That's... still greed. It's just not a big deal to be greedy, because we all kinda are. We all have negative traits to some degree though.

If there’s four slices of pizza in front of you and there’s a person sitting across from you, you’d be incentivized to take all four of the slices. Doing so would be greedy. Not being greedy is making sure the other person gets what they need before you take the rest.

I can surely blame people for taking what’s in front of them when people who are also in front of them have nothing.

Stop with this fake morality.

When young people get hold of a home, then later sell it, none of them will be giving a "social" discount on the price.

Private property is private.

I can assure you my morality is 100% legitimate.

I believe for instance that property is theft, as Prodhoun proclaimed.

The fact that we see housing as an investment is part, no, probably most of the problem.

I frankly just cannot this seriously. And I think the vast vast majority of people in the world would find Prodhoun's view of property to be laughably unworkable, or at best just undesirable.

I do not believe people whom say property is theft as it would mean I can randomly take your personal items as they're not your property, since you don't believe in the concept.

But should you genuinely believe that and walk the talk, fair enough. I'm more of a pragmatist myself.

You would have to read Proudhoun an Anarchism to understand what is meant by the saying.

By "property", Proudhon referred to a concept regarding land property that originated in Roman law: the sovereign right of property, the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and [to] abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title. Proudhon contrasts the supposed right of property with the rights (which he considered valid) of liberty, equality, and security. Proudhon was clear that his opposition to property did not extend to exclusive possession of labor-made wealth.

Private property is a construct of the state, which is itself either just fenced goods stolen from the powerless or the commons.

It's a social norm we maintain, with some limitations, because it's useful. It's not sacred.

At the time all of these people purchased their (absurdly cheap, relatively -- or tax/interest-incentivized) second houses, there was nobody sitting across from them.

That's what you fail to understand.

I’m the OP, and I definitely understand. Maybe that would be a good idea, once someone goes to apply for a mortgage there has to be a homeless family in the office right next to them.

Other peoples' buying activity is not the reason you're homeless.

/someone who has been homeless and has also bought a home.

For sure it’s not the only reason, but it’s a reason I can’t afford to rent anywhere since Covid for sure.

By the way, I’m homeless because I have a serious mental illness. Not all of us are equipped to jump back in the workforce.

I understand and sympathize. And I'm sorry to guess correctly that it would be mental illness. I still think there's some misplaced blame going on here.

I can’t blame myself. I am doing everything possible. I used to be able to afford a rental. I did nothing different. So where is the blame?

Sure, it's certainly greed. That people were (are) incentivized to be greedy doesn't mean it's not greed anymore.

Not at all. Greed requires selfishness.

If you're presented with abundance, everyone is taking a similar share and there isn't counterpressure from your peers (e.g., laws that we vote for), then there is no selfishness and thus no greed. To define greed you need a feedback loop.

We're simple dumb animals. We take what's available. If you want to talk about defining arbitrary limits on consumption that are disconnected from circumstances then you're basically out here preaching religion.

Taking more than you need when others are lacking is selfishness. Counterpressure doesn't enter into it. If the only thing that stops you from being greedy is that other people or laws pressure you to not be, then you're still a greedy person. Our values are expressed by what we do in the absence of such pressure.

In the scenario I just described no-one is lacking.

When boomers bought all of these second/vacation homes cheaply in the 80s it wasn't in places with huge demand from underhoused people.

These arguments need a little more consideration of facts rather than appeals to emotion.

I hate to say it, but there was homelessness in the 80s and it is only eclipse by our current state of homelessness.

https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2...

Not. Where. People. Bought. Second. Homes.

Nobody was buying second apartments in NYC in the 80s. Nobody was buying apartments period. I knew people with brownstones for sale in spanish harlem that they couldn't get $10k for in the late 80s. 80% of _storefront_ space in midtown was vacant.

People buying vacation homes in Florida or Vermont aren't responsible for homelessness in major cities.

It amazes me how people pick and choose when they want us to be “dumb animals“. And it amazes me that someone on hacker news would say this. Even dumb animals are more communal and fair than modern humans are.

I personally would feel a great deal of guilt if I purchased a second home in my city, knowing that there are thousands of people who would kill for the opportunity.

To me, it is indeed greed. Some things are more sacred than money and housing is one of those things

But outside of a few outlier markets like SanFran/Vancouver/NY, which are mostly being used to expatriate stolen foreign money anyway, that's not how the majority of people acquired a second home.

can you elaborate?

I suspect a great deal of people buy a second home while maintaining the first one as a rental, if they can swing it.

with all of the "free" money out there over the past few years, it was insanely easy to pull equity of your home to buy investment properties. I don't have numbers but I can't imagine this is a small amount.

Nobody's swinging that in high demand markets. A lot of dumb people _tried_ to leverage themselves and lost their ass on airbnbs that aren't performing (airbnb has seen huge decline).

The overwhelming majority of second homes are vacation homes. _Landlords_ aren't keeping people out of housing -- quite the opposite.

Home ownership is kind of an endless money pit anyway. Most people are better off renting in any of the markets we're talking about homeless populations anyway.

People are also extremely bad accountants, and if they sell a house for more than they bought it they accrue everything to profit, even if the rents during the time barely covered the mortgage (and/or didn’t cover repairs and maintenance at all). Large appreciation has hid the real costs associated with landlording.

landlording is really all about economies of scale to both the owner and renter's benefit.

Ideally landlords should be able to get better pricing for maintenance.

Unfortunately our dumb FREE MONEY monetary policy has absolutely wrecked the trades and saddled generations with bad debt chasing worthless credentials.

...YOU ARE PERFECT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p8vqoIVESc