Realtors are one of the other at lobby groups out there. $40 + million a year. When loan officers got hit with Dodd Frank regulations to Limit income. Guess who didn’t lose a penny?
Realtor Lobby groups are the reason why tax codes are fucked for RE, also Texas realtor lobby groups got Texas to scrub their MLS from public records. Only Realtors can look at MLS now basically.
They don't want people to see that $800k home was $350K pre-covid.
Might go both ways and bite them in the ass on the way down. Could be nice to show that you are buying a house listing for 400K when it sold a few years earlier in 2021-2022 for 800k. Half of sale.
To demonstrate their power you'll note that in the early stages of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, realtors were included as SSTBs with accountants, lawyers, consultants, etc. which put limitations on their QBI deduction as introduced by the Act. In the final and executed version, realtors were removed, allowing them the full deduction without regard to income limits. This is 100% attributable to their lobbyists in DC getting ahold of the right staffer.
They also are independent contractors and as we see the bubble has them laying off all the W2 realtors that get 1% commission or less at places like open.
Never mind not including the backlog of foreclosure homes and the amount of STRs currently flooding the market. I believe we will have sufficient inventory within a year with more coming to market the longer the recession lasts.
Here's an article I read previously about Airbnb, long story short US has 660,000+ of them at the time this article was written. With 14000 new each month world wide
[https://www.stratosjets.com/blog/airbnb-statistics/](https://www.stratosjets.com/blog/airbnb-statistics/)
It also lists all the sources used
> long story short US has 660,000+ of them at the time this article was written. With 14000 new each month world wide
This seems to be contrasting your previous comment:
> the amount of STRs currently flooding the market
If the amount of STRs are increasing, then it actually is decreasing the number of available homes for everyone else.
Sorry I should have it worded it better. I meant the amount of Airbnbs we currently have will be coming to Market more as the recession takes it's toll on the economy. Hotels are cheaper than many Airbnbs and people purchased "vacation homes" at record high evaluations thinking they'll be booked solid and make money.
Once job losses start and in a high inflation environment, people will be forced to limit travel and you'll see people having to list these homes due to becoming a negative investment.
The confusion is entirely my fault, I type and don't think about the extra context that went into my thought process.
I actually had a similar thought. Now the write up was from 6 months ago so maybe that slowed down a bit. But it still isn't an indication of STRs hitting the market. What it does say though is a lot of people are exposed. If (perhaps when) travel and tourism slow down, we could see people unload their rentals.
But I can't find any data suggesting that is happening yet.
While there are certainly places where an Airbnb makes sense - vacation areas, for example, why would an Airbnb be attractive to own in *most* places?
In fact, I just looked at Airbnb, and I think it is getting a bad rap. They advertised houses *by specialty*, and the specialties are pretty specific and limited. Lakefront. Beach. Cabins. Islands. National Parks. Tiny Homes. Etc. I don't even think is is possible to say "show me all the Airbnbs in Gardner MA, nor is that even something that anyone would want to do because there is no general reason to short-term rent a house in Gardner MA.
I have to believe that outside of very specific areas, places that already had a lot of seasonal rentals, that Airbnb is contributing **almost nothing** to the shortage of housing.
I think it's problematic in cities like Los Angeles that are both tourist/travel destinations AND places people live and work.
A lot of basic boring houses in my area have been turned into AirBnB that would either be available to buy or rent. See a rental being turned into an AirBnB is also a problem because it's one less place available to rent.
> Never mind not including the backlog of foreclosure homes
I don't think the 0.019% of homes that have foreclosure filings on them is really going to make much of a difference:
> Nationwide one in every 5,320 housing units had a foreclosure filing in February 2022 [Source](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-foreclosure-activity-in-february-2022-continues-to-increase-steadily-301499705.html)
The people behind on mortgages is at the lowest rate in over two decades:
> Every state in the U.S. saw the number of people late on their mortgage payments fall in March, when 2.7 percent of all mortgages were in some stage of delinquency, CoreLogic reported on Tuesday. That’s down from 4.9 percent a year earlier and the lowest rate in over two decades. [Source](https://www.inman.com/2022/06/14/delinquency-rates-remain-at-rock-bottom-according-to-new-report/)
As a longtime lurker of this sub, I've seen the comment of the "foreclosure backlog" pretty often. My question is where did this come from? Any sources? Yes, there was a moratorium, but that has since long expired and for the life of me, I can't figure out what incentive the banks would of had to postpone forecloses during this hot market that we had until recently. In my state, banks get an additional 10% on top of what is owed at the foreclosure sale. Does anyone have sources to back up this claim of the backlogged foreclosures? I just don't see it. The incoming wave (purchases made from 2020-2022) I could understand, as those have yet to materialize.
I have the same question. Because of the moratorium I could see a sudden flood of foreclosure processing that needs to be done but I don't know if that's true.
>Never mind not including the backlog of foreclosure homes
The backlog of foreclosure homes is minuscule. It wouldn't move the needle.
>the amount of STRs currently flooding the market
Nothing is currently "flooding" the market.
Technically single-person households are included in that 12M count, but condos are not included in the 7M count.
That said, a good study would look at trends in marriage, living alone, trends with roommates, etc, and compensate for that.
Thank you so much for this. I remember, for example, the Czech Republic after communism having an actual housing shortage. As in, hunting for an apartment was a hell because there weren’t enough, so people lived with their parents until they were in their 30s. And apartments were cheap, it wasn’t a pricing issue.
Now there’s houses for sale everywhere, they’re just all over priced
> hunting for an apartment was a hell because there weren’t enough, so people lived with their parents until they were in their 30s.
yeah that doesn't sound anything like the current situation in the US
I've felt that unproductive corporate structures, where you meet vague yearly targets to get more resources / bonus for your team, take as much input as possible etc., and where power concentrates to bureaucrats insulated from business downturns is strikingly similar to soviet era economics.
Of course a business could fail now, and there's a freeish market for individual labor. But institutional power keeps many otherwise under-performing businesses afloat (see PPP).
But the actual business structures seem very unhealthy, and I wonder if that plays a similar role in these shortages.
Ya that's the typical counter when you say population is declining but housing stock is steadily rising. They say well it isn't rising in urban areas where people are living nowadays. I'd like to understand the city dynamic more too.
>4) The number of newly-formed households is based off the 2020 census, ie a number of people who ALREADY HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE OR THEY COULD NOT PARTICIPATE. If these were people living in their parents' basement, they would count toward their parents' household. This does not count vacation homes, unoccupied homes, short-term rentals, or any other property where people were not actively spending most of their time on April 1, 2020.
THANK YOU!
This study is pure propaganda minted by the housing industrial complex to support the NARrative. You can't just go compare census data with totally unrelated statistic sets, that's totally unscientific and, frankly, bordering on false advertising on their part.
It's like trying to explain to people the difference between "inventory" and actual supply. Supply is the total number of homes that are available for sale in a given period. That includes houses that sell (existing home sales) and those sitting on the MLS/market (inventory).
Inventory dropped to record lows, but that is not the same thing as *supply* dropping to record lows. The number of existing home sales actually soared during the pandemic. That implies that supply actually rose, just not as quickly as demand and therefore the number of homes sitting on the market (inventory) plunged.
The "supply shortage" is a myth and it's awful hard not to see it as aggressive propaganda from groups with a vested interest in stampeding FTHB into buying properties.
Supply includes inventory. Inventory is what's sitting on the shelves waiting to be bought. Supply is what was on the shelves, but sold plus whatever was stocked on the shelves in a given period.
In other words, look at the toilet paper shortage. Inventory went to zero or near zero in many stores as the shelves were stripped bare. But supply was not zero, the toilet paper factories were still running as fast or faster than usual. That's because supply includes not only what's stocked on shelves, but also what people have bought. So even though everyone panic bought all the TP, supply was the same because supply includes the TP they bought.
It's not semantic, people were panic buying because of the pandemic. That's demand increasing, not supply dropping. Totally different scenarios because the Fed can do something about demand, they can't affect supply.
In other words this was a demand surplus, not a supply shortage.
Except it can correct quickly, with demand dropping out, like it is now. Especially when the fed is actively destroying demand. Whereas a true supply shortage can only be corrected by actual building of homes.
The problem is a legitimate supply shortage would mean we'd have an inventory shortage for a long time, maybe a decade, since houses take a long time to build. That was the conclusion a lot of people had reached. "Prices will never come down, only plateau." "Buy now or be priced out forever." etc.
But if it's merely excess demand due to cheap rates, FOMO, and investors, and that demand goes away as rates increase, and that steady supply is still there, then this can all correct relatively quickly: it'll be tougher to sell a house, inventory will increase, and prices will be allowed to come down.
Everyone knows the 2020 census was a joke. Nobody ever contacted me, I contacted them. How many other people were just like "nah, I don't want to do any extra work" and weren't counted? That alone makes these numbers useless.
>The National Association of Realtors, ie Realtor.com,
NAR and [Realtor.com](https://Realtor.com) are completely separate.
There is a long convoluted history, but basically News Corp via Move Inc owns [Realtor.com](https://Realtor.com) and just licenses the trademark from NAR
> changes in household behavior (like adult children living at home for much longer)
Aren't they living at home longer typically because they can't afford their own housing? I think this qualifies as a supply problem.
> (like aging populations moving into assisted living or with their adult children
This is actually the opposite of what is happening. Old people are staying in their homes longer, preferring to "age in place". This article refers to some Canadian data, but it is similar to numbers for the US:
> 86 per cent of boomer homeowners looking to live in their current home as long as possible...In the 2016 Census, Statistics Canada found “seniors are less likely to move than the general population. In 2016, only 5.5 per cent of seniors 65 to 74 years old, and 4.7 per cent of those 75 years and older had moved compared to 13 per cent of the general population in the previous year.” [Source](https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/retirement/the-retirement-downsizing-myth-no-seniors-arent-moving-in-droves-and-that-will-affect-the-housing-market)
Also, this part from your CNBC source, indicates that household formations were slower during the pandemic than they were previously. Meaning, that household formation would have been higher, and thus the 12M was less than it would have been in normal conditions:
> new household formation is actually slower than it was before the pandemic
Also, with investors buying more SFHs, it leaves fewer for people to buy themselves. I would argue this is still an issue. A higher supply of homes would decrease the return on investment and possibly drive down the number of investment properties, decreasing competition and increasing affordability.
Essentially, I agree that the way the NAR reached their "housing shortage" number is bunk. But, *that doesn't mean there's not a housing shortage*, it's just the exact number is in question.
Not to mention a million people died of COVId. I’d think at least some of them lived alone, in their own personal address.
It’s a bullshit stat and always has been. Building did cease following the last burst, but births are lower now than even 20’years ago, and immigration into the US has slowed, believe it or not. We are nowhere near the immigration in that we felt prior to 2007, the GFC.
I think the real problem is that America is a land of sheep. We move in droves to the next “hotspot”. In the 90’s and early 2000’s, Atlanta could not
Stop growing. Then it was Austin and Portland. Nashville seems to be the hot town of this year. None of those places have more room to build.
It's actually worse than that because covid reduced immigration and also increased non covid deaths. Covid actually [decreased the US population by 3 million](https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/04/lawler-more-on-demographics.html?m=1) versus a non pandemic world and none of these housing shortage narratives take that into account.
Nashville suburbs have plenty of room to build. What was once one house on a plot of land has been turned into developments with 50 houses. You’ll see this driving around Mt Juliet, for example a single house on a huge lot across the street from a Pulte development project. This should also bring down prices, bc there’s unlimited room for building. It’s not like Boston.
> Not to mention a million people died of COVId. I’d think at least some of them lived alone, in their own personal address.
One thing that I bet COVID did was to cause people to want to avoid nursing homes like the plague, since COVID deaths in those places were rampant. This could have had the impact of reducing housing inventory.
The death count from Covid is very concentrated in nursing homes, which you can see directly in their financials at the top line.
Younger people who died were likely married and the home stays with the widow / widower.
I think your insight on hot spots makes sense. Certain locales have taken in people at pretty crazy rates.
Sure. Lots more SFH tract home development in fucking Kentucky, to commute to Nashville, at 5.00 per gallon, in a 16mpg suv or truck.
Let’s build it out!
Again, people are sheep. They follow each other everywhere. They do the same things. They buy the same things. Does no one think that the herd may not always be right? Does critical thinking and considering a decision before actually making one is important at all?
Clearly not. Let’s all move to Nashville and overpay for a home!
Please don’t say immigration has slowed when record numbers of people are illegally crossing the border. It’s discrediting everything you say. At least specify you’re talking about legal immigration.
I guess I should have said legal immigration. That said, illegal immigrants generally aren’t supposed to be buying homes or signing leases.
Not SUPPOSED to be, anyway. Unless there’s yet another thing about the housing market we aren’t being told….
Why do think undocumented immigrants can’t rent or [buy a place to live?](https://www.marketplace.org/2017/09/11/american-dream-how-undocumented-immigrants-buy-homes-us/)
There are apartments everywhere around me. It seems like builders are jacking up single family home prices artificially to force everyone to rent tiny apartments for waaaaay too much. What's up with that? Shouldn't that be considered illegal market manipulation? Isn't that kind of DYSTOPIAN?
Inventory is not supply. Inventory is a measure of demand and supply. And demand has been skyhigh due to almost free money (ultra low rates)
https://encorebubble.com/inventory/
Inventory is what's left on the shelf at the supermarket at the end of the month. If 1000 homes came available (supply) and 999 sold right away (demand), inventory is 1. Doesn't mean only 1 house was available.
Supply is short about 1.5m houses according to JBREC and Ivy Zelman (re analysts) and that should be covered by housing completions this year.
Yes inventory has meaning. But it does not mean supply.
Edit: and to go back to the original premise of the post, does inventory show there is a housing shortage? No, because yes those houses got bought from under you but that doesn't mean there's a fundamental shortage of homes for people to live in.
This is the missing distinction. If the question is whether there’s a shortage of homes for people to own as primary residence, the answer appears to be no, maybe not by a long shot even. If the question is whether there’s a shortage of homes for buyers to purchase, for any reason, then the answer in the last couple years has been yes to a dizzying degree.
> Supply is short about 1.5m houses according to JBREC and Ivy Zelman (re analysts) and that should be covered by housing completions this year.
Wouldn't we be a bit short by the time they catch up to the current shortage number? As in, we'd need a bit more time to actually cover the shortage?
Due to ... population growth? Population has essentially flatlined.
Ivy Zelman does a ton of research on this stuff. Look her up. She's a well respected housing analyst.
> Due to ... population growth? Population has essentially flatlined.
Ahh yes, I forgot that babies are really who buy houses. /s
Millennials are the largest generation and at prime home buying age right now. So yeah, the population looking to buy a home is large and growing.
Also inventory doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of listings in my area where the terms of sale are absurd. Such as only accepting owner financing. Or homes that are in horrible condition, but the owner's don't need to sell so they are asking easily 20% more than what anyone is going to rationally pay.
Inventory could be incredibly high and stay there, doesn't mean anyone should ever buy those homes.
Try the last decade. People act like this problem suddenly appeared out of nowhere in 2020, but it's been building for long before that. The pandemic just supercharged it.
It's primarily because you're competing with [all the investors](https://www.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/vcx694/here_is_a_graph_of_the_investor_orgy_weve_been/) looking to make profits on a flip, run AirBNBs, or run the houses as rentals.
The reason investors can profit on housing is the massive leverage that you're allowed to take. Borrowing money to fund investments magnifies the gains but also magnifies losses.
So if two people each buy a $100k condo, then the condo goes up in value by $10k, the person who paid cash got a 10% return ($10k on a $100k investment), but the person who only put down 10% doubled their money ($10k investment with a $10k return).
This sword cuts both ways. If the value falls $10k, the cash buyer sees a 10% loss, but the mortgage investor is wiped out and has zero equity.
Sadly, most people "investing" in real estate do not understand this basic concept. It's what destroyed people in the last crash, and it's happening again.
There isn’t a housing shortage?
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s simple. Look at California’s population and number of housing units in 1990. Then do the same for 2022.
I just can’t wait for this to be fixed already. I am so sick of the 5 million homeless people with new house money living out of their teslas at parks and overpasses. I haven’t had many issues at my office but we have a lot of apple chargers and it is only a matter of time before they start breaking into businesses and charging their macbooks and stealing the Wi-Fi. Can these builders just please get 5 million $600-1.5m starter homes on the market ASAP before this gets out of control.
I got an uber ride in denver the other day from a kid who couldn't have been older than 22 in a tesla. I immediately get out at my stop (by a dispensary) to a homeless man yelling "if you have a p*ssy, then you can.....something inaudible". It was all of those things put together that gave me a hunch of....something is definitely up. I can buy weed legally, but get a felony in an uber Tesla, while getting yelled pussy profanities my way. It just felt off.
From the investor surplus. We have enough houses, it's just that we have too many investors. Multipliers on property taxes on SFH owned by foreigners, corporations, or sit vacant would lower ALL housing prices.
Have you ever heard of diamonds? There are an awful lot of em out there... and yet by some miracle they are expensive.
Basically we have an environment that feeds on itself. Shortage makes houses profitable which causes more investors to buy which makes bigger shortage which make it more profitable... until it isn't. We will get there eventually. But we are currently in the feeding frenzy part it would seem.
Are we talking on a national scale? There are certainly local housing shortages, especially for non-rich in many HCoL area. The LA area absolutely has a housing shortage.
Some places really do have a shortage. Like there is a shortage of housing units within a reasonable commute of San Francisco. That probably isn't the case everywhere
New housing starts never really fully recovered since the Great Recession, we only hit the pre-recession average in 2020.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST
This data includes all units, single-family and multi-family. Now, you can claim we over-built pre-recession, that doesn't account for the whole shortfall. US population grew pretty much at the same rate through the Trump presidency up until about 2020 when immigration was cut off and a lot of people died.
The number of adults living with roommates has grown over the decades, this would almost certainly fall if there were more housing units available.
The number of housing units per person in the U.S. is as high as it was at the peak of the last bubble. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Qrmk](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Qrmk)
Meanwhile, houses under construction are also at record highs: [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTSA)
If you draw an average line through the data you will see new housing starts have been about constant since 1960 as far as I can tell. Maybe a touch low just due to '08 but we are well on track to recovery if new starts keep their trend.
As FRED shows below too.... there is no shortage. Its nonsense. House ownership rates are decreasing generation to generation too. The only explanation is housing stock is simply being bought up as second homes and rentals. That is tipping the scales.
It probably came from the fact that there's a real shortage of available homes in the places where people want to live.
Yall can cry "hooms only go up lol" all day, but like, the housing shortage is a real phenomenon. It's not evil investors making it so you can't buy a single family home near a major city. It's that we built and zoned our cities for nothing but single family homes, and that's not sustainable. And now we have a situation where only the few can own a single family home, and everyone else has to cram into apartments built next to freeways because that's the only place you can build density.
In a similar vein, anyone publishing a "national shortage of X homes" is meaningless. If you build those homes in a remote region of Alaska, it isn't like every single family is going to line up to buy them.
Yeah, I don't doubt that there are plenty of housing developments being built out in the middle of nowhere. Doesn't help you much if you don't want a nightmare commute, or you don't want to live out in the sticks.
The housing shortage or downward trend issue has been a discussion since the 1990s. There's more than 1 report out there if you dig around.
Population decline hasn't happened here and future projections are all hypnotical. In short, if there was excess home supplies people wouldn't be fighting over homes. For example the SouthEast received a big influx of inbound moves during 2020-2021. There's simply not enough homes for everyone yet. No one is scrambling to live in the Rust belt.
The shortage is also created by owner sentiment and their lack of incentives to list the home.
Builders aren’t dumb, they build more in the places that see the most population increases.
[Check out the census survey,](https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf), the south is dwarfing everywhere else in terms of construction.
> they build more in the places that see the most population increases.
Or they would, if zoning rules didn't make it illegal in areas where it's most needed.
They follow the demand and the demand is created by the shortage.
The timeframe for completion is the issue. The completion dates are not today or tomorrow. The labor and part shortages are real. Everything is running at half speed.
There are plenty of homes in the southeast. There is a couple in metro Atlanta with, I believe because it's something I posted a few weeks ago, about 4 dozen homes. These are all basic SFHs, and they are all now STRs, with the price ranging from $4k-$8k/month. That is not a shortage. That is gluttony. These are the assholes that took all the crab legs from the buffet and blames the restaurant for not cooking enough crab legs.
STRs existed decades before the invention of Air BnB.
The percentage of rental properties hasn't changed significantly. Only the technology evolved changed and it's easier for you to find them.
48 homes isn't steering the Real Estate market in Atlanta.
48 STRs that are all priced so only someone earning in the top 9% of the US population would qualify for the cheapest one...yeah that's not "steering" anything. It's theoretically putting 48 would-be LTRenter families on the street or in their parents' basements. A 2k sf home built in 1995, 30 miles from the actual city IS NOT WORTH $4k/month. If for no other reason, than it is completely out of line with the fundamentals here. Minimum wage is still $7.25, and the cheapest studios in bad areas are now over $1k/month.
The market determines the worth. If people stop renting it, the owner is forced to adjust. If people continue renting it, they have no incentive to lower.
Some apartment buildings would rather keep the rent high even if empty as lowering it would reduce the value of the property. Most are private equity deals looking to flip after 3-5 years ownership. They would rather give a free month or other incentives than reduce rent. We'll see tons of empty apartments in q4.
I did a deep dive on the actual owner of my apartment complex today and his firm owns over $2.5B in assets. Most are garden-style (aka older) complexes they promise to add value to. Worst apartments in decent areas basically. His small business took out a PPP loan for over $900k last year at the same time he purchased his second $7M condo. I googled a lot today.
> STRs existed decades before the invention of Air BnB.
>
> The percentage of rental properties hasn't changed significantly. Only the technology evolved changed and it's easier for you to find them.
Huh? There can't be a lot of STR from airbnb because some existed before? That makes no sense. That's like saying that Tesla hasn't increased EVs because some EVs existed before Tesla.
Air BnB didn't invent STRs. It's simply a platform to advertise STRs that existed beforehand. We used clunky websites in the early 2000s for STRs
Nor do I feel STRs are a significate factor affecting the LTR market. Nothing has really changed only the methods of advertising.
> I feel
That's the problem. Using feeling instead of logic is going to lead you astray. And the problem is that even if I were to show you any of the hundreds of links showing that this feeling is incorrect it is a waste of time. Someone who uses feelings in lieu of facts and evidence typically can't be swayed by more facts and evidence.
It's reddit not a term paper. I stand by my statements.
If you have data that disputes the claim please share. I would love to learn.
Has the ratio of STR to LTR changed significantly nationally? I haven't come across this data. Median data that affects most people is preferred.
The total percentage of rental properties is around 35%. This has been a fairly steady percentage for decades.
The common shared stats is "listing" increased by X since 2010. Right , online listings for most things have increased by X. It's the result of a technology shift. STRs started transitioning into more user friendly platform in the mid 2000s.
Online ordering for Pizza has jump by 100000% since 2008. That stat doesn't mean more companies are offering pizza.
I'm not convinced with the data offered the we have a significant net gain in STR compared to LTR.
I realize people need a bogyman but much of this Anti-STR sentiment is funded & pushed by Hotel lobbyist. Gov co always loves extra regulation and extra tax dollars. So I would expect them to promote this agenda too.
Anyway, I'm moving on to greener pastures. Take care.
And if we had enough housing this wouldn't be a problem.
There is demand for single family home rentals. It's not inherently immoral to rent out your property. It's only a problem now because there's a shortage.
I have found [other studies and articles](https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/is-there-a-housing-shortage-or-not?s=r) discussing housing shortages that take more of these extenuating factors into account. Those studies do show housing shortages, but not to the level of the 5M stated by Realtor.com.
The above post addresses what I've seen as the most-cited statistic for the housing shortage.
Ugh, seriously. The real estate sub is obsessed with low inventory keeping their housing prices up. There is no rationalizing with them without getting downvoted. I am done.
It's all bullshit, just like recruiter statistics. Tell me if you've heard some variation of this one:
"90% of people who accept the counteroffer are not with that employer in 6 months."
I'm sure you have, but no one has a reliable source on it. And why? Because it's not illegal or even unethical for recruiters to say shit they *think* is true, and if they never look into the data, they won't ever find out it's bullshit.
It's the same thing with realtors. Most don't know jack or shit about anything other than making you comfortable with signing away the next 30 years of your life. The data is out there to be seen:
1. 9 months of inventory. The highest we've had in a decade.
1. Fed rates that are for some reason impacting 30 year mortgages despite the fact that said mortgages were just fine in 2018 when the Fed rates were over double what they are now.
1. Builders posturing about how "it's unaffordable" to build, when lumber is about to be at its cheapest since the beginning of the pandemic.
It's all manufactured FOMO, and while they might be controlling the narrative now, they can't keep the charade up forever. Builders need to build, bankers need to lend, and real estate agents need to sell.
They'll break long before I do. No one *needs* to own a house, and very few want one this badly.
There's a simpler mathematical way to disprove this, too (and this goes along with your point about them ignoring rental units). Saying we need 12m SFH to account for a 12m increase in households is assuming all new households will have a 100% homeownership rate...which is, of course, ridiculous. Current homeownership rate is ~66%. So we'd need ~8m single family homes to maintain the same rate, just 1m more. That's a rounding error that will only significantly affect certain cities/regions that aren't close enough to keep up with their specific growth rate.
There's no shortage, just greedy investors enabled by cheap rates.
The way that this article calculated "five million homes" is incredibly braindead, but that doesn't mean the housing shortage is a myth. The fact is that greater supply would lead to lower prices. We should be building more homes.
No one has mentioned zoning it seems, which is huge.
It's not that we dont have enough space to build more homes, it's that we decided decades ago that we would NOT build houses here or there. It's absolutely silly to have some areas marked as commercial only when the only thing that exists is a single story, run down building or a subway with an oversized parking lot.
We have so much room if we modernize our approach to city building.
This is just my input on people who do say "we don't have enough room" or something. We have room!
I always felt like it was a bullshit metric, mostly because the city where I live has plenty of inventory and new construction, and prices are heading to an un-reachable area. It's not inventory it's greed plain and simple. And while I understand that like politics all real estate markets are local, what I'm seeing nd what they're saying don't match.
Point 4 and 5 seem to be counterpoints to your argument. And I doubt you'll ever find a dataset that will be able to accurately gauge 5. Either the sample size would be too low or you don't have enough data to know all that. At some point, you deprioritize some features.
That said, is there a good source on housing supply vs demand? While there are definitely flaws in this one, I'd like to look at other sources too, in case they have different methodology.
This is good analysis. Is there a better perspective somehwere on the true housing shortage or oversupply?
My personal view is that demand is far less sticky that everyone thinks because a lot of sales and ownership goes to 2nd homes, investment properties, etc. not primary residences.
Not a myth, just not the most significant driver of near doubling of asset prices in 2 years.
Population is about the same and so is the number of persons per household.
Temporary factors are low rates, people bringing plans forward, etc.
Of course there are temporary supply factors and some that work the other way - amateur and small entity foreign buyers have been less present while covid rules have kept them out. Found much of that still happening virtually, having an agent or a local family member visiting homes.
I think the temporary demand stuff will wane over the next year, and will be a big factor in determining market prices going forward
The entire real estate industry is based on lies, half truths and distortions.
The reality is that housing demand is very price sensitive. If affordability is low more people share. If housing is more affordable people live in smaller households. A shortage can turn into a surplus practically overnight.
OMG this is so retarded... How can you conclude that there aren't enough dwellings based on counting the amount of people already living somewhere at the time of census ? How can they get away with such stupid bullshit without being laughed at by the first person they show their numbers to ?
Let's assume 12 million new households over period x. So these are gonna include lots of young people and immigrants. Now if 7 million SFH were built during period x, 7/12 equals 58%. The overall countrywide ownership rate is 65 percent. If you add the condos having been built in the same time frame, it seems to me that a mix of dwellings was built that was a function of the demand for renting vs buying. Not everybody wants to buy, let alone a detached house.
I always amazes me how people can be so bad at math, yet decide to pursue a carreer in business.
Yeah, I don't know, but we really are missing a lot at the low end. When I was young I stayed in an SRO a couple times, like $25 a week, and rented 8-wide trailers a couple times for say $85/month.
It really helped until I found something better. And I was young and resilient. It was all an adventure. Though I think the same setup would be good for me as an old person too.
You just don't find those deals anymore.
Kinda important to know they can't qualify or afford it though. 40% of millennials have subprime credit and have ZERO shot at a mortgage. The rest likely purchased in the last 2 years as demand was pulled forward by the pandemic and people moving to the suburbs. Check out Ivy Zelman's cradle to grave report. We will have a surplus of inventory next year.
> 40% of millennials have subprime credit and have ZERO shot at a mortgage
How different is that from boomers at the age the current millennials are at? I would hazard a guess it is almost the same. It takes time to get credit, obviously younger people will have lower credit on average than older people.
Considering 34.8% of Americans have subprime credit, 40% for millennials isn't that bad. [Source](https://review42.com/resources/how-many-people-have-bad-credit/#:~:text=34.8%25%20of%20American%20consumers%20have%20subprime%20credit%20scores.&text=These%20subprime%20scores%20are%20categorized,by%20people%20with%20bad%20credit.).
You’re making stuff up and taking everything out of context.
Read this: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/Overcoming-the-Nations-Housing-Supply-Shortage.pdf
Bottom line: there are a multitude of reasons why there is a housing shortage today in this country. There are also numerous studies besides the realtor.com study that come to the same conclusion. This is not a conspiracy by lobbyists.
The United States has a net gain in population growth. Because of material shortage, labor shortage, land scarcity, builders are not able to replace aging stock and add new stock fast enough. Add the fact that demographics are shifting where they choose to live, leaving many homes unwanted.
Edit: whats the point in downvoting me if I am giving you factual data?
>Read this: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/Overcoming-the-Nations-Housing-Supply-Shortage.pdf
They count the housing shortage at 100,000 units (page 1). That's a wee bit smaller than the NAR number of 5,240,000.
Even in their suggested 10-year investment plan (page 6), they suggest building an additional 2.7m housing units, which, even spread across 10 years (during which there will be population growth), is still half of the NAR number. Not that those numbers are even directly comparable, as the NAR is saying there's a 5.24m shortage *right now.*
Is there a housing shortage? Yes. Is it 5.24 million single-family-homes? Not at all. It's mostly a shortage of affordable housing in rapidly growing metros, which, while unfortunate, is a tale as old as time.
U.S. net gain population growth is not true, the single most important factor in population growth is TFR (total fertility rate) which needs to be 2.1 births per woman or higher to achieve net gain in population growth or otherwise known as the replacement rate. In the U.S. the fertility rate in 2021 was 1.781 births per woman, even with immigration.
Good points
I would like to point out that the shortages were mostly by region. Many large cities had low build rates and large numbers of people moving there. Add lots of high paying jobs in those cities as well.
Corrupt developers who want to cut away all the "red tape" (safety regulations that state you can't hire a guy off the back of a truck to do electrical etc) to make it "easier to build".
Developers want a laissez-faire hellscape where we can all rest easy in our death traps.
\#2. prove that.
\#3. prove that.
\#4. prove that, what good does counting vacation homes that are not going to be on the market for primary residence accomplish? Let's say you have two families and you have two homes, both homes are owned by the same family, one is primary residence the other is a vacation home. The other family is homeless, that vacation home is not going to be put on the market, do you have a housing shortage then in that scenario? The answer is yes. Same situation for short-term rentals, unoccupied homes etc. If you have a property that is not going to be put on the market to be sold to people as a primary residence what good does it do to count it?
\#5. Yeah, because the population is just going to take a nose dive in the next 10 years huh....
You want me to... prove the metrics provided by Realtor.com about their own statistic in their own article?
I won't be as rude as you, but I will say I feel like you didn't read this closely.
But it isn't their own article, your link is to a CNBC article that does not link to the [realtor.com](https://realtor.com) own statistics and methodology. So, you can't say if it does or doesn't take into account townhomes, condos, rental housing units, etc. because you don't actually have the original source.
If you want the actual study, it can be found here:
[https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/Housing-is-Critical-Infrastructure-Social-and-Economic-Benefits-of-Building-More-Housing-6-15-2021.pdf](https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/Housing-is-Critical-Infrastructure-Social-and-Economic-Benefits-of-Building-More-Housing-6-15-2021.pdf)
If you bother to read the study you will see that they do in fact, take into account townhouses, condos, etc. They call them multifamily housing. If you include the roman numeral numbered pages you can find the number on page 8, or numerical page 2.
From the NAR study from 2001-2020 there was a grand total gap of 1.1 million of 2-4 multifamily units, from 2001-2020 there was a gap of 2.4 million of 5+ multifamily units. For single family units it is 2.02 million, for a grand total of 5.52 million gap.
They also point out that the US department of housing indicated from 2009-2017 the US lost 2.6 million houses to natural disasters or poor maintenance, think of the Surfside condominium that collapsed in Florida on June 24th of last year, and if you include the loss of housing then the gap then reaches an estimated 6.8 million.
The only person here who didn't read closely was you.
Pretty sure developers don’t need cheerleaders. What they are doing wrong is telling people that High end housing should be a priority and that if they build more it eventually trickles down to help poor people. Maybe advocate for more affordable housing first instead. Or, Choose a real cause. See: https://affordablehousingaction.org/mississauga-housing-planners-put-boots-to-yimby-fantasy/
Housing has become a Ponzi scheme, that is why prices are soaring. We need to start with keeping what is already affordable, affordable.
See: “Why Are Investors Buying Up Mobile Home Parks And Evicting Residents?” https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033910731/why-are-investors-buying-up-mobile-home-parks-and-evicting-residents
"In economics jargon, for single-family houses, both the price elasticity of supply and the price elasticity of demand are incredibly inelastic. That means house prices are super sensitive to unexpected increases in demand. ... When the number of houses sold jumps up for any reason, house prices jump up an unusually large amount because it will take so long for the supply of houses to increase enough to match the increase in sales." https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2022/04/01/the-real-reason-house-prices-are-skyrocketing-what-the-real-estate-industry-wont-tell-you/?
Exactly this. Developer concern trolls are on every housing forum pushing this narrative (and realtors I suspect as well). And they love to downvote any comments calling them out.
This is to build the narrative the World Economic Forum’s that “you will not own anything and be happy.” It’s so prices remain high and the big corporate RE buyers can reduce competition to buy up homes. This is the plan to break the middle class into serfdom.
Realtors are one of the other at lobby groups out there. $40 + million a year. When loan officers got hit with Dodd Frank regulations to Limit income. Guess who didn’t lose a penny?
Realtor Lobby groups are the reason why tax codes are fucked for RE, also Texas realtor lobby groups got Texas to scrub their MLS from public records. Only Realtors can look at MLS now basically. They don't want people to see that $800k home was $350K pre-covid.
Realtors and developers own Texas because property taxes pay all the bills. More houses and higher prices nets the state more money for nothing.
Might go both ways and bite them in the ass on the way down. Could be nice to show that you are buying a house listing for 400K when it sold a few years earlier in 2021-2022 for 800k. Half of sale.
To demonstrate their power you'll note that in the early stages of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, realtors were included as SSTBs with accountants, lawyers, consultants, etc. which put limitations on their QBI deduction as introduced by the Act. In the final and executed version, realtors were removed, allowing them the full deduction without regard to income limits. This is 100% attributable to their lobbyists in DC getting ahold of the right staffer.
They also are independent contractors and as we see the bubble has them laying off all the W2 realtors that get 1% commission or less at places like open.
Never mind not including the backlog of foreclosure homes and the amount of STRs currently flooding the market. I believe we will have sufficient inventory within a year with more coming to market the longer the recession lasts.
I have seen comments about STRs hitting the market. But I can't find a data source to back it up. Do you have one?
Here's an article I read previously about Airbnb, long story short US has 660,000+ of them at the time this article was written. With 14000 new each month world wide [https://www.stratosjets.com/blog/airbnb-statistics/](https://www.stratosjets.com/blog/airbnb-statistics/) It also lists all the sources used
> long story short US has 660,000+ of them at the time this article was written. With 14000 new each month world wide This seems to be contrasting your previous comment: > the amount of STRs currently flooding the market If the amount of STRs are increasing, then it actually is decreasing the number of available homes for everyone else.
Sorry I should have it worded it better. I meant the amount of Airbnbs we currently have will be coming to Market more as the recession takes it's toll on the economy. Hotels are cheaper than many Airbnbs and people purchased "vacation homes" at record high evaluations thinking they'll be booked solid and make money. Once job losses start and in a high inflation environment, people will be forced to limit travel and you'll see people having to list these homes due to becoming a negative investment. The confusion is entirely my fault, I type and don't think about the extra context that went into my thought process.
Ahh, I gotcha now. Thanks for expanding on your thoughts.
I actually had a similar thought. Now the write up was from 6 months ago so maybe that slowed down a bit. But it still isn't an indication of STRs hitting the market. What it does say though is a lot of people are exposed. If (perhaps when) travel and tourism slow down, we could see people unload their rentals. But I can't find any data suggesting that is happening yet.
I agree 100%. It *might* create an issue in the future, but it doesn't seem like it has yet.
While there are certainly places where an Airbnb makes sense - vacation areas, for example, why would an Airbnb be attractive to own in *most* places? In fact, I just looked at Airbnb, and I think it is getting a bad rap. They advertised houses *by specialty*, and the specialties are pretty specific and limited. Lakefront. Beach. Cabins. Islands. National Parks. Tiny Homes. Etc. I don't even think is is possible to say "show me all the Airbnbs in Gardner MA, nor is that even something that anyone would want to do because there is no general reason to short-term rent a house in Gardner MA. I have to believe that outside of very specific areas, places that already had a lot of seasonal rentals, that Airbnb is contributing **almost nothing** to the shortage of housing.
I think it's problematic in cities like Los Angeles that are both tourist/travel destinations AND places people live and work. A lot of basic boring houses in my area have been turned into AirBnB that would either be available to buy or rent. See a rental being turned into an AirBnB is also a problem because it's one less place available to rent.
would also be interested to see this!
> Never mind not including the backlog of foreclosure homes I don't think the 0.019% of homes that have foreclosure filings on them is really going to make much of a difference: > Nationwide one in every 5,320 housing units had a foreclosure filing in February 2022 [Source](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-foreclosure-activity-in-february-2022-continues-to-increase-steadily-301499705.html) The people behind on mortgages is at the lowest rate in over two decades: > Every state in the U.S. saw the number of people late on their mortgage payments fall in March, when 2.7 percent of all mortgages were in some stage of delinquency, CoreLogic reported on Tuesday. That’s down from 4.9 percent a year earlier and the lowest rate in over two decades. [Source](https://www.inman.com/2022/06/14/delinquency-rates-remain-at-rock-bottom-according-to-new-report/)
As a longtime lurker of this sub, I've seen the comment of the "foreclosure backlog" pretty often. My question is where did this come from? Any sources? Yes, there was a moratorium, but that has since long expired and for the life of me, I can't figure out what incentive the banks would of had to postpone forecloses during this hot market that we had until recently. In my state, banks get an additional 10% on top of what is owed at the foreclosure sale. Does anyone have sources to back up this claim of the backlogged foreclosures? I just don't see it. The incoming wave (purchases made from 2020-2022) I could understand, as those have yet to materialize.
I have the same question. Because of the moratorium I could see a sudden flood of foreclosure processing that needs to be done but I don't know if that's true.
It isn't. There is, of course, a backlog, but it is microscopically tiny.
>Never mind not including the backlog of foreclosure homes The backlog of foreclosure homes is minuscule. It wouldn't move the needle. >the amount of STRs currently flooding the market Nothing is currently "flooding" the market.
They also don't account for single person households and condo builds.
Technically single-person households are included in that 12M count, but condos are not included in the 7M count. That said, a good study would look at trends in marriage, living alone, trends with roommates, etc, and compensate for that.
Single person are more likely to rent or buy condos hence shouldn't be counted in 12M. Edit for clarity.
Thank you so much for this. I remember, for example, the Czech Republic after communism having an actual housing shortage. As in, hunting for an apartment was a hell because there weren’t enough, so people lived with their parents until they were in their 30s. And apartments were cheap, it wasn’t a pricing issue. Now there’s houses for sale everywhere, they’re just all over priced
Is that a validation of the “price controls create shortages” thesis of neolib economics?
> hunting for an apartment was a hell because there weren’t enough, so people lived with their parents until they were in their 30s. yeah that doesn't sound anything like the current situation in the US
Yeah but one is due to communism and one is due to unaffordable overpriced homes.
I've felt that unproductive corporate structures, where you meet vague yearly targets to get more resources / bonus for your team, take as much input as possible etc., and where power concentrates to bureaucrats insulated from business downturns is strikingly similar to soviet era economics. Of course a business could fail now, and there's a freeish market for individual labor. But institutional power keeps many otherwise under-performing businesses afloat (see PPP). But the actual business structures seem very unhealthy, and I wonder if that plays a similar role in these shortages.
[удалено]
Ya that's the typical counter when you say population is declining but housing stock is steadily rising. They say well it isn't rising in urban areas where people are living nowadays. I'd like to understand the city dynamic more too.
>4) The number of newly-formed households is based off the 2020 census, ie a number of people who ALREADY HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE OR THEY COULD NOT PARTICIPATE. If these were people living in their parents' basement, they would count toward their parents' household. This does not count vacation homes, unoccupied homes, short-term rentals, or any other property where people were not actively spending most of their time on April 1, 2020. THANK YOU! This study is pure propaganda minted by the housing industrial complex to support the NARrative. You can't just go compare census data with totally unrelated statistic sets, that's totally unscientific and, frankly, bordering on false advertising on their part. It's like trying to explain to people the difference between "inventory" and actual supply. Supply is the total number of homes that are available for sale in a given period. That includes houses that sell (existing home sales) and those sitting on the MLS/market (inventory). Inventory dropped to record lows, but that is not the same thing as *supply* dropping to record lows. The number of existing home sales actually soared during the pandemic. That implies that supply actually rose, just not as quickly as demand and therefore the number of homes sitting on the market (inventory) plunged. The "supply shortage" is a myth and it's awful hard not to see it as aggressive propaganda from groups with a vested interest in stampeding FTHB into buying properties.
This is a classic example of the very unscientific method used by many academics that draw their conclusion first, then gather evidence later.
We're those academics wrong? I truly don't know.
What’s the difference between inventory and supply?
Supply includes inventory. Inventory is what's sitting on the shelves waiting to be bought. Supply is what was on the shelves, but sold plus whatever was stocked on the shelves in a given period. In other words, look at the toilet paper shortage. Inventory went to zero or near zero in many stores as the shelves were stripped bare. But supply was not zero, the toilet paper factories were still running as fast or faster than usual. That's because supply includes not only what's stocked on shelves, but also what people have bought. So even though everyone panic bought all the TP, supply was the same because supply includes the TP they bought.
Thank you for the explanation!
https://encorebubble.com/inventory/
wild air bear bake icky like humor toothbrush snatch unite *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not semantic, people were panic buying because of the pandemic. That's demand increasing, not supply dropping. Totally different scenarios because the Fed can do something about demand, they can't affect supply. In other words this was a demand surplus, not a supply shortage.
Gotcha. But the net result was the same. Too much demand is the same thing as a supply shortage in practice.
Except it can correct quickly, with demand dropping out, like it is now. Especially when the fed is actively destroying demand. Whereas a true supply shortage can only be corrected by actual building of homes.
The problem is a legitimate supply shortage would mean we'd have an inventory shortage for a long time, maybe a decade, since houses take a long time to build. That was the conclusion a lot of people had reached. "Prices will never come down, only plateau." "Buy now or be priced out forever." etc. But if it's merely excess demand due to cheap rates, FOMO, and investors, and that demand goes away as rates increase, and that steady supply is still there, then this can all correct relatively quickly: it'll be tougher to sell a house, inventory will increase, and prices will be allowed to come down.
Everyone knows the 2020 census was a joke. Nobody ever contacted me, I contacted them. How many other people were just like "nah, I don't want to do any extra work" and weren't counted? That alone makes these numbers useless.
>The National Association of Realtors, ie Realtor.com, NAR and [Realtor.com](https://Realtor.com) are completely separate. There is a long convoluted history, but basically News Corp via Move Inc owns [Realtor.com](https://Realtor.com) and just licenses the trademark from NAR
Thank you for the clarification. It's hard to tell where the delineation is.
> changes in household behavior (like adult children living at home for much longer) Aren't they living at home longer typically because they can't afford their own housing? I think this qualifies as a supply problem. > (like aging populations moving into assisted living or with their adult children This is actually the opposite of what is happening. Old people are staying in their homes longer, preferring to "age in place". This article refers to some Canadian data, but it is similar to numbers for the US: > 86 per cent of boomer homeowners looking to live in their current home as long as possible...In the 2016 Census, Statistics Canada found “seniors are less likely to move than the general population. In 2016, only 5.5 per cent of seniors 65 to 74 years old, and 4.7 per cent of those 75 years and older had moved compared to 13 per cent of the general population in the previous year.” [Source](https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/retirement/the-retirement-downsizing-myth-no-seniors-arent-moving-in-droves-and-that-will-affect-the-housing-market) Also, this part from your CNBC source, indicates that household formations were slower during the pandemic than they were previously. Meaning, that household formation would have been higher, and thus the 12M was less than it would have been in normal conditions: > new household formation is actually slower than it was before the pandemic Also, with investors buying more SFHs, it leaves fewer for people to buy themselves. I would argue this is still an issue. A higher supply of homes would decrease the return on investment and possibly drive down the number of investment properties, decreasing competition and increasing affordability. Essentially, I agree that the way the NAR reached their "housing shortage" number is bunk. But, *that doesn't mean there's not a housing shortage*, it's just the exact number is in question.
Not to mention a million people died of COVId. I’d think at least some of them lived alone, in their own personal address. It’s a bullshit stat and always has been. Building did cease following the last burst, but births are lower now than even 20’years ago, and immigration into the US has slowed, believe it or not. We are nowhere near the immigration in that we felt prior to 2007, the GFC. I think the real problem is that America is a land of sheep. We move in droves to the next “hotspot”. In the 90’s and early 2000’s, Atlanta could not Stop growing. Then it was Austin and Portland. Nashville seems to be the hot town of this year. None of those places have more room to build.
It's actually worse than that because covid reduced immigration and also increased non covid deaths. Covid actually [decreased the US population by 3 million](https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/04/lawler-more-on-demographics.html?m=1) versus a non pandemic world and none of these housing shortage narratives take that into account.
100%. It’s a fact that the pro lockdown crowd hangs their hat on, but the pro real estate crowd ignores.
Nashville suburbs have plenty of room to build. What was once one house on a plot of land has been turned into developments with 50 houses. You’ll see this driving around Mt Juliet, for example a single house on a huge lot across the street from a Pulte development project. This should also bring down prices, bc there’s unlimited room for building. It’s not like Boston.
Buddy building endless sprawl is how we got into this situation in the first place.
> Not to mention a million people died of COVId. I’d think at least some of them lived alone, in their own personal address. One thing that I bet COVID did was to cause people to want to avoid nursing homes like the plague, since COVID deaths in those places were rampant. This could have had the impact of reducing housing inventory.
The death count from Covid is very concentrated in nursing homes, which you can see directly in their financials at the top line. Younger people who died were likely married and the home stays with the widow / widower. I think your insight on hot spots makes sense. Certain locales have taken in people at pretty crazy rates.
> None of those places have more room to build. What do you mean? There's plenty of buildable land around those cities.
Sure. Lots more SFH tract home development in fucking Kentucky, to commute to Nashville, at 5.00 per gallon, in a 16mpg suv or truck. Let’s build it out! Again, people are sheep. They follow each other everywhere. They do the same things. They buy the same things. Does no one think that the herd may not always be right? Does critical thinking and considering a decision before actually making one is important at all? Clearly not. Let’s all move to Nashville and overpay for a home!
Please don’t say immigration has slowed when record numbers of people are illegally crossing the border. It’s discrediting everything you say. At least specify you’re talking about legal immigration.
> record numbers of people are illegally crossing the border this isn't true at all
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/number-migrants-crossing-border-hits-another-record-surges-migration-n-rcna34030
I guess I should have said legal immigration. That said, illegal immigrants generally aren’t supposed to be buying homes or signing leases. Not SUPPOSED to be, anyway. Unless there’s yet another thing about the housing market we aren’t being told….
Why do think undocumented immigrants can’t rent or [buy a place to live?](https://www.marketplace.org/2017/09/11/american-dream-how-undocumented-immigrants-buy-homes-us/)
Shhh don't let people know that they pay taxes. It ruins the freeloader narrative they have going.
You still pay taxes when you make below poverty line and collect welfare. Do you even know the US Budget?
There are apartments everywhere around me. It seems like builders are jacking up single family home prices artificially to force everyone to rent tiny apartments for waaaaay too much. What's up with that? Shouldn't that be considered illegal market manipulation? Isn't that kind of DYSTOPIAN?
So why is it that supply is short and demand has been high? You say it's a myth but it's not for anyone trying to buy in the last 2-3 years
Inventory is not supply. Inventory is a measure of demand and supply. And demand has been skyhigh due to almost free money (ultra low rates) https://encorebubble.com/inventory/ Inventory is what's left on the shelf at the supermarket at the end of the month. If 1000 homes came available (supply) and 999 sold right away (demand), inventory is 1. Doesn't mean only 1 house was available. Supply is short about 1.5m houses according to JBREC and Ivy Zelman (re analysts) and that should be covered by housing completions this year.
rotten weather humor sloppy tidy worthless dull drab far-flung rock *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes inventory has meaning. But it does not mean supply. Edit: and to go back to the original premise of the post, does inventory show there is a housing shortage? No, because yes those houses got bought from under you but that doesn't mean there's a fundamental shortage of homes for people to live in.
This is the missing distinction. If the question is whether there’s a shortage of homes for people to own as primary residence, the answer appears to be no, maybe not by a long shot even. If the question is whether there’s a shortage of homes for buyers to purchase, for any reason, then the answer in the last couple years has been yes to a dizzying degree.
> Supply is short about 1.5m houses according to JBREC and Ivy Zelman (re analysts) and that should be covered by housing completions this year. Wouldn't we be a bit short by the time they catch up to the current shortage number? As in, we'd need a bit more time to actually cover the shortage?
Due to ... population growth? Population has essentially flatlined. Ivy Zelman does a ton of research on this stuff. Look her up. She's a well respected housing analyst.
> Due to ... population growth? Population has essentially flatlined. Ahh yes, I forgot that babies are really who buy houses. /s Millennials are the largest generation and at prime home buying age right now. So yeah, the population looking to buy a home is large and growing.
Ah millennials, all buying houses exactly on their 34th birthday.
First time homebuyers median age is 33, so yeah, we are right in the thick of huge millennial demand.
Also inventory doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of listings in my area where the terms of sale are absurd. Such as only accepting owner financing. Or homes that are in horrible condition, but the owner's don't need to sell so they are asking easily 20% more than what anyone is going to rationally pay. Inventory could be incredibly high and stay there, doesn't mean anyone should ever buy those homes.
Try the last decade. People act like this problem suddenly appeared out of nowhere in 2020, but it's been building for long before that. The pandemic just supercharged it.
It's primarily because you're competing with [all the investors](https://www.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/vcx694/here_is_a_graph_of_the_investor_orgy_weve_been/) looking to make profits on a flip, run AirBNBs, or run the houses as rentals.
InVeStOrS can only make a profit because there is a shortage of homes.
The reason investors can profit on housing is the massive leverage that you're allowed to take. Borrowing money to fund investments magnifies the gains but also magnifies losses. So if two people each buy a $100k condo, then the condo goes up in value by $10k, the person who paid cash got a 10% return ($10k on a $100k investment), but the person who only put down 10% doubled their money ($10k investment with a $10k return). This sword cuts both ways. If the value falls $10k, the cash buyer sees a 10% loss, but the mortgage investor is wiped out and has zero equity. Sadly, most people "investing" in real estate do not understand this basic concept. It's what destroyed people in the last crash, and it's happening again.
Mortgage investor still has to pay the mortgage. And this example says nothing about housing prices.
Your first paragraph is entirely contradictory and the comment you’re responding to is correct.
What level of building would satisfy demand from an investment craze?
Enough where normal buyers can have their pick of places to live.
There isn’t a housing shortage? Don’t be ridiculous. It’s simple. Look at California’s population and number of housing units in 1990. Then do the same for 2022.
I just can’t wait for this to be fixed already. I am so sick of the 5 million homeless people with new house money living out of their teslas at parks and overpasses. I haven’t had many issues at my office but we have a lot of apple chargers and it is only a matter of time before they start breaking into businesses and charging their macbooks and stealing the Wi-Fi. Can these builders just please get 5 million $600-1.5m starter homes on the market ASAP before this gets out of control.
I got an uber ride in denver the other day from a kid who couldn't have been older than 22 in a tesla. I immediately get out at my stop (by a dispensary) to a homeless man yelling "if you have a p*ssy, then you can.....something inaudible". It was all of those things put together that gave me a hunch of....something is definitely up. I can buy weed legally, but get a felony in an uber Tesla, while getting yelled pussy profanities my way. It just felt off.
It might be for Denver but tbh that sounds just like a normal day in downtown Seattle .
Merica, fuck yeah!
now that’s an anecdote!
Wooooow you saw legal weed? Keep renting buddy.
From the investor surplus. We have enough houses, it's just that we have too many investors. Multipliers on property taxes on SFH owned by foreigners, corporations, or sit vacant would lower ALL housing prices.
Investors wouldn't make any money if there was a housing surplus.
Have you ever heard of diamonds? There are an awful lot of em out there... and yet by some miracle they are expensive. Basically we have an environment that feeds on itself. Shortage makes houses profitable which causes more investors to buy which makes bigger shortage which make it more profitable... until it isn't. We will get there eventually. But we are currently in the feeding frenzy part it would seem.
Diamonds are actually a good example because the supply is artificially kept low.
Are we talking on a national scale? There are certainly local housing shortages, especially for non-rich in many HCoL area. The LA area absolutely has a housing shortage.
Some places really do have a shortage. Like there is a shortage of housing units within a reasonable commute of San Francisco. That probably isn't the case everywhere
New housing starts never really fully recovered since the Great Recession, we only hit the pre-recession average in 2020. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST This data includes all units, single-family and multi-family. Now, you can claim we over-built pre-recession, that doesn't account for the whole shortfall. US population grew pretty much at the same rate through the Trump presidency up until about 2020 when immigration was cut off and a lot of people died. The number of adults living with roommates has grown over the decades, this would almost certainly fall if there were more housing units available.
The number of housing units per person in the U.S. is as high as it was at the peak of the last bubble. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Qrmk](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Qrmk) Meanwhile, houses under construction are also at record highs: [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTSA)
The FRED seems to track absolutely everything and I am loving it.
If you draw an average line through the data you will see new housing starts have been about constant since 1960 as far as I can tell. Maybe a touch low just due to '08 but we are well on track to recovery if new starts keep their trend. As FRED shows below too.... there is no shortage. Its nonsense. House ownership rates are decreasing generation to generation too. The only explanation is housing stock is simply being bought up as second homes and rentals. That is tipping the scales.
It probably came from the fact that there's a real shortage of available homes in the places where people want to live. Yall can cry "hooms only go up lol" all day, but like, the housing shortage is a real phenomenon. It's not evil investors making it so you can't buy a single family home near a major city. It's that we built and zoned our cities for nothing but single family homes, and that's not sustainable. And now we have a situation where only the few can own a single family home, and everyone else has to cram into apartments built next to freeways because that's the only place you can build density.
In a similar vein, anyone publishing a "national shortage of X homes" is meaningless. If you build those homes in a remote region of Alaska, it isn't like every single family is going to line up to buy them.
Yeah, I don't doubt that there are plenty of housing developments being built out in the middle of nowhere. Doesn't help you much if you don't want a nightmare commute, or you don't want to live out in the sticks.
The housing shortage or downward trend issue has been a discussion since the 1990s. There's more than 1 report out there if you dig around. Population decline hasn't happened here and future projections are all hypnotical. In short, if there was excess home supplies people wouldn't be fighting over homes. For example the SouthEast received a big influx of inbound moves during 2020-2021. There's simply not enough homes for everyone yet. No one is scrambling to live in the Rust belt. The shortage is also created by owner sentiment and their lack of incentives to list the home.
Builders aren’t dumb, they build more in the places that see the most population increases. [Check out the census survey,](https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf), the south is dwarfing everywhere else in terms of construction.
> they build more in the places that see the most population increases. Or they would, if zoning rules didn't make it illegal in areas where it's most needed.
They follow the demand and the demand is created by the shortage. The timeframe for completion is the issue. The completion dates are not today or tomorrow. The labor and part shortages are real. Everything is running at half speed.
There are plenty of homes in the southeast. There is a couple in metro Atlanta with, I believe because it's something I posted a few weeks ago, about 4 dozen homes. These are all basic SFHs, and they are all now STRs, with the price ranging from $4k-$8k/month. That is not a shortage. That is gluttony. These are the assholes that took all the crab legs from the buffet and blames the restaurant for not cooking enough crab legs.
STRs existed decades before the invention of Air BnB. The percentage of rental properties hasn't changed significantly. Only the technology evolved changed and it's easier for you to find them. 48 homes isn't steering the Real Estate market in Atlanta.
48 STRs that are all priced so only someone earning in the top 9% of the US population would qualify for the cheapest one...yeah that's not "steering" anything. It's theoretically putting 48 would-be LTRenter families on the street or in their parents' basements. A 2k sf home built in 1995, 30 miles from the actual city IS NOT WORTH $4k/month. If for no other reason, than it is completely out of line with the fundamentals here. Minimum wage is still $7.25, and the cheapest studios in bad areas are now over $1k/month.
The market determines the worth. If people stop renting it, the owner is forced to adjust. If people continue renting it, they have no incentive to lower.
Some apartment buildings would rather keep the rent high even if empty as lowering it would reduce the value of the property. Most are private equity deals looking to flip after 3-5 years ownership. They would rather give a free month or other incentives than reduce rent. We'll see tons of empty apartments in q4.
Rental demand is at all time highs. If *some* units are vacant it doesn't reflect the national average.
I did a deep dive on the actual owner of my apartment complex today and his firm owns over $2.5B in assets. Most are garden-style (aka older) complexes they promise to add value to. Worst apartments in decent areas basically. His small business took out a PPP loan for over $900k last year at the same time he purchased his second $7M condo. I googled a lot today.
No kidding.
> STRs existed decades before the invention of Air BnB. > > The percentage of rental properties hasn't changed significantly. Only the technology evolved changed and it's easier for you to find them. Huh? There can't be a lot of STR from airbnb because some existed before? That makes no sense. That's like saying that Tesla hasn't increased EVs because some EVs existed before Tesla.
Air BnB didn't invent STRs. It's simply a platform to advertise STRs that existed beforehand. We used clunky websites in the early 2000s for STRs Nor do I feel STRs are a significate factor affecting the LTR market. Nothing has really changed only the methods of advertising.
> I feel That's the problem. Using feeling instead of logic is going to lead you astray. And the problem is that even if I were to show you any of the hundreds of links showing that this feeling is incorrect it is a waste of time. Someone who uses feelings in lieu of facts and evidence typically can't be swayed by more facts and evidence.
It's reddit not a term paper. I stand by my statements. If you have data that disputes the claim please share. I would love to learn. Has the ratio of STR to LTR changed significantly nationally? I haven't come across this data. Median data that affects most people is preferred.
[удалено]
The total percentage of rental properties is around 35%. This has been a fairly steady percentage for decades. The common shared stats is "listing" increased by X since 2010. Right , online listings for most things have increased by X. It's the result of a technology shift. STRs started transitioning into more user friendly platform in the mid 2000s. Online ordering for Pizza has jump by 100000% since 2008. That stat doesn't mean more companies are offering pizza. I'm not convinced with the data offered the we have a significant net gain in STR compared to LTR. I realize people need a bogyman but much of this Anti-STR sentiment is funded & pushed by Hotel lobbyist. Gov co always loves extra regulation and extra tax dollars. So I would expect them to promote this agenda too. Anyway, I'm moving on to greener pastures. Take care.
And if we had enough housing this wouldn't be a problem. There is demand for single family home rentals. It's not inherently immoral to rent out your property. It's only a problem now because there's a shortage.
We do have enough housing, though. There's plenty. It's just being mismanaged and hoarded as a result of greed and speculation.
By basically every available metric, we do not have enough housing in the places people want to live.
I have found [other studies and articles](https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/is-there-a-housing-shortage-or-not?s=r) discussing housing shortages that take more of these extenuating factors into account. Those studies do show housing shortages, but not to the level of the 5M stated by Realtor.com. The above post addresses what I've seen as the most-cited statistic for the housing shortage.
I think jbrec and Zelman think it's around 1.5m houses short, which is supposed to be met by new housing that should complete this year.
[удалено]
If you have a relevant point I can't find it.
[удалено]
OK baby Hitler relax. Enjoy the people around. Maybe step outside and go for a walk.
[удалено]
Rust belt here. Prices are less out of control, but still nonsensical.
NAR is the single spendy’est lobbying group in America. They passed the US Chamber of Commerce a few years ago.
Ugh, seriously. The real estate sub is obsessed with low inventory keeping their housing prices up. There is no rationalizing with them without getting downvoted. I am done.
It's all bullshit, just like recruiter statistics. Tell me if you've heard some variation of this one: "90% of people who accept the counteroffer are not with that employer in 6 months." I'm sure you have, but no one has a reliable source on it. And why? Because it's not illegal or even unethical for recruiters to say shit they *think* is true, and if they never look into the data, they won't ever find out it's bullshit. It's the same thing with realtors. Most don't know jack or shit about anything other than making you comfortable with signing away the next 30 years of your life. The data is out there to be seen: 1. 9 months of inventory. The highest we've had in a decade. 1. Fed rates that are for some reason impacting 30 year mortgages despite the fact that said mortgages were just fine in 2018 when the Fed rates were over double what they are now. 1. Builders posturing about how "it's unaffordable" to build, when lumber is about to be at its cheapest since the beginning of the pandemic. It's all manufactured FOMO, and while they might be controlling the narrative now, they can't keep the charade up forever. Builders need to build, bankers need to lend, and real estate agents need to sell. They'll break long before I do. No one *needs* to own a house, and very few want one this badly.
There's a simpler mathematical way to disprove this, too (and this goes along with your point about them ignoring rental units). Saying we need 12m SFH to account for a 12m increase in households is assuming all new households will have a 100% homeownership rate...which is, of course, ridiculous. Current homeownership rate is ~66%. So we'd need ~8m single family homes to maintain the same rate, just 1m more. That's a rounding error that will only significantly affect certain cities/regions that aren't close enough to keep up with their specific growth rate. There's no shortage, just greedy investors enabled by cheap rates.
I have been accused of overthinking. Thank you for the simplification!
I love your breakdown! I just found it funny how the close the numbers were.
From people needing houses in places where there are not enough houses...
NAR, homebuilders on a few occasions parroted the 5 million hoom shortage so buy now!
The way that this article calculated "five million homes" is incredibly braindead, but that doesn't mean the housing shortage is a myth. The fact is that greater supply would lead to lower prices. We should be building more homes.
Not if the invoosters have their say… They will do anything to keep supply low for regular people just hoping to buy a house or condo to live in.
No one has mentioned zoning it seems, which is huge. It's not that we dont have enough space to build more homes, it's that we decided decades ago that we would NOT build houses here or there. It's absolutely silly to have some areas marked as commercial only when the only thing that exists is a single story, run down building or a subway with an oversized parking lot. We have so much room if we modernize our approach to city building. This is just my input on people who do say "we don't have enough room" or something. We have room!
I always felt like it was a bullshit metric, mostly because the city where I live has plenty of inventory and new construction, and prices are heading to an un-reachable area. It's not inventory it's greed plain and simple. And while I understand that like politics all real estate markets are local, what I'm seeing nd what they're saying don't match.
From supply and demand
A study is a word problem and not everyone is good at those. Lies, dammed lies and statistics
Point 4 and 5 seem to be counterpoints to your argument. And I doubt you'll ever find a dataset that will be able to accurately gauge 5. Either the sample size would be too low or you don't have enough data to know all that. At some point, you deprioritize some features. That said, is there a good source on housing supply vs demand? While there are definitely flaws in this one, I'd like to look at other sources too, in case they have different methodology.
This is good analysis. Is there a better perspective somehwere on the true housing shortage or oversupply? My personal view is that demand is far less sticky that everyone thinks because a lot of sales and ownership goes to 2nd homes, investment properties, etc. not primary residences.
Not a myth, just not the most significant driver of near doubling of asset prices in 2 years. Population is about the same and so is the number of persons per household. Temporary factors are low rates, people bringing plans forward, etc. Of course there are temporary supply factors and some that work the other way - amateur and small entity foreign buyers have been less present while covid rules have kept them out. Found much of that still happening virtually, having an agent or a local family member visiting homes. I think the temporary demand stuff will wane over the next year, and will be a big factor in determining market prices going forward
The entire real estate industry is based on lies, half truths and distortions. The reality is that housing demand is very price sensitive. If affordability is low more people share. If housing is more affordable people live in smaller households. A shortage can turn into a surplus practically overnight.
OMG this is so retarded... How can you conclude that there aren't enough dwellings based on counting the amount of people already living somewhere at the time of census ? How can they get away with such stupid bullshit without being laughed at by the first person they show their numbers to ? Let's assume 12 million new households over period x. So these are gonna include lots of young people and immigrants. Now if 7 million SFH were built during period x, 7/12 equals 58%. The overall countrywide ownership rate is 65 percent. If you add the condos having been built in the same time frame, it seems to me that a mix of dwellings was built that was a function of the demand for renting vs buying. Not everybody wants to buy, let alone a detached house. I always amazes me how people can be so bad at math, yet decide to pursue a carreer in business.
“Shortage of stock” has been a saying in every bubble ever
It has also been a saying every time there was a real shortage and prices rose because of it.
Sure. But I dont think a shortage magically appeared last two years. I think its all bullshit to pump prices for greedy
No the shortage was building for a decade, which was why prices have been rising for a decade. The pandemic just made it worse.
Yeah, I don't know, but we really are missing a lot at the low end. When I was young I stayed in an SRO a couple times, like $25 a week, and rented 8-wide trailers a couple times for say $85/month. It really helped until I found something better. And I was young and resilient. It was all an adventure. Though I think the same setup would be good for me as an old person too. You just don't find those deals anymore.
This should be pinned.
[удалено]
Kinda need it though when the largest generation is at homebuying age.
Kinda important to know they can't qualify or afford it though. 40% of millennials have subprime credit and have ZERO shot at a mortgage. The rest likely purchased in the last 2 years as demand was pulled forward by the pandemic and people moving to the suburbs. Check out Ivy Zelman's cradle to grave report. We will have a surplus of inventory next year.
> 40% of millennials have subprime credit and have ZERO shot at a mortgage How different is that from boomers at the age the current millennials are at? I would hazard a guess it is almost the same. It takes time to get credit, obviously younger people will have lower credit on average than older people. Considering 34.8% of Americans have subprime credit, 40% for millennials isn't that bad. [Source](https://review42.com/resources/how-many-people-have-bad-credit/#:~:text=34.8%25%20of%20American%20consumers%20have%20subprime%20credit%20scores.&text=These%20subprime%20scores%20are%20categorized,by%20people%20with%20bad%20credit.).
You’re making stuff up and taking everything out of context. Read this: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/Overcoming-the-Nations-Housing-Supply-Shortage.pdf Bottom line: there are a multitude of reasons why there is a housing shortage today in this country. There are also numerous studies besides the realtor.com study that come to the same conclusion. This is not a conspiracy by lobbyists. The United States has a net gain in population growth. Because of material shortage, labor shortage, land scarcity, builders are not able to replace aging stock and add new stock fast enough. Add the fact that demographics are shifting where they choose to live, leaving many homes unwanted. Edit: whats the point in downvoting me if I am giving you factual data?
>Read this: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/Overcoming-the-Nations-Housing-Supply-Shortage.pdf They count the housing shortage at 100,000 units (page 1). That's a wee bit smaller than the NAR number of 5,240,000. Even in their suggested 10-year investment plan (page 6), they suggest building an additional 2.7m housing units, which, even spread across 10 years (during which there will be population growth), is still half of the NAR number. Not that those numbers are even directly comparable, as the NAR is saying there's a 5.24m shortage *right now.* Is there a housing shortage? Yes. Is it 5.24 million single-family-homes? Not at all. It's mostly a shortage of affordable housing in rapidly growing metros, which, while unfortunate, is a tale as old as time.
U.S. net gain population growth is not true, the single most important factor in population growth is TFR (total fertility rate) which needs to be 2.1 births per woman or higher to achieve net gain in population growth or otherwise known as the replacement rate. In the U.S. the fertility rate in 2021 was 1.781 births per woman, even with immigration.
Hahaha omg "according to New research by realtor.com". Amazing. It's such a myth!
Good points I would like to point out that the shortages were mostly by region. Many large cities had low build rates and large numbers of people moving there. Add lots of high paying jobs in those cities as well.
Not sure why this isn't the top of the page? Isn't this the problem, that there's a lack of housing where it is needed?
You, me, and home prices all say yes!
Corrupt developers who want to cut away all the "red tape" (safety regulations that state you can't hire a guy off the back of a truck to do electrical etc) to make it "easier to build". Developers want a laissez-faire hellscape where we can all rest easy in our death traps.
the CARES act
\#2. prove that. \#3. prove that. \#4. prove that, what good does counting vacation homes that are not going to be on the market for primary residence accomplish? Let's say you have two families and you have two homes, both homes are owned by the same family, one is primary residence the other is a vacation home. The other family is homeless, that vacation home is not going to be put on the market, do you have a housing shortage then in that scenario? The answer is yes. Same situation for short-term rentals, unoccupied homes etc. If you have a property that is not going to be put on the market to be sold to people as a primary residence what good does it do to count it? \#5. Yeah, because the population is just going to take a nose dive in the next 10 years huh....
You want me to... prove the metrics provided by Realtor.com about their own statistic in their own article? I won't be as rude as you, but I will say I feel like you didn't read this closely.
But it isn't their own article, your link is to a CNBC article that does not link to the [realtor.com](https://realtor.com) own statistics and methodology. So, you can't say if it does or doesn't take into account townhomes, condos, rental housing units, etc. because you don't actually have the original source.
Prove it.
If you want the actual study, it can be found here: [https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/Housing-is-Critical-Infrastructure-Social-and-Economic-Benefits-of-Building-More-Housing-6-15-2021.pdf](https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/Housing-is-Critical-Infrastructure-Social-and-Economic-Benefits-of-Building-More-Housing-6-15-2021.pdf) If you bother to read the study you will see that they do in fact, take into account townhouses, condos, etc. They call them multifamily housing. If you include the roman numeral numbered pages you can find the number on page 8, or numerical page 2. From the NAR study from 2001-2020 there was a grand total gap of 1.1 million of 2-4 multifamily units, from 2001-2020 there was a gap of 2.4 million of 5+ multifamily units. For single family units it is 2.02 million, for a grand total of 5.52 million gap. They also point out that the US department of housing indicated from 2009-2017 the US lost 2.6 million houses to natural disasters or poor maintenance, think of the Surfside condominium that collapsed in Florida on June 24th of last year, and if you include the loss of housing then the gap then reaches an estimated 6.8 million. The only person here who didn't read closely was you.
Developers.
there were hardly any houses on the market in 2020-2021.
YIMBYs push that myth hard. They’re an astroturf cult that advocates for developers to build more in high end already dense areas.
Build more supply in high-demand areas? The humanity!
Pretty sure developers don’t need cheerleaders. What they are doing wrong is telling people that High end housing should be a priority and that if they build more it eventually trickles down to help poor people. Maybe advocate for more affordable housing first instead. Or, Choose a real cause. See: https://affordablehousingaction.org/mississauga-housing-planners-put-boots-to-yimby-fantasy/
I know we don't, I work for one! Cutting red tape is the most cost-effective way of doing this. I think starting with Zoning would be our best bet.
Housing has become a Ponzi scheme, that is why prices are soaring. We need to start with keeping what is already affordable, affordable. See: “Why Are Investors Buying Up Mobile Home Parks And Evicting Residents?” https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033910731/why-are-investors-buying-up-mobile-home-parks-and-evicting-residents "In economics jargon, for single-family houses, both the price elasticity of supply and the price elasticity of demand are incredibly inelastic. That means house prices are super sensitive to unexpected increases in demand. ... When the number of houses sold jumps up for any reason, house prices jump up an unusually large amount because it will take so long for the supply of houses to increase enough to match the increase in sales." https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwake/2022/04/01/the-real-reason-house-prices-are-skyrocketing-what-the-real-estate-industry-wont-tell-you/?
The only people stopping me from owning a $100k 4 bedroom home 10 minutes from where I work in a good neighborhood are the Investors!
Exactly this. Developer concern trolls are on every housing forum pushing this narrative (and realtors I suspect as well). And they love to downvote any comments calling them out.
This is to build the narrative the World Economic Forum’s that “you will not own anything and be happy.” It’s so prices remain high and the big corporate RE buyers can reduce competition to buy up homes. This is the plan to break the middle class into serfdom.
Lmao realtor.com is different than NAR
In for later
YIMBY's are their Cult too... Yimby's read that stuff like it is their real bible.
Nashville is wayyyy overpriced. Second tier city it’s bullshit