Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Bezos backed company has over $100M in homes despite US housing shortage (yahoo.com)
29 points by pers0n 10 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 18 comments



Shortly before home prices began to surge in 2021, Amazon.com Inc. Founder Jeff Bezos made a bet on a Seattle-based startup that had a mission to make real estate investments more accessible to retail investors. That year, Arrived Homes became the first company to legally sell shares of individual rental properties to nonaccredited investors.

Bezos's investment in the real estate company's seed round appears to have been well-timed since skyrocketing home prices followed by rising mortgage rates have helped send the homeownership rate in the U.S. to its lowest level since 1970.

The billionaire tech entrepreneur is betting on the U.S. becoming a nation of renters.


> The billionaire tech entrepreneur is betting on the U.S. becoming a nation of renters.

So like some parts of Europe?


>So like some parts of Europe?

and here we go again...

"Do you have any specific parts in mind?"


Belgium. Lived there for almost eight years. They have the highest percentage of royalty that live there than any other country in the world -- very little of them are actually Belgian royalty. They have an effective tax rate of 90% through sales and income taxes, but no property taxes on rental properties. So, they also have the highest percentage of millionaires and billionaires who "live" there than anywhere else in the world. And that extreme concentration of royalty plus the wealthy means they own basically all the properties in the country, and it's extremely difficult for anyone to actually buy a house there, even if they are a Belgian native or an EU citizen.

Also, if you're ever having any kind of work done at your place, the first question is "do you need a receipt?" Which is short for "is your employer paying for this, or can we do a cash-only transaction that would be much cheaper for you?"

And everyone has at least one or two tax-free side hustles. Some of them are even legal.

Don't get me wrong, my wife and I loved living and working there. Some of the best times of our lives. But we also have to be honest about what we saw.

But maybe that was just Brussels?


Parts of Germany, for instance.


275 homes is nothing, $100M for Bezos is nothing. Are there any billionaires who don't own $100M worth of real estate?


And the gap is 6.5M homes.


"Despite housing shortage?" What do these things have to do with each other?


Modern media is all about making the dumb layman pattern match into outrage. See: All the PPP talk in response to the student loan debt ruling.


I have zero money on the line for either. Please defend PPP loan forgiveness vs student loan forgiveness. I'd love to hear your take.


I'll do it.

The PPP "loans" were always intended to be forgiven if used for employee paychecks (or some other more limited uses) - from day 1. I know because I thought about applying but decided not to because I didn't think I could get both that and unemployment.

That money was given to businesses, and then their employees, because the government essentially forced those businesses to close for a time. Their employees could have been fired and then given unemployment, but the program was put into place to prevent that from happening.

The reason it was called a loan is because if you didn't use the money in the way prescribed then it was in fact a loan and would need to be paid back.

So, unless you (generically, not you specifically) were forced to go to school by the government and your loans were always intended to be forgiven the comparison is absolutely ridiculous.


It has nothing to do with loan forgiveness, and everything to do with the language of the law. The law that created the PPP program explicitly allowed for the loans to be cancelled. The laws that created the various student loan programs allow them to be "modified", but do not explicitly mention cancellation. The Supreme Court ruled that cancelling a loan is not the same as modifying it. Changing the interest rate or payment terms would be a modification, for example.

Since Congress did not delegate permission to cancel the loans to the Executive branch, it remains Congress's job to cancel them if they want to.


Unless they are taking them off the market and not renting them, how would this change the amount of available housing?


There are two housing markets. There's the market of people looking for a place to live, and then there's the market of people looking to buy a house. Those aren't quite the same market. This leaves houses in the first market, but takes them out of the second.


But the number of people housed works out to about the same (potentially more as immigrants are more likely to rent and they have larger families). People still live there, no matter who owns it.


True, and yet utterly irrelevant. There are tons of houses not available for sale - who cares? What matters is people have a place to live.

Not to mention we're talking about a grand total of 275 houses here.


You’re either not in the market for a house or you’re extremely not picky.


At some point there were 275 people on facebook




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: