If you make it financially risky to own a rental property you're also making it more risky and thus less profitable to buy and rent out apartments. This hurts both renters and the potential landlords. It would be much better to just increase property taxes.. Speaking as a Dane, this kind kind of economically illiterate leftist lawlessness is an important reason why Spain is poorer both poorer and has a worse welfare state than Denmark.

Ok, but first: is it financially risky right now to own properties? No, based on the data we have.

Second: can renters be hurt even more? Are landlords the most vulnerable people right now? The situation is pretty awful right now, while at the same time there are people whose sole contribution to society is "owning flats".

And I agree on increasing property taxes (any progressive taxes over capital would do).

BTW, I'd love to recommend a book that explains all this much better than I would do. Unfortunately, I think it's only in Spanish: "La España de las piscinas" (The Spain of Swimming Pools).

Thanks for the recommendation!

I think these are understandable and well intended questions! But they also makes it seem like you're not very familiar with standard economic analysis. I would encourage you to read The Rent is Too Damn High by Yglesias which is by an american (leftist) who I think has a much better set of ideas for improving the lives of renters than "occupation friendly" housing regulations and other "zero sum" ideas. And yes, buying and administering rental properties is societally valueable just like running a bakery, restaurant or software consultancy is.

https://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B...

Can you give any information on what he advocates?

I wonder if the difference could be that the policies that he advocate would require bought and paid for politicians to act while squatting is something that an individual can do?

The one line explanation is that politicians should allow people to build more housing.

Its very simple. We need to build more housing. This can be done via zoning reform combined with land value tax to punish speculators.

The difference is that those occupation friendly laws work and force real estate owners to actually rent out their properties rather than let them sit empty to appreciate value. Whereas the ideas of a person that only exist in a book are just ideas that exist in a book.

Allowing occupation of vacant properties by squatters because there isn't enough housing supply is like allowing stealing food from farms because there isn’t enough food supply. It’s demoralizing to the producers and maintainers of the resource and does not encourage further investment in the activity.

> Allowing occupation of vacant properties by squatters because there isn't enough housing supply is like allowing stealing food from farms because there isn’t enough food supply

Love these religious-sounding sermons. Im telling what is happening here, a lot of 'free market' types are preaching to me that what is happening here is not happening and something else should be happening per the magic of 'free market' or capitalism or whatever. Hearing these, one understands who the US ended up with housing being unaffordable for 99% of Americans...

Certainly, owners sometimes leave properties vacant, and sometimes do so for long periods, for various reasons. The housing market, however, should be big enough and robust enough to allow for some of that occurring.

Personally, I'd like there to be so much more housing that landlords have to compete with each other for who can provide the best apartment for the lowest price rather than potential tenants competing with each other for who can pay the most for the only apartment that is available.

> The housing market, however, should be big enough and robust enough to allow for some of that occurring.

All of these are just wishful thinking based on non-scientific economic hullabaloo that was developed in the past 200 years. They never worked anywhere. They never will.

In the end, it comes down to the concept "Housing should be for living in, not for profit". Its a fundamental necessity/infrastructure. And privatizing it makes as much sense as privatizing the military or the police. The moment you allow it, those with bigger pockets will f*ck everything up.

> Are landlords the most vulnerable people right now?

Increasing risk will eliminate a lot of the "mom and pop" landlords (widows, former small-business owners, retirees, etc.). If it is too risky to own only a few extra condo units or a single small apartment building, then those properties will go to large corporate landlords.

> there are people whose sole contribution to society is "owning flats".

Landlords make sure the utilities (water, electricity, heat, etc.) work, that the roof doesn't leak, fix plumbing issues when they arise, take care of pest infestations, etc. Even landlords who don't personally fix things are employing managers and tradespeople. And with big corporate owners, the shareholders are usually pension funds which effectively are the retirement savings of people who have already "contributed to society".

Is it worth the major part of a full time worker's income to have somebody take care of those things in the rare occasion they happen? Most normal people can easily fix their plumbing issues, a leaky roof, termites and such in a couple of days with a few hundreds of dollars in budget.

Landlords generally spend much less than 5% of their yearly rent income on maintenance. If they actually do something to improve an apartment, that is just an investment in their own real estate, that they own 100% even after having other people pay for it several times over during decades.

Edit: Or look at it this way: Would you hire and pay somebody a good salary for working maybe 5 or 10 days per year for you?

> that they own 100%

You might be surprised to learn that many small rental properties are heavily mortgaged. Along with insurance and property taxes, the biggest cost is usually mortgage interest. Some owners even lose money for a few years until the rents rise to meet the costs so that they can break even. (These owners are playing the long game, believing that rent and property values will go up over time and eventually their investment will be a good one compared to their other investment options.)

I'm very aware of that, which just makes it worse. You now have multiple levels of strangers that are living on your back. Landlord, banker, insurance seller.

> the biggest cost is usually mortgage interest.

The tenant is paying for that.

The situation is absurd. The tenant is paying the entire mortgage and interest for the property and can be kicked out at any time, while the landlord does basically nothing, pays nothing, and the bank can not kick him out just because they please.

> you're also making it more risky and thus less profitable to buy and rent out apartments

You would be surprised about the sheer number of spaniards that would welcome this second-order effect.

In the last ~10 years, renting has skyrocketed, due to the discovery of the spanish renting market by international money, and renting laws relaxation (demand side). Meanwhile, this has not increased the supply of homes, as it is felt that there is oversupply, the demand is very concentrated on selected cities, and the turnaround of building to rent or sell is long. This double-whammy has made renting quite onerous, and buying directly out of reach, for a lot of people.

Some extra tidbits:

- Buying: Upwards of 40% of home purchase is without mortgage (not a pattern of someone buying for the first time)

- Renting: In Madrid, on average 62% of salary before taxes goes to renting; 58% in Barcelona (https://www.fotocasa.es/fotocasa-life/alquiler/los-espanoles...) (how is that even feasible? well, young people end up just renting a room)

I think you misunderstood what the above commenter meant when they wrote that risk of squatters makes it "less profitable to buy and rent out apartments".

Because of the additional risks of squatters, landowner will either have to take additional security measures (and make up the costs with higher rent) or accept the risk of squatters (and make up that risk with higher rent). In either case, the rent getsor expensive.

No, I got it. I just think that would mainly mean investors exit the market.

If it is less profitable, they either further raise the prices or they get out of the market; the ratio of those two options depends on price elasticity. And prices don't have a lot of room to grow further in my opinion... unless of course the wages grow quickly (and minimum wage indeed has done it in the last 5 years). But then the country needs to be more productive or people get poor (fired!), which is also not good for the renting business, etc.

At the end of the day you're betting on the spanish market either squeezing people further, or gaining productivity real quick. And real estate is not very liquid, yet is typically long-term, and those investors are risk averse. So... there will be some that will exit the market.

And what happens when people leave the rental market? Fewer apartments for rent. And what happens to rental prices when there's a scarcity of apartments to rent? Prices go up.

Well, no one can pack the apartment and leave the country. At worst they are left unoccupied, but that's a lot of money to have it parked, and can be discouraged with taxes; so alternatively people sell them... so buy and rent eventually go down.

And what will the buyers do with the apartments? Rent them? Well, then they'll either have to spend money on security or price the risk of okupas into the rent. In either case rent goes up.

This is as nonsensical as the proposals in San Francisco to prohibit the construction of apartments to try and reduce rent. Dissuading people from renting out apartments reduces the supply apartments. There is zero possibility this results in better rental prices.

> And what will the buyers do with the apartments? Rent them?

Yes.

> This is as nonsensical as the proposals

Its not nonsensical. Its what is happening. Use it or lose it. Works. Find a good tenant, rent it for decades - like how it is supposed to be.

Again, the comment you responded to explains how this makes it more risky and less profitable to rent out apartments. It's dissuading people from renting:

> you're also making it more risky and thus less profitable to buy and rent out apartments

When something becomes riskier, fewer people do it unless there's some other incentive.

A vacancy tax could incentivize renting, buy enabling squatters does nothing but making rentals more risky. The only thing that can solve a shortage is increased supply or reduced demand. The latter is not feasible since people need housing. The former requires that land owners take the risk on renting out apartments, and anything that increases the risk means less people will do it.

> Find a good tenant

That's easier said than done. The better way to convince prospective renters to rent out their property is to make it easier to kick out bad tenants. If evictions are backlogged, then a landlord risks being stuck with a non paying tenant for a long time.

When a renter buys an apartment or house to live in, that means the place they rented becomes vacant. It is the most basic math, addition and subtraction. Lower real estate prices means less renters and thus lower rents. Unless you conjure people into the country by immigration.

Making renting riskier doesn't inherently make property less expensive. If a shortage of rental properties makes more people want to buy condos and houses, then there's more demand for condos and houses. Making renting riskier also means that apartment buildings are less profitable and less likely to be built.

A more likely outcome is that condos and houses get more expensive because of the shortage of apartments. And fewer apartments get built because investors know that they will not be able to kick out squatters.

If letting becomes a bad return on money, leaving the house empty is an even worse return of money. So you sell, and thereby get money for better investments, while at the same time the house gets an owner tenant. Real estate is fixed and cannot be physically transferred.

As for apartments, they will still be financed by people who intend to live in them. Removing the landlord removes a huge margin, because you're nourishing a stranger.

> Making renting riskier doesn't inherently make property less expensive

It did that here.

> A more likely outcome

You are literally making up stuff and preaching a false reality as you go. No wonder how the US housing market got shafted - seeing what kind of mentality you people subscribe to.

If rents went down, it wasn't because renting became riskier. By definition that's going to raise rents.

More likely it's other factors like remote works becoming less common once covid subsided.

At the end of the day, all of this discussion does not detract anything from my original point:

> You would be surprised about the sheer number of spaniards that would welcome this second-order effect.

Lots of spaniards would clap at this, even if they're mistaken (what your arguing for). So peter335's argument would not be listened to.

> Again, the comment you responded to explains

This kind of thing baffles me. Im telling what is happening here. A guy on the internet refers to another on the internet who 'explains' to me that what is happening where I am in the actual reality is not real.

That's literally crazy. It feels like you people are preaching. Against the reality.

Yes, exactly. This is what I was getting at!

You think a lot of Spaniards want higher rental prices?

Of course not, I think misguided policies like the one we’re talking about lead to higher rental prices

> No, I got it. I just think that would mainly mean investors exit the market.

Great. They should get the hell out asap.

> Because of the additional risks of squatters, landowner will either have to take additional security measures (and make up the costs with higher rent) or accept the risk of squatters (and make up that risk with higher rent). In either case, the rent getsor expensive.

When renting becomes less profitable, real estate prices fall as landlords want to get rid off their bad investments. That means people can buy instead of rent, which means more rentals become vacant as renters become owners, which means that rents go down.

> and make up the costs with higher rent

This is not how it works. Landlords will always extract maximum rent possible from tenants.

> Landlords will always extract maximum rent possible from tenants

Landlords are competing in a market. The maximum possible rent has to do with how much the rest of the market is charging. That in turn is capped from above by how much a would be landlord would pay to buy a unit and start renting it out. If that price goes up, then landlords can charge more.

There is also a maximum amount that people can pay, but they have little choice but to pay whatever the market is charging, or else live on the street.

Renters are already paying the maximum they can. No landlord would let that juicy money go unmolested.

If landlords prefer to let their investments sit empty instead of selling, because their profits from renting aren't enough, then that is a foolish decision. But you shouldn't annihilate a whole nation because of such folly.

If the problem is outside investment in the housing market is causing issues, why not just just address the issue?

Pass a law either limiting or banning outside real estate speculation.

Even worse, now the digital nomad phenomenon is increasing rents - ~19% of the demand in the rent market in Madrid in 2023 is from foreigners. As a result, the locals learned the phrase 'digital nomad' and they are now fighting back.

https://madridnofrills.com/gentrification/

Why is this downvoted?

People dont like to be the gentrifier. In digital nomad forums or 'investment' forums the reaction to any news about gentrification is the same - downvoting, denial, blaming someone else. Most blame the locals for letting it happen. Some more educated try to blame 'the corrupt politicians' (whatever the f that means, they plug it everywhere as if its applicable), others blame the 'real estate sellers'. They want to blame anybody but the ones who are doing the actual gentrifying, themselves. This is especially prominent among those from Angloamerican countries where being rich amongst the poverty is something admirable and respectable and you should definitely not hate them and the poor should keep their voice down. Or some variant of that mentality. They are dumbfounded when they find locals openly cursing them and calling them derogatory names and publicly doing politics against them. There's so much cultural difference.

That website is pretty good, by the way. I was not aware of the extent of the problem.

Yes, reading it made me realize that it was far worse than what I thought too.

I read through your other comments and don't exactly agree with many of your points, which appear to be pro-squatting? But you certainly seem to have a good handle on the problems. Is there a way we can connect outside of HN? Not really sure how to PM somebody here or if it's even possible.

> which appear to be pro-squatting?

As the constitutional right to housing is being basically circumvented through just not protecting that right, yeah, squatting seems to be the best way to protect that right.

I have a good handle of problems regarding this, and a lot of other things, however I unfortunately don't have the time to take action on any of them. So, sorry, I wouldn't be able to get in contact or do anything else.

Currently there is a hard limit on how many properties per year can be built due to lack of construction workers + training positions for new workers + being sure of work in the next decade(s) due to economic cycles.

Since the factor limiting supply is not cost or demand, prices keep ever-increasing with no gains for society; just filling the coffers of the haves.

You should really watch out with insults of economic illiteracy :)

I stand by my characterization, this comment is symptomatic of the same problem. That a country with high unemployment has the nr of workers in the construction sector as the major limitation in construction of new housing seems very implausible. What about zoning laws? To the extent a country with high unemployment can’t find enough construction workers it’s likely to be some kind of government/regulatory failure. Read Matthew Yglesias, he’s great

> That a country with high unemployment has the nr of workers in the construction sector as the major limitation in construction of new housing seems very implausible

The rest of the world is not the US, and people don't have to work for dimes in jobs that can go away the next day just because they would starve or cant afford healthcare if they don't. As a result, people prefer stable jobs. If that sounds implausible to you, it is a sign of how perverted the mentality of your society has become that you expect people to be like disposable lemmings that will pour out to whatever pays them some money.

> What about zoning laws? To the extent a country with high unemployment can’t find enough construction workers it’s likely to be some kind of government/regulatory failure. Read Matthew Yglesias, he’s great

You don't know anything about the country that you speak about. You are referring to an American who has his ideas existing only in various books. Dont make holistic statements without knowing enough about what you are talking about. In this case, an entirely different country and society.

High unemployment?

Boomers retiring will create a permanent labor shortage for the foreseeable future. People just don’t want to be construction workers, and who can blame them? Especially with how construction workers got screwed over after 2008. That nuked the construction sector so hard that employement in construction has just barely recovered to 2008 levels.

It would be beautiful if housing was the pure demand-supply curve that many claim it is- but currently it isn’t. Letting the market solve the housing problem doesn’t create additional future housing as that is blocked by house construction output, all it does is allow maximizing profit on existing real estate.

With the extreme anger and complete societal gridlock that the first world housing crisis is fomenting, if the fix was “just unregulate lol” politicians would have done that by now.

Spains unemployment is 12%. That is among the highest for developed countries.

> Speaking as a Dane, this kind kind of economically illiterate leftist lawlessness is an important reason why Spain is poorer both poorer and has a worse welfare state than Denmark.

If only Spain could profit from helping murder brown people in 3rd world countries overseas and by speculating on banking, then forcing the bailout of those sunken PRIVATE banks on other countries and then forcing them to privatize their national assets to buy those assets dirt cheap - like how Northern Europe did to Southern Europe, including Spain. Forcing the Spanish taxpayer to bail out sunken private Northern European banks and then forcing austerity on them to have them privatize their society. The biggest bank scam of the century in every way.

And yet, all of you Northern Europeans seem to want to move south to that 'economically illiterate' society and its 'failing' welfare state for some reason. To the extent that you literally filled out some cities and zones. What you say and what you do contradict.

> illiterate

You don't know even the topic that you are talking about, yet you are talking about economic illiteracy. And the one thing that you have that you refer to, is an American author and its book. As if a random American author is the all-determining authority for anything.

> you're also making it more risky and thus less profitable to buy and rent out apartments

Okupas force the property owners to rent their properties to avoid losing them. It increases property available for rent - does not decrease it. Again, you don't know what you are talking about, and no, Matthew Yglesias, the glorious American author that you slapped everywhere in this thread as if he was a prophet, is not a reference that changes this particular phenomenon either.

This is what happens where 'economically illiterate leftist lawlessness' doesn't exist.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/homes-for-sale-affordable-housi...

>> If only Spain could profit from helping murder brown people in 3rd world countries overseas

You mean like when Spain colonized Americas?

If only. Spain declared all Native Americans Spanish subjects with equal rights in 1519. Then they proceeded to hang in public any governor who violated those rights. That's why there are 7 million 'pure blooded' (whatever that means) Native Americans in South America today and there are races like Mexican.

What's more, Spain treated the 'colonies' as parts of Spain and it spent all its money developing them. From the first university in the Americas to all kinds of hospitals, schools, infrastructure was built by the Spanish state with Spanish money. Thats why Spain lost the imperial race: Building up the locals instead of exploiting them - leaving aside not murdering them all to replace them like the Anglosaxons did.

I see and the tons of gold they brought back to Spain was given freely by the natives, starting with Hernán Cortés (conquered Aztecs)?

Part of it was, most of it wasn't. And its really not relevant: Tons of gold and economic value that was extracted from the local Spaniards, local French, local English, local Germanics weren't given to their feudal lords voluntarily either. It was the political setup of its time. As a result, proposing something like this based on the standards of today sounds at best hypocrisy, at worst, dumb.

The native Americans became Spanish subjects in 1519. With all the good things and the bad things that being the subject of an average European feudal kingdom brought along with it.

Nobody declared them 'non-human' and started eradicating them like the English did. That's what you should be being cynical and sarcastic about.

100%. We have the stupidest housing laws. "economically illiterate leftist lawlessness" is the exact way to put this, and I myself usually tend towards the left.

Not everyone who gets this problem sues the okupas, since as it says this is a many-year complex legal process. I personally know multiple people who have had this problem, which suggest that it is probably MORE widespread than the data shows.

In the end there are two other big ways of dealing with it: paying the okupas to leave, or paying desokupados to get them out, where both of those ways would not be registered in those statistics.

But again, you talk about usurpation or trespassing? And even in that case, the data is the data: the rest is speculation.

The data you have is the data you have but not necessarily the ground truth. See, for example, San Francisco shoplifting statistics.

I agree that it may not be 100% accurate, but probably correlated with the truth and directionally accurate. If you discard it, what do you have? Anecdotes? The media narratives?

If data is not representative it's just a metric. Its worse than anecdotes because an anecdote has a lot of information and nuance that can be obtained from it.

But you'd need other data to prove (or at least strongly suggest) that the data isn't representative.

You can't just say "the data COULD be unrepresentative", then just use some random guys anecdotes on the internet as more valid than national statistics.

The cases I know of are usurpation, not trespassing.

Oh sure, I'm not saying the number of lawsuits are wrong, I'm saying something different:

• The lawsuits, by their nature, represent a lower bound of the number of okupations, since one would assume that there's many cases where there's an okupa but the owner doesn't go the legal way. One can hardly assume the opposite since that's a lost lawsuit for sure. So the number of lawsuits is the lower bound for the number of okupas, and NOT a representation. I do not know nor claim to know where the upper bound or actual number of okupas is, but equating lawsuits with occurences is a weak correlation at best.

• There's clearly a big one-sided abuse of the system, which affects both homeowners AND honest renters.

• I'd also agree to add punitive measures to banks or companies that hoard a large number of houses for especulation. This is slightly difficult to arrange legally without also punishing someone who buys a second house, but I'm sure possible and I believe both sides of the aisle would benefit from some regulation like this.

> However, there is a huge propaganda campaign here in Spain, where TV shows talk constantly about trespassing, and one can only imagine what they get from that (swaying votes to conservative political groups, selling alarms, less rights to people that live on rented apartments...)

Same in the US, it's all fascist discourse shaping in preparation for things getting much worse.

> However, there is a huge propaganda campaign here in Spain, where TV shows talk constantly about trespassing

Yes, the right-wing channels have been screaming about it for 1-2 years now. Interestingly, their tirade started about the time the US investment funds started entering the Spanish 'real estate market' and buying up entire neighborhoods.

https://www.iberian.property/news/residential/blackrock-busc....

> usurpation (the house is yours but is not where you live)

I wonder if you can register that house as the address of a non-profit corporation, and since the corporation always lives there, the okupas become trespassers.