Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

Housing prices

⁨1175⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online⁩ to ⁨workreform@lemmy.world⁩

https://discuss.online/pictrs/image/85e4ddf0-dbfd-41e1-9b9c-6c1db65c3aec.jpeg

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • unitedwithme@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Private businesses being allowed to buy up the market to artificially increase prices and scarcity. How else can you ensure real estate is a solid investment stream?

    source
    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I think that’s part of it, but a larger part–having been a local reporter–is that government is run by people trying to keep property values high. In cities, that’s real estate developers and landlords. In suburbs, it’s typical homeowners.

      Most construction brings down property values: increase supply=lower demmand=lower prices. There is therefore a strong political will to oppose ALL new construction.

      The second concern is: how do we keep poor people out? Things like minimal lot sizes are designed to keep the prices up and limit the amount of new citizens.

      The third concern is: how can we spend the most of our money on OUR children’s education. Many suburbs are spiritually and economically designed to do ONE thing: get kids into good colleges. That means high property valuations across the board so the most money can go to individual children’s education. There are very many suburbs people don’t even move to UNLESS they’re having children, and they move out when they’re kids leave school.

      If you build an apartment building in one of these suburbs and children start moving in, what happens? THe money from the rich houses is now diverted away from the rich children and towards the poor children, who are now paying much less in taxes.

      I do like the oligopoly narrative, but we have to face that we are facing MASSIVE FAILURES on a social and political levels. Everybody is scrapping for themselves and building walls and pulling up ladders and basically being as self-interested me-and-mine as possible, at the same time money is becoming the dominant form of political activity with which the masses of regular people can not compete.

      source
      • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Don’t worry, with birth rates dropping like a rock we’ll have plenty of extra houses in a couple generations, assuming humanity can make it that far.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      They realized someday people pay off mortgages. No one’s ever paid so much in rent that they stopped having to pay.

      source
      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        And these cancerous parasites are doing it to everything possible, sucking the goodness and value out of the entire planet and life itself, because their greed is a terminal mental illness.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • makeshift0546@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      This is nonsense. Corporations own 10% of housing. There is pressure but it’s not a primary driver people need to stop parroting this

      Homes are treated as speculation and investments. NIMBY ism abound when it comes to density. Expensive labor for new home construction.

      These are the primary drivers.

      source
      • unitedwithme@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Dude, so much of our area has turned into corporate rentals for when they host guests, or rent them out when not needed for business personnel.

        The house close to my parents went for almost 40k over asking last year, so not even in a heated market.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Zannsolo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        There’s probably another 10% owned by individual landlords with 3+ properties as well. It’s driving prices far more than you think. I’m my town something like 37% of single family homes are rental properties, if you don’t think that’s causing insane inflation of house prices in my area you’re crazy.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Waterpumpee@lemmus.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Really basic 100m2 house is 450.000€ here. No basement no lot. Construction is stupid expensive since ukraine war started. Add to this, everytime there’s a sale several people demand processing fees in % of the value including state… This drives prices only up.

      Doesnt help that china built their economy on real estate in the last decades, consuming lots of the raw materials. Also ever stricter regulations like insulation, heating, electricity is a point.

      Companies buying homes shouldnt exist but we are at 650-750k for a 4 person home with barely any lot without that already.

      source
  • DagwoodIII@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Here’s the history of US inflation in a nutshell.*

    Lyndon Johnson wanted to have a Great Society and have a quick win in Vietnam. He thought that a big buildup could give the US a knockout blow, but it turned into an expensive quagmire. The US was dropping a dozen Hiroshimas worth of bombs on the jungle every week. This meant that US steel mills were working 24/7 and not getting updated. LBJ is printing money to pay for this, because he doesn’t want to raise taxes.

    Nixon comes in in 1969, promising to end the war. Instead he triples down on the policy of printing money and overworking the factories. Then the Arab Oil Boycott hits. Prices of everything jumps. Many small manufacturing businesses either go broke or relocate to non-Union states. All those fancy Manhattan lofts you see today started as factory buildings.

    And while the US steel mills were running day and night, Japan and Germany couldn’t get American steel, so they started building their own mills. Mills that needed a lot less power than the aging US mills. Suddenly Americans were willing to buy a tiny Japanese car instead of a Detroit model that got 6 mile to a gallon.

    Jimmy Carter gets one term as President before the Iran Hostage Crisis ruins him. Carter hires Paul Volker to run the Fed and save the economy. Volker’s plan works, but it’s Ronald Reagan who gets the credit. Ronnie kept Volker in place.

    Reagan has his own version of Nixon’s print and spend policy. Tax cuts for the rich and bank deregulation create an artificial boom in the 1980s that lead to a stock market ‘correction’ in 1987.

    When Nixon came into office, ‘middle class’ was one Union job paying for a family of four and $1 million was considered a vast fortune that could buy a dozen houses.

    By the time Bush Sr. was done, ‘middle class’ was two incomes to support the household, and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.

    *this is a very brief description, leaving out many details.

    source
    • HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      for a brief description this is very impressive.

      source
      • DagwoodIII@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Thank you.

        source
    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Eh… I think this puts a bit more emphasis on the economic impact of US Steel to the overall economic outlook during the post war period.

      The steel industry was more important to the US economy from the later 1800s to the post war boom, but a lot of the growth in the US market started to diversify way before the Vietnam war. Automation and the popularization of mini mills hit the US steel industry harder than anything.

      The same thing goes for the accusation of “printing money” being the real cause of inflation. In reality the rapid rise in inflation was one of the reasons Nixon moved to fiat currency. The Brenton Woods system was leading to American gold reserves being drained by other nations right when Germany and Japan began to recover during the post war period.

      Tax cuts for the rich and bank deregulation create an artificial boom in the 1980s that lead to a stock market ‘correction’ in 1987.

      Tax cuts and deregulation is probably the most significant reason we see the wealth gap start to take off. As well as a general change in attitude of CEO like Jack Welch who popularized the shareholder value movement in American business. He pioneered mass layoffs, cuts to pension, and investment cuts to increase paper prophets. Combined with the legalization of stock buy backs and you have today’s modern economy.

      source
      • DagwoodIII@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        It’s a little ambiguous, because US Steel was actually the name of one of the biggest companies.

        And yes, I could have written a lot more about Reaganomics, but I wanted to go with a very general outline.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • VAK@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      So… Jimmy Carter is to be blamed? /s

      source
      • DagwoodIII@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        No /s needed. The MAGAs totally believe it.

        source
  • Folstar@lemmus.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Interesting claim. Let’s look into it.

    Average home price in 1970: $25k I found a few different figures on this one, and averaged them out.

    $25k 1970 dollars in 2026 per CPI: $220,251 data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=25000&year1…

    not necessary, but gives context: Average (not median) home price today: $502k fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS

    Median home price today: $410k fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS

    “The median money income of all families in 1970 was about $9,870” www.census.gov/library/…/p60-80.html

    Median family income in 2024 (most recent year reported): $105,800 [note: does anyone believe this? FRED is claiming median family income went up 45% in the past decade and I find that EXTRAORDINARILY suspect. Yes, few people get COLA over 3% and many getting fuckall.] fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA646N

    roughly a 10.7X increase

    My best guess is that Mr. Brooks, using slightly different numbers (sources vary, exact years, etc…), to arrive at: 1970 Home Price + Flat Income Gains = $138,000. This is not great methodology, as growth is looked at in percentages for a reason. To illustrate, suppose instead of a house we were looking at candy bars. Let’s say in 1970 a candy bar was a dime and today it’s $2. Grafting raw wage gains onto candy bars, we’re saving over $80k on each candy bar!!! Oh wait, that’s silly. Let’s stick with percentages.

    Using the official wage numbers, we arrive at “the average home today would be $267,500”. This is more accurate yet still a massive departure from where we are today.

    So… what actually broke?

    There are several explanations for this divergence.

    The Good: Houses today are bigger and have better construction standards. Please, before you start typing a survivorship bias based claim about your house from 1905 that’s still in great shape today, read up on survivorship bias. Yes, there are modern builders who do shoddy work (we’ve all seen the Youtube videos), but overall a house built to code in 2026 is significantly more advanced. A fair amount of the cost increase can be captured here.

    The Bad: Rent seeking. Figurative and literally. Somehow someone was like “hey, I’m going to get rich by making a basic necessity worse” and nobody beat them within an inch of their life to discourage others. Rookie mistake by our society.

    The Ugly: Official numbers are suspect at best. This was true before 2025 and whoa boy is it true now. Inflation is chronically under-reported BY DESIGN. That means actual inflation is driving up the cost of houses and cans of bean and things, while reported inflation is being used to determine your pay raise (that is, if you even get one). This divergence that started in the 90s is hitting critical mass here in the roaring 20s and we’re probably fucked as I haven’t heard anyone in a position of power even recognize this problem, let alone suggest how to fix it.

    source
    • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Renting out a single family home for longer than 3 months at a time without living in it should be an actual crime, or at least extremely (50-80%) tax heavy (the taxes then going towards house subsidies). Owning an unoccupied home should be taxed even worse. A corporation can count as a single person, so a property management company can own a single house OR as many apartment complexes as they want before tax punishment.

      The modern version of Airbnb as a business model (people owning 5+ houses to rent for daily prices often in excess of hotel prices with none of the hotel benefits + “cleaning fees”) should have millionaires hanging from trees.

      I foolishly believe the above two policies alone would cut home prices by at least half.

      source
      • Folstar@lemmus.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Agreed. Another, less violent but better for local finances, path forward could be sky high property taxes alongside homestead exemptions. That and greatly simplifying the opaque web of first time homebuyer incentives and options. Passing such a set of reforms would boost tax revenues for a few years, drive up rents while driving down the cost of homes, and then have a tail end boost to home owner industries.

        source
      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        People will dance a thousand dances around the fact that low income housing should be owned and operated by the municipality.

        The privately owned house building indispensable has failed and deserves to lose their place at the table. Those responsible for this problem must not be involved in the solution.

        Build the mega cities, we already have judge dredds murdering us.

        source
  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The 1974 Tax Code re-write, that baked Trickle Down Economics into our tax code, created the Oligarch class, giving them the disposable income to manipulate political policy to their further benefit.

    The Rand Corp issued a report on income inequality, and the situation is far worse than most people think.

    Chart

    The median salary of $43K in 1975 has increased to only $50K today, while they would have been making $92K if the tax code hadn’t been steadily re-written to enrich the wealthy at the cost of the middle class and poor.

    In that same time period, the mean income for the top 1% went from $289K to $1.384 million, while they would have been making $630K under the old tax codes.

    Thats a 17.4% increase in the lower median, and an increase of 321.6% in the 1% median. Clearly there has been an upwards distribution of wealth at the expense of the middle class since the tax codes started to be re-written in 1974 to favor the top economic tier.

    Read more about it :

    New York Mag: nymag.com/…/rand-study-how-high-is-inequality-us.…

    Fast Money: fastcompany.com/…/we-were-shocked-rand-study-unco…

    source
    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The 1974 Tax Code re-write, that baked Trickle Down Economics into our tax code, created the Oligarch class

      Read a history book.

      source
    • doingthestuff@lemy.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Yes our earning power is trash compared to the 70s, and I think there are more reasons for that than what you stated. But your answer didn’t really address why homes specifically have dramatically outpaced the general rate of inflation.

      source
      • qarbone@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Probably because land is one of the best non-fungible assets around. You buy land and you have something whose upper limit on price is only limited by what someone else wants to build on it. And premium space around existing economic centers (cities) doesn’t just spring up.

        source
      • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Privatization and consolidation of houses as investments, instead of homes.

        source
    • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Why use nearly decade old data though?

      That article is 6 years old, and uses data through 2018.

      Median household income today is $83k.

      And that’s adjusted for ”productivity”. Not exactly a concrete metric.

      source
  • slaacaa@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Image

    source
    • 24_at_the_withers@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Not trying to refute this at all, but I’d love to see this same graph normalized for inflation.

      source
      • cecilkorik@piefed.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        That would be interesting, but I’m not sure how useful it would be given that “inflation” itself is a heavily massaged and manipulated metric. It’s one of the many layers of the illusion that the powers that be craft to separate us from the physical reality of why so many more of us have to work harder for the same or less. It only reflects actual reality to the extent it is politically necessary to so it can maintain some semblance of legitimacy. It may be better than nothing for adjusting such charts but it’s also misleading in its own way.

        source
    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Needs log scale

      source
  • rumba@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    What actually broke?

    People figured out they could buy more than one house and rent it to other people, paired with a housing shortage partially due to people/companies owning all the houses, paired with technology to allow you to rent your houses out for a few days here and there to make income.

    We allowed house ownership to become entangled with entrepreneurship.

    source
    • flandish@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      that’s not broken though. this is how capitalism works at a temporal scale. we were marketed to and sold lies. on purpose. by monsters who have spent centuries making us think we can achieve a “dream.”

      source
      • stringere@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Gotta be asleep to dream!

        source
    • thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      …and it screwed EVERYTHING up;

      1. People can’t afford kids because the rents are too high,

      2. Rents too high for cool spaces to hangout in, so everybody’s at home and miserable.

      3. Rents too high for a cheap restaurant to open, so everybody’s mad and pointing fingers,

      4. Can’t find daycare, because it’s too expense for the daycare to rent a commercial property,

      source
    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Even before that there was a boom in people using houses as an investment opportunity instead of just a place for people to live. Land ownership became the get rich quick opportunity that people who don’t play the stock market could put their money into. Then the people who do play the stock market got into it.

      source
  • snooggums@piefed.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Income growth broke as it hasn’t followed economic growth since the 70s.

    source
  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Capitalism is working as intended.

    source
  • ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    What broke is they allowed housing to be a commodity allowing speculators to bid on.

    source
    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Yep. With the repeal of Glass-Steagal, the commercial banks used for things like mortgages, checking accounts, and car loans were able to merge with investment banks. The Act was out into place in 1933 because having retail banks mixed with investment banks was why Black Tuesday lead to the Great Depression.

      That allowed houses and mortgages to be combined into investment packages for the speculators, and lead to prices skyrocketing.

      It’s what caused the 2008 crash, and in all the aftermath of that, nothing was actually done to fix the issue. The fix was simple - re-divorce them and reinstate Glass Steagall.

      source
  • DudleyMason@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Nothing broke.

    This is capitalism working as intended.

    source
  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Homes as equity.

    Once they were considered investments, then they were subject to the “Line Must Go Up” tenet of capitalism.

    source
  • forgetboutpiper@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Capitalism

    source
  • FauxPseudo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Housing became an investment so people bought more than one.

    Houses are twice the size they used to be. So they cost twice as much for that.

    Houses have a lot more regulations and codes they must comply with. Your 1970s wiring is out of code and the new stuff is more expensive. 1970s plumbing is out of code and more expensive. Your 1970s insulation is woefully insufficient and cost more money. Your 1970s house didn’t come with an AC unit. Your 1970s house did not have built-in fire suppression.

    We build less houses now than we did in the 1970s.

    Any one of these four factors would have caused house prices to move up faster than inflation. All three of them together created a perfect storm.

    source
    • baltakatei@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      People should be taxed up the wazoo for any property they personally do not occupy.

      source
      • qat@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        That just increases rental prices (making buying more attractive, but that’s not an option for many people, and also supply is constrained).

        I think the best is just to not allow buying a home for the purpose of renting it out. If you want to rent out a property, sure, but you need to build one first.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • RBWells@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      It’s not just size and quality though - my house is the same size as my mom’s house was, hers was 13,000 in the 1960s. It’s the same size ass the old one I bought for 36k in the housing crash in the 1990s, and sold for 80k in 2010ish, after an addition and metal roof. It is actually for sale again now by someone else after more renovations, they are asking half a million and will probably get close to that.

      The one we have now (same square footage, half built in 1940, addition in 1990s) we had to pay almost 300k and is “worth” (market, not underlying value obviously) like half a million, we did improve it with hurricane windows and metal roof and roof attachments.

      I have never bought as an investment, only as housing. Something is broken, I DO think my house is worth maybe 200k as a real value, I think we overpaid. but the prices now are so much worse than that.

      Yes Florida building code is serious so new houses do have additional utility. But I have only lived in older houses and they are also out of control price wise.

      The big new ones around here go for 1.5 million now - I could have bought every house on my block in the 1990s for less than that.

      source
      • FauxPseudo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        It’s important that we use inflation adjusted numbers here. 13,000 from 1965 would be $137,000 now.

        You only bought it as a house, but people around you bought as an investment.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Houses are twice the size they used to be. So they cost twice as much for that.

      That’s not how homes are priced, though. The real raw materials for construction are a fraction of the total cost. Which is why you’ll see old ranch homes broken up into clusters of three-story townhomes the closer you get to growing downtown districts. Also, why you see increasingly shoddy construction jobs in new-builds, as compressed lumber and stucco replace concrete, steel, and hardwood. Nevermind the cost of labor, which is all over the map depending on whether ICE has decided to raid you recently.

      source
      • FauxPseudo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Materials require labor. Labor requires inspections. The more material the more everything else. And those materials cost more because they are to much tighter specifications than they were in the 70s. The lumber might be cheap but a fire suppression system in a 4000 square foot house costs a lot more than no suppression system in a 1200 one.

        But as you point out it’s not really about materials though. It’s about square footage. You don’t get a bulk discount for buying a 5000 square foot house instead of a 1200. You pay even more. And zoning won’t let you build a 1200 anymore because they tax based on square footage so they jacked up the smallest house size they will approve.

        There is no single cause for houses being more expensive. It’s a whole host of them and that’s why prices climbed faster than inflation.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • BigDiction@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Yeah there just isnt a ton farm land at the edge of towns you can quickly flip into a new community.

      We have tons of land, but not much that can quickly hook into existing utilities. Creating a city from scratch is expensive.

      source
      • FauxPseudo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        If you think building a city from scratch is expensive you should see what it takes to make an apple pie from scratch. You must first invent the universe.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Pika@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I think it would be fully okay to have the cost of a house be multiplicative, based off how many you own after the second house. So, if you are looking to buy a third house, the price is actually double than what you would be expecting, and then your fourth house would be triple what you’re expecting, etc.

      The price of the house will be the cost the seller lists it as, and the seller gets the cost that they listed it as. However, anything over the cost it was listed, if you are affected by that multiplier, has that money go straight into the government.

      The reason I say after the second house is because I do personally think it’s fair for someone to want a vacation home somewhere, I just don’t think it’s fair for someone to have an interest into having a second, third, fourth, or sometimes even fifth vacation home. And there are many cases where you would want to own a second property such as if you run a self-employed job such as a computer repair specialist, you will probably own a shop, and having a office that’s at twice the cost of what it normally would be is extremely cost prohibitive to someone wanting to get into the market.

      source
      • Soup@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        And all that extra money goes to building social housing.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • kamee@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Also Urbanization, guessing there is quite a few houses where people don’t actually want to live

      source
  • sobchak@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I think nearly all western nations have similar problems, so it’s not solely a US thing? I see people talking about affordability in Toronto, London, and New Zealand at least. I recently saw a video of a Chinese software engineer living in a makeshift shack on the roof of a building and still needing to do food delivery on a hacked ebike to make ends meet, so it may not be only a western thing either.

    I would guess it’s a multitude of issues causing it. Wealth disparity and the ballooned financial sector is probably the largest contributor. Resources (lumber, fossil fuels, etc) getting more expensive to extract and transport probably plays some role. Stricter building and sanitation codes, zoning, and communities fighting low income housing being built probably does too.

    source
  • Z745812939054@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    “until we reestablish old-school legit full blown slavery (which we will), we have to make do with debt slavery”

    -oligarch fascists

    source
    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      They don’t want full slavery. Debt slavery is more cost effective. Why buy a depreciating asset?

      source
      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        also prison slavery, but i heard thats industry not doing so well, since people are going to prison less and less.

        source
      • Z745812939054@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        the same reason they’ll never ever ever go to a 4 day work week, or allow work from home, even though those things are proven to increase productivity-- maximum possible suffering

        source
  • atro_city@fedia.io ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The wealthy aren't paying their fair share. They pay way less than they should in taxes and keep accumulating wealth and buying up shit, which of course is coming from us. That then increases prices because more normal people need it.

    !twnw #TaxWealth

    source
    • August27th@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      This is exactly it. All of the other answers in this thread are dancing around this issue without even knowing it. Some happen upon it, but move on like it’s a side item when it should instead be lit up with lights and sirens as the main event.

      Regular people spend the majority of their income on the things they need to survive; food, shelter, energy, clothing, etc. The wealthy and ultra wealthy spend only a miniscule fraction of their money on the same things, so they put that pile of remaining money into investments/assets (stocks/shares, housing, etc), which make them even more money, which they put into more assets which make them even more money, and so on. But the money flowing to them doesn’t come from nowhere, it comes from YOU.

      Collectively speaking, you go to buy a home, they outcompete you on the price, and then gladly rent it to you, all while jacking up the rent over time. They use that extra money from you to buy even more assets. You somehow manage to buy a home, but at a highly inflated price, the money is lent to you by… guess who. And they charge you interest every month, which is money flowing from you, so they can spend it on… even more assets.

      Higher prices at the corporate owned grocery store because the shareholders demand even more dividends. Because goods at the store coming from corporate producers raised the price for the same reason. Because little producers that used to compete in the market are being bought up by big ones that can afford it because they pay next to no corporate tax. But who are the shareholders receiving the dividends? 80% (and rising) of the stock market is owned by the 1%, the people who already have more money than they could ever spend.

      Now we’ve got higher prices for energy for a multitude of reasons, but a fresh new hell is it’s all being gobbled to power data centers. Whose ultimate purpose is an attempt to replace people’s jobs with “thinking” computers. Whether they’ll succeed or not is yet to be seen, but we do know it is being funded by billions of dollars that someone has… guess who again. If they do succeed, then that’s even more money sucked away from you in the form of lower wages at minimum. If it blows up in a catastrophic bubble, they will demand a bailout again, just like the sub prime bubble.

      Our failure to tax the obscenely rich allows them to walk all over us, taking money from us which they use to build the machinery to walk all over us with even greater pressure, which takes even more money from us, and so on. It’s literally exponential, which is why nobody appreciates nor understands it.

      You are not rich, will never be rich. The ones who actually are, are doing everything they can to keep you out of their club. You’ll know because you’ll be paying taxes and they won’t. Which are going to go up soon by the way, to pay for that bailout.

      source
  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Capitalism has always been broken.

    But the underlying problem is the ideology aka “economics”. It’s what fuels these kind of dumb questions. Nothing broke. It’s a feature not a bug.

    source
    • wakko@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Spoken like somebody who has never cracked a book on the subject.

      source
      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Honestly they aren’t entirely wrong, there’s basically two types of economics financialization which is basically all bullshit and proper economic systems which is things like production, logistics, and services. You could probably burn the entire financialized side of the system down and it’d probably help the overall real economy in the long term hell it’d probably help in the short term if not the immediate.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Some people think religion is real too, but it’s only real because people believe in it.

        source
  • Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    this happened and we never recovered: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

    source
    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      So your claim is that things were perfect before 2008?

      source
      • Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        lol I never said that.

        source
      • Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        things were perfect before 2008?

        dollar menu still existed and mc flurries were still mixed so it wasn’t bad lol

        source
  • Formfiller@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It’s the end of the monopoly game

    source
    • WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Someone should get mad and flip the board and say fuck this shit

      source
      • Formfiller@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I think Luigi did that

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Nothing’s broken, least of all the laws of physics. Detached, single family homes are low density housing. The land that makes up any given metro area is basically a two dimensional plane. That plane is a finite amount of space that can only be filled with so many buildings. Detached homes are almost always limited to just a few stories at the most, and they can’t be stacked on top of each other, so vertical expansion is essentially non-existent. The only way to build more detached homes is to spread out horizontally along the two dimensional plane. But the further you go out horizontally from the metro center, the further you are from the jobs and amenities that are associated with an urban core. The detached houses that are nearest to that center are in the highest demand, so their prices go up the most. You can continue to just build out horizontally, but after a while you simply run out of land. Or, the houses get so far from where the jobs and amenities are that it’s not viable.

    There are areas in the US where you can buy a home for $138,000, but most people probably don’t want to live there, which is why the homes only cost $138,000. Areas in greater demand will have higher home prices. In the areas that are in higher demand, again, the only option is horizontal sprawl away from the metro center, if you’re building only detached single family homes.

    source
    • chilicheeselies@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      This is also a function of transit efficiency. It’s not the distance to a metro center that is the problem, it’s the time to get to that metro center. Our commuter rail network is woefully slow. Our highways have design issues that create choke points that cause traffic jams. If living 20 miles from the urban centers was only 20 minutes away, then it wouldn’t be an issue. In fact, it might be desirable to go home to a quiet place, but have more action a short commute away.

      Not even going to mention the poor design of suburban areas that lack a proper downtown of their own.

      source
      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        This is also a function of transit efficiency. It’s not the distance to a metro center that is the problem, it’s the time to get to that metro center.

        Yeah, but the further a suburban neighborhood is from the metro center, the more time it will take to get there, necessarily. Maximally efficient transportation would minimize the travel time but not eliminate it. Even with great transportation options, the further the sprawl, the longer the commute.

        Not even going to mention the poor design of suburban areas that lack a proper downtown of their own.

        But if a suburban area grows enough to need urban infrastructure it kinda stops being suburban. Which is fine, there’s nothing wrong with increasing the number of urban areas. I don’t think we should have only a few Tokyo style mega cities. But I also don’t think higher density is necessarily a bad thing. I get that not everyone wants to live in a relatively high density urban area, but I’m also sure that we can’t just keep sprawling out forever.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • laurenceOfSuburbia@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      They should start building china style huge apartment buildings.
      Stupid that we aren’t yet doing it

      source
      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Idk about China’s style, but we do have high rises. And Washington state is on a state level encouraging building higher density in urban areas. This has led to increased density zoning, and is expected to lead to, in the not too distant future, an area that was once single family housing to be rezoned for high rises.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        They should start building china style huge apartment buildings.

        fuck you. Like living in a cramped apartment where you can hardly move around is more ideal than making it so that people can actually retire and actually make college loans affordable. No one should aspire to live in a Chinese style apartment.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      You can’t just keep building out horizontally; it reduces intensity without reducing costs, eventually becoming unsustainable.

      source
  • PokerChips@programming.dev ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    More population. Still the same amount of earth.

    Also Republican policies.

    source
  • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    According to the alleged dynamics of capitalism, housing prices should be somewhat flat. Build houses that are too big and expensive? Demand is down for that market subset, gotta drop your prices or stop making such but houses. Housing supply is low? Prices go up, so companies will build more housing to make money off of that, increasing supply and stabilizing prices!

    So the dynamics are not working like that. Now of course real estate has a “natural monopoly” aspect, certain land is less valuable because it is just too hard to get to and from relative to what people need to do: work, eat, go to school. So land rents are higher in some places more than others because of this. Am economist might call this a distortion.

    But there is a much more important aspect in the US and similar economies, and that is financialization. Some comments here say prices are very high because houses are treated as an investment. That is true, but also incomplete, and it might make you wrongly think that it is individual homeowners saying, “this house will be worth more later so I will buy it”. This is not enough! The financialization is by the bank that sells you a mortgage, that takes a nice percentage of your money in exchange. They can then make your house into a form of equity that can be seized later as needed if you’re not profitable enough, which they carefully calculate to decide on your initial interest rate. And then they can gamble on that equity on the market. That equity is only worth something if the actual house has value and it has value because they will still loan you that amount on a new house. So an individual home buyer might buy based on the ability to be financed, sure, and the expectation that it will be worth it. But this is only possible because the mortgage lender themselves sees it as profitable for them to do so. If those high mortgages were not available, nobody could buy the expensive houses, land values would plummet, and so would housing prices, etc. of course because the dynamic is capitalist, this would involve a massive disposession and immense suffering if done at their hands and potentially threaten mass organizing and a threat to real estate profits, so whenever that threatens to happen (like 2008) the state keeps finance (and therefore real estate) afloat with free money.

    source
  • HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Housing can’t be affordable and be a good investment.

    web.archive.org/…/housing-cant-be-affordable_and_…

    source
  • childOfMagenta@jlai.lu ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    wtfhappenedin1971.com

    source
  • Etterra@discuss.online ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Nothing broke - the capitalist system is working exactly as designed. We’re just not the tiny sliver of the populace that benefits from it.

    source
  • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    i think that lots of things broke. the biggest issue seems to me that the american public (and unfortunately also large parts of the european public) have been convinced that they need “more” - that they need bigger houses, cars, etc.

    the consequence is that new houses are bigger, and therefore more expensive.

    source
  • nednobbins@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    We insisted on our homes being investments.

    The only way for that to work is for houses to appreciate faster than inflation.

    Otherwise, people would have to sell their houses for less than the inflation adjusted cost of what they put in.

    source
  • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    If you actually look at the cost of labor and materials to build a house today, its not far off. The difference you see is the cost of allowing enormous corporate development companies to exist and do business in this country. The false scarcity on top is a product of the greed that keeps people out of housing to begin with.

    source
  • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Houses should be investments… in the same sense that a good, durable pair of shoes is an investment.

    In a well designed system, the value of property should stay pretty flat over time, and the value of a structure built on that property should slowly go down over time as wear and tear sets in.

    It’s ridiculous that it makes sense to buy more home than you need, and to hold onto a house longer than you need it because it’s one of the best and safest money-earning investments you can make.

    source
  • nieceandtows@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Accountability

    source
-> View More Comments