Why did the landlords charge $300 20 years ago when they could have charged $500? Were they just less greedy? Or was the supply of homes appropriate for the number of people?
People have always been greedy. They’re not more greedy today than they were 20 years ago. Is it a problem? Yes. It will always be a problem. But there are other issues at play that need to be recognized or nothing will ever be solved.
Ok, and my entire point, that started this discussion, is that greedy landlords might not be the problem. Maybe there are bigger issues at play causing these prices to be so high.
Fact is, the supply of homes is just as much to blame for high rent prices as greedy landlords. If the landlords charged less than what the home is worth, you would never be able to find a place to live near where you want/need as everything would be sold out. Maybe you’ve fixed one problem but didn’t fix the actual problem.
He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit.
It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store. Supply and demand ultimately determines the price. Charging what it is worth is no more greedy than any other aspect of capitalism. And as I said originally, maybe there are bigger issues than just “greedy landlords” that are causing the prices to go up so much, in this case unchecked capitalism.
Zoning is just one example. Part of the problem is that someone that just bought a million dollar home doesn’t want multi family homes built across the street. That will decrease the value of their house. Zoning plays into this. There’s plenty more state/local governments can do, but are not doing.
It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality. Why should we expect investors to build homes that would give them less profit? Exactly, and why would you expect landlords to charge less than what the home is worth? Why would Nike charge $50 for those shoes when they can charge $200 and still sell out immediately?
There’s lots to consider and saying “greedy landlords” is the problem just ignores the entire reality.
You learn weird things about your cats when sitting on the toilet.
Maybe. I was confused by their last comment that in no way acknowledged the point I made. This specific article is good journalism. But the commenter didn’t not acknowledge that.
In an abstract economy 101 sense that is true.
In a more concrete real world sense, the price is set by the landlord. Neither the supply nor the demand curve force the landlord to increase rent.
The price is set by the landlord based on what people are willing to pay. What people are willing to pay is based on what is available in the market.
This is all just supply and demand. If a landlord has an empty home for rent, and there are no other homes for rent nearby, they can charge whatever anybody is willing to pay. If there are 3 empty homes right nearby, they will need to price it in line with the others.
So, the “we” that could lower prices by building more would have to be the state or some public entity that is less profit focused, not private landlords.
Or the local/state governments need to create zones for lower/middle income homes or apartments. Or in some way they need to encourage developers to build these homes.
Capitalism alone gives us the current situation. Having a government that can counterbalance this will make it work.
Even Russia has elections.
You’re just saying “capitalism is greed”. Which is fine, and not wrong, but it Isn’t all that insightful and does nothing to solve any actual problems.
Fact is, supply and demand is driving these costs, not greedy landlords. If somebody wasn’t paying that rent, they wouldn’t be charging that much.
We need to prioritize building low income/affordable homes. Flood the market with supply and the price will go down.
If you read this article and thought, “journalistic malpractice”, I think you gotta reset your understanding of what journalism is. They can’t just say “oh, this smells like bullshit so we’re going to write articles about how it’s bullshit”. If that’s what they did, then there is no difference between journalism and lemmy comments.
They have to actually research the facts surrounding the claims like a scientist would. Start from the assumption that what they’re saying is true, then follow the numbers to come to a conclusion. Now the conclusion is not based some feeling, it is based on actual data.
We can now say not only did it smell like bullshit, but thanks to these journalists we can identify exactly how it is bullshit.
I was behind a cyber truck the other day when it went over train tracks. I thought it was going to fall apart.
Are you talking about this article specifically? It seems like this article is taking the promise Trump made and following all the dollars to prove exactly how that promise was bullshit. This seems like journalism at work.
I shouldn’t have phrased it as an either or. Landlords are definitely partly to blame. Especially the ones making millions and lobbying congressmen to keep things shitty for the less wealthy.
But it’s a much bigger issue than just blaming a group of faceless people.
You got 2 downvotes for saying it’s not all landlords. I think that was what I was getting at.
It’s easy to point your finger and blame an imaginary person for your problems. But it’s often much more complicated than that.
There’s an infrastructure built around benefiting people with wealth that, in turn, harms people without wealth.
There’s a concept of supply and demand. There should be more supply.
Ok, but it’s not just landlords. It’s an entire infrastructure built on allowing this kind of thing to happen.
This is a great example of one of those “bigger issues” I was talking about.
Is it greedy landlords? Or is there a bigger issue at play, and landlords are the scapegoat? I imagine not all landlords are greedy, but if market price is $1,600, why wouldn’t the landlord charge $1,600?
You think they do that with a jeep, or some other actual off-road vehicle? Maybe they would, but I think the curb would take out that nazi car. That’s the difference.
When are
not are
is only for
when are.
I decoded it.
While I’m sure it really is bad, worse sales since Covid doesn’t really sound that bad. That’s an incredibly low bar and not that long ago.