[lsmeducation]

At what point can a hostile housing market be considered a discrimination issue (on financial basis)?

[foxyv]

When it is shown that landlords are discriminating based on a protected "Class" such as race, religion, etc... Otherwise they are just discriminating against the poor.

Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels. The only way to do that is to increase supply of housing. The hands down best way to do that is to end R1 zoning, minimum offsets, and parking minimums. At least within 20 miles of major cities.

[mnd999]

The private homebuilding sector is not going to build at the rate required to improve supply, because excess supply will cut into their margins. Deregulating will just allow them to build a ton of cheap low quality housing and still charge enormous amounts for it. Landlords would just pass that on.

The solution is quality social housing, built by the state in large enough quantities to disrupt the market.

[bequanna]

> Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels. The only way to do that is to increase supply of housing.

That isn't the only way.

We could eliminate the many tax benefits like: accelerated depreciation, 1031 exchange, step up cost basis for inherited property, etc.

[fragmede]

No, the best way is to build housing. As long as we try make developers build housing through whatever incentives we can invent, they'll always be an investment. Developers aren't going to make new housing out of the goodness of their hearts. It is a business deal, an investment with an expected ROI. Making it a less attractive investment is going to end up with less of it being made. If the government builds housing, or subsidizes it (improving ROI for developers), we'll have more housing.

[geodel]

> Until we make housing into a much less attractive "Investment" we will see obscene pricing levels

Yeah same for health, education, insurance, internet, medicine etc.

[coding123]

People don't understand this yet:

The only way to increase the housing supply is to increase the price of the house. So you're left with a death spiral. Build to lower prices, but the actual building is costing more than what people are willing to pay for a house, let alone the markup needed to justify KB homes (or others) to get involved at all.

Sure they're building, and you can go to job sites, but they're not going to charge what you think they will at the end. Long gone are those signs that say NEW HOMES LOW $400s!!!

And if you do, they're undesirably small condos. The sales cycles are extended or, unfortunately, they're just going to keep selling at the $800 prices you're seeing for a new home.

[lukas099]

I don't think ever. If the rich and poor could afford the same things, money would have lost all meaning.

[dfxm12]

Rich people can still stand out with their fancy watches & flashy sun glasses. Shelter shouldn't be a status symbol.

[BobaFloutist]

Maybe the rich can show off by having especially fancy houses, instead of just by having a roof at all?

[tehjoker]

Welcome to one of the main ideas of communism - a futuristic moneyless society.

[Nasrudith]

Possibly when they refuse to accept a buyer offering the listed price, absent a higher bidder because of perception of wealth.

[xyzelement]

When you sell the thing you sell (say, your labor) - do you try to sell it to the highest bidder (ie, prefer high salary) or do you not "discriminate" in this way?