[Gareth321]

> A foreign national that just extracts capital by capturing real state and collecting rent is a great example, this person is a large net loss for the country.

Is this a creative way of arguing that landlords are a net loss for the country? Because I would like to remind you that MANY people cannot afford to buy homes, and renting is how they make sure they don't become homeless.

[myrmidon]

I'm from a region negatively affected by this.

Foreign capital is undesirable in the housing market because:

1) It raises demand (when buying a home as a local, you now also have to compete with foreigners "investing", and this raises prices).

2) It often develops housing in a very unhealthy direction: Airbnbs and vacation apartments are toxic for local society and must be kept in check, otherwise you end up with half the houses just being shuttered for the whole off-season, and towns becoming empty husks.

3) Rent is a lot of money, and its obviously beneficial if it stays in the local economy instead of flowing abroad.

[nradov]

Why is there insufficient new housing development in your region?

[braiamp]

Because that implies more supply and landlords are happy with the supply being restricted. The people that has the money to build won't, the government will follow the money, so the state doesn't help. That kind of question reeks to "why are you poor?", well, because I have no money!

[myrmidon]

I don't think there is, really, but plenty of potential housing (and also the cost of construction) is pressured by "pseudo-housing" (Airbnb, vacation apartments, boutique hotels), often fueled by foreign capital.

[braiamp]

So, you changed topics from airbnb, which removes units from the rental market, to landlords in general? I think I can play that game. Lets go for the easiest one against landlords: Renting being the alternative to homelessness isn't a feature, it's a failure of housing policy. Homeowners carry 400% more net wealth than renters with comparable income, normalizing a rental market just means normalizing a wealth gap.

[torben-friis]

>Is this a creative way of arguing that landlords are a net loss for the country?

Not landlords as a general concept, but there are many categories that are:

- Investors buying areas in bulk to monopolise available living space and manipulate prices

- Demand of renting space by investors making purchases unaffordable

- Temporary living space (Airbnb, etc) removing long term residence offer.

- Foreign investors exploiting living space from abroad, since the money extracted from rent will not be reinvested in the country.

The usual free market response to this is "more offer will even out demand". But there's lots of obstacles to this in real life. Regulatory capture, high upfront costs that limit builders, near inhexaustible demand by investors and tourism, etc.

[ffaccount2]

And MANY people, like me, can afford to buy a home, butprefer to rent anyway.

[Scoundreller]

Or you end up with some weird scenario where so many are drunk on “real estate only go up” and rents become cheaper than owning.

I guess that’s a good thing (for voluntary renters… not so much for involuntary renters) but not really supposed to happen.

[gacgacgac]

Why do you assume it has to be landlords providing inexpensive, short term housing?

[f17428d27584]

1) renting is not the only way for a society to create affordable housing

2) rent being the only way to afford shelter has zero relation to whether it is a net loss or not