if we build enough, they won't be able to rent it all out. Are they going to keep buying to control the rent-able supply forever? No, they'll run out of money before we run out of buildable land. (Maybe not before we run out of wood, shingles, and labor though...)

  • thrance 3 days ago

    And then you're left with huge ghost towns, like that one place in Seattle. This seems like a terrible solution, although it might work. And let's not even talk about the environmental impact, it seems to be a taboo nowadays.

    Why not just prevent private companies from buying homes they don't use, and force them to sell the ones they are currently holding?

    • AnimalMuppet 3 days ago

      Right, ghost towns owned by private equity. So I'm not crying. I agree about the environmental impact, though.

      "Prevent private companies from buying homes they don't use" is going to be a really hard sell legally. (Though, to be fair, changing zoning laws seems also to be a really hard sell...)

energy123 3 days ago

You're fixated on price. Look at rent instead. Private equity cannot create new tenants. The number of tenants is fixed. That's why rental inflation is significantly better in Texas compared to California. Private equity is not a relevant variable here.

davidw 3 days ago

They don't have the cash. Housing is a huge market.

Downvote all you want, but math is math.

  • sorcerer-mar 3 days ago

    They already don't buy with cash, which is actually one of the only advantages of scale in real estate: big firms can borrow cash more cheaply.