EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1409
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4663 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9125 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
21918 Posts
On April 18 2025 19:27 Uldridge wrote: I absolutely loathe house owning as a business model. Completely unethical. You misspelled profitable. There‘s the issue. Unethical businesses are among the most profitable when unregulated. If they aren‘t regulated it‘s because the regulators profit. One person with 20 houses is less administrative work than 20 people with a house. They pledge a bunch of their earnings to go to communal projects and get the approvals to increase their wealth further, I guess. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1870 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4663 Posts
You could make a case for big umbrella corps like Nestle that they source and innovate and that much food items are luxury food items (who actually needs chocolate and coffee), but I digress. Buying houses cheap (or at a more interesting price then "retailers", i.e. normal people who want to live) to then do a quick revamp and sell it for 100k+ than what it was is absolutely soulless. It robs people of expressing themselves, it gatekeeps people in their own social class (woops, you can't take out a loan for this 100k more expensive house). Renting out houses can easily become a predatory business where landlords to the absolute minimum while they rake in money but do virtually zero effort to keep their houses up to standard. They have much more power over what changes happen to the house because they are the owner. The entire airbnb model gatekeeps people from using that infrastructure as their own because fleecing tourists out of their money in exchange for a comfortable, quiet place is not a difficult equation. People belonging to a higher social class buying appartments or somewhere as a "vacation" residency to be there twice a year keeps people from living there 24/7. Also had the added negative that guilt by association principle that if enough people live there, buying prices naturally go up and become, yet again, unaffordable. I think these examples pretty much illustrate my point about it being unethical, maybe you see it differently. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9125 Posts
I'll use Spain as an example. Its situation is extra interesting because it's a popular destination for wealthy people like digital nomads, which is a proof housing prices can't be blamed purely on financial institutions. I think every person in Spain has the right to shelter, but not the right to shelter in their preferred part of Barcelona. That's outside of my definition, though I believe the government (could be national or local) should be able to ban short-term renting in selected areas. I consider that a necessary evil. If I somehow inherited a flat in Barcelona or Majorca and the local government decided I can't rent it out, I would be unhappy but I would see it as an understandable reaction to the problem. I think it's fine to buy houses with the intention of selling them at a higher price later, ideally after some kind of meaningful improvement. This doesn't mean I'm okay with buying houses and keeping them locked for months or years. This kind of investment is unhealthy and should be punished with some kind of a tax or another regulation. I'm not sure about buying houses with the intention to rent them out. I don't have any strong opinions here. I wouldn't say it's unethical but I see the risk connected to allowing the rich to keep buying houses. This can lead to a situation where houses become so expensive that poor people will be forced to rent. I think it's the state's job to prevent such result through adequate taxation or other means. It's not a matter of ethics to me. It's wrong to blame individual landlords, they're not responsible for the whole system. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10296 Posts
On April 18 2025 20:53 Uldridge wrote: I don't like trading and having power relations when dealing with things that are basic human rights, like food and shelter. You could make a case for big umbrella corps like Nestle that they source and innovate and that much food items are luxury food items (who actually needs chocolate and coffee), but I digress. Buying houses cheap (or at a more interesting price then "retailers", i.e. normal people who want to live) to then do a quick revamp and sell it for 100k+ than what it was is absolutely soulless. It robs people of expressing themselves, it gatekeeps people in their own social class (woops, you can't take out a loan for this 100k more expensive house). Renting out houses can easily become a predatory business where landlords to the absolute minimum while they rake in money but do virtually zero effort to keep their houses up to standard. They have much more power over what changes happen to the house because they are the owner. The entire airbnb model gatekeeps people from using that infrastructure as their own because fleecing tourists out of their money in exchange for a comfortable, quiet place is not a difficult equation. People belonging to a higher social class buying appartments or somewhere as a "vacation" residency to be there twice a year keeps people from living there 24/7. Also had the added negative that guilt by association principle that if enough people live there, buying prices naturally go up and become, yet again, unaffordable. I think these examples pretty much illustrate my point about it being unethical, maybe you see it differently. What's more unethical, a landlord of a 100 unit apartment building charging rent to 100 families or the apartment building not even existing because without the rent there's no incentive to build the thing? | ||
|
Yurie
11731 Posts
On April 19 2025 17:31 BlackJack wrote: What's more unethical, a landlord of a 100 unit apartment building charging rent to 100 families or the apartment building not even existing because without the rent there's no incentive to build the thing? Here it is mostly municipalities that build those buildings due to a roof on rents. Companies looking for profit instead build and sell the apartments, setting up a cooperative ownership for the building/block among all the owners. Think US home owners association for apartment buildings (most managed by companies specializing in the area with the owners being the board). Advantage for companies of that model is that they get income already while building the thing as they sell them while building them. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany801 Posts
On April 18 2025 19:49 Sent. wrote: Do you mean the current situation (which is without a doubt ugly) or renting or trading in houses in general? What's unethical about having a few houses and renting them out, in principle? I think the fundamental difference in "old private owners" and "new proffessional investors" is that usually people running companies and build houses to have a retirement do create livingspace aaand...people who drop out of uni and starting to "trade property" or finish uni and trade property for somebody else aren't creating shit. They just make the prices go up. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1870 Posts
On April 19 2025 17:31 BlackJack wrote: What's more unethical, a landlord of a 100 unit apartment building charging rent to 100 families or the apartment building not even existing because without the rent there's no incentive to build the thing? I think people rich enough to not pay rent or even earn rent should pay enough taxes that there are cheap apartments for those that can't afford the premium of private renting or buying. I do not want a society where a third of the income of the bottom half directly flows to the upper 5 % who then use it to not pay taxes. I mean, do you believe in Easter Germany everyone was homeless because there was no rich upper class allowed to build homes to provide for the poor? I certainly have no issue with a well regulated housing market that is mainly investors and subsidized social housing. The thing is, we do not have the latter anymore and the former was eroded by the market. | ||
hexhaven
Finland926 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1870 Posts
| ||
|
hexhaven
Finland926 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4663 Posts
So many rules to abide by and the slightest shortcoming just sends your project back to the drawing board. Probably, because I don't know that much building projects and the regulations surrounding it, but I do kind of know the German procedurality. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1870 Posts
On April 20 2025 02:28 hexhaven wrote: The incentive to build new housing since the rent is (supposedly) the incentive to do so. Got you. I mean, yeah, someone needs to build apartment buildings so that there can be apartments. 30 years back, the situation was better. A lot of it is probably that a lot of housing is occupied by older and older generations that would rather stay in their family home then sell and move somewhere more suitable. My hometown is a great example of old money, sometimes you see the grandchildren move into one of these old houses usually with a big Mercedes and a plaything like a Porsche. Also we have more households per capital as more people are single and probably despite all that we build more single family homes then apartments. The regulations are a thing for some projects, but usually not for low density housing. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10296 Posts
On April 19 2025 22:17 hexhaven wrote: Berlin's average rent price per square meter has almost doubled since 2015, and yet there's still a massive shortage of apartments, so the rent incentive doesn't seem to be working all that well. That's an assumption you're making. San Francisco also has some of the highest rents in the world but their new home construction sucks. Is the incentive not working? Here's a story of a guy that tried for years to sell his laundromat so they could build a 75-unit apartment building in a desirable part of town. It was delayed for years as he was sued by activists claiming we need to study if this was a "historically significant" laundromat. So he spent $23,000 to a historian and had a 173-page report done on the matter and it concluded... it's just a laundromat. Instead of the project going forward after that he was instead sued by activists saying the building would cast shadows on a neighboring school... In the neighboring city of Berkeley with equally high rents someone wanted to build a housing development on a vacant parking lot. But they were sued by activists claiming the land was a sacred site to the native Ohlone Indian tribe. An archaeological study was done in 2014 that determined to near certainty that it was not a sacred historical site and the project could go ahead. For 10 more years they continued to fight over it and it never got built. Meanwhile in Texas and Florida there is an explosion of new housing at twice the national average. I'd study the difference between Texas/Florida and New York/California to try to understand why some states are capable to build a lot more housing than others. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9125 Posts
If I was leading the government I wouldn't trust developers and the banks that are supposed to finance their projects. We tried that and it failed, but I'm not sure what's the best alternative. Public projects tend to be very inefficient. | ||
|
hexhaven
Finland926 Posts
You mean Berlin's rent prices going up or Berlin's lack of new housing? On April 20 2025 04:01 Broetchenholer wrote: Got you. I mean, yeah, someone needs to build apartment buildings so that there can be apartments. 30 years back, the situation was better. A lot of it is probably that a lot of housing is occupied by older and older generations that would rather stay in their family home then sell and move somewhere more suitable. My hometown is a great example of old money, sometimes you see the grandchildren move into one of these old houses usually with a big Mercedes and a plaything like a Porsche. Also we have more households per capital as more people are single and probably despite all that we build more single family homes then apartments. The regulations are a thing for some projects, but usually not for low density housing. Berlin's problem is also that since the rents are rising so drastically, people hold on to their old contracts that have relatively cheap rents. It doesn't make sense to move out when your new place's rent would double or triple. Despite the 2014 referendum, there's talks that new housing will be built on Tempelhofer Feld, even with Berlin having a massive amount of empty lots elsewhere. | ||
|
hexhaven
Finland926 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10296 Posts
On April 20 2025 04:49 hexhaven wrote: You mean Berlin's rent prices going up or Berlin's lack of new housing? The assumption you're making is that the incentive to draw rent is what's not working to lead to new home construction. I linked you news stories that shows you can have people that want to do new construction, property owners that want to sell to develop the land, and still not get the project done due to other factors. From your sources The idea that the path to more affordable homes requires more construction is outdated, according to Möller, who believes that the government needs to invest in new kinds of "democratic and sustainable" urban development that "respects our environmental limits and the value of open space." The German government is desperately trying to combat these trends and has now extended the rent freeze until 2029. This means that when a new lease is signed, the rent cannot be more than ten percent higher than a comparable lease in that area. However, there are exceptions for new buildings, extensively modernized, or partially furnished apartments. In other words, loopholes that urgently need to be closed, says Bernt. "I think that in the short term we really need more regulation of the rental housing market. ... "The strategy of just build, build, build won't work." Yes... the answer is definitely more regulation and less construction... /sarcasm | ||
| ||
