Housing prices and rents always go up, because it’s mandated by state policy. Rents == Prices because home values are tied to expected rents.
“Institutional Investors” own at most 4% of SFH rental housing, this is not total SFH just the 15% that are rented out. Corporations are a minor factor of homeowners, whom nearly all are bourgeois. No matter who is speculating, the result is the same. Rents have always risen and rises are not at all tied to the % of corporate investors involved.
Of all SFH, less than 10% is owned by “investors” 8/10 of those are “mom and pop”.
“Corporations” are a red herring in the housing question, the fault is the bourgeois structure of US housing culture which empowers tens of millions of people to surplus value and property rights.
Y’all need to read Engels on the Housing Question, don’t tail the petty bourgeoisie on this.
Except when they go down, as in the Great Recession. I saw even rents go down then.
I think you’re minimizing the real changes in recent behavior by institutional investors, who really are buying up housing lately. The thought that they’d buy single family homes to rent out is novel to me at least; I’d never heard of such a thing before. Just because it’s a small percentage today doesn’t mean it necessarily will be tomorrow.
Y’all need to read Engels on the Housing Question, don’t tail the petty bourgeoisie on this.
What would it mean for us to “tail” the petty bourgeoisie on “this”?
For tailing it’s falling for the 80% of landlords that are “small” crying about corporate competition in their little dictatorships: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6510977/5686588
The thought that they’d buy single family homes to rent out is novel to me at least; I’d never heard of such a thing before.
They started getting involved in SFH after the foreclosures of 08, because they did not lose much relative net worth compared to people who own 1-10 homes, who lost net worth on all their assets at that time. They didn’t get involved before that because not many people were renting SFH in the 80s and 90s and prior, those homes were only for the middling strata and up. Also, by just financing homes in the past while prices continued to rise, there was no reason to get their hands involved to add more work when they can just seek interest on all development. When hundreds of thousands of homes suddenly became available, that’s when they took the opportunity to turn it into a business. And yeah I’m minimizing them because they are indeed a minimal (0.6% of all SFH stock) component of the market and concentrated in a few markets, but that is not tied to the overall indeces of those markets whatsoever. Any investor who owns the home would have the same position as any other, corporate or “mom and pop”, the resulting market will be the same.
Liberal/Petty Bourgeois media is taking advantage of the novelty of corporate investors in SFH to use us to fight for protections backing “small investors” worth millions against competition.
Housing costs (and building) are raising extra fast post 2009 because they received basically 0% interest rates to finance more homes to “recover” from the financial crisis. That corporate investors got in at that time is a simultaneous symptom of the crisis, which always benefits the highest bourgs as they eat up small capital owners (good riddance).
There is finally the last aspect that SFH cities or neighborhoods have become the “standard model” of US housing culture since the early 2000s, this is related to the eventual financial crisis too.
Except when they go down, as in the Great Recession. I saw even rents go down then.
the '08 mortgage crash was a blip in the general trend of US housing prices. prices declined for a relatively brief time because of mortgage conditions that don’t exist anymore, then rebounded within a few years and continued rising. prices spiked in 2020 considerable faster and more than they fell in '08.
In fact you can think of much of the way the state and bourgeoisie has acted since 2008 has been to ensure that line recovers to where it should have been if no collapse. Yes, Obama foreclosed on people (mostly “new wealth” Black and Latino people), but he “saved” hundreds of millions of (mostly white) portfolios.
The Bourgeoisie knows that line is necessary to deflate class struggle, they know they’ll struggle with military recruitment if soldiers can’t expect to own a home at the end of their service.
Housing prices and rents always go up, because it’s mandated by state policy. Rents == Prices because home values are tied to expected rents.
“Institutional Investors” own at most 4% of SFH rental housing, this is not total SFH just the 15% that are rented out. Corporations are a minor factor of homeowners, whom nearly all are bourgeois. No matter who is speculating, the result is the same. Rents have always risen and rises are not at all tied to the % of corporate investors involved.
Of all SFH, less than 10% is owned by “investors” 8/10 of those are “mom and pop”.
“Corporations” are a red herring in the housing question, the fault is the bourgeois structure of US housing culture which empowers tens of millions of people to surplus value and property rights.
Y’all need to read Engels on the Housing Question, don’t tail the petty bourgeoisie on this.
Except when they go down, as in the Great Recession. I saw even rents go down then.
I think you’re minimizing the real changes in recent behavior by institutional investors, who really are buying up housing lately. The thought that they’d buy single family homes to rent out is novel to me at least; I’d never heard of such a thing before. Just because it’s a small percentage today doesn’t mean it necessarily will be tomorrow.
What would it mean for us to “tail” the petty bourgeoisie on “this”?
For tailing it’s falling for the 80% of landlords that are “small” crying about corporate competition in their little dictatorships: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6510977/5686588
They started getting involved in SFH after the foreclosures of 08, because they did not lose much relative net worth compared to people who own 1-10 homes, who lost net worth on all their assets at that time. They didn’t get involved before that because not many people were renting SFH in the 80s and 90s and prior, those homes were only for the middling strata and up. Also, by just financing homes in the past while prices continued to rise, there was no reason to get their hands involved to add more work when they can just seek interest on all development. When hundreds of thousands of homes suddenly became available, that’s when they took the opportunity to turn it into a business. And yeah I’m minimizing them because they are indeed a minimal (0.6% of all SFH stock) component of the market and concentrated in a few markets, but that is not tied to the overall indeces of those markets whatsoever. Any investor who owns the home would have the same position as any other, corporate or “mom and pop”, the resulting market will be the same.
Liberal/Petty Bourgeois media is taking advantage of the novelty of corporate investors in SFH to use us to fight for protections backing “small investors” worth millions against competition.
Housing costs (and building) are raising extra fast post 2009 because they received basically 0% interest rates to finance more homes to “recover” from the financial crisis. That corporate investors got in at that time is a simultaneous symptom of the crisis, which always benefits the highest bourgs as they eat up small capital owners (good riddance).
There is finally the last aspect that SFH cities or neighborhoods have become the “standard model” of US housing culture since the early 2000s, this is related to the eventual financial crisis too.
the '08 mortgage crash was a blip in the general trend of US housing prices. prices declined for a relatively brief time because of mortgage conditions that don’t exist anymore, then rebounded within a few years and continued rising. prices spiked in 2020 considerable faster and more than they fell in '08.
In fact you can think of much of the way the state and bourgeoisie has acted since 2008 has been to ensure that line recovers to where it should have been if no collapse. Yes, Obama foreclosed on people (mostly “new wealth” Black and Latino people), but he “saved” hundreds of millions of (mostly white) portfolios.
The Bourgeoisie knows that line is necessary to deflate class struggle, they know they’ll struggle with military recruitment if soldiers can’t expect to own a home at the end of their service.