The moral preaching is out of place. When you own a home and are selling it, you go for the highest bidder. The idea that anybody at all would give a politically motivated discount is naive.
The more important point is that in a supply-constrained situation, there isn't really going to be a "buy the dip" moment. Most home owners that are under water are under no pressure to sell, yet buyers are on the clock.
> The moral preaching is out of place. When you own a home and are selling it, you go for the highest bidder.
You may not recognize it as such, but the idea that you always sell to the highest bidder is an expression of a very specific sort of "morality", one that excludes a more wholistic conception of what property ownership means for society as a whole, as well as the individuals who make it up.
I understand that "the market sets the price" is a widely accepted dogma after 30-40 years of neoliberal messaging in every part of the US, UK and significant chunks of the rest of the world, but it's not actually natural law (to the extent that more or less nothign is natural law).
I totally get what you're saying, but in particular I protest against moral hypocrisy.
The very people complaining about being locked out of the housing market, being a victim of market conditions, would instantly forget about any and all morality as soon as they do secure a house. They'd absolutely not sell their house at a discount.
When they preach "accessible housing", they mean accessible to them. When their houses appreciate in price just for the sake of owning it, I would know of nobody saying: I didn't deserve this, I'm going to wire this money to charity or back to the government.
There is no morality in markets. Whilst as owner you may benefit, in times that you do not (economic crisis, expensive repairs, personal problems like divorce or disability)...absolutely nobody comes to your rescue.
I don’t think this is quite fair. Just because someone recognizes a major systemic problem such as spiraling housing prices doesn’t obligate them to unilaterally decline their personal gains on a moral basis, especially because that will achieve nothing in terms of rectifying the situation.
Now if they oppose broader reform that could actually have positive effects, that’s a more appropriate and nuanced question.
I remember in Seattle in the mid-90s just as the housing market there was starting to take off hearing a radio talk show where someone was complaining about Californians coming to WA and "ruining things" by bidding up housing costs. The host pointed out that it takes two to tango, and that the sellers were just as implicated in the process as the buyers. The caller got very flustered and then said "well, yeah, but it would be un-American to accept anything except the highest price".
Since the moment humans traded commercially, getting the highest price for anything has been the norm. So I wouldn't call it an American thing and also not a neoliberal thing. It's basic commerce.
> getting the highest price for anything has been the norm
This is not true. For example, the Romans used to use a cost-plus pricing scheme, and were apparently alarmed/surprised by the negotiations that they saw in Arab markets.
For someone selling what is likely by far the most expensive thing they own, they're pretty likely to take the highest price offer (or a near highest price iff that under-bidder is significantly more certain to close [waiving contingencies, etc.])
it is not really moral preaching, nor it is a statement on the buyers. I it is a condemnation of the system we have created (largely due to government regulations)
I dont blame a seller for trying to sell at maximum price they can get, I am blaming the system we have created to puts monthly payments, and long term debt as the focus of purchase instead of the cost of the thing being sold.
Cars are the same way, we know how Pickup Trucks that cost $100,000 why because financing as allowed them to cost that because the banks will loan now almost 10 years to finance a new truck
College is the same way. Debt financing allows the prices to raise at rate far removed from inflation, with out that sellers would need to find way to cut costs and offer their goods are more affordable prices.
My Problem is with our current system of Life Long Debt.
The more important point is that in a supply-constrained situation, there isn't really going to be a "buy the dip" moment. Most home owners that are under water are under no pressure to sell, yet buyers are on the clock.