People intuitively jump to the conclusion that the problem is caused by a lack of building. While more building would help, a lack of it isn't the main cause of this problem.
Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price inflation driven by a broken financial system (i.e. a system being artificially pumped up with cheap credit). Housing is just where the rubber hits the road and regular lives are directly effected. Just look at the tight correlation between the increase in the money supply and property prices.
For those who insist that the number of properties is inadequate, take a look at the numbers for each of the countries I mentioned in the first chart here: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-cons... (Total number of dwellings per thousand inhabitants, 2022 and 2011).
This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.
Cheap credit causes an increase in demand. This is not demand for homes but additional 'artificial' demand for properties as investments. Think short term rentals, second homes, land banked properties, etc. By definition, only investment properties can be underutilised - owner occupied homes are occupied! So in an environment that encourages property investment you will see more underutilisation.
What will cause prices to fall is higher interest rates. This is what has been happening in NZ.
> do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build …?
Sort of? See eg https://www.ft.com/content/dca3f034-bfe8-4f21-bcdc-2b274053f... for some graphs that show Europe vs anglophone countries in an obvious way. Obviously there are lots of differences between the countries, eg the specifics of their planning systems and economies. The US is different because of the big diversity of local governments – housing is more affordable lots of people outside of desirable cities, and places like Austin and Houston do build lots of homes and that seems to be a possible reason they haven’t grown like prices in California.
Credit costs have followed similar trends everywhere (obviously there are differences, especially in the US) and yet house prices have not followed similar trends but rather behaved differently in different places. I agree that when interest rates are lower you should expect to see higher prices, but that’s because interest rates change the price that a given income can afford. I don’t think interest rates are good at explaining the changes to affordability over time, or why affordability is different in different places.
Also, in your linked chart, you see something like 20% more dwellings per person in developed EU countries vs English-speaking countries, which doesn’t feel like no difference at all.
The issue in the article of affordability becoming worse across the US recently is probably interest rate related – prices change more slowly than interest rates, 30-year fixed rate mortgages mean rates change more slowly, and the higher rates mean existing mortgage-payers don’t want to move as they’ll lose their low rate, which reduces supply. I don’t know why prices are still up though – if interest rates being high was making housing unaffordable, one would expect prices to be down.
> for some graphs that show Europe vs anglophone countries in an obvious way
Housing is still extremely expensive in most major European cities relative to income. e.g. Milan, Lisbon, London, Rome, Munich are significantly more expensive than San Francisco or San Jose (e.g. Milan is more than 2x more expansive) if you're earning the median income.
It's not like most people in some European countries chose to live in rented cramped apartments they simple have no choice because they can't afford anything else.
> you see something like 20% more dwellings per person in developed EU countries vs
It's not clear how much of that is because of lower (or negative) population growth. e.g. Italy has one of the highest dwellings per person ratios and there are towns/villages which are basically giving away houses for free Milan is still relatively the most(?) expensive city in Europe and housing in other major cities is still less affordable than pretty much anywhere in the US.
> if interest rates being high was making housing unaffordable, one would expect prices to be down.
I think you have to be careful with the definition of "unaffordable".
Housing, at this moment, is unaffordable in the sense that the cost of housing squeezes many people's discretionary budget, savings, and even sometimes the budget for necessities. It is not unaffordable in the sense that (most) people do have enough money that they can pay for it, even though paying for it might cause them hardship elsewhere.
Housing is an inelastic good - particularly for demographics who have limited access to transportation and therefore need to live very close to where the jobs are. The price increases until it consumes all the money available to pay for it.
> you see something like 20% more dwellings per person in developed EU countries vs English-speaking countries, which doesn’t feel like no difference at all.
I was attempting to highlight the change in numbers for those countries I mentioned and how they are clearly inadequate when trying to explain the change in prices over the same time.
In NZ there was little change from 2011 to 2022 but median house price went from NZD350k to NZD900k.
I agree with regard to demand being different in various locations within a country, but those localised demand differences would have had to shift pretty dramatically over the same ten year period to explain much I imagine.
> I don’t know why prices are still up though – if interest rates being high was making housing unaffordable, one would expect prices to be down.
This is counterintuitive, but also persistent across high-interest rate environments. I asked my mom what the housing market was like in 1980, when rates went up to ~20%, and she said "Prices were basically stable, but nobody was selling houses." Similarly, if you look at historical data, you'll notice that home prices usually remain flat during recessions but don't really go down. Even in really bad recessions (eg. the Bay Area from 1989-1994, which got hit with the triple whammy of interest rates going up to 10%, a tech bubble bust in the workstation & AI market, and the crash in defense spending after the end of the cold war), you might see at most a 10% decline.
The reason comes from a fundamental asymmetry in the housing market: everybody needs a place to live, but most home sellers do not need money. If they fail to sell, they can take the place off the market and continue living in it, or rent it out, or just leave it vacant in hopes of better market conditions next year. So the negotiating leverage usually lies with sellers in the housing market.
When rates go up, affordability goes down, but sellers are usually unwilling to take a multi-hundred-K$ hit. So they don't. They rent it out, they live in it, or they hold onto it. It's usually worth taking a few thousand dollar hit in property taxes to avoid a $100K hit in home value. Liquidity dries up - instead of prices going down, inventory disappears. We're seeing that now, and the older generation saw it in 1980 and 1990.
To make prices actually go down substantively, you need those forced sales, where owners want/need to get out at any price. This could take the form of a foreclosure/bankruptcy crisis like in 2008, where the owners legally lose possession of the house, and the banks need to sell at any price to avoid bankruptcy themselves. Or it could be rising crime, like what happened to Detroit & the Rust Belt after the 1970s or SF in 2020. But many things that you would think would destroy home prices don't actually - New Orleans did not see a significant decline after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and Silicon Valley did not see one after the dot-com bust in 2000.
One other thing to note is that when prices in a region decline, it's almost always because nobody wants to live there. This is actually rather intuitive - if rates and affordability go down but people still want to live there nobody will sell, while if people are forced to sell but others still want to live there you will still have competition among bidders and prices will go up. But it means that there's no magic bullet: "affordable" housing means that home prices stay stable while incomes rise, and if you can't get your income to rise, you are just screwed.
Under utilization can be measured as a factor of the vacancy rate; which influences both home pricing and rental pricing.
Here in Canada, the desirable places to live all have relatively low vacancy rates for residential housing, and have for quite some time. Ie, it's rare to see cities with vacancy rates for apartments exceeding 3%, let alone a healthy 5%.[0] The CMHC estimates that by 2030 we will need 3.5M additional homes beyond the expected number to be produced.[1] The PBO has come up with similar numbers; roughly speaking, Canada needs to complete a new home every 50 seconds just to maintain current price levels.
There's much gnashing of teeth up here over our housing crisis, and it's clear to me that it's a multi-factor concern[2]. While there simply exists much more demand than the supply can service, the reasons for low supply are many and complicated. There are the obvious zoning and infrastructure issues; we don't build for mid and high density nearly enough, and we rely too heavily on cars. There's the labour supply issue the politicians focus on. But most unnerving, to me, is the suggestion that we simply do not have the capacity to produce or source the raw materials necessary in construction.
Why is the vacancy rate so low in desirable neighborhoods?
Is it that there isn’t enough housing period, in the entire country. Or is it is people and investments abandoning rural areas in favor of a handful of city neighborhoods?
I’m also curious if those vacancy rates can be / have incentive to be gamed by the homeowners, or otherwise don’t paint a very accurate picture. I lived in a wealthy part of NYC for a while, and my apartment faced a courtyard on the interior of the block. As a result, I could see into the windows of 100s of apartments of 3 adjacent buildings. Only maybe like 5 out of 100s of apartments consistently had someone living in them. This reflects my feeling on the street: the streets were empty, especially given the relative density of the apartment buildings.
I know this is anecdotal evidence, but everyone I know that lives in NYC has the same observation.
I wish scientists and experts would take these concerns seriously and research by this gap in perception and the reported vacancy rate is so different.
Vacancy rates should be lower where the total inventory increases and people’s ability to predict the market increases. That’s also going to be places people want to live.
Consider a city of 10 million people vs 1,000 small towns of 10k people. The variability for demand in those small towns is higher and vacancy rates can’t drop below zero. So some towns hit 0 while others might be 20%. But in a city if some apartment complex is full people just go to the apartment down the street.
> People intuitively jump to the conclusion that the problem is caused by a lack of building.
In my experience, people "intuitively" jump to basically every conclusion besides this one. "Greedy landlords" or "[favorite scapegoat] collusion" are intuitive conclusions which are far more common than supply and demand.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
Yes they do, to varying degrees. The Anglo land use regime is a disaster.
> Yes they do, to varying degrees. The Anglo land use regime is a disaster.
Population growth (which is mainly concentrated in relatively small number of areas) is not helping either.
e.g. in European countries which have comparable population growth to Ireland/UK like Norway, Sweden, Belgium real estate prices have been increasing at a similar pace.
I only have firsthand experience in the US but it makes a lot of sense to me that the influence of colonization by Britain would cause all of the listed countries to have similar issues related to land use.
Seattle is building far more than many other cities and rents are lowering as a result. Rents are up nationally, but down over 7% in Seattle. If you've visited recently, the amount of new construction and cranes is immense.
Ten years ago people talked about how much Seattle was building and how many cranes were everywhere as well - then as now, it’s because all that building is in the same ten square yards of “urban villages” across the city where you are allowed to build densely.
The market in Seattle has become softer for sure but is not evenly distributed. In my area, the vacancy rate for apartments appears to be in the 10-20% range depending on the building and the incentives are becoming more aggressive. A bit more surprising, some housing prices in nice neighborhoods have also declined since a couple years ago (some areas have also increased). Renting makes a lot of sense in Seattle right now.
Anecdotally, all of my friends renting have had their rents continually raised with no breaks. Perhaps there is a wider trend, but if so, their landlords do not seem aware of it.
No, lack of building _is_ the main problem. It doesn't matter if the demand for homes is "artificial" or not - the easiest solution is to build more.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
This is something I've wondered, and I'm of the opinion there's two reasons that are rarely discussed. One is the great recession/sub-prime crisis, which, at least in the US, caused a collapse in housing construction - I'm not sure how much this is true for other countries. The other is the coming of age of millennials, leading to a "bump" of people in their 20-30s trying to get their first home - I'd expect this to apply to most of the countries listed.
You really need to provide data to make that assertion. Shortages of buildings are not the only reason that property prices can be high.
Properties are made up of a building and a plot of land that it's attached to. Whilst we can nake more buildings, we can't make more land, so the land in a given location is by definition going to be in a permanent state of shortage. If more poeple want to live in that location OR (the main driver of this crisis) if more money is chasing the same fixed supply, then the prices rise. The land component is the part that has become more expensive recently, not the buildings.
Doesn't the US already have something like the most sq footage of housing per capita in the world amongst major countries?
We have lots of secondary and tertiary homes, parked empty RVs, vacant investment properties, and lots of floor space per occupant, empty spare bedrooms, dedicated social entertainment rooms that are only used for parties, etc.
This might be one of those things where the obvious bit (built more!) is both true, and reductively incomplete. We do have a sense that just building more housing in the presence of lots of liquid capital and easy credit seems to create a speculator market -- even down to retail investors. (e.g. The China real estate bubble bursting seems to be strong evidence that this can happen.)
We also have some evidence that building a single type of housing leads to another kind of speculator bubble (e.g. the subprime mortgage crisis of the early 2000s was proceeded by a massive wave of construction of primarily giant single family homes for example). Even if somebody was interesting in buying something smaller at that time, there wasn't inventory anyways - yet those smaller housing units were not where prices increased the most (note: I'm aware I'm not providing specific evidence of this, but if memory serves it's basically correct) yet they often saw large increases in rental prices.
So from those two examples we can likely say that a market that:
1. Speculation causes housing prices to rise, even when millions of units are being built.
2. Lack of diversity in housing construction can lead to both high prices for some types of stock and lack of availability for others.
So how can we solve this beyond the trivial "build more"?
I'm starting to believe a few things are needed for a healthier housing market:
* We need to limit housing speculation, or at least make it less interesting as an investment option. In South Korea, they've introduced various taxation schemes that limit the appeal of owning multiple properties after decades of housing speculation. The idea there is that housing does exist, but occupancy rates are lower than desired. The result seems to have been an explosion in new housing starts with entire districts in Seoul being razed and rebuilt.
* We also need to find ways to ensure diversity in housing. Now that interest rates have gone up and single family homes seemed to have softened as a market, it seems that developers are concentrating on building "luxury" units of various other types. It's a good start, but if these units are still outpricing need, then they'll sit empty or end up speculated on. Many areas have dealt with this by mandating a certain amount of "affordable" housing, but that has turned into a joke in these areas.
There needs to be other ways for developers to build lower budget units, perhaps tax incentives, or changing zoning to allow for more types of housing.
Here's an example of the problem: The D.C. Metro recently added an entire new line to the system intended to connect the major international airport into the city. The areas around the new stations along the line have all been subject of new rezoning plans, higher density, urban fabric, etc. However, the construction that's happening along that line, while adding tens of thousands of new housing units, is almost all "luxury" (e.g. high price). One of the areas along the line is among the largest reurbanization projects on the planet (Tysons), and Reston/Herndon could grow into a contiguous "city" as large as many other "name recognized" cities in the U.S. like Providence, or Salt Lake City. Average housing unit prices in that area have been rising double digit percent per year (quarter over quarter) with the average home price (not just single family, but condos, town homes, etc.) is at around $700k USD. People who bought in this region even just a few years ago would be unable to afford their own homes today given pricing and interest rates.
So we see another example of "build more" and even "build more types" but aren't being met with "limit speculation" and "build more diversity" - and even in the presence of harder to get credit, the prices are spiraling.
I think you might be missing the point of the poster. While building more might in the reduce housing stress in the next few decades, rapid building for the sake of feeding the investor market is pouring gas on the fire.
This is where discussing the housing problem becomes challenging. Half of us want to burn the whole system down and take housing back to the basic human need it is, while the other half want to work with the system we have.
Multi-faceted and interrelated: a lot of housing would become a less attractive investment vehicle if near-substitutes were more plentiful. An overseas investor buying a Vancouver condo assumes that the asset will have high resale value (in addition to its use value as, e.g., a rental or airbnb). But in a saner world, housing would depreciate in value over time in proportion to its use and maintenance, like other durable goods.
Exactly! And important to recognize the interest groups behind preventing progress on each.
Fixing the issue has been stymied for too long by each pointing at the others and saying "They're the real problem!" to justify inaction / rolling back fixes on their pet interest.
Uh, it's not strange at all to expect a single cause when a system fails. Rather, there's often a chain of failure but with one thing at the head. You can look at how a car breaks down - you go from a single belt failing to a damage spread around.
Your list can be easily sorted this way (Notably, foreign nationals with money are just an instance of asset price inflation, in no way an instance of "nuance" or something).
I see the chain of causation thus - a flood of printed money has increased the value of all capital assets (some of that money appears as the money of foreigners and some of domestic investors, some as hedge funds, etc). Housing has been a focus and areas with restricted supply are where the money has been most attracted (it's spread more and more as the scale increases - a key point of the gp).
The issue is always lack of building. Higher interest rates just mask the problem and hand more money to rich people for no effort.
The problem is that the private housing production system responds to increased credit availability only at the margins and does not over produce. That’s largely because houses are still hand built and not really substitutable like a vehicle. You don’t generally have a choice of two houses on the same site.
However if you produce houses publicly then you can force private housing to compete outside the margins. At which point you get excess supply, as we see with cars and then house prices start to stabilise and even depreciate. At which point the “investment” hoards would start to liquidate.
We need the housing market to behave like the production car market, not the classic car market.
The fix is public policy producing housing in order to force a situation of excess supply.
Ireland are a complete outlier, as the government incentivised itself not to deliver on housing as a result of IMF/Troika bullying. It set up National Asset Management Agency in 2009 to clean the property crash related debts from the balance sheets of the main Irish banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Asset_Management_Agen...
As per the usual government mouthpieces, it was a roaring success -
"NAMA's overall contribution of €10.5 billion to the State, comprising its projected surplus €4.9 billion and recoupment of the €5.6 billion of state aid it paid to the participating institutions, represents a significant outperformance relative to expectations at inception in late 2009"
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0306/1436280-nama-ibrc...
Sadly it has resulted in arguably the worst housing crisis in the EU. 68 per cent of people aged between 25-29 in Ireland still live at home. This figure is nearly 26 per cent higher than the EU average of 42.1.
NAMA is not in any way responsible for the housing crisis. Its purpose was not ever to fund or incentivize homebuilding and in any case, if I think back a decade, to a point where NAMA had been in operation for five years, there was no housing crisis. Neither NAMA nor the Troika ever discouraged housebuilding. Even if it had been a policy of theirs, there wouldn't have been any need: a sizeable proportion of the building companies here went bust after the 2008 crash and their employees had to emigrate or retrain. Furthermore, none of the local banks were in the financial position (or the mood) to fund property development.
The Irish housing crisis has very simply and abruptly come about because of the massive growth in population that has occurred here over the last nine or ten years. Due to the catastrophic implosion that occurred in the indigenous building industry after 2008, speedily ramping homebuilding up to a level that can keep pace with inward migration is essentially impossible.
We may eventually be able to build fifty thousand dwellings a year, but the shortages will persist until then. There are other factors that exacerbate the problem, most notably our sclerotic planning system, but the fundamental issue is the hollowing out of the private construction sector that occurred at the start of the last decade.
At least in our city, another big thing that seems to be tied to cheap credit is the rise of house flipping. Fueled by cheap interest rates and low capital gains taxes, it's easy for a decently capitalized speculator to buy up older houses, do quick, cursory updates to the interior modeling, and then put them back on the market again at a significant markup.
This is a quadruple whammy for people who just want somewhere to live. It means people who only have budget for an older home need to be hasty with purchases so they can get ahead of the speculators. It directly reduces the supply of homes by extending the period in which they aren't occupied. It reduces the supply of more affordable housing by quickly converting it all into more expensive housing. And it robs people who might want to fix up their own home of the opportunity to choose their own decor.
It's not actually front running, but it still feels like a similar kind of problem.
> Total number of dwellings per thousand inhabitants, 2022 and 2011
The issue here is that demand shifts regionally over time. Dwelling units in Detroit don't satisfy demand in San Francisco. The result is that you continually have to increase supply in the places demand currently is. To keep prices flat, the number of units per thousand inhabitants has to increase over time, because the number of empty units in areas that have fallen out of demand will increase, but the high prices you're trying to avoid will be somewhere else.
> By definition, only investment properties can be underutilised - owner occupied homes are occupied!
This is also not true. You can have e.g. a 3-bedroom home with one occupant, even if the occupant is the owner. You can also certainly have underutilized land -- any single family home in an area where there is demand for more housing but zoning prevents it from being constructed on that piece of land. Because then you have that acre of land providing housing for one family when it could have been two or twenty.
> global asset price inflation driven by a broken financial system (i.e. a system being artificially pumped up with cheap credit).
This can only happen when supply is artificially constrained. If it cost $200,000 to add a housing unit and suddenly everyone can get a bigger loan than before, the instantaneous effect would be for housing prices to increase -- but once they're above the construction cost, construction occurs until they no longer are, i.e. until they fall back below $200,000.
At that point cheap credit might cause people to buy bigger houses, or use the loan money to buy things other than housing, but long-term you can't get the price of the same housing unit to increase above the cost of creating more of them, or supply would just increase until it fell back to that cost.
What you can do is increase the cost of creating supply, e.g. by restricting where it can be done, so that the cost of doing it goes up and with it the price of a given housing unit. Which is what has happened.
> Dwelling units in Detroit don't satisfy demand in San Francisco.
They do help though. Individuals need to realize they can’t afford to live in a place like California and have to give up that luxury if they want more affordable housing arrangements.
It’s a multitude of factors - limited supply in certain (most?) markets, “cheap money”, supply chain factors with certain common building materials, “corporate owned homes”.
One thing that has definitely not helped is hostile building codes that prevent density. In some cities in the US, building height is constrained by the nearest single family home. Then there’s the parking minimums for buildings that allocate more space for parking than for building space for people.
In Austin, TX (USA), you frequently see buildings with massive amounts of multilayered parking but a smaller fraction of the building used for residential or commercial space. Some “clever” developers have tried to disguise the parking structures as part of the building itself to hide this fact from public view.
Problem with America is that we think this is 1950 and we can scale by building more deadass suburbs, expensive regional highways, and further strain our limited pool of resources (water, sewage, electrical infra) to support suburban living without any consequences.
> Problem with America is that we think this is 1950 and we can scale by building more deadass suburbs, expensive regional highways, and further strain our limited pool of resources (water, sewage, electrical infra) to support suburban living without any consequences.
That doesn’t explain why it’s so hard and expensive to build things. We built those suburbs in the first place when we were much less rich as an economy. Indeed, we built all the water and sewage and electrical infrastructure all over the place too.
I recently visited a Baltic state and was impressed with a refurbished Soviet style brutalist building used as a hotel/ long term stay. It definitely seemed like a good solution.
While it is a multitude of factors, a bunch of those factors could be solved in an instant with a simple new regulation: a cap on how many homes a single entity/person can own, with steep taxes applied to every home above that cap. This would flood the market with homes as investors and corporate landlords moved to unload inventory and the prices would fall drastically. One could even have a cap that lowers over a long period of time to avoid shocking the market too hard with stock and keep current homeowners relatively stable, but ultimately, we can't keep letting corporations and wealthy people lock up perfectly usable housing behind private property nonsense. It's literally killing people.
Ultimately, these empty homes are investments and sometimes investments fail, and if they're big enough sometimes those failed investments cause people to lose a lot more than what they invested. That's literally the definition of investment risk. We can't keep doing status quo with this shit while the market continues to sail further and further out of reach of all the people who actually need what it's selling.
Yes, at one time it was estimated that roughly 1/3 of Vancouver’s condo supply was vacant. So the city implemented an empty homes tax [0] and promptly raised $115,000,000 in tax revenue [1].
However, the tax is still far too low and it contains various loopholes that allows developers to hold condos empty for years until deep-pocketed buyers show up [2].
Vancouver isn’t unique. Housing is being traded like poker chips everywhere, often but not always by ultra-wealthy foreign nationals with zero regard for the local consequences.
Vancouver has obscene housing prices because the city and the politically connected spend tens of thousands of hours fighting against any new housing, and any new supply. Just look at what happened when the Squamish Nation decided they were going to build high rises on the land they were given: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/14/canadian-indigeneous-na...
The entire city and all of the NIMBYs cried about their "neighborhood character" and tried every legal trick they could to block the development: threatening to not connect it to utilities.
Vancouver literally has single family homes within half a mile of downtown! Clearly there is room for growth.
3% vacancy tax producing $115M in revenue indicates roughly $3.8B in empty housing stock. Average condo prices in the CoV are roughly $2.1M, and so we can conclude there is likely around, or a little less than, 2000 empty condos hit by this tax.
That's not 1/3 of Vancouver's condo supply. Not by a long shot.
> Empty Homes Tax has reduced Vancouver's number of vacant homes by 36%
> After five years of the EHT being in effect, the total number of vacant properties within Vancouver has fallen to 1,398 homes or 36% fewer properties compared to 2017, when the tax regime first launched.
The statement about 36% is a relative percentage, not absolute percentage points. What happened is that ~2184 homes were vacant in 2017, and fell by 36% to 1398 in 2022.
It's saying that of the homes that were originally vacant, there is 36% less of that now. It is not saying that of all homes that exist, the vacancy rate decreased by 36%.
1. People have mortgages with very low interest rates. If they sell the home, they give up that cheap mortgage for a much higher mortgage interest rate with the next home. So, they stay.
2. The capital gains tax exemption of $500,000 has not risen with inflation. Selling your appreciated home will result in a large tax bill. It makes sense to sit in the home until you die, then it gets a basis boost when transferred to the heirs.
> 1. People have mortgages with very low interest rates. If they sell the home, they give up that cheap mortgage for a much higher mortgage interest rate with the next home. So, they stay.
This may be true only in the US. In Canada, for example, the maximum term a mortgage rate is fixed for is 5 years, after which you have to "renew" your mortgage and renegotiate the rate. So a lot of people are already being forced into higher interest mortgages here.
With regard to (1), I would have to agree, though I think this is only the case in the US?
For (2), absolutely. Tax advantages play their part (adding to investment demand relative to other investment options). Is it not also the case that interest payments on a residential mortgage are tax deductible in the US?
And they have below-expected dwellings per 1,000 residents. The "Total number of dwellings per thousand inhabitants, 2022 and 2011" suggests there are potential supply problems.
> This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.
I hear this argument a lot and always wonder if the causal direction is flipped: people use housing as an investment because it’s scarce, not that it’s scarce because it’s used as an investment. If there weren’t so many restrictions on building, the supply would grow to meet the demand and parking your money in property wouldn’t be such a hot idea.
Tbf many of those restrictions are there for good city planning reasons - and important to keeping a city livable and not outgrowing its infrastructure. But the cost of enforcing those is quite often a ridiculously bogged-down planning department that often takes months or a year to process applications and revisions, significantly inflating the risk and thus costs of construction, and relegating it to big firms that can handle all of the legalese and scheduling turmoil.
Now, why dont governments better fund those departments and emphasize faster throughput? Well, let's ask their main constituents - who are largely homeowners and companies in the industry - whether they'd like to dedicate more taxes to a service that would speed up construction and drop their housing prices.
Ya, and housing used as an investment doesn’t need schools or any real infrastructure, so we could basically build them anywhere. Planning is only needed if people are going to live in them.
People able to buy lots of properties as investment won't allow an increased supply as it ruins their investment. Restrictions on building is just a service one can buy.
Lack of building can play a part but even the interests that want housing as investment naturally want to limit supply.
The main thing is that the US has been printing dollars for several decades - primarily to deal with or prevent periodic financial crises. Ben Bernacke's "Helicopter Dollars" speech was infamous but nothing has changed but the (increasing) scale (and, yes, all the central banks of the developed world are doing it too).
Effectively, the modern order has come to involve an endless hand-out to those who already have money while "market discipline" prevails against those who don't. Of course, this has long term problems aside from its immorality.
>Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
Do they all have zoning, urban planning requirements, and restrictions on what landowners can do with their property? Yes?
This isn't a complicated issue, this is 100% a self inflicted "problem" that can be solved with the stroke of a pen.
Pro-tip: abolish all restrictions on what landowners can build in the property. No licensing requirements, no filings, no nothing.
The sum total requirement for someone to build something anywhere should be them asking themselves "do I have permission from the landowner to do this?" And getting to work.
That's not a winning formula at all. When my neighbor's DIY grow farm in a shed burns down, the fire spreads and affects me. When my neighbor decides to open a diesel engine repair business, the noise and fumes affect me. Most people don't want that.
Where I am there’s been a huge increase in houses being bought for cash by equity hedge funds, like 25% of houses going on the market. Nearby Kushner bought hundreds of houses in Baltimore. The impact of this is that house prices soared because no one can compete against a multi-billion-dollar company to buy a house, which artificially pushes up prices.
Secondly, I’ve done a lot of engagement with policy makers and builders and you are not going to get affordable housing being built if you relax zoning laws (which I’m in favor of across the whole city). Instead, what is supposed to happen is that the older properties become less attractive and hence their prices (or rent) are supposed to fall. That’s the theory anyhow. Anyway, the builders all say there is no financial incentive for them to build affordable housing, they make so much more on luxury buildings. You’ll only get it if the local government does it themselves and most in America are reluctant to get involved (it’s why they like saying 15% of a complex should be ‘affordable’ because they don’t have to do anything about it, the builders do, and it’s too small an impact to fix the issue).
> Anyway, the builders all say there is no financial incentive for them to build affordable housing, they make so much more on luxury buildings.
This is only really a problem insofar as building luxury homes reduces the throughput of new supply because they take longer to build than affordable housing. In terms of overall market effect, as long as you're not allowing places to sit empty, it doesn't particularly matter if you're adding new homes at the top or the bottom of the market.
> Where I am there’s been a huge increase in houses being bought for cash by equity hedge funds, like 25% of houses going on the market.
Is this increase in absolute number of sales, or increase in the percentage? Because, if the house affordability due to high interest rates goes down, one of the only buyers with money that remain are hedge funds. So, in the past you had 1000 homes selling per year, 100 of those going to hedge funds, now you have 400 total sales, with 100 going to hedge funds. The relative percentage of houses bought by hedge funds increases from 10% to 25%, even though the absolute number remains flat.
It's true that the current large developers will never meet the need for affordable housing, but that's where small local developers can fill in assuming zoning and regulation allows them to. All of the small projects that are profitable but too tiny to justify the time of large developers can be picked up by small, local developers who have a vested interest in incrementally improving a place.
All those countries killed their manufacturing and offshored it over the last 40 years. Factories and manufacturing meant good jobs located far away from major cities, and towns/communities built up around those jobs.
Now all the jobs are located in large cities so housing prices there are going through the roof. If you are young you almost have to move to a major city if you want to start your career. Meanwhile there are "ghost cities" and other dwindling towns where you can buy a house for pennies.
> look at the numbers for each of the countries I mentioned in the first chart
The number is irrelevant - people want to live in desirable areas where's there are jobs, and are constrained as such. Rebuilding high density in towns and cities is an issue, as well as maintaining decent services ( hospitals, roads, public transport, post office etc).
You say that houses are being treated as investments, that's why these crises happen; but then why are building materials and tradespeople also at sky-high prices (in Ireland)? Is it all competition on investment building?
> why are building materials and tradespeople also at sky-high prices (in Ireland)?
Similar issue in NZ. Cost of building materials was getting extreme. There's an argument to be made that these are linked to profitability of building and so increased during the speculative boom. Helped along by the fact that many suppliers are monopolies. Cost of building materials has however started falling considerably since the property market crashed here. Likewise the cost of labour and building quotes overall.
The price of a home in an area is strongly related to the aggregate income divided by the total number of housing units. Even if the numerator is significantly affected by the artificial credit pumping you mention, that does not mean changing the denominator wouldn't help.
In Swedish big cities, prices are also ridiculously high despite investment in properties being much harder than in Australia or the US due to some strict rules regarding renting out. I live here now but lived in Australia before. Prices in Stockholm are more or less on par with Perth or Brisbane I think (i.e. crazy, but not at the completely off-the-charts Sydney prices, at least... when I lived in Sydney like 20 years ago I remember you already needed half-a-million to get just an average house... today it's like well over a million to get anything at all).
Can confirm that as interest rates went up, people just can't afford the enormous loans anymore and prices of houses (and apartments to a lesser extent as they're a bit cheaper overall) fell, up to 20% at the worst, I believe. But as soon as interest rates are expected to go down, prices already shoot up again (even while interests are still high as people and banks estimate how much they may expect to spend in the near future).
Unfortunately Perth and Brisbane have climbed a great deal closer to Sydney now. The gap in terms of cost to buy or rent is narrowing, at current rates we're looking at the gap closing entirely in the next 5-10 years.
Immigration. It's not that immigrants buy up the houses (opposites, we tend to live cramped up in flat shares). It's that they support landlords profits (with cream on top of not knowing your rights) and have overall pressure on market.
Building should at least match immigration/population growth.
Also not building dense enough. Kiwis always tout "I wouldn't wanna live in a house without a backyard" - well I don't wanna rent forever either. Given choice of no housing and shitty housing I choose shitty housing.
I think people have the causality the wrong way around, the immigration is to prop up the economy. Price is set at the margins and even relatively small amounts of new immigration keeps pushing the margins up. Any successful attempts to fix the housing market, by reducing immigration or any other means, will implode the Ponzi economy. Absolutely no politician is going going to do that - you might as well hand them a grenade at ask them to pull the pin.
It's my view that this implosion will happen, just later, with less control and with more devastation.
The underappreciated problem with immigration is that it allows advanced economies to cover up issues that make raising kids difficult. A shrinking population crashes the housing market. A growing population powered by immigration rather than birth rate props up the housing market.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build...
Why wouldn't they? They are relatively similar countries in many ways, any problem that one has could easily be replicated in others. For example I imagine zoning laws are all somewhat similar, favoring suburbs and strictly zoned areas vs market driven mixed use areas.
I also suspect they all have significant migration, high labor costs and high building standards.
I agree. Inflating the money supply (for example, via cheap credit policies) distorts the economy and creates malinvestment. Unadulterated consumer demand is eclipsed by the artificial demand created by the newly created money. The new money isn't distributed uniformly and immediately in an economy. It starts out somewhere. So, in this case, one of the distortions is in the housing market.
Working people are perfectly willing to purchase homes they can afford. In fact, it is safe to assume that it is one of their top priorities. If affordable housing isn't being created, something is amiss. See above!
I think it is a question about the area of central locations grows much slower than the amount of people who wants to live in a central location.
Dubai is expanding like there is no tomorrow, and the price of down town and marina just keeps increasing, regardless of how many new high rise areas the emirate undertakes.
China has hundreds of literally empty cities, yet people are being priced out of living in Beijing.
The question is not about a lack of new buildings, or under utilization of current buildings but simply you cannot built _dense_ enough to follow demand.
The empty cities are interesting. People don’t want to live there because there are no jobs and no services. There are no jobs or services because there are no people. Sounds like an opportunity for the government to step in and create employment, e.g. move a big military contractor there to “bootstrap” the city.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build
Yes, everybody does. The population exploded everywhere, and rent-seekers enriching themselves out of land price increases popped out everywhere. All at about the same time.
Other strategies to discourage the usage of properties as investment have existed at various times ... Things like squatters rights laws have been deployed for this purpose in some parts of the world at various times (Netherlands for example had quite large movements where the youth would occupy empty homes owned by rich investors in order to take advantage of favorable (to the squatters) laws -- which discouraged folks from sitting on unoccupied investment properties home at least at some historical points in time
> In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price inflation driven by a broken financial system (i.e. a system being artificially pumped up with cheap credit).
Maybe? 2008 happened. At that point, there was a policy choice: allow a deflationary collapse, or prevent it. If we allowed it, there would be a lot of ruined businesses and ruined people. There would have been a lot of people who lost their houses. Instead, we chose to prevent the collapse, and we wound up here, where people can't afford houses. That's almost the same place, except that 1) the numbers are higher, and 2) it happened gradually rather than in a shock. That is, people didn't lose their existing houses, but new families can't buy their first homes.
So is this better or worse? My impression is that, for all the problems, it's still better than a collapse in 2008 would have been. But given the situation in 2008, some damage was inevitable. This amount of damage 16 years later is actually pretty good, considering.
I agree that there's more than one factor, but not building enough is absolutely a major one. There's tons of data to back this up.
Another one is the hyper-concentration of high paying jobs and other opportunities in a small number of cities.
There's always been a power law distribution for cities and opportunity with larger cities tending to win out, but since roughly 2000 it seems like it's greatly intensified. I've asked this question to many older people and have looked up some stats and both back up the sense that this has gotten significantly worse in the last 2-3 decades.
In the USA if you are not in one of maybe six cities you are second-tier, and it's much harder to find high paying and upwardly mobile jobs. The very top tier cities of SF Bay, NYC, Seattle, and LA are of course fantastically expensive.
Telework helps a bit but generally you still have to do time in one of those cities to establish yourself enough to get good high-paying telework jobs. Telework is often a senior-level thing or something you need a strong network to land.
I agree higher rates are likely to help with prices, and that low rates drove asset price inflation, and purchases of non-primary residences, as well as rental properties, but I also think there's also an element of nobody being willing to stomach a loss leaving supply constrained. And it seems like maybe that can only be loosed by more supply coming from somewhere, while in the meantime, it means prices only get higher.
One thing that's surprised me is that I'd expected this situation to lead to building being relatively cheap compared to buying. But land + labor + materials price increases seem to have left building less competitive in most areas meaning new supply can't actually undercut the market much, if at all. Or seemingly won't. It really feels like there's nothing that can give at the moment, like it's some kind of doom loop.
IMO the main issue are zoning laws and urbanization. You can find lots of articles about rural areas, small villages elsentially dieing out, while large cities just (try) to grow larger.
Also there is a shift from people living in families to living single or just with one person which is more inefficient and requires more space.
We're definitely in some kind of next stage of urbanization where people are moving into the big cities even from smaller ones. It's very noticeable in the former Soviet states, but I believe it also happens elsewhere.
I've been looking at getting a house built, and that starts at about €200k*, but the land in Berlin is at least another €200k on top of that (and usually more).
If I was willing to live in the back end of nowhere, I can get the land for almost nothing, halving the total cost.
But then I'd be living in the back end of nowhere, and turning that into an interesting town (let alone city) would need some very expensive infrastructure to be built, just to support that many residents.
Make the infrastructure cheap, and you can build New Towns.
Most of the developed world seems to struggle with infrastructure during my lifetime, be it major roads, railways, sewage, electricity networks, or anything else.
* list price €100k but that's a cheat as it's the outer shell only, no plumbing or interior plastering
I think a lot of it is this. A lot of our grandparents literally built their own houses, and while that's probably easier than ever nowadays, it doesn't solve the infrastructure problem. I won't save much money doing that if getting a road / electricity / water / Internet / sewer to the property will cost as much as (or more than) the house itself.
IMO it's yet another network effect caused by fewer people being willing to work in these kinds of fields, and a decreasing birth rate. Infrastructure inherently requires maintenance, so as it increases, so does the amount of people required to maintain it. Yet we have fewer and fewer people to do it, so adding new stuff just becomes unreasonably expensive.
RE "problem is caused by a lack of building" In my opinion there needs to be more houses built so the vacancy rate rises from the present extremely low ( round 1%) to the long term average of around 3% house vacancy rate. This 3% vacancy rate is recognized as a fair equilibrium between renters and property owners. Furthermore such a rate helps stop property owners raising rents as much , as happened in recent years. This is in Australia, do not know about other countries. Alos with record low interest rates, my opinion is lots people over commixed to loans, without proper consideration if they could afford the loan when interest rates rise to the long term average of around 7%
The worlds population has doubled since 1974. In every country listed the rate of new building construction has stayed roughly constant or declined since then. You can explain this phenomenon with an Econ 101 supply and demand curve without need for any further elaboration.
That's contradicted by the provided OECD link that shows that in many countries the housing stock per capita has stayed the same or slightly increased since 2011. Yet prices continue to increase.
do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland?
Yes they do. This is exactly the problem. Specifically in big cities. Zoning and nimby-ism holds back building. Even Toronto which builds a lot doesn’t build enough housing units to keep up with growth. And they only build as much as they do because the province is constantly overruling the city.
Every western major city is blocking building on any meaningful scale. This leaves cities at effectively net 0 increase in supply. In major US cities, new builds are more expensive to own due to changing property taxes. And California is just a huge F U to young people by making new owners have to pay higher taxes than the old ones.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
Yes! Yes they all do! None of them are producing housing at anywhere near the rate required.
The statistics are skewed because the demand varies a lot between different regions .e.g there are towns in Italy selling houses for $1 (well sort off...) that doesn't mean that housing is affordable in Milan or other major cities. Same Applies to US, Canada, Ireland etc.
Prices are increasing for a few reasons, some you named and others I think you underweighted:
1. Asset price inflation generally
2. Population growth (incl. immigration)
3. A lack of building (housing stock is inflexible, e.g.: if we need more two beds, then no number of 1 beds or 4+ beds is sufficient, really).
4. We are changing our ways of living (see 3), that’s partly social norms and partly demographic
5. Working from home changed the market. If the economic hub of your country is priced well above the national average excl. the hub, then WFH will see prices move towards the average incl. the hub, if not higher.
NZ is maybe a poor example, as we do not have capital gains taxes on houses (or most things), and do tax foreign investments (via a ~1.5% annual wealth tax, so house flipping is tax-free money)
This is true, but I wouldn't underestimate the tax advantages property investment has relative to other investments in many countries.
Take Australia for example. People in NZ often say a CGT won't help because AU has one and it doesn't seem to make a difference. What they forget is that there is 50% discount on CGT there, so the relative advantage of property investment remains. Also negative gearing.
In the US I believe there are two obvious advantages given to residential property investment - 30 year fixed mortgages and tax deductions on interest payments.
I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to guess that all of those countries I mentioned earlier have different reasons for residential property investment being favoured relative to more productive investments.
> Housing is just where the rubber hits the road and regular lives are directly affected.
The reason why we didn't see rampant consumer product inflation in the wave of irresponsible money-printing meant to soften the 2008 crisis was that the stimulus targeted at the wealthy and went into assets, such as the housing you just mentioned. However, COVID-19 stimulus checks were given to normal people, so inflation now hits normal people's daily purchases.
> This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.
Not in London - according to a pressure group saying there are too many houses used as non-primary-residence [0] - they claim just 1 in 45 houses are either airbnb, second homes, or empty, and half of those are second homes (i.e. someone with a small flat in the city and their main house in the country)
On top of that you have the hidden demand. A typical 3 bed house will house 4 or 5 30yo adults in a HMO because there simply isn't enough housing.
Lower rates means House prices are higher sure, but that's because the monthly cost will always rise to meet what's affordable. If supply outweighed demand then prices would fall.
It is primarily restrictive zoning. When Auckland up-zoned there was a clear relative decrease in prices. You can also see it in the massive price discontinuity on the city’s rural-urban boundary.
It’s a pretty simple problem: existing owners have an interest in restricting new supply, and there aren’t many costs associated with being a nimby. Housing stops being a good investment when supply is responsive.
Refreshing to see other voices out there who get it, thanks for posting. The financialization of housing and guarantee of an increasing asset price allowed global wealth to pile into purchasing as much real estate as they can.
Not only does the pump of money increase housing purchases (it's a short against the currency), but unstable currencies also cause real estate to go up as wealth looks for safety.
>Cheap credit causes an increase in demand. This is not demand for homes but additional 'artificial' demand for properties as investments. Think short term rentals, second homes, land banked properties, etc. By definition, only investment properties can be underutilised - owner occupied homes are occupied! So in an environment that encourages property investment you will see more underutilisation.
An important nitpick: cheap credit intensifies the search for returns. You need to consider why those races end in real estate. In the US, at least, the answer is that the American single family house is the single most privileged asset class in the history of the world. The entire economy assumes that housing prices will grow at a rate that outpaces inflation. You cannot, in that system, be a person who calmly watches to evaluate the correctness of the hypothesis.
No, you shut up and push. Whether you're the President or the Fed or some affordable housing commission, you shut up and push for housing as an appreciating asset.
That's comingling a few things, because a lot of the privileges around holding a home as an asset don't extend to investment properties. E.g. the easy availability of competitive mortgages and individual tax breaks.
Personally, I think we should lean into that -- make single family homes completely unattractive as an investment.
Rental units are more debatable, because of the density argument, but I think we should probably disincentize it as an asset class too. In favor of offering townhomes for sale.
Half of my city and many other cities around my country were built during the communist 70s and 80s... and then we stopped building and maybe built 5, 6 apartment buildings in the last 30 years.
Then urbanization came, centralization, everyone wants to live in a city.. but we're not building more housing.
We can look around europe.. how many apartment projects were done in the 70s and 80s, and how many are being built now.... we built whole new neighbourhoods back then, and now we have 4 people sharing a two bedroom apartment.
While I agree building housing is a symptom, and not the core problem. But I'm skeptical that increasing building or density would actually lower housing costs. If that were true, high dense cities like Beijing, Tokyo, Singapore, or Hong Kong would have much lower cost housing.
Housing more people in a concentrated area creates more demand for services, which creates more demand for housing which jacks up prices. Packing 1,000 people into an apartment build creates extremely high demand for plumbing, house cleaning etc, services, which jack up housing prices. But if cities were low-density with commerce centers decenteralized across many neighbhorhoods or towns, you don't create location demand hotspots (e.g. cities) that jack up prices.
Property taxes and interest rates are a forcing function to keep unoccupied properties in check, as long as the appreciation doesn't dramatically exceed the risks of being a LL. For Tier 1-3 markets in the USA, you can't cash flow properties as rent is drastically lags property ownership costs.
Your argument about increasing demand for services isn't convincing. Since there are more people in the area, should supply be higher as well, balancing prices?
It seems more likely that costs are higher in cities because there are valuable opportunities for skilled people who demand high salaries, simultaneously encouraging dense living to maximize access and increasing cost of living through the Baumol effect. High prices causing density, not the other way around.
I don't think looking at density is sufficient enough, what matters if total supply can keep up with demand. Hong Kong and Singapore are very dense, they have to be to sufficiently house the population, but it's still not enough.
> But I'm skeptical that increasing building or density would actually lower housing costs. If that were true, high dense cities like Beijing, Tokyo, Singapore, or Hong Kong would have much lower cost housing.
Increasing building and increasing density are different things. Singapore and Hong Kong are dense because they have a very limited geographic area to build in. You can’t point to their density and conclude that adding housing doesn’t help lower housing costs. They would be even more expensive if they weren’t so dense.
> In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price inflation driven by a broken financial system (i.e. a system being artificially pumped up with cheap credit).
I've been crowing on this since the 2008 crash. The cycle is this:
1. A person has a job, but can't afford things
2. They get credit to buy the things they want, in lieu of demanding better pay
3. Everyone does this, so demand goes up and prices go up
4. The value of their dollar goes down
5. Go to 1.
Consumer credit has _broken_ money. Broken it. We've seen this in housing prices and student loans, and now that we have online checkout buttons that say "you can have this for $17/mo!", we're starting to see it in stock-and-trade consumer goods even more now.
We have to -- have to -- eliminate consumer credit if we ever want to give people a fair shake at maintaining the value of their money and purchasing things. Otherwise, prices will be determined by people who are dumbest with their money.
Speaking of Canada; here the problem is the unwillingness to build, coupled with rampant immigration, fueling a real-estate bubble that is compounded by speculators (foreign and domestic). Cheap money throughout the 2000's didn't help either.
I've been told that immigration isn't a driver for the housing problems in the USA though, interestingly.
Higher interest rates and/or regulations against excessive (however that is defined) ownership. Any regulation should focus on the bigger players as a priority.
The person with the second vacation home isn't a priority but the fund with hundreds or thousands (or 10s of thousands as is the case in the US) should be a focus.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build
Of course. Remember, homebuilding continues to be incredibly labour intensive. Meanwhile, all of those countries have enjoyed "full employment" for many, many years. Which means that workers have all kinds of job options.
In other words, you can't build without people. Ask yourself, why would the people choose construction? Wouldn't sitting at a comfy desk programming computers all day be more desirable? The small few who enjoy it can’t keep up.
Do you work in construction as a career? If no, why not? What would it take to get you to start building houses? Higher compensation than other jobs, perhaps? But guess what high compensation brings...
> Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.
When properties are being used as an investment, they are rented out. If that's true, it should show up as higher rental vacancy rate and low/stagnant rent. That's not the case in Vancouver, BC as we have low vacancy rate and rising rent.
Homes could be left as left empty as well, but we have multiple annual taxes, ranging from 0.5% to 3% of the total property value targeting these underutilized home, and that hasn't driven price down. In additions, these taxes essentially provide an one-time only increase in the number of homes available. They can be easily absorbed by population growth.
With the population increase in Canada, building more is the only way out.
> By definition, only investment properties can be underutilised - owner occupied homes are occupied!
I think this part is what kills the anti-investment argument. If we hypothetically got rid of all the property investors we’d have only owner-occupied units. So then where do you find a vacant house when you want to move out of your folks’ place? Everyone has to find land, buy it, and build? (I won’t even get into the fact that single family homes aren’t really a sustainable use of land)
As long as there are enough vacant units investors will lower rent enough to fill them to an equilibrium. Nobody makes money on apartment buildings that are 50% empty.
Let’s not forget that low financing rates allows companies like homebuilders to build homes and subdivisions on credit that are intended to be owner-occupied. These developments are never intended to be rentals.
I think it’s a little funky that, especially in the US, nobody really had a problem with apartment buildings being apartments until landlords started owning single family homes. Now everyone has pitchforks over it and want to ban investors from owning homes - which seems kind of insane when you think about how cities with skyscrapers work. It would make condo and apartment buildings impossible. There’s nothing different about a single family home compared to an apartment besides form factor.
The thing that all those countries have in common is low supply in the tradespeople. Those are all countries where you’re better off learning to do a desk job rather than working for a construction company. In addition, a bunch of home builders went bust in 2008 in the United States.
In the case of Canada and the US they also have some horrible bad habits when it comes to city planning. Single family home building causes the growth Ponzi scheme raising the cost of city services per capita and pushes affordable housing crazy far from the city center and strains single occupant car highway infrastructure. You’ve got to own one car per person in the US in Canada in addition to your mortgage. Then load up student loans on top of that.
> What will cause prices to fall is higher interest rates. This is what has been happening in NZ.
I hope so. But this assumes a fair market. I believe the NZ market will be pumped up through government action in order to avoid paper losses for property investors, landlords, and also for regular family property owners' unrealised gains.
Case in point: reinstating full interest deductions for residential property, reducing the tax investors pay. A $2.5b kickback to landlords. 60 per cent deduction in 2023/24, rising to 80 per cent in 2024/25 and 100 per cent in 2025/26.
It's basically this. Because there's a finite supply of land in desirable areas, home ownership is an investment, unlike renting. Same as how I got "priced out" of owning 1/10000th of Apple Inc.
IMO takes like this are problematic. The problem is not enough building. That's it. All the other stuff you said is just noise that confuses people into believing this is some hyper-complicated modern-financial-system problem that's going to end the world due to its intractability. Its not any of that. Its just not enough building.
There are problems which feed into there not being enough building; the biggest one is definitely that property represents a major portion of Americans' investment portfolios, and thus our democratic system is filled with people (and companies) (and their representatives) who are heavily biased toward any decision that will raise property values. But its not that low building causes this; its just NIMBYism. This causes low building; it causes weird municipal rules about density; it causes expensive permitting; etc.
People also say "well, there's not enough land in the place people want to live so of course house prices are insane". Also bullshit. The "place people want to live" changes and expands all the time. Exurbs that were forests 15 years ago are now extremely hot. Why? BECAUSE WE BUILT. That's it. That's all it takes. Build housing. Build parks and sidewalks. Allow cool businesses to open.
Everyone, including and especially local governments, has made this so freakin complicated when its seriously not. Its freakin MBA prediction brain all over again. They're so afraid they don't understand the full problem, or the implications of their decision, that they refuse to act (build) and instead blame the lack of action (building) on intractably large problems like "interest rates" or "blackrock".
It IS more complicated than that. It's not easy to build within a 1 hour commute of a dense population center. All that land is owned, built, and called for. Calling it "overpopulation" could be fair.
A parallel problem is immigration and, as the top comment pointed out, cheap credit encouraging vacancy.
Not enough building, and also the inequality in ownership of land and houses. May be tax every third or later house owned higher and plug loopholes that allow you to own an extra house under trust or other structure to rent.
But where will this end for a lot of investors (which in Canada seems like a lot of the influential population) ?
It posits that the high prices are caused by rich people parking their money in houses. It explains many problems with a few variables.
While it's not the whole picture, it explains why the middle class is getting squeezed out of house ownership. And why stimulus package didn't much help.
It's more likely a correction on interest rates combined with lack of supply. It will even out, it's not a failure of the system. If more houses are build then value gets diluted, private capital can't keep buying up all the "extra" supply. Rates will also need to drop and more people can buy, as people include "that payment is more than I can afford" every bit as much as "this house costs $X"
In the US, it's a combination of lack of building, increased materials costs, and (in places like California) government policies that block new construction.
Note that Trump's tariffs on Canadian lumber increased the cost of new construction by 20% over a period of a few months (the article mentions the cost of materials, but not the root cause, which was this tariff, and some climate disasters, like when the Texas storms took out 20% of global PVC production for a year or so). Biden has been aggressively increasing tariffs, so they are both directly to blame.
The interest rate spike and high inflation were predicted by pretty much all economists when Trump decided to needlessly keep rates low during his first term, so blaming Biden never made much sense to me
Anyway, lots of studies have been done looking for root causes for homelessness and unaffordable housing. Every theory I've heard (drugs, mental health, nice weather for tent encampments, joblessness, etc, etc) has been shot down by such studies except the idea that if you have fewer houses per capita, then you will have more homeless people and more expensive houses.
Assuming global financial stuff changed radically but we didn't build more houses, where would these people with lots of money in the bank live, exactly? Also, wouldn't that cause the price of housing to increase (increased demand, constrained supply, and inflation from the increased money supply)?
The graph you cite says the US has 0.4 houses per person. That means that, on average, we don't have enough houses for people that are single, couples without a live-in kid, or single parents.
It goes on to say that 7% of US houses are vacant, but that wouldn't make up the gap. Also, many houses in the US are vacant because there are in places where the economy has dried up, and there aren't adequate utilities, schools, groceries, etc. Even if those houses were somehow renovated, many people would still be better off financially if they chose to live on the street instead of in those places.
Most buyers would require mortgage or another kind of loan. For a loan holder, the question is monthly payment, not price. Higher interest means higher payments, thus negating the decrease in prices. Of course, for cash buyers high interest rates are good, but I suspect people worrying aboug being priced out of the market aren't cash buyers.
> What will cause prices to fall is higher interest rates. This is what has been happening in NZ.
Then again, with higher interest rates, the lower prices don't mean anything unless they drop significantly faster than interest rates are raising, yes?
Check out the Speculative Vacancy Reports (https://www.prosper.org.au/speculative-vacancy-reports/) to shed some interesting light on that. It is for the Melbourne market only, but their methodology of relying on water usage to determine occupancy reveals some interesting results.
I have a feeling that those hoping to wait it out in the hopes of a return to low rates might be caught out this time around.
The past few decades (coinciding with the property price boom) have been all about ever decreasing interest rates. What is happening now looks a lot like a paradigm shift. I wouldn't bet on rates falling substantially anytime soon.
How do people even think of these things? You're not a computer. You have the ability to intuit when people are not talking about some stupid edge case that literally never happens.
Lack of available dwellings is currently a huge problem here in Australia - the building industry is collapsing due to cost blowouts and most available builders are snapped up by a vastly more lucrative mining industry.
>Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
This is found to be true by Blackstone, who frequently notes that shortages and low increases in new supply are fundamental to their strategy of buying and building housing for rent: https://x.com/RikAdamski/status/1643477536695803904https://x.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1378737834824060931 "We could also be adversely affects by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates."
It's especially dumb because while as a whole rents are increasing in America, there are many desirable parts where it's not. Texas has decreasing rents despite an increasing population
I am not denying that the number of properties relative to people has an effect - but I am arguing that this is insufficient as an explanation for what has happened with regard to prices recently.
See my earlier comment regarding NZ. The number of homes per 1000 people changed very little between 2011 and 2022. At the same time prices went from NZD350k to NZD900k.
I think my suggestion that finance is the most significant factor here is a stronger argument than a supply shortage.
But you have to admit that no one could have guessed that increasing the money supply (ie: printing money) would have led to higher asset (including real estate) pricing.
This, and certainly no one has warned about this type of policy being inflationary by default. Granted, it is just a part of the equation, but not a small one by any means.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
In the UK, we have an issue with immigration that nobody wants to speak about. The birth rate in the UK is 1.49 in 2022 [1], meaning that housing demand should be going down. We build houses to last, and yet there is a massive shortage - why? In 2023 the ONS reported we had a net migration of 685k people [2], where 9% of the population do not have a British nationality at all.
The demand for housing in the UK (and related infrastructure) can be entirely explained by net migration. The reason the housing market is bubbling is because the demand is so insanely high. We need to build 340k houses a year to keep up with demand [3].
The fundamental issue in the UK is that we borrowed too much from the future, in terms of loans, but also pensions. They think that increasing the population dramatically will solve the problem, but it's actually destroying the UK. We are building on farmland, the infrastructure (water, gas, electric, roads, schools, etc, etc) is failing under the weight of the new housing. The interest on the debt owed [5] I believe is projected to exceed spending on the NHS (national healthcare system) by 2035.
The question we need to ask is whether large net migration is worth it, or whether we should largely reduce it. It seems clear to me that the UK is currently trying to grow too fast. It'll be a bitter pill to swallow, but at some point you need to deal with the spiralling situation.
> This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.
In NZ and many other Countries they put bans on foreign buyers exactly to stop this investment [4]. I know many, many professionals living in NZ that cannot afford to buy a home. They are all stuck renting, despite all earning in the top 25%.
UK has massively high house prices - at least in "desirable" areas, and some not so desirable ones where it's possible to commute to work in a desirable area.
That doesn't necessarily reflect a shortage, it also reflects availability of money - and therefore the market bearing higher prices. It also reflects the unevenness of the UK economy: the expensive and unaffordable housing is mostly in and around London (where ~all the economic activity is), and in the most scenic of rural areas which is retirees, second-home owners and AirBnB investors. There's plenty of the UK which has affordable housing, but it's too far from anywhere with decent jobs.
The boom in house prices began when it became the norm for educated women to have lifelong progessional careers. All of a sudden there was a huge amount more discretionary income in the educated class. If you consider that, circa 1970, perhaps 20-30% of one male earner's income went on housing and the rest on life's essentials, all of a sudden the potential amount of cash to spend on housing goes from 30% of one income to 130%, a more than 4x increase. It took a while to filter through, sure, but in the end, it has - to the point where most families are now obligated to have two full-time earners.
Housing is a positional good (think about an auction where demand of the most desirable items will always exceed supply), the prices bear almost no relation to rational economic utility and every relation to how much cost people are able to bear. Which is one reason they're so responsive to interest rates i.e. debt affordability.
A 1.49 birth rate and 685k net migration isn't a desirable situation for any country, but the other issue here is the health and productivity of our own population, we're using migrants to prop it up and provide much of the labour needed by the NHS, childcare and elderly care. Our government is massively anti-immigration, and yet immigration remains high, the country can't and won't go cold-turkey on that: it's not practical to do so without further increasing the retirement age, cutting pensions and increasing "sin taxes" to keep a greater proportion of the population healthy enough to work til 70. And that'd be even less popular, politically, than mass immigration.
The reforms the UK needs are to get the economy functioning better in the regions, and to make it much easier to build higher density housing close to where the jobs are. The current system where they can't build apartment blocks on train-station car parks because a bunch of pensioners complain that it spoils their view is massively counterproductive.
> In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price inflation driven by a broken financial system (i.e. a system being artificially pumped up with cheap credit). Housing is just where the rubber hits the road and regular lives are directly effected. Just look at the tight correlation between the increase in the money supply and property prices.
Prior to covid, the global economy was booming. US and UK had low unemployment rates. the US especially was remarkably doing well, with lowest unemployment rate for minority communities.
There is a price to pay for completely disregarding long-term economic costs of reckless responses to a what was a moderately severe flu epidemic. We went nuts and shut ourselves down. And on top of that, we helicopter dropped 4-6 trillion dollars of freshly printed cash.
And the reckless governance continues in the name of flaming conflicts in Europe and ME. A lot of what happened in the recent years is attributable to just atrocious governance.
Interest rates in Canada have doubled and were only seeing a trickle of investors selling. I do agree that we have way too much investment in finished real estate, which is only hurting consumers trying to get into a market. We've been a lot more strict with ownership transparency and clamping down on short term rentals, which is still too soon to see how significant the effects will be, but the big tldr here being that rates doubled and there's still not a high push to reduce prices (yet), so both sides of the market are holding out for better.
In December there was an expectation that the FED would do 7 interest rate reductions this year. Now we are down to 1 - maybe.
I think a lot of people in the market are still holding on with a strong expectation that the interest rates will go down.
Personally, I think high interest rate environments are better for most people - it compresses asset prices and adds more value to a salary. But it will take some years for that compressions to kick in again.
Coming from another angle, this might not be a "problem" when you consider the greater scheme of things.
Being able to obtain assets, when you don't have any is a relatively new thing, historically speaking. One could also say that we were living in a brave new world of opportunities and growth for a few centuries. And now we are returning to the historical norm. One thing that all the examples you listed is that they could be seen as "late game" economies.
I might be totally wrong, though. This is just another angle.
"Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
... a broken financial system."
You claim that these countries do not have the same system of building but they do have the same financial system. That is a large claim to make. You should try to offer at least some kind of argument for why you feel the variations in the financial systems are less significant than the variations in their systems of construction.
I try to explain the ills of interest rate intervention to people all the time and they act like I'm a conspiracy theorist. The problem will likely not get better.
>do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build
I don't know about the others, but we're building about 50% of what we need for Australia's population growth. Neo-liberalism has resulted in decades of de-funding of public education, which trains tradespeople, and now we have a shortage of tradespeople. And we're getting another tax cut in a few weeks so I guess that problem, plus all the others with same cause, is just going to get worse.
Yeah, too many people think supply/demand is all there is to prices, when that is just economics 101. What many people seem to not even know, is that the theory only holds true under competitive free market conditions and falls apart under captive/uncompetitive markets. Many also assume trade volume is necessarily representative of a supply shortage, when that isn't always the case, as " supply" and "supply for sale" are two different things.
But yeah, the root of the problem is because governments are subsidizing housing/costs, and the problem with subsidies, is that the money for them has to come from somewhere, meaning they come with a burden (ie cost) placed elsewhere.
In the US this is primarily done via the government backing mortgage debt. It creates a vicious circle where homeowners raise their prices, the Fed ensures the funds for the mortgages, and the buyer is on the hook for paying it.
This is also why college prices are high. The government offers student loans to help people afford college, but colleges see this and raise their prices to capture that additional funding, and the student ends up on the hook for paying the price. Rinse and repeat...
> What many people seem to not even know, is that the theory only holds true under competitive free market conditions and falls apart under captive/uncompetitive markets.
Why would the law of supply and demand fall apart under captive/uncompetitive markets? A captive or uncompetitive market may impact the quantity of a good or service available and/or the quantity of a good or service willing to be purchased at a given point in time, but that doesn't change the law.
> Many also assume trade volume is necessarily representative of a supply shortage, when that isn't always the case, as " supply" and "supply for sale" are two different things.
Huh? Supply is characterized by being "for sale". Of course, a shortage occurs when price is prevented from rising. Housing certainly doesn't have that problem. The so-called "housing shortage" is really an issue of latent demand – people desire homeownership but can't afford it.
> This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.
I've believed for a long time that heavily taxing income from second+ properties, similar to capital gains, would help reduce rent-seeker hoarding, to help free up and reduce the cost of properties for primary-residence owners.
Yes, any government that was serious about addressing this issue would take measures to decrease the incentives for property investment. Instead in most of the countries I mentioned property investment enjoys benefits that other forms of investment don't (tax, leverage, etc).
Personally, I think LVT would be the best approach.
How is this not a defacto transfer of wealth from renters to owners? Rental supply will go down due to reduced profits, and therefore ultimately rental prices as a whole will go up once a new equilibrium with fewer rentals is reached.
These sorts of suggestions generally seem hugely biased towards buyers at the expense of everyone else.
Thing is, rental buyers really only make out well because they can rent places for more than their purchase/mortgage equivalent. If supply were large enough, I'd think rental rates below the average monthly mortgage payment would be more widespread and tend to make rental property ownership less appealing.
Absolutely agree. Everyone else that replied seems to disagree probably because they are landlords. Which is fairly high in HN. Oh I'M not the problem it's someone / something else.
The reason "not building" is not the issue, is because even brand new homes are being scooped up in investments.
Raise property taxes for all non-occupied, airbnbs, and fuck even rentals, and while it might cause rentals to temporarily go up, housing prices will drop like a brick. Make it unreasonable to rent out a home. Heck make it unreasonable to own a second home unless you're Bill Gates.
Raise property taxes? Those are usually a rounding error in a rental P&L (and it’s tax deductible)
The only way I see out of this mess is to ban ownership of SFH by anyone other than…single families as primary owners. Corporations, foreign owners, secondary homes, etc.
But we need to address other issues too: zoning (make Houston’s approach nationwide) and construction costs.
First two make sense ... rentals is really complex. How long are you willing to hurt those with the least amount of money.
Maybe a home owners break, and a second weaker first rental/vacation home break would match the current approach (and dodge more of the individuals who'd kill the legislation for for your idea. Alternately, a discount for occupied properties.
I was initially thinking corporate owned rentals or anyone with more than 2 properties, but the above seems cleaner.
The solution is to make the property-as-an-investment a less lucrative perspective by occasionally sabotaging the property value of (but not the ability to safely live in) houses that are not being used to house people.
A few high profile jury nullifications would probably be sufficient, but we gotta be the rational economic agents that the theories think we are and work together on this.
1000%. I will never get tired of teaching people (it's news to every single one of them!) that at any given time, there are more than 20 empty housing units in the United States for every single homeless person on the street (https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/). There is not, nor has there ever been, anything resembling a "housing shortage". We live in a post-scarcity world as far as housing is concerned, and have for centuries. There is absolutely no barrier to housing every single human being beyond greed.
The entire framing of the issue as a false NIMBY/YIMBY dichotomy is a distraction from the reality that there is not and has never been a supply issue. The only issue is artificial demand from speculators who choose to withhold and deny a basic human right in the hope that it might magically raise in value for no reason instead of depreciate like every other asset.
I’m curious about how these empty homes are distributed? Take California for example, where there are 19 empty homes per homeless person according to the link provided. But where are these empty homes in California? If they are disproportionately located in areas far from employment opportunities, then this suggests that we still need to build more housing near employment centers. But if there are plenty of vacancies in areas close to job centers, then this is definitely something that needs to be looked into more closely.
> I will never get tired of teaching people (it's news to every single one of them!) that at any given time, there are more than 20 empty housing units in the United States for every single homeless person on the street
Are you suggesting we deport homeless people from cities with low vacancy rates, to cities with high vacancy rates?
> There is absolutely no barrier to housing every single human being beyond greed.
I suspect your answer to the question above will reveal a barrier.
This is simply not correct once you account for the fact that people do not like to be uprooted from the communities they're part of. We are simply not in a post-scarcity situation for housing, and YIMBYism is essentially correct.
Homelessness is the most visible sign of a much larger systemic problem. For example, it's quite likely that many homes today are overcrowded, and people don't have as much space to live as they desire. This is bad! Not as bad as homelessness, but depending on the specifics still quite bad. The good news is that building vertically permits more private space per person, so we don't just have to accept things getting worse.
Your statement aggregates across cities with different job opportunities and economic outputs. You need to look at specific cities with housing problems, and ask whether building more houses in that specific city would alleviate housing shortages.
If this was true you should be able to build a new house for much less than the asking price for existing houses but unfortunately that is not the case either.
Are you ”teaching” that because some 2% of housing units are empty we don’t have a shortage? Because I don’t think any of economy, capitalist or not can reasonably obtain 100% use of any resource. 98% is pretty dang efficient and I think is actually a counterpoint to what you’re trying to argue.
It does seem like we run the risk that if we expand building, especially low cost, nearly turn key rentals, that all the excess supply will be mopped up by corporate landlords like Blackerock etc. it’s a twofold advantage to prop up value of existing property portfolio, and rents have been high for so long with so much demand they may be a good return on capital over a very long term.
To counter this may be impossible; there are limits to how small you can build a SFH, and there is only so much land commuting distance from job centers.
Condos and apartments are generally a very bad investment, have huge disadvantages of high fees and lack of green space, so are a poor substitute. It’s sometimes better than renting, but it can swing wildly based on build quality of building, the maintenance, and competence of the board — very hard to evaluate or hedge against versus a SFH where you have autonomy. And in the US we rarely build family focused condos — so few have playrooms or playgrounds or 3 bed room units (outside NYC)
> In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price inflation driven by a broken financial system (i.e. a system being artificially pumped up with cheap credit).
Spot on. You're not alone. For a more thorough and clinical review of how we're f'ed and why see Lyn Alden's "Broken Money".
To your point, ppl are fond to talk about the economy. That's a distraction. It's a false god. Fact: the economic system and the sociopolitical system both side on a foundation. That foundation is the financial system. Full stop.
I live in Portugal and here the situation is outright ridiculous.
1. There are a ridiculous amount of abandoned properties, when I walk the streets of major cities, sometimes more than half of the buildings even in expensive areas are boarded-up.
2. Meanwhile I am afraid of being homeless soon, I lost my job recently, and the unemployment benefit I can receive is literally half of my rent. Thing is, there is no "worse but cheaper" place to move to. I already live in a "0" apartment, with the "0" referring to the number of rooms. The apartment is literally just an empty square with kitchen sink and bathroom stuff. I don't even have my workstation anymore because literally there is no physical place for it inside the apartment.
People are like: "Build more homes". Yet the amount of abandoned properties (by the way, this also include abandoned farmland! Government is upset that there are tons of that, and the result is land with zero management, with wildfires, poachers, drug traffickers...) is greater than the number of families needing.
I'm sorry to recommend you that, but i have experience with homelessness. You have two temporary solutions:
- join a group of squatters (hopefully you already know someone) until you get your bearings. The less ideological ones often squat old industrial properties, or long-abandoned houses (its rough in winter, but in Portugal you should be fine). You might meet some Urbex guys, they're nice and always fine with finding squatters.
- Live in a "big enough" car. You absolutely need to rest on a completely flat surface. I knew someone who got the back seats down and put a wooden plank on it. If you're less than 1.80 and don't move on your sleep, you have a lot of choice (the diagonal is nice), else it might be a bit more expensive.
A very short-term solution is squatting with a close friend, but you shouldn't abuse it too much, it strains relationships.
I recently kayaked a stretch of the Tennessee River, between state parks, and within an hour of paddling I passed both a homeless riverside "tent city" [technically "public camping" on TWRA/state land] and then the most-expensive house for sale in our entire metro area (just around the same peninsula).
These inholdings, both impoverished and not, were each having their respective parties (cheap beer in common) along the lakeside. Titties abounded - "howdy neighbor" - the no-betterness of being "commoners, enjoying this day upon the lake."
Interestingly, the poverty beach camp seemed to be having more fun; but obviously the multi-million $$$ homeowners are in much easier/better situations (likely).
I'm not sure if it's the case in your location, but sometimes foreign buyers come in and buy properties they don't expect to inhabit (unless something goes really bad in their country). Europe and the US have strong rule of law systems that prevent the state from just taking property. (The government charging you with a bogus criminal charge to justify taking their property in in their home country). It's also an asset that they can hold, even if it's not income generating, and even if it loses some value. (Because it's still better than most of the assets they have access to in their country). This is not always the case in every situation, but it's common. (Ed. as one person pointed out below, there is also a lot of money laundering that takes place. In that case, the property does not need to make any income).
Blaming foreigners is the trick local politicians love to use, but - at least in Portugal - very few properties are foreign-owned. Instead, people are reluctant to rent properties out in general. Real estate agents struggle to convince owners to put their properties on the market in a first place. Usually a family member dies or moves abroad and their relatives simply keep the place unoccupied. Often to convince them to rent out you have to play a match-making game: you have to know both lenders and prospective tenants for years and be a guarantor of their good character. The more contacts the two parties have in common the better. Portuguese society is very socially conservative, often connections matter a lot more than money, and rent market is one area of the economy where it is very noticeable.
To sidestep the whole "can we trust each other?" issue the owners may want to sell the property instead of dealing with tenants. Properties go to the market at inflated prices, because every house owner in the country hopes to sell to mythical "rich foreigners"* they hear so much on TV and online. Local buyers are essentially priced out of the market because the price-wage gap is simply too wide, one of the widest in the world. An average Portuguese family with two incomes can't afford a two-bedroom apartment even at a 30-year mortgage, even if we're talking about cities other than Lisbon or Porto.
So, properties stay listed for sale for years and years, owners do not maintain them in hopes of making a sale "soon", and buildings slowly degrade. Eventually owners realize they need to invest a lot of money to keep the house presentable, the money they usually don't have, and they start to lower the price way down. As a result, the market is split in two big distinct categories: something livable at exorbitant prices and places that need a lot of investment to even start living there. Like a GP comment said you can walk on a street and more than half of places are clearly unoccupied, with many of them slowly turning into ruins. If you want to describe a Portuguese urban landscape in one word the word would be "decay".
Meanwhile rent marked is under-served. All this is further worsened by the internal migration pressure. Lisbon, Porto and all towns on a narrow shore strip between the two are growing rapidly in past 30 years while the interior areas are getting deserted. Portuguese move to places where jobs are and developers can't meet the evergrowing demand.
*I recall I saw a stat that foreigner buyers account for only about 0.2% of sales each year.
Portugal had a golden visa program that granted citzenship if you bought real state of at least 500k EUR. That drove home prices up signficantly in Lisbon, specailly units in that price range.
Under new law, the Portuguese Golden Visa no longer provides Residency status through Real Estate investments.
I live on a sleepy street that's half dense housing and half single family homes. Density will likely take over more than half of the street some day because the city has been relegating more dense housing to the working class areas of the city, which is where I happen to live. [1]
Of those single family homes there is one that was owner-occupied for a year when we moved in. Since, it's been locked up and has had no renters. The couple that own it own several properties across my city, which I came to know as I got to know one of the owners while they lived here. It perplexes me, and the rest of our neighborhood, how someone can float a mortgage, much less an investment mortgage, without a renter. My owner-occupied mortgage costs me somewhere around $2600/m, I can't fathom paying two with one at a higher interest rate. Apparently this situation is common around my city.
On the other hand, and a bit non-sequitur, is two homes will likely become dense housing. They're foreclosures of properties that were inhabited by meth addicts. The whole property from the building to the soil will need to be removed for various reasons. At auction the properties were purchased for the average sale price of a home of that size that had no pre-existing issues. It won't be the kind of housing people need though, if I'm a betting man; my city has plenty of SROs (single room occupancy) but they're at the wrong price point. They're now called "lofts" and "studios" with a price tag to match. What will be lost is two 50+ year old homes, and likely the ability of our street to tolerate the traffic it was designed for as another issue is the city not investing in road-building and maintenance on our street.
> It perplexes me, and the rest of our neighborhood, how someone can float a mortgage, much less an investment mortgage, without a renter.
In the USA it is happening all the time because, surprisingly, landlords have little skin in the the game. LLC is the name of the game. Each investment property is "owned" by its own LLC that bares 100% of risks and liabilities associated with the property and shields the landlord from the creditors. The property is financed entirely through commercial loans from the banks or other lenders. If the property does not generate enough profits for the landlord they quietly take all the liquid assets out of the LLC and stop paying their loan and property taxes. It takes long time (often years) for banks and local governments to start legal proceedings against the said LLC. During this period of time the property is sitting there boarded up. Finally the LLC files chapter 7 -- liquidation and all its assets, close to zero at that time, are given to the creditors.
You may ask why the banks give loans to such high risk entities? First of all, if the property is bringing profits the loans are being paid of and it is the majority of the cases. Secondly, if the loan fails the banks do not have much skin in the game either. They slice and dice the loans and package them into "real estate investment vehicles". Then they sell the packages similarly to how they did it before the financial crisis of 2008. The terms and abbreviations are different now but the gist of it is still the same.
> how someone can float a mortgage, much less an investment mortgage, without a renter.
They probably have an owner-occupied residential mortgage that the bank (/note purchaser) hasn't called them on. Declaring that you're residing in one unit (either falsely or temporarily) seems to be a pretty popular technique for buying rental real estate. If the mortgage was taken out during the past two decades of ZIRP, then the rate is still fixed at something very low and most of that monthly payment they're "floating" is effectively just going towards the principle as a mandatory savings account.
> It perplexes me, and the rest of our neighborhood, how someone can float a mortgage, much less an investment mortgage, without a renter.
This may easier to explain than you might expect. Anecdotally, the people I know in a similar position own all those properties free and clear, there is no mortgage. Consequently, the carrying costs of that empty house are quite low and easily afforded. Also if the mortgage is very old. I know someone with a single-family home in Silicon Valley they don't live in with a mortgage of ~$1000 per month; you can imagine how low the property tax bill must be.
While I am sure there are people with several rental properties mortgaged to the hilt, I don't think it is that common.
I think the answer to your perplexity lies somewhere buried here:
> The couple that own it own several properties across my city
Without knowing which city you’re talking about I can assure you this is rather common.
The moment a property becomes just one out of many (assets) in your portfolio your necessity to let becomes a mere annoyance.
Many of the housing market imperfections could be at play here, but it certainly doesn’t help that renters are increasingly unable to afford to become first time buyers.
>and likely the ability of our street to tolerate the traffic it was designed for as another issue is the city not investing in road-building and maintenance on our street.
To be fair, the vast majority of cities need to be investing in non-car transit more than auto infrastructure. Yes, probably even Portland.
Instead of squatting people been sharing rent. In one infamous case a house that was shared between 20+ people burned down and killed 2 and sent 14 to hospital.
The empty properties are they owned or rented? If they are rented, are the tenants paying rent but just not using them? If they are owned, are the owners people who just used them for passive investment and don't rent them out?
Otherwise I don't understand how rents can be so high?
If there are places owned that aren't in use then the political solution seems pretty easy: tax property ownership massively when unused. Make unannounced visits to properties to see if the owners claim of having a property that's lived in is true.
I don't understand. Does Portugal not allow squatting? How can there be vacant land that no one wants? Surely someone would just go squat and make money living off of it.
Portugal has started offering financial incentives for restoring properties, but I'm surprised this is a factor in Major cities, which ones do you see this? Is it also an issue in Lisbon?
Lisbon is where the issue is the worst of all. When I had a job, I had to choose the office where I would work. I deliberately avoided the Lisbon office because I knew there was no realistic chance I would find a place to live there with my family with Portuguese wages.
The problem is lack of supply vs demand. In 2022,England and Wales:
- built 254000 homes[0]
- had 745,000 people immigrate (net)[1]
- had 600000 people turn 21[2]
- had 577160 people die[3]
If you gain a load of people, far more than you increased dwellings for, prices will go up and dwelling size will go down. It's not particularly complicated.
My point elsewhere in this thread is a that demand is not entirely a function of demand for homes (what I would call 'natural' demand). Finance and tax incentives play a large part too - encouraging demand for investment properties that are often not used as homes (what I would call 'artificial' demand).
This is not to say that addressing supply through more building is not helpful, just that there are other things to consider that may not require as much effort and can have broader economic benefits (e.g. changes to the tax system to encourage productive rather than unproductive investment, credit guidance, etc).
> demand for investment properties that are often not used as homes
Could you elaborate? How often is "often" in the context of the whole country?
> This is not to say that addressing supply through more building is not helpful, just that there are other things to consider that may not require as much effort and can have broader economic benefits (e.g. changes to the tax system to encourage productive rather than unproductive investment, credit guidance, etc).
If the UK is gaining enough people to require multiple cities the size of Oxford to be built each year to accommodate them, it would be surprising to find that the main issue is people are replacing houses with other buildings.
I think that's part of it - houses are chopped up into two flats, or are registered as HMO[0]s, so more people are living in the same space. That's what I meant by "dwelling size will go down", above. This also drives up prices, as two flats will sell for more than one house would've, given the current lack of supply.
Both are band aids for the real problem. Housing can't both be an investment and a basic need. You need to pick one or find an opinionated middle ground.
If housing is an investment, then remove all protections and open up the supply. No height regulations, no minum parking regulations, no mandatory HOAs. No moratoriams or legal protections when loans default.
If housing is a need, then regulate it like a limited resource. Ration it on the lower end. Ban hoarding (vacancies, empty plots). Limited access to repeat consumers.
When the powerful talk about "finding balance", they usually mean having their cake (earn like an investment) and eat it too (protected like a need).
IMO, Georgism strikes the best opinionated middleground of housing as an investment vs housing as a need. Grounding taxation in land's economic value regulates hoarding. Grounding the value of land in its economic outcomes makes it a transparent investment, rather than the cartelized asset that it is today.
I'm personally opposed to too-much-regulation. It always ends up being a tool for the powerful. Rent control, Prop 13, affordable housing, stacks-of-paperwork and similar regulations always do more harm than good.
How is restricting supply not a problem? The fewer houses there are to buy, the higher prices will get, because there are more people competing for less.
Im ok with people owning multiple homes. I might not want to buy something in a place where I’ll live for 1 year. Or many other reasons to not want to own.
HOWEVER, make it an inconvenience to have the place sit empty. No tax because they’ll just raise rent to cover the offset, but make it a law or just very bureaucratic and people will either choose to rent it out or sell it to someone that will use it.
If all second home owners were forced to sell, that'd still only add 500k properties, and it would displace in other ways seeing as many of those are used as holiday lets. Given the Gov reckons 500k is the number of households needed to be built per year is 500k it'd be helpful but not a panacea.
People buying multiple hones is a blessing - it makes building home cheaper (economy of scale) the problem is obly in the tweasted reality of abosolutly rampant regulation, the only problem is government and local regulation if you artificially restrict supply you don't have enough homes.
Why is the problem always rich people? They're going to do what they're going to do.
The poors need to hold themselves accountable and stop working for unsustainable wages that can't get them even a small, run-down home. They continue to drive their own wages further and further down and make it that much harder for those that come after them.
It's ridiculous that they expect other people to sacrifice when they won't sacrifice (unionize, strike, or just opt out) to make the world a better, more equal place.
The wealthy will always try to squeeze everything out of the lower classes. If you accept unsustainable wages for your labor, you are part of the problem in devaluing labor (ie you are traffic). The working classes need to hold themselves accountable for the exploitation of their labor.
Exactly. It's insane how there are "landlords" (companies or even hedge funds) with dozens of flats in Airbnb in Spanish cities.
All the people and companies with some money in this country are buying those flats to rent them to tourists, and it's the most lucrative business someone can have as the expenses are minimum in comparison to the earnings.
If they taxed heavily having more than 10 homes they weren't whole neighbourhoods of tourists in our cities, and those who born there would have some opportunity to rent or buy something there, instead of having to having really far and losing most direct social relations they had
Inequality is another issue. Even with enough homes, if they are all owned by minority of the population who extract rents from the rest the situation remains pretty dire.
My (UK) house is worth 3x the total rebuild value my mortgage provider wanted me to insure it for. This implies the land it’s built on (and the planning permission to build the house) is worth twice what the structure is worth.
In desired areas land is about 80% of the house price, that's why if you add zoning you obly get exyremely expansive single family houses where you could get cheat multi family high rises
I bought in 2022, and while it was new construction, it's a pretty mid-range house. No premium finishes, in a growing but small city northwest of Houston.
If you told me 10 years ago how much I paid for it, I'd ask what the name of my butler is.
Indeed. My home "value" has roughly doubled in the last five years.
Sounds nice, but land/home values in the area I'd like to move to has nearly tripled in the same timespan.
I feel bad for renters priced out of the market, but many of us who have "enjoyed" the upside are actually deeply underwater relative to our preferences, to say nothing of the doubling of insurance premiums, and ~25% property tax hikes in the last five years.
Property tax shouldn’t be going up with this tbh. If everyone’s housing and land is becoming more expensive, then you need to tax smaller %s to get the same budget.
To me this sounds like your city/state is just ballooning their budgets.
I bought in 2021, a massive place but a complete refurbishment project.
I am not done. I have no more money and no more willpower to invest more into this. I totally regret the purchase.
To efficiently live in cities, many large public works have historically been completed, for example:
- Cities across the world built thorough sewage systems, preventing the need for private citizens to empty their litter buckets out the window – a large river in Chicago was even reversed!
- Cities across the world built mass transit networks, enabling citizens to move around efficiently without relying solely on private vehicles.
- Cities across the world should build affordable housing networks, as Vienna did. This way, citizens don't have to fall victim to the exploitation of speculators and distortions of the supposedly fair market.
Public affordable housing is a necessary infrastructure, just like sewers and transit, to create livable cities for all residents.
If you’re renting, you would stop spending such a large part of your income in rent.
If you’re a resident that already owns their home, and has absolutely no unfulfilled housing needs, you will benefit from a more prosperous society with less people struggling and more equality - and that’s a positive on its own right.
(along with its positive knock-on effects)
In fact, it’s the very goal this measure aims to achieve.
The UK made renting property a lot less lucrative a few years ago. Something about the tax position of letting mortgaged property. That meant landlords sold their houses - which I believe was broadly the point - and thus there are fewer places to rent and the cost of renting has increased to the new point of stability.
I think this probably has decreased house prices to some extent, but people are really insanely reluctant to sell a house for less than they bought it for so lots will wait for years before accepting the change.
It's probably good times to be buying an ex-rental to live in and getting better as mortgage rates fall.
A similar thing has happened in France, where the government has restricted the rental of less energy efficient dwellings[0]. This is generally a good thing for the environment, but it has already had an effect on rental prices as those apartments are now taken off the market.
The exact impact is a little hard to work out, because, at least in Paris, it's also coincided with apartment owners wanting to hold on to empty apartments to rent them for the Olympics rather than to locals.
That's also happened in the UK at the same time, but it's actually very difficult to bring many of the UK's pre-1930s households up to the minimum level without gutting the property and having it vacant for a period.
Something about the tax position of letting mortgaged property.
EDIT: I had misremembered. Landlords can still get a tax deduction for mortgage interest, but only at the 20% rate, not at their marginal tax rate. For most landlords with mortgages, this probably halves the tax credit.
In the UK, if a private landlord receives £1000 in rent, and pays £800 in mortgage interest, they pay tax on the whole £1000, not just on the money they made.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides:
A) Why should a landlord be able to deduct mortgage interest from their income, for tax purposes, when owner-occupiers cannot?
B) Why should a landlord be unable to deduct business expenses from revenue before calculating taxable profit, when all other businesses can?
> Why should a landlord be unable to deduct business expenses from revenue before calculating taxable profit, when all other businesses can?
I think you nailed it. This is effectively the government saying "renting is not a business".
Think about it. The ability to "deduct expenses" is one of the characteristics of businesses. Individuals also can't deduct rent, food etc from their taxes.
Wouldn't a reasonable resolution to the conflict between A and B be to instead allow owner-occupiers to deduct mortgage interest from their income for tax purposes?
Rents have been climbing for the same steady rate they have for years now. Shrinking supply meets increasing demand.
Nothing about that has changed recently.
The recent reforms did swap out some landlords for homeowners. It didnt undo the war on affordable housing it just prevented landlords from profiting as much from it.
Which is a good thing, even if some media outlets owned by landlords do like to pretend that euthanizing the buy to let landlord is bad renters.
> I think this probably has decreased house prices to some extent, but people are really insanely reluctant to sell a house for less than they bought it for
If a mortgage is recourse, and your home price has fallen enough - yeah, you have a pretty big reason not to sell.
Especially if your alternative is to pay more monthly for a worse rental (often the case).
First of all, agreed that housing prices are insane, even two-income households struggle to buy in my city.
But taking a more long-term view, in the US the owner-occupied housing rate about 65%, which has not changed a ton in the last 50-60 years (high was 69% in 2005 and low was 63% in 1965). Granted the market has changed a lot, we have much bigger houses, and more two-income families to pay for those more expensive houses.
Worth keeping in mind that the typical measure of the home ownership rate is really a measure of the proportion of people living in a home with the owner. So a 25 year old living with parents counts towards and not against this. Likewise anyone else sharing the house (boarders, etc). I suspect that the number of people in this situation has increased in the past couple of decades due to housing affordability.
Not only has the owner-occupied rate stayed near constant, but that rate itself is an average of all income levels. If one just looks at the rate of homeownership among those making more than the median income (family/individual) ~$74K for a family (~55K individual), that number jumps up to 79%.
Given that this number doesn't take preferences into account, I think it's pretty reasonable that almost everyone (>80%) making at least the average (median) salary owns their home.
Readit News
Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price inflation driven by a broken financial system (i.e. a system being artificially pumped up with cheap credit). Housing is just where the rubber hits the road and regular lives are directly effected. Just look at the tight correlation between the increase in the money supply and property prices.
For those who insist that the number of properties is inadequate, take a look at the numbers for each of the countries I mentioned in the first chart here: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-cons... (Total number of dwellings per thousand inhabitants, 2022 and 2011).
This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.
Cheap credit causes an increase in demand. This is not demand for homes but additional 'artificial' demand for properties as investments. Think short term rentals, second homes, land banked properties, etc. By definition, only investment properties can be underutilised - owner occupied homes are occupied! So in an environment that encourages property investment you will see more underutilisation.
What will cause prices to fall is higher interest rates. This is what has been happening in NZ.
Sort of? See eg https://www.ft.com/content/dca3f034-bfe8-4f21-bcdc-2b274053f... for some graphs that show Europe vs anglophone countries in an obvious way. Obviously there are lots of differences between the countries, eg the specifics of their planning systems and economies. The US is different because of the big diversity of local governments – housing is more affordable lots of people outside of desirable cities, and places like Austin and Houston do build lots of homes and that seems to be a possible reason they haven’t grown like prices in California.
Credit costs have followed similar trends everywhere (obviously there are differences, especially in the US) and yet house prices have not followed similar trends but rather behaved differently in different places. I agree that when interest rates are lower you should expect to see higher prices, but that’s because interest rates change the price that a given income can afford. I don’t think interest rates are good at explaining the changes to affordability over time, or why affordability is different in different places.
Also, in your linked chart, you see something like 20% more dwellings per person in developed EU countries vs English-speaking countries, which doesn’t feel like no difference at all.
The issue in the article of affordability becoming worse across the US recently is probably interest rate related – prices change more slowly than interest rates, 30-year fixed rate mortgages mean rates change more slowly, and the higher rates mean existing mortgage-payers don’t want to move as they’ll lose their low rate, which reduces supply. I don’t know why prices are still up though – if interest rates being high was making housing unaffordable, one would expect prices to be down.
Housing is still extremely expensive in most major European cities relative to income. e.g. Milan, Lisbon, London, Rome, Munich are significantly more expensive than San Francisco or San Jose (e.g. Milan is more than 2x more expansive) if you're earning the median income.
It's not like most people in some European countries chose to live in rented cramped apartments they simple have no choice because they can't afford anything else.
> you see something like 20% more dwellings per person in developed EU countries vs
It's not clear how much of that is because of lower (or negative) population growth. e.g. Italy has one of the highest dwellings per person ratios and there are towns/villages which are basically giving away houses for free Milan is still relatively the most(?) expensive city in Europe and housing in other major cities is still less affordable than pretty much anywhere in the US.
I think you have to be careful with the definition of "unaffordable".
Housing, at this moment, is unaffordable in the sense that the cost of housing squeezes many people's discretionary budget, savings, and even sometimes the budget for necessities. It is not unaffordable in the sense that (most) people do have enough money that they can pay for it, even though paying for it might cause them hardship elsewhere.
Housing is an inelastic good - particularly for demographics who have limited access to transportation and therefore need to live very close to where the jobs are. The price increases until it consumes all the money available to pay for it.
I was attempting to highlight the change in numbers for those countries I mentioned and how they are clearly inadequate when trying to explain the change in prices over the same time.
In NZ there was little change from 2011 to 2022 but median house price went from NZD350k to NZD900k.
I agree with regard to demand being different in various locations within a country, but those localised demand differences would have had to shift pretty dramatically over the same ten year period to explain much I imagine.
We printed ~25% of all money in existence since 2020 so that obv means more diluted money chasing scarce housing (applies to everyone worldwide)
High real estate prices might be the new norm :(
This is counterintuitive, but also persistent across high-interest rate environments. I asked my mom what the housing market was like in 1980, when rates went up to ~20%, and she said "Prices were basically stable, but nobody was selling houses." Similarly, if you look at historical data, you'll notice that home prices usually remain flat during recessions but don't really go down. Even in really bad recessions (eg. the Bay Area from 1989-1994, which got hit with the triple whammy of interest rates going up to 10%, a tech bubble bust in the workstation & AI market, and the crash in defense spending after the end of the cold war), you might see at most a 10% decline.
The reason comes from a fundamental asymmetry in the housing market: everybody needs a place to live, but most home sellers do not need money. If they fail to sell, they can take the place off the market and continue living in it, or rent it out, or just leave it vacant in hopes of better market conditions next year. So the negotiating leverage usually lies with sellers in the housing market.
When rates go up, affordability goes down, but sellers are usually unwilling to take a multi-hundred-K$ hit. So they don't. They rent it out, they live in it, or they hold onto it. It's usually worth taking a few thousand dollar hit in property taxes to avoid a $100K hit in home value. Liquidity dries up - instead of prices going down, inventory disappears. We're seeing that now, and the older generation saw it in 1980 and 1990.
To make prices actually go down substantively, you need those forced sales, where owners want/need to get out at any price. This could take the form of a foreclosure/bankruptcy crisis like in 2008, where the owners legally lose possession of the house, and the banks need to sell at any price to avoid bankruptcy themselves. Or it could be rising crime, like what happened to Detroit & the Rust Belt after the 1970s or SF in 2020. But many things that you would think would destroy home prices don't actually - New Orleans did not see a significant decline after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and Silicon Valley did not see one after the dot-com bust in 2000.
One other thing to note is that when prices in a region decline, it's almost always because nobody wants to live there. This is actually rather intuitive - if rates and affordability go down but people still want to live there nobody will sell, while if people are forced to sell but others still want to live there you will still have competition among bidders and prices will go up. But it means that there's no magic bullet: "affordable" housing means that home prices stay stable while incomes rise, and if you can't get your income to rise, you are just screwed.
Here in Canada, the desirable places to live all have relatively low vacancy rates for residential housing, and have for quite some time. Ie, it's rare to see cities with vacancy rates for apartments exceeding 3%, let alone a healthy 5%.[0] The CMHC estimates that by 2030 we will need 3.5M additional homes beyond the expected number to be produced.[1] The PBO has come up with similar numbers; roughly speaking, Canada needs to complete a new home every 50 seconds just to maintain current price levels.
There's much gnashing of teeth up here over our housing crisis, and it's clear to me that it's a multi-factor concern[2]. While there simply exists much more demand than the supply can service, the reasons for low supply are many and complicated. There are the obvious zoning and infrastructure issues; we don't build for mid and high density nearly enough, and we rely too heavily on cars. There's the labour supply issue the politicians focus on. But most unnerving, to me, is the suggestion that we simply do not have the capacity to produce or source the raw materials necessary in construction.
0: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=341001...
1: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/blog/2023/estimating-how-much-ho...
2: https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/the-great-rebuild-seven-wa...
Is it that there isn’t enough housing period, in the entire country. Or is it is people and investments abandoning rural areas in favor of a handful of city neighborhoods?
I’m also curious if those vacancy rates can be / have incentive to be gamed by the homeowners, or otherwise don’t paint a very accurate picture. I lived in a wealthy part of NYC for a while, and my apartment faced a courtyard on the interior of the block. As a result, I could see into the windows of 100s of apartments of 3 adjacent buildings. Only maybe like 5 out of 100s of apartments consistently had someone living in them. This reflects my feeling on the street: the streets were empty, especially given the relative density of the apartment buildings.
I know this is anecdotal evidence, but everyone I know that lives in NYC has the same observation.
I wish scientists and experts would take these concerns seriously and research by this gap in perception and the reported vacancy rate is so different.
Consider a city of 10 million people vs 1,000 small towns of 10k people. The variability for demand in those small towns is higher and vacancy rates can’t drop below zero. So some towns hit 0 while others might be 20%. But in a city if some apartment complex is full people just go to the apartment down the street.
In my experience, people "intuitively" jump to basically every conclusion besides this one. "Greedy landlords" or "[favorite scapegoat] collusion" are intuitive conclusions which are far more common than supply and demand.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
Yes they do, to varying degrees. The Anglo land use regime is a disaster.
Population growth (which is mainly concentrated in relatively small number of areas) is not helping either.
e.g. in European countries which have comparable population growth to Ireland/UK like Norway, Sweden, Belgium real estate prices have been increasing at a similar pace.
It's always amusing that this implies back when housing was cheap, landlords weren't greedy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hyunsoorim/2024/05/20/here-are-...
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
This is something I've wondered, and I'm of the opinion there's two reasons that are rarely discussed. One is the great recession/sub-prime crisis, which, at least in the US, caused a collapse in housing construction - I'm not sure how much this is true for other countries. The other is the coming of age of millennials, leading to a "bump" of people in their 20-30s trying to get their first home - I'd expect this to apply to most of the countries listed.
Properties are made up of a building and a plot of land that it's attached to. Whilst we can nake more buildings, we can't make more land, so the land in a given location is by definition going to be in a permanent state of shortage. If more poeple want to live in that location OR (the main driver of this crisis) if more money is chasing the same fixed supply, then the prices rise. The land component is the part that has become more expensive recently, not the buildings.
crafting a "i owe you a house" and giving it to the investor while squatting the real estate seems much more efficient
We have lots of secondary and tertiary homes, parked empty RVs, vacant investment properties, and lots of floor space per occupant, empty spare bedrooms, dedicated social entertainment rooms that are only used for parties, etc.
This might be one of those things where the obvious bit (built more!) is both true, and reductively incomplete. We do have a sense that just building more housing in the presence of lots of liquid capital and easy credit seems to create a speculator market -- even down to retail investors. (e.g. The China real estate bubble bursting seems to be strong evidence that this can happen.)
We also have some evidence that building a single type of housing leads to another kind of speculator bubble (e.g. the subprime mortgage crisis of the early 2000s was proceeded by a massive wave of construction of primarily giant single family homes for example). Even if somebody was interesting in buying something smaller at that time, there wasn't inventory anyways - yet those smaller housing units were not where prices increased the most (note: I'm aware I'm not providing specific evidence of this, but if memory serves it's basically correct) yet they often saw large increases in rental prices.
So from those two examples we can likely say that a market that:
1. Speculation causes housing prices to rise, even when millions of units are being built.
2. Lack of diversity in housing construction can lead to both high prices for some types of stock and lack of availability for others.
So how can we solve this beyond the trivial "build more"?
I'm starting to believe a few things are needed for a healthier housing market:
* We need to limit housing speculation, or at least make it less interesting as an investment option. In South Korea, they've introduced various taxation schemes that limit the appeal of owning multiple properties after decades of housing speculation. The idea there is that housing does exist, but occupancy rates are lower than desired. The result seems to have been an explosion in new housing starts with entire districts in Seoul being razed and rebuilt.
* We also need to find ways to ensure diversity in housing. Now that interest rates have gone up and single family homes seemed to have softened as a market, it seems that developers are concentrating on building "luxury" units of various other types. It's a good start, but if these units are still outpricing need, then they'll sit empty or end up speculated on. Many areas have dealt with this by mandating a certain amount of "affordable" housing, but that has turned into a joke in these areas.
There needs to be other ways for developers to build lower budget units, perhaps tax incentives, or changing zoning to allow for more types of housing.
Here's an example of the problem: The D.C. Metro recently added an entire new line to the system intended to connect the major international airport into the city. The areas around the new stations along the line have all been subject of new rezoning plans, higher density, urban fabric, etc. However, the construction that's happening along that line, while adding tens of thousands of new housing units, is almost all "luxury" (e.g. high price). One of the areas along the line is among the largest reurbanization projects on the planet (Tysons), and Reston/Herndon could grow into a contiguous "city" as large as many other "name recognized" cities in the U.S. like Providence, or Salt Lake City. Average housing unit prices in that area have been rising double digit percent per year (quarter over quarter) with the average home price (not just single family, but condos, town homes, etc.) is at around $700k USD. People who bought in this region even just a few years ago would be unable to afford their own homes today given pricing and interest rates.
So we see another example of "build more" and even "build more types" but aren't being met with "limit speculation" and "build more diversity" - and even in the presence of harder to get credit, the prices are spiraling.
This is where discussing the housing problem becomes challenging. Half of us want to burn the whole system down and take housing back to the basic human need it is, while the other half want to work with the system we have.
Its tough
The problem is multi-faceted.
Is there asset price inflation due to cheap money? Yes.
Have foreign nationals been parking their cash in real estate in certain western countries? Yes.
Has restrictive zoning and NIMBY-ism reduced the incoming supply of new homes? Yes.
Multiple things can be true at the same time, all contributing to the current state of affairs.
Fixing the issue has been stymied for too long by each pointing at the others and saying "They're the real problem!" to justify inaction / rolling back fixes on their pet interest.
All need to be addressed.
Your list can be easily sorted this way (Notably, foreign nationals with money are just an instance of asset price inflation, in no way an instance of "nuance" or something).
I see the chain of causation thus - a flood of printed money has increased the value of all capital assets (some of that money appears as the money of foreigners and some of domestic investors, some as hedge funds, etc). Housing has been a focus and areas with restricted supply are where the money has been most attracted (it's spread more and more as the scale increases - a key point of the gp).
Is there any discussion in the scaling/proportion of a given facet when these get brought up?
The problem is that the private housing production system responds to increased credit availability only at the margins and does not over produce. That’s largely because houses are still hand built and not really substitutable like a vehicle. You don’t generally have a choice of two houses on the same site.
However if you produce houses publicly then you can force private housing to compete outside the margins. At which point you get excess supply, as we see with cars and then house prices start to stabilise and even depreciate. At which point the “investment” hoards would start to liquidate.
We need the housing market to behave like the production car market, not the classic car market.
The fix is public policy producing housing in order to force a situation of excess supply.
So... we should have paid builders to build more houses during the pandemic?
This is why NY is cheaper than the midwest.
What higher interest rates? We're nowhere near high interest rates.
You cannot realistically build enough so that the rents decrease.
And when you build you just fuel the vicious cycle of people -> opportunities -> people.
As per the usual government mouthpieces, it was a roaring success -
"NAMA's overall contribution of €10.5 billion to the State, comprising its projected surplus €4.9 billion and recoupment of the €5.6 billion of state aid it paid to the participating institutions, represents a significant outperformance relative to expectations at inception in late 2009" https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0306/1436280-nama-ibrc...
Sadly it has resulted in arguably the worst housing crisis in the EU. 68 per cent of people aged between 25-29 in Ireland still live at home. This figure is nearly 26 per cent higher than the EU average of 42.1.
The Irish housing crisis has very simply and abruptly come about because of the massive growth in population that has occurred here over the last nine or ten years. Due to the catastrophic implosion that occurred in the indigenous building industry after 2008, speedily ramping homebuilding up to a level that can keep pace with inward migration is essentially impossible.
We may eventually be able to build fifty thousand dwellings a year, but the shortages will persist until then. There are other factors that exacerbate the problem, most notably our sclerotic planning system, but the fundamental issue is the hollowing out of the private construction sector that occurred at the start of the last decade.
This is a quadruple whammy for people who just want somewhere to live. It means people who only have budget for an older home need to be hasty with purchases so they can get ahead of the speculators. It directly reduces the supply of homes by extending the period in which they aren't occupied. It reduces the supply of more affordable housing by quickly converting it all into more expensive housing. And it robs people who might want to fix up their own home of the opportunity to choose their own decor.
It's not actually front running, but it still feels like a similar kind of problem.
The issue here is that demand shifts regionally over time. Dwelling units in Detroit don't satisfy demand in San Francisco. The result is that you continually have to increase supply in the places demand currently is. To keep prices flat, the number of units per thousand inhabitants has to increase over time, because the number of empty units in areas that have fallen out of demand will increase, but the high prices you're trying to avoid will be somewhere else.
> By definition, only investment properties can be underutilised - owner occupied homes are occupied!
This is also not true. You can have e.g. a 3-bedroom home with one occupant, even if the occupant is the owner. You can also certainly have underutilized land -- any single family home in an area where there is demand for more housing but zoning prevents it from being constructed on that piece of land. Because then you have that acre of land providing housing for one family when it could have been two or twenty.
> global asset price inflation driven by a broken financial system (i.e. a system being artificially pumped up with cheap credit).
This can only happen when supply is artificially constrained. If it cost $200,000 to add a housing unit and suddenly everyone can get a bigger loan than before, the instantaneous effect would be for housing prices to increase -- but once they're above the construction cost, construction occurs until they no longer are, i.e. until they fall back below $200,000.
At that point cheap credit might cause people to buy bigger houses, or use the loan money to buy things other than housing, but long-term you can't get the price of the same housing unit to increase above the cost of creating more of them, or supply would just increase until it fell back to that cost.
What you can do is increase the cost of creating supply, e.g. by restricting where it can be done, so that the cost of doing it goes up and with it the price of a given housing unit. Which is what has happened.
They do help though. Individuals need to realize they can’t afford to live in a place like California and have to give up that luxury if they want more affordable housing arrangements.
One thing that has definitely not helped is hostile building codes that prevent density. In some cities in the US, building height is constrained by the nearest single family home. Then there’s the parking minimums for buildings that allocate more space for parking than for building space for people.
In Austin, TX (USA), you frequently see buildings with massive amounts of multilayered parking but a smaller fraction of the building used for residential or commercial space. Some “clever” developers have tried to disguise the parking structures as part of the building itself to hide this fact from public view.
Problem with America is that we think this is 1950 and we can scale by building more deadass suburbs, expensive regional highways, and further strain our limited pool of resources (water, sewage, electrical infra) to support suburban living without any consequences.
That doesn’t explain why it’s so hard and expensive to build things. We built those suburbs in the first place when we were much less rich as an economy. Indeed, we built all the water and sewage and electrical infrastructure all over the place too.
Ultimately, these empty homes are investments and sometimes investments fail, and if they're big enough sometimes those failed investments cause people to lose a lot more than what they invested. That's literally the definition of investment risk. We can't keep doing status quo with this shit while the market continues to sail further and further out of reach of all the people who actually need what it's selling.
However, the tax is still far too low and it contains various loopholes that allows developers to hold condos empty for years until deep-pocketed buyers show up [2].
Vancouver isn’t unique. Housing is being traded like poker chips everywhere, often but not always by ultra-wealthy foreign nationals with zero regard for the local consequences.
[0] https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-t...
[1] https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-empty-homes-tax-st...
[2] https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/dan-fumano-some-new...
The entire city and all of the NIMBYs cried about their "neighborhood character" and tried every legal trick they could to block the development: threatening to not connect it to utilities.
Vancouver literally has single family homes within half a mile of downtown! Clearly there is room for growth.
That's not 1/3 of Vancouver's condo supply. Not by a long shot.
Did you misread something? Maybe from this post:
> https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-empty-homes-tax-st...
> Empty Homes Tax has reduced Vancouver's number of vacant homes by 36%
> After five years of the EHT being in effect, the total number of vacant properties within Vancouver has fallen to 1,398 homes or 36% fewer properties compared to 2017, when the tax regime first launched.
The statement about 36% is a relative percentage, not absolute percentage points. What happened is that ~2184 homes were vacant in 2017, and fell by 36% to 1398 in 2022.
It's saying that of the homes that were originally vacant, there is 36% less of that now. It is not saying that of all homes that exist, the vacancy rate decreased by 36%.
Why do you choose to just tell lies?
1. People have mortgages with very low interest rates. If they sell the home, they give up that cheap mortgage for a much higher mortgage interest rate with the next home. So, they stay.
2. The capital gains tax exemption of $500,000 has not risen with inflation. Selling your appreciated home will result in a large tax bill. It makes sense to sit in the home until you die, then it gets a basis boost when transferred to the heirs.
This may be true only in the US. In Canada, for example, the maximum term a mortgage rate is fixed for is 5 years, after which you have to "renew" your mortgage and renegotiate the rate. So a lot of people are already being forced into higher interest mortgages here.
For (2), absolutely. Tax advantages play their part (adding to investment demand relative to other investment options). Is it not also the case that interest payments on a residential mortgage are tax deductible in the US?
I wish there were a $500k capital gains exemption for turning my ETFs into a house.
Yet another way in which real estate receives massive privilege.
The UK, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand are at the bottom of % vacant dwellings indicating the opposite of underutilization.
Unfortunately the document doesn't show changes in vacancy rate.
I hear this argument a lot and always wonder if the causal direction is flipped: people use housing as an investment because it’s scarce, not that it’s scarce because it’s used as an investment. If there weren’t so many restrictions on building, the supply would grow to meet the demand and parking your money in property wouldn’t be such a hot idea.
Now, why dont governments better fund those departments and emphasize faster throughput? Well, let's ask their main constituents - who are largely homeowners and companies in the industry - whether they'd like to dedicate more taxes to a service that would speed up construction and drop their housing prices.
Yes, it is. It’s everything.
It’s inflation.
It’s that none of the countries you mentioned built anything during the covid craze (word selected specifically).
It’s regulation and complexity and permitting and zoning.
It’s AirBNB.
It’s remote work.
It’s manipulated stock markets and poor returns on other investments.
It’s blackrock and VCs and MBAs.
It’s out of country investors.
It’s everything.
So why these reductionist “well, I know it isn’t X” posts are supposed to be insightful, I have no idea.
Who told you it needs to be one thing, or can be disproven as one thing?
The main thing is that the US has been printing dollars for several decades - primarily to deal with or prevent periodic financial crises. Ben Bernacke's "Helicopter Dollars" speech was infamous but nothing has changed but the (increasing) scale (and, yes, all the central banks of the developed world are doing it too).
Effectively, the modern order has come to involve an endless hand-out to those who already have money while "market discipline" prevails against those who don't. Of course, this has long term problems aside from its immorality.
Do they all have zoning, urban planning requirements, and restrictions on what landowners can do with their property? Yes?
This isn't a complicated issue, this is 100% a self inflicted "problem" that can be solved with the stroke of a pen.
Pro-tip: abolish all restrictions on what landowners can build in the property. No licensing requirements, no filings, no nothing.
The sum total requirement for someone to build something anywhere should be them asking themselves "do I have permission from the landowner to do this?" And getting to work.
Secondly, I’ve done a lot of engagement with policy makers and builders and you are not going to get affordable housing being built if you relax zoning laws (which I’m in favor of across the whole city). Instead, what is supposed to happen is that the older properties become less attractive and hence their prices (or rent) are supposed to fall. That’s the theory anyhow. Anyway, the builders all say there is no financial incentive for them to build affordable housing, they make so much more on luxury buildings. You’ll only get it if the local government does it themselves and most in America are reluctant to get involved (it’s why they like saying 15% of a complex should be ‘affordable’ because they don’t have to do anything about it, the builders do, and it’s too small an impact to fix the issue).
This is only really a problem insofar as building luxury homes reduces the throughput of new supply because they take longer to build than affordable housing. In terms of overall market effect, as long as you're not allowing places to sit empty, it doesn't particularly matter if you're adding new homes at the top or the bottom of the market.
Is this increase in absolute number of sales, or increase in the percentage? Because, if the house affordability due to high interest rates goes down, one of the only buyers with money that remain are hedge funds. So, in the past you had 1000 homes selling per year, 100 of those going to hedge funds, now you have 400 total sales, with 100 going to hedge funds. The relative percentage of houses bought by hedge funds increases from 10% to 25%, even though the absolute number remains flat.
All those countries killed their manufacturing and offshored it over the last 40 years. Factories and manufacturing meant good jobs located far away from major cities, and towns/communities built up around those jobs.
Now all the jobs are located in large cities so housing prices there are going through the roof. If you are young you almost have to move to a major city if you want to start your career. Meanwhile there are "ghost cities" and other dwindling towns where you can buy a house for pennies.
The number is irrelevant - people want to live in desirable areas where's there are jobs, and are constrained as such. Rebuilding high density in towns and cities is an issue, as well as maintaining decent services ( hospitals, roads, public transport, post office etc).
You say that houses are being treated as investments, that's why these crises happen; but then why are building materials and tradespeople also at sky-high prices (in Ireland)? Is it all competition on investment building?
Similar issue in NZ. Cost of building materials was getting extreme. There's an argument to be made that these are linked to profitability of building and so increased during the speculative boom. Helped along by the fact that many suppliers are monopolies. Cost of building materials has however started falling considerably since the property market crashed here. Likewise the cost of labour and building quotes overall.
Can confirm that as interest rates went up, people just can't afford the enormous loans anymore and prices of houses (and apartments to a lesser extent as they're a bit cheaper overall) fell, up to 20% at the worst, I believe. But as soon as interest rates are expected to go down, prices already shoot up again (even while interests are still high as people and banks estimate how much they may expect to spend in the near future).
Immigration. It's not that immigrants buy up the houses (opposites, we tend to live cramped up in flat shares). It's that they support landlords profits (with cream on top of not knowing your rights) and have overall pressure on market.
Building should at least match immigration/population growth.
Also not building dense enough. Kiwis always tout "I wouldn't wanna live in a house without a backyard" - well I don't wanna rent forever either. Given choice of no housing and shitty housing I choose shitty housing.
It's my view that this implosion will happen, just later, with less control and with more devastation.
Why wouldn't they? They are relatively similar countries in many ways, any problem that one has could easily be replicated in others. For example I imagine zoning laws are all somewhat similar, favoring suburbs and strictly zoned areas vs market driven mixed use areas.
I also suspect they all have significant migration, high labor costs and high building standards.
You picked culturally-similar countries with common law systems and a history of local zoning.
Working people are perfectly willing to purchase homes they can afford. In fact, it is safe to assume that it is one of their top priorities. If affordable housing isn't being created, something is amiss. See above!
https://www.gameofrent.com/
Dubai is expanding like there is no tomorrow, and the price of down town and marina just keeps increasing, regardless of how many new high rise areas the emirate undertakes.
China has hundreds of literally empty cities, yet people are being priced out of living in Beijing.
The question is not about a lack of new buildings, or under utilization of current buildings but simply you cannot built _dense_ enough to follow demand.
Yes, everybody does. The population exploded everywhere, and rent-seekers enriching themselves out of land price increases popped out everywhere. All at about the same time.
Maybe? 2008 happened. At that point, there was a policy choice: allow a deflationary collapse, or prevent it. If we allowed it, there would be a lot of ruined businesses and ruined people. There would have been a lot of people who lost their houses. Instead, we chose to prevent the collapse, and we wound up here, where people can't afford houses. That's almost the same place, except that 1) the numbers are higher, and 2) it happened gradually rather than in a shock. That is, people didn't lose their existing houses, but new families can't buy their first homes.
So is this better or worse? My impression is that, for all the problems, it's still better than a collapse in 2008 would have been. But given the situation in 2008, some damage was inevitable. This amount of damage 16 years later is actually pretty good, considering.
Another one is the hyper-concentration of high paying jobs and other opportunities in a small number of cities.
There's always been a power law distribution for cities and opportunity with larger cities tending to win out, but since roughly 2000 it seems like it's greatly intensified. I've asked this question to many older people and have looked up some stats and both back up the sense that this has gotten significantly worse in the last 2-3 decades.
In the USA if you are not in one of maybe six cities you are second-tier, and it's much harder to find high paying and upwardly mobile jobs. The very top tier cities of SF Bay, NYC, Seattle, and LA are of course fantastically expensive.
Telework helps a bit but generally you still have to do time in one of those cities to establish yourself enough to get good high-paying telework jobs. Telework is often a senior-level thing or something you need a strong network to land.
One thing that's surprised me is that I'd expected this situation to lead to building being relatively cheap compared to buying. But land + labor + materials price increases seem to have left building less competitive in most areas meaning new supply can't actually undercut the market much, if at all. Or seemingly won't. It really feels like there's nothing that can give at the moment, like it's some kind of doom loop.
Also there is a shift from people living in families to living single or just with one person which is more inefficient and requires more space.
I've been looking at getting a house built, and that starts at about €200k*, but the land in Berlin is at least another €200k on top of that (and usually more).
If I was willing to live in the back end of nowhere, I can get the land for almost nothing, halving the total cost.
But then I'd be living in the back end of nowhere, and turning that into an interesting town (let alone city) would need some very expensive infrastructure to be built, just to support that many residents.
Make the infrastructure cheap, and you can build New Towns.
Most of the developed world seems to struggle with infrastructure during my lifetime, be it major roads, railways, sewage, electricity networks, or anything else.
* list price €100k but that's a cheat as it's the outer shell only, no plumbing or interior plastering
Houses, like other goods, decrease in value over time. A new house should be significantly more expensive than a 50 year old house - just like a car.
IMO it's yet another network effect caused by fewer people being willing to work in these kinds of fields, and a decreasing birth rate. Infrastructure inherently requires maintenance, so as it increases, so does the amount of people required to maintain it. Yet we have fewer and fewer people to do it, so adding new stuff just becomes unreasonably expensive.
Yes they do. This is exactly the problem. Specifically in big cities. Zoning and nimby-ism holds back building. Even Toronto which builds a lot doesn’t build enough housing units to keep up with growth. And they only build as much as they do because the province is constantly overruling the city.
Every western major city is blocking building on any meaningful scale. This leaves cities at effectively net 0 increase in supply. In major US cities, new builds are more expensive to own due to changing property taxes. And California is just a huge F U to young people by making new owners have to pay higher taxes than the old ones.
Yes! Yes they all do! None of them are producing housing at anywhere near the rate required.
The statistics are skewed because the demand varies a lot between different regions .e.g there are towns in Italy selling houses for $1 (well sort off...) that doesn't mean that housing is affordable in Milan or other major cities. Same Applies to US, Canada, Ireland etc.
1. Asset price inflation generally
2. Population growth (incl. immigration)
3. A lack of building (housing stock is inflexible, e.g.: if we need more two beds, then no number of 1 beds or 4+ beds is sufficient, really).
4. We are changing our ways of living (see 3), that’s partly social norms and partly demographic
5. Working from home changed the market. If the economic hub of your country is priced well above the national average excl. the hub, then WFH will see prices move towards the average incl. the hub, if not higher.
Take Australia for example. People in NZ often say a CGT won't help because AU has one and it doesn't seem to make a difference. What they forget is that there is 50% discount on CGT there, so the relative advantage of property investment remains. Also negative gearing.
In the US I believe there are two obvious advantages given to residential property investment - 30 year fixed mortgages and tax deductions on interest payments.
I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to guess that all of those countries I mentioned earlier have different reasons for residential property investment being favoured relative to more productive investments.
The reason why we didn't see rampant consumer product inflation in the wave of irresponsible money-printing meant to soften the 2008 crisis was that the stimulus targeted at the wealthy and went into assets, such as the housing you just mentioned. However, COVID-19 stimulus checks were given to normal people, so inflation now hits normal people's daily purchases.
Not in London - according to a pressure group saying there are too many houses used as non-primary-residence [0] - they claim just 1 in 45 houses are either airbnb, second homes, or empty, and half of those are second homes (i.e. someone with a small flat in the city and their main house in the country)
On top of that you have the hidden demand. A typical 3 bed house will house 4 or 5 30yo adults in a HMO because there simply isn't enough housing.
Lower rates means House prices are higher sure, but that's because the monthly cost will always rise to meet what's affordable. If supply outweighed demand then prices would fall.
[0] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6553693f7d629a133b6a4...
It’s a pretty simple problem: existing owners have an interest in restricting new supply, and there aren’t many costs associated with being a nimby. Housing stops being a good investment when supply is responsive.
Not only does the pump of money increase housing purchases (it's a short against the currency), but unstable currencies also cause real estate to go up as wealth looks for safety.
An important nitpick: cheap credit intensifies the search for returns. You need to consider why those races end in real estate. In the US, at least, the answer is that the American single family house is the single most privileged asset class in the history of the world. The entire economy assumes that housing prices will grow at a rate that outpaces inflation. You cannot, in that system, be a person who calmly watches to evaluate the correctness of the hypothesis.
No, you shut up and push. Whether you're the President or the Fed or some affordable housing commission, you shut up and push for housing as an appreciating asset.
Personally, I think we should lean into that -- make single family homes completely unattractive as an investment.
Rental units are more debatable, because of the density argument, but I think we should probably disincentize it as an asset class too. In favor of offering townhomes for sale.
Half of my city and many other cities around my country were built during the communist 70s and 80s... and then we stopped building and maybe built 5, 6 apartment buildings in the last 30 years.
Then urbanization came, centralization, everyone wants to live in a city.. but we're not building more housing.
We can look around europe.. how many apartment projects were done in the 70s and 80s, and how many are being built now.... we built whole new neighbourhoods back then, and now we have 4 people sharing a two bedroom apartment.
Housing more people in a concentrated area creates more demand for services, which creates more demand for housing which jacks up prices. Packing 1,000 people into an apartment build creates extremely high demand for plumbing, house cleaning etc, services, which jack up housing prices. But if cities were low-density with commerce centers decenteralized across many neighbhorhoods or towns, you don't create location demand hotspots (e.g. cities) that jack up prices.
Property taxes and interest rates are a forcing function to keep unoccupied properties in check, as long as the appreciation doesn't dramatically exceed the risks of being a LL. For Tier 1-3 markets in the USA, you can't cash flow properties as rent is drastically lags property ownership costs.
Hong Kong has all sorts of crazy building restrictions and is a different story
It seems more likely that costs are higher in cities because there are valuable opportunities for skilled people who demand high salaries, simultaneously encouraging dense living to maximize access and increasing cost of living through the Baumol effect. High prices causing density, not the other way around.
Increasing building and increasing density are different things. Singapore and Hong Kong are dense because they have a very limited geographic area to build in. You can’t point to their density and conclude that adding housing doesn’t help lower housing costs. They would be even more expensive if they weren’t so dense.
Rent prices are 72.9% lower in Tokyo compared to New York [1].
[1] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
I've been crowing on this since the 2008 crash. The cycle is this:
1. A person has a job, but can't afford things
2. They get credit to buy the things they want, in lieu of demanding better pay
3. Everyone does this, so demand goes up and prices go up
4. The value of their dollar goes down
5. Go to 1.
Consumer credit has _broken_ money. Broken it. We've seen this in housing prices and student loans, and now that we have online checkout buttons that say "you can have this for $17/mo!", we're starting to see it in stock-and-trade consumer goods even more now.
We have to -- have to -- eliminate consumer credit if we ever want to give people a fair shake at maintaining the value of their money and purchasing things. Otherwise, prices will be determined by people who are dumbest with their money.
[...]
2. They demand a better pay
3. Everyone does this, so the cost of everything goes up and prices go up.
[...]
Unless that better pay is somehow tied to higher productivity and overall GDP increase it would not solve the problem.
I've been told that immigration isn't a driver for the housing problems in the USA though, interestingly.
The person with the second vacation home isn't a priority but the fund with hundreds or thousands (or 10s of thousands as is the case in the US) should be a focus.
Of course. Remember, homebuilding continues to be incredibly labour intensive. Meanwhile, all of those countries have enjoyed "full employment" for many, many years. Which means that workers have all kinds of job options.
In other words, you can't build without people. Ask yourself, why would the people choose construction? Wouldn't sitting at a comfy desk programming computers all day be more desirable? The small few who enjoy it can’t keep up.
Do you work in construction as a career? If no, why not? What would it take to get you to start building houses? Higher compensation than other jobs, perhaps? But guess what high compensation brings...
When properties are being used as an investment, they are rented out. If that's true, it should show up as higher rental vacancy rate and low/stagnant rent. That's not the case in Vancouver, BC as we have low vacancy rate and rising rent.
Homes could be left as left empty as well, but we have multiple annual taxes, ranging from 0.5% to 3% of the total property value targeting these underutilized home, and that hasn't driven price down. In additions, these taxes essentially provide an one-time only increase in the number of homes available. They can be easily absorbed by population growth.
With the population increase in Canada, building more is the only way out.
I think this part is what kills the anti-investment argument. If we hypothetically got rid of all the property investors we’d have only owner-occupied units. So then where do you find a vacant house when you want to move out of your folks’ place? Everyone has to find land, buy it, and build? (I won’t even get into the fact that single family homes aren’t really a sustainable use of land)
As long as there are enough vacant units investors will lower rent enough to fill them to an equilibrium. Nobody makes money on apartment buildings that are 50% empty.
Let’s not forget that low financing rates allows companies like homebuilders to build homes and subdivisions on credit that are intended to be owner-occupied. These developments are never intended to be rentals.
I think it’s a little funky that, especially in the US, nobody really had a problem with apartment buildings being apartments until landlords started owning single family homes. Now everyone has pitchforks over it and want to ban investors from owning homes - which seems kind of insane when you think about how cities with skyscrapers work. It would make condo and apartment buildings impossible. There’s nothing different about a single family home compared to an apartment besides form factor.
The thing that all those countries have in common is low supply in the tradespeople. Those are all countries where you’re better off learning to do a desk job rather than working for a construction company. In addition, a bunch of home builders went bust in 2008 in the United States.
In the case of Canada and the US they also have some horrible bad habits when it comes to city planning. Single family home building causes the growth Ponzi scheme raising the cost of city services per capita and pushes affordable housing crazy far from the city center and strains single occupant car highway infrastructure. You’ve got to own one car per person in the US in Canada in addition to your mortgage. Then load up student loans on top of that.
Deleted Comment
I hope so. But this assumes a fair market. I believe the NZ market will be pumped up through government action in order to avoid paper losses for property investors, landlords, and also for regular family property owners' unrealised gains.
Case in point: reinstating full interest deductions for residential property, reducing the tax investors pay. A $2.5b kickback to landlords. 60 per cent deduction in 2023/24, rising to 80 per cent in 2024/25 and 100 per cent in 2025/26.
There are problems which feed into there not being enough building; the biggest one is definitely that property represents a major portion of Americans' investment portfolios, and thus our democratic system is filled with people (and companies) (and their representatives) who are heavily biased toward any decision that will raise property values. But its not that low building causes this; its just NIMBYism. This causes low building; it causes weird municipal rules about density; it causes expensive permitting; etc.
People also say "well, there's not enough land in the place people want to live so of course house prices are insane". Also bullshit. The "place people want to live" changes and expands all the time. Exurbs that were forests 15 years ago are now extremely hot. Why? BECAUSE WE BUILT. That's it. That's all it takes. Build housing. Build parks and sidewalks. Allow cool businesses to open.
Everyone, including and especially local governments, has made this so freakin complicated when its seriously not. Its freakin MBA prediction brain all over again. They're so afraid they don't understand the full problem, or the implications of their decision, that they refuse to act (build) and instead blame the lack of action (building) on intractably large problems like "interest rates" or "blackrock".
A parallel problem is immigration and, as the top comment pointed out, cheap credit encouraging vacancy.
But where will this end for a lot of investors (which in Canada seems like a lot of the influential population) ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNUNR2NZvFM
It posits that the high prices are caused by rich people parking their money in houses. It explains many problems with a few variables.
While it's not the whole picture, it explains why the middle class is getting squeezed out of house ownership. And why stimulus package didn't much help.
Note that Trump's tariffs on Canadian lumber increased the cost of new construction by 20% over a period of a few months (the article mentions the cost of materials, but not the root cause, which was this tariff, and some climate disasters, like when the Texas storms took out 20% of global PVC production for a year or so). Biden has been aggressively increasing tariffs, so they are both directly to blame.
The interest rate spike and high inflation were predicted by pretty much all economists when Trump decided to needlessly keep rates low during his first term, so blaming Biden never made much sense to me
Anyway, lots of studies have been done looking for root causes for homelessness and unaffordable housing. Every theory I've heard (drugs, mental health, nice weather for tent encampments, joblessness, etc, etc) has been shot down by such studies except the idea that if you have fewer houses per capita, then you will have more homeless people and more expensive houses.
Assuming global financial stuff changed radically but we didn't build more houses, where would these people with lots of money in the bank live, exactly? Also, wouldn't that cause the price of housing to increase (increased demand, constrained supply, and inflation from the increased money supply)?
The graph you cite says the US has 0.4 houses per person. That means that, on average, we don't have enough houses for people that are single, couples without a live-in kid, or single parents.
It goes on to say that 7% of US houses are vacant, but that wouldn't make up the gap. Also, many houses in the US are vacant because there are in places where the economy has dried up, and there aren't adequate utilities, schools, groceries, etc. Even if those houses were somehow renovated, many people would still be better off financially if they chose to live on the street instead of in those places.
You are just talking about another symptom of constricted supply.
Deleted Comment
Then again, with higher interest rates, the lower prices don't mean anything unless they drop significantly faster than interest rates are raising, yes?
You need to increase carrying costs. Land value tax is the best way but it's about as far as you can get from what's implemented anywhere
The past few decades (coinciding with the property price boom) have been all about ever decreasing interest rates. What is happening now looks a lot like a paradigm shift. I wouldn't bet on rates falling substantially anytime soon.
You need a recession.
Following this logic it would be a net positive to buy an apartment building, move everyone out, and live in it as a single family home.
They all do though, for various reasons.
Yes, housing prices are determined by supply and demand.
This was found to be true by a California Circuit of Appeals: https://x.com/CSElmendorf/status/1774115015551074434
This is found to be true by Blackstone, who frequently notes that shortages and low increases in new supply are fundamental to their strategy of buying and building housing for rent: https://x.com/RikAdamski/status/1643477536695803904 https://x.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1378737834824060931 "We could also be adversely affects by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates."
There are plenty of sources which show a strong correlation between new supply and housing prices: https://x.com/sam_d_1995/status/1762597879154123241 https://x.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/1761205726230216943 https://x.com/ArmandDoma/status/1770961181093859375 https://x.com/jayparsons/status/1761028332781478227 (STRONGEST:) https://x.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/1761205728356802806
There is plenty of unused space in our cities for new housing: https://x.com/ftw_cool/status/1779228107754623084
Texas vs California; Texas builds a lot and has lower housing price growth, California builds little and has high housing price growth: https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1760995124690231526
This effect holds regardless of if the new housing is "affordable", "below-market rate", or "luxury": https://x.com/jayparsons/status/1712110658601255211
That supply and demand applies to housing has been reported repeatedly in the news: https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1757939504126832802
Lots of new apartments have been built lately. The effect on rent growth is obvious: https://x.com/mnolangray/status/1755818637750161540
Landlords themselves acknowledge the difficulty of finding tenants and getting high rents when there is a glut of housing inventory: https://x.com/sam_d_1995/status/1752346758254887132
Surprisingly, supply and demand also affect housing prices in the Midwest: https://x.com/StatisticUrban/status/1752008654734147718
Real estate investors and landlords acknowledging that new construction lowers rents and increases vacancies in their properties: https://x.com/SmackTrout/status/1652396524389961731
See my earlier comment regarding NZ. The number of homes per 1000 people changed very little between 2011 and 2022. At the same time prices went from NZD350k to NZD900k.
I think my suggestion that finance is the most significant factor here is a stronger argument than a supply shortage.
In the UK, we have an issue with immigration that nobody wants to speak about. The birth rate in the UK is 1.49 in 2022 [1], meaning that housing demand should be going down. We build houses to last, and yet there is a massive shortage - why? In 2023 the ONS reported we had a net migration of 685k people [2], where 9% of the population do not have a British nationality at all.
The demand for housing in the UK (and related infrastructure) can be entirely explained by net migration. The reason the housing market is bubbling is because the demand is so insanely high. We need to build 340k houses a year to keep up with demand [3].
The fundamental issue in the UK is that we borrowed too much from the future, in terms of loans, but also pensions. They think that increasing the population dramatically will solve the problem, but it's actually destroying the UK. We are building on farmland, the infrastructure (water, gas, electric, roads, schools, etc, etc) is failing under the weight of the new housing. The interest on the debt owed [5] I believe is projected to exceed spending on the NHS (national healthcare system) by 2035.
The question we need to ask is whether large net migration is worth it, or whether we should largely reduce it. It seems clear to me that the UK is currently trying to grow too fast. It'll be a bitter pill to swallow, but at some point you need to deal with the spiralling situation.
> This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.
In NZ and many other Countries they put bans on foreign buyers exactly to stop this investment [4]. I know many, many professionals living in NZ that cannot afford to buy a home. They are all stuck renting, despite all earning in the top 25%.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/birthrate-in...
[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06...
[3] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[4] https://www.pittandmoore.co.nz/publications/foreign-buyer-ba...
[5] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50504151
That doesn't necessarily reflect a shortage, it also reflects availability of money - and therefore the market bearing higher prices. It also reflects the unevenness of the UK economy: the expensive and unaffordable housing is mostly in and around London (where ~all the economic activity is), and in the most scenic of rural areas which is retirees, second-home owners and AirBnB investors. There's plenty of the UK which has affordable housing, but it's too far from anywhere with decent jobs.
The boom in house prices began when it became the norm for educated women to have lifelong progessional careers. All of a sudden there was a huge amount more discretionary income in the educated class. If you consider that, circa 1970, perhaps 20-30% of one male earner's income went on housing and the rest on life's essentials, all of a sudden the potential amount of cash to spend on housing goes from 30% of one income to 130%, a more than 4x increase. It took a while to filter through, sure, but in the end, it has - to the point where most families are now obligated to have two full-time earners.
Housing is a positional good (think about an auction where demand of the most desirable items will always exceed supply), the prices bear almost no relation to rational economic utility and every relation to how much cost people are able to bear. Which is one reason they're so responsive to interest rates i.e. debt affordability.
A 1.49 birth rate and 685k net migration isn't a desirable situation for any country, but the other issue here is the health and productivity of our own population, we're using migrants to prop it up and provide much of the labour needed by the NHS, childcare and elderly care. Our government is massively anti-immigration, and yet immigration remains high, the country can't and won't go cold-turkey on that: it's not practical to do so without further increasing the retirement age, cutting pensions and increasing "sin taxes" to keep a greater proportion of the population healthy enough to work til 70. And that'd be even less popular, politically, than mass immigration.
The reforms the UK needs are to get the economy functioning better in the regions, and to make it much easier to build higher density housing close to where the jobs are. The current system where they can't build apartment blocks on train-station car parks because a bunch of pensioners complain that it spoils their view is massively counterproductive.
Deleted Comment
AKA, not enough buildings / lack of building..
Prior to covid, the global economy was booming. US and UK had low unemployment rates. the US especially was remarkably doing well, with lowest unemployment rate for minority communities.
There is a price to pay for completely disregarding long-term economic costs of reckless responses to a what was a moderately severe flu epidemic. We went nuts and shut ourselves down. And on top of that, we helicopter dropped 4-6 trillion dollars of freshly printed cash.
And the reckless governance continues in the name of flaming conflicts in Europe and ME. A lot of what happened in the recent years is attributable to just atrocious governance.
I think a lot of people in the market are still holding on with a strong expectation that the interest rates will go down.
Personally, I think high interest rate environments are better for most people - it compresses asset prices and adds more value to a salary. But it will take some years for that compressions to kick in again.
Being able to obtain assets, when you don't have any is a relatively new thing, historically speaking. One could also say that we were living in a brave new world of opportunities and growth for a few centuries. And now we are returning to the historical norm. One thing that all the examples you listed is that they could be seen as "late game" economies.
I might be totally wrong, though. This is just another angle.
You claim that these countries do not have the same system of building but they do have the same financial system. That is a large claim to make. You should try to offer at least some kind of argument for why you feel the variations in the financial systems are less significant than the variations in their systems of construction.
I don't know about the others, but we're building about 50% of what we need for Australia's population growth. Neo-liberalism has resulted in decades of de-funding of public education, which trains tradespeople, and now we have a shortage of tradespeople. And we're getting another tax cut in a few weeks so I guess that problem, plus all the others with same cause, is just going to get worse.
But yeah, the root of the problem is because governments are subsidizing housing/costs, and the problem with subsidies, is that the money for them has to come from somewhere, meaning they come with a burden (ie cost) placed elsewhere.
In the US this is primarily done via the government backing mortgage debt. It creates a vicious circle where homeowners raise their prices, the Fed ensures the funds for the mortgages, and the buyer is on the hook for paying it.
This is also why college prices are high. The government offers student loans to help people afford college, but colleges see this and raise their prices to capture that additional funding, and the student ends up on the hook for paying the price. Rinse and repeat...
Why would the law of supply and demand fall apart under captive/uncompetitive markets? A captive or uncompetitive market may impact the quantity of a good or service available and/or the quantity of a good or service willing to be purchased at a given point in time, but that doesn't change the law.
> Many also assume trade volume is necessarily representative of a supply shortage, when that isn't always the case, as " supply" and "supply for sale" are two different things.
Huh? Supply is characterized by being "for sale". Of course, a shortage occurs when price is prevented from rising. Housing certainly doesn't have that problem. The so-called "housing shortage" is really an issue of latent demand – people desire homeownership but can't afford it.
I've believed for a long time that heavily taxing income from second+ properties, similar to capital gains, would help reduce rent-seeker hoarding, to help free up and reduce the cost of properties for primary-residence owners.
Personally, I think LVT would be the best approach.
Vacation homes are in beautiful tourist areas. That can be a problem for local workers but I doubt this is much of a problem for most markets.
These sorts of suggestions generally seem hugely biased towards buyers at the expense of everyone else.
The reason "not building" is not the issue, is because even brand new homes are being scooped up in investments.
Raise property taxes for all non-occupied, airbnbs, and fuck even rentals, and while it might cause rentals to temporarily go up, housing prices will drop like a brick. Make it unreasonable to rent out a home. Heck make it unreasonable to own a second home unless you're Bill Gates.
The only way I see out of this mess is to ban ownership of SFH by anyone other than…single families as primary owners. Corporations, foreign owners, secondary homes, etc.
But we need to address other issues too: zoning (make Houston’s approach nationwide) and construction costs.
Maybe a home owners break, and a second weaker first rental/vacation home break would match the current approach (and dodge more of the individuals who'd kill the legislation for for your idea. Alternately, a discount for occupied properties.
I was initially thinking corporate owned rentals or anyone with more than 2 properties, but the above seems cleaner.
A few high profile jury nullifications would probably be sufficient, but we gotta be the rational economic agents that the theories think we are and work together on this.
Think San Francisco or New York in the 70’s type of ‘urban decay’. [https://amp.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/18/welcome-to-fe...
A one-off broken window, or never cutting your grass isn’t going to do anything.
Realistically? High central bank rates for awhile does the same thing.
1974 had a fed rate of 10.74%, 1975 5.82%, etc. [https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-c...]
The entire framing of the issue as a false NIMBY/YIMBY dichotomy is a distraction from the reality that there is not and has never been a supply issue. The only issue is artificial demand from speculators who choose to withhold and deny a basic human right in the hope that it might magically raise in value for no reason instead of depreciate like every other asset.
Are you suggesting we deport homeless people from cities with low vacancy rates, to cities with high vacancy rates?
> There is absolutely no barrier to housing every single human being beyond greed.
I suspect your answer to the question above will reveal a barrier.
We are still subject to space time.
Homelessness is the most visible sign of a much larger systemic problem. For example, it's quite likely that many homes today are overcrowded, and people don't have as much space to live as they desire. This is bad! Not as bad as homelessness, but depending on the specifics still quite bad. The good news is that building vertically permits more private space per person, so we don't just have to accept things getting worse.
Nobody is going to want homeless people living in it in the meantime.
Houses are also "empty" while they are undergoing renovation.
Dead Comment
To counter this may be impossible; there are limits to how small you can build a SFH, and there is only so much land commuting distance from job centers.
Condos and apartments are generally a very bad investment, have huge disadvantages of high fees and lack of green space, so are a poor substitute. It’s sometimes better than renting, but it can swing wildly based on build quality of building, the maintenance, and competence of the board — very hard to evaluate or hedge against versus a SFH where you have autonomy. And in the US we rarely build family focused condos — so few have playrooms or playgrounds or 3 bed room units (outside NYC)
Spot on. You're not alone. For a more thorough and clinical review of how we're f'ed and why see Lyn Alden's "Broken Money".
To your point, ppl are fond to talk about the economy. That's a distraction. It's a false god. Fact: the economic system and the sociopolitical system both side on a foundation. That foundation is the financial system. Full stop.
https://www.lynalden.com/broken-money/
1. There are a ridiculous amount of abandoned properties, when I walk the streets of major cities, sometimes more than half of the buildings even in expensive areas are boarded-up.
2. Meanwhile I am afraid of being homeless soon, I lost my job recently, and the unemployment benefit I can receive is literally half of my rent. Thing is, there is no "worse but cheaper" place to move to. I already live in a "0" apartment, with the "0" referring to the number of rooms. The apartment is literally just an empty square with kitchen sink and bathroom stuff. I don't even have my workstation anymore because literally there is no physical place for it inside the apartment.
People are like: "Build more homes". Yet the amount of abandoned properties (by the way, this also include abandoned farmland! Government is upset that there are tons of that, and the result is land with zero management, with wildfires, poachers, drug traffickers...) is greater than the number of families needing.
- join a group of squatters (hopefully you already know someone) until you get your bearings. The less ideological ones often squat old industrial properties, or long-abandoned houses (its rough in winter, but in Portugal you should be fine). You might meet some Urbex guys, they're nice and always fine with finding squatters.
- Live in a "big enough" car. You absolutely need to rest on a completely flat surface. I knew someone who got the back seats down and put a wooden plank on it. If you're less than 1.80 and don't move on your sleep, you have a lot of choice (the diagonal is nice), else it might be a bit more expensive.
A very short-term solution is squatting with a close friend, but you shouldn't abuse it too much, it strains relationships.
These inholdings, both impoverished and not, were each having their respective parties (cheap beer in common) along the lakeside. Titties abounded - "howdy neighbor" - the no-betterness of being "commoners, enjoying this day upon the lake."
Interestingly, the poverty beach camp seemed to be having more fun; but obviously the multi-million $$$ homeowners are in much easier/better situations (likely).
Where do the more ideological ones go? and what ideologies are we talking about here
Lol, it really is true that "civilization" is three meals away from being kaput.
To sidestep the whole "can we trust each other?" issue the owners may want to sell the property instead of dealing with tenants. Properties go to the market at inflated prices, because every house owner in the country hopes to sell to mythical "rich foreigners"* they hear so much on TV and online. Local buyers are essentially priced out of the market because the price-wage gap is simply too wide, one of the widest in the world. An average Portuguese family with two incomes can't afford a two-bedroom apartment even at a 30-year mortgage, even if we're talking about cities other than Lisbon or Porto.
So, properties stay listed for sale for years and years, owners do not maintain them in hopes of making a sale "soon", and buildings slowly degrade. Eventually owners realize they need to invest a lot of money to keep the house presentable, the money they usually don't have, and they start to lower the price way down. As a result, the market is split in two big distinct categories: something livable at exorbitant prices and places that need a lot of investment to even start living there. Like a GP comment said you can walk on a street and more than half of places are clearly unoccupied, with many of them slowly turning into ruins. If you want to describe a Portuguese urban landscape in one word the word would be "decay".
Meanwhile rent marked is under-served. All this is further worsened by the internal migration pressure. Lisbon, Porto and all towns on a narrow shore strip between the two are growing rapidly in past 30 years while the interior areas are getting deserted. Portuguese move to places where jobs are and developers can't meet the evergrowing demand.
*I recall I saw a stat that foreigner buyers account for only about 0.2% of sales each year.
Under new law, the Portuguese Golden Visa no longer provides Residency status through Real Estate investments.
[1] https://www.portugalhomes.com/golden-visa-portugal
* $53.3B purchase volume
* 84600 foreign buyers (1.8% of total)
* Buyers are recent immigrants (<2 years) or non-immigrants
* Top buyers are from China (13%), Mexico (11%), Canada (10%), India (7%) and Colombia (3%).
https://cdn.nar.realtor//sites/default/files/documents/2023-...
Of those single family homes there is one that was owner-occupied for a year when we moved in. Since, it's been locked up and has had no renters. The couple that own it own several properties across my city, which I came to know as I got to know one of the owners while they lived here. It perplexes me, and the rest of our neighborhood, how someone can float a mortgage, much less an investment mortgage, without a renter. My owner-occupied mortgage costs me somewhere around $2600/m, I can't fathom paying two with one at a higher interest rate. Apparently this situation is common around my city.
On the other hand, and a bit non-sequitur, is two homes will likely become dense housing. They're foreclosures of properties that were inhabited by meth addicts. The whole property from the building to the soil will need to be removed for various reasons. At auction the properties were purchased for the average sale price of a home of that size that had no pre-existing issues. It won't be the kind of housing people need though, if I'm a betting man; my city has plenty of SROs (single room occupancy) but they're at the wrong price point. They're now called "lofts" and "studios" with a price tag to match. What will be lost is two 50+ year old homes, and likely the ability of our street to tolerate the traffic it was designed for as another issue is the city not investing in road-building and maintenance on our street.
1: https://prp.fm/biz503-portland-building-density/
In the USA it is happening all the time because, surprisingly, landlords have little skin in the the game. LLC is the name of the game. Each investment property is "owned" by its own LLC that bares 100% of risks and liabilities associated with the property and shields the landlord from the creditors. The property is financed entirely through commercial loans from the banks or other lenders. If the property does not generate enough profits for the landlord they quietly take all the liquid assets out of the LLC and stop paying their loan and property taxes. It takes long time (often years) for banks and local governments to start legal proceedings against the said LLC. During this period of time the property is sitting there boarded up. Finally the LLC files chapter 7 -- liquidation and all its assets, close to zero at that time, are given to the creditors.
You may ask why the banks give loans to such high risk entities? First of all, if the property is bringing profits the loans are being paid of and it is the majority of the cases. Secondly, if the loan fails the banks do not have much skin in the game either. They slice and dice the loans and package them into "real estate investment vehicles". Then they sell the packages similarly to how they did it before the financial crisis of 2008. The terms and abbreviations are different now but the gist of it is still the same.
EDIT: typos
They probably have an owner-occupied residential mortgage that the bank (/note purchaser) hasn't called them on. Declaring that you're residing in one unit (either falsely or temporarily) seems to be a pretty popular technique for buying rental real estate. If the mortgage was taken out during the past two decades of ZIRP, then the rate is still fixed at something very low and most of that monthly payment they're "floating" is effectively just going towards the principle as a mandatory savings account.
This may easier to explain than you might expect. Anecdotally, the people I know in a similar position own all those properties free and clear, there is no mortgage. Consequently, the carrying costs of that empty house are quite low and easily afforded. Also if the mortgage is very old. I know someone with a single-family home in Silicon Valley they don't live in with a mortgage of ~$1000 per month; you can imagine how low the property tax bill must be.
While I am sure there are people with several rental properties mortgaged to the hilt, I don't think it is that common.
> The couple that own it own several properties across my city
Without knowing which city you’re talking about I can assure you this is rather common.
The moment a property becomes just one out of many (assets) in your portfolio your necessity to let becomes a mere annoyance.
Many of the housing market imperfections could be at play here, but it certainly doesn’t help that renters are increasingly unable to afford to become first time buyers.
To be fair, the vast majority of cities need to be investing in non-car transit more than auto infrastructure. Yes, probably even Portland.
I also see a lot of empty properties for years on end in the middle of town.
If there are places owned that aren't in use then the political solution seems pretty easy: tax property ownership massively when unused. Make unannounced visits to properties to see if the owners claim of having a property that's lived in is true.
Portugal has started offering financial incentives for restoring properties, but I'm surprised this is a factor in Major cities, which ones do you see this? Is it also an issue in Lisbon?
- built 254000 homes[0]
- had 745,000 people immigrate (net)[1]
- had 600000 people turn 21[2]
- had 577160 people die[3]
If you gain a load of people, far more than you increased dwellings for, prices will go up and dwelling size will go down. It's not particularly complicated.
[0] https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/357082-0
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67612106
[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
[3] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
My point elsewhere in this thread is a that demand is not entirely a function of demand for homes (what I would call 'natural' demand). Finance and tax incentives play a large part too - encouraging demand for investment properties that are often not used as homes (what I would call 'artificial' demand).
This is not to say that addressing supply through more building is not helpful, just that there are other things to consider that may not require as much effort and can have broader economic benefits (e.g. changes to the tax system to encourage productive rather than unproductive investment, credit guidance, etc).
Could you elaborate? How often is "often" in the context of the whole country?
> This is not to say that addressing supply through more building is not helpful, just that there are other things to consider that may not require as much effort and can have broader economic benefits (e.g. changes to the tax system to encourage productive rather than unproductive investment, credit guidance, etc).
If the UK is gaining enough people to require multiple cities the size of Oxford to be built each year to accommodate them, it would be surprising to find that the main issue is people are replacing houses with other buildings.
There were an estimated 28.1 million households in the UK in 2021, an increase of 6.3% over the previous 10 years. [0]
and:
The UK population at mid-year 2021 was estimated to be 67.0 million, an increase of 3.7 million (5.9%) on the population in mid-2011.[1]
So the number of UK households increased by slightly more than the population between 2011 and 2021.
[0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
[1]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
[0] https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/houses-in-multiple-occupa...
Stop allowing people to buy multiple homes. Stop allowing landlords to "collaborate" on prices.
If housing is an investment, then remove all protections and open up the supply. No height regulations, no minum parking regulations, no mandatory HOAs. No moratoriams or legal protections when loans default.
If housing is a need, then regulate it like a limited resource. Ration it on the lower end. Ban hoarding (vacancies, empty plots). Limited access to repeat consumers.
When the powerful talk about "finding balance", they usually mean having their cake (earn like an investment) and eat it too (protected like a need).
IMO, Georgism strikes the best opinionated middleground of housing as an investment vs housing as a need. Grounding taxation in land's economic value regulates hoarding. Grounding the value of land in its economic outcomes makes it a transparent investment, rather than the cartelized asset that it is today.
I'm personally opposed to too-much-regulation. It always ends up being a tool for the powerful. Rent control, Prop 13, affordable housing, stacks-of-paperwork and similar regulations always do more harm than good.
https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/vacancies-are-red-herring
Housing location is really important, not just the total number of vacant properties.
lol. Yes, I remember at the 2022 landlords meeting we all decided to raise rents… because we never thought of that before!!
Surely it has nothing to do with taxes and inflation, no, as a renter you should be shielded from that and we should pay it without passing it on!
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
The poors need to hold themselves accountable and stop working for unsustainable wages that can't get them even a small, run-down home. They continue to drive their own wages further and further down and make it that much harder for those that come after them.
It's ridiculous that they expect other people to sacrifice when they won't sacrifice (unionize, strike, or just opt out) to make the world a better, more equal place.
The wealthy will always try to squeeze everything out of the lower classes. If you accept unsustainable wages for your labor, you are part of the problem in devaluing labor (ie you are traffic). The working classes need to hold themselves accountable for the exploitation of their labor.
All the people and companies with some money in this country are buying those flats to rent them to tourists, and it's the most lucrative business someone can have as the expenses are minimum in comparison to the earnings.
If they taxed heavily having more than 10 homes they weren't whole neighbourhoods of tourists in our cities, and those who born there would have some opportunity to rent or buy something there, instead of having to having really far and losing most direct social relations they had
Land can be very expensive. Especially when it has infrastructure built out to it already.
If you told me 10 years ago how much I paid for it, I'd ask what the name of my butler is.
Sounds nice, but land/home values in the area I'd like to move to has nearly tripled in the same timespan.
I feel bad for renters priced out of the market, but many of us who have "enjoyed" the upside are actually deeply underwater relative to our preferences, to say nothing of the doubling of insurance premiums, and ~25% property tax hikes in the last five years.
what do you mean by this?
To me this sounds like your city/state is just ballooning their budgets.
Page 7 for AVG sale price: 2019: $485,128 2022: $644,750 AVG build cost: 2019: $296,792 2022: $392,241
Deleted Comment
- Cities across the world built thorough sewage systems, preventing the need for private citizens to empty their litter buckets out the window – a large river in Chicago was even reversed!
- Cities across the world built mass transit networks, enabling citizens to move around efficiently without relying solely on private vehicles.
- Cities across the world should build affordable housing networks, as Vienna did. This way, citizens don't have to fall victim to the exploitation of speculators and distortions of the supposedly fair market.
Public affordable housing is a necessary infrastructure, just like sewers and transit, to create livable cities for all residents.
How do residents, by definition people who already reside there, benefit from public affordable housing?
If you’re a resident that already owns their home, and has absolutely no unfulfilled housing needs, you will benefit from a more prosperous society with less people struggling and more equality - and that’s a positive on its own right.
(along with its positive knock-on effects)
In fact, it’s the very goal this measure aims to achieve.
I think this probably has decreased house prices to some extent, but people are really insanely reluctant to sell a house for less than they bought it for so lots will wait for years before accepting the change.
It's probably good times to be buying an ex-rental to live in and getting better as mortgage rates fall.
The exact impact is a little hard to work out, because, at least in Paris, it's also coincided with apartment owners wanting to hold on to empty apartments to rent them for the Olympics rather than to locals.
0: https://www.connexionfrance.com/practical/timetable-for-new-....
Sounds like something that can be fixed with laws.
Edit: would you mind explaining your downvotes with arguments please? thanks.
In the UK, if a private landlord receives £1000 in rent, and pays £800 in mortgage interest, they pay tax on the whole £1000, not just on the money they made.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides:
A) Why should a landlord be able to deduct mortgage interest from their income, for tax purposes, when owner-occupiers cannot?
B) Why should a landlord be unable to deduct business expenses from revenue before calculating taxable profit, when all other businesses can?
I think you nailed it. This is effectively the government saying "renting is not a business".
Think about it. The ability to "deduct expenses" is one of the characteristics of businesses. Individuals also can't deduct rent, food etc from their taxes.
Nothing about that has changed recently.
The recent reforms did swap out some landlords for homeowners. It didnt undo the war on affordable housing it just prevented landlords from profiting as much from it.
Which is a good thing, even if some media outlets owned by landlords do like to pretend that euthanizing the buy to let landlord is bad renters.
If a mortgage is recourse, and your home price has fallen enough - yeah, you have a pretty big reason not to sell.
Especially if your alternative is to pay more monthly for a worse rental (often the case).
But taking a more long-term view, in the US the owner-occupied housing rate about 65%, which has not changed a ton in the last 50-60 years (high was 69% in 2005 and low was 63% in 1965). Granted the market has changed a lot, we have much bigger houses, and more two-income families to pay for those more expensive houses.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2024/04/3....
Given that this number doesn't take preferences into account, I think it's pretty reasonable that almost everyone (>80%) making at least the average (median) salary owns their home.