Submitted by Blecher_onthe_Hudson t3_11a2qwh in jerseycity
PixelSquish t1_j9qhm7y wrote
Reply to comment by DirectorBeneficial48 in Want to know why NY metro housing is expensive? Answer in NYTimes OP-ED by Blecher_onthe_Hudson
Let me know if you ever understand the concept of supply and demand and please show me a point in recent history where we haven't been millions of units short of demand in housing. It doesn't matter if you're building housing if you're so far behind demand. It's not going to do much until you get closer and closer and we're not even remotely close.
If you can grasp those simple concepts please let me know and then we can discuss further.
DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j9qibdl wrote
You dummies keep arguing SUPPLY AND DEMAND like it's some miracle thing that solves it all. It isn't.
I'm showing my work.
I'm showing you how to view said work.
"Just build some more high rises, rents won't keep going up like this, I swear, just build more. Supply and demand, bro. One more building, we'll get there." You're like a drug addict who can't get off their high.
If it did, the numbers would not be what they are. Once you slow people get past the fact that this basic concept isn't the reason behind rent prices, then we can discuss further.
PixelSquish t1_j9qiq0f wrote
I mean you are really stupid at this point. There can't be a reduction of prices of an essential product that is so far behind in supply it's insane.
I'm surprised you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
As a progressive things like universal healthcare, higher wages, mandatory pay leave, reducing work hours, strict overtime pay, and other things, another huge goal of mine is to help solve the housing crisis we have that is destroying the middle and lower classes.
The only way to do that is to get towards an equilibrium of supply and demand. In the context of this issue it is so fucking basic that if people don't grasp this they are simply part of the problem.
DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j9rpbvn wrote
We're not behind in supply. There are more empty homes than there are unhoused people even. There are hundreds of thousands of units unrented in NYC alone. The argument that building more and with more density will reduce rents has literally not held up anywhere. I'm just going to respond to this by calling you a fucking idiot who isn't showing their work because that's literally all you're doing.
You don't have a fucking clue because your argument is not holding water. There are other solutions. BUILD MOAR is not the answer. You're a fucking idiot who isn't showing their work
PixelSquish t1_j9rpub6 wrote
You are posting numbers with no context, because you want to ignore reality.
https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/16-million-homes-vacant-in-us
Small town America is dying, as you see from this list, the highest ratio of empty homes are in places where nobody wants to live or can't be productive enough to live. Housing in those places is pointless and not solving anything. This is basic data and knowledge. Empty houses in those places is a pointless statistic.
Sure there are empty units sitting in populated areas where the wealthy park their money, and that should be addressed, I am all for that too, but it is nowhere near the big part of the problem.
You haven't posted an iota of work. Want me to link one of the many supported articles that shows we are over 4 million housing units short where people need and want to live? I suspect you'll gloss over that and repeat your nonsense that completely ignores reality and common sense.
DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j9rqxip wrote
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/5/17/23108792/nyc-apartment-vacancy-rate-housing-emergency
>New York City has more vacant apartments overall than it did five years ago even as units with monthly rents under $1,500 have dried up, according to a new report that also shows maintenance issues are surging across the board.
>
>...
>
> The report found that 4.54% of all New York apartments are vacant as of 2021. That’s up from 3.63% in 2017, the last time the survey was completed.
Simply building more does not equate with lower rents. You're a fucking idiot who isn't showing their work
PixelSquish t1_j9rrn3d wrote
Those numbers are still drops in the bucket of what we need. And it would NOT be profitable to only charge higher rents, as that article states about most vacant spots, if there was enough supply where it would be a lot harder for landlords to hold out for higher rents. Now they can do it, and people like you make it possible. Renters and buyers would just have more supply to choose from if you let housing be built, and the prices would stabilize. That is the problem.
Tell me, why do you want to continue to fuck over the middle and lower classes by keeping housing prices so high.
Wall Street is buying up real estate like mad. And they'll gladly tell you why. Housing prices are artificially inflated because there are way too many obstacles to building new housing, so they can make bank due to lack of supply.
Do you work for unethical exploitative Wall Street corps? Because then this would make sense.
DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j9rsnaf wrote
>Tell me, why do you want to continue to fuck over the middle and lower classes by keeping housing prices so high.
You're even dumber than I think you are, and I think you're incredibly fucking dumb, because my own personal solutions to this problem are way more helpful to the poor and middle classes than BUILD MOAR. Think Mao.
You're a fucking idiot who isn't showing their work
badquarter t1_j9qodgb wrote
You're forgetting more people are still being born. You're forgetting that our market isn't isolated.
If Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens aren't building and we are, we start to make sense for people to move here which drives up prices. We are a secondary market to Manhattan and would need to see a ton of housing built in Manhattan for our rents to be affected. A ton.
With that said, the velocity at which these new buildings fill is further evidence of the shortage of supply.
DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j9rq69v wrote
Christ, you can't even follow your own logic here. If BK and QN aren't building, but JC is, would it not then logically follow that (non rent-controlled) rents in BK and QN would be skyrocketing far past the point of JC, which is building at a very fast rate?
Spoiler for ya, that's not the case.
That's not happening, and I repeat myself for the umpteenth time now, because greater supply has zero correlation with lower price.
badquarter t1_j9rtqno wrote
> would it not then logically follow that (non rent-controlled) rents in BK and QN would be skyrocketing far past the point of JC, which is building at a very fast rate?
No, bro, lol. The opposite. I'm explaining why rents are going up here despite building.
Reinforcing what I said about our market not being isolated - there is a point of price resistance in NY where the consumer will then consider other options. And when BK and Queens get to a certain point, they consider JC. Then we fill up our new supply and prices still climb.
I'm saying we would need more development in Manhattan so demand wanes in BK, Queens, and JC.
DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j9rytpg wrote
Nearly all of BK and QN are currently cheaper than most of JC. Again, your logic is faulty - it's more expensive (JC) where there's more development.
Once again, there's no correlation between greater development and lower rents.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments