The supply is limited and the pig bought all the houses. The mortgage HE is paying is half the rent. The mortgage the cat could get depends on the price he could get, but guess what, pig jacked up the price. For pig, the houses are assets. Why would he sell for less than he can make by renting over a long period of time?
So the price goes up because supply is limited. Not to mention that new supply would be typically captured by pig (or his fellow pigs) almost immediately.
Yes, but cat is going to be competing with pig for any house that comes into the market. And pig, given his leverage can easily outbid cat.
When it comes to empty lots, maybe, but people want to generally live close to where their friends/relatives/jobs/services are. Sure, some people are going to be ok moving out to the boonies. But that can’t be a society’s overall housing policy, not least because sprawl is prohibitively expensive in the long run.
The real answer is to stop making excuses for pig’s antisocial hoarding behaviour and step in to limit it or abolish it. Housing should not be a financial asset. The financialization of housing is socially destructive and economically unproductive (imagine if all that capital was invested in actual productive enterprise instead).
Yeah, but you need a down payment, and you need a bank to loan you the rest money for the house. The payment on that loan is half of rent, but that doesn’t mean it’s functionally accessible to most regular people.
Banks don’t give loans like that to people who aren’t high earners already.
People could happily spend 50%+ of their income on their mortgage but banks will not give them those loans because they are seen as high risk, whereas people can rent at 50%+ of their income because there’s less risk for the landlord (their only real risk is having to find a new tenant).
Yes I’ve applied. I bought a place last year so it’s very fresh. Banks being math-based is exactly the point. They won’t bend the rules for you. Plus the expense is mostly set in stone once you buy, whereas with renting you can rent an affordable place and have it increase year-on-year every year following, taking it from within that 35% to above it.
Yes, it’s in favour of buying in the past. If you missed your window you’re fucked though. That’s why I bought, because I recognised the sliding window and knew if I didn’t buy now I’d be locked out of buying forever and instead get stuck renting forever. I don’t think anyone is against buying, just often unable to.
How is the house not affordable if it’s half of the rent? Half is less, yes?
The supply is limited and the pig bought all the houses. The mortgage HE is paying is half the rent. The mortgage the cat could get depends on the price he could get, but guess what, pig jacked up the price. For pig, the houses are assets. Why would he sell for less than he can make by renting over a long period of time?
So the price goes up because supply is limited. Not to mention that new supply would be typically captured by pig (or his fellow pigs) almost immediately.
The pig is going to buy more houses, so he hasn’t bought all the houses…
Otherwise… can’t you buy an empty lot and build the house yourself?
Yes, but cat is going to be competing with pig for any house that comes into the market. And pig, given his leverage can easily outbid cat.
When it comes to empty lots, maybe, but people want to generally live close to where their friends/relatives/jobs/services are. Sure, some people are going to be ok moving out to the boonies. But that can’t be a society’s overall housing policy, not least because sprawl is prohibitively expensive in the long run.
The real answer is to stop making excuses for pig’s antisocial hoarding behaviour and step in to limit it or abolish it. Housing should not be a financial asset. The financialization of housing is socially destructive and economically unproductive (imagine if all that capital was invested in actual productive enterprise instead).
you could, if you weren’t paying excessive amounts of money to the people hoarding housing.
but since you are, you don’t have the cash to do that, at least not for a couple decades at least
Idk, I did it myself (this decade, not in the 1960s)
Congrats, you’re in the minority.
Well, it’s a once in a lifetime purchase, every buyer is in the minority, statistically.
Yeah, but you need a down payment, and you need a bank to loan you the rest money for the house. The payment on that loan is half of rent, but that doesn’t mean it’s functionally accessible to most regular people.
Don’t you have banks that finance 100% of the price? Sure, they will charge higher interest, but if you’re saving half the rent it won’t be that bad…
Banks don’t give loans like that to people who aren’t high earners already.
People could happily spend 50%+ of their income on their mortgage but banks will not give them those loans because they are seen as high risk, whereas people can rent at 50%+ of their income because there’s less risk for the landlord (their only real risk is having to find a new tenant).
Have you applied? I found banks very reasonable, like math based. Landlords go on feelings/profiling, in my experience and very often go on 35% rule.
Yes I’ve applied. I bought a place last year so it’s very fresh. Banks being math-based is exactly the point. They won’t bend the rules for you. Plus the expense is mostly set in stone once you buy, whereas with renting you can rent an affordable place and have it increase year-on-year every year following, taking it from within that 35% to above it.
Isn’t that all in favor of buying?
Yes, it’s in favour of buying in the past. If you missed your window you’re fucked though. That’s why I bought, because I recognised the sliding window and knew if I didn’t buy now I’d be locked out of buying forever and instead get stuck renting forever. I don’t think anyone is against buying, just often unable to.