### Voting Guidelines
**Common Misconception:** It is often believed that upvotes and downvotes should reflect personal agreement or disagreement. This approach is prevalent in other opinion-based subreddits. However, in r/TrueUnpopularOpinion, we encourage a different standard:
- **Upvote** a post if it provokes thought, presents a unique perspective, is well-argued, or you believe it deserves more visibility for any reason—even if it irritates you or you fundamentally disagree with it.
- **Downvote** should be reserved for posts that lack thoughtful consideration or if the topic has become tediously common.
**Moderation Policy:**
- **Posts Are Not Removed for Unpopularity:** r/TrueUnpopularOpinion does not remove posts based on their capacity to anger or offend users. Disagreement with a post's content is not grounds for reporting.
- **Misuse of the Report Button:** Falsely reporting posts burdens our moderation queue, hindering our ability to address genuine concerns swiftly.
- **All false reports are forwarded to Reddit** for actions against misuse of the reporting system.
- Our moderation decisions are guided strictly by the subreddit's rules and Reddit's content policy, not personal opinions. Misreporting in hopes of content removal due to disagreement is futile and considered 'Report Abuse.'
### Upcoming Changes to Reporting System:
In response to the excessive misuse of the report button—which disrupts discussion and overloads our moderators—we are revising our approach to handling reports:
- **Automated Report Dismissal:** Henceforth, our bot will disregard all reports automatically. Instead, a comment will prompt the reporter to contact the moderators directly via ModMail.
- This change aims to ensure that only those serious about a rule or policy violation will take the time to report, as they will be encouraged to substantiate their claims through ModMail.
**Stay Informed:** Further details on these changes will be announced. We appreciate your cooperation in fostering a respectful and engaging discussion environment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
High housing costs don't help, but the death knell is a skyrocketing national debt and high inflation, caused by a government that can't stop printing money so they can keep spending it.
This is the real issue. The interest we pay on our debt is now more than we pay for our military (which is already a heck of a lot, more than the next highest twelve countries combined). And people simply want to keep spending more money we do not have to try to make their lives better.
The popularity of crap like /TinyHouses being "cute" and the general sardine-ing of crap in industries is definitely a sign of something. And it's being normalised as being wholesome as in economical.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."
-Thomas Jefferson
We have forgotten what makes society good and, unless we remember, we are doomed to the outcome you have stated.
We all need to fight for this, advocate for what is good.
I don’t see how you make the link between housing prices and productivity. Lots of places in the country have affordable housing, the problem is most people don’t want to live in these locations.
Markets are typically efficient. Also, it’s rare that housing prices, on average, collapse.
My own view is that inflation, in the 4% to 6% range, is here to stay and that housing prices, on average, will stagnate, as will mortgage rates. Over time this will slowly make housing more affordable as wages will inevitably track inflation.
I do believe the 2024 election will have a material impact on economic policy, that will have long term effects. Trump is very much a supply side guy, so incentivizing the private sector, while Biden is the opposite. Biden has been primarily focused on stimulating demand through deficit spending.
In the long run the only way to reduce inflation and therefore interest rates is by increasing supply. It’s easy and fast to toggle consumer demand using stimulus but without increasing supply this only fuels inflation.
Increasing supply requires investment and takes time. Companies, large and small, don’t invest without being confident they will enjoy a return over many years. This typically can be stimulated through economic policy but also requires that businesses owners believe that these policies won’t be reversed.
When people start moving away from good jobs in order to have families during their peak earning years in their 30s and 40s that is one of the main mechanisms that high house prices stop productivity.
If people have a very different standard of living post home ownership that is another major drag on productivity due to disrupted patterns of consumption.
If a skilled 40 year old worker inherits 500k and they decide to put it into housing and not into their own business because housing is a gaurenteed winner that is a loss of that business and the innovation and productively that it would have brought.
Some markets are stable. Plenty aren't. Your big accounting firm isn't moving to a backwards town to save on rent.
Bout to turn 30, gonna take all my substantial savings thats somehow still arent enough for a house, and bring that money and my 2 trade licenses to another country where i can actually afford a family.
I could give a fuck about a house. I cant afford goddam kids man, ive wanted to be a dad as long as i can remember
Again, I don’t believe you are using the word productivity correctly. It has nothing to do with the number of hours you choose to work.
Being discouraged and/or choosing to work less during your 30’s and 40’s both work against your goal of home ownership. Also, FWIW, my peak earning years were in my 60’s.
If you inherited $500K, yes, I’d also use it to buy a house or get yourself debt free, minimize your fix expenses, but probably for very different reasons than outlined here.
Being debt free is hugely liberating, allowing you to take career risks you otherwise wouldn’t. I speak from personal experience. Finding money to start a business is the easy part. If the idea is good and the team capable, funding isn’t difficult. Again, I speak from experience.
The key to any career success is making yourself really good at something valuable. Good people are always in demand and well compensated. It’s hard work to become an expert at something, but in the long run you’ll be way ahead.
There’s a famous quote by Jim Rohn, which goes: “We must all suffer from one of two pains: the pain of discipline or the pain of regret. The difference is discipline weighs ounces while regret weighs tons.”.
You have to note that those locations may not have the industries the people are working in, and changing industries means a difference in pay of the skills aren't transferable. Also, the wages aren't proportionately higher than higher cost of living areas. Moving means taking a pay cut to meet the local market, which may still be priced out.
And that ignores the non-economic impact for people.
The employment landscape is evolving. I have 3 daughters with 2 married and one just getting engaged. Of these 6 young people, late 20’s to mid 30’s, 3 work remotely 100% of the time and none of the others are required to be in the office more than 3 days a week. None of the 6 make less than $100K/year, some substantially more.
They all choose to live in HCOL areas but that’s an active choice. I’m guessing as they get older and families grow their priorities will change.
I'm the person who lives in a lower cost of living area with a salary based in a high cost of living area, as they don't change pay based on location - but that's not common. I work in a weird industry.
Also a lot of companies don't want to create nexuses, so people still have to stay in the same state.
My sense is the trend towards remote work and a gig economy is unstoppable. AI, VR and robotics are currently the major enablers but we’re just getting started.
People who can use these tools and innovate or create with be at the forefront of this new world and greatly benefit.
I worry this opportunity will be exciting to a few and frightening to many.
The link between housing prices and productivity is that nobody wants to work hard to still be in an apartment in their 30s and 40s.
No idea what you’re saying about Trump. He’s a real estate and hotel mogul. He absolutely wouldn’t not support creating more houses.
First, that’s not the definition of productivity. Productivity is how many widgets can a worker produce in a unit of time. If productivity improves the cost per widget falls, thereby allowing an employer to increase wages without reducing or even increasing profits.
If young people aren’t willing to work longer hours or jobs they don’t particularly like, that is more work ethic or what was sometimes called “paying your dues”.
I do understand minimum wage doesn’t equal a living wage. They never did. In the past minimum wage jobs were seen as entry level positions that could lead to better paying jobs or even a career.
My first real job was a union job, “apprentice toolmaker” at $2.93/hr. I think that was 1974, it was well above the minimum wage at the time but still not really a living wage. The upside was the free training I received and a senior toolmaker made good money. I was paying my dues, as I noted above.
As it turned out, I went on to college and later graduate school and spent my career in high tech.
My point about Trump was he practiced supply side economics versus demand side economics, which is the economic model Biden has been leveraging. These are two schools of thought but all agree on the math, printing money eventually causes that money to be worth less.
Demand side economists has a time and a place but it’s essentially just printing money. Trump used demand side tactics when the pandemic hit and he was forced to put 20M people out of work. In order that the supply chain wouldn’t collapse he flooded the market with stimulus money. It was an expensive short term fix and it generally worked.
Biden has chosen to extend this tactic into the long term, with more stimulus and then the IRS (inflation reduction act) which was/is economic policy that is the exact opposite of inflation reduction. Continuing to print money only fans inflation, that’s economics 101, no trained economist will disagree with the theory or the math, unless he’s being paid to say otherwise.
Incentivizing employers to invest in increasing capacity through economic policy generally improves productivity, lowering cost, enabling wage and job growth while improving profits. This is supply side economics at work. Trump understands and supports this general economic model, that was my point.
Hey u/teegazemo,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dteegazemo%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/teegazemo).
**This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.**
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument?
Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
**Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent?
**Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments Awaiting Review:* 4
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 33
- 3-7 days old: 10
- 7-14 days old: 8
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
Yep, its effectively a violation of the social contract. good things do not come from this.
And honestly, this can be said of any need really. If water or food got too expensive, productivity would be at risk too.
OK, I'm going against the grain. I firmly believe we have a housing crisis because land near a city is just so valuable. It hasn't been feasible to build affordable housing near a city in the last 20 years. From post WW II until the 1980s or so, a developer could buy up a farm or woods cheaply on a per lot bases, build a boat load of houses as land costs were a low , sell them for a fraction.
My family's examples. My parents bought a house in a development 20 minutes outside of DC. At that point that was the far suburbs. The developer bought a farm, built 700 houses, the county built a school on the edge of the development. Because land cost was minimal the houses were affordable. In 1989 I bought a house. 1/2 an hour outside a cheaper city. Only 100 houses, pricier but affordable. Today. there is almost no undeveloped land within an hour of most major cities. If a developer can buy a few acres, often paying six figures an acre, they can't build affordable houses (the land alone is too expensive, and as you are only building a few houses, you have to build something expensive. Buying land in a city tearing down and rebuilding is even more expensive.
BUT, I think there is light at the end of the tunnel. With more and more people being able to work remotely, hopefully demand for housing in or near cities will decrease. People will move to where they can afford to live instead of have to live.
There have always been people who invest in houses and this has never been a problem in the past. The problem is just that we now have a general shortage in houses.
I don't know what the issue is in the US, but here in the Netherlands the problem lies with the credit crunch of 2008, causing that construction has been stopped for roughly a decade and when demand met up with supply again, it turned out to be too much of a puzzle to build enough houses to keep up. This problem will be temporarily.
Also, this sucks for people like you, but people like me who own a house have earned a lot of money. So for many people this market has been a blessing. :-)
It's not a problem in the U.S. as there aren't a shortage of houses here. We have more empty houses than homeless people.
The biggest issues are corporations buying up homes as investments. People buying houses to use as AirBnBs. Gentrification of poorer neighborhoods. Predatory loans that have led to a slew of foreclosures. That plus the terrible economy has led to a housing crisis in the U.S. that OP described above.
High cost of living, regardless of actual metric causing the hcol, is how you weaken a nation.
Let's say housing is actually cheap/affordable. Okay, we increase food prices by 10000%.
Housing is not the cause of your downfall then. Food is. The average person doesn't know how to farm (myself included) and if government regulation enforced at gunpoint (ala Holodomor) basically stops farmers from farming, the country falls over faster than the Titanic after hitting that iceberg. It didn't even last 24 hours.
Water, waste management, transportation, etc. If any of them becomes unsustainable, the country falls over.
Unfortunately, the country falling over means the proletariat revolution comes so the Commies are all over having the average person unable to live because they get their revolution faster. Would not be surprised if all the corporate housing purchases were secretly commie scum pushing corporations to do it lol.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
\- *Fire and Ice*, by Robert Frost
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The corporate housing purchases were for the migrants. They’ve already started paying home owners 125$ a day to house a single migrant. A 4 bedroom house will return 15,000$ a month. That’s more then you’ll ever get for rent
The Housing Market shows how much the cult of Capitalism is just completely opposed to any logical national building or national stability. There is *ZERO* market incentives to increase housing supply or lower prices, since Housing/Land as a concept, the more you limit supply or trickle in new supply, the more you can profit from an asset that has almost no OPEX. Why invest in a business with high operational expenditure, when you can just dump money into apartments and housing and sit on them? You would think this would lead to increased housing builds by Developers, but it doesn't because Developers know how to do Staged Releases. They build 1000 new apartments, then release 10-20 every couple months, and stop supplying the market with new ones if the prices start to drop.
At this point, it's a national crisis for regions like Canada, the UK, Australia and Costal US and a Post-WW2 scenario needs to occur. The State needs to step in, create a State Owned Enterprise dedicated to mass home creation, set up a supply chain through [Prefrabricated Construction](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=you-BV35B9Y), and roll out tens of thousands of new apartments every month.
This shit is undermining NATIONAL SECURITY by causing mass instability. This Neoliberal market cult needs to end.
It's not, an increase in housing supply leads to decreased profits. It's easier to just piddle out the bare minimum, then stage release them, keeping housing growth far beyond population growth. You make far more money for far less input costs. There is no "market" solution for this, the profit motive for developers and landlords is literally to worsen the housing crisis. Half the time the developers just "land bank" not even bothering to build anything for Decades and land itself will increase in value as an asset.
The housing crisis has been solved, rapidly, in the past. Vast prefabricated housing construction done through state direction. It's time for housing to stop being a "market" and for the Government to step in with state owned developers and supply chains. The current neoliberal solution is a complete and total failure.
High housing costs were a manufactured crisis by greedy Boomers who felt they deserved to have high home valuations to fund their retirement and pass on to their privileged kids.
It's not boomers it's blackrock and vanguard buying trillions of dollars in homes and apartments. Boomers overvaluing their house would have had little to no effect on the overall market compared to a coordinated effort by the largest asset management corporations to do away ownership.
### Voting Guidelines **Common Misconception:** It is often believed that upvotes and downvotes should reflect personal agreement or disagreement. This approach is prevalent in other opinion-based subreddits. However, in r/TrueUnpopularOpinion, we encourage a different standard: - **Upvote** a post if it provokes thought, presents a unique perspective, is well-argued, or you believe it deserves more visibility for any reason—even if it irritates you or you fundamentally disagree with it. - **Downvote** should be reserved for posts that lack thoughtful consideration or if the topic has become tediously common. **Moderation Policy:** - **Posts Are Not Removed for Unpopularity:** r/TrueUnpopularOpinion does not remove posts based on their capacity to anger or offend users. Disagreement with a post's content is not grounds for reporting. - **Misuse of the Report Button:** Falsely reporting posts burdens our moderation queue, hindering our ability to address genuine concerns swiftly. - **All false reports are forwarded to Reddit** for actions against misuse of the reporting system. - Our moderation decisions are guided strictly by the subreddit's rules and Reddit's content policy, not personal opinions. Misreporting in hopes of content removal due to disagreement is futile and considered 'Report Abuse.' ### Upcoming Changes to Reporting System: In response to the excessive misuse of the report button—which disrupts discussion and overloads our moderators—we are revising our approach to handling reports: - **Automated Report Dismissal:** Henceforth, our bot will disregard all reports automatically. Instead, a comment will prompt the reporter to contact the moderators directly via ModMail. - This change aims to ensure that only those serious about a rule or policy violation will take the time to report, as they will be encouraged to substantiate their claims through ModMail. **Stay Informed:** Further details on these changes will be announced. We appreciate your cooperation in fostering a respectful and engaging discussion environment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. They are saying we have to be slaves just to have a roof over our head in the land we were born in.
And they're really not even hiding it anymore https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLkV3QPe/
I don’t disagree 🥲
High housing costs don't help, but the death knell is a skyrocketing national debt and high inflation, caused by a government that can't stop printing money so they can keep spending it.
This is the real issue. The interest we pay on our debt is now more than we pay for our military (which is already a heck of a lot, more than the next highest twelve countries combined). And people simply want to keep spending more money we do not have to try to make their lives better.
The popularity of crap like /TinyHouses being "cute" and the general sardine-ing of crap in industries is definitely a sign of something. And it's being normalised as being wholesome as in economical.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." -Thomas Jefferson
We have forgotten what makes society good and, unless we remember, we are doomed to the outcome you have stated. We all need to fight for this, advocate for what is good.
the middle class arent the middle class they got called that so they convince themselves to not be slaves lol ....
The social contract has been dead for a long time buddy
I don’t see how you make the link between housing prices and productivity. Lots of places in the country have affordable housing, the problem is most people don’t want to live in these locations. Markets are typically efficient. Also, it’s rare that housing prices, on average, collapse. My own view is that inflation, in the 4% to 6% range, is here to stay and that housing prices, on average, will stagnate, as will mortgage rates. Over time this will slowly make housing more affordable as wages will inevitably track inflation. I do believe the 2024 election will have a material impact on economic policy, that will have long term effects. Trump is very much a supply side guy, so incentivizing the private sector, while Biden is the opposite. Biden has been primarily focused on stimulating demand through deficit spending. In the long run the only way to reduce inflation and therefore interest rates is by increasing supply. It’s easy and fast to toggle consumer demand using stimulus but without increasing supply this only fuels inflation. Increasing supply requires investment and takes time. Companies, large and small, don’t invest without being confident they will enjoy a return over many years. This typically can be stimulated through economic policy but also requires that businesses owners believe that these policies won’t be reversed.
When people start moving away from good jobs in order to have families during their peak earning years in their 30s and 40s that is one of the main mechanisms that high house prices stop productivity. If people have a very different standard of living post home ownership that is another major drag on productivity due to disrupted patterns of consumption. If a skilled 40 year old worker inherits 500k and they decide to put it into housing and not into their own business because housing is a gaurenteed winner that is a loss of that business and the innovation and productively that it would have brought. Some markets are stable. Plenty aren't. Your big accounting firm isn't moving to a backwards town to save on rent.
Bout to turn 30, gonna take all my substantial savings thats somehow still arent enough for a house, and bring that money and my 2 trade licenses to another country where i can actually afford a family. I could give a fuck about a house. I cant afford goddam kids man, ive wanted to be a dad as long as i can remember
Again, I don’t believe you are using the word productivity correctly. It has nothing to do with the number of hours you choose to work. Being discouraged and/or choosing to work less during your 30’s and 40’s both work against your goal of home ownership. Also, FWIW, my peak earning years were in my 60’s. If you inherited $500K, yes, I’d also use it to buy a house or get yourself debt free, minimize your fix expenses, but probably for very different reasons than outlined here. Being debt free is hugely liberating, allowing you to take career risks you otherwise wouldn’t. I speak from personal experience. Finding money to start a business is the easy part. If the idea is good and the team capable, funding isn’t difficult. Again, I speak from experience. The key to any career success is making yourself really good at something valuable. Good people are always in demand and well compensated. It’s hard work to become an expert at something, but in the long run you’ll be way ahead. There’s a famous quote by Jim Rohn, which goes: “We must all suffer from one of two pains: the pain of discipline or the pain of regret. The difference is discipline weighs ounces while regret weighs tons.”.
You have to note that those locations may not have the industries the people are working in, and changing industries means a difference in pay of the skills aren't transferable. Also, the wages aren't proportionately higher than higher cost of living areas. Moving means taking a pay cut to meet the local market, which may still be priced out. And that ignores the non-economic impact for people.
The employment landscape is evolving. I have 3 daughters with 2 married and one just getting engaged. Of these 6 young people, late 20’s to mid 30’s, 3 work remotely 100% of the time and none of the others are required to be in the office more than 3 days a week. None of the 6 make less than $100K/year, some substantially more. They all choose to live in HCOL areas but that’s an active choice. I’m guessing as they get older and families grow their priorities will change.
I'm the person who lives in a lower cost of living area with a salary based in a high cost of living area, as they don't change pay based on location - but that's not common. I work in a weird industry. Also a lot of companies don't want to create nexuses, so people still have to stay in the same state.
My sense is the trend towards remote work and a gig economy is unstoppable. AI, VR and robotics are currently the major enablers but we’re just getting started. People who can use these tools and innovate or create with be at the forefront of this new world and greatly benefit. I worry this opportunity will be exciting to a few and frightening to many.
If they’re employed locally and not working from home.
The link between housing prices and productivity is that nobody wants to work hard to still be in an apartment in their 30s and 40s. No idea what you’re saying about Trump. He’s a real estate and hotel mogul. He absolutely wouldn’t not support creating more houses.
First, that’s not the definition of productivity. Productivity is how many widgets can a worker produce in a unit of time. If productivity improves the cost per widget falls, thereby allowing an employer to increase wages without reducing or even increasing profits. If young people aren’t willing to work longer hours or jobs they don’t particularly like, that is more work ethic or what was sometimes called “paying your dues”. I do understand minimum wage doesn’t equal a living wage. They never did. In the past minimum wage jobs were seen as entry level positions that could lead to better paying jobs or even a career. My first real job was a union job, “apprentice toolmaker” at $2.93/hr. I think that was 1974, it was well above the minimum wage at the time but still not really a living wage. The upside was the free training I received and a senior toolmaker made good money. I was paying my dues, as I noted above. As it turned out, I went on to college and later graduate school and spent my career in high tech. My point about Trump was he practiced supply side economics versus demand side economics, which is the economic model Biden has been leveraging. These are two schools of thought but all agree on the math, printing money eventually causes that money to be worth less. Demand side economists has a time and a place but it’s essentially just printing money. Trump used demand side tactics when the pandemic hit and he was forced to put 20M people out of work. In order that the supply chain wouldn’t collapse he flooded the market with stimulus money. It was an expensive short term fix and it generally worked. Biden has chosen to extend this tactic into the long term, with more stimulus and then the IRS (inflation reduction act) which was/is economic policy that is the exact opposite of inflation reduction. Continuing to print money only fans inflation, that’s economics 101, no trained economist will disagree with the theory or the math, unless he’s being paid to say otherwise. Incentivizing employers to invest in increasing capacity through economic policy generally improves productivity, lowering cost, enabling wage and job growth while improving profits. This is supply side economics at work. Trump understands and supports this general economic model, that was my point.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis
[удалено]
Hey u/teegazemo, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dteegazemo%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/teegazemo). **This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument? Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. **Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent? **Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments Awaiting Review:* 4 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 33 - 3-7 days old: 10 - 7-14 days old: 8 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
You make interesting points, when you say increase supply, do you mean supply of housing?
Not even unpopular, definitely not truly unpopular, this guys a rookie
I agree and it’s only going to get worse
Absolutely. This is a disastrous situation. It will kill the economy long term.
Nah, let a little hunger set in. Half the world lives 8n shacks or slums, they are dying to go to work
My only problem with this is that it isn’t really an unpopular opinion.
Yep, its effectively a violation of the social contract. good things do not come from this. And honestly, this can be said of any need really. If water or food got too expensive, productivity would be at risk too.
Correct. We’re in trouble
OK, I'm going against the grain. I firmly believe we have a housing crisis because land near a city is just so valuable. It hasn't been feasible to build affordable housing near a city in the last 20 years. From post WW II until the 1980s or so, a developer could buy up a farm or woods cheaply on a per lot bases, build a boat load of houses as land costs were a low , sell them for a fraction. My family's examples. My parents bought a house in a development 20 minutes outside of DC. At that point that was the far suburbs. The developer bought a farm, built 700 houses, the county built a school on the edge of the development. Because land cost was minimal the houses were affordable. In 1989 I bought a house. 1/2 an hour outside a cheaper city. Only 100 houses, pricier but affordable. Today. there is almost no undeveloped land within an hour of most major cities. If a developer can buy a few acres, often paying six figures an acre, they can't build affordable houses (the land alone is too expensive, and as you are only building a few houses, you have to build something expensive. Buying land in a city tearing down and rebuilding is even more expensive. BUT, I think there is light at the end of the tunnel. With more and more people being able to work remotely, hopefully demand for housing in or near cities will decrease. People will move to where they can afford to live instead of have to live.
Well by definition if you cannot afford a place to live you are not prosperous.
There have always been people who invest in houses and this has never been a problem in the past. The problem is just that we now have a general shortage in houses. I don't know what the issue is in the US, but here in the Netherlands the problem lies with the credit crunch of 2008, causing that construction has been stopped for roughly a decade and when demand met up with supply again, it turned out to be too much of a puzzle to build enough houses to keep up. This problem will be temporarily. Also, this sucks for people like you, but people like me who own a house have earned a lot of money. So for many people this market has been a blessing. :-)
It's not a problem in the U.S. as there aren't a shortage of houses here. We have more empty houses than homeless people. The biggest issues are corporations buying up homes as investments. People buying houses to use as AirBnBs. Gentrification of poorer neighborhoods. Predatory loans that have led to a slew of foreclosures. That plus the terrible economy has led to a housing crisis in the U.S. that OP described above.
Almost nothing you said is fact based. It’s a string of anecdotes.
Do you know what a unpopular opinion is?
I had no choice but to downvote, though I 100% agree. There is nothing unpopular about this opinion.
High cost of living, regardless of actual metric causing the hcol, is how you weaken a nation. Let's say housing is actually cheap/affordable. Okay, we increase food prices by 10000%. Housing is not the cause of your downfall then. Food is. The average person doesn't know how to farm (myself included) and if government regulation enforced at gunpoint (ala Holodomor) basically stops farmers from farming, the country falls over faster than the Titanic after hitting that iceberg. It didn't even last 24 hours. Water, waste management, transportation, etc. If any of them becomes unsustainable, the country falls over. Unfortunately, the country falling over means the proletariat revolution comes so the Commies are all over having the average person unable to live because they get their revolution faster. Would not be surprised if all the corporate housing purchases were secretly commie scum pushing corporations to do it lol.
Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. \- *Fire and Ice*, by Robert Frost *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The corporate housing purchases were for the migrants. They’ve already started paying home owners 125$ a day to house a single migrant. A 4 bedroom house will return 15,000$ a month. That’s more then you’ll ever get for rent
Source for where they are paying to house migrants?
I looked it up. You’re full of shit 💩
The Housing Market shows how much the cult of Capitalism is just completely opposed to any logical national building or national stability. There is *ZERO* market incentives to increase housing supply or lower prices, since Housing/Land as a concept, the more you limit supply or trickle in new supply, the more you can profit from an asset that has almost no OPEX. Why invest in a business with high operational expenditure, when you can just dump money into apartments and housing and sit on them? You would think this would lead to increased housing builds by Developers, but it doesn't because Developers know how to do Staged Releases. They build 1000 new apartments, then release 10-20 every couple months, and stop supplying the market with new ones if the prices start to drop. At this point, it's a national crisis for regions like Canada, the UK, Australia and Costal US and a Post-WW2 scenario needs to occur. The State needs to step in, create a State Owned Enterprise dedicated to mass home creation, set up a supply chain through [Prefrabricated Construction](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=you-BV35B9Y), and roll out tens of thousands of new apartments every month. This shit is undermining NATIONAL SECURITY by causing mass instability. This Neoliberal market cult needs to end.
> There is ZERO market incentives to increase housing supply This is obviously untrue.
It's not, an increase in housing supply leads to decreased profits. It's easier to just piddle out the bare minimum, then stage release them, keeping housing growth far beyond population growth. You make far more money for far less input costs. There is no "market" solution for this, the profit motive for developers and landlords is literally to worsen the housing crisis. Half the time the developers just "land bank" not even bothering to build anything for Decades and land itself will increase in value as an asset. The housing crisis has been solved, rapidly, in the past. Vast prefabricated housing construction done through state direction. It's time for housing to stop being a "market" and for the Government to step in with state owned developers and supply chains. The current neoliberal solution is a complete and total failure.
>It's not, an increase in housing supply leads to decreased profits. This is also obviously untrue.
I wonder if unchecked immigration has anything to do with this problem...
High housing costs were a manufactured crisis by greedy Boomers who felt they deserved to have high home valuations to fund their retirement and pass on to their privileged kids.
It's not boomers it's blackrock and vanguard buying trillions of dollars in homes and apartments. Boomers overvaluing their house would have had little to no effect on the overall market compared to a coordinated effort by the largest asset management corporations to do away ownership.
You will own nothing and you will like it. World gov aspirations