44
What is an issue/topic you believe isn’t getting enough attention or coverage?
(discuss.tchncs.de)
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
44 points (94.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
33845 readers
838 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, 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 spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just 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.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Education around the actual cause of the housing crisis.
Everything in the news and politics is intentionally ignoring the core issue and blaming it on scapegoats (immigrants, corporate landlords, developers)
The single biggest group making the most money off housing by a massive margin? Regular everyday single house owners.
They make up like 65%+ of the residential market, and yet we're busy blaming everything else under the sky while trying to protect that group.
You want affordable houses? House prices have to drop, A LOT, for EVERYONE.
They might be the biggest group of home owners, but they're not themselves the issue. The optimal situation would more or less be every family owning a single home.
If house prices go down equally across the market, single home owners don't really lose out because people typically sell houses when they want to buy a different house. People who recently took out big mortgages will complain about negative equity and some idiots are happy to see a number go up but by and large single home owners will be fine and won't even complain a lot - they know from their children or other sources that its too damn expensive to buy a house.
The real losers would be people who own property as an investment, and developers. And those two groups have powerful lobbies and the majority of politicians are in the first group.
The single home owner NIMBYs are a problem in cases where prices will be affected but only locally. Then they really stand to lose out. So you basically need to have a massive nationwide house building program, either done by the state or through strong legal incentives to force developers to build a lot more of the right kind of homes and prevent them from sitting on land waiting for the price to go up. Or probably both.
A) This is not the optimal situation, and B) Owning a home, and being able to profiting off it appreciating are not the same thing and the latter is the problem
If you have a million dollar home that you raised your family in, and now want to downsize into a $400k town house, you'd currently get $600k in cash freed up to spend on whatever you wanted. If house prices drop by 50%, you'd sell your $500k home, buy a $200k town house, and you'd have $300k in cash.
The majority of people who would lose money are the MAJORITY of people who own homes, which are single home owners.
That homeowner stands to lose a lot of money if a politician says they will pass a policy that drops home prices by 50%, so they wouldn't vote for that politician.
People like you keep proposing "build more" like it's going to work. Let me ask you this, how many houses would we need to build to drop national house prices by 50%?
The simple answer is "you can't realistically do that" No developer can be forced to lose money in the long term, and they quite literally couldn't build housing at 50% of current prices even if the land itself was completely free. The state could take on a stupidly massive debt to build homes at a loss, but then instead of paying higher rents/housing prices, you're just paying higher taxes.
Currently, there's no realistic way forward. It needs to get far worse (fewer homeowners, so that the balance of voting power shifts to renters) before we can start passing policies to make it better. I expect it to be about 20-30 years before that happens, and then it's probably going to be 20-30 more before the results get realized.
You're right, if homeowners downsize they'll lose out with lower prices. People don't downsize very often.
But what policies are you talking about? How can the answer be anything other than increasing the supply of housing (or decreasing the demand i.e. the population)? Prices are only as high as they are because people pay them because they don't have any other options. Rent is high because demand is high relative to supply.
The only thing I can think of would be higher taxes specifically in places with high house prices in order to fund huge investment in poorer areas to make them more attractive to people and businesses.
Hence why my proposal (land value taxes) incentivizes them to do so by taxing people based on how much land they use (and how desirable that land is) and returning it equally to everyone. Live in a smaller place like a condo? Benefit to you. Want to live in a detached house with a big yard in a desirable area? Pay everyone else for the privledge. Have 5 people in your 4 bedroom home? Excellent. Have 2 people in your 5 bedroom home? Pay everyone else for the privledge.
This is the key, and the simple answer is that it's not that simple.
There are multiple factors to demand for housing, it's not just "X million people need a house"
The price of housing reflects ALL of the factors of demand, and one of those factors currently is causing all of the problems. The factor that's at fault is that buying a house will make you money (or at least not lose you money) in the long run.
Think about it for a second. If you're looking to buy somewhere to live, and you know that despite it costing a lot, you won't lose money on it and will get that money back later for retirement, how much are you willing to spend? Compare that to how much you'd be willing to spend if you knew that you would lose money every month.
This isn't hard to actually understand, take a simple tax idea (it's not realistic, it would crash the economy to do it all at once)
The government comes along and says "there's a 100% tax on any increase in the value of the land (not including the building) when you sell it" on top of the monthly/yearly property tax amounts you're already paying.
What would happen to housing prices for most places? They would instantly drop, and a lot in some places.
Did we change the supply? No Did we change the demand? There's still X million people that need a home, so we didn't change that factor in any way Did the price change? Yes
Why? Because people were willing to spend more money on a home than they got in value from simply living there, because they were valuing it as an investment in addition to the living space. Now any home buyer coming along won't be able to realize that value, so they're not going to be willing to spend as much money. It hits investors even harder than regular people, that appreciation over time was a huge amount of their profit.
TL;DR; If something is an investment, the prices will continue to climb up until it's no longer profitable. If you want home prices to go down and be priced only based on their usefulness as accommodation, you have to make them not an investment.
Why would they educate you on that.
They don't even teach people about alternatives to FPTP, good thing there is the internet to cover the missing info public schools decided to hide.