• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I never said it was good. Homes shouldn’t be investments. Ideally, they’d depreciate in value without renovation.

    The reason they appreciate in value is we don’t build enough.

    • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, though you did just call them good investments. An investment being good solely because the market is an anti-consumer purgatory isn’t a good investment. The moment the housing market is fixed the investment collapses back to being driven by property location instead of the simple fact that its exists. Not to mention concerns about another housing market crash or recession waiting in the wings.

      Homes should depreciate in value, similar to cars, and imagine what would happen if car manufacturers decided they liked the Covid price points and supply constriction, and started treating them like the housing market? There’s more money to be made in ensuring there isn’t enough supply than there is in meeting demand.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can recognize the reality of a good investment while disagreeing that it should be a good investment.

        People aren’t building because they are choosing not to. They’re not building because they literally can’t.

        • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Probably would have been worth clarifying that distinction earlier, but I’m not attacking families looking to pay for a home to be built. Construction companies that build new homes en masse are doing so to make money, not to address the housing shortage.

          Much like Nissan being pleasantly surprised at making more money by discontinuing production of their cheaper models, larger construction companies aren’t at some sad loss to meet demand. they acquire building permits based on how many months of completed housing supply they have waiting to be purchased. When it passes a certain level, apparently 6 months of supply, they slow down completions and reduce the number of new permits until the supply is sold at the prices they want.

          Otherwise it would be less profitable. I’m not saying there aren’t other issues, and smaller home building outfits struggle with local permitting, keeping employees, and rising prices for materials and appliances. But a huge issue with the industry is that it’s fundamentally against their best interest to solve the housing shortage. There’s a happy little feedback loop between builders and investors that keeps pumping home prices up, which lets new ones be sold for more, which pumps home prices up. Which restricts more and more of the housing market to investors, until the dystopian future where everyone rents except for the lucky souls that inherit the family property.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is not against anyone’s interest to build housing and you’re making a lot of frankly absurd claims here, specifically just to villainize people.

            Highly recommend you look up criticisms of SFH zoning policy