If houses depreciated like cars,wouldnt that solve most economic issues?

[Eternal Tecate]

The Methodology of Real Estate Appraisal: Land-Residual or Building-Residual, and their Social Implications | Michael Hudson

michael-hudson.com

 

[the cac mamba]

Its only a supply and demand issue based on the setup. The government has created a monopoly. Its a high barrier to entry where there shouldnt be.

what the hell does this even mean? cant you put down like 3 percent as a first time buyer?

 

[Spence]

Houses depreciate in Japan but they still have the same problems.

Houses are much bigger in the states and people don’t move nearly as much. There’s also no incentive to move from the countryside to the big city like they do in Japan which means houses stay the same or become more valuable. Nobody wants to move 2 hours away from any city into the sticks

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

Houses are the source of most people's wealth so them depreciating would cause bigger problems such as millions of mortgages being beyond worthless.

The bigger issue is that wages have been stagnant for the better part of 20 years.

Wages are fine. The problem is unearned income and passive income skyrocketing coupled with 2 massive tax cuts enabling wealthy people to keep more of their money.

Inflation has been artificially inflated and most people just accept it. Not only do they accept it they spend even more. Taking out loans and getting credit cards.

There are too many jobs in the $9 - $14 an hour range to just increase wages. You increase wages when revenue is up. But again. CEO pay is insane and they’re paying less in taxes so they have no incentive to increase payroll liabilities

 

[Wild self]

In some parts of the world houses aren’t seen as investments but merely places to live. Treating housing as a commodity is unethical.

TLR believes that only wealthy people deserve to live in a house in a decent area. Landlords need to face brutal retribution.

 

[the cac mamba]

TLR believes that only wealthy people deserve to live in a house in a decent area.

how would it work, if you took 'deserve' out of the equation?

im trying to understand what you and OP are proposing. everyone doesnt have the right to a nice house with a yard that can't work

 

[Peruvian Connect]

Maybe but there is a shortage of housing so even crappy homes are going to have inflated values. Hell car values have gone up the past couple of years because they are at a premium.

But there really isn't a shortage of houses...

 

[Jasonmask]

Y’all nikkas got me co-signing cac mamba itt

 

[Peruvian Connect]

how would it work, if you took 'deserve' out of the equation?

im trying to understand what you and OP are proposing. everyone doesnt have the right to a nice house with a yard that can't work

It can work. If houses were affordable everyone could have a nice house. If I could buy a 80 year old house for $10 grand and fix it up, it be nice. Instead an 80 year old house that was valued at 20,000 80 years ago is now worth 300,000 with no up keep

 

[the cac mamba]

It can work. If houses were affordable everyone could have a nice house.

they tried this in the USSR, it doesnt work

they should definitely stop these fukkin investment companies from buying up single families, but thats not gonna get rid of competition for the rest of us

 

[bnew]

we have that here in america, with public housing. doesnt seem to work too well

doesn't work to well here because it was never meant to succeed. a threat of a good example will not happen on certain peoples watch.

 

[bnew]

they tried this in the USSR, it doesnt work

 

[Peruvian Connect]

what the hell does this even mean? cant you put down like 3 percent as a first time buyer?

You can but the high interestrates makes it damn near unaffordable unless it's a fixer upper or in the slums

 

[the cac mamba]

You can but the high interestrates makes it damn near unaffordable unless it's a fixer upper or in the slums

7 percent is a historically low interest rate, if you want to go back 80 years

 

[Still Benefited]

what the hell does this even mean? cant you put down like 3 percent as a first time buyer?

If it wasnt for home values constantly rising and being a full proof investment over time. You would have more apartments being built. Which would mean less "housing shortages". Which would keep inflation down. People cant even save to afford 3% with these high ass rent prices.


Plus when you have a 30 year mortage with no savings,things happen. Folks are being priced out of ownership.

Houses depreciate in Japan but they still have the same problems.

Houses are much bigger in the states and people don’t move nearly as much. There’s also no incentive to move from the countryside to the big city like they do in Japan which means houses stay the same or become more valuable. Nobody wants to move 2 hours away from any city into the sticks

Can we really say what peoples moving habits would be when its unaffordable in so many places? People are choosing where to live, based on the fact they cant afford the extra 200$-400 they would need to move where they actually prefer to live.


In alot of places people want to move into cities but cant because prices are too high. And prices are high because of zoning, which is based on keeping prices high. Either in neighborhoods that dont want apartments near their expensive homes. And probably on some real estate cartel shyt. Where developers/investors are in cahoots with the city to keep their apt prices high.

But some people wouldnt want to live in a crowded city. And might move out to the burbs or sticks if the prices werent so damn high.


I dont know how people would move,if they could move how they wanted to move.