In August, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against the company, alleging its pricing algorithm allows landlords to collectively push rents higher.
I meant more about rents than the antitrust suit. It’s all well and good to hold the company accountable; meanwhile, rents have already been artificially inflated, and they don’t go down.
The benefit of market rate housing is that it hopefully will be occupied, allowing for higher income earners to move into a more expensive unit and freeing up an older lower cost unit. In a perfect world this works like a chain and eventually lower cost older units become more available. Building “affordable” or “low income housing” isn’t really appealing to developers without financial incentives.
This does all assume speculators do not buy the newer housing and sit on it as an investment. More housing being built is generally all a good thing and it needs to outpace the population growth to have an effect on pricing. So even if there is plenty of new housing if it’s not being built quick enough prices will continue to rise.
If the units are sitting empty as speculation/investments that’s an issue for government (and especially local government, so get out and vote locally!)
The benefit of market rate housing is that it hopefully will be occupied, allowing for higher income earners to move into a more expensive unit and freeing up an older lower cost unit.
But this assumes people are moving up the ladder. In 2024 this does not appear to generally be the case, but the system remains skewed to high earners.
(Not asking a question, just thinking out loud I guess)
Definitely, it’s easy for a large investor to build new market rate housing, buddy up with a pricing algorithm, and maximize profit. Then they sit until either all the other housing comes up in price or they eventually find someone willing to stomach the price.
Speaking from my own experience it took me a long time to move into a better apartment, not because I couldn’t afford it, but because there simply wasn’t enough housing that felt like a good value. So I sat in an apartment that was great but didn’t suit all my needs, and when I finally moved that older less expensive unit became available. If there was more newer housing, or more options in general, then maybe I would have moved quicker and that older unit could have been turned over to someone that needed it more sooner.
I guess my point is that part of it is the speed at which all this can happen is dependent on how much housing there is. And I’m also not saying market rate housing is the solution either. I think affordable housing, co-ops, etc. being part of the mix creates a more fair housing market.
I guess a mix of housing types, though perhaps more fair, is likely unattainable. As you said, developers are out to make money, and affordable housing tends not to do that.
Now ACT, ffs
I meant more about rents than the antitrust suit. It’s all well and good to hold the company accountable; meanwhile, rents have already been artificially inflated, and they don’t go down.
Unfortunately that pretty much depends on building more housing, which takes time and Congress.
I always hear this about building more housing, but I see a lot of new housing around me which sits empty because it is not affordable.
The benefit of market rate housing is that it hopefully will be occupied, allowing for higher income earners to move into a more expensive unit and freeing up an older lower cost unit. In a perfect world this works like a chain and eventually lower cost older units become more available. Building “affordable” or “low income housing” isn’t really appealing to developers without financial incentives.
This does all assume speculators do not buy the newer housing and sit on it as an investment. More housing being built is generally all a good thing and it needs to outpace the population growth to have an effect on pricing. So even if there is plenty of new housing if it’s not being built quick enough prices will continue to rise.
If the units are sitting empty as speculation/investments that’s an issue for government (and especially local government, so get out and vote locally!)
But this assumes people are moving up the ladder. In 2024 this does not appear to generally be the case, but the system remains skewed to high earners.
(Not asking a question, just thinking out loud I guess)
Definitely, it’s easy for a large investor to build new market rate housing, buddy up with a pricing algorithm, and maximize profit. Then they sit until either all the other housing comes up in price or they eventually find someone willing to stomach the price.
Speaking from my own experience it took me a long time to move into a better apartment, not because I couldn’t afford it, but because there simply wasn’t enough housing that felt like a good value. So I sat in an apartment that was great but didn’t suit all my needs, and when I finally moved that older less expensive unit became available. If there was more newer housing, or more options in general, then maybe I would have moved quicker and that older unit could have been turned over to someone that needed it more sooner.
I guess my point is that part of it is the speed at which all this can happen is dependent on how much housing there is. And I’m also not saying market rate housing is the solution either. I think affordable housing, co-ops, etc. being part of the mix creates a more fair housing market.
Thanks for the detailed overview(s).
I guess a mix of housing types, though perhaps more fair, is likely unattainable. As you said, developers are out to make money, and affordable housing tends not to do that.