Comment on Companies that buy up homes should be known as home scalpers
FishFace@piefed.social 5 hours agoYeah if you literally only 100%, or close to it, of housing in a city, that’s true. But no company does in anywhere I’m aware of. There are cases of massive consolidation but the largest competitor acquires like 17% of housing. There are also always some vacant houses even if that number is very low.
Housing is a necessity but there is still some elasticity. People can move in with parents, move to a cheaper region unaffected by the attempted market abuse, share with more people, live in their car or literally be out on the streets. All of those options (none of them good ones) mean that some people will not pay the higher rents if there’s an attempted squeeze - some houses would stand vacant. (Or: stand vacant for longer).
This is not a defence of free market economics in housing; I think local authorities should heavily invest in social housing. I just don’t think that we have any evidence of the high cost of housing being due to excessive company involvement in housing. We are seeing housing crises across the western world in all sorts of cities and all sorts of distributions of ownership.
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 5 hours ago
You are bending over backwards to dismiss my points.
I’m not even sure what you’re saying here. Did you misunderstand my point that they don’t need to own 100%?
That is MASSIVE consolidation! If a huge 10% of homes are unneeded, that means they can set the price for 7% as high as they want!
Boomers are selling their homes to these companies, because the payout is ludicrous. They pay so much more than what the home is worth, because the return of renting it back to someone needing a home is literally limitless.
You know why it’s unaffected? Fewer jobs. The pensioners selling their homes can move out there, sure… But the people who need homes in the area they just sold their old home for millions in? Not so much.
Right. Because these companies aren’t chopping big apartments into smaller units so they sell each room individually. Are you suggesting people start sharing studio apartment closets?
Some is not enough. The whole reason this works is that these companies can squeeze people on necessities, because someone always has to buy from them. To fight this, everyone has to have access to a better option, so that these companies have zero customers. Because as long as they can squeeze someone, they can squeeze harder than any luxury industry could ever dream of.
This has literally been studied. It’s not about what you “think”. You are ignoring current economic facts.
No shit. When someone finds a way to make profit, the method gets copied. No to mention that stuff like airBnBs skirt regulation and often literally operate against local law or building rules. My very first point was that companies don’t need to own much to start hiking local prices. Heck, you could be just one wealthy individual who owns two extra houses, and by setting your rents high, contribute to the problem.
There is a thru-line here, but because it’s so pervasive, you’re saying it can’t possibly be it.
FishFace@piefed.social 4 hours ago
Your point by point objections don’t really change the picture - these are all things that people do. In a market that is not completely elastic, if you increase prices, some people will stop paying and we will see that in the data. Every time I’ve checked this for the USA (where this argument is usually made) there is no recent increase in vacancy rates.
So how about I offer you an alternative scenario: investment companies are seeing that housing is shooting up in value already, due to low rates of building, hence making it a more attractive investment relative to other things. So they buy them up and charge high rents - but at the same time all the individual owners of rental property also see that they can charge high rents, and do so. All we’ve done is swapped who is screwing renters, not by how much.
If this has “literally been studied” then I’d be very happy to see the studies - like I said I’ve tried to find data on this, and never found anything to suggest that replacing individual owners with corporate owners increases prices. Maybe my search-engine-fu is lacking (but also… every other time I’ve discussed this online no-one has come up with anything either. What I’m trying to say is that I don’t hold this position for lack of trying to challenge it.) But in contrast, I’ve seen plenty of studies comparing population growth to house building and coming up with a huge deficit.
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 4 hours ago
You’re looking at the wrong stats. When people are forced to spend more on necessities, they don’t cut necessities. They can’t. They’re necessities.
They cut luxuries.
One such relevant stat, would be piracy spiking.
FishFace@piefed.social 4 hours ago
Well then, we’re back to some people cutting their costs by doing all the things I said above. You dismissed them all as if reasons why they’re not practical are reasons why they’re impossible.
All those landlords have the exact same incentives to charge as much as they can get away with, to subdivide properties and to exploit their renters as corporate landlords do. Consolidation can allow prices to increase - but it doesn’t always, and typically not by a lot, until consolidation reaches very high levels. 3-7% is what I’ve read for company mergers (note that the case studies include large market shares and companies dealing in necessities).
So I propose that corporate landlords have manipulated the market by no more than 10%. So about 6 months of house price increases at current rates, or two years at less crazy rates. Everything else is caused by low supply and such.