Why the Housing Market is At or Near Bottom

[greenforest32]

And yet prices are still insane around here. 

Even renting is crazy in the Bay Area:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/09/BU551OD1PL.DTL

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[greenforest32]

Prices may have ceased falling in some areas, such as the above mentioned San Francisco metro, but in many parts of the country they will have to fall quite a bit more.  The median income level in much of the country has no prospect of improvement, and will likely continue to head downwards.  

Yeah, the average home price (and rent) nowadays is really unaffordable: http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/





Most of this cost isn't the house, but the land. Lately I've been starting to think it would be a good thing to abolish private land ownership and replace it with a rent permit system as cities have increasingly become exclusive wealth zones.

What's progressive about paying 20-40% of your income in housing costs?

[greenforest32]

Most of this cost isn't the house, but the land. Lately I've been starting to think it would be a good thing to abolish private land ownership and replace it with a rent permit system as cities have increasingly become exclusive wealth zones.

What's progressive about paying 20-40% of your income in housing costs?

What's progressive about replacing private property with a system loaded with opportunities for graft and corruption?  It's the poor who get the shaft when private property rights are not available as they can never be secure that what they do have will remain theirs.

I really fail to see how private land ownership benefits anybody but the real estate flippers who purchase it as a commodity and let the investors come in to drive up the price. Housing is no longer a public service, but a market and this market thrives at the expense of the service. Forget how many homeless people we have or how affordable housing is for people, how many homes were sold last month? That's what matters.

The only reason we haven't solved the issue of homelessness is because we don't allow free housing to the poor as the real estate industry sees no value in a building that does not generate profit.

That is far more corrupt than the government owning it and any government corruption would no doubt come mainly from the pressures of private industry.

[greenforest32]

Most of this cost isn't the house, but the land. Lately I've been starting to think it would be a good thing to abolish private land ownership and replace it with a rent permit system as cities have increasingly become exclusive wealth zones.

What's progressive about paying 20-40% of your income in housing costs?

What's progressive about replacing private property with a system loaded with opportunities for graft and corruption?  It's the poor who get the shaft when private property rights are not available as they can never be secure that what they do have will remain theirs.

I really fail to see how private land ownership benefits anybody but the real estate flippers who purchase it as a commodity and let the investors come in to drive up the price. Housing is no longer a public service, but a market and this market thrives at the expense of the service. Forget how many homeless people we have or how affordable housing is for people, how many homes were sold last month? That's what matters.

The only reason we haven't solved the issue of homelessness is because we don't allow free housing to the poor as the real estate industry sees no value in a building that does not generate profit.

That is far more corrupt than the government owning it and any government corruption would no doubt come mainly from the pressures of private industry.

You want to throw out not just the baby with the bathwater, but also the bathtub.  There are ways to achieve the goal of adequate housing for all without eliminating private property.

Sure you could have a compromise like the government purchasing land and using it for non-profit housing but if there was no public benefit to this private commodity market in the first place, you'd be unilaterally compromising like this just to pay deference to needless greed.

The baby is not in water, but in poison.

[greenforest32]

The greed is only needless if you actually want new housing built, or existing housing taken care of.  Why on earth would any rational person build something permanent on land they didn't own or at the very least have a long-term unbreakable lease?

It's needless because allowing this market to exist means everyone's cost of housing (whether they rent or own) goes up above the cost of the service just for greed. The cost of profit is now the 'cost of living'. That's a dirty way to make money.