• Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is only true if there’s the same number of houses as people. There are way more houses than people.

    Trash analogy

    • NGnius@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      If there are more than enough houses then an investment house would be a bad investment since no one would need to rent it and/or no one would want to buy it with a good profit margin. Instead, they’re buying houses that people want, which is driving up home prices and letting them set high rents.

    • twopi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It is not an analogy. That’s just math.

      I’d like you to show the math as to what the ratio and relation between landlords and renters are.

      I’ll wait.

      Some more scenarios:

      If there are more houses than people, then investors would loose money and housing won’t be a good “investment”.

      If there are fewer houses than people, then the same situation would unfold now just there would be homeless people.

      I’d like to see this demonstrated as false.

      Also this fits perfectly fits within supply demand curves.

      If you have people who want to own homes + an investment property, you’d’ve increased demand compared to everyone just wanting one home. D*2 > D. Hence the mere act of desiring investment properties and acting on that desire causes prices to increase. Prices only decreases when supply increases. As S ▲, then prices fall, P ▼. However the set amount of humans stay the same. So the following scenarios are possible: [N+0], Everyone wants one home [N+I], At least one person wants an investment property

      1. S[=N+0]=D[=N+0], P-
      2. S[=N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
      3. S[<N+0]<D[=N+0], P▲
      4. S[<N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
      5. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
      6. S[<N+I]<D[=N+I], P▲
      7. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
      8. S[>N+I]>D[=N+I], P▼