Supply and demand. House prices are high because lots of buyers are financially competing for the same properties. The prices won’t collapse unless something disastrous happens to the world that results in an oversupply of housing or massively harms people’s spending power, and the odds are you would be affected by that too.
There are currently 10 million vacant homes across the US, (15 million if you count the ones for rent,) which represents about 7.5% of the total housing. Not refuting your argument, just adding to the conversation.
I guess a lot of these are in less than desirable locations, among other factors, but 4.5 million of them are listed as seasonal, occasional, or recreational use. That’s a lot of vacant housing, considering only 1.2 million of them are for sale.
Edit, I guess these are 2020 numbers so these may have changed since then.
It’s never going to collapse.
Yep and all the banks are waiting as well, so they can buy even more properties to rent out.
Good luck … genx have been waiting as well
The problem with a collapse in house prices is that it normally comes with a collapse in everyone’s personal finances.
If you can’t afford before a crash, there’s a very good chance you won’t be able to afford after a crash either.
The only thing that will bring house prices down is building a fuckload more houses, and building them in places that people actually want to live.
The reason houses are expensive is because investment firms are buying them up with cash.
There are entire neighborhoods owned by investment firms. A lot of these homes are empty and are just used to prop up housing costs.
The issue isn’t supply, it’s policy. The issue is reckless monetary policy combined with banks/investment firms controlling the market.
If you want cheaper housing building more isn’t the answer. The real answer is banning corporations from owning homes.
Just to add to this, it’s not just investment firms. I do title searches for a living and a lot of them are also bought by trusts and IRAs by people living in more well-off areas. It’s basically a retirement plan for them. That should be included in the ban. There basically should be a ban on buying homes you don’t plan on living in or doing significant rehabilitation work to (and with that second stipulation, we should actually inspect and ensure that the house flippers are actually doing much needed work to make the house liveable, not just slapping new paint on the bricks and installing faux shutters to the outside for a quick flip).
I’ve seen the idea thrown about to tax houses higher the more a single entity owns. IDK about the feasibility of that plan, but we need to do something. I feel like it would never happen, though, because rich people and, by extension, lawmakers own multiple homes and they wouldn’t want to lose money.
Taxes don’t mean shit to the wealthy. They will find a loophole to exploit and end up never paying taxes.
Even still if they had to pay more taxes it’s nothing to them. They are swimming in money. It’s not even about the money at this point. They want to undercut the poor so the poor stay poor.
No that won’t fix it. Not completely anyway. All houses are being bought up by international multi billion dollar investment firms who then proceed to rent out those houses for more than they’re worth, driving up rent prices. Here in Vancouver, Canada, rent prices are beyond ridiculous, and have nothing to-do with what the units are actually worth. If you want to stop that, prohibit companies from owning houses, dead stop. Increase taxes on second, third, and fourth houses exponentially, making it only interesting for a single person to have one, maaaaybe two houses.
With that, houses will become eligible to buy again at normal prices
There was a great video years ago that detailed what would happen if house prices were to rise, fall, or stay stagnant.
You’re right, if they were to crash, we’d all be a lot poorer, but there would also be a lot of (still) cash-rich people that would happily buy up all the cheap stock, and we’d be in an even worse position than before. We’d build more houses, but we’d ultimately create new billionaires, and given the low quality of some new builds, probably a two-timer system of ownership where the poors get the new houses on flood lands/with dodgy cladding, and the rich live in good builds.
The best thing to happen overall is a price cap per-area, dropping by a percent every year or two, with subsidies on sustainable renting (low rent fees, buildings being up to code, etc). The landlords that use their property as investments will bail right away, renters will see the market switch to their favour, and through legislation you could probably push rent-to-sell options for those that maintain homes and want to release over several years.
More homes need to be built, but that also means more infrastructure, and building all of this without selling those houses to the highest bidder. That all takes time, at a time where there are a lot of cash-rich people that would love more investment.
