A reasonable question. What are the non-negotiables that compel people to live in Manhattan? Is it being able to walk to noodles 24/7, or something else?
Being close to work is the biggest benefit. Especially for young professionals who don’t need a lot of space and are looking to grind in their careers. Also, when they’re not working, being able to have fun is a plus.
If you have a job that is specifically NY based that is hard to get elsewhere and is an actual paid in money, not cachet career (i.e not working for a magazine) like banking or software, you should earn the 180K pretty easily.
Why would someone live in new york city if they don't make $180k? Do you realize how out of touch the implications of that question are? There are so many nuances to life that drive people to be in certain places. NYC is a huge metropolis. Get real.
This is ChatGPT's attempt to rephrase your comment in polite, constructive language.
It's important to consider the various factors that influence people's choices, as the question seems to overlook the complexities of life. New York City is a vibrant and diverse metropolis with a multitude of reasons that attract individuals. Let's try to be more realistic and understanding.
I can't speak for others, but for me, I actually like big cities. Watching people. Don't need to own cars to get around. Food variety. Interesting buildings. Cultural stuff.
I guess that's why people in NY pay almost 45% of their after tax income towards housing related expenses, which is the highest in the U.S.
Aside from the fact that many work there, yeah. It's often the I don't really want to leave the city to speak of unless it's a vacation, no car, tons of stuff to do and places to eat.
People live in NY, raise families, with less income. I don't know what your impression of NY is but your preferences of neighborhood and your lifestyle choices have a massive impact on your cost of living.
What I always found interesting about Tokyo was that you could live in all of the various hotspots around the city, alone, on a semi reasonable middle class salary. You would live in a tiny little box, but you could be a 10 minute walk to the middle of Shinjuku or Shibuya. If you are single and don't care about cooking at home it really seemed like a great option. I don't know why in the US we have to be priced out of the biggest cities unless we are making a top 10% income or come from a generation of people who just happened to move there a century again.
I suspect it's because most Americans don't want to live in a little box; culture is just different here. And not having a kitchen seems like a deal-breaker for many people (myself included; even when I was in my 20s and ate out most of the time, I don't think I would have tolerated that). And I believe some municipalities in the US won't consider a space legal to rent out if it doesn't include access to a kitchen.
Of course, the real reason you have to be rich to afford a decent space in our biggest cities is because there isn't enough housing to satisfy the demand. Build more (and, critically, make it not incredibly expensive to build more), and prices will go down.
Yeah coming from Australia, the ramens were like $5 a pop instead of $20+. I couldn't even cook it for as little, never mind the labour costs involved.
Oh and the food was amazingly fresh and tasty, without too much in terms of flavouring.
Come live in Brooklyn Heights. You can be in Manhattan in 5 minutes. I just moved out of a rent stabilized apartment that was $2450 a month for 11 years. There are many similar apartments and they can't raise the rent to "market rate" without making major improvements.
Manhattan is some of the most expensive housing in the US. It's seeing significant pressure from relocations from other places (e.g. many San Franciscans have moved there)
Cheaper rentals are often not posted online because of the time and cost required. Irrespective of that, plenty of Manhattan 1 bedrooms are well below $4,500, including this one in a building with a 24-hour concierge, air conditioning, stainless steel appliances, and in-unit laundry:
> plenty of Manhattan 1 bedrooms are well below $4,500, including this one
Your example listing is on Roosevelt Island.
Sure, administratively it's technically the same borough / county as Manhattan. But it's not physically on Manhattan island, and doesn't command the same pricing for that reason.
I wish the government would do more to control this terrible situation. If you can't afford a home with a 40 hour job, something is sick in this country. Even an apartment is beyond reach.
Blackrock and Vanguard are blights on this planet.
There might be some corporate actors in favor of this, but housing as an investment is wildly popular among most Americans. I wouldn't be surprised if most renters support it because they see it as a vehicle to wealth rather than what prices them out of the market.
Yep, as usual, people keep whining about "the corporations!" and "the billionaires!" and blaming them for America's problems. The problem isn't them so much, it's the regular middle-class voter. The NIMBYs aren't billionaires or big corporations, though some corporations (not most) have been taking advantage of the situation. The problem is that regular, everyday Americans are greedy assholes, and expect (no, demand!) to make a huge profit after buying a house and owning it for a couple of years, and will do whatever they can to ensure this, no matter how it hurts the rest of society.
Housing affordability is not an American issue though, it's happening in any major developed city across the globe. There is something else to it that isn't purely zoning laws, building codes or whatever.
My personal opinion is that it's the culmination of policies incentivising housing as an investment vehicle, I know plenty of people who bought a first house when interest rates were low (or negative like here in Sweden), taking a loan as large as possible, which in turn pushed prices up, with the assumption that house prices always grow in value. When they grow in value the plan is to sell the first house, use the gains as a down payment springboard for their next loan on a larger house, rinse and repeat until you've built wealth.
Cheap loans inflated the price of housing very fast, building new housing got anchored on that price point, and now loans are not that cheap and developers don't want to build more if prices are crashing.
I have no idea how to break this cycle without a crash/bubble popping. If a government intervenes to create cheap housing (such as Sweden's Miljonprogrammet in the 60s-70s [0]) it will crash prices. It's a massive political issue because no one who has bought on inflated prices want to see their assets devalue, no politicians would survive in their career by implementing policies that would crash house prices.
Corporate landlords are just another facet of this imbalance, they can play around with their stock of vacant homes to keep inflated prices (something that a private landlord with a few units on mortgage really can't afford to do for long), they have money to scoop up houses selling below their target price, etc.
It's happening everywhere I see, everywhere where my friends and family live at, in multiple continents... There's something broken, and the correction is going to be very painful.
It's not happening everywhere: we don't have this problem in Japan.
>Cheap loans inflated the price of housing very fast
Interest rates here are 0.5% for primary homes. That's not the problem. The problem is a lack of supply. Over here, there's constant new construction, and zoning codes don't prevent new construction or higher density the way they do in other countries. So houses don't appreciate; they depreciate. So people don't use them as "investments"; they're just a place to live.
>Corporate landlords are just another facet of this imbalance, they can play around with their stock of vacant homes to keep inflated prices
We have corporate landlords here too. High competition and lots of supply keep prices stable.
> So houses don't appreciate; they depreciate. So people don't use them as "investments"; they're just a place to live.
That's the core aspect for it to work in Japan though, it's a massive cultural difference in how houses are viewed as (and how policies were made) compared to other countries. The cultural difference is what blocks policies to increase supply in other countries, to break the culture of seeing a house as an investment and making current prices drop is exactly the friction point that demands some politicians to commit career suicide if they want to change it. I can only see it happening when the social fabric is close to a breaking point due to unaffordability, before that I don't see how Western countries that have pushed for generations housing as an investment to change course.
This backs up that limited supply is a large part of this. Japan's population has been decreasing for 50 years, so ignoring domestic migration trends, it has enough housing. It's also seen deflation for a long time.
You can't ignore domestic migration trends. Tokyo has been steadily increasing in population (except during the pandemic), as have other major cities. People are leaving the small towns and countryside. In any other place, this would result in hugely increasing prices.
Completely agree about Blackrock and Vanguard. But didn't the government create this situation by making it hard to build, thus keeping supply down? While at the same time near 0 interest rates to boost demand. While at the same time inflating the supply of money.
"The government" isn't to blame for making it hard to build; that's the fault of countless local governments run by a bunch of NIMBYs. The national government has nothing to do with it, and the US is set up to give way too much power to state and local governments, so the federal government is mostly powerless to improve the situation.
> If you can't afford a home with a 40 hour job, something is sick in this country.
I don't think this has ever really been true with any inclusive definition (white men used to, but nobody else). I would be curious where in the world that does not have a declining population that it is true.
This article suggests that there has been a small decline in home buying age, but it is not a big one.
What is the recent hit on Vanguard I have seen going around? Aren't they mostly investing in indexs which would necessitate blindly buying stock in companies and of course they do it on a massive scale due to their size? Is Vanguard in some way encouraging companies to do evil things?
It has to do with their investment in RE/RBMS as an asset class, outside of their usual purview of asset management in traditional securities (though Blackrock is much more known/hated/publicized for it)
Thx still not understanding. Some Google Fu is telling me people aren't happy with Vanguard because they invest in fossil fuel industry and they don't vote enough for social based shareholder resolutions. Sorry but that is how passive investing works.
I think this has always been the difference between a "job" and a "career". My first full time job was making pizzas. I worked 40 hours a week, dropping sauce and toppings onto squished bread. Nobody would have been able to afford a pizza if I would have been able to afford a home, in my state.
At say, 15 pizzas per person per hour, increasing your wages to $15/hour above where it was before (netting you $2500/mo for housing on top of previous wages before considering taxes/assistance) would add $1 to each pizza.
There are countries that have decent access to housing for the working class which aren't somehow impossible to dine in.
Pizza places are the factories of foodservice; Competitive, assembly line operations, feed a lot of people every night from a shoebox form factor with little or no seating, very low margin by comparison to other foodservice sectors. The cheese is most of the cost of your slice, and you'll have a hard time beating these prices at home.
"With 2 Edge60 ovens and the right 4 people in the kitchen our best production has been 120 pizzas per hour."
"On my best night with 4 people putting them in and 2 taking them out I can do 60 an hour. Granted, we have 4 different sauces and some of our toppings get put on after they come out of the oven, but I’m certain we can improve that number. What more can you tell us about your set up?"
"We can get about 250 pizzas per hour done in a triple stack. It takes about 12 Insiders to make this happen. Drivers will also help out while they are waiting for deliveries."
"We can get 120 large (16 in) pies per hr using 4 marsal and sons deck ovens. Each oven can hold 6 16 inch pies. We sell smaller sizes too, so we can do a little bit more than 120 including those. ... We do that with 4 people (2 makers, 1 tender, 1 cutter)."
If you’ve ever worked at a pizza place, or in any food service at all, you’ll understand that these numbers are peaks, during a time called “rush hour”, and can only happen for a few hours a day, probably on the weekends or sports night. These numbers aren’t sustained. And even then, this must be in a metropolis if there’s no seating. I’ve never been to, or seen, a pizza place without seating, outside of downtown SF.
Pizza shops are not factories, for the majority of the day. They’re mostly empty.
Comment2: 10 pies per man-hour and thinks there's room for improvement
Comment3: 21 pies per man-hour
Comment4: 30 pies per man-hour
My assumption was a bit more conservative to account for that: 15 pies per man-hour, averaged over the course of the workday. Maybe I should have gone with 10 pies and a $1.50 increase? 7.5 pies and a $2 increase? Even with those numbers, my point holds.
This math isn't realistic. Where I am, the legally mandated minimum shift length is four hours. Divide your numbers by three. Divide it by 3 or four again because this peak only happens on the weekends.
Are you sure? Restaurant labor usually works out to a small percentage of the price of the food. Besides that, people could afford pizza back when minimum wage was much higher adjusted for inflation.
I think the GP meant that their pizza job paid so poorly, if their wage had been increased enough for them to be able to buy a home, the cost of the pizza itself would have to be increased quite a bit in order for the pizza shop to stay afloat.
But then how much would you pay people in the skilled trades (plumber, electrician, framer, architect, civil engineers)? What would be the cost of housing after the dust settle?
You have it backwards. Labor is the single largest cost of running a restaurant, followed by lease. Cost of ingredients is usually the lowest cost of running a restaurant. I know you are trying to divide all those costs up by dish, but it doesn't work that way.
You do realize that wasn't true in the past, right? In the 1950's, it was entirely possible for man to support a family with kids on the income from a job and not a career. There is no shortage of problems in that era, but the American dream wasn't fiction.
Something tells me it's still possible to live with a 1950's "American Dream" standard of living off of a $15 to $20 an hour job.
No computers, no cell phones, clothes washing by hand, no eating out, etc. Generous 1000 ft. square foot house with two small bedrooms and a single car. Note that houses in Levittown ("America's First Suburb") were 750 square ft. [1]
I understand GenZ wants to live in McMansions full of amenities, close to the trendy areas of town, eating out more often than they cook, as is their aspirational lifestyle. But there's nothing wrong with living small-ish, rural-ish, within your means, and building equity instead of throwing money away.
I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion here. But hey, I started small, lived in some "trashy" areas of town (moved up from a trailer) and now 30 years into my career I live comfortably in a very nice place. It takes time and patience folks.
The 1950's had no computer,
no cellphone, but the electric washing machine was first patented in 1937, so we'll give them that. Part of that dream included sending the kids to college, so in terms of sheer dollar amounts, a tv and a cellphones is a pittance. Supporting a family of four on a single person's $20/hr job, living simply, isn't actually possible today, and that's not because of luxuries like a cellphone. Inflation came in unequally and wrecked everything.
Big investors are not helping the housing market. But after years of telling people that 'housing is a great investment' and enacting all kinds of policies to jack up prices... are we surprised they piled in?
They even come right out and say this stuff in their SEC filings, that if markets stop being supply constrained it'll negatively impact their investments.
Perhaps unlike in the US, Canadian renters are still quite far from getting the upper hand. Canadian rent gains are what you'd expect amidst rising mortgage rates and stable housing prices.
US rents slowing suggest to me that US housing prices might fall.
When that starts to happen the Bank of Canada will just lower interest rates to 1% again. The Canadian economy relies heavily on the real estate shell game; they're not going to risk blowing it up. (Maybe they should, and weather the pain so that the economy can go back to producing tangible value again, but that's not how politics works.)
The BoC is relatively technocratic and they won't lower interests purely to help homeowners. However, given how much leverage Canadians carry, a shock to the housing sector would probably bring about a recession, which would force the bank to cut rates... at which point you do have to wonder whether house prices would just head back up to the stratosphere in short order.
> at which point you do have to wonder whether house prices would just head back up to the stratosphere in short order
Not sure why you're assuming they'd ever come back from the stratosphere in the first place. All another rate cut would do is untether housing prices entirely from earth's gravitational field, as they disappear into space, like the prospect of homeownership for most people.
And then you have to wonder how long young Canadians will stay in the country, when better prospects can be had nearly anywhere else. Japan? Their housing costs have been falling for decades. How about almost anywhere in the USA? If you seek a high degree of social welfare, go to Finland.
Canada is broken for young people. They should leave.
Having lived in Boston, I can say that the city is way overpriced. You may argue that rent is in line with what people are willing to pay for it and that may be true. However, the city is failing its residents who have no protection against unreasonable increases (due to a state law) and new development is nowhere near strong enough. At least in cities like SF, Honolulu, and NYC you trade affordability for hire wages, natural beauty, and nightlife. Boston is nothing special in comparison.
Boston area price is easy to explain. A place doesn't need to be the #1 in any category, if it has a good mix of all of those. Boston area ranks high quality of life by any metric. Lower crime, high education, strong economy, history, sports, architecture, walkability/transit, etc. Even the weather is probably preferable on avg. when you have almost half the country in the Midwest and Texas.
I recently learned that some people I know who lived an what are pretty much the worst apartments in our area are paying more in rent each month than my mortgage payment for a 4k sq ft home on an acre. I haven’t looked into how much it is to rent a decent apartment in the area, but it must be double my mortgage.
I don't understand how. The mortgage rates are high, so many people who would otherwise have bought a home are not jumping in. So rents will go up. I have seen this happen too
Why would that affect anything? Reduced demand for house purchases should result in higher supply for rental housing as owners rent it out instead of sell.
Additionally the driver of rent is ultimately an arbitrage argument. If I can buy a home and rent it out for more than the prevailing mortgage costs then rents must drop and home prices must rise, otherwise people will buy more property to rent out. Likewise the opposite is true. Home prices are dropping, so rent should drop too. Except for the fact that leveraged home costs are rising due to interest rates rising quickly. The article mentions some regions are seeing lots of new supply on the market so they can definitely impact the dynamic - but I don’t think coastal cities are seeing any new supply to speak of, so I doubt seriously rents are dropping in those cities. I would expect as costs to buy go up, rents will also rise assuming supply stays constant.
I assume it sort of balances out, if properties don’t sell, they may go on the rental market. Another thing is that the renters pool has some elasticity built-in: renters may move with relatives or roommates/significant other.
Demand isn’t as reduced as you might think - mortgage rates are trending a couple points under fed rates (I’m not exactly sure how but as someone who just purchased a house I can tell you that’s what I’m seeing). The house we bought we bid on it’s first day on the market - it had 4 other offers and ours only won because we went well over the asking price.
This is just a Midwest city suburb too, so it’s not a market like SF or anything like that.
>A year-long drop in rent would be a potential problem for the many investors who took out large loans to buy buildings where they thought they would be able to keep raising rents.
a healthy economy would disincentivize this sort of behavior
92 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 158 ms ] threadI've been looking for a decent 1BR in Manhattan.
For something clean and decent, the floor is $4,500.
The 40x rent annual income requirement by many landlords, one needs to be making $180,000.
sigh.
It's important to consider the various factors that influence people's choices, as the question seems to overlook the complexities of life. New York City is a vibrant and diverse metropolis with a multitude of reasons that attract individuals. Let's try to be more realistic and understanding.
I can't speak for others, but for me, I actually like big cities. Watching people. Don't need to own cars to get around. Food variety. Interesting buildings. Cultural stuff.
I guess that's why people in NY pay almost 45% of their after tax income towards housing related expenses, which is the highest in the U.S.
there's no where else where I can have a tasty hot sandwich made for me at 2am
without it being a big deal
Of course, the real reason you have to be rich to afford a decent space in our biggest cities is because there isn't enough housing to satisfy the demand. Build more (and, critically, make it not incredibly expensive to build more), and prices will go down.
Oh and the food was amazingly fresh and tasty, without too much in terms of flavouring.
https://www.relatedrentals.com/apartment-rentals/new-york-ci... ($4,150)
https://www.relatedrentals.com/search?city=46&field_line_spe...
Your example listing is on Roosevelt Island.
Sure, administratively it's technically the same borough / county as Manhattan. But it's not physically on Manhattan island, and doesn't command the same pricing for that reason.
https://www.equityapartments.com/new-york-city/upper-west-si...
Richie and Pedro the doormen are fun if they still work there.
Blackrock and Vanguard are blights on this planet.
Corporate landlords weren't the ones saying "you can't build here because it ruins the neighborhood's 'character.'"
My personal opinion is that it's the culmination of policies incentivising housing as an investment vehicle, I know plenty of people who bought a first house when interest rates were low (or negative like here in Sweden), taking a loan as large as possible, which in turn pushed prices up, with the assumption that house prices always grow in value. When they grow in value the plan is to sell the first house, use the gains as a down payment springboard for their next loan on a larger house, rinse and repeat until you've built wealth.
Cheap loans inflated the price of housing very fast, building new housing got anchored on that price point, and now loans are not that cheap and developers don't want to build more if prices are crashing.
I have no idea how to break this cycle without a crash/bubble popping. If a government intervenes to create cheap housing (such as Sweden's Miljonprogrammet in the 60s-70s [0]) it will crash prices. It's a massive political issue because no one who has bought on inflated prices want to see their assets devalue, no politicians would survive in their career by implementing policies that would crash house prices.
Corporate landlords are just another facet of this imbalance, they can play around with their stock of vacant homes to keep inflated prices (something that a private landlord with a few units on mortgage really can't afford to do for long), they have money to scoop up houses selling below their target price, etc.
It's happening everywhere I see, everywhere where my friends and family live at, in multiple continents... There's something broken, and the correction is going to be very painful.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme
>Cheap loans inflated the price of housing very fast
Interest rates here are 0.5% for primary homes. That's not the problem. The problem is a lack of supply. Over here, there's constant new construction, and zoning codes don't prevent new construction or higher density the way they do in other countries. So houses don't appreciate; they depreciate. So people don't use them as "investments"; they're just a place to live.
>Corporate landlords are just another facet of this imbalance, they can play around with their stock of vacant homes to keep inflated prices
We have corporate landlords here too. High competition and lots of supply keep prices stable.
That's the core aspect for it to work in Japan though, it's a massive cultural difference in how houses are viewed as (and how policies were made) compared to other countries. The cultural difference is what blocks policies to increase supply in other countries, to break the culture of seeing a house as an investment and making current prices drop is exactly the friction point that demands some politicians to commit career suicide if they want to change it. I can only see it happening when the social fabric is close to a breaking point due to unaffordability, before that I don't see how Western countries that have pushed for generations housing as an investment to change course.
This backs up that limited supply is a large part of this. Japan's population has been decreasing for 50 years, so ignoring domestic migration trends, it has enough housing. It's also seen deflation for a long time.
I don't think this has ever really been true with any inclusive definition (white men used to, but nobody else). I would be curious where in the world that does not have a declining population that it is true.
This article suggests that there has been a small decline in home buying age, but it is not a big one.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/21/ge...
Capital gains exemption
Mortgage interest deduction
30 year fixed rate mortgages
Depreciation deduction
Opportunity zones
The list seems to go on forever. The government uses tax cuts to juice real estate investment at everyone else's expense.
Does the person who take advantage of all these more likely to leave a housing unit vacant or make it available for other to rent?
I wouldn't be surprised. They do wield a lot of corporate voting power on behalf of their index investors.
I think this has always been the difference between a "job" and a "career". My first full time job was making pizzas. I worked 40 hours a week, dropping sauce and toppings onto squished bread. Nobody would have been able to afford a pizza if I would have been able to afford a home, in my state.
At say, 15 pizzas per person per hour, increasing your wages to $15/hour above where it was before (netting you $2500/mo for housing on top of previous wages before considering taxes/assistance) would add $1 to each pizza.
There are countries that have decent access to housing for the working class which aren't somehow impossible to dine in.
Not a restaurant owner but I'm curious how a pizza place consistently sells 15 pizzas/hour @ 8 hours a day... let alone more
More likely what's going to happen is you have "bursty" rush times where you need more people to scale up and dead times where you have minimal sales?
https://thinktank.pmq.com/t/how-many-pizzas-per-labour-hour/...
"With 2 Edge60 ovens and the right 4 people in the kitchen our best production has been 120 pizzas per hour."
"On my best night with 4 people putting them in and 2 taking them out I can do 60 an hour. Granted, we have 4 different sauces and some of our toppings get put on after they come out of the oven, but I’m certain we can improve that number. What more can you tell us about your set up?"
"We can get about 250 pizzas per hour done in a triple stack. It takes about 12 Insiders to make this happen. Drivers will also help out while they are waiting for deliveries."
"We can get 120 large (16 in) pies per hr using 4 marsal and sons deck ovens. Each oven can hold 6 16 inch pies. We sell smaller sizes too, so we can do a little bit more than 120 including those. ... We do that with 4 people (2 makers, 1 tender, 1 cutter)."
Pizza shops are not factories, for the majority of the day. They’re mostly empty.
Comment1: 30 pies per man-hour
Comment2: 10 pies per man-hour and thinks there's room for improvement
Comment3: 21 pies per man-hour
Comment4: 30 pies per man-hour
My assumption was a bit more conservative to account for that: 15 pies per man-hour, averaged over the course of the workday. Maybe I should have gone with 10 pies and a $1.50 increase? 7.5 pies and a $2 increase? Even with those numbers, my point holds.
And, again, I think this assumes some metropolis.
Source: me. I used to co-own a restaurant.
I don't see how this is true. It's more than 20%, since that's what you're expected to tip in the US, and that just covers the server.
Something tells me it's still possible to live with a 1950's "American Dream" standard of living off of a $15 to $20 an hour job.
No computers, no cell phones, clothes washing by hand, no eating out, etc. Generous 1000 ft. square foot house with two small bedrooms and a single car. Note that houses in Levittown ("America's First Suburb") were 750 square ft. [1]
I understand GenZ wants to live in McMansions full of amenities, close to the trendy areas of town, eating out more often than they cook, as is their aspirational lifestyle. But there's nothing wrong with living small-ish, rural-ish, within your means, and building equity instead of throwing money away.
I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion here. But hey, I started small, lived in some "trashy" areas of town (moved up from a trailer) and now 30 years into my career I live comfortably in a very nice place. It takes time and patience folks.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/91feb/9102house...
They're kind of scapegoats though: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/housing-cr...
They even come right out and say this stuff in their SEC filings, that if markets stop being supply constrained it'll negatively impact their investments.
US rents slowing suggest to me that US housing prices might fall.
Not sure why you're assuming they'd ever come back from the stratosphere in the first place. All another rate cut would do is untether housing prices entirely from earth's gravitational field, as they disappear into space, like the prospect of homeownership for most people.
Canada is broken for young people. They should leave.
(I assume that a lot of the people with student debt are renters)
This is just a Midwest city suburb too, so it’s not a market like SF or anything like that.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4266459
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing...
a healthy economy would disincentivize this sort of behavior