Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A house that costs $20k

fastcoexist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 212 posts

Re: A house that costs $20k

#121

Post by jensen123 »

NoGravitas wrote: post #108
jensen123 wrote: post #58

I think it's really impressive that they were able to build a house like that for only 20K. The article mentions zoning laws and size requirements, which I found odd. Do many places not allow houses below a certain size to be built?

It's extremely common in the US.

Huh, that doesn't make any sense to me. Smaller houses would make cities more walkable/livable and thus be better for people's health and the environment.

Do people want those kinds of laws in order to protect their "investment"? I mean, I guess maybe your house will be worth more if all the other houses nearby are large and thus expensive?

Of course, now in the digital age, I guess such laws seem sillier than they did earlier. You no longer need a huge amount of books, music records, train set, pinball machines, billiard table etc., since you can fit all those things in a small computer.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#122

Post by sageabilly »

jonstewart wrote: post #115

The article doesn't mention this explicitly, but it sure seems as though this tiny house project is geared towards Appalachia and the rural South. Appalachia is generally the mountainous parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina (maybe some parts of Ohio, too). It has its own culture and dialect. It is also the poorest region of the United States; Appalachia is a huge com…

My first thought when reading the article and seeing the pictures is that there's no way this design (as depicted) would work in Appalachia without enclosing and insulating around the bottom of the house. Otherwise, your pipes would freeze and the house would be way, way too cold during the winter. I was also disappointed that the article didn't go into the R-value of the house itself as that's going to be extremely important with regards to where the home could be built. I'm assuming it's probably pretty good, given that it's new construction materials, but I would not want to weather out an Appalachian winter in one unless it had been properly designed to withstand a harsh winter.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#123

Post by hammock »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #20
Ao7bei3s wrote: post #7

> How do you design a home that someone living below the poverty line can afford Why not rent a flat instead? Wouldn't that be much more economical (no property prices, lower heating costs, less maintenance work, less risk, not built on the cheap)? I don't understand the fixation on owning a house / living in a single-family house many americans seem to have.

Rent does not build wealth. Rent is the act of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. Rent is, essentially, theft from society itself, it leaves everyone poorer when most people rent. Rent in America today is identical to the serfs of old. The post-WW2 thing the Government did with getting everyone mortgages so they would be home owners that caused the eventual economic collapse 10 years ago? They had the rig…

>Rent in America today is identical to the serfs of old. Instead ... make everyone fiscally responsible so that getting a mortgage wouldn't be hard for them in the first place.

Replace rent with debt is your solution? Mortgages (banks) are the new feudal lords

Re: A house that costs $20k

#124

Post by reboog711 »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #89
marincounty wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They left out current building codes. I have a general contractor's licence. To build anything involves so many rules/codes it's rediculious. Every year the building department in your town/city usually includes the latest codes, and prohibits so many things. It all sounds great until you are paying someone to build something. The various building code manuals take up at least two feet of space on my shelf. Where I l…

You really have to wonder how necessary some of these codes are. Houses already last 60 or 70 years, which is plenty, by the time they're at a point where they need rebuilding they're hopelessly outdated. I was helping my father with building a house over Christmas, some of the regulations are ridiculous, we had to build a massive retaining wall with 200 mm posts going 1.5 m down, just because the earth it was retain…

My current residence was built in 1890 and I would not consider it 'hopelessly outdated' or in need of rebuilding.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#125

Post by JoeAltmaier »

hammock wrote: post #123
DiabloD3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent does not build wealth. Rent is the act of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. Rent is, essentially, theft from society itself, it leaves everyone poorer when most people rent. Rent in America today is identical to the serfs of old. The post-WW2 thing the Government did with getting everyone mortgages so they would be home owners that caused the eventual economic collapse 10 years ago? They had the rig…

>Rent in America today is identical to the serfs of old. Instead ... make everyone fiscally responsible so that getting a mortgage wouldn't be hard for them in the first place. Replace rent with debt is your solution? Mortgages (banks) are the new feudal lords

I dunno - I paid off my mortgage. Now I'm not beholden to anybody.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#126

Post by ap3 »

shoover wrote: post #116
okc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, I think we have a similar view. My objection if any, is based on the idea of a risk based portfolio. But it seems you actually mean more generally: savings. All these issues are of course very local. Being English I probably have a very different perspective on what the issues are regarding the affordability of houses, let alone what our specific views are. Primarily I see housing as a necessity rather t…

I hadn't thought about first time home ownership in terms of access to the market like that. Possibly related (among other factors) in 2008 the US tax code gave $8000 tax credits to first time homebuyers. It was enough for me to jump from renting a little earlier, because I knew that money would be there to fund repairs and start chipping away at the mortgage principal. Of course this assumes prices are in reach and…

You do understand that the $8000 tax credit just made houses more expensive right ?

Re: A house that costs $20k

#127

Post by sageikosa »

All other things aside, the cost of buying a home in densely populated region with situational amenities such as subsidized schools, hospitals, fire stations, zoned shopping districts, reliable power, water, sewer and communication network access is also largely about the real estate market in the area.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#128

Post by makomk »

forgetsusername wrote: post #99
makomk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a functioning market rents bring in just a tiny bit more than the monthly mortgage payment, including taxes and fees. Which means rent is still transferring money from the poor to the rich. If you have a mortgage, you're hopefully building up equity that can be released when you retire to somewhere smaller or in a cheaper location (which you can do, since you don't need to live near jobs and any kids will have m…

> f you have a mortgage, you're hopefully building up equity that can be released when you retire to somewhere smaller or in a cheaper location In other words, you're relying on the "Greater Fool Theory" of perpetually increasing house prices. There is nothing special about real estate as an asset class.

This is true even without perpetually increasing house prices, so long as you're paying off the principal of the loan and not just the interest.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#129

Post by shoover »

ap3 wrote: post #126
shoover wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't thought about first time home ownership in terms of access to the market like that. Possibly related (among other factors) in 2008 the US tax code gave $8000 tax credits to first time homebuyers. It was enough for me to jump from renting a little earlier, because I knew that money would be there to fund repairs and start chipping away at the mortgage principal. Of course this assumes prices are in reach and…

You do understand that the $8000 tax credit just made houses more expensive right ?

My parenthetical was admitting I don't know what other complexities were involved with the tax credit, but to the grandparent's point it was closed to landlords and perhaps lowered rents as some like me bought houses instead.

Re: A house that costs $20k

#130

Post by vinceguidry »

forgetsusername wrote: post #99
makomk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a functioning market rents bring in just a tiny bit more than the monthly mortgage payment, including taxes and fees. Which means rent is still transferring money from the poor to the rich. If you have a mortgage, you're hopefully building up equity that can be released when you retire to somewhere smaller or in a cheaper location (which you can do, since you don't need to live near jobs and any kids will have m…

> f you have a mortgage, you're hopefully building up equity that can be released when you retire to somewhere smaller or in a cheaper location In other words, you're relying on the "Greater Fool Theory" of perpetually increasing house prices. There is nothing special about real estate as an asset class.

Err, no. Building up equity is not the same as appreciation. It's basically a savings plan. This assumes that the property values remain sane and rational, not that they will constantly grow.

If the house appreciates then you get that money at sale no matter how long you've paid into it or how much equity you have.

Post reply on HN