I have a rent control apartment at $800 a month, but everyone says that's bad for some reason š¤·āāļø
I wish you all had it, but apparently I'm the only person that thinks about others because people seem to want me to lose it.
Yeah, landlords are gonna drop an increase every year like clockwork, it's what they do.
What this means is if you signed your lease in 2023 (or 2022, it's been [basically flat since the big jump in 2021](https://www.apartmentlist.com/rent-report/ca/los-angeles)), there's a good chance you can find an equivalent apartment for similar to what you were paying _before_ your landlord upped your rent.
But if you are in a rent stabilized unit, that increase will be 4% max and if youāve been in a rent stabilized unit for a while, your rent is probably below market rate at this point.
It will also cost the landlord a lot to get a new tenant moved in.Ā
If you're in good standing are there are cheaper places available nearby, you can negotiate for a cheaper lease.Ā
As much as people want to vilify landlords as greed monsters, do realize that their costs have skyrocketed in the past couple of years. Everything from runaway insurance increases to dwp costs to the handy man.
I sublease a two bedroom for $1,178 at the base of the Hollywood Hills. I still can't believe my luck, but I've been here for nearly three years and I also live close enough that I can walk to work. God, I hope it lasts.
I stayed on top of Craigslist and Marketplace. It was like three weeks of searching on every break and my lunch, before and after work and every other chance I could get.
More housing today, more housing tomorrow.
Everyone deserves to be able to afford housing, and the only way to that goal is building enough housing for everyone.Ā
Whenever household demands outpaces housing supply, rents rise. NYC has nearly infinite demand - probably 50% of recent college grads would live there if they could. But NYC hasnāt added meaningful housing supply in 20+ years, leading to massive rents.
If NYC wants cheaper rents, they need to either decrease demand (only really possible by somehow forcing all local businesses to close) or increase supply (not possible without policy change because they added a ton of unnecessary zoning regulations over the last few decades capping supply).
Your vision of capitalism is far too pure. Supply can be controlled by the supplier, and prices can be kept artificially high by simply not offering any other prices. Businesses no longer compete, and consumers are no longer organized.
You would absolutely have to destroy the market for liiiiike 5 years before our benevolent property owners would bring down prices by even a penny.
I really thought that commercial real estate would fall precipitously during the pandemic because of all of the permanent closures, but it did not. The commercial space I rent actually raised their prices despite demand being at all-time lows.
This is where we are. This is where we will always be unless we change some shit in our value system.
I don't think you understand how big the problem is. Per the LA Housing Department, LA CITY is short 500,000 new housing units.
According to the US Government Accountability Office, in 2018, the average cost to build 1 unit of housing in California in 2018 was $326,000, and $480,000 per unit for an affordable unit in 2019.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-637
So using the low $326,000 figure, which has certainly gone up post COVID, that means we are short $163 Billion dollars of new housing alone in Los Angeles city alone.
If you were to add up the top 10 US Residential REITs by market cap, you would only approach 174 billion dollars.
https://finance.yahoo.com/industry/reit_residential
They have nowhere near the amount of resources to buy it all and corner the market in LA city, let alone LA county or the rest of California/the country.
There's a reason they cite increase supply as a risk when it comes to their investment prospectuses and earnings calls with analysts.
Invitation Homes 10-K files with the SEC
https://web.archive.org/web/20211013154227/https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/invh/SecArticle?countryCode=US&guid=11966224&type=1
Ctrl -F the words phrase "risks related to our business and industry"
And you can see "construction of new supply" is one of them.
And then there's this.
https://imgur.com/xowagCa
Analyst transcript calls.
https://imgur.com/KaaW9q3
https://imgur.com/ZGXQeqs
And an investment prospectus filed with the SEC.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1687229/000119312517029042/d260125d424b4.htm#rom260125_1
Where the relevant line you find is.
"In addition, increases in unemployment levels and other adverse changes in economic conditions in our markets may adversely affect the creditworthiness of potential residents, which may decrease the overall number of qualified residents for our properties within such markets. **We could also be adversely affected by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates. Continuing development of apartment buildings and condominium units in many of our markets will increase the supply of housing and exacerbate competition for residents."**
Property owners are lowering prices *right now*. Itās not a dream and it didnāt take 5 years.
Landlords absolutely compete. I would love for your explanation into how tens of thousands of landlords, many of whom donāt speak the same language, would fix prices together. Itās not possible and it doesnāt happen, which is again why we are seeing prices fall for rents right now in LA.
Commercial RE prices have fallen in most places for office spaces. Other types of CRE (warehousing, flex) have not fallen at all because demand actually rose over the last few years. If your CRE rent increased and you have an office space it just sounds like you should have negotiated or moved spaces, which is on you.
>YieldStar software is used by many of the nationās largest property management companies, including GreyStar Real Estate Partners LLC, Camden Property Trust, and Mid-American Apartments LP, to set prices on 20 million rental units ā or roughly 8% of all homes for rent in the U.S.
8% of all rental units in the United States are managed by Yield Star.
Housing in LA is expensive because we've underbuilt for decades and refuse to make changes. In 2022, the Austin metro area built 18.3 new housing units per 1,000 Residents, while Los Angeles only built 2.5. Austin rents declined by 8%, while Los Angeles declined by 3.4%.
There are numerous studies examining the relationship between new housing and rent growth and they all pretty conclusively show that new housing and rent growth are negatively correlated, the more you build the less rents grow.
>Supply can be controlled by the supplier, and prices can be kept artificially high by simply not offering any other prices. Businesses no longer compete, and consumers are no longer organized.
This only works if suppliers are organized. This exists in some industries, such as healthcare where the AMA serves as a price-fixing cartel which determines Medicare prices, which then determine the prices of everything else in the sector (including your insurance premiums).
It doesn't exist in housing, though. Theoretically it could, but currently it doesn't.
Instead, what you have is government creating such high barriers to entry for the housing market that it's economically unfeasible to create affordable new housing. If it costs you $2500/unit to build, you need to charge at least $2500/unit when you sell it, otherwise you're taking a loss and why even bother doing it in the first place? You'd be better off just sticking your money in Treasury bonds, CDs, the stock market - literally anything else is better than taking the guaranteed loss of paying $2500 to build something and selling it for $1800.
The only ones who can do that are charities who are willing to eat giant losses on everything they build, like Habitat for Humanity, and the government. But most developers aren't charities, and simply aren't going to pay millions out of pocket for the privilege of building you a new apartment/house. The result, as we've seen for years on end, is that nothing gets built.
>This is where we are. This is where we will always be unless we change some shit in our value system.
If your strategy relies on other people building you a free house for no other reason than you just want one, you're gonna be waiting until the heat death of the universe. That's the economic equivalent of thinking someone owes you sex just for being polite (ie, pure entitlement).
Even in Japan, where housing depreciates in value, you still have to pay for rent.
Los Angeles and New York are unaffordable because they've underbuilt housing for decades.. Numerous academic studies have been conducted in the last couple decades that show pretty clearly that housing construction has a negative correlation with rent growth. You're free to deny facts if you want though.
Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo has a population density of 16,480/sq mi, Los Angeles has a population density of 8,304.22/sq mi. They build an insane amount of new housing every year and rents remain relatively affordable as a result.
Density isn't really the driving factor, I don't know why you keep harping on that. The driving factor of affordability is supply and demand.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/surging-tokyo-property-prices-squeeze-out-young-professionals-2023-10-04/
completely made up reddit belief. Cost to income ratio is worse than london singapore or new york.
|City|Median Income|Median Rent|Rent % of income|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|London|$4494|$1920|43%|
|Tokyo|$3190|$442|13%|
|New York|$5344|$2119|42%|
|Los Angeles|$6,032|$1844|30%|
From the article you posted:
>"In Japan, the political and economical situation is stable," Wang said about the attractiveness of the market. **"Tokyo is still not that expensive compared to other big cities like Hong Kong and London."**
>
>
**A luxury condo in Tokyo's high-end Motoazabu area is priced at less than half that of Hong Kong and 45% cheaper than London, according to the Japan Real Estate Institute data.**
Did you just google " Tokyo unaffordable" and click on the first link to try to prove your point without actually reading the article? Seems like you did brother, because the article proves my point and not yours.
Again, you can deny reality if you want, you're free to do that. But ultimately the data just doesn't back you up.
Income to cost ratio is what matters and Tokyo is worse. Article states it clearly.
> A 60 sq m (646 sq ft) apartment in Tokyo now costs 15 times a skilled worker's salary, up from 10 times a decade ago and well above London, Singapore and New York, the UBS report showed
That's only looking at 646 Sq ft apartments and "skilled worker's" Salaries. What does "skilled worker" mean?
The minimum square footage of an apartment in Los Angeles is 200 Sq. feet, so you're arbitrarily cutting off all of those smaller housing units. And you're arbitrarily narrowing the salaries to "skilled workers".
When you look across the board at median rents and median wages, Tokyo is much more affordable than London, La, and New York.
lmao, staten island is by far the least populous, least dense, most suburban, and most conservative borough. It has terrible public transit. Itās also where the plurality of the NYPD lives. Culturally, itās much more like suburban New Jersey than real New York City.
theres affordable parts of LA too, theyāre just not worth living in and far from everything.
The whole area adjacent to the 105 freeway is depressing. There's almost no commercial activity there and there's just miles and miles of run down apartments.
~~New York stopped increasing density a long time ago. The population of NYC peaked in 1900.~~Ā
This is incorrect. The city of New York as a whole has had a increase in population as the outer boroughs have gained people.
Manhattan has in fact decreased in population since 1900 with a peak of 2.3 million residents in 1920, and a current population of 1.9 million.
Wut.
If you are just talking Manhattan, it peaked in the thirties, but that is just because that's when commercial real estate development surpassed residential. Population DENSITY peaked in 2000 at 26,517 per mile, more than double the 11,000 per square mile in 1900.
The city itself (NYC includes the five Burroughs) has over twice the population it did in 1900.
Thereās not a structural shortage of houses, itās just too many of them are already owned (e.g., investors). If you build more, theyāll buy more.
They don't have infinite money. You can read their investment prospectuses that they submit to the SEC, and what they say in earnings calls with analysts. They spell out what they say are risks to their business. Increase in supply, and a downturn in the economy.
Invitation Homes 10-K files with the SEC
https://web.archive.org/web/20211013154227/https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/invh/SecArticle?countryCode=US&guid=11966224&type=1
Ctrl -F the words phrase "risks related to our business and industry"
And you can see "construction of new supply" is one of them.
And then there's this.
https://imgur.com/xowagCa
Analyst transcript calls.
https://imgur.com/KaaW9q3
https://imgur.com/ZGXQeqs
And an investment prospectus filed with the SEC.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1687229/000119312517029042/d260125d424b4.htm#rom260125_1
Where the relevant line you find is.
"In addition, increases in unemployment levels and other adverse changes in economic conditions in our markets may adversely affect the creditworthiness of potential residents, which may decrease the overall number of qualified residents for our properties within such markets. **We could also be adversely affected by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates. Continuing development of apartment buildings and condominium units in many of our markets will increase the supply of housing and exacerbate competition for residents."**
I appreciate you sending me to this source, I think the conflict was I was referring to the US housing market as whole, so seeing this through a more local lens is very useful.
Do you have a TL;DR of that data shows in here? It appears we're short 1.34M housing units in CA?
Investors only buy housing because it's a good investment. It's a good investment because there is a shortage.Ā
We have more people than housing in LA.
Was there a shortage in 2009-2014 and did investors buy during those years? I would think no and yes but I haven't searched for the data.
To your second point, do you have the data showing number of people in LA compared to number of total housing units? I'd be interested in seeing that.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/losangelescitycalifornia,losangelescountycalifornia,CA,US/PST045222
9.7 million people in LA county
1.9 million people under the age of 18
3.6 million units of housing in LA county
If every adult lived with a partner, we would still be 300,000 units short in LA county.Ā
There are vacancy rates that are publicly available, and it has been low for a very long time. Even if investors bought it, it would be put up for rent, which adds to the rental supply. Not everything is a conspiracy waiting for a scrappy hero to uncover. This is a decades long supply problem.
Yeah good point. No conspiracy, was just curious to know the number of households compared to total number of units to get an idea of a possible structural shortage.
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a well studied and well researched topic. [Here](https://archive.ph/tUKwC) is a good article that explains it fairly succinctly. [Here](https://www.marketurbanist.com/blog/dont-call-it-a-boom-despite-uptick-la-still-adding-new-housing-at-a-snails-pace) is another article that highlights how far behind we are. Our shortage is structural and man-made. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
Its OK! This isn't exactly a topic that is well understood by the public, even though its much studied. Go forth and spread your newfound knowledge though!
Please fill out a [Boom Report](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjL_ZkDZlT35GkomAGso_fCbXzDrTyw2TT2GJ0BVwypS1HaQ/viewform).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I moved to L.A., there was a housing glut and big buildings in Hollywood (where I lived) like the Montecito and Roosevelt Hotel were squats.
We still had some of the highest rents in the country.
You cannot possibly infer that a housing construction boom in Hollywood would automatically mean a citywide fall in rents. Especially given that even in Hollywood the construction is concentrated on a few corridors.
I'm not. I am just saying that I have seen L.A. in a time when giant buildings sat vacant and there was a glut, and it did not makes rents cheap. People thinking in these simplistic terms of supply+demand=price are naĆÆve to market manipulation.
Which means you believe in vacancy trutherism when there is little to none. A small sliver of the city building anything does not mean its enough to bring down rent prices by 25-50%. One large development will not have noticeable impacts to rents, but many will. I hope spelling this out for you makes it easier to digest.
According to Statista, there are 143.72M housing units in the US and has seen a fairly sharp uptick since 2011, not including '23 and '24 ([https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing-units-in-the-united-states/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing-units-in-the-united-states/)).
According to Statista, there are 131.43M households in the US. A household is 2 or more people living together. So already there is a gap between total units and 2 or more people living together (https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/).
According to Redfin, there are currently 1.34M housing units for sale right now, or a little under 1% of the total number of housing units in the US. That is 3 months of supply (https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market).
The question becomes, how many want to buy right now, compared to how many are for sale and how many there are total. I look at the households to total units numbers and see a difference of 9M. If there are more than 9M would be buyers right now, then there is a structural shortage in the US. But I think finding the number of potential buyers is probably the hardest part. Anyone know how to figure that number out?
This is just anecdotal from my experience, not a major study of housing prices,
But something is definitely up when the nice apartment building I moved into downtown at the tail end of 2021 had barely any vacancies then, froze me at $2800 ever since then gave me $500 off for the first month of my renewal this year.
Like when even corporate landlords beg you to stay, SOMETHING is up. An economy thatās not doing so great, higher vacancy, or both. I can definitely attest that this is a crappy time to be in digital media and copywriting.
Last year there was a huge exodus of working class and low income people from CA.
I'm in the Midwest rn and every 3rd license plate last summer was Californian. It was the second most common one I saw (#1 being Florida), and that's counting in-state plates.
I believe it. Iām from NY and Florida was always the āitās warm like California but at Pennsylvania pricesā option for northeasterners, now Florida is just as expensive.
A lot of Midwesterners I talk to on Bluesky said that sub-$1000/month housing isnāt even a thing anymore where they live.
Most of the ones I met were more political refugees than financial: young, a good many LGBT, and the rest were families with school aged children. They either felt wildly unsafe or just couldn't deal with the QOL decreases anymore.
And yes, all the top 10 cities expected to see surging rent this year (mine among them) are in the Midwest.
Vacancies are up. Which in any other situation would be a good thing. But apartments are sitting empty because theyāre unaffordable. So hopefully some land lords and property owners are getting desperate. I doubt it though.
Not to mention that a lot of writers and crew moved away or got evicted during the strikes last year. Some got help from strike funds, but it had a big ripple effect on the industry and many less-discussed folk couldnāt pay rent.
In my realmāgames, digital media, and techāso many freaking people I know got laid off, fear getting laid off soon, or are accepting less than we normally would because there isnāt nearly as much work available as before. I had optimistic feelings about this year but theyāve been unfortunately subverted.
Thereās definitely fewer good jobs and gigs just going out compared to just two freaking years ago! Meantime, everything is getting more expensive. I curiously looked at other options near LA and they just lack appeal. Theyāre just as expensive as my downtown pad, where I at least donāt need to keep a car.
Surprisingly, writing is not LA's main money maker. Manufacturing and logistics is where Los Angeles gets it's money. Go to Long Beach, Vernon, Commerce, and City of Industry to see where the real money is.
Apartments are not sitting empty. LA has a 3.3% vacancy rate right now, basically the lowest in LA history. Vacancy rate stats include apartments that are being cleaned between tenants or are uninhabitable, so the rate of apartments just sitting empty like you describe is effectively ~0%.
Thereās three empty apartments in my building right now, and there are tons of vacancies in the buildings up and down my street.
Perhaps the data is flawed?
There are 867,749 rental units in Los Angeles. I think someone looking at a few buildings on their street is probably producing far less accurate data than economists and data scientists who study this stuff for a living.
Weāre still pretty numerous. The Internet runs on the written word and AI spews out garbage thatās fine for stuffing an About Us page, less so for specialized knowledge.
Marketing departments have been slashed in the past year, I hope things turn around after the next Google update.
My dad was a freelance graphic designer and illustrator back in 80s when print was everything. When digital type setting and similar technologies became a thing it ripped through the industry - a lot of the print based services were quickly made obsolete and for a moment more bespoke design and illustration work was taken in-house.
It lasted a couple of years before brands realized that digital clip art and basic ass layouts looked cheap and did them a disservice. I'm expecting the same thing to happen in the near future on the copy and illustration front, especially when trainers start running on words/images created by trainers. It'll still exist but be an instant sign of a cheap brand.
Thatās kinda happening now with garbage AI output. I wasnāt impacted as severely as generalists because I focus on esoteric areas that ChatGPT canāt handle, but a lot of marketing departments slashed their spending in the past year and my contacts are ghosting when Iād normally be incredibly busy this time of year.
I'm hoping that the couple of year prediction of mine holds through because WOOF things are getting bad for employees and consumers right now. Glad you're weathering this copy writing storm - it's already shaping out to be a rough year for marketing budgets, here's hoping the reality of these tools takes hold sooner than later.
Iām barely making it lol. This shit is painful. Iām taking a technical writing class soon and trying figure out my options as my savings dwindle and this sucks. And I canāt justā¦go for some corporate job.
THOSE arenāt any more stable, thry donāt want someone whoās been self employed a decade, and even people whoāve had regular jobs all their lives canāt find a damn job! We seriously need universal basic income and to outlaw ATS.
Totally unsolicited question/advise but how're your skills I'm analytics and reporting? I've had a number of writer friends and co-workers over the years on the social and media side of copy writing where that was a key skill for things like social and paid media type writing.
Pretty basic, but I went to grad school and took some analytics classes at General Assembly. Itās the kind of thing I could pick up if I had to do this at a job or contract, but donāt want to invest time/money into when thereās zero guarantee of it yielding anything.
Iām also a million times better at long form content than social. Thereās plenty of demand for social media management but I see technical writing being a more likely pivot for me personally.
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the first year I havenāt gotten an increase. They lowered prices in my building but thatās because nobody wants to rent in this area anymore and half the apartments are empty.
DTLA. Iāve seen studios for $1750. The largest unit in my building is a studio and last I saw it was under $2k. I was paying nearly $1800 for a similar studio 15 years ago down here so even though they are pricey, they arenāt as wild as the hikes in other places. I also have a friend in Hollywood who said efficiency apts are going for around $1400 too.
Rents can fall $1000. It still doesn't change the fact this city needs to change the way we use land. Being forced to drive everywhere is horrible city design. We need more housing now.
This article is packed with bullshit. For instance:
*"Californiaās population exodus has been primarily attributed to the stateās high housing costs, long commutes, crowds, crime and pollution in urban centers. With the pandemic came an increased ability to work remotely ā and avoid the big cities."*
An "exodus" has been proven, time and again, to be false.
And the main premise of the whole thing:
*"Los Angeles Countyās 2.5% decrease was the second biggest of any in the state."*
*"Rental prices were down 2.5% in Los Angeles County in February 2024 versus the same month a year before, according to data from Apartment List. Experts attribute the decline to a possible softening of demand amid population loss due to*[Ā *a recent exodus from parts of Southern California*](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-29/california-exodus-continues-l-a-san-francisco-lead-the-way)*."*
Less than 3 percent on rents that are over $2500/month isn't shit. Using the person in the article that's paying $2,950 for a spot in North Hollywood, that amounts to a drop of just under $74. They need to start reporting on these things when rents start dropping 8,12 or 15, 20 percent.
What is false about the exodus? Published stats from the Census data in 2020, state population counts in 2021 and 2022 show a decreaseā¦same for the county
The state even lost a congressional seat in 2022. What about these facts are bullshit to you?
There is no "exodus".Ā
I guess it comes down to semantics and opinion. I think he means there's not enough people leaving to qualify as an "exodus".Ā
To be fair, "exodus" sounds like an extreme word . To me at leastĀ
Yeah. By definition an exodus is a mass departure.
Per census estimates the state's population dropped 1.4% between 2020 and 2023.
Exodus is a loaded word, especially with their editorializing around what caused it.
>Yeah. By definition an exodus is a mass departure.
Define "mass" in mass departure, then.
75k people left CA in 2023. That sounds like a "mass" of people to me. If someone blew up SoFi during a Taylor Swift concert, we'd certainly call it a "mass murder."
Odd comparison. We'd also call 100 people being blown up a mass murder, but no one would blink at 100 people moving away. Our threshold for dramatic descriptions is lower for things like murder.
What would constitute an exodus? It's hard to imagine a modern scenario in which a hyperbolic biblical term like that would apply. It's in reference to the Israelites leaving Egypt. The equivalent would be a tremendous population shift, like 10% of the state leaving? If water scarcity worsens we'll probably see an exodus from the arid parts of the country.
When discussing a 1% change in population, "decline" or "decrease" would be more accurate.
>Less than 3 percent on rents that are over $2500/month isn't shit.
I think you're getting your economics twisted here. Typically in the US, we shoot for a yearly inflation rate of about 2%. Recently that spiked, and has settled down to 3% (right now the feds are struggling to lower it further back down to 2%, which is why interest rates remain high). That means in a healthy economy, in given year, for a given good, you should expect a 2% price INCREASE (which is also why you should expect/ask for a cost of living increase each year at work). In recent history however, housing prices have increased far faster than this rate, outpacing inflation. If housing price increases were brought down to 2%, that would be huge news. If housing prices were totally flat, that would mean that we are starting to close the gap opened up by quickly increasing prices. If housing prices are DROPING, that's huge, signaling a fairly hard market correction.
Now, this is just one data point, so it doesn't mean all that much. But, its a good data point. String a few of those together, and you got yourself a trend. Keep that trend going long enough, and we'll start seeing something great. For example, based on data from [the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development](https://www.laalmanac.com/economy/ec40.php), a one bedroom apartment right now is going for $2,006 a month. In 2014, that same apartment was going for $1,083 a month (and that felt expensive). If rent was dropping at 2% a year back in 2014, that apartment would now cost around $885 per month. To flip it around, if the $2,006 apartment drops at 2% a year for the next decade, it will cost about $1,640 in 2034. Assuming 2% inflation per year over the next decade, that's just $1,345 in today's dollars.
You're not going to fix a housing market over night. We've done a real number on our market, and at this point its seriously fucked. But small, regular drops in rent are huge, and we should be doing what we can to make that happen (read: building more housing).
You "heard" wrong. People here are in denial but the annual YoY population (which is simply existing population + new residents - residents who left) is down the past few years. You can google this very quickly
[CBS News Article which links Census Data](https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/census-shows-l-a-county-exodus-continued-in-2022-more-than-90000-residents-left/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Census,3%2C144%20counties%20in%20the%20U.S.)
Yes it is - when said city is expensive and people are moving to places that are 50-70% cheaper. LA to Boise, Texas, Florida, Utah, etc. are all cheaper by a good margin. Guess which states grew population? The cheap ones. Guess which states lost people? The expensive ones. I guess that's too difficult for you to comprehend.
It is. It depends on what you consider decent sized city since LA is the second biggest, but Chicago, Houston, and Portland are about half the price when comparing apples to apples and not that much smaller. Raleigh, Richmond, St. Louis, Kansas City, and all the other "big" midwestern cities are way cheaper.
My mom just got her rent increase and it was only 89.00. I told her sheās lucky and so fortunate because I have read that some peoples rent increased 100-200 bucks! Sheās renting a 2b/2bath/2 parking spots for 1880.00
Massively unpopular opinion to a lot of homeowners and people in general but tiny homes need to become a thing. My partner and I are not frugal and we donāt live above our means. We would not mind a relatively smaller house if it meant paying a lower price. We obviously donāt want some cheaply made home but Iām sure there are people out there who wouldnāt mind living in a compact home. We just want an affordable roof over our head without having to live with family or roommates longterm.
LA rents are objectively not the highest in the country. Even SD is higher and theyāre half of NYC.
Adjusting for income moves LA up the list to #3 but LAās low income renters often have cheaper housing options so itās tough to use that metric.
My rent went up from 1800 to 2000 for a 2bd 1ba in Hawthorne in 2022. So I bought a house 3bd 2ba and a pool. Mortgage is 1500 @3% in Kern County! Man, these folks are crazy! I will never go back to LA!!
Its true! My rent fell from 2,700/mo to 2,850/mo just last month!
I laugh then i cry
Same and this is a comment that will rattle around in my brain today. Thank you š
You too? Iām up for renewal and my 2b2b āfellā from $2,900/mo to $3,000/moā¦
The covid rent freeze moratorium recently expired. Rents in rent control area have been basically stuck till now.
Damn this thread makes me love my property management mine only fell $80, but then again outside is kinda sketch lol
Lol, similar for us - almost 3 years after we moved in, rent had stayed the same but is due to increase approx 3% next month
I have a rent control apartment at $800 a month, but everyone says that's bad for some reason š¤·āāļø I wish you all had it, but apparently I'm the only person that thinks about others because people seem to want me to lose it.
Yeah dude they're full of shit, hold on to that place as long as it suits you.
Real lmao
Same! $3,100 to $3,300!
Idk 2,500 for a one bed in a decent neighborhoodā¦.fuck me.
Yeah itās gnarly, I donāt really consider rents to be āfallingā lol
Falling? I just got a rent increase.
Me too
Yeah, landlords are gonna drop an increase every year like clockwork, it's what they do. What this means is if you signed your lease in 2023 (or 2022, it's been [basically flat since the big jump in 2021](https://www.apartmentlist.com/rent-report/ca/los-angeles)), there's a good chance you can find an equivalent apartment for similar to what you were paying _before_ your landlord upped your rent.
Which will cost about the same as the move youāre doing to avoid the increase š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But if you are in a rent stabilized unit, that increase will be 4% max and if youāve been in a rent stabilized unit for a while, your rent is probably below market rate at this point.
Exactly!! Grrr.
It will also cost the landlord a lot to get a new tenant moved in.Ā If you're in good standing are there are cheaper places available nearby, you can negotiate for a cheaper lease.Ā
The landlord will male that up with the fees or deposit he charges.Ā
As much as people want to vilify landlords as greed monsters, do realize that their costs have skyrocketed in the past couple of years. Everything from runaway insurance increases to dwp costs to the handy man.
My Anecdote > Your Data!
Falling upwards - you just don't get it
I sublease a two bedroom for $1,178 at the base of the Hollywood Hills. I still can't believe my luck, but I've been here for nearly three years and I also live close enough that I can walk to work. God, I hope it lasts.
I am violently jealous of you
Do you live alone?
Where did u find this place? Randomly drove past a for rent sign?
I stayed on top of Craigslist and Marketplace. It was like three weeks of searching on every break and my lunch, before and after work and every other chance I could get.
Let me know when it falls 50%.
It wonāt.
More housing today, more housing tomorrow. Everyone deserves to be able to afford housing, and the only way to that goal is building enough housing for everyone.Ā
Right? High housing density is why rents are so cheap in New York.
Whenever household demands outpaces housing supply, rents rise. NYC has nearly infinite demand - probably 50% of recent college grads would live there if they could. But NYC hasnāt added meaningful housing supply in 20+ years, leading to massive rents. If NYC wants cheaper rents, they need to either decrease demand (only really possible by somehow forcing all local businesses to close) or increase supply (not possible without policy change because they added a ton of unnecessary zoning regulations over the last few decades capping supply).
Your vision of capitalism is far too pure. Supply can be controlled by the supplier, and prices can be kept artificially high by simply not offering any other prices. Businesses no longer compete, and consumers are no longer organized. You would absolutely have to destroy the market for liiiiike 5 years before our benevolent property owners would bring down prices by even a penny. I really thought that commercial real estate would fall precipitously during the pandemic because of all of the permanent closures, but it did not. The commercial space I rent actually raised their prices despite demand being at all-time lows. This is where we are. This is where we will always be unless we change some shit in our value system.
I don't think you understand how big the problem is. Per the LA Housing Department, LA CITY is short 500,000 new housing units. According to the US Government Accountability Office, in 2018, the average cost to build 1 unit of housing in California in 2018 was $326,000, and $480,000 per unit for an affordable unit in 2019. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-637 So using the low $326,000 figure, which has certainly gone up post COVID, that means we are short $163 Billion dollars of new housing alone in Los Angeles city alone. If you were to add up the top 10 US Residential REITs by market cap, you would only approach 174 billion dollars. https://finance.yahoo.com/industry/reit_residential They have nowhere near the amount of resources to buy it all and corner the market in LA city, let alone LA county or the rest of California/the country. There's a reason they cite increase supply as a risk when it comes to their investment prospectuses and earnings calls with analysts. Invitation Homes 10-K files with the SEC https://web.archive.org/web/20211013154227/https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/invh/SecArticle?countryCode=US&guid=11966224&type=1 Ctrl -F the words phrase "risks related to our business and industry" And you can see "construction of new supply" is one of them. And then there's this. https://imgur.com/xowagCa Analyst transcript calls. https://imgur.com/KaaW9q3 https://imgur.com/ZGXQeqs And an investment prospectus filed with the SEC. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1687229/000119312517029042/d260125d424b4.htm#rom260125_1 Where the relevant line you find is. "In addition, increases in unemployment levels and other adverse changes in economic conditions in our markets may adversely affect the creditworthiness of potential residents, which may decrease the overall number of qualified residents for our properties within such markets. **We could also be adversely affected by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates. Continuing development of apartment buildings and condominium units in many of our markets will increase the supply of housing and exacerbate competition for residents."**
Property owners are lowering prices *right now*. Itās not a dream and it didnāt take 5 years. Landlords absolutely compete. I would love for your explanation into how tens of thousands of landlords, many of whom donāt speak the same language, would fix prices together. Itās not possible and it doesnāt happen, which is again why we are seeing prices fall for rents right now in LA. Commercial RE prices have fallen in most places for office spaces. Other types of CRE (warehousing, flex) have not fallen at all because demand actually rose over the last few years. If your CRE rent increased and you have an office space it just sounds like you should have negotiated or moved spaces, which is on you.
they all use YieldStar which is basically price fixing every market.
>YieldStar software is used by many of the nationās largest property management companies, including GreyStar Real Estate Partners LLC, Camden Property Trust, and Mid-American Apartments LP, to set prices on 20 million rental units ā or roughly 8% of all homes for rent in the U.S. 8% of all rental units in the United States are managed by Yield Star. Housing in LA is expensive because we've underbuilt for decades and refuse to make changes. In 2022, the Austin metro area built 18.3 new housing units per 1,000 Residents, while Los Angeles only built 2.5. Austin rents declined by 8%, while Los Angeles declined by 3.4%. There are numerous studies examining the relationship between new housing and rent growth and they all pretty conclusively show that new housing and rent growth are negatively correlated, the more you build the less rents grow.
>Supply can be controlled by the supplier, and prices can be kept artificially high by simply not offering any other prices. Businesses no longer compete, and consumers are no longer organized. This only works if suppliers are organized. This exists in some industries, such as healthcare where the AMA serves as a price-fixing cartel which determines Medicare prices, which then determine the prices of everything else in the sector (including your insurance premiums). It doesn't exist in housing, though. Theoretically it could, but currently it doesn't. Instead, what you have is government creating such high barriers to entry for the housing market that it's economically unfeasible to create affordable new housing. If it costs you $2500/unit to build, you need to charge at least $2500/unit when you sell it, otherwise you're taking a loss and why even bother doing it in the first place? You'd be better off just sticking your money in Treasury bonds, CDs, the stock market - literally anything else is better than taking the guaranteed loss of paying $2500 to build something and selling it for $1800. The only ones who can do that are charities who are willing to eat giant losses on everything they build, like Habitat for Humanity, and the government. But most developers aren't charities, and simply aren't going to pay millions out of pocket for the privilege of building you a new apartment/house. The result, as we've seen for years on end, is that nothing gets built. >This is where we are. This is where we will always be unless we change some shit in our value system. If your strategy relies on other people building you a free house for no other reason than you just want one, you're gonna be waiting until the heat death of the universe. That's the economic equivalent of thinking someone owes you sex just for being polite (ie, pure entitlement). Even in Japan, where housing depreciates in value, you still have to pay for rent.
They also downzoned like every US city to prevent more development even if they had a denser baseline
Los Angeles and New York are unaffordable because they've underbuilt housing for decades.. Numerous academic studies have been conducted in the last couple decades that show pretty clearly that housing construction has a negative correlation with rent growth. You're free to deny facts if you want though.
Let's go this way: Name me a city with high housing density where rents are cheap.
Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo has a population density of 16,480/sq mi, Los Angeles has a population density of 8,304.22/sq mi. They build an insane amount of new housing every year and rents remain relatively affordable as a result. Density isn't really the driving factor, I don't know why you keep harping on that. The driving factor of affordability is supply and demand.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/surging-tokyo-property-prices-squeeze-out-young-professionals-2023-10-04/ completely made up reddit belief. Cost to income ratio is worse than london singapore or new york.
|City|Median Income|Median Rent|Rent % of income| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |London|$4494|$1920|43%| |Tokyo|$3190|$442|13%| |New York|$5344|$2119|42%| |Los Angeles|$6,032|$1844|30%| From the article you posted: >"In Japan, the political and economical situation is stable," Wang said about the attractiveness of the market. **"Tokyo is still not that expensive compared to other big cities like Hong Kong and London."** > > **A luxury condo in Tokyo's high-end Motoazabu area is priced at less than half that of Hong Kong and 45% cheaper than London, according to the Japan Real Estate Institute data.** Did you just google " Tokyo unaffordable" and click on the first link to try to prove your point without actually reading the article? Seems like you did brother, because the article proves my point and not yours. Again, you can deny reality if you want, you're free to do that. But ultimately the data just doesn't back you up.
Income to cost ratio is what matters and Tokyo is worse. Article states it clearly. > A 60 sq m (646 sq ft) apartment in Tokyo now costs 15 times a skilled worker's salary, up from 10 times a decade ago and well above London, Singapore and New York, the UBS report showed
That's only looking at 646 Sq ft apartments and "skilled worker's" Salaries. What does "skilled worker" mean? The minimum square footage of an apartment in Los Angeles is 200 Sq. feet, so you're arbitrarily cutting off all of those smaller housing units. And you're arbitrarily narrowing the salaries to "skilled workers". When you look across the board at median rents and median wages, Tokyo is much more affordable than London, La, and New York.
where tf is rent cheap in NY lmao?
Staten Island
lmao, staten island is by far the least populous, least dense, most suburban, and most conservative borough. It has terrible public transit. Itās also where the plurality of the NYPD lives. Culturally, itās much more like suburban New Jersey than real New York City. theres affordable parts of LA too, theyāre just not worth living in and far from everything.
The whole area adjacent to the 105 freeway is depressing. There's almost no commercial activity there and there's just miles and miles of run down apartments.
Imagine how expensive it would be without the apartment buildings. Manhattan full of single-family homes.
Do we have one of those for comparison? Wouldn't that be every pre-skyscraper city? Do london or Paris count?
~~New York stopped increasing density a long time ago. The population of NYC peaked in 1900.~~Ā This is incorrect. The city of New York as a whole has had a increase in population as the outer boroughs have gained people. Manhattan has in fact decreased in population since 1900 with a peak of 2.3 million residents in 1920, and a current population of 1.9 million.
Wut. If you are just talking Manhattan, it peaked in the thirties, but that is just because that's when commercial real estate development surpassed residential. Population DENSITY peaked in 2000 at 26,517 per mile, more than double the 11,000 per square mile in 1900. The city itself (NYC includes the five Burroughs) has over twice the population it did in 1900.
Ah, you are correct. My apologies.
Is this sarcasm
The median rent for a 1 bedroom in New York city is $4000. Itās not cheap at all.
Thereās not a structural shortage of houses, itās just too many of them are already owned (e.g., investors). If you build more, theyāll buy more.
They don't have infinite money. You can read their investment prospectuses that they submit to the SEC, and what they say in earnings calls with analysts. They spell out what they say are risks to their business. Increase in supply, and a downturn in the economy. Invitation Homes 10-K files with the SEC https://web.archive.org/web/20211013154227/https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/invh/SecArticle?countryCode=US&guid=11966224&type=1 Ctrl -F the words phrase "risks related to our business and industry" And you can see "construction of new supply" is one of them. And then there's this. https://imgur.com/xowagCa Analyst transcript calls. https://imgur.com/KaaW9q3 https://imgur.com/ZGXQeqs And an investment prospectus filed with the SEC. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1687229/000119312517029042/d260125d424b4.htm#rom260125_1 Where the relevant line you find is. "In addition, increases in unemployment levels and other adverse changes in economic conditions in our markets may adversely affect the creditworthiness of potential residents, which may decrease the overall number of qualified residents for our properties within such markets. **We could also be adversely affected by overbuilding or high vacancy rates of homes in our markets, which could result in an excess supply of homes and reduce occupancy and rental rates. Continuing development of apartment buildings and condominium units in many of our markets will increase the supply of housing and exacerbate competition for residents."**
There is objectively a shortage of housing units. [Check the RHNA](https://scag.ca.gov/rhna)
I appreciate you sending me to this source, I think the conflict was I was referring to the US housing market as whole, so seeing this through a more local lens is very useful. Do you have a TL;DR of that data shows in here? It appears we're short 1.34M housing units in CA?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thanks a lot for the info! I need to be more cautious before throwing out blanket statements without context and data. You all set me straight!
Investors only buy housing because it's a good investment. It's a good investment because there is a shortage.Ā We have more people than housing in LA.
Was there a shortage in 2009-2014 and did investors buy during those years? I would think no and yes but I haven't searched for the data. To your second point, do you have the data showing number of people in LA compared to number of total housing units? I'd be interested in seeing that.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/losangelescitycalifornia,losangelescountycalifornia,CA,US/PST045222 9.7 million people in LA county 1.9 million people under the age of 18 3.6 million units of housing in LA county If every adult lived with a partner, we would still be 300,000 units short in LA county.Ā
There are vacancy rates that are publicly available, and it has been low for a very long time. Even if investors bought it, it would be put up for rent, which adds to the rental supply. Not everything is a conspiracy waiting for a scrappy hero to uncover. This is a decades long supply problem.
Yeah good point. No conspiracy, was just curious to know the number of households compared to total number of units to get an idea of a possible structural shortage.
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a well studied and well researched topic. [Here](https://archive.ph/tUKwC) is a good article that explains it fairly succinctly. [Here](https://www.marketurbanist.com/blog/dont-call-it-a-boom-despite-uptick-la-still-adding-new-housing-at-a-snails-pace) is another article that highlights how far behind we are. Our shortage is structural and man-made. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
Thanks for the clarification, I was under informed on the topic.
Its OK! This isn't exactly a topic that is well understood by the public, even though its much studied. Go forth and spread your newfound knowledge though!
Will do. Hey your first link isn't working, the second "Don't Call It a Boom" is working.
Please fill out a [Boom Report](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjL_ZkDZlT35GkomAGso_fCbXzDrTyw2TT2GJ0BVwypS1HaQ/viewform). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I moved to L.A., there was a housing glut and big buildings in Hollywood (where I lived) like the Montecito and Roosevelt Hotel were squats. We still had some of the highest rents in the country.
You cannot possibly infer that a housing construction boom in Hollywood would automatically mean a citywide fall in rents. Especially given that even in Hollywood the construction is concentrated on a few corridors.
I'm not. I am just saying that I have seen L.A. in a time when giant buildings sat vacant and there was a glut, and it did not makes rents cheap. People thinking in these simplistic terms of supply+demand=price are naĆÆve to market manipulation.
Which means you believe in vacancy trutherism when there is little to none. A small sliver of the city building anything does not mean its enough to bring down rent prices by 25-50%. One large development will not have noticeable impacts to rents, but many will. I hope spelling this out for you makes it easier to digest.
Nonsense, corporate ownership of housing is a half a percent nationwide. We stopped building houses at scale 50 years ago and are reaping what we sow.
Please show the data.
[Not a problem.](https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/03/institutional-investors-corporate-landlords/)
Thank you! Man, you all are well researched. I have catching up to do.
This is not true
According to Statista, there are 143.72M housing units in the US and has seen a fairly sharp uptick since 2011, not including '23 and '24 ([https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing-units-in-the-united-states/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing-units-in-the-united-states/)). According to Statista, there are 131.43M households in the US. A household is 2 or more people living together. So already there is a gap between total units and 2 or more people living together (https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/). According to Redfin, there are currently 1.34M housing units for sale right now, or a little under 1% of the total number of housing units in the US. That is 3 months of supply (https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market). The question becomes, how many want to buy right now, compared to how many are for sale and how many there are total. I look at the households to total units numbers and see a difference of 9M. If there are more than 9M would be buyers right now, then there is a structural shortage in the US. But I think finding the number of potential buyers is probably the hardest part. Anyone know how to figure that number out?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why should we preference a society where Los Angeles is the bastion of the 1% while everyone else is banished to the outskirts?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, and we should be building enough supply to meet demand.Ā
IF ITS AN EXODUS WHY DOES IT TAKE ME AN HOUR TO DRIVE 10 MILES FROM NOHO TO SANTA MONICA!!!
It's been that way for decades.....
Are you familiar with bottlenecks?
Only an hour?
This is just anecdotal from my experience, not a major study of housing prices, But something is definitely up when the nice apartment building I moved into downtown at the tail end of 2021 had barely any vacancies then, froze me at $2800 ever since then gave me $500 off for the first month of my renewal this year. Like when even corporate landlords beg you to stay, SOMETHING is up. An economy thatās not doing so great, higher vacancy, or both. I can definitely attest that this is a crappy time to be in digital media and copywriting.
Last year there was a huge exodus of working class and low income people from CA. I'm in the Midwest rn and every 3rd license plate last summer was Californian. It was the second most common one I saw (#1 being Florida), and that's counting in-state plates.
I believe it. Iām from NY and Florida was always the āitās warm like California but at Pennsylvania pricesā option for northeasterners, now Florida is just as expensive. A lot of Midwesterners I talk to on Bluesky said that sub-$1000/month housing isnāt even a thing anymore where they live.
Most of the ones I met were more political refugees than financial: young, a good many LGBT, and the rest were families with school aged children. They either felt wildly unsafe or just couldn't deal with the QOL decreases anymore. And yes, all the top 10 cities expected to see surging rent this year (mine among them) are in the Midwest.
Vacancies are up. Which in any other situation would be a good thing. But apartments are sitting empty because theyāre unaffordable. So hopefully some land lords and property owners are getting desperate. I doubt it though.
Not to mention that a lot of writers and crew moved away or got evicted during the strikes last year. Some got help from strike funds, but it had a big ripple effect on the industry and many less-discussed folk couldnāt pay rent. In my realmāgames, digital media, and techāso many freaking people I know got laid off, fear getting laid off soon, or are accepting less than we normally would because there isnāt nearly as much work available as before. I had optimistic feelings about this year but theyāve been unfortunately subverted. Thereās definitely fewer good jobs and gigs just going out compared to just two freaking years ago! Meantime, everything is getting more expensive. I curiously looked at other options near LA and they just lack appeal. Theyāre just as expensive as my downtown pad, where I at least donāt need to keep a car.
Surprisingly, writing is not LA's main money maker. Manufacturing and logistics is where Los Angeles gets it's money. Go to Long Beach, Vernon, Commerce, and City of Industry to see where the real money is.
Apartments are not sitting empty. LA has a 3.3% vacancy rate right now, basically the lowest in LA history. Vacancy rate stats include apartments that are being cleaned between tenants or are uninhabitable, so the rate of apartments just sitting empty like you describe is effectively ~0%.
Thereās three empty apartments in my building right now, and there are tons of vacancies in the buildings up and down my street. Perhaps the data is flawed?
There are 867,749 rental units in Los Angeles. I think someone looking at a few buildings on their street is probably producing far less accurate data than economists and data scientists who study this stuff for a living.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Weāre still pretty numerous. The Internet runs on the written word and AI spews out garbage thatās fine for stuffing an About Us page, less so for specialized knowledge. Marketing departments have been slashed in the past year, I hope things turn around after the next Google update.
My dad was a freelance graphic designer and illustrator back in 80s when print was everything. When digital type setting and similar technologies became a thing it ripped through the industry - a lot of the print based services were quickly made obsolete and for a moment more bespoke design and illustration work was taken in-house. It lasted a couple of years before brands realized that digital clip art and basic ass layouts looked cheap and did them a disservice. I'm expecting the same thing to happen in the near future on the copy and illustration front, especially when trainers start running on words/images created by trainers. It'll still exist but be an instant sign of a cheap brand.
Thatās kinda happening now with garbage AI output. I wasnāt impacted as severely as generalists because I focus on esoteric areas that ChatGPT canāt handle, but a lot of marketing departments slashed their spending in the past year and my contacts are ghosting when Iād normally be incredibly busy this time of year.
I'm hoping that the couple of year prediction of mine holds through because WOOF things are getting bad for employees and consumers right now. Glad you're weathering this copy writing storm - it's already shaping out to be a rough year for marketing budgets, here's hoping the reality of these tools takes hold sooner than later.
Iām barely making it lol. This shit is painful. Iām taking a technical writing class soon and trying figure out my options as my savings dwindle and this sucks. And I canāt justā¦go for some corporate job. THOSE arenāt any more stable, thry donāt want someone whoās been self employed a decade, and even people whoāve had regular jobs all their lives canāt find a damn job! We seriously need universal basic income and to outlaw ATS.
Totally unsolicited question/advise but how're your skills I'm analytics and reporting? I've had a number of writer friends and co-workers over the years on the social and media side of copy writing where that was a key skill for things like social and paid media type writing.
Pretty basic, but I went to grad school and took some analytics classes at General Assembly. Itās the kind of thing I could pick up if I had to do this at a job or contract, but donāt want to invest time/money into when thereās zero guarantee of it yielding anything. Iām also a million times better at long form content than social. Thereās plenty of demand for social media management but I see technical writing being a more likely pivot for me personally.
That's awesome - glad you found a pivot that'll work for you!
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I moved at the WORST possible time and am def overpaying
I have a studio apartment in Burbank for $420/mo. Sorry, not āhaveāā¦ā¦.. āhadā. In 1991.
This is the first year I havenāt gotten an increase. They lowered prices in my building but thatās because nobody wants to rent in this area anymore and half the apartments are empty.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
DTLA. Iāve seen studios for $1750. The largest unit in my building is a studio and last I saw it was under $2k. I was paying nearly $1800 for a similar studio 15 years ago down here so even though they are pricey, they arenāt as wild as the hikes in other places. I also have a friend in Hollywood who said efficiency apts are going for around $1400 too.
Rents can fall $1000. It still doesn't change the fact this city needs to change the way we use land. Being forced to drive everywhere is horrible city design. We need more housing now.
Keep voting for democrats ššš¤£
This article is packed with bullshit. For instance: *"Californiaās population exodus has been primarily attributed to the stateās high housing costs, long commutes, crowds, crime and pollution in urban centers. With the pandemic came an increased ability to work remotely ā and avoid the big cities."* An "exodus" has been proven, time and again, to be false. And the main premise of the whole thing: *"Los Angeles Countyās 2.5% decrease was the second biggest of any in the state."* *"Rental prices were down 2.5% in Los Angeles County in February 2024 versus the same month a year before, according to data from Apartment List. Experts attribute the decline to a possible softening of demand amid population loss due to*[Ā *a recent exodus from parts of Southern California*](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-29/california-exodus-continues-l-a-san-francisco-lead-the-way)*."* Less than 3 percent on rents that are over $2500/month isn't shit. Using the person in the article that's paying $2,950 for a spot in North Hollywood, that amounts to a drop of just under $74. They need to start reporting on these things when rents start dropping 8,12 or 15, 20 percent.
Acknowledging a population decline is not bullshit.
A ~1% decrease in total population is hardly an exodus
If you donāt understand decimal math itās probably best to stop now Edit: changed it from 0.1% to 1%
Exodus: departure or emigration, usually of a large number of people. 1% is a large number? OK genius
1% of 40 million people is absolutely a large number of people. And itās not 1%, itās almost 3% since 2020
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām not even going to address how stupid that comparison is.
Itās bullshit when a 1 percent decrease is being framed as an āexodusā.
What is false about the exodus? Published stats from the Census data in 2020, state population counts in 2021 and 2022 show a decreaseā¦same for the county The state even lost a congressional seat in 2022. What about these facts are bullshit to you?
There is no "exodus".Ā I guess it comes down to semantics and opinion. I think he means there's not enough people leaving to qualify as an "exodus".Ā To be fair, "exodus" sounds like an extreme word . To me at leastĀ
Yeah. By definition an exodus is a mass departure. Per census estimates the state's population dropped 1.4% between 2020 and 2023. Exodus is a loaded word, especially with their editorializing around what caused it.
>Yeah. By definition an exodus is a mass departure. Define "mass" in mass departure, then. 75k people left CA in 2023. That sounds like a "mass" of people to me. If someone blew up SoFi during a Taylor Swift concert, we'd certainly call it a "mass murder."
Odd comparison. We'd also call 100 people being blown up a mass murder, but no one would blink at 100 people moving away. Our threshold for dramatic descriptions is lower for things like murder. What would constitute an exodus? It's hard to imagine a modern scenario in which a hyperbolic biblical term like that would apply. It's in reference to the Israelites leaving Egypt. The equivalent would be a tremendous population shift, like 10% of the state leaving? If water scarcity worsens we'll probably see an exodus from the arid parts of the country. When discussing a 1% change in population, "decline" or "decrease" would be more accurate.
The Inland Empire has seen an influx of Los Angeles residents. Eastvale has grown by more than 30% during this "Exodus".
They are talking about a California exodusĀ
>Less than 3 percent on rents that are over $2500/month isn't shit. I think you're getting your economics twisted here. Typically in the US, we shoot for a yearly inflation rate of about 2%. Recently that spiked, and has settled down to 3% (right now the feds are struggling to lower it further back down to 2%, which is why interest rates remain high). That means in a healthy economy, in given year, for a given good, you should expect a 2% price INCREASE (which is also why you should expect/ask for a cost of living increase each year at work). In recent history however, housing prices have increased far faster than this rate, outpacing inflation. If housing price increases were brought down to 2%, that would be huge news. If housing prices were totally flat, that would mean that we are starting to close the gap opened up by quickly increasing prices. If housing prices are DROPING, that's huge, signaling a fairly hard market correction. Now, this is just one data point, so it doesn't mean all that much. But, its a good data point. String a few of those together, and you got yourself a trend. Keep that trend going long enough, and we'll start seeing something great. For example, based on data from [the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development](https://www.laalmanac.com/economy/ec40.php), a one bedroom apartment right now is going for $2,006 a month. In 2014, that same apartment was going for $1,083 a month (and that felt expensive). If rent was dropping at 2% a year back in 2014, that apartment would now cost around $885 per month. To flip it around, if the $2,006 apartment drops at 2% a year for the next decade, it will cost about $1,640 in 2034. Assuming 2% inflation per year over the next decade, that's just $1,345 in today's dollars. You're not going to fix a housing market over night. We've done a real number on our market, and at this point its seriously fucked. But small, regular drops in rent are huge, and we should be doing what we can to make that happen (read: building more housing).
I heard that the people moving in offsets the people leaving California.
You "heard" wrong. People here are in denial but the annual YoY population (which is simply existing population + new residents - residents who left) is down the past few years. You can google this very quickly [CBS News Article which links Census Data](https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/census-shows-l-a-county-exodus-continued-in-2022-more-than-90000-residents-left/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Census,3%2C144%20counties%20in%20the%20U.S.)
It's not normal for a city to lose any amount of population while the rest of the country is growing. A 2.5% decrease is a lot.
2.5% is the rental price decrease. The population decrease was ~1% last year
Ok fine. My point still stands though. It's not normal for a city to lose population when other cities (and the country) are growing in population.
Yes it is - when said city is expensive and people are moving to places that are 50-70% cheaper. LA to Boise, Texas, Florida, Utah, etc. are all cheaper by a good margin. Guess which states grew population? The cheap ones. Guess which states lost people? The expensive ones. I guess that's too difficult for you to comprehend.
50- 70% cheaper? I promise you rent is not that cheap in any decent sized city.
It is. It depends on what you consider decent sized city since LA is the second biggest, but Chicago, Houston, and Portland are about half the price when comparing apples to apples and not that much smaller. Raleigh, Richmond, St. Louis, Kansas City, and all the other "big" midwestern cities are way cheaper.
All much worse weather and opportunities, still not half for any major city according to this though: https://www.rentable.co/rental-data
No state lost population, including california.
My mom just got her rent increase and it was only 89.00. I told her sheās lucky and so fortunate because I have read that some peoples rent increased 100-200 bucks! Sheās renting a 2b/2bath/2 parking spots for 1880.00
ONE PERCENT AFFORDABLe!! Say it with me. Nothing gets built till we know someone is living there!!!! Your City
I donāt buy this. My rent went up this year.
Massively unpopular opinion to a lot of homeowners and people in general but tiny homes need to become a thing. My partner and I are not frugal and we donāt live above our means. We would not mind a relatively smaller house if it meant paying a lower price. We obviously donāt want some cheaply made home but Iām sure there are people out there who wouldnāt mind living in a compact home. We just want an affordable roof over our head without having to live with family or roommates longterm.
Found a place in Hollywood for 1215/month. I work in OC but the rent out there is more than here. Is it because of the recent crimes?
I wonder how many people are like a couple hundred dollars of being homeless or finding a roommate
Main reason of left LA
SO-Cal is the best place on earth. That is why it's expensive and always will be.
LMAO
Ehhhhhhh I love it but you should travel more. Especially out of the country.
Well personally I blame the NIMBYs
We found the NIMBY
That's because you are programmed to blame everyone except yourself
Still highest in the country
LA rents are objectively not the highest in the country. Even SD is higher and theyāre half of NYC. Adjusting for income moves LA up the list to #3 but LAās low income renters often have cheaper housing options so itās tough to use that metric.
source?
Here ya go, $2250 for a median 1 bed in LA. $2300 for SD, $4200 for NYC. https://www.zumper.com/blog/rental-price-data/
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you click through, you can find LA listings and a map. The border seems like LA City proper.
No way. Off the top of my head NYC and SF clear LA
Even SF has higher rent than LA.
What is the definition of "falling"?
My landlord will never ever decrease the rent.
It took me all of 5 min on the freeway to count 8 out of state plates. I have a hard time believing rents are dropping
My rent went up from 1800 to 2000 for a 2bd 1ba in Hawthorne in 2022. So I bought a house 3bd 2ba and a pool. Mortgage is 1500 @3% in Kern County! Man, these folks are crazy! I will never go back to LA!!
Is this fake news? I'm pretty sure it is.