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

The Rise of Renting in the U.S

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 380 posts

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#171

Post by rhino369 »

300bps wrote: post #107
dragonwriter wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been a populist rebellion over interest rates. Low interest rates are in immediate terms good for net debtors and bad for net creditors. In broad strokes, this makes them good for the poor and bad for the rich (they are usually responses to conditions for which the reverse is true -- or, at least, which are more bad for the poor than the rich, but I'm just considering the in…

Low interest rates are great for the rich. Wealthy people in general know how to effectively utilize capital to make more money and if that capital is cheaper then all the better for them. I mean cost of capital is one of the chief components of calculating the net present value of a prospective project so the lower the interest rate the more profitable various projects are.

And other rich people are the one's loaning their money out for practically nothing. It's good for active investors (which is why it's done), but it's bad for less risky investments (bonds and other loans).

And those investments carry greater risk, which is a big downside. If, for example, the unicorn bubble is real, all that cheap capital was a curse, not a benefit.

For the last 8 years, it's been impossible to save money without big risk. Interest rates have been below inflation.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#172

Post by [deleted] »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #95
seivan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it work with having a companion. It might be easier to find someone with the same outlook. But if you're already in a relationship it's going to be an uphill battle.

I might be able to answer that. My wife and I are early 30s. I spent my 20s in the rat race, working 60-80 hour weeks for material possesions (nice vehicle, luxury townhouse, etc). At some point, I got tired of it and said, "Can we try something different?" I switched to a fully remote job. We disposed of the townhouse (no equity in it). We downsized our lives (1 car! I ride a bicycle everywhere! You would not imagin…

[deleted]

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#173

Post by Kluny »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #129
Animats wrote: post #117

Cheerleading for higher house prices used to be widespread, and was a big part of the problem. It's inflation, people. It's still the same house, for more money. The median house historically costs about 2.2x the median income. That number hit 4x nationally in 2007, and 10x in California. It's not that high this time, but it's still very high by historical standards.[1] San Francisco hit 10.5x in 2007, and now it's a…

You are dead right about small cities. There are like 3 landlords aside of the (big) colleges where I live, and rent is a nightmare. It doesn't help that one very infamous landlord prefers to leave storefronts in vital communities vacant instead of lower the rates, just because he still makes money by leveraging his properties for his investments in China.

Sounds like Vancouver, or maybe Victoria. I wish they would tax the everliving fuck out of vacant storefronts. Whatever price the owner intends to rent for, they have to pay that amount to the city every single month the place is vacant, with strict enforcement and publishing the rent prices so that they can't jack it up once someone moves in. And let the tax money go to homeless shelters for all the people who are out in the cold because of vampires jacking up rental prices til they're too high for anyone to afford.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#174

Post by dragonwriter »

d4rkph1b3r wrote: post #133

> In broad strokes, this makes them good for the poor and bad for the rich The stupidity in this comment hurts my soul. Let me ask you this, out of the poor and the rich, which one is more heavily leveraged into assets (using debt).

> Let me ask you this, out of the poor and the rich, which one is more heavily leveraged into assets (using debt).

The question is irrelevant; the wealthy may be more likely to be "leveraged into assets" (though, depending on the measure "heavy" relative to, I think you'll find that working and middle class homeowners often win this), but the poor are more likely to be net debtors (including, on both sides, in the credit offset against debt credit held indirectly through holding ownership interests stakes in net-credit-holding enterprises.)

Since low interest rates reduce costs for net debtors and decrease returns to net creditors...

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#176

Post by JackFr »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #98
steve-howard wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd need to address the powerful incentive to create fake reviews.

While true, I think the bigger issue is that no landlord would, in their right mind, agree to be represented on a website that is almost certainly going to contain nothing but negative reviews. If one stops to ponder what would make an individual want to rate their landlord on a "RateMyLandlord" kind of site, then the answer is pretty simple: hatred. The biggest reason for people to write such a review is to complain…

Are you a broker? Because I suspect your knowledge of the rental market might be incomplete.

> Usually, the complaints people write stem from issues related to their inability / lack of desire to pay their rent on time.

That doesn't make much (any) sense to me. People complain about their landlords because they can't pay their rent?

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#177

Post by charlesdm »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #134
cylinder wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you got a remote job, so you did a little locational arbitrage. Most people leave the small towns because of lack of opportunity. The cost of living is low because incomes are low. Can someone come up with a model that's sustainable and applicable to the majority of people?

My remote job pays the same I'd make locally in my tech niche. The benefit comes from no longer having to own a car for myself to commute, gas, insurance on that car, etc. It freed up the $20K in equity I had in the vehicle, and saves me $5-8K/year in commute costs. If I lived in SF, I would pay at least $2-3K/month for rent alone (that's $24K-$36K/year after tax money you're just burning up). Yet, you can spend unde…

+ invest your savings, so they can start compounding and make you more money

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#178

Post by jkyle »

derekp7 wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #6

I don't think I'd have any interest in every buying a house if it weren't for the insane tax deductions for mortgage interest. Why be stuck in one house when your living situation changes over time (new kids, kids get bigger, kids move away, job changes).

That tax deduction does get smaller every year (as the interest/principal balance changes). The biggest issue I found with owning is that the equity doesn't build up fast enough at the beginning (with a 30-year mortgage), so if you sell after 10 years the costs pile up to the point that you have almost no net proceeds (5% commission, survey/title/transfer tax/inspections, plus prorated property taxes). A 200K propert…

To pay off a town house in my area in 10 years, you'd have to carry a $10,000 monthly note.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#179

Post by sbochins »

awakeasleep wrote: post #154
kazinator wrote: post #110

This article is full of "no kidding" like, oh: > In fact, metros with greater shares of renters have higher wages, higher productivity (measured as economic output per capita), and greater concentrations of high-tech firms, according to Mellander’s basic correlation analysis. People are attracted to where the jobs are, and so everything gets bought up and inflated, and the late comers have to rent. In related news, y…

Property taxes should basically kill the dream of "and don't pay a fucking thing to anyone" for anyone that lives in the US. Especially city dwellers. I was surprised to see tax for properties I could technically afford cost more per year than I had been paying in rent.

Homeowners also get a lot of deductions too. In general you end up paying more owning vs renting, but you want to make a good investment when purchasing a home. So, in the end you typically end up ahead when owning, unless you didn't make a wise investment.

Re: The Rise of Renting in the U.S

#180

Post by billions »

rhapsodic wrote: post #121
Animats wrote: post #117

Cheerleading for higher house prices used to be widespread, and was a big part of the problem. It's inflation, people. It's still the same house, for more money. The median house historically costs about 2.2x the median income. That number hit 4x nationally in 2007, and 10x in California. It's not that high this time, but it's still very high by historical standards.[1] San Francisco hit 10.5x in 2007, and now it's a…

> It may be time to look at applying antitrust laws to rental real estate. Or better yet, look at repealing or modifying the laws that keep the supply of housing from rising along with the demand.

This is the better solution. California charges $160,000 in taxes per home before it's built. Not to mention extremely restrictive zoning laws.
Post reply on HN