Ask Lemmy

No, unless we separate housing from investment, it will never be affordable. I don't foresee the political will to make it happen.

I honestly think were heading for a total societal collapse. If the people with power and resources were the sort that were inclined to use it for good, they would have done it already. Given that we haven't seen this, it's reasonable that this accumulation at the top will continue unabated and that more and more people will fall into poverty and despair.

This is a recipe for revolution, and revolution is largely incompatible with stability, especially in the near term.

I wish this wasn't the case. I suspect this century''s deaths will dwarf last century's.

Not without some real force or change, middle class has invested to much of their retirement into the housing market to allow the prices to tank. Those who have are not going to risk it for the have nots.

No. As the effects of climate change become worse, people will migrate to cooler places, which will only push up prices in those places. Poor people will be left to live in uninhabitable and uninsurable areas, while the rich will get to live in comfort.

Climate change is essentially a class struggle, like everything else in life. As long as the 1% don’t have to suffer, nothing will be done. To get the rich to do something about climate change, it will have to affect them directly.

No. Expensive housing is a genie in a bottle.

Once sufficient people have purchased a house at the high price, it would be in their interest for prices to remain high. Corporate entities that buy up houses will actively lobby to make sure housing prices stay high, and the average Joe who paid that much for a house will be happy it stays that way.

I think were closer to seeing people be forced to rent every comoddity they need to live than we are to seeing full home ownership.

The solution is simple, but will never happen. Make it illegal to own a home you don't live in.

I bought an apartment about 15 years ago. I finally finished paying it about 3 years ago, and recently got an offer to move to Ontario. With the current house prices and what I was offered there (about 80k), I could barely make rent for my family. I really wanted to move but had to say no because of stupid absurd rent prices. What’s weird is that if I wanted to rent the place I bought I would not be able to afford it either. This is bullshit.

This is kind of just something that krept into my mind but I think with a slowing birthrate that we may just end up with too many homes at some point in the next 25 years.

There are 2 big obstacles we need to overcome. The first is corporate ownership of residential property. This needs to go away.

The second big issue, we need to build higher density housing, and get rid of the enormous parking spaces that take up our downtowns. Not everyone needs a house. And you can absolutely build medium density housing that doesn't feel cramped. Sure, living in an apartment is not perfect, but you are closer to the places you want to go, and public transportation is more feasible. It's a win-win for everyone.

Yeah but the market is going to have to absolutely tank first. There's a lot of money in that bubble, and it's going to be fucking painful when it does. But it'll get there.

After the climate mass deaths, migrations and/or wars, there should be plenty of land.

Although it might not be habitable.

The problem is not affordable housing, there's plenty of that in the US, the problem is getting people to states where housing is affordable without significant drops in quality of life due to lack of access to services and such.

Like, you could buy land in Detroit for the price of a decent car, put a trailer on it and you're already on the property ladder, but you're in Detroit.

I can’t speak to other markets but in California, the housing bubble is in part supported by investment from around the world. Chinese and Russian nouveau rich are buying homes in CA because it’s a safe place to keep their money relative to their other options. They might even just leave them empty and watch them appreciate. It’s disgusting, when people are struggling like hell just to live.

Perhaps the state could regulate this and ban international purchases or empty homes but I highly doubt it since the horse has left the barn decades ago and this would deeply impact many rich people, and those people have influence. It would also tank the home values of many average Americans, which would be deeply unpopular as many of those folks are banking on taking that value with them to Mexico or Ecuador to retire on. So this regulation would be bad for the rich and unpopular at large. It would help the young and the poor, the two chronically underrepresented groups.

So unless we can change the entire world order, I don’t see this wholly going away. Can we make it better? I think so. We need more supply, and it needs to be high density and low cost. Those are not insurmountable. But right now, private developers and the government don’t have what it takes to do anything.

I know someone who works for a low income housing non profit and they manage 8 big apartment buildings that their non profit built or bought and they operate them as homes for low income people. They are funded by philanthropists large and small as well as some public money.

If we could find a way to direct more money to such things, we could make a real impact. Perhaps a wealth tax that goes directly to such housing.

But even then, it’s like MediCal - it will only help those in abject poverty. It wont help my cousin who is making $125k and still can’t afford to buy a home. Middle class will never get help, basically, and this is why you see them moving elsewhere.

Not until people get off their asses and show the 1% they have no real power. In order to make an omelet, you need to break some eggs. It is long past time to crack some shells.

I suspect that a strong push for fully remote work would help the US with housing costs due to a chunk of the workforce moving out of the cities and into the boonies.

No. Not because of overpopulation or such, but because the powers that be have simply discovered how lucrative it is to use housing as a business investment, and the fact that everyone NEEDS housing, no exceptions.

This is essentially a supply problem, so the "supply side" of this equation is the side with all the power. The end.

No. With climate change more land will be unlivable, there will be more conflicts and more immigration (legal and illegal). Housing will increase because demand is high and supply will shrink further b

Just keep building, and change zoning laws to make that easier.

Only if capitalism falls. Otherwise zero chance. Sry.

No, at least not in countries (e.g., the USA) that rely on the state to micromanage every aspect of zoning, and which therefore allow NIMBYs to derail progress at every possible step.

In a better world we would draft new laws to throw out our entire zoning system, and start over with something much more flexible at the state or national level- ideally based on the approach Japan uses, which defaults to mixed-use for every building and makes NIMBYism structurally impossible.

I mean I do kind of expect the world to completely collapse within 20 years, so kinda?

A cave or a half-destroyed building in an overgrown city are free right? Doesn’t get cheaper than that.

No.

I never wanted to be a homeowner personally, but earlier this year I noticed that four AirBNB's had materialized just on my little block in America, so I bought a condo. I paid $40,000 more than it cost ten years ago, but it's beautiful, I like it, and it gives me the ability to stay where I want to long-term, so here we are.

The Federal Government is not going to act on the forced scarcity of housing, so expect the issue to be handled similar to the way states handled COVID. Some states had good policies. Most had shitty policies, but overall, the outcomes were negative to some degree, and that's almost certainly what will occur with housing over time.