But sure, we just need to build more poorly made, for maximum profit, homes that definitely don’t make giant corporations lots of money whilst simultaneously destroying green spaces, communities, and any form of third places within walkable distance of the poorly made homes…
There’s certainly no market manipulation that renders supply and demand utter bollocks.
As the other person mentions, vacant homes in some rural area are irrelevant when you can not work there. Look at Japan if you want to see that dialed up to 11.
10% of houses being unoccupied sounds like a lot to me. I would guess that a maximum of 3% would be a healthy amount.
I wonder, how do companies actually make money from owning houses that they don’t use? If you are a company, how do you get more dollars per year from a house that’s empty than one that is occupied and giving you rent?
Let’s make an example. Rent let’s say is $1000/month, which is $12k per year. How do you make $12k per year from owning a house without renting it out?
I wonder, how do companies actually make money from owning houses that they don’t use?
In the long run, they don’t. It’s a speculative bubble right now, but eventually they have to sell to somebody who intends for the property to be occupied because that’s the only way to get actual value out of it.
I have friend that lives in Vegas. They are stuck in the house they bought since the private equity ownership seems to be keeping a ton of empty homes off the market to keep scarcity and thus prices high. These companies have deep pockets and can weather the storm over long periods until the market shifts in their favor again.
They make money through speculation. Property values increase over time as the surrounding area becomes more developed and economically advanced, even if the specific property remains exactly the same, allowing property owners to extract value from other people’s work improving the area even if they never set foot there.
Keeping the building unoccupied avoids the hassle of evicting tenants, allowing them to trade more quickly.
No, that’s not true. First of all, population both globally and in the US is not decreasing, secondly, economic development is the primary driver of property values.
The way people generally think about houses as just another commodity is all wrong. When you buy land, you are not buying the physical dirt. What you are buying is a right, a right to operate in a specific location. A location that’s close to a lot of workplaces and services is going to be more in demand than one that isn’t. Any time a subway station opens up, the value of all nearby properties goes up, regardless of the ratio of people to houses.
None of those statistics ever take into account where the empty homes are. It doesn’t matter if houses in the middle of nowhere are empty because nobody wants to live there. What matters is how many homes are allowed to exist closer in to the cities where people actually want to live.
But sure, we just need to build more poorly made, for maximum profit, homes that definitely don’t make giant corporations lots of money whilst simultaneously destroying green spaces, communities, and any form of third places within walkable distance of the poorly made homes…
That’s absolutely ass-backwards bullshit. Back in reality, building density is what creates walkability, not what destroys it! Quit being dishonest.
https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/
But sure, we just need to build more poorly made, for maximum profit, homes that definitely don’t make giant corporations lots of money whilst simultaneously destroying green spaces, communities, and any form of third places within walkable distance of the poorly made homes…
There’s certainly no market manipulation that renders supply and demand utter bollocks.
As the other person mentions, vacant homes in some rural area are irrelevant when you can not work there. Look at Japan if you want to see that dialed up to 11.
10% of houses being unoccupied sounds like a lot to me. I would guess that a maximum of 3% would be a healthy amount.
I wonder, how do companies actually make money from owning houses that they don’t use? If you are a company, how do you get more dollars per year from a house that’s empty than one that is occupied and giving you rent?
Let’s make an example. Rent let’s say is $1000/month, which is $12k per year. How do you make $12k per year from owning a house without renting it out?
In the long run, they don’t. It’s a speculative bubble right now, but eventually they have to sell to somebody who intends for the property to be occupied because that’s the only way to get actual value out of it.
I have friend that lives in Vegas. They are stuck in the house they bought since the private equity ownership seems to be keeping a ton of empty homes off the market to keep scarcity and thus prices high. These companies have deep pockets and can weather the storm over long periods until the market shifts in their favor again.
They make money through speculation. Property values increase over time as the surrounding area becomes more developed and economically advanced, even if the specific property remains exactly the same, allowing property owners to extract value from other people’s work improving the area even if they never set foot there.
Keeping the building unoccupied avoids the hassle of evicting tenants, allowing them to trade more quickly.
they will actually decrease long-term (in most areas) as the population is shrinking, meaning less demand for housing.
No, that’s not true. First of all, population both globally and in the US is not decreasing, secondly, economic development is the primary driver of property values.
The way people generally think about houses as just another commodity is all wrong. When you buy land, you are not buying the physical dirt. What you are buying is a right, a right to operate in a specific location. A location that’s close to a lot of workplaces and services is going to be more in demand than one that isn’t. Any time a subway station opens up, the value of all nearby properties goes up, regardless of the ratio of people to houses.
None of those statistics ever take into account where the empty homes are. It doesn’t matter if houses in the middle of nowhere are empty because nobody wants to live there. What matters is how many homes are allowed to exist closer in to the cities where people actually want to live.
That’s absolutely ass-backwards bullshit. Back in reality, building density is what creates walkability, not what destroys it! Quit being dishonest.