Comment by simpaticoder
2 days ago
What about wealth inequality as the root cause of housing shortage? Even if supply is eased, the wealthy (those who have enough capital to earn passive income) will buy the extra supply and rent to the poor. The Piketty effect takes over, they invest their profit in more housing, wealth inequality continues to get worse, and while more housing exists, it owned by an increasingly small cohort.
Personally I'd like to see legal constraints on investment in primary, single-family homes, and fewer legal constraints on building them.
My gut feeling is that wealthy people buying up the housing stock to rent out is not actually as common just supply restrictions not meeting the demands of individuals.
I used to live in Vancouver, and on my street almost all occupants were owners. But guess what, the number of houses on that street has not changes in 100 years, and the number of people who want to live in Vancouver has probably increased tenfold.
The issue wasnt that all the housing stock was bought up, the issue is that housing stock did not increase to satisfy demands.
Additionally, a place like Vancouver is really a global real estate destination. People with money who are not from Canada come to Vancouver and drop a few mil on a single family home and outprice all the locals. If you are buying a house in Vancouver you are competing with wealthy people local, but also the top wealth from across the globe.
BC did pass legislation to make all single family homes qualified for quadplexes, but I think it is too little too late.
Anything short of taxing every residence which is not a primary residence AND banning foreign ownership AND reducing permitting toil AND raising interest rates, is going to fall short.
I gave up a few years ago and moved somewhere else. Vancouver is no longer for Canadians.
> Anything short of taxing every residence which is not a primary residence AND banning foreign ownership AND reducing permitting toil AND raising interest rates, is going to fall short.
You forgot eliminating favorable taxation for real estate as well.
But actually if you kept all of those factors and simply just increased supply, it would still lower prices. It's not that complicated. It doesn't matter how many incentives you place on top of real estate. If you build more and prices decrease by 20%, it doesn't make demand shoot up by 20%.
The vast majority of people will never purchase more than one home, and will also never leave the metro-area they grew up in.
I think Vancouver people imagine the demand of Chinese real estate investors interested in their city is endless. It is not. Vancouver is the city that has the highest percentage of Chinese-owned real estate outside of China (globally) and its still at only 30%.
And the vast vast majority of cities do not have this dynamic or anything close to it. And the Chinese population is massively declining over the next 40 years, not growing.
All of the housing stock was bought up. In 1953.
Why not tax primary residences too? Why should housing hoarders pay no tax when someone who invests in a productive business or hoards mostly useless shiny metals has to pay capital gains tax?
They probably could be taxed but not a lot of countries do this and those that do have exemptions.
There's many arguments against taxation of primary residents but the strongest is probably that it punishes and hinders the ability for people to make sideways movements from similar properties to other similar properties, so it hinders housing liquidity, labour movement etc.
I would be fine with house sales incurring capital gains/losses. You are right, it is just another asset.
Piketty logic assumes infinite demand. Housing demand is very large, large enough to seem infinite when North American cities have spend 100 years banning every form of housing imaginable except the single family house, but it is not actually infinite.
If Piketty was correct, then inflation adjusted housing cost per sqft floor would always go up everywhere all the time. But we see dramatic differences in different periods of history, between different cities and we see rents stabilize & decline after building booms. We see housing costs go up the most in the places that build the least and the least in places that build the most.
If Piketty was correct, rich people could do this with things other than housing - they could buy cars and rent them out and then reinvest the profits to buy more cars. Ofc this doesn't actually work because there is no scarcity of cars - for better or worse we have chosen to place almost no limits on the quantity and density of cars in any city, state or country, while placing extremely tight & arbitrary limits on the quantity & density of floorspace in every city. For every car a rich person buys up to rent out, a car company reinvests the profits to build 1 more and then some. There is no functional reason residential floorspace cannot be exactly like that.
The housing market is much more inelastic than eg. the cars market. Whether demand in housing is infinte is a question of scale of population and wealth growth and elasticity. With that given, i would assume the postulated effect of run-off construction and renting, but we only have poluation growth and not the other two.
Just off the top of my head I can think of plenty of functional reasons why residential floor space cannot be analogous to cars.
Most importantly location matters. Space and buildings are not something that you can easily ship from one market to another to balance supply and demand. Space is inherently limited and replacing existing buildings with new more efficient ones is also problematic when you have people happily living in those old buildings, especially in high demand areas. Construction work takes time and in the meanwhile the displaced families will create even more demand.
There are practical limits on how densely you can pack floor space before it becomes prohibitively expensive, unsafe, or simply impractical. As you build higher the costs grow exponentially while the livable space per floor keeps decreasing due to the tapered shape of the building and need for larger structural core and more elevators. Above certain height you will be forced to target wealthier residents which means either offices or large luxury apartments that are anything but space efficient.
Construction is extremely capital intensive. A building takes a large upfront investment, and it takes a long time for it to pay off. With cars the cost of making more is marginal once you have an assembly line in place so it's significantly easier to re-invest profits into ramping up production.
Renting real estate makes more sense than renting automobiles because real estate is more expensive, less liquid, and better at holding its value over time. Owning a house is more difficult even when it would make financial sense to do so (not everyone can get a mortgage, or commit to living in the same city for an extended period of time).
> for better or worse we have chosen to place almost no limits on the quantity and density of cars
Even worse, most places have chosen to place a lower limit on the quantity and density of cars through parking mandates. It is absolutely insane that we are still wasting space on parking even in densely populated urban centers where it's impossible to accommodate everyone commuting by car.
> Space is inherently limited and replacing existing buildings with new more efficient ones is also problematic when you have people happily living in those old buildings, especially in high demand areas. Construction work takes time and in the meanwhile the displaced families will create even more demand.
The main reason old buildings with lots of people are replaced with somewhat taller new buildings, is because of bad laws that require new apartments to go only where old apartments already exist. IMO these are exactly the laws that need to be reformed and or abolished. It doesn’t mean that no one’s old apartment building will ever be demolished for a new one, but right now that’s effectively a requirement. If you want to add four space to a city, you are first required to demolish a large amount of apartment space, and evict everyone inside. If you could simply purchase a house that was already on the market, whose owners wanted to sell and didn’t want to live there anymore, and replace it with an apartment building he wouldn’t evict anyone. This transaction was once common place, but is now effectively illegal almost everywhere in North America because “house people” demand segregation from apartment people.
> There are practical limits on how densely you can pack floor space before it becomes prohibitively expensive, unsafe, or simply impractical. As you build higher the costs grow exponentially while the livable space per floor keeps decreasing due to the tapered shape of the building and need for larger structural core and more elevators. Above certain height you will be forced to target wealthier residents which means either offices or large luxury apartments that are anything but space efficient.
All true, but these limits are really only relevant or binding in Manhattan and perhaps one of two square miles worth of downtown cores in a few large cities. If someone wants to say that Manhattan will always be expensive for those reasons, that’s fine, but it’s no excuse for the other 99.99% of places people want to live in.
Reforming land use successfully IMO doesn’t require us to solve the problem of “how to make Manhattan (or places like Manhattan) even taller” but the much more economical goal of “it should be legal to build a 4 storey walk up with no parking, anywhere you can build a house.” That’s a tough political goal to be sure, but it doesn’t come close to having to deal with any sort of physical or efficiency limits regarding construction of very tall buildings.
You haven't actually worked this example out. Try it. The wealthy buy the extra supply; they now compete with all the existing supply for tenants. What happens next?
Collusion using online management services to fix prices across a region.
I think Washington State is working on legislation around rental services due to this already being a problem in the Seattle area.
“Extra supply” is added to the portfolio containing housing they’ve already purchased. They own part of “existing supply” too.
I live in Seattle, and this is a scapegoat. it's another way to point a finger at anything but massive restrictions on supply. The easiest solution to collusion to keep prices high is to let lots of other people build and compete down price. In Washington, most new construction happens on a very small number of parcels, because that's the only place we allow it.
5 replies →
Housing is a depreciating asset. Even if you're trying to continuously corner the market, you'll be losing money in the long run if you're not actually renting the units for more than you're buying them for.
If supply can be built to meet demand, trying to corner the market to achieve monopoly rents will fail in the long run.
2 replies →
There are too many competing landlords to form a functional cartel.
Why this collusion doesn’t happen in Austin where rents are falling 2 years in a row?
Collusion on housing only works when there is a shortage. As soon as the shortage ends units go unfilled and landlords defect. Collusion works in industries where supply can change in the short run, tough to do that in real estate. Real estate elasticity is so high though that small collusion can work, but only if there is already a shortage. Yet, again the solution is just build more.
A lot of the supply will become second or third homes for the affluent, or short term rentals, not residentially leased property.
That's already the case with a lot of properties in highly desirable locales whether high demand cities or holiday destinations.
Depends on how many tenants there are: is is a buyers' or sellers' market?
Their point is that an increased housing supply should shift it to a buyer's market - it's not just how many tenants there are but how many housing units vs how many tennants.
Whether it's a buyer or seller's market depends on supply!
7 replies →
If - hypothetically - I had a ton of money and buying another house or two or fifteen wasn't a big deal, wouldn't there be a clear-ish signal that I should stop my demand for more housing lest too much supply screw with my income? I would also have an incentive to deploy some of my resources/capital to making sure that the supply of housing is juuuuuuust right for my extractive needs.
2 replies →
Yeah, Neither you nor the parent have worked the forces out to describe what's happening now.
What's happening now is the wealth and the middle are buying houses and apartments not for rental income but for appreciation. This motive is what stands in the way of new home building in any given area. This is why rents rise beyond an area can sustain at all - rents are set to maintain the ostensible value of a property - selling an empty property is fine, even encouraged.
The situation is visible everywhere.
There's just no evidence to support this. Appreciation is nowhere near as cost-effective as putting that same money in the stock market.
They leave it empty (that actually happens a lot, especially with foreign investors) or convert it to their 100th AirBnB.
Empty properties barely exist as a percentage of total housing supply in high cost of living areas in the US. You’re looking at no more than a few tenths of of a percentage point of NYC’s more than 4 million units.
10 replies →
Yes, we get it, they buy the unit and leave it empty. What happens next.
>What happens next?
We'd revert to the state that applied for most of human history: 99% of humans will be serfs renting from 1% hereditary landlords. We'll have shown the American mid-century home-owning middle-class phenomena to be an historical anomoly. Average living standards will plummet and equity barons will never have lived so well. Any short-term rental rate drops will quickly be erased by a combination of growing population and well-known market manipulation, in particular further wealth consolidation.
Mere millionaires think they are safe; they are not. We live in a world that has a ~10 OOM wealth scale; being at level 7 does very little to protect you from 8s 9s and 10s, just as 2s are powerless to 4s and above. To a 10 a 7 may as well be a New Dehli beggar.
I was thinking more along the lines of a simple math problem and less along the lines of an outline for a dystopian novel. Like, show the work.
10 replies →
The total housing supply remains static - the number of owners goes down and the tenants increase, so the S/D curve for housing stays the same. Then the wealthy consolidate the supply into smaller, more powerful groups who drive up rents via monopolist and cartel behavior (eg RealPage).
It costs money to hold on to a unit of housing. Supply is increasing (that's the premise; nobody is proposing a one-time increase in supply). How does the investor profit?
9 replies →
Keep building.
Eventually there are more houses than people who want to be in them, regardless of whether or not they're being rented or owned.
When that happens you'll see the prices fall. After all, if nobody wants to rent your house, you'll either rent it for lower or sell it.
If nobody wants to buy it, you'll lower the price.
Ad nauseum.
China did that on a large scale, at one point using more concrete in three years than the US in the entire 20th century.
There's reportedly enough housing stock to house the population twice over, yet prices still only increased.
Where there's sufficient inequality, the country will run out of eligible land before the wealthy run out of money.
Rents in China are dirt cheap and hardly increase if you’re rational about your housing instead of chasing status and face.
1 reply →
This only works if all those houses are on the market. Nothing is stopping today's rich people from buying up all new housing, and only letting a handful be on the market so as to not flood the market and not let prices go down.
They do not have enough capital to do that. Housing is such as large market that eventually anyone but the state would run out of capital. And it is not actually even that profitable... There is much better investments.
1 reply →
What’s stopping rich people from buying up every car in existence and making you pay $1 million for an accord?
Ah, the classic investment strategy of eating up the cost of keeping a house empty, so that others who do accept renters would make more money
”The rich” aren’t that stupid, why would they take the losses to support someone else making a profit?
5 replies →
And who will build homes if there's no one to buy them?
Having more homes than people want to buy would be an amazing problem to have.
1 reply →
This will not work if there is an exponential wealth inequality in a society, which is where everything is heading.
Can you explain "exponential wealth inequality"?
Sounds a bit like "problem A is unsolvable because - look at here! - no one is solving problem C!"
2 replies →
Where's the evidence that wealth inequality is the root cause of housing shortage, as opposed to say, the real and factual lack of building?
Even if the wealthy did buy up extra supply to rent out, that would only mean increased supply of rentals, which would lower rents.
Not commenting on the ethical side of it, in many instances rentals are just a side income, the real value is in the increasing price of the house due to demand outpacing supply. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37855625 for past discussion on this.
Demand is out pacing supply because while the greatest and silent generation was happy to retire on stonks, pensions and bonds the boomers all went out and bought more and more homes and condos and whatnot for rental income.
It used to be that rental housing was either owner occupied, like a landlord living on one side of a duplex or it was a big commercial investment. The current trend of every idiot having their starter house from 20yr ago listed as an airBnB wasn't a thing back then.
So basically we "need" way more housing per capita now so that they can all have their stupid little side gigs.
Want something really interesting? There's a pretty decent chance that our wealth inequality is entirely caused by restricting housing supply. ;)
The ultra wealthy don't even care if it's rented, they're just diversifying their asset portfolios.
If people had the wealth to own land and build on it then they'd build their own.
It can be both. Wealthy people make it illegal to subdivide large housing units.
Who owns housing is orthogonal to the rent or imputed rent for an owner occupied unit. The effective monthly rent is supply and demand.
Higher supply still means lower prices. Even if "the wealthy" buy it all and rent it, they are still competing with all the other wealthy who are doing the same thing and that will limit how much they can charge for rent, and will make it a less profitable investment than other things the wealthy could invest in.
Housing is not really a great investment. It's great for small investors because it's the only place where they can invest with leverage via a mortgage. If you have billions there's much better things you can invest in.
If there’s 1 million people and 2 million houses then the wealthy aren’t going to be. Using up to rent out as the return on investment will trend to zero.
If there’s 1 million people and 500k houses they will buy them up because everyone needs somewhere to live and will keep paying more and more to avoid the overcrowded slums that someone has to live in.
>will buy the extra supply and rent to the poor.
The wealthy are generally monetarily shrewd, and building homes makes home ownership a worse investment. If there is a deluge of homes being built, the wealthy will take their money elsewhere. Being a landlord typically has ~10% annual return. Compared to just sticking money in the stock market, it's actually been worse as of late.
The goal of the wealthy isn't to make people suffer, it's to maximize their ROI.
The causality is in the other direction, see (as I posted in another comment) https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_r...
Rental stress is a bigger problem than price appreciation, though. Investors cannot cause rents to increase by buying stock.
If general housing is abundant enough that it has very low ROI compared to other available investments, then no they won’t buy up housing. One pretty simple way to do this is to raise property taxes high enough that a vacant condo is a very bad investment. This is what it would mean to commoditize housing.
I think it’s a realistic goal for apartments/condos. Single family homes will always be constrained by land.
(Edit): I think you, and a lot of people who are anti-capitalist on housing, make the implicit assumption that all housing is a fixed good. There is only so much housing and our political goal is to allocate that fixed amount. In a lot of major US cities this is sort of true because we have regulated the construction of new housing to the point where even the government can’t build it. But the anti-regulation perspective is that if we get rid of the regulations preventing housing construction, then enough housing will be constructed that the allocation problem isn’t much of a problem. (Or something in between, ie it’s a lot easier to build/buy social housing to give away to people if housing is already made very abundant, and the fact that even governments like California have to spend truly ludicrous amounts of money just to get a few crappy studios built)
So why are rents falling in Austin for multiple years in a row?
Why did the wealthy simple didn’t buy all of it to extort more rent?
To the extent that housing speculation exists, it's because of the lack of supply. So you have the cause and effect reversed.
Why is it OK to constrain investments on SFH but not apartments or condos?
When interest rates were rock-bottom a bigger chunk of new builds were purchased, but they're not anymore. Vacancy rates in cities, though, are very low, and if you constrain supply of rental units, rent prices go up. That impacts the poor demographic far more. People who rent entire houses are not typically poor, unless maybe you count places where houses are cheap like Mississipi.
The actual data does not agree with you at all. In places that have implemented zoning reform, housing gets cheaper. In areas where it's easier to build (red states), housing is cheaper. There is no reality at all where supply of housing jumps high but prices do also.
> Personally I'd like to see legal constraints on investment in primary, single-family homes, and fewer legal constraints on building them.
Where investors are concerned, these are purchased to flip, or with the expectation that prices would rise. Given that we had inelastic supply but perpetually growing demand, that was a good bet. So, if you build way more, an investor wouldn't be so confident about that price increase. Now compound that with the risk of borrowing at higher interest rates to buy those properties.
[flagged]
I have a soft spot for anyone with a background in Turbo Pascal from the 90s (my father built our family business on Turbo Pascal then Delphi through the 80s and 90s, so I grew up with it around the house).
I just wish you'd dial back the combative tone of your comments on HN. You've been engaging in a lot of political/ideological battle recently, and it would be good if you could remind yourself of the guidelines and make an effort to use HN in the intended spirit.
We're trying for curious conversation here. Different perspectives about economics are very welcome. Slurs and swipes are not.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Trickle-down" economics is a direct subsidy for high-income earners meant to spur demand. That's the opposite of what increasing the housing supply does.
Totally wrong strawman missing the bigger point. It's still a vague, misguided utopian ideology focused on helping the rich supposedly "overproduce" while doing nothing for everyone else. That's trickle-down economics 101.
3 replies →
How about for fun, instead of rhetorical devices and snarky projection, just look at the facts. The data on effects of zoning reform in places like Minneapolis and others, about where housing is cheaper wherever it's easier to build, about rent dropping ( https://denverite.com/2025/07/25/denver-rent-prices-drop-q2/) when you build way more units, etc.
[dead]
Trickle down was a Reagan thing.
I'm very confused by your statements.
I mean it was the Big Beautiful Bill that just added 3-5 trillion in debt and reduced taxes on the very wealthy. I don't think those impotent Dems had any sway in this.
Dems are also beholden to the wealthy--not sure they tried that hard, overall.
Then you're too focused on political concerns. Neoliberalism doesn't recognize political parties, it recognizes money. As Gore Vidal would say, the Property party.
2 replies →
Neoliberalism, trickle down, abundance. They are all similar and/or the same.