this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
369 points (99.5% liked)
Showerthoughts
38240 readers
324 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're looking at the wrong stats. When people are forced to spend more on necessities, they don't cut necessities. They can't. They're necessities.
They cut luxuries.
One such relevant stat, would be piracy spiking. Not to mention the spike in homelessness if we are talking about the US.
You yourself point out that housing is not keeping up with need. Things can absolutely be getting worse (and they are), while at the same time not showing up in vacancy rates. The well-off can be moving into new homes faster than the poor are moving back in with parents. Or going homeless.
Another stat is the average age at which people buy their first home increasing.
Another is the ratio of renters increasing in relation to owners.
This is a distinction without a difference. You're saying the chicken came first, while I'm trying to explain chickens come from eggs, and the entire relationship between the two.
Increased consolidation increases the co-ordination of price hiking, hence increasing "how much" screwing is going on. But that doesn't mean a tiny bit of screwing can't get it started.
I'm saying it has gotten so bad because the problem feeds itself. By allowing more investment, the screwing gets harder.
This is a truly insane take. You're saying if all rented properties were owned by single landlords who owned no other properties, rents today would still be just as high?
Well then, we're back to some people cutting their costs by doing all the things I said above. You dismissed them all as if reasons why they're not practical are reasons why they're impossible.
All those landlords have the exact same incentives to charge as much as they can get away with, to subdivide properties and to exploit their renters as corporate landlords do. Consolidation can allow prices to increase - but it doesn't always, and typically not by a lot, until consolidation reaches very high levels. 3-7% is what I've read for company mergers (note that the case studies include large market shares and companies dealing in necessities).
So I propose that corporate landlords have manipulated the market by no more than 10%. So about 6 months of house price increases at current rates, or two years at less crazy rates. Everything else is caused by low supply and such.
No. I dismissed them as insufficient to show up in the stats. In order to significantly impact the situation, the alternative needs to be valid for any individual. Not just some.
Duh. But are you really going to claim single property owners competing with every other single property owner, wouldn't have different results than duopolistic companies carving up cities and throwing their weight around in legislation?
Have you considered that larger companies are also able to act to maintain the low supply?
Real-estate and construction overlap a great deal, and that influence also grows with consolidation.
And thanks for linking to a study that confirms what I'm trying to say? 3-7% of the largest bill most people have is not nothing.
Does that percentage account for wage stagnation? Which is also exacerbated by mergers.
A few comments ago you were clamining low supply is the only problem.
If people really thought that companies buying real estate might, at most, contribute a few percent of the price, while limited supply has led to price increases of hundreds of percent, then we'd be getting constant memes about insufficient house-building and pushes to change that, rather than this kind of thing.
I want to change the narrative, because if all people hear is "COMPANIES ARE BUYING UP HOUSES AND JACKING UP RENTS" they won't push for the policies which will have a bigger impact.
EDIT: Here is a chart of the ratio of population growth to house-building in the USA. Notice that it's increased from about 1.5 to about 2.5. That is a massive difference. A company with 17% of the homes in a city can squeeze residents in that city for 17% of its available housing if they don't mind sitting on an asset that isn't paying them anything.
Meanwhile, the population has increased by about 50%, but you only built homes for half that. That's a bigger effect even if you believe that companies are willing to sit on vast quantities of empty housing, which we know they're not.
Did I at some point say we don't need more housing?
Protip: switch to "yes, and".
You won't get a positive response by continuing with "no, actually".
I believe these same corporate forces are a major reason why housing isn't being built. Hence my focus is on them, not simply "build more homes".
In my city, homes are being built, but only by the rich for the rich. I'm finnish, btw.
Right back atcha, pal. You had ample opportunity to agree that the biggest problem is lack of housing. Instead you embraced the narrative of the OP.
In my very first reply to you:
This whole time I've been trying to tell you, "no, that is actually a problem" because you started off by minimizing the contribution of corporate interests to the housing problem. I guess I should have made the the implied "as well" more obvious, but it was always there.
You didn't start off with "we need more housing". You started off with "it's not the companies and they are good actually".
So no, I wasn't gonna reply with "yes, and". I didn't have the option because what you started with needed actual refuting, first.
OK. I don't think we disagree over very much at this point.