I don't assume that what they say is true; in fact, I think that they're wrong. It was an example of even the people in whose interests it is to deny that warehousing happens, not denying that it happens.
As for the difference between renting and selling, luxury and non-luxury, apparently "supply is supply", so it doesn't matter in the aggregate. The details kind of don't matter, because at market scale, some factor should make "move it or lose it" on empty units the norm. Homes are to live in; if you're not filling them with people who are living in them, something has failed, socioeconomically. It used to be a matter of taking a lower profit in the interests of community stability and vibrancy (which a local landlord or seller would want; many aren't local), but now that everything is hyper-efficient, perhaps the cost of holding unproductive property isn't high enough.
>I don't assume that what they say is true; in fact, I think that they're wrong. It was an example of even the people in whose interests it is to deny that warehousing happens, not denying that it happens.
They're saying that happens, but only in a very specific case that doesn't apply to the claim that you're making. Claiming that developers/owners are "warehousing" units, because owners don't rent out their units for less than it costs to them, is a non-sequitur.
There was a point when they claimed it wasn't happening at all (as you are). When that became untenable, they switched to, "It's good, actually." We are at the "Big Tobacco funding medical studies" step of the process.
We are also at the point where I question what your interests are in prolonging this conversation. Mine are that I'm a renter whose finances have been damaged by the uncontrolled increases in rent caused by unscrupulous property owners, and a Millennial who can't escape to home ownership because of the inflation of the prices of properties for sale. Being clear about why I've been forced into this position is important to me. And you?
As for the difference between renting and selling, luxury and non-luxury, apparently "supply is supply", so it doesn't matter in the aggregate. The details kind of don't matter, because at market scale, some factor should make "move it or lose it" on empty units the norm. Homes are to live in; if you're not filling them with people who are living in them, something has failed, socioeconomically. It used to be a matter of taking a lower profit in the interests of community stability and vibrancy (which a local landlord or seller would want; many aren't local), but now that everything is hyper-efficient, perhaps the cost of holding unproductive property isn't high enough.