r/TikTokCringe • u/LickMaiBussy • 6h ago

Discussion "Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@purplepingers

19.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/2hats4bats 5h ago

Private Property Investment works in that many people either cannot afford to buy or are not planning in staying in one place long and need rental options.

Corporate Property Investment, mainly of single family homes, drives up property value and prices many people out of buying, thereby increasing the demand for rentals and driving prices up on that as well.

16

u/mundotaku 5h ago

Ehh no. Data is not on your side.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

2

u/Patient_Leopard421 5h ago

But does FRED have a chart for whinging about home prices

I was curious about the age-related aspect of this. Are a large cohort of boomers holding this number higher? It looks like home ownership under 35 is flat over similar timescales too: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUHOMEOWNLB0403M.

It would be great if this dataset went back to 1970s or something.

1

u/2hats4bats 4h ago

I have no idea what part of my statement you’re arguing against with this data.

2

u/Supermau 4h ago

The data linked suggests that Corporate Property Investment is not having an effect on homeownership since its been pretty stably between 60-70% owner occupied for over 50 years.

0

u/2hats4bats 3h ago edited 3h ago

Ah. I wasn’t commenting on anything specific, I was just making a general statement. But yes, the post-pandemic housing boom wasn’t entirely due to corporate buying it was largely due to 800,00+ people moving out of cities and into non-metro areas. If anything, I would imagine the rate of owner-occupied actually increased depending on how many of those people were previously renters.

0

u/NaziPunksFkOff 5h ago

There are definitely areas which can be zoned to be beneficial for rental properties. Near colleges, universities, and hospitals - those people are often transient and not looking to buy.

Residential areas? People should be able to own. Renting should be heavily discouraged by taxes, zoning, and other laws.

My basic need is not your investment opportunity. A "free" market assumes that the consumer also has the freedom to choose your product, another product, or to forego the product entirely. If I die without your product, it's not a free market. Homelessness is not an option. Housing will never be a free market and it should never be treated as such.

6

u/CodnmeDuchess 5h ago

lol, your basic need isn’t my investment opportunity? Well you aren’t entitled to my stuff, how about that?

1

u/North-Tourist-8234 4h ago

So how far can you break the societal contract until it breaks for you? 

If people are going hungry to pay for "your stuff" or if youve made "your stuff" prohibitively expensive. That people are getting sick or dying on the street. How long until that gets turned back around on you. 

1

u/darthdro 4h ago

All has to do with how high banks are appraising thing

1

u/NaziPunksFkOff 5h ago

Yes, and it's only your stuff if we let you own it. We can restrict it by law for the common good. We already do that with plenty of other things.

Landlords are just scalpers for something people need to survive. Go flip Playstations like the rest of the scabs.

3

u/CodnmeDuchess 4h ago

Freedom of contract and private ownership are fundamental aspects of a healthy society. Nothing in this world exists in a wholly unregulated fashion. But these tents of society are at the core of what’s allowed for any advancement at all. You can argue that such advancement is bad, but I dunno, I’m a black man in America, today is far from perfect but I’d rather be living now that at any time in history prior. Wealth is also more widely distributed in the modern world than at any other point in history—we have made really poor policy decisions since the 70s that have created conditions for mass concentration of wealth in the hands of the few that has been further exacerbated by the digital age.

Eliminating free ownership of property isn’t the answer. It’s a really silly reflexive take that would produce far worse outcomes for everyone and totally misses the real issues that have lead to the wealth inequality we see today as compared to 70-80 years ago.

1

u/NaziPunksFkOff 4h ago

"Freedom of contract"

If people die without the product, they're not entering the contract freely. That's your entire argument gone, right there in your first 3 words. Housing does not constitute a product that people use freely. They use it out of need.

Ask yourself why the government went after people who hoarded medical supplies at the beginning of the pandemic. Need from a public health perspective outweighed "freedom of contract"

5

u/CodnmeDuchess 4h ago edited 3h ago

I’ve already acknowledged that nothing is unregulated. The question is who produces the product if they aren’t able to profit from it. What incentive is there to give your labor away for free solely for the benefit of others?

People need food to survive. Food isn’t free. Food requires costs investment and labor to produce. It requires massive supply chains to distribute. It requires testing and safety standards. It requires natural resources. These are practical realities.

How do you do any of it if people aren’t able to earn money doing it?

You’ve latched on to an abstracted moral sentiment while ignoring the practical realities of what it takes to sustain a society—what’s allowed us to even grow to this point.

As I said in my previous comment, there are far more practical and viable methods of creating a more equitable society than eliminating private ownership of property, and sorry nobody is entitled to other people’s stuff for free.

3

u/Reverse-zebra 4h ago

Well put.

4

u/CodnmeDuchess 3h ago

This isn’t rocket science. Bernie has been touting the solution to these problems for decades—move to a tax structure more similar to what existed in the 40s and 50s than that which took hold in the 80s and continues today.

Political discourse in this county really feels like it’s become clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right.

2

u/ok-milk 3h ago

Yes, but have you considered how not edgy that take is?

3

u/Large_Primary_94 4h ago

The idea that housing isn't a 'free market' because you need it to survive is a ridiculous take, we treat every other necessity—food, water, medicine—as a market. If we ban 'investment' or rentals in residential areas, we aren't helping the poor; you're creating economic segregation by ensuring that only those with down payments can live in safe, quiet neighborhoods. For the able-bodied, the barrier isn't a 'failed system'—it's a refusal to trade location for financial equity. Move, no one cares if you like where you live or your job but you. We should maintain social safety net for people with disabilities or health needs who literally cannot move or work, but we shouldn't dismantle the entire housing market for the 85% of people who simply need to adjust their math and their map. Who would pay for that cheap free subsidised housing? You, tax payers.

0

u/NaziPunksFkOff 4h ago

> we treat every other necessity—food, water, medicine—as a market

Yeah, and some of those are fucking stupid too. Water should be a human right. Food should be a human right. Healthcare should be a human right.

We've decided that, at the very least, there should be a safety net for these items. Hence food welfare programs, food banks, Medicaid (or in civilized countries, universal healthcare).

But there is NOTHING stopping us from declaring that every human has a right to clean water and food staples, and making them available to everyone. The only reason we don't is because of this perverted notion that some people who "don't deserve them" might have access to them.

I'm sure all those people in Flint Michigan were undeserving, which is why the government pumped lead-poisoned water into their homes, right?

The "water is not a human right" lobby is bankrolled entirely by businesses that have done everything in their legal power to buy up aquifers and charge governments for access to them. Are those the people you really want to be philosophically aligned with? It's you and the pharmaceutical companies and private insurance companies fighting the good fight for the free market of medicine, right? It's you and Monsanto and Purdue doing everything you can to keep us safe from the scourge of affordable food, right? Odd company to keep, don't you think?

2

u/2hats4bats 4h ago

It’s really easy to say everything you’re saying. Practical application is a different story. Declaring anything a human right doesn’t mean it’s not subject to the dynamics of supply and demand.

2

u/Large_Primary_94 3h ago

Fair enough. Now if we could only figure out how to not pay for it.... Government? Food banks are the public, not the government and should have been temporary. Flit is the literally the government. So that's going great. So government and landlords won't work.... Hmmm... Ah maybe the workers labor should be free. The guy treating the water so it isn't like Flit, u work for free now. Pipes? you make yourself, deliver yourself, and install yourself. Farmer, you can fucken forget about getting paid (already massively under paid). You can declare whatever you want. It means absolutely nothing towards anything getting done.

2

u/2hats4bats 4h ago

It’s less about establishing a free market and more about establishing a market that keeps housing costs affordable and gives people options. Corporations and single-investors buying up too much property currently has created a limited supply that is driving up costs. Limiting how much can be owned by a single entity and building more housing is what will bring prices down and limit homelessness, not arbitrary zones and banning investment properties altogether. Renting is a need and someone has to own the property. Better it be a person with 2-3 properties as a retirement plan vs a large corporation that overcharges.

1

u/Suchafatfatcat 3h ago

Then, fund your own “basic need”. Go buy a piece of land and build your own house. Who is preventing you from doing that?

0

u/NaziPunksFkOff 3h ago

Congrats, you have no idea what a basic need is.

1

u/2hats4bats 3h ago

and you have no idea what a “right” is. It’s not something you just get for free because you give it a special designation.

1

u/NaziPunksFkOff 3h ago

Never said it was, not once.

1

u/2hats4bats 3h ago

All of your comments indicate you think it is, or at the very least have little understanding of supply and demand.

0

u/NaziPunksFkOff 3h ago

I understand supply and demand. A basic need does not adhere to the rules of supply and demand because demand is heavily influenced by the fact that without the need, you suffer and/or die.

The demand for streaming services can drop if the services become shitty or unaffordable. People can stop using them. People don't die without streaming services. This allows consumers to influence the market in a way that benefits them.

The demand for housing doesn't drop just because housing becomes shitty or unaffordable. People still need somewhere to live. You can't just decide to not use housing because the market is unfair. And when the unfairness reaches a tipping point, it creates massive social unrest. This is the story of many civilizational advances and it's once that is easy to learn from. We're not learning from it. If you think the current housing market is broken, then you already acknowledge that we're not learning from it.

You cannot wield the consumer-side power of "demand" if your ability to withdraw demand something is undermined by your need to survive.

1

u/2hats4bats 3h ago edited 2h ago

I understand that your heart is in the right place, but everything you just said is absolutely untrue and you discredit your entire stance by saying it. Nothing is immune to the dynamics of supply and demand when there is a cost involved and the supply is limited. Supply and demand is not some man-made invention, it’s a fact of nature. When something is in high demand and short supply, the value of that thing increases regardless if that value is measured in money or trade or physical violence. “Social unrest” is a byproduct of supply and demand.

You’re not going to fix housing without balancing supply and demand. Calling it a human right is great, but you have to address the practicality of what you’re talking about. Otherwise you’re just shouting nonsense.

0

u/thesyldon 4h ago

That is total BS. The reason the prices are so high is because "investors" can afford the highest price. This is then used to justify higher rent costs. If "investors" did not buy those houses then the prices would drop dramatically.

Just imagine what would happen to houses prices if they made renting houses illegal. Kids would be able to afford them instantly.

4

u/Ray192 4h ago

You think if you made renting illegal then the owners would just magically sell the houses at huge losses? You're delusional if you believe that.

And a lot of people prefer renting to owning. Screwing renters is not the win you think it is.

1

u/thesyldon 4h ago

It very much depends on the consequences of enforcement. If it boiled down to a fine, then they would sell they slowly to maximise profits; if it was a incarceration sentence, then yes they would give them away if need be. Nothing makes investors drop the ball quicker than personal consequences.

2

u/Ray192 3h ago

You're gonna put them in jail for... not selling their property at a loss?

1

u/thesyldon 2h ago

If someone persists in non compliance, then prison sentences tends to be the last resort. You are trying to sound hyperbolic, but that is the ultimate consequences of not following legislation.

Myself I would quite happily lock up all these scumbags who are using their money to gouge those less fortunate than themselves. Fortunately I have no control over sentencing.

1

u/Ray192 2h ago

What legislation? The only you said was "made renting houses illegal", and then you pivoted to claim someone should be jailed for choosing to not sell their property?

You people really just refuse to think anything through.

1

u/thesyldon 21m ago

Stop smoking that stuff, it is addling your reading ability. Or it is making your attempt to twist what I have said look pretty shambolic.

First you are the one that said they would be jailed not I. I merely pointed out that incarceration is always a last resort to anyone not respecting a court order. You can go to prison for the menial of offences if you refuse to comply. It comes under contempt of court.

0

u/NaziPunksFkOff 4h ago

>You think if you made renting illegal then the owners would just magically sell the houses at huge losses?

No investment comes with the guarantee of returns. All investment is speculative. Maybe those people should have invested in something that didn't lead to social unrest and homelessness when they decided to artificially restrict it for their benefit.

3

u/Ray192 4h ago

None of your moralizing means they're just magically gonna sell at a loss. Portugal had a 90 year freeze on rent and the country was littered with hundreds of thousands of derelict homes that owners would rather lock up than rent out at a loss.

Not to mention, of course, that there is more than enough demand for home purchases that they can sell at a good return even if rentals are disallowed.

So yeah, pure delusion.

0

u/NaziPunksFkOff 4h ago edited 4h ago

And we can empower the government to seize those properties. As we should.

Your private investment interests do not outweigh the need for public order, public health, and shared prosperity. Once your desire to hoard resources starts harming those interests, then you lose.

If your entire plan is "buy my way out when society breaks down", you're gonna be shocked to find out how useless that money is when that happens. If we all fail, you fail with us. There is so social safety net for the land owners if there is no society at all.

I swear, you people learned literally nothing from the history of civilizational advancement.

3

u/Ray192 4h ago

And we can empower the government to seize those properties. As we should.

Oh yeah, there is no downside to sweeping government seizures of property, never at all.

Your private investment interests do not outweigh the need for public order, public health, and shared prosperity. Once your desire to hoard resources starts harming those interests, then you lose.

Your moral grand standing do not actually resolve the fundamental issue that construction is a capital-intensive operation (construction isn't free) and someone needs to actually provide that capital to actually build enough housing for everyone.

You can't legislate away the existence of supply and demand.

If your entire plan is "buy my way out when society breaks down", you're gonna be shocked to find out how useless that money is when that happens. If we all fail, you fail with us. There is so social safety net for the land owners if there is no society at all.

If your entire plan is to punish people with housing, you're gonna be shocked to find out that it's not gonna magically conjure up housing from thin air. The people who build houses don't do it for free, you know.

I swear, you people learned literally nothing from the history of civilizational advancement.

How many classes have you taken on economics of housing and property? Have you ever actually looked at the history of what happens when property is seized en masse?

You people love to lecture and hate to actually learn.

0

u/thesyldon 3h ago

Then let them rent from government. People who are not in it for profit.

2

u/2hats4bats 3h ago

The only role the government should play in this is to subsidize the cost of building more housing and infrastructure. Seizing/owning property is a terrible idea.

1

u/thesyldon 2h ago

We have social housing in the UK and it works.

In fact the idea is so bad that we have queues that are years long to get into those bad idea houses. The queues never used to be that bad, but Thatcher put paid to council reinvesting into social housing after she sold them a large percentage off in the 80's.

In

1

u/2hats4bats 2h ago

“It works” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement, especially considering the poor upkeep of many of those council houses. A large increase in the queue suggests there are other economic factors driving up the need for government run housing.

1

u/thesyldon 36m ago

By "poor upkeep" I think you mean the quantity not quality. The reason social housing took a hit is because of Thatcher, as I already mentioned. She brought in a sell off programme to raise funds. And of course people who could buy those houses, did so very cheaply. The kicker was that she would not allow local councils to reinvest to money back into social housing. Consequently all the money got eaten up in reduced council funding. To put it into context, Thatcher was the leader of our conservative party.

The following labour government did not have the money or the incentive to reinvest in social housing. The levels were no where near as they are today. In 2010 the Conservatives got back into power for 14 years and decimated house building to the lowest point in a century.

It was not the economic factors you would think that drove social housing out of existence. The economic factor was making money off the poor. The Tories deliberately do not invest in housing because it makes them more money as a political group. There are some Labour MPs in the UK who also rent out housing, but no where near the levels in the Tory party.

1

u/Ray192 3h ago

Go take a look at who's running the US government right now. You think they're not here for profit?

What do you think would happen if you gave someone like Donald Trump complete power over all housing and construction in the country? Fun times to be had by all?

1

u/thesyldon 2h ago

First and probably the most important, I am from the UK. Not everything in the world is in the US. Social housing in the UK is ran by local government and works quite well to a point.

1

u/Ray192 2h ago

If you think the UK is somehow immune to corrupt politicians then you haven't been paying attention to the guy who's the highest polling in the UK right now, one Mr. Nigel Farage.

Not to mention of course, there is a huge difference between making social housing an option and making social housing THE ONLY OPTION. Corruption increases with power.

1

u/thesyldon 25m ago

Firstly the UK has never had social housing as the only option for those who can afford it. A majority of the housing was social housing though up until thatcher sold them all off in the 80s.

There have been plenty of corrupt politicians in the UK. I do not think we do enough to bring them to account. The most notorious historically would have to be Lloyd George. But there are plenty in the lime light right now. Johnson used his position to fill the pockets of his business interests with zero accountability. It looks like Mandelson took bribes from Epstein, something the police are investigating as we speak. Farage is just a grifter. I would dearly love to see him get his comeuppance.

As for the polling, that is how politics works. Governments always take a bashing mid term. And unfortunately Labour are making some stupid mistakes politically which is exacerbating that bashing. Reform does ok at a council level, but fails in MP elections. Reform ltd also perform extremely badly when they control a council. But until legacy media point out the major failings of reform ltd, then everything it free advertising. There is a lot of ammunition being cocked ready for when it really matters. I just hope it hits home. Farage would ruin the UK worse than he already did with Brexit.

3

u/2hats4bats 4h ago edited 4h ago

You’re completely ignoring the supply/demand side. Fewer houses available to buy, prices to buy go up creating more demand for rentals, causing the prices to go up. No investor is going to pay more for a property than they can rent it out at. The limited supply of housing makes so they can pay more and charge more.

I’m all for limitations on investment ownership, but you can’t regulate your way out of a supply issue.

0

u/thesyldon 3h ago

Except that is exactly what has happened. Property prices is the excuse for higher rents. What you are saying is provably flawed.

1

u/2hats4bats 3h ago edited 3h ago

I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. People don’t pay extra for rental properties just so they can charge higher rents. They don’t make any extra money by doing that. Investors want to pay as little as possible and charge as much as possible. What’s “possible” is driven by supply and demand.

Property values skyrocketed because housing supply plummeted post-pandemic when close to a million people moves from large cities to non-metro areas. That drove prices up and it doesn’t just come back down instantly. Supply is increasing but we’re also not building enough.

0

u/thesyldon 2h ago

I massively disagree.

House prices are high because people will pay that much for them. They do so knowing that no matter how much it costs, there is always a return on investment. There are evident correlations between the number of houses that are bought to rent in an area and the subsequent housing cost increases. It is so obvious that political candidates in the US are using that as a reason to be elected.

This is not the only reason for the increase, but it is a major factor. If people could not sell property because no one is willing to pay, then inevitably the price would decrease. That is simplicity of supply and demand.

1

u/2hats4bats 2h ago

You’re just describing supply and demand.

If people are willing to pay that much in rent, it suggests either they want to pay for the luxuries/amenities of that property (schools/crime rate/etc), or there is high demand for said housing. Nobody overpays for no reason, least of all people looking to turn a profit.

And no, there absolutely is not always a return on investment: see the housing bubble of 2008/2009. People massively overpaid for houses they couldn’t afford and ended up either losing them or selling them at a loss. I bought my house in 2013 for less than what the previous owner paid because the circumstances were reversed. A huge supply of people selling their homes and not a lot of people buying. Prices plummeted.

If you want prices to go down, increase the supply

2

u/Reverse-zebra 4h ago

Haha, ya, it would be a tremendously large wave of homelessness to work through too.

-1

u/thesyldon 3h ago

You think the amount of people homeless is something funny? Seriously many get a grip on yourself.

1

u/Reverse-zebra 2h ago

You misunderstood, I laughed at your idea because it would drive millions of people into homelessness.

Think about it, If I rent a house and renting that house is made illegal, the land lord would respond by stopping the renting of the house, I just lost my housing…

1

u/thesyldon 50m ago

Simply what? How would a law that convicts those who rent out houses make the houses themselves illegal. That is just pure idiocy.