What about just, people buying multiple houses/apartments to rent them out? IANAE, but I have a sinking feeling the situation would quickly improve if ownership had per-person limits (and no easy way to pool the limits into a company).
Countries could build new housing faster than the population grows, but as long as it can be scooped up by the wealthy for renting out, the scarcity would prevail.
Not an expert in macroeconomics either, but in a perfect free market there shouldn't be a lot of difference between renting and buying: if you can get a 5% yearly return by renting out a house, then the person renting from you can probably also get a 5% yearly return by investing their freed-up capital elsewhere and/or by not having to pay interest. If renting is too expensive, you buy, and if buying is too expensive, you rent. If one kind of investment like land or housing turns out to be particularly lucrative, capital will flow towards that type of investment and drive down returns towards the average again. Companies rent and lease stuff all the time, even if they have the money to buy, because often it just makes more sense. So there has to be something to disturb that happy picture and benefit owners at the expense of renters: a wonky tax structure, speculation, rate of return on land consistently higher than for other asset classes, cultural norms that value homeownership, who knows. Ownership of multiple dwellings by the wealthy might play a role, but in itself it's not a sufficient condition for high housing prices.
(It would be different if the wealthy were buying these houses to live in them or to leave them empty, as that would increase demand and constrain supply. Happening in London, Vancouver and a bunch of other places, I think. Also sort of like what happened with the quinoa fad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinoa#Effects_of_rising_deman...)
> If renting is too expensive, you buy, and if buying is too expensive, you rent.
Buying a house is not that easy. You need a bank to approve your mortgage, plus pay upfront money (plus pay for furniture and such) that people might not have because high rent prices stop them from saving money. More renters and less buyers might cause more wealthy people entering the market for speculation, compensating the decrease of people that want to buy to live. And on the other hand, given that housing is a necessity and not something that people can live without, landlords can still push prices up even with increased offer.
In general, I see a lot of takes on the housing market that focus too much on the theory and forgets the reality: people need houses, moving is not easy nor cheap, speculators and realtors can push prices up without that much pressure, and a lot of people don't have enough to face the expenses of buying a house.
I agree, but my point was not that armchair economics is wonderful, what I tried to say was that it's often useful to find out precisely where theory and reality diverge and to focus solutions on those gaps, to avoid putting the blame on things that don't matter or suggesting regulation that won't work, like social housing (except as a short term solution), rent control or restrictions on who can buy.
I would use a formula based on the tax-assessed value of a property to set a maximum rent. Landlords should be free to reappraise their properties as often as they like to be able to raise rents at the end of a lease, but doing so will increase the tax bill as well. Call it market-adjusted rent control if you like, but there needs to be a tight range between rent and value if we want to encourage more housing starts.
> then the person renting from you can probably also get a 5% yearly return by investing their freed-up capital elsewhere and/or by not having to pay interest.
This might be true if one could get as cheap and deep leverage on alternative investments as a house mortgage.
You cannot have a "perfect free market" when huge swaths of the population are simply not anywhere near as free as the wealthy and privileged swaths. See the top comments for details.
Side note: It's heartening that the HN community has evolved in the last 10 years -- the current top comments wouldn't have been at the top 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. While I think there is still a long way to go, it has come far from almost unbridled worship of PG, libertarianism and "meritocracy".
> I have a sinking feeling the situation would quickly improve if ownership had per-person limits
Running an economy on feelings is a sure way to ruin an economy. People who buy multiple dwellings would be more than happy to rent them. Renting is good. It provides a liquid market to access housing. If the market is efficient, rent or buy should be a preference rather than a financial decision: The financial impact should be the same.
If people refuse to rent, or sell their property then you have something wrong with your economy (too much regulations, people are afraid of devaluation, etc...). You don't fix a structural problem of an economy by implementing a per-person limit to buy houses.
"Rent" in an economic context refers to "any payment to an owner or factor of production in excess of the costs needed to bring that factor into production" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent) as opposed to profits or wages: without a profit nobody would invest in anything and without wages nobody would work so these are both necessary costs. In a well-functioning market the monthly payment to your landlord is primarily a compensation for the cost of capital (profit) as well as administration and maintenance (wage), though of course if there's a bubble in the housing market, landlords will be happy to take advantage of that too (rent).
Someone who travels even more often (and I know several that do, due to business/a semi-nomadic lifestyle) would consider hotels and hostels to be pretty good for them, and yet I'd hope they'd still be able to understand that
- the hotel model is a poor one for general, large-scale provision of shelter, and
- the arrangement is heavily biased in favour of the hotel owner.
I always ask people who rent to take some time - whether now, or in the next ten or twenty years - to calculate how much they have spent on rent so far and how much they are still projected to spend for the rest of their lives. And then consider that they get no tangible asset for the often mind-boggling amounts the total comes to; that, in fact, they may have actually paid for other people's houses several times over with nothing to show for it. The situation is somewhat tenable when the landlords actually own their properties outright, but in the modern real estate world they are more often just middlemen that shuffle money between the renter and the bank.
I wish more people would question why the provision of shelter has become such a runaway profit-making machine, but I'm not holding my breath.
We recently bought the house we used to rent. If we would have continued to rent for 25 years, then, adjusting for inflation, that would cost us maybe 300K. That's a lot of money and you have nada at the end, you're absolutely right. But our loan plus interest plus insurance plus the leaky roof that is now up to us to fix plus 1% of your house's value for maintenance every year plus property taxes... napkin math puts it at 600K after 25 years. At that point it's ours, but meanwhile it will be harder for us to move if we have to, our monthly payment is twice what our rent was, and all of our savings are in the house so we have no money to invest in stock, less to save for retirement (tax-free) and less money if we decide we want to do something crazy like start a business. Psychologically it's a mixed bag as well: it's really nice to know something is yours, but you also start noticing a lot of things you don't like that previously you just didn't care about, and we're on the hook whenever something breaks down. We're happy with our choice, but surely you see that it's not a slam dunk in favor of one option or the other?
Interesting that for natural monopolies (water supplies, power distribution, telco, radio spectrum) governments tend to regulate and de-monopolise. For real estate it's almost opposite and oligopolies are protected.
When we were young my (now) wife kept jumping from job to job around the south east, and we'd move pretty much every year. As we were renting it didn't cost much to move - hire a van for a couple of days and job done.
However when we settled down with kids priorities changed, living close to a train station with good connections for work was less important, school catchment areas were, and the main importance is stability. The longest rental contract you can take in the UK is 3 years, after that who knows what will happen - maybe the owner will sell up, maybe they'll double the rent. A 5 year or even 10 year fixed mortgage gives certainty.
But the key thing is we wouldn't be able to rent if nobody owned properties they didn't live in.
It's a hard problem to tackle as it would have to be a national law but that goes into individual state jurisdiction. I would say if our goal is to increase affordable housing we just need more of it.
Ban renting of single family dwellings, but allow and encourage it where increased density is achieved (apartments, condos, multiplexes, etc). Owners of single family dwellings will scramble to convert their rentals to duplexes / multiplexes and create the additional inventory while companies acquire multiple properties to convert into apartment complexes.
Countries could build new housing faster than the population grows, but as long as it can be scooped up by the wealthy for renting out, the scarcity would prevail.