Housing "markets" are tricky to analyze. The effects of supply and demand seem so readily apparent that we tend to accept ideas like the price being "what the market will bear."
But when we look at the parties, we have to realize that the concept of rational economic actors behaving voluntarily through contract is absurd.
On the one side you have banks whose goal and purpose is to maximize wealth extraction, and on the other side you have people who need "a roof over their heads" to live.
The pricing software is making the relationship more rational and frictionless from the bankers' perspective while for those needing a "home" it is, as always, a non-rational, visceral experience, entirely bound up with all of the other ties to society we (try to) maintain.
So rather than try to improve things by tinkering around with ideas in terms of "market" theory (increase supply of this or that/changes in taxation, etc) we should push for a more basic rethinking of housing and land ownership.
Will that ever happen? Probably not any time soon because it would require divesting the ownership class of their wealth. But at least we should broaden the terms of debate.
What does a person born into a society owe that society at birth? Is the amount a person today must pay to society's owners in order to have shelter commensurate with that basic debt?
Interesting comment and vital to this discussion! The entire premise of this newsletter is to question the status quo and ask and demand answers to "why" a particular societal structure is the way it is and must it continue to be that way. I love what you said about that contractual relationship being between two rational actors, basically on equal footing. It is indeed absurd. Typically the law presumes that is the case, or why would both parties sign on to an agreement? Well, I'm writing to discuss those "why's". Thanks!
The phrase ‘leasing agents have too much empathy’ leapt out at me from this post. We have a similar crisis in affordable homes to rent and buy in the south of England. Thanks for sharing.
And thank you for sharing with us what's going on in the south of England! That same statement stood out to me too, and is why I wrote this piece. A few months ago when a friends lease came up for renewal, she mentioned that her rent had gone up several hundred dollars. She went to the rental office and tried to negotiate, and I believe they just shut her down with a "take it or leave it". Then I saw the Times article...
Housing "markets" are tricky to analyze. The effects of supply and demand seem so readily apparent that we tend to accept ideas like the price being "what the market will bear."
But when we look at the parties, we have to realize that the concept of rational economic actors behaving voluntarily through contract is absurd.
On the one side you have banks whose goal and purpose is to maximize wealth extraction, and on the other side you have people who need "a roof over their heads" to live.
The pricing software is making the relationship more rational and frictionless from the bankers' perspective while for those needing a "home" it is, as always, a non-rational, visceral experience, entirely bound up with all of the other ties to society we (try to) maintain.
So rather than try to improve things by tinkering around with ideas in terms of "market" theory (increase supply of this or that/changes in taxation, etc) we should push for a more basic rethinking of housing and land ownership.
Will that ever happen? Probably not any time soon because it would require divesting the ownership class of their wealth. But at least we should broaden the terms of debate.
What does a person born into a society owe that society at birth? Is the amount a person today must pay to society's owners in order to have shelter commensurate with that basic debt?
Interesting comment and vital to this discussion! The entire premise of this newsletter is to question the status quo and ask and demand answers to "why" a particular societal structure is the way it is and must it continue to be that way. I love what you said about that contractual relationship being between two rational actors, basically on equal footing. It is indeed absurd. Typically the law presumes that is the case, or why would both parties sign on to an agreement? Well, I'm writing to discuss those "why's". Thanks!
The phrase ‘leasing agents have too much empathy’ leapt out at me from this post. We have a similar crisis in affordable homes to rent and buy in the south of England. Thanks for sharing.
And thank you for sharing with us what's going on in the south of England! That same statement stood out to me too, and is why I wrote this piece. A few months ago when a friends lease came up for renewal, she mentioned that her rent had gone up several hundred dollars. She went to the rental office and tried to negotiate, and I believe they just shut her down with a "take it or leave it". Then I saw the Times article...