Furd likes to pretend the problem with Dems is culture wars. This is what he is really upset about.
I'm left wondering how their empty units make nyc worse.
Developers build lots of multi-million apartments in NYC for the wealthy to buy as assets, many of them sitting empty and offering little value to society. Developers do this because the margins are better than if they built reasonable housing for average New Yorkers. Wouldn't New York, or New Yorkers, be better off if developers were actually building apartments for the average New Yorker to live in? It is part of the wealth inequality problem.
Quote:
And how it's supposedly a win for rich people to park their wealth there.
Rich people have so much wealth they are in a hunt for assets. They have already bought up stocks to record high PE ratios, they have bought bonds to interest rates that are low relative to the amount of debt outstanding, they have invested all they can in private equity, and recently created a thing called private debt for their investments. In the most recent cycle they are buying up housing assets. They have so much money they have to hunt out and buy something of value, which includes empty real estate in global cities like New York, London, Abu Dhabi, Los Angeles, Miami, and San Francisco. Then they can use the asset of a $200 million NYC penthouse to borrow against and live income free and pay no taxes.
Quote:
Like, isn't he saying, "hey, wealthy people, take your money elsewhere!"
He is trying to reduce the incentive for the rich to buy up New York and make it unaffordable for New Yorkers. However, a tax like this is so paltry it is just a little bit of extra money for the City. It won't have a real disincentive affect for developers to continue to build these kind of low social value, high margin projects. Still, a small win for the City economically, but it gets the ball roll against mass, harmful, accumulations of wealth.
Quote:
Seems like a losing strategy to me.
Yes, probably, because all the powerful interests will be against it.
Wow, I actually agree with most of this. Is someone using Dajo's account illegally?
I do think the wealthy mostly use these places when they need to be in New York for business or social events. But yes, they are vacant form most of the year.
Big question: why don't developers build middle and low income housing in places like New York or Los Angeles? Why is there essentially no private or public capital to do this?
Los Angeles and New your faces similar severe shortage of low- and middle-income housing due to decades of chronic under-building, restrictive zoning laws, and extremely high construction and labor costs. The demand for housing far outpaces supply, exacerbated by complex, lengthy permitting processes, community opposition to dense development (NIMBYism), and a focus on luxury units rather than affordable alternatives, all leading to the fact that the margins simply don't justify the risk a developer would have to undertake, and his lender or private equity knows it. I don't see anything in what Mandami is proposing that will change that. And he needs to the extra money from the tax (if it ever comes into existence) to for other things than housing - like debt payments.
So I'm a nonbeliever is pushing religion over government. How drunk were you when you posted this garbage?
You have a lot of talk about fascism, but you seem to engage in the same propagandist tools as the Nazi's.
Yeah, I definitely do NOT associate you with the Clarence Thomas branch of church-goers! I won't raise religion with you and try to assign anything political there. I don't see the merit to it within the context of any BI discussions. That's not you.
Not your best post, SB.
Go after topics, issues, facts, policies, perspectives, not other BI members.
Furd likes to pretend the problem with Dems is culture wars. This is what he is really upset about.
I'm left wondering how their empty units make nyc worse.
Developers build lots of multi-million apartments in NYC for the wealthy to buy as assets, many of them sitting empty and offering little value to society. Developers do this because the margins are better than if they built reasonable housing for average New Yorkers. Wouldn't New York, or New Yorkers, be better off if developers were actually building apartments for the average New Yorker to live in? It is part of the wealth inequality problem.
Quote:
And how it's supposedly a win for rich people to park their wealth there.
Rich people have so much wealth they are in a hunt for assets. They have already bought up stocks to record high PE ratios, they have bought bonds to interest rates that are low relative to the amount of debt outstanding, they have invested all they can in private equity, and recently created a thing called private debt for their investments. In the most recent cycle they are buying up housing assets. They have so much money they have to hunt out and buy something of value, which includes empty real estate in global cities like New York, London, Abu Dhabi, Los Angeles, Miami, and San Francisco. Then they can use the asset of a $200 million NYC penthouse to borrow against and live income free and pay no taxes.
Quote:
Like, isn't he saying, "hey, wealthy people, take your money elsewhere!"
He is trying to reduce the incentive for the rich to buy up New York and make it unaffordable for New Yorkers. However, a tax like this is so paltry it is just a little bit of extra money for the City. It won't have a real disincentive affect for developers to continue to build these kind of low social value, high margin projects. Still, a small win for the City economically, but it gets the ball roll against mass, harmful, accumulations of wealth.
Quote:
Seems like a losing strategy to me.
Yes, probably, because all the powerful interests will be against it.
Wow, I actually agree with most of this. Is someone using Dajo's account illegally?
I do think the wealthy mostly use these places when they need to be in New York for business or social events. But yes, they are vacant form most of the year.
Big question: why don't developers build middle and low income housing in places like New York or Los Angeles? Why is there essentially no private or public capital to do this?
Los Angeles and New your faces similar severe shortage of low- and middle-income housing due to decades of chronic under-building, restrictive zoning laws, and extremely high construction and labor costs. The demand for housing far outpaces supply, exacerbated by complex, lengthy permitting processes, community opposition to dense development (NIMBYism), and a focus on luxury units rather than affordable alternatives, all leading to the fact that the margins simply don't justify the risk a developer would have to undertake, and his lender or private equity knows it. I don't see anything in what Mandami is proposing that will change that. And he needs to the extra money from the tax (if it ever comes into existence) to for other things than housing - like debt payments.
Shall I ask ChatGPT to compare percentage of federal budget spent on military to the percentage of the annual debt - say both as percentages of gdp, and then ask it to figure out and add in interest on debt as part of the pain? Like if we spent zero of military maybe we could have built some more housing?
We choose our destiny, no?
4 columns: A - B - C - D Decade - debt as % of gdp - military as % of gdp - interest as % of gdp
60's - 1.3% - 7% - 2% 70's - 2.5% - 6% - 2% 80's - 5 to 6% - 6% - 3% 90's - 1 to 3% - 3.5% - 2.5% 00's - 2 to 3% - 3.5% - 2% 10's - 3 to 4% - 3.2% - 2% 20's - 6 to 7% - 3.0 to 3.5% - 3.5 to 4.5%
Furd likes to pretend the problem with Dems is culture wars. This is what he is really upset about.
I'm left wondering how their empty units make nyc worse.
Developers build lots of multi-million apartments in NYC for the wealthy to buy as assets, many of them sitting empty and offering little value to society. Developers do this because the margins are better than if they built reasonable housing for average New Yorkers. Wouldn't New York, or New Yorkers, be better off if developers were actually building apartments for the average New Yorker to live in? It is part of the wealth inequality problem.
Quote:
And how it's supposedly a win for rich people to park their wealth there.
Rich people have so much wealth they are in a hunt for assets. They have already bought up stocks to record high PE ratios, they have bought bonds to interest rates that are low relative to the amount of debt outstanding, they have invested all they can in private equity, and recently created a thing called private debt for their investments. In the most recent cycle they are buying up housing assets. They have so much money they have to hunt out and buy something of value, which includes empty real estate in global cities like New York, London, Abu Dhabi, Los Angeles, Miami, and San Francisco. Then they can use the asset of a $200 million NYC penthouse to borrow against and live income free and pay no taxes.
Quote:
Like, isn't he saying, "hey, wealthy people, take your money elsewhere!"
He is trying to reduce the incentive for the rich to buy up New York and make it unaffordable for New Yorkers. However, a tax like this is so paltry it is just a little bit of extra money for the City. It won't have a real disincentive affect for developers to continue to build these kind of low social value, high margin projects. Still, a small win for the City economically, but it gets the ball roll against mass, harmful, accumulations of wealth.
Quote:
Seems like a losing strategy to me.
Yes, probably, because all the powerful interests will be against it.
Wow, I actually agree with most of this. Is someone using Dajo's account illegally?
I do think the wealthy mostly use these places when they need to be in New York for business or social events. But yes, they are vacant form most of the year.
Big question: why don't developers build middle and low income housing in places like New York or Los Angeles? Why is there essentially no private or public capital to do this?
Los Angeles and New your faces similar severe shortage of low- and middle-income housing due to decades of chronic under-building, restrictive zoning laws, and extremely high construction and labor costs. The demand for housing far outpaces supply, exacerbated by complex, lengthy permitting processes, community opposition to dense development (NIMBYism), and a focus on luxury units rather than affordable alternatives, all leading to the fact that the margins simply don't justify the risk a developer would have to undertake, and his lender or private equity knows it. I don't see anything in what Mandami is proposing that will change that. And he needs to the extra money from the tax (if it ever comes into existence) to for other things than housing - like debt payments.
Shall I ask ChatGPT to compare percentage of federal budget spent on military to the percentage of the annual debt - say both as percentages of gdp, and then ask it to figure out and add in interest on debt as part of the pain? Like if we spent zero of military maybe we could have built some more housing?
We choose our destiny, no?
4 columns: A - B - C - D Decade - debt as % of gdp - military as % of gdp - interest as % of gdp
60's - 1.3% - 7% - 2% 70's - 2.5% - 6% - 2% 80's - 5 to 6% - 6% - 3% 90's - 1 to 3% - 3.5% - 2.5% 00's - 2 to 3% - 3.5% - 2% 10's - 3 to 4% - 3.2% - 2% 20's - 6 to 7% - 3.0 to 3.5% - 3.5 to 4.5%
I would rather talk about housing, at least there I know enough to be dangerous.
The world is going the other direction, and % of GDP military spending in many countries is rising.
Of particular interest is in those EU counties are going to look pretty similar to the US.
It is interesting to see how this play out from the general issue you raised about priorities. The arguments by most current EU leaders is that this defense leap could also jump-start their lumbering economy, and the defense build-up is necessary with Russia and other aggressions in the neighborhood, and US support waning. Many people argue that the EU is trading off on other social and environmental goals in order to spend so much on defense - there is a NYT editorial which claims the same.
The other issue is stature. The EU leaders see their role in the world has been to create and sustain a liberal international order (this means capitalistic democracies, not the way we see liberals vs conservatives politically) , where you wouldn't have countries like Russia invading Ukraine, and you wouldn't have countries like the U.S. turning away from that larger community. It also means more economic power. The new EU leadership appears to think do all that means becoming a military power.
Very similar thought patterns to what happens in the US. It is worth the cost to become a super power?
They always want to blame lack of newly built affordable housing on regulations and zoning but the reality is that urban affordable housing has never been profitable enough to fill demand which is why government used to build major housing projects. Those are unseemly and so they stopped building them and now we have a large homeless problem. At some point the government has to intervene unless we just want the homeless to stack up on our streets.
Here in the New Jersey suburbs there has been a boom of "luxury" new homes and apartments. People don't want them - they want more middle class type housing. We are sitting here in affluent Morris County, NJ with tons of vacant "luxury" apartments and houses. New development District 15 (link below) is showing 206 vacancies on Zillow. That is up from about 90 about 6 months ago as they continue to add buildings. Around the corner there are 43 new vacancies. Up the road there are 156 new vacancies. All these "luxury" units are more expensive and smaller than the modest townhouse I rent out in the area. Hundreds of new apartments and it has no impact on me (yet) because it is so far out of the range of what people around here want. The big rent increases I've added since covid are still in play and I'm still well below the new developments. Additionally, Parq by Ryan Homes is building 4,000 sq foot, $1M homes, that are attached with no yards here in the suburbs. Nobody wants that.
I'm sure the executives that came up with all this building believed that New Yorkers were fleeing and this is the kind of development New Yorkers want. They aren't coming but I don't think that matters. All that mattered to everybody was that they had an analysis that showed these margins are going to happen. I am very curious to see what is going to happen around here with all this new development that nobody wants. The financialization of the process makes you wonder who is going to take the loss and when. The analysis is so far removed from the reality.
Initial knee-jerk reaction: Military spending is a function of fear - or aggression if you are on the front foot.
Another approach is peace and building positive relationships.
I give USA bad marks in all this stuff. We are not doing a good job of spreading peace and positive relationships globally.
The contra argument is that the capability to deploy military power provides substantial leverage in treaty and economic negotiations with foreign governments. That isn't knee jerk, it a long run policy of most powerful governments since there have been governments. That said, it is obvious that the world would be a lot better space without such large military spending, the question for me is how realistic is that given our world leaders?
Initial knee-jerk reaction: Military spending is a function of fear - or aggression if you are on the front foot.
Another approach is peace and building positive relationships.
I give USA bad marks in all this stuff. We are not doing a good job of spreading peace and positive relationships globally.
The contra argument is that the capability to deploy military power provides substantial leverage in treaty and economic negotiations with foreign governments. That isn't knee jerk, it a long run policy of most powerful governments since there have been governments. That said, it is obvious that the world would be a lot better space without such large military spending, the question for me is how realistic is that given our world leaders?
Sure. Agree. I'd rather USA just focus on our domestic issues and not deploy massive military in order to secure oil rights and such everywhere.
It's special interests that deploy these forays around the globe.
We are not like Israel with enemies surrounding us. It's stupid that we feel we have to be ready to bomb anyone within 30 minutes notice.
