Given the quality of debate and/or fantastical thinking that I see in a lot of online forums, I'd be forced to wager that a pretty wide swath of people who debate rent (or other economic) topics online appear to not understand supply and demand. Whether or not renters on average do or do not, I can't say.
For all those who want the government to step in and reduce housing prices via regulation, consider that same government has interfered with the health care industry and the education industry for the last 50 years attempting to lower prices. The consequences are the opposite.
The goal isn’t necessarily about reducing home prices, it’s about increasing home ownership. Those shouldn’t be conflated.
So if that same context was applied to evaluating education, it has worked as the overall educational attainment has increased. Whether the cost is worth that increase can certainly be debated.
The burden of the proof is on Zillow, they are the multibillion behemoth
If enough angry people are energized then the highest bid from Zillow or BlackRock or BlackStone...won't mean anything.
Matter of fact it can be reversed.
Public opinion is the ultimate free market and it works via the allocation of love and hatred by the populace.
Landlords gets a lot of hate as it is, think when the landlord is a multi-billion dollar company.
You don't understand that making operating rentals harder and more expensive will cause rents to go up. So yes, there is a very large group of people who don't understand supply and demand and you are part of that group.
> Hell, I'd like to hear a great debate on the ethics of renting-without-equity, period.
If you force people to receive $500 in equity for every moment they rent, then rents will go up by $500 / month. This is bad for the people who cannot afford to pay that $500, or for people who would rather invest that $500 in the stock market or whatever. If you wave the regulatory wand and demand that X must happen, then what you are really demanding is that everyone must pay for X, whether or not they want to. Not that everybody will magically get X for free.
There are options other than forcing people to receive equity. e.g. A public-ownership rental option: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/why-its-be...
My niece, at 18, was thrilled to move into her own place. She prioritized having her own space as a mark of independence and adulthood despite it being more economical to live at home. Renting-without-equity let her do this because she did not have to pay to build equity in a space. Instead, she could build "equity" in herself as an adult.
Every regulation, restriction, and string-attached pushes out someone at the margin. So, yeah, while some approaches look ethical what is not seen is those people on the fringe who lose something as a consequence of those "ethics".
Zillow isn't the only big buyer of homes, and not all buyers are doing it to flip. The problem is renting in general. I would welcome regulations that bar any institution or individual from owning more than a handful of rental properties, and some kind of incentive for mortgage lenders to de-emphasize down-payments in lending.
Hell, I'd like to hear a great debate on the ethics of renting-without-equity, period. Perhaps all residential units should offer equity in the living space over time, even apartments. Eliminate the renter class altogether by bringing everyone into the ownership class.