Limiting the number of homes people can own will reduce the incentives for people or real estate developers to build more. You may end up with lower supply of homes, which may drive up price.
Modern economies usually depends on economies of scale to make profits. Imagine if a law was passed to limit the number of groceries people can buy in a supermarket because the government think it’ll help poor people by hoping the law will drive down price. This would probably backfire, prompting the supermarket to buy less from distributors, and sell at a higher price because now they can’t count on economies of scale.
There’s already plenty of homes if they quit being ran as BNB’s.
As far as incentives for builders to build homes, you’re currently in a self harming system. For a single family home the price per square foot average has literally doubled over the past 15 years. A house that would have cost $120,000 just 15 years ago to build, now costs $250,000. Building supplies are through the roof because demand is already so high for them.
Enough houses already exist. Stop the bullshit house collectors, then the market actually have houses available to buy and prices will drop, so building new ones sliws, so building supply prices lower again, and houses stay a bit closer to being affordable again.
I paid $130k for a 3 year old house. Now it’s a 17 year old house but it’s currently worth around $300k. That’s absolutely stupid.
You’re saying there’s plenty of homes as if they are natural resources to be distributed. They aren’t. Someone who spends money to build the homes and covers the costs necessary to even start building the homes need to get their return.
Even if they are natural resources to be distributed and enough houses already exists, what are you proposing? Just give the homes away?
You’re paying a house and now its worth is more than double the amount you paid 17 years. Sorry, you’re an idiot if you think there’s a “correct” price of anything. That’s the point of prices in market economy. They rise and fall depends on countless economic circumstances. I don’t think your old house lives in a vacuum not affected by the economic changes surrounding your town/city or neighborhood.
If you’re thinking about housing price cap, let’s even stop this discussion because clearly you are not familiar about macroeconomic causes and effects.
Limiting the number of homes people can own will reduce the incentives for people or real estate developers to build more. You may end up with lower supply of homes, which may drive up price.
Modern economies usually depends on economies of scale to make profits. Imagine if a law was passed to limit the number of groceries people can buy in a supermarket because the government think it’ll help poor people by hoping the law will drive down price. This would probably backfire, prompting the supermarket to buy less from distributors, and sell at a higher price because now they can’t count on economies of scale.
In short, I’m saying your solution is naive.
There’s already plenty of homes if they quit being ran as BNB’s.
As far as incentives for builders to build homes, you’re currently in a self harming system. For a single family home the price per square foot average has literally doubled over the past 15 years. A house that would have cost $120,000 just 15 years ago to build, now costs $250,000. Building supplies are through the roof because demand is already so high for them.
Enough houses already exist. Stop the bullshit house collectors, then the market actually have houses available to buy and prices will drop, so building new ones sliws, so building supply prices lower again, and houses stay a bit closer to being affordable again.
I paid $130k for a 3 year old house. Now it’s a 17 year old house but it’s currently worth around $300k. That’s absolutely stupid.
You’re saying there’s plenty of homes as if they are natural resources to be distributed. They aren’t. Someone who spends money to build the homes and covers the costs necessary to even start building the homes need to get their return.
Even if they are natural resources to be distributed and enough houses already exists, what are you proposing? Just give the homes away?
You’re paying a house and now its worth is more than double the amount you paid 17 years. Sorry, you’re an idiot if you think there’s a “correct” price of anything. That’s the point of prices in market economy. They rise and fall depends on countless economic circumstances. I don’t think your old house lives in a vacuum not affected by the economic changes surrounding your town/city or neighborhood.
If you’re thinking about housing price cap, let’s even stop this discussion because clearly you are not familiar about macroeconomic causes and effects.
Don’t try to strawman away into another argument. Know when you’ve lost.
This isn’t really about winning or losing (defined by what, exactly? Upvotes? Lol)
It’s good argument on differing ideas.
And I only mentioned price caps because you mentioned capping houses owned. Not my intention to strawman you.
Good