The number cited links to here:

https://upforgrowth.org/apply-the-vision/2023-housing-underp...

Which has this as the report:

https://upforgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023_Hous...

The number is driven by this definition:

> Missing Households. Households that may not have formed due to lack of availability and affordability, e.g. households with children over 18 years of age still living with their parents or individuals or couples living together as roommates at levels exceeding historical norms.

There's no other expense where we talk about it as a market, at least in general layman focused new and discussions. People aren't concerned about the fuel market or the grocery market. They're concerned about fuel prices. Grocery prices.

Housing is an exception due to catastrophic historical policy choices to encourage it as an investment. Government restrictions on housing supply will exist for as long as a significant number of people not only have their net worth wrapped up in housing, but who actually leverage themselves and go in to extreme debt to achieve it. Not to mention the attached cultural issues of then wanting "buying a house" to mean "buying an area staying the same".

Concentration of residential real estate among fewer owners is the only path that doesn't lead to the future being housing based feudalism where your station in life is determined by if you inherited somewhere to live, and how desirable it is.

The government should also build massive amounts of housing. Everywhere of all types - apartments, townhouses, single family. After built transferred to the residents as coops.

It would be nice to see that again, the new housing market is ridiculous now.

Corporations shouldn't be able to own single family homes. Corporations shouldn't be able to own single family homes. Corporations shouldn't be able to own single family homes. Corporations shouldn't be able to own single family homes. Corporations shouldn't be able to own single family homes...

Trace the problem back. Where does it start?

Why is PE investing in homes? Because they can make money. Why does buying a home make money? Because the value appreciates. Why does the value appreciate on an asset that literally deteriorates over time? Because of restricted supply. Why is there a supply shortage?

The root cause of this issue is supply. Zoning, mostly, is to blame. There are down stream issues, like the capacity of the construction industry, but that is an effect of the current environment not a root cause in and of itself — if there is money to be made, construction will grow as fast as it can.

Fix supply, and you fix the issue. This is a uniquely (English) western world problem. Go look at western countries that speak English vs. non-English housing starts. It’s just a cultural failure. You can blame corporations all you want but at the end of the day most people in the anglosphere expect a return on the largest purchase of their lives, even if it comes at the cost of materially worsening the lives of those around them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

A housing can either be an investment or be affordable. It cannot be both. Those two things are completely at odds.

When something is an investment, it must become unaffordable over time. There is no way to square that circle! Unfortunately, housing-as-investment is more or less baked into our cultural DNA. We do not need to unwind the supply problem; or the government regulation problem; or the corporate problem. We need to unwind the idea that a house is an investment.

Good luck with that. It's the air we breathe here. There's nowhere to go but up.

> Last month, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Center for Geospatial Solutions published a report showing that corporations now own a remarkable one in 11 residential real-estate parcels in the 500 urban counties with data robust enough to analyze. In some communities, they control more than 20 percent of properties.

They're invoking a false dichotomy. Small scale landlords (i.e. the guy who owns a second home and rents it out) are part of the corporations. From the linked report:

> A corporate investor, also referred to as a nonindividual investor, is a business entity that owns residential property, usually for the purpose of generating income. This broad category ranges from small entities such as family trusts and limited liability corporations (LLCs) to larger outfits like real estate investment trusts (REITs), endowments, and pension funds.

Many/most "ordinary" folks who buy a house to rent fall in this category - they form an LLC or something similar. Many reasons for this. Percentage-wise, my guess is that institutional investors (not just individuals who formed an LLC) are still a relatively small minority, but I don't have the data.

There is a common misconception on HN that it's rich people who mostly buy houses/units to rent out. In my experience, that's just not the case. Everyone is doing it across the board, and just by virtue of there being more non-rich people, they are likely the majority.

Also, higher income folks don't feel a great need to make more money. Median or lower income want to make a lot more, and real estate is actually one of the fewest options available to them (and also really easy to learn/understand). A lot less work than a second job (although some get a second job just to bootstrap the RE purchase process).

Just 3 days ago I spoke to a friend. Engineer (not software). Decent income, but not FAANG level. Non-working spouse and multiple kids. Rents out two houses, and is buying 2 more.

I took an AirBnB course from a guy who has lots of listings on AirBnB. He got there with almost no money down (most of his money was spent on furnishing the place). He was educated, but fairly low income ($50-60K in California). When I took the course he was making over $300K/year net from his AirBnBs.

When I used to listen to the Bigger Pockets podcast, the majority of people who owned 10+ homes to rent had very average incomes (less than a typical non-FAANG engineer).

I've been in the real estate space for a few years now. I don't own other units, but I do invest in them, and am moderately active in a local real estate club. I know how these things work.

If you want to solve this problem, stop pointing fingers at "rich people", and stop allowing multiple ownership for a decade or two.

I don't see why the seller would care. They're getting a check at closing, that's all they care about.

I mean, if there's a question about whether the buyer will actually be able to get financing, that could be a concern. But most buyers are pre-qualified (at least if they're working with an agent). The main reason they would not get financing is if the appraisal came in lower than the sale price.

Tax break on single home ownership, but significantly increased tax on multi-home-ownership?

It would be interesting to see comparisons between PE ownership in markets with property tax vs markets without.

Here’s a novel and brazen idea: if a domicile has been vacant inside a metropolitan area for more than thirty days, it’s up for grabs. Be it an apartment, a condo, a house, whatever, but if someone isn’t living in that space for more than thirty days, let folks claim it as abandoned property.

Watch rents and values plummet real fucking fast as folks seek to claim their “winnings” before their shit gets taken. That’ll at least jumpstart the real discussion of making sure housing is accessible to those who need it rather than constant finger pointing.

Because sometimes you just need a bigger fire to create the necessary action to solve the underlying problems.

EDIT: I am honestly so sick of the current housing crisis and seeing a swath of vacant apartments and condos as “investment properties” here in New England that yes, I am serious, and I’ve got a mental map of about a dozen large starter units that have been vacant for a year or so that I’d rush to claim one of.

Your investment is irrelevant when humans lack basic necessities like shelter, and I’m tired of being civil or polite about this so your ego doesn’t get bruised.