←back to thread

115 points harambae | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.398s | source | bottom
Show context
vondur ◴[] No.46208742[source]
I just watched a video from Dave Ramsey title "What the Government Should Do to Fix the Housing Problem" He specifically calls out Institutional Investors and Foreign Corporations that have been purchasing single family housing and converting them into rental properties. I think he makes some good point in his video: https://youtu.be/_CrgniwSLLM
replies(4): >>46209376 #>>46209464 #>>46209988 #>>46211068 #
jeffbee ◴[] No.46209376[source]
Why do you think that renters don't deserve to live in single-family homes?
replies(1): >>46209650 #
MetaWhirledPeas ◴[] No.46209650[source]
Not at all what the GP said.

They aren't saying landlords are the problem, they are saying Institutional Investors and Foreign Corporations being landlords are the problem.

replies(2): >>46209895 #>>46211024 #
1. jeffbee ◴[] No.46209895[source]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with institutional investors buying tract homes and renting them out. Nothing! It brings the benefits of living in such homes to people who otherwise would be excluded from them by the financial credit system.
replies(2): >>46210181 #>>46212262 #
2. gnatman ◴[] No.46210181[source]
The article linked in the OP, and many posters in this thread, present arguments to the contrary. The main one seems to be that although institutional investors are happy to let people “benefit” from renting their homes, they are precluding many from ever owning those homes themselves.
replies(1): >>46210693 #
3. jeffbee ◴[] No.46210693[source]
I understand the arguments, and I understand that they are morally vacuous arguments. It is simply an advancement of the interests of the bourgeoisie. They are annoyed that renters are effectively able to influence the market, even if by the second degree through large-scale renting. They believe that having scraped together a quarter million dollars for the down payment makes them a special class of people. It is a stupid position to defend.
replies(1): >>46210872 #
4. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.46210872{3}[source]
> It is a stupid position to defend.

Doubly so when they themselves lobby for policies that keep housing prices high, which is the primary thing preventing more people from owning rather than renting.

5. MetaWhirledPeas ◴[] No.46212262[source]
Well really I was just trying to explain the GP's post, not adopt their views, but I think I can play devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion.

The problem with institutional investors is that in making it big business you drive up home prices which in turn drives up the rental prices. Since they can have a wide portfolio of homes, they are less likely to lower rent prices when demand drops, because they can afford to take the short term hit if it they think the market is going to pick back up again. AND they can play games like grabbing all available homes in an area in order to artificially inflate prices.

replies(1): >>46213054 #
6. jeffbee ◴[] No.46213054[source]
I see that you did your best, but it should be obvious that the people who want to buy homes also have a massive financial machine on their side, and that it also drives up prices. If the insured 30-year mortgage did not exist, homes would be a lot cheaper.