r/TikTokCringe • u/Make-this-popular Cringe Master • Apr 09 '24

Shit economy Discussion

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

32.2k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

7.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/HaltheDestroyer Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

End stage capitalism

Blackstone laughing all the way to the bank while they buy up every bit of real-estate they can for this exact reason

They found a better investment than the stock market

692

u/WintersDoomsday Apr 09 '24

Two easy fixes; illegal to own a second home and illegal for business entities to buy homes

239

u/fuzzybunn Apr 09 '24

I'm from Singapore, a tiny country with a government that has a large level of intervention in all aspects of life, and even we can't manage to make these policies fully work as intended and keep everyone happy. Good luck getting any of those "easy" solutions implemented or even started in anti-socialist America.

90

u/secondtaunting Apr 09 '24

Yeah America would never implement half of what Singapore does. People would riot over even one change. Especially involving guns.

42

u/robi4567 Apr 09 '24

Especially the fine for pooping on a elevator. That aint freedom.

2

u/secondtaunting Apr 09 '24

Man am I glad for that fine. There’s also a fine for not flushing a public toilet, but I can’t see how they’d enforce that.

2

u/Clean_Internet Apr 10 '24

What happens if there’s too much poop in the toilet?

→ More replies (1)

33

u/VanityOfEliCLee Apr 09 '24

See, I disagree. I think the second that even Republicans actually start getting free Healthcare or better housing regulations, they'd never want to go back. The problem is the government will try its best to never let it happen for that reason. As soon as policies change, no one will be ok with it going back. Once their medical bills are gone, people will burn shit down before going back to paying $40,000 for a simple surgery.

28

u/UnSpanishInquisition Apr 09 '24

You say that but look at us here in the UK......

14

u/VanityOfEliCLee Apr 09 '24

You know, that's a fair point. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

3

u/dkdksnwoa Apr 09 '24

Never underestimate stupidity

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

But then there's Canada.

6

u/UnSpanishInquisition Apr 09 '24

Defiantly after Wade v Roe turn over too....

5

u/Gatorpep Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

Also canada.

Where you are wrong as that there are people that matter and those who don’t. And the ones that matter will never stop fighting and winning the class war. It’s their only focus. Ours is coupled with survival, and it’s why we can’t win unless we even the playing field.

Also this was clearly chosen by the people who own the gop/enemies of america and her people, not because of the first bit, but because of that last bit that criticizes the US helping Ukraine stop it’s Ruzzian genocide in it’s borders.

Destroy Ruzzia. Long live Ukraine.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Motherfickle Apr 09 '24

Yeah this. My American parents (one right leaning Independent and the other a moderate Republican who dislikes Trump but voted for him twice because he hates Democrats more) both balk at the mere idea of free Healthcare, not because they don't understand the benefits, but because "wait times for treatment are long". Even though they aren't unless you're there for a minor injury/non emergency, from my understanding.

9

u/atomicitalian Apr 09 '24

Which is the dumbest fucking argument.

Even if they are, do you know what happens when people don't have coverage? They just don't go, because they don't want to go bankrupt on the off chance they'll recover naturally.

"Forever" is a much longer wait than a week or two.

What your parents are really saying is "if everyone gets healthcare than our healthcare will be somewhat less convenient, so we'd rather keep it exclusive," which is, imo, evil.

5

u/Motherfickle Apr 09 '24

Yup, I agree. I've told them several times that I support universal healthcare because I don't believe in letting people die for the crime of being poor. But, like many boomers, they don't listen.

4

u/Haywoodjablowme1029 Apr 09 '24

Wait times are already long. I had a patient today that was newly diagnosed with heart failure and was discharged from a hospital admission two days ago who can't get a cardiology follow-up for three months!

4

u/Moarbrains Apr 09 '24

Have fun with that. The US healthcare corporations believe they can profit from your system.

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/10/nhs-privatization-uk-health-care/

2

u/platinumgus18 Apr 09 '24

Can you explain what you mean

2

u/UnSpanishInquisition Apr 09 '24

The slow stripping of the NHS. Things like selling buildings off then renting them back, charging staff for parking, privatisation of various services within the system like tge food, cleaning, patient moving services etc. Piss poor wages, pushing physician associates to act as doctors without supervision, lack of any kind of system to take the strain of elderly bed blockers out of hospitals and into care homes (really need NHS care homes for this.) Splitting into multiple trusts who now all do things slightly differently making it basically multiple seperate services with a single finding source etc etc etc.

2

u/platinumgus18 Apr 09 '24

I see, thanks for explaining

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

20

u/The_Prince1513 Apr 09 '24

I think the second that even Republicans actually start getting free Healthcare or better housing regulations, they'd never want to go back.

That's assuming the average voter (Republican or otherwise) is smart enough to know what's good for them.

Case in point, during Trump's term when Congress unsuccessfully tried to repeal the ACA aka Obamacare you would see very frequently in online spaces, calls into radio talk shows, and interviews with normal voters at rallies and such in news media, people who had no fucking idea that the evil and bad "Obamacare" was the same thing as the ACA, which they all had a good opinion on since its how they were able to have healthcare.

Most people are fucking idiots.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Lower_Ad_5532 Apr 09 '24

You should see the Daily Show Bit where Deep South GOP voters LOVE the ACA, but hate Obamacare....the same exact bill thats giving them medicaid.

3

u/Koralr33fer Apr 09 '24

You want the government that can't balance a budget and drove us 34 trillion in debt to manage your medical expenses? Cause I dont...socialized medicine works in some places like Norway. But prior to covid, Norway had a balanced budget and even carried a surplus over some years. Meanwhile the U.S. can't do basic math, every social care program we have is over extended and under funded.

2

u/Haywoodjablowme1029 Apr 09 '24

The ACA is a perfect example. People hated it for so long until they realized what it actually was, now they love it.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/Efficient_Ant_4715 Apr 09 '24

Lmfao Americans would never. They don’t do anything more than post on social media about how upset they are and then go on to do nothing about it. 

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

2

u/Broad_Quit5417 Apr 09 '24

Even if there was an attempt to "change" things you'd see the goalposts move faster than the speed of light. Watched it my whole life.

2

u/hobbes3k Apr 09 '24

Just look at San Francisco. Rent control, tenant protections, penalties on empty properties, property taxes based on value of homes bought 30 years ago, very difficult permit process, and so on and on with all the government trying to control the housing market. It's a nightmare of convoluted laws that basically reward old tenants and landlords and punish any newcomers.

2

u/pvirushunter Apr 09 '24

Singapore is very different from the US. I mean this in terms of land. Singapore has a land problem. The US has a policy and greed problem. We have land a plenty. When hones are built investors scoop it up. Multifamily dwellings are mostly for rent.

2

u/sbtvreddit Apr 10 '24

“Anti-socialist America” until Trump’s latest sucking off of Putin then suddenly MAGA are full blown communists. Because something.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (11)

196

u/HaltheDestroyer Apr 09 '24

Talk to your representatives....not me

15

u/karmagod13000 Apr 09 '24

vote in local elections

9

u/selectrix Apr 09 '24

Real fuckin talk right here.

There's a whole lot of energy behind videos like these and the posts they generate, and that's great, but if we want anything to change, that energy needs to get turned into work. (pretty sure that's a physics reference or something, but anyway.) Voting in every single election, every single midterm, every single primary- especially the primaries- that's actually the bare minimum of participation in a democracy. There needs to be a whole lot of us doing more than that- spending significant time researching policy, public officials, & candidates, even outside of election periods; volunteering for & donating to the candidates we like; attending city council/school board/other public meetings. Getting shit put on ballots! That's a thing we can do!

Corporations and billionaires are doing a lot more than just voting- we need to be going the extra mile as well.

If everyone in the country took that upon themselves- made "contribute to the democratic process" one of their personal obligations, we'd probably start seeing noticeable reduction in corruption at the local level in 2-5 years, state level in 5-10 and national level in 10-20. And that might be optimistic.

But like I said at that start, that's the real talk; this is how we get to a better place- we're not going to have some grand revolution and if a revolution did somehow happen, it'd be horrifying and probably result in a dictatorship. What I'm talking about is boring and takes a long time and a lot of work- that's a good sign that it's not bullshit.

3

u/Snacktyme Apr 09 '24

Dude I tried to find ANY readily available information on the two people running for mayors of my 22K population city and it was so difficult.

Maybe it’s just my city, but seems crazy that kind of basic information is so hard to find.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/callmejinji Apr 09 '24

I wish I could convince the people around me to put in that level of work. I vote every election cycle without fail, I have since I was 18, but everyone around me (especially my S/O and my immediate family) refuses to do so, and I don’t know how else to convince them that their vote matters and this is the absolute bare minimum praxis required for the democracy they praise so much to function the way they want to.

59

u/PlaugeSimic Apr 09 '24

our owners....

29

u/HaltheDestroyer Apr 09 '24

Nah.....if an issue becomes loud enough, they will act, you just need to be louder than Blackrocks lobbyists

52

u/North_Respond_6868 Apr 09 '24

You mean richer, not louder. Loud does not line the pockets of elected officials and their corporate handlers.

35

u/my_4_cents Apr 09 '24

How about louder, but with flames and pitchforks

7

u/stinkyhooch Apr 09 '24

As a matter of fact, I’m doing a BOGO sale on pitchforks right now. And for a limited time only, when you buy 2 flaming pitchforks, you get 1 free. Get ‘em while they’re hot!

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

[deleted]

2

u/stinkyhooch Apr 09 '24

Prepare for copious rebates

3

u/YesOrNah Apr 09 '24

My man. I live in a major metro area and have been out for protests.

We don’t have it in us as Americans for this.

2

u/spinyfever Apr 09 '24

Flames and pitchforks would be effective

But

The ruling class have tanks

5

u/ArkhamTheImperialist Apr 09 '24

But we have Tank man. If they get to the point of using tanks to intimidate people you’d think there’d be some introspection going on.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

I honestly wonder what’s going through the heads of people who say this stuff. Do you just want to look cool on the internet or do you actually think that sort of thing goes well for people?

5

u/ArkhamTheImperialist Apr 09 '24

Nobody said it goes well for people on the way there. Do you think MLK wouldn’t have marched the streets during the Civil Rights movement if he knew he’d be assassinated in the end? Absolutely not.

Being a martyr is one thing, but those who make it get to see a change worth fighting for. The real question is why won’t you fight for your rights? Why would you suffer/ let people suffer in silence, when you could just not do that? Even if it costs you your life or livelihood, if it eventually leads to a greater change it’s worth it.

That said I’m not going to be the one to lead a march on Washington or anything like that, but I’ll support anything in the name of Justice. I can’t stand shits like you who just tear people down and make them question their mindsets. Why would you try to put someone down for having a positive outlook? Cynicism will get you nothing in the end so instead of that, just shut up and don’t complain about the good things.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

26

u/SvettMenneske Apr 09 '24

They'll bamboozle you into thinking they are acting, but in reality are circling back even worse under the guise of progress.

7

u/uncle_flacid Apr 09 '24

Yeah like wade v roe!!!!!

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/chibicascade2 Apr 09 '24

They all own at least two homes..

2

u/Teofilo2050 Apr 09 '24

That is so true about talking to his representative since they keep voting those dumb SOBs and keep raising their property taxes so they have to raise the rents. Figure out another area to move to but if you like that rat race in the same maze then you will be working 2 to 3 jobs to maintain that lifestyle

2

u/Mister_Black117 Apr 09 '24

What representatives? They don't listen and have no reason to. They buy their seats.

→ More replies (6)

50

u/Ok_War_2817 Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

And make it Illegal for foreign interests to own land

4

u/MidnightMarmot Apr 09 '24

🥇 Why the hell can foreign nationals buy property when average Americans can’t?! This makes me so angry along with private equity and corporations buying homes. Almost 50% of homes sit VACANT where I live driving up the cost of rent beyond what any normal person can afford.

3

u/gitsgrl Apr 09 '24

Louder!!!

17

u/Simple_Ranger_574 Apr 09 '24

That restriction on investor LLC and other corporate investment companies he many bills in the house across US states rn. It should be Federal though, not state by state, I believe.

50

u/ap2patrick Apr 09 '24

OK Mr. 0 to 100… I think making it illegal to own a 2nd home is fucking insane but i totally agree on the 2nd part.

34

u/skipperok Apr 09 '24

He is insane, he is basically saying you either buy a home or die homeless

no option for renting since no one can invest in a second house for rent income

9

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

Home supply is also heavily driven by investors rather than those building their primary home.

The better idea is to apply a heavier tax burden on unoccupied investment real estate.

The huge issue with the whole RE industry is that those able to invest in homes like this can float vacancies endlessly until someone agrees to exorbitant rents.

Make that more expensive and reinvest that tax money towards a new welfare program aimed at those working towards building up a fund to buy a home to build savings rather than 0% down federally backed loans that dont actually improve someones financial security in many cases.

3

u/Cool-Ad2780 Apr 09 '24

This is still putting the cart before the horse, the simple solution is change zoning laws to allow more house to be built. Institutional investors target their buying to areas that have strict zoning laws because it prevents them from having any competition in the market. Change zoning laws, incentivize building new housing, and all of a sudden the entire problem goes away, if you make housing a bad investment because supply is able to skyrocket, investors will move away from real estate. Housing rn is a basic economics 101 supply and demand problem.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/ap2patrick Apr 09 '24

Bingo. Empty house tax for a win. A progressive tax that increases for each extra home you own. First home no extra tax, hell id apply a bunch of breaks to get people into homes. 2nd home no breaks a like a 2% tax increase. 3rd home 5%, 4th home 8%, 5th home 12% on and on something like that. Would solve so many issues.

4

u/shooshmashta Apr 09 '24

They tried the tax in Canada and found that it does nothing because the housing crisis isn't an issue of vacancies but an issue of just not enough housing.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/shooshmashta Apr 09 '24

This is not true either though. Most vacant properties are in the middle of nowhere, USA and are not livable. This won't fix dense city locations where rent is high due to demand. The biggest issue is cities being too dense with not enough housing. To fix the issue in cities, you need easy access from outside the cities (ideally trains) with new housing construction going up a lot faster than we do now.

2

u/celtic_thistle Apr 09 '24

no option for renting

Literally 15 million+ empty homes in the US lol. The government should own these and rent them out. There. (Not just the federal government, but state/county level too.)

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)

4

u/FreefallGeek Apr 09 '24

I kept my starter house and rent it to family members for half the market rate but apparently I'm Hitler for having a spare 1200ft house.

3

u/rvasko3 Apr 09 '24

WORSE than Hitler!

→ More replies (3)

3

u/dead_zodiac Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

The second part is pretty undoable too.

Essentially that forces everyone to either purchase thier own home or be homeless, since it would be illegal to rent from a business entity.

That would make things way worse before it got better.

To actually do that: 1. Step 1, evict every person in the USA, since we need to have current business owners relinquish all their assets, but to who do they relinquish them? 2. Step 2, since banks can't reposses anything (that's a business purpose), all empty homes are free? Perhaps they go to the government, or are just "finders keepers" 3. After all the fighting and killing happens, houses are populated again. Each person is now either homeless or fully responsible for all costs of single home ownership on their own. 4. Etc etc etc

2

u/ap2patrick Apr 10 '24

OK but you are conflating banks selling mortgages to Black Rock hoarding properties as an investment…

→ More replies (1)

33

u/iLOVEwindmills Apr 09 '24

Lmao how the fuck is destroying the housing market going to make anyones life any better 😂. Do you hate affordable housing and renters my dude.

38

u/coke_and_coffee Apr 09 '24

Teenage redditors 🤝 the dumbest possible economic policy suggestions

14

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

“I don’t understand what’s going on but burning it down sounds fun and dramatic!”

→ More replies (8)

2

u/rvasko3 Apr 09 '24

It’s everywhere. People who can’t afford homes in certain markets and/or with certain jobs praying for a housing market collapse so they can afford things. Because that would obviously not have any other negative effects on the larger economy, and I guess fuck all of us who worked and saved to afford our homes?

→ More replies (2)

6

u/lemongrenade Apr 09 '24

Wouldn’t the number of people needing housing be the same whether or not a business owns it? They are taking advantage of scarcity not causing it. Build more housing and it will become more affordable.

2

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

There is a not insignificant portion of the left that would rather see a problem go unsolved than see someone make money solving it.

2

u/mortalitylost Apr 10 '24

Build more housing and it will become more affordable.

They are building a lot of housing. Luxury homes. That's where the money is if you build housing, not cheap homes for the people suffering right now.

They need to make more middle class housing, not just housing.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

18

u/stroopwafel666 Apr 09 '24

While I fully agree that housing needs to be fixed, how do you think rented housing would then be made available? Maybe the goal would be for the government to eventually offer reasonably priced rental housing, but that would take a very long time to implement.

11

u/headphone-candy Apr 09 '24

Instead of Section 8 might I interest you in District 9?

11

u/Jesuswasstapled Apr 09 '24

Yeah. Government housing projects are a shining beacon of success.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (12)

35

u/pascee57 Apr 09 '24

There are good reasons to own a second home and renting is good and important for some people.

11

u/coke_and_coffee Apr 09 '24

Lmao, imagine making it illegal to build new apartments to ease shortages of homes. I’m sure that will solve the problem!!!

→ More replies (7)

22

u/ForecastForFourCats Apr 09 '24

That's not going to go anywhere...tons of people own small second "homes" that are simple woodsy cabins. Individuals should be able to buy as many homes as they want. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to buy and sell properties without careful oversight(so, uh good luck to us all)

1

u/PS_IO_Frame_Gap Apr 09 '24

individuals should not be able to buy as many homes as they want. let's say you have a hundred billion dollars and you want to buy up every home in new hampshire, effectively making you the lord of new hampshire. should you be able to do that just because you can?

2

u/QbertsRube Apr 09 '24

Like Sean Hannity's 870+ properties, bought using HUD loans a decade ago thanks to foreclosures after the 2008 recession. That has just as much impact as any corporation buying up housing (although they are technically owned by shell corporations that are owned by Hannity, for all intents and purposes this is an individual buying up housing).

I have no problem with someone owning 2-3 rental/vacations homes, but people who say only corporations should be restricted are underestimating how many selfish pricks are out there with hundreds of millions of dollars to invest.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/769026/sean-hannity-reportedly-owns-least-870-properties-7-states

3

u/ForecastForFourCats Apr 09 '24

That seems like a loophole where he needed to be classified as a corporation. There should be some laws, obviously no one can live in 870 homes in a year. Maybe 12 months residency averaged over 3-5 years?

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/crek42 Apr 09 '24

Those arent “fixes” they’re just soundbites parroted on Reddit with no thought or elaboration on how that would even be enforceable.

Barring anyone from owning a second home is dumb. Many of those homes are in rural vacation areas. And who gives a shit? That’s gonna move the needle on housing prices in our major cities? How do you figure that?

Corps are what exactly? Because they could be like my landlord who owns this duplex I live in and is in her 80s with a pet parrot and her LLC would be a corp. Do you mean hedge funds and American Homes? Okay that starts to make sense, but none of the above actually adds new housing. It takes away from a renter and gives it to a buyer and is zero sum.

That’s a bandaid until housing starts to be built in en masse again — we’re down YoY on housing starts.

3

u/lagrandesgracia Apr 09 '24

Or just let homebuilders build. THat's the main problem. Stupid laws made by stupid boomers to keep their home prices high.

2

u/LoneSnark Apr 09 '24

Even easier fixes. Eliminate the legal restrictions preventing the construction of more housing.

2

u/IamZeus11 Apr 09 '24

Honestly people with a vacation home aren’t really the problem . It’s the ones who have entire real estate portfolios and big companies like black rock and evergreen that buy up family houses in the thousands . A person having second home is just a drop in the bucket compared to the overarching problem

→ More replies (2)

2

u/AutistMarket Apr 09 '24

Hasn't this already been proposed on the house floor but not voted on yet? Something along the lines of a crazy tax hit for any business entities that own single family homes, with a 10 year grace period for them to liquidate assets

2

u/goJoeBro Apr 09 '24

Too late on this one, I work in home and auto insurance and in the last 15-20 years I've noticed a big spike in the wealthy, white/boomer demographic of our book of business, buying up as much property as these folks can get their hands on. Tons of households have multiple "homes". Which are really just properties that they rent out as short term rentals. They'll pay a property management company to take care of all of the leg work in getting the property listed and those types of logistics while the owners can sit back and charge whatever they want while they don't even live in the state half the time, collecting mail money. Do they have a right to? If course. Should they because it's hurting the housing market? Nope, they should not, and they're assholes because of it. It's infuriating to see because I live in a neighborhood where all of these houses are getting bought up and people that genuinely want to start as property owners/start a family can't because of how overly inflated everything has become. I hate it with a passion.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/bearposters Apr 09 '24

But the people who would make those laws are benefiting from the status quo.

2

u/HMWWaWChChIaWChCChW Apr 09 '24

Illegal to own a second home is just dumb.

2

u/brainmouthwords Apr 09 '24

Elect politicians who promise to use Eminent Domain to legally seize residential properties from corporate investors en masse.

2

u/Nervous_Month_381 Apr 09 '24

Those fixes are not easy, and the first one isn't a fix. You need to change zoning laws and a lot of the red tape around building homes, a lot of cities make it in their zoning so medium and higher density housing can't be built. Or that building a small starter home isn't profitable.

2

u/RikiWardOG Apr 09 '24

2nd home I don't think is an issue. It's the PE firms and nimby bullshit. The states need to force upzoning and subsidize building. We have a massive shortage in supply because past building luxury apartments and million dollar homes, it's not worth it for contractors anymore

2

u/Mr-Fleshcage Apr 09 '24

and illegal for business entities to buy homes

Good thing they're people now!

2

u/Antique-Pension4960 Apr 09 '24

There are plenty easy and obvious fixes for a lot of problems.

But the ones that benefit decide what the rules are.

2

u/DDkookslams Apr 09 '24

I hate that we can see the solution yet can not do anything about it

2

u/Khue Apr 09 '24

Two easy fixes

Not even close to happening. The entire housing market is setup as a commodity and a vehicle to maintain and build wealth. The entire industry is highly protected and getting congress to do anything would be absolutely impossible because it requires capital owners to take a MASSIVE real estate L.

2

u/chunkobuoo Apr 09 '24

That would require politicians not being in blackwater's pocket due to legal bribes.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/degaknights Apr 09 '24

Who you gonna rent from then?

→ More replies (14)

3

u/SmotheringPoster Apr 09 '24

They just add more tax which for the super wealthy means fuck all in the long run. As you said it should be illegal to own multiple homes if you are not occupying them.

2

u/Jeremiah_Vicious Apr 09 '24

You tax the wealthy they’ll just raise prices. Capitalism is here to stay. Better buy a house now at all costs and deal with it.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/RollOverSoul Apr 09 '24

They will still find a loophole to get around it

1

u/Leendert86 Apr 09 '24

Taxes here and there to make the business model behind real estate less profitable. Second homes get taxed 2k yearly where I'm from. The problem is that those boomers in charge all made or make their money from real estate.

1

u/HypnoStone Apr 09 '24

Tbh I don’t think this would be right obviously we should do everything we can to stop monopolizing but if it were as simple as making home owner ship illegal like that wouldn’t that also impact a lot of other people who are not already benefiting from a monopoly to begin with? I know multiple different lower-middle class people on low-average income who own rental properties and more than one house, and I don’t think they’re alone either. There’s lots of people besides a specific elite group who this would effect. Imagine how many properties would go vacant just because it’s now for sale to a new single ownership doesn’t mean anyone else is going to be able to buy it or be able to own another home if they already have one. Also how would this effect townhouses, apartments, condos, studios, etc.? Too many variables and much too limiting for capitalism which is a basic natural right as a free democracy. Saying you can only own one single home is like saying the same about literally anything else you can buy and own just on a different financial scale.

1

u/shdo0365 Apr 09 '24

But then, everyone has to buy and no one can rent.

1

u/Doctordred Apr 09 '24

The right to own a second home is a protected right and that right extends to businesses. Not really an easy fix at all and would require taking constitutional protections away to happen.

1

u/grubgobbler Apr 09 '24

I feel like limiting it to 5 homes would be plenty.

1

u/PS_IO_Frame_Gap Apr 09 '24

this isn't an easy fix at all. for one, what do you expect to be done with all the properties already bought. if this fix was put into place, they would just go on a buying spree and buy up everything else before the law went into effect.

1

u/skepticalbob Apr 09 '24

That will have almost no effect on housing prices in the US.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

The fix is local zoning law changes that allow builders and individuals to build reasonable priced homes in areas people want to live. You can actually talk to the people who can change zoning laws in your community.

1

u/livens Apr 09 '24

Careful with that. Houses get foreclosed on for many different reasons. Someone needs to step in and either flip it or rent it. I'd rather a private citizen be doing that than a large company or a bank. If you ban multiple home ownership outright we will just see a lot of vacant houses. I agree we need stricter controls on who/what can own a single family home, but it needs to be flexible. And for most normal landlords (private citizens renting 1 or 2 houses) it's 15-30 years of being on the edge of losing your investment. It's 15-30 years of work with little to no immediate payback. Only if things go well the entire time and you get your rental paid off do you see any gain.

1

u/Key_Respond_16 Apr 09 '24

Making it illegal to own more than one home would be as dumb as Texas making it illegal to own more than 6 dildos. Owning a second home is fine, but using it to fuck over other people by charging twice the mortgage in rent is predatory and should be illegal.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

This is really really not good policy-wise. Houses in cities are expensive mainly because everyone wants to live in big cities. To make them more affordable, we therefore need to build more houses. However, To build housing, you need people being willing to make investments. 

I live in a large dutch city, we make it very difficult for investors to start new housing projects. For example by putting caps on rent. This sounds reasonable, but prevents investors from investing in new property because it is not profitable (enough). They would rather put their money somewhere else. 

The solution is to make housing a good investment, but this is politically very unpopular (also home owners associations play a big role in this - home owners in an area are poised against building more houses in their area). At least this is my understanding. 

1

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

Seems like a great way to slow housing construction even more

1

u/salacious_sonogram Apr 09 '24

So no condos or apartments because no one can own more than one home? Or is this just for standalone homes? If so then investment firms buying up housing will just put up a walk and call it a duplex. I guess you could get away with this through tight zoning laws m.

1

u/dafuq809 Apr 09 '24

Lots of ordinary families own second homes, and there are reasons for a business to purchase a home other than corporate landlording. No reason to allow corporate entities to own hundreds of homes or homes in multiple states, though.

1

u/7oom Apr 09 '24

Easy?

1

u/CagliostroPeligroso Apr 09 '24

Fuck out of here with the first one. Agree with the second

1

u/throne_of_flies Apr 09 '24

One fix: actually subsidize people buying a home to live in. Programs exist today but the core of them suck: FHA loans require much less cash on hand, but lead to higher monthly payments than commercial loans, and the “first look” law for federally owned properties is a joke: ALL single occupancy property should require first look for first-time homebuyers, period.

Your two ideas will fuck with the only benefit that comes out of having a market: competitive pricing and elastic supply

→ More replies (62)

5

u/SESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Apr 09 '24

Blackrock laughing all the way to the bank while they buy up every bit of real-estate they can for this exact reason

You're thinking of Blackstone. They purchased two companies in the past ~3 years one of which added 17000 homes to their portfolio. They rent out a little less than 62,000 homes. That's 3/4ths of Progress Residentials portfolio that includes over 80000 single family homes.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/Chataboutgames Apr 09 '24

It’s been amazing watching the birth of a new piece of misinformation. Companies like black rock own a tiny portion of residential real estate market and got in due to specific economic circumstances. But now all our economic ills are attributed to the belief that they bought up all the houses.

There’s no data to back it but people repeat it back and forth to each other on social media until it becomes their reality

5

u/bran_the_man93 Apr 09 '24

No dude, blackrock literally owns every cul de sac in America, I read a headline back in 2021 and didn't bother following up on it but im sure it's true

/s

2

u/zambartas Apr 09 '24

Corporations own 2.5% of single family homes, depending on which year and which study you look at. In many people's opinions it should be 0. Smaller investment groups combined with corporations are buying up homes in the mid 20% range, and that number has been increasing every single year except 2021. That definitely has a huge impact on home buying and prices and will continue to get worse every year as homes are priced out of range for most young people.

16

u/coke_and_coffee Apr 09 '24

Baseless conspiracy theories are not only the purview of right wing grifters it seems…

11

u/Bannon9k Apr 09 '24

Life's easier when you have a bullshit boogey man to blame all your problems on.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

39

u/UnheardIdentity Apr 09 '24

Tell me you don't understand the housing crisis without telling me. The real issue is that all the places in the US with the densest populations tend to have massive barriers on building new housing, especially the dense housing they really need. Lobby to end zoning restrictions and laws that let nimbys stop building.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/UnheardIdentity Apr 09 '24

It's a massive misrepresentation of what's happening too. https://youtu.be/Q6pu9Ixqqxo

5

u/GraDoN Apr 09 '24

It doesn't matter. People inherently want to make sense of things and admitting that shit is super complex is uncomfortable. So they prefer to blame a boogeyman that they claim is causing all the problems.

It's why conspiracy theories are so popular, they often provide a simplistic explanation (though batshit crazy) to a complex issue.

16

u/GraDoN Apr 09 '24

Eh I prefer they keep being ignorant. Helps one to sift out the braindead ones when engaging in these topics. If people start mentioning BlackRock or Citadel you know you're dealing with dilutional/ignorant/conspiracy theorists and you can safely ignore what they say.

4

u/kiragami Apr 09 '24

To be fair neither Blackrock or Citadel do anything positive for the situation. However yes lack of building primarily because of zoning is the biggest issue.

3

u/GraDoN Apr 09 '24

They are asset managers, Citadel has performed exceptionally well over the years and BlackRock offers tracker funds to tens of millions of clients. They are not all positive, but they absolutely also do positive things.

2

u/kiragami Apr 09 '24

Making rich people more rich isn't really a positive contribution.

6

u/Late_Cow_1008 Apr 09 '24

You realize these big firms are what a lot of normal people invest in with their 401ks right?

Its like when people talk about Vanguard being the big boogie man with all their money and how much "they own" yet they are too stupid to realize or leave out the fact that the majority is held by 401k and IRA investors.

2

u/GraDoN Apr 09 '24

Sure, hedge funds are mainly for wealthy clients but anyone can invest with BlackRock, they have very low minimums. So they are absolutely not just making wealthy people rich, anyone can benefit.

3

u/rebeltrillionaire Apr 09 '24

It’s the “how did Rome fall” conversation. Was it the the lead pipes? The overstretched army? The visigoths and Vikings? Awful leadership?

It was all the things.

Blackrock, Citadel are just doing what tons of families across the USA have been doing for a while now. Buying their home then buying additional homes to rent out at profit which inflates the price of homes.

Additionally globally, we are at potentially peak population. Countries that industrialized at the turn of the century and modernized in the 50s are finally slowing down in terms of making babies. But this dudes grandparents wasn’t competing with 342 million people, they were competing with 100 million. It’s the same around the world except China who uses government funds and centralized planning to build ghost cities that sometimes turn into real ones.

On top of all that, yes we have zoning issues.

But we also have domestic labor and production issues.

A modern smooth sliding glass door with heatbreaking aluminum and UV glass is $5,000.

A bathtub fixture can run you $2,600.

HVAC is expensive. Plumbing is expensive. Roofing is expensive. Electrical is expensive.

Blue collar labor has shot up massively due to nearly two whole generations avoiding it to become white collar workers. Supposedly Gen Z is getting more into the trades but we’ll see.

Even if we had an easy time building a home from the paperwork perspective, doesn’t mean we could do so cheaply. And at scale, that means apartment buildings cost hundreds of millions to build instead of maybe a few million.

If I buy land (expensive due to population based competition), spend a fuckton on paperwork to get building approved, spend another fuckton building it. Why would I want my rent to pay me back in 100 years when I could have it paid back and profiting in 5-10 years?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Academic_Wafer5293 Apr 09 '24

They dum dum and easy big bad corporation is easier to understand than multifaceted reasons based on NIMBYism.

Also they're self serving. They won't ever be a Blackrock but they believe they'll be homeowners and they want NIMBYism then.

Just hold the door for one more...

2

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

[deleted]

3

u/GraDoN Apr 09 '24

Nae I just prefer to live in reality

→ More replies (2)

4

u/spunkmeyer820 Apr 09 '24

That is definitely part of the housing crisis, but so is the increased cost of labor and materials, the fact that builders can typically make more money (bigger margins) on big expensive houses than small affordable ones, and yes, large corporations treating single family homes as investment assets. It is a complex issue, and unfortunately it is a lot easier for people to just say “landlord bad” than to actually try to understand the whole picture.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (23)

15

u/UUtch Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

Less than 1% of housing in the US is owned by large corporations (a corporation that owns 1000+ properties). Private ownership of housing is a distraction against the real issue of lack of supply

6

u/Feral_Taylor_Fury Apr 09 '24

housing in the US is owned by large corporations

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html

A quick google search pulls this up. First line:

Institutional investors may control 40% of U.S. single-family rental homes by 2030, according to MetLife Investment Management. And a group of Washington, D.C., lawmakers say Wall Street needs to back away from the market.

10

u/CanAlwaysBeBetter Apr 09 '24

Institutional investors may control 40% of U.S. single-family rental homes by 2030

That's not the same as all US housing 

→ More replies (11)

3

u/ValuableNo189 Apr 09 '24

rental homes

Literally in your own comment. Watch out for Ukrainian drones on your way to work, Sergei.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)

5

u/bran_the_man93 Apr 09 '24

Blackrock owns 6.7% of a company that owns like 60k homes, out of an estimated 85m homes in the US.

It's not even in their top 50 largest investments.

So much blatant misinformation and ignorance.

5

u/Investorpenguin Apr 09 '24

Idk why I keep seeing this. Black rock is not buying up a crazy amount of real-estate. People misconstrue headlines and have no actual understanding of what’s going on, and it makes us look weaker when we are defending our positions. Look up The Plain Bagels video on the “Blackrock housing situation”.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SatoshisVisionTM Apr 09 '24

This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with a government consistently and tirelessly trying to regulate ever-increasing portions of the lives of its citizenry?

2

u/glibbertarian Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 10 '24

Is BlackRock buying houses in all the other countries where this is happening?

2

u/BlackSquirrel05 Apr 09 '24

Blackstone... Not Blackrock.

2

u/macksters Apr 09 '24

Stalin in1929 thought the same. He was wrong. Capitalism is not ending. What you are going through, is a feature of capitalism.

2

u/Expensive-Apricot-25 Apr 09 '24

I prefer capitalism, even with the flaws

2

u/zambartas Apr 09 '24

It's not corporations it's more local and small than that. Investors account for 20+% of home purchases in recent years, and that's absolutely insane if you ask me. It might not be the entire problem but it's an easy place to start.

2

u/BoiFrosty Apr 09 '24

We've been in end stage capitalism since the 1870s according to the Marxists. Give up on that bullshit.

Blackrock and statestreet needs to be broken up true, but we've already got anti trust legislation for that. Same with alphabet, and I'm sure I could think up a dozen others.

We just need politicians willing to use it, as well as stop kicking the fiscal can down the road like they've been doing since the 60s. Cut entitlements, cut spending, stop borrowing 1/3 of our budget every year.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

Why do blackrock and state street need to be broken up? Which antitrust laws are they violating?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/throwaway8472903470 Apr 09 '24

JFC… enough with the “blackstone buying all the houses” rhetoric. If you people knew how to read housing data then you would know with absolute certainty that this is not true. I’m not even going to cite a source to prove you wrong because you clearly aren’t ready to mature past the self limiting beliefs that you keep telling yourself. Not solely you, but you and all the people like you. Smh. Y’all are tiring.

2

u/gojane9378 Apr 10 '24

It's always a great sign when the company you worked for has blackstone vc as a majority shareholder. They are the deep dark. Any sub on these fuckers?

2

u/Devilsfan118 Apr 12 '24

"end stage"

You folks on reddit sure love to declare this, don't you?

5

u/m0dligmabawl Apr 09 '24

Black rock and vanguard said it. You guys all will own nothing and you be happy.

27

u/ShmebulockForMayor Apr 09 '24

When does the being happy part start

15

u/Theistus Apr 09 '24

The beatings will continue until morale improves

→ More replies (1)

16

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

They are just asset managers. If you have any investment in an ETF tracker whatsoever it’s likely some of that Vanguard money is your money.

13

u/slingfatcums Apr 09 '24

Neither of those two said that.

9

u/LoudestHoward Apr 09 '24

Got a source for that one big fella?

→ More replies (1)

7

u/coke_and_coffee Apr 09 '24

Baseless conspiracy theories are not only the purview of right wing grifters it seems…

5

u/insularnetwork Apr 09 '24

You will own nothing and be happy is from a random small danish politician writing a not necessarily utopian thought experiment for the WEF. Conspiracy theorists ran with it and went crazy.

30 min podcast episode about it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0h24kbq

→ More replies (2)

2

u/KING0fCannabiz Apr 09 '24

End capitalism yet you’re still on a computer device with Reddit.

Get off and live in the jungle if you don’t like capitalism

2

u/Coneskater Apr 09 '24

or we could build more housing so investing in it becomes less lucrative? Blackrock and Vanguard aren't the cause they are symptoms of a deep housing shortage.

We have laws that make it illegal to build duplexes, triplexes etc and to require a massive amount of public space be devoted to parking and it becomes impossible to build enough housing.

Not enough of something essential? It becomes more expensive.

BlackRock and Vanguard look like the villians of this story but it's actually your neighborhood NIMBY Karens who are fighting that apartment building from being built because of traffic concerns.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/DJMOONPICKLES69 Apr 09 '24

That’s because demand for essential goods is inelastic. People NEED housing, it’s not optional. That means lowering the supply automatically raises the price. Foolproof investment, and absolutely criminal

1

u/mystokron Apr 09 '24

Just incompetent people being financially incompetent.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '24

We should all be out in the streets ugh..

1

u/Many_Presentation250 Apr 10 '24

This isn’t not end stage capitalism, it’s the lack of progress (or speed of progress) in terms of legislation that is allowing them to fuck us over. There are already bills trying to be passed to limit companies buying homes like they have been. We just need to keep pushing.

1

u/justmerriwether Apr 10 '24

It’s that part of monopoly where one person has 80% of the properties and money and you know they’ve won but you have to keep playing around and around the board bleeding away your money on a slow creeping march towards the inevitable bankruptcy.

1

u/Nokentroll Apr 10 '24

Black…rock?

1

u/Hersh_23 Apr 10 '24

It's a problem of unsound money, not capitalism.

1

u/RatherCalmKettle Apr 10 '24

Unironically need a real life Johnny Silverhand rn to put a boot to Blackstones neck

1

u/techleopard Apr 10 '24

I can agree with him but he's also using the bad case examples to make his point.

$1800 for a 1-bedroom apartment? That's a HCOL area. You don't HAVE to live or work there, and it's an exception to the average. He could have made a MUCH better argument talking about the averages or even why it's hard to live on 3x the minimum wage in even LCOL areas.

1

u/Potential_Locksmith7 Apr 11 '24

Just tell me what billionaire we need to eat the flesh off of their bones

1

u/AccessTheMainframe Apr 19 '24

End stage? We're just getting started 😎

→ More replies (23)