I may have used the wrong word, though. By judging I mean that somebody has to decide if an apartment is a luxery apartment that is not allowed to be built. If that’s done by price, then you just don’t allow the price to rise until there is an equilibrium of supply and demand, for all housing.
That kind of judgement already exists in the form of what rents social services are willing to pay (the personal allowance is the same everywhere, allowed rent varies by location). As far as building permits go you can always build luxury housing, it’s a question of how much social housing you’re required to build alongside. Municipalities have been way too lax on that in the past, social housing status was allowed to lapse, pretty much no municipality makes use of their right of first refusal for land sales, etc.
The trouble with allowing the market to come to an equilibrium at its own pace is where are people going to live in the meantime. If this was about avocado toast, no problem, let them eat brioche, but basic human necessities being in undersupply has potentially catastrophic outcomes. As in: People are going to vote for Nazis because they don’t trust any party to solve their issues catastrophic.
The limiting factor is not construction crews but plots and approvals. If people could build, the market would quickly adjust. The problem is that the market is supposed to stay high.
I forgot to reply to this:
Also why should irrational investors deserve protection. “Socialism for the rich but not the poor”?
Because every regular citizen who owns their house or appartment will lose half their wealth or more when the housing market goes down.
Everybody who bought a house above construction costs will lose. People in poorer countries can afford houses because construction can be cheap. It’s artificially increased and can be brought down in the same way that European farmers can compete with third world countries, by using automation and reducing manual interference.
If it is not the circumstances, of course the problem must be the investors and their unreasonable ROI expectations. But it’s the circumstances that limit supply and thus keep prices high. If established parties would suggest to change that they would massively lose voters.
People who understand this, and see that the old parties don’t change this, have strong incentives to vote for the AfD.
Because every regular citizen who owns their house or appartment will lose half their wealth or more when the housing market goes down.
Which is of no consequence when you’re living in it.
The limiting factor is not construction crews but plots and approvals.
[citation needed]. There’s plenty of land left and right, it’s almost trivial to re-designate agricultural land as residental, but who the fuck is going to build all the streets, tram line, all the houses. A stroke of a pen on the one side, actual training and logistics on the other.
The problem is that the market is supposed to stay high.
It’s not. Unless you’re someone with multiple properties trying to profit off it, then you want it to raise. Otherwise, everyone benefits from low prices.
Which is of no consequence when you’re living in it.
It’s not. Unless you’re someone with multiple properties trying to profit off it, then you want it to raise. Otherwise, everyone benefits from low prices.
I agree with you that everybody profits because a liquid housing market will make life much easier.
But people plan to sell their house, or appartment, either to have money to travel when they retire, or for their children to inherit, or for many other reasons.
It can be argued that they already lost the money when they bought the house, so they shouldn’t worry when prices come down now. But I am very confident that whichever party approves the laws that change the market will not be elected for decades.
The limiting factor is not construction crews but plots and approvals.
[citation needed]. There’s plenty of land left and right, it’s almost trivial to re-designate agricultural land as residental
There was a quote some comments ago about the main factors to change for a better housing market.
The designation of the land is the point. It is trivial but it doesn’t happen.
Actually I approve that it doesn’t happen because agricultural land shouldn’t be destroyed unnecessarily, especially when there is still hunger in the world. However, there are many areas with single family housing. Those could be repurposed.
It’s right that there are some logistics to settle. To me, they are small compared to the magnitude of the housing problem. If they are not approached then I think that’s on purpose, with the main goal of keeping the housing market high.
I wasn’t talking about inefficiencies. Try again.
I just did. And I gave a reasoning. You also judged it, but came to the opposite conclusion, and gave no reasoning.
I can’t be arsed you’re a hopeless case. Learn to care about the shit you argue about.
Thanks for the conversation.
I may have used the wrong word, though. By judging I mean that somebody has to decide if an apartment is a luxery apartment that is not allowed to be built. If that’s done by price, then you just don’t allow the price to rise until there is an equilibrium of supply and demand, for all housing.
That kind of judgement already exists in the form of what rents social services are willing to pay (the personal allowance is the same everywhere, allowed rent varies by location). As far as building permits go you can always build luxury housing, it’s a question of how much social housing you’re required to build alongside. Municipalities have been way too lax on that in the past, social housing status was allowed to lapse, pretty much no municipality makes use of their right of first refusal for land sales, etc.
The trouble with allowing the market to come to an equilibrium at its own pace is where are people going to live in the meantime. If this was about avocado toast, no problem, let them eat brioche, but basic human necessities being in undersupply has potentially catastrophic outcomes. As in: People are going to vote for Nazis because they don’t trust any party to solve their issues catastrophic.
The limiting factor is not construction crews but plots and approvals. If people could build, the market would quickly adjust. The problem is that the market is supposed to stay high.
I forgot to reply to this:
Because every regular citizen who owns their house or appartment will lose half their wealth or more when the housing market goes down.
Everybody who bought a house above construction costs will lose. People in poorer countries can afford houses because construction can be cheap. It’s artificially increased and can be brought down in the same way that European farmers can compete with third world countries, by using automation and reducing manual interference.
If it is not the circumstances, of course the problem must be the investors and their unreasonable ROI expectations. But it’s the circumstances that limit supply and thus keep prices high. If established parties would suggest to change that they would massively lose voters.
People who understand this, and see that the old parties don’t change this, have strong incentives to vote for the AfD.
Which is of no consequence when you’re living in it.
[citation needed]. There’s plenty of land left and right, it’s almost trivial to re-designate agricultural land as residental, but who the fuck is going to build all the streets, tram line, all the houses. A stroke of a pen on the one side, actual training and logistics on the other.
It’s not. Unless you’re someone with multiple properties trying to profit off it, then you want it to raise. Otherwise, everyone benefits from low prices.
I agree with you that everybody profits because a liquid housing market will make life much easier.
But people plan to sell their house, or appartment, either to have money to travel when they retire, or for their children to inherit, or for many other reasons.
It can be argued that they already lost the money when they bought the house, so they shouldn’t worry when prices come down now. But I am very confident that whichever party approves the laws that change the market will not be elected for decades.
There was a quote some comments ago about the main factors to change for a better housing market.
The designation of the land is the point. It is trivial but it doesn’t happen.
Actually I approve that it doesn’t happen because agricultural land shouldn’t be destroyed unnecessarily, especially when there is still hunger in the world. However, there are many areas with single family housing. Those could be repurposed.
It’s right that there are some logistics to settle. To me, they are small compared to the magnitude of the housing problem. If they are not approached then I think that’s on purpose, with the main goal of keeping the housing market high.