And when at meet-ups people actually tell me that investors will pay whatever for an ai wrapper demo (I saw a few last month that were not even that; just faked) and a few $ charts.
For example I'd like to have someone explain me how housing can be both a good investment for rich people and a commodity people can afford — the way I see it these are fundamentally incompatible goals. One is about making housing prices go up, so your one investment gives you more profit, the other is about building enough to keep the prices stable (or even going down).
This made houses expensive for the ones who wanted to buy a house to live in.
The main profit should instead only come from the actual building of the house, by a construction company, and selling it the first time to someone who wants to live there. This is where value add comes from.
Higher interest rates fixes this.
Yet prices keep going up and up and up and up.
Just slap a massive fine (I mean tax of course but that is just semantics) on any profits from a second or higher house. And dont start with the "you can't change the rules of the game in play"; sure you can, you just dont like it.
The thing is that the interest rates need to stay higher for a long time (many years). Many home owners and speculators have fixed interests on their loans. It is not until they have to be renewed that they feel the effect of the higher interest rates. So unfortunately it will take time.
That being said, things like your solutions should always come with thorough check by a red team. E.g. what about the rich guy just forming a new company per property to evade that tax? So maybe it is smarter to bind that to an actual owner person. How will the shape of houses change if their count gets important (that could be how we get these cyberpunk-megabuildings)? Maybe it should be about rental units instead (or some other clever definition)?
Sometimes I wonder if the best solution wouldn't be to prevent companies from owning housing alltogether..
Higher rates will reduce the profit the land owner can take, but they also increase the costs to the builder who has to pay the bank more to borrow to build (before repaying after selling).
It doesn’t affect the affordability for the purchaser which is set as a given percentage of their monthly income.
Is it purely private money? I've noticed a lot of nonsense European start-ups are basically consulting gigs with a public grant writer.
Today, about 100K GBP or EUR are still "senior" SWE salaries at a lot of non-FANG tech companies around UK and Europe.
In that time, the currencies have also cratered against the USD.
The question is, which is it? Do engineers generate so much value that they should earn hundreds of thousands or are US engineers overpaid.
Given that most the FANGs generate over 1.5M per employee I'm inclined towards the former. Europe/UK is just poor. Our markets are smaller, our dreams are smaller and we settle for lower salaries while around us everything else gets more expensive, land healthcare education and energy.