World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
It's great for people who want to buy a house, great for ultra rich that want to buy out more property, but absolutely fucking people who just bought a house not too long ago.
If you just bought (assuming standard 30 yr mortgage), all you have to do is hold through it. Refinance if that becomes favorable.
The only losers are those who are free and clear or toward the end of their mortgage AND looking to utilize the equity they built up, OR anyone looking to sell. The solution is time, which can kinda suck, but it's vastly preferable to not having a place to live.
The solution is only time if market starts bubbling again, like it did after the last crash. Its also possible for asset prices to stagnate for decades, and its happened before.
why? yiu bought a home to live in right ? you can still live in it. thet they're now cheaper for other folks who couldn't afford a home before, is a good thing.
I feel like people forget that a significant portion of America lives in a place where the cost-of-living isn’t ridiculously high. A housing crash might make houses slightly more affordable in San Francisco, but it would be economically devastating to the interior of the country.
Honestly it probably wouldn’t even be that great for people who wanted to buy a house. Banks aren’t likely to start handing out mortgages to people who couldn’t afford the house a couple weeks ago in what is now a volatile market, and you would still be competing with companies who could pay cash.
Actually when things are less expensive they are easier to buy.
For everyone… not just poor people who need a loan, but people who can pay cash too… which is what I said.
That is how supply and demand works, though. If the prices drop, and suddenly cash buyers start pouring out of the woodwork, that will drive prices back up.
When you see prices fall, it necessarily means the cash buyers are not just swooping in and grabbing everything.
Yes which would mean that the cash buyers would have all the houses and the people who needed loans wouldn’t. Which was my point.
That is not what that means.
I promise I understand what you're saying. I'm saying the fault in your logic is misunderstanding the upward pressure of cash buyers.
When prices fall, it isn't chum in the water for corporate cash buyers. What it means is that those same buyers were ALWAYS there, and are now leaving. The absence of thier buy pressure is the cause of the prices falling.
The fault in your logic is thinking there won’t be more cash buyers if prices dropped.
But then the prices go up again.
The price of anything is the balance of buyers and sellers.
The price TELLS you where the equilibrium is. It is the OUTPUT of the function.
Houses aren't Hienz Ketchup. Head office doesn't just decree a house price. You're imagining the housing market works like Taylor swift tickets from ticket master.
You don't even have to hypothesize on this because housing markets have been swinging around for decades. People on the sidelines were able to buy houses after 2008 that they'd never have been able to afford otherwise. It worked out GREAT for people who has been sidelined.
I entered the market at the brief but violent housing downturn in late 2019. I never would have been able to otherwise.
They suck for people who own a home and are depending on thier equity. It sucks for people who own a home and the banks get nervous.
Whenever I hear people saying to people without homes "be careful what you wish for" when they are wishing houses were cheaper... I just hear my old boss telling me how I shouldn't want a raise because it'll "bump me into a higher tax bracket".
It's bullshit half-truths which sound just plausible enough to convince you to not act in your own best interests.
If you own a property, its in your own financial best interests to have the value increase. If you do not own property, but want to, you want the price to go down.
You’re oversimplifying. Obviously if I want to buy a house I want the price to go down. What we are talking about here is that cheaper housing isn’t the only consequence of lower housing prices. And I’m not sure that comparing it to saying a higher tax bracket is in any way an adequate comparison given the tax brackets just don’t work that way at all. Like I wouldn’t even call that a half truth.
I’m also not saying that nobody would benefit, what I’m trying to point out is that the net gain wouldn’t be the same as say legislation that actually increased the housing supply. If your end goal is to be able to own a house wishing for a housing market crash isn’t the best wish you can make. Private equity firms bought more houses after the 2008 crash than the people sitting on the sidelines.
At the end of the day what you’re actually wishing for is one last housing crash otherwise you’re just hoping that it crashes again for other people after you buy your house and you’re stuck there.
Ok, I can accept what I think I just read:
"Although a drop in housing prices would provide a reprieve to those who do not own, the fundamental structure of housing as a commodity is the greater beast that must be defeated"
Now, that's true, I'm 100% on board.
I do feel like people sometimes let perfect become the enemy of good. "The homeless guy doesn't need a handout, he needs a job", they mutter as they walk on by.
If you wanna think that long term, I actually don't think you've gone far enough. Government supply initiatives? A start, but still a bandaid. Massive increasing tax rates on multiple ownership. Cap on residential property that can be owned by Corporations. Rent controls. Pull no punches to establish that housing is not a viable speculative investment. You build to sell to people who will live there.
What about the equity you're about to decimate? Government needs to get back big time into the pension game. Big time. How will I live? Eat? Get medical care as I age? Needs a fix.
Until those broad changes occur, I'll still be cheering every dip.
I had a feeling we were only disagreeing on the means not the ends.
I'm glad we both stayed curious. We fucking rock
Less than 20% is significant?
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html
I didn’t realize only rural areas had a lower cost of living than San Francisco…
I didn't realize San Francisco is the only city in the US. Rent in every single urban area is out of control. A two bedroom apartment that I rented in Lexington, KY from 1996-2011 for $500 a month is now $1,800.
A studio apartment that I rented in Altoona, PA from 2011- 2013 for $700 a month is now $1200.
I could keep looking, as I have rented places in 38 states.
No where that isn't rural is cheap in the US anymore. Even the most "affordable" cities are boasting about 1 br apartments that are $1,000+ a month.
Yeah, I moved out of my parents’ place in the early 2010’s. My rent was $1000. It was a shithole, but I could at least afford it. I just checked that area, and found that my old unit is up for rent. They’re demanding $2100 for it now.
It’s not just going up due to inflation adjustments. Adjusting for inflation from 2010 to now would have it closer to $1500. And that’s being generous (I added a few years to the inflation calculation) because I moved out in the early 2010’s, not exactly in 2010.
And looking at the photos they have posted for the unit, it’s still a shithole. I’m pretty sure the awful stove/oven in the kitchen photos is the exact same one I used back in the early 2010’s. The stove even has the scuffed dent in the corner from when a dumbbell weight rolled off the top of the fridge and landed on it. So it’s not like they’re actively reinvesting that money back into the units to increase value to the tenants.
So somehow the slumlords have managed to tack on an extra ~$7200 in annual profit per tenant. that’s a significant amount of cash, especially when you consider how long the prices have been inflated.
I hate to break it to you but those prices are barely more than inflation. $700 in 2011 is $1065 today. And I didn’t say anything about San Francisco being the only city in the US now you’re just reaching.
Not reaching, just using your own hyperbole in reverse.
I hate to break it to you, but inflation hasn't done a thing to minimum wage, or wages in general.
In what way was pointing out that there are places in America with a lower cost of living than San Francisco that aren’t rural hyperbole?
I never said it did, in fact that has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
San Francisco isn't the only place where housing is unaffordable. That's how it's hyperbole.
Ahh, so you're fine with price gouging in the name of inflation, but fuck the workers that have to pay those prices. Got it.
I never said it was. Why are you just making shit up?
No I never said that either… seriously what the fuck is your problem?
If inflation has nothing to do with wages, than it shouldn't have anything to do with prices. You said fuck workers by logical extension.
OK… Now where in that sentence do I say that San Francisco is the only city in America or the only place with a high cost of living, or that I’m OK with price gouging?
I edited my previous comment, so I will copy the relevant part to answer your second question.
Since according to you, inflation should be tied to housing prices, but is irrelevant to wages, you just said "fuck the workers," by logical extension.
As far as you saying that San Francisco is the only city in America, you did that with your hyperbolic statement that indicated that you think that San Francisco is the only place that is unaffordable.
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem or you’re just being a troll either way I’m done with this conversation.