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

How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

nation.maps.arcgis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 350 posts

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#141

Post by zaroth »

danans wrote: post #139
zaroth wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, my takeaway was that the vast majority of the US has incredibly affordable housing. But I suppose if your call center employees simply must be living in downtown S.F. the answer must be that we just need lax zoning and higher density!

> But I suppose if your call center employees simply must be living in downtown S.F. the answer must be that we just need lax zoning and higher density! The call center employees living en masse in SF is a very far fetched claim that requires strong evidence here, along with the implication that they are what necessitates higher density. This framing is insensitive to both call center workers who likely could never a…

Hmm... I never said anything about "en masse". It was a reference to the Yelp/Eat24 call center employee controversy from last year. [1] In cases like these, I think it's very reasonable to question why those kinds of jobs should be the ones increasing demand in SF and, therefore, driving up prices for everyone else.

If you think my framing is insensitive to call center employees, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was condescending to the call center employers who are causing undue financial stress on their employees by making S.F. relo a job requirement for what should be a satellite office, if not remote work, position.

My point is also that people who struggle to afford the high cost of living in the "Real Bay Area" [2] -- of which I was one -- should perhaps consider, I don't know, moving -- which I did.

The idea that SF should be redesigned and reconstructed until such time as supply is so plentiful as to bring down prices an order of magnitude, to me that's the offensive bit. I think the property owners of SF are well within their rights to tell people who want to build affordable housing towers to get lost.

[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/02/23...

[2] - See: http://www.burbed.com

P.S. If this comes off as a little combative, I apologize, my dad is in a house on the canal in Cape Coral, FL right now and refusing to evacuate.

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#142

Post by CM30 »

pcsanwald wrote: post #104
ianai wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this highlights how expensive living is and how little income is. If we're going to have a "free economy" without an end of life safety net (i.e. Social security) then it has to be possible to work a lifetime and retire on savings made. But most indicators show little to no saving for most people. It sure seems something is deeply wrong.

Most people I know that don't have white collar jobs don't have any expectation they will ever be able to retire. I'd be very surprised if the majority of americans were in a position to be able to retire.

A lot of people with white collar jobs don't have any expectation they'll ever be able to retire either. As much focus as there is on web development/software engineering/other tech related jobs with decent income possibilities, a lot of other white collar jobs don't pay all that well at all.

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#143

Post by psyc »

danans wrote: post #136
20after4 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I do: Land a Silicon Valley tech job but work remotely from the Midwest. I make almost double the median income for my area and I live in the white zone. My employer can pay me 60-70% of the salary they would pay for someone in San Francisco to do my job and I still earn way above median for my area. I could buy a really decent home here (Southern Missouri) for somewhere between 0.5 to 1.5 times my yearly salary…

> I live in the white zone What is the white zone?

It's the areas on the map in the article where prices are average.

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#144

Post by Retric »

PoachedSausage wrote: post #140
pcsanwald wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I know that don't have white collar jobs don't have any expectation they will ever be able to retire. I'd be very surprised if the majority of americans were in a position to be able to retire.

I'm in my thirties and work for a government funded research organisation doing work on a particle accelerator. I don't expect or want to retire, but then 'retirement' means different things. I would definitely want to retire if I worked as a brick layer. Pensions are a Ponzi scheme, don't fall for it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41204209

No, the math is very different from a Ponzi scheme. Pensions are awesome if you don't have kids.

Consider if you have a 5% chance to die at or before 65 who get's the money? Well what if you could get together with 10,000 people and split it with those who live. Now your investments are boosted by those who die and there is no downside as who cares what happens after you die.

Unfortunately, such schemes are illegal unless it's though a company. Because really the long tail is living to 120 which means you don't want to aim to be broke at say 95 then turn 95 and be in good health.

PS: Remember, returns after inflation can be <3% over 20 years. I want a hedge for that risk other than just having a massive amount of money I can't really spend.

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#145

Post by [deleted] »

cableshaft wrote: post #72
sliverstorm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like you avoid these expenses by renting. They're just rolled into your rent. You get to avoid thinking about them, of course. Although there is an economies-of-scale advantage to maintenance on multi-family dwellings.

Yeah, it's basically like insurance. You're not hit with a sudden $10k+ bill, you just have a rent that has ~$100 a month factored in for maintenance costs.

[deleted]

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#146

Post by GFischer »

shados wrote: post #56
rconti wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And of course the NYTimes calculator also factors in home prices appreciation. This is not really academic; it's fairly important. In cheaper housing markets with limited growth, it might be cheaper to rent because the expected cost of a major repair (and return on that investment) are both so low. Of course, you can't ever recognize the value of your house unless you sell it and move somewhere cheaper (or buy a 2nd…

Reverse mortgages are an option too, especially around retirement. I didn't do too much research and I'm sure on paper it's a scam, but with no kids and no one to really give the house to beyond charity when my wife and I kick the bucket, I am considering making my place part of my retirement plan. Or just sell it to pay rent for the rest of your life. Either way it's a pretty big boon.

There's something called Bare Ownership sale that's popular among widows with no children here in Uruguay, that retain the right to use the property until death :

bare-ownership is a right of virtual ownership. For example, the bare owner of a property has no right to occupy it or rent it out. On the other hand, when the usufruct holder dies, full ownership of the property is carried over to the bare owner without any liability for inheritance tax. He can then dispose of it (by sale, gift, bequest, etc.) as he wishes.

The maximum duration of usufruct generally corresponds to the usufruct holder’s lifetime – in that case, it is called usufruit viager, or life usufruct. But it is possible to set a predefined term (10 years, for example), which is called temporary usufruct.

http://www.french-riviera-property.com/en/news-detail/4301-t...

http://bareownership.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Property...

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#147

Post by stickfigure »

elihu wrote: post #117

High-cost cities get their high property values via network effects -- it's the proximity of other people that makes the land valuable. I wonder if a good way to circumvent high home prices is to create new cities deliberately in rural land. For instance, get a few thousand people to agree to buy a large plot of land in a sparsely populated area. All the early-adopters get a cheap plot of land to build a house on, wi…

This has been tried. Check out California's 3rd largest city (by area):

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/california-city-unbuilt-s...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California

Turns out it's pretty hard to create a critical mass of population.

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#148

Post by cestith »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #110
lpolovets wrote: post #18

I liked the visualization and data, but I don't think it makes sense to compare home prices to wages w/o considering alternatives to home ownership. Home prices don't exit in a vacuum. That is, if a home is 10x the median salary, you can't really say "well, if I didn't buy a home I could work 10 years less." That's because the alternative to buying is renting, which is also expensive. So sure, a mortgage in SF is $6k…

He mentions a county in Texas as the most affordable — and yet Texas has relatively high property taxes (higher than California). So there's that. And the more expensive homes will also be an income tap when you retire and sell the house (hint: anyone in the magenta can retire, sell and live out their lives anywhere in the green).

Texas also has no state income tax, though. And property taxes are based on the value of the home, so lower values means lower property taxes.

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#149

Post by BoorishBears »

switch007 wrote: post #108
BoorishBears wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You don't need to sell your house for a profit (although we all would love to). Had you rented like @magic_beans wants you to, you might have lost 100% of that money and every year your rental price may go up, you might not be allowed to have pets, you can't make improvements you want; you can lose a lot of control with renting. For the record, my apartment is pet friendly, you're allowed to paint the apartment, I'v…

> ...a top quality gym, yoga studio, apartment owned cafe, etc.). It's funny how different things are in different countries. I've read a few US rent-vs-buy articles and they often mention these uber cool apartment blocks. I think they're extremely rare and/or so expensive nobody's heard of them in the UK (outside of small, prestigious areas of London). Here, a majority of the flats are in blocks with just the accomm…

It's definitely a trend forming in the part of my city and it feels centered around gentrification.

The part of the city outside downtown is generally poor and has serious crime problems. But downtown, older properties are being converted into nearly unrecognizable modern high-end apartments priced out of the range of (most) locals and have reached a pricing ceiling so high they can get away with 50% occupancy and simply compete on amenities for the people who don't care about how much they cost. To top it off the city is practically giving away the properties to the developers to try drive growth.

I care about the price but there's a state fund I jokingly refer to as the "Gentrifcation Fund" (I forget the real name) that will pay a part of your rent in certain properties if your income is under a certain amount.

The problem is unlike most assisted housing the limit is based on making more than most people, not less. It's defined as 150% of the local median income. Combine the income limit based on people making 2.5x the median income with the high rent, and you essentially have a fund that's paying well off people (poorer people can't afford the apartments even with the subsidy) to live in expensive apartments, feeding the gentrification of the area. I'm conflicted because it allows me to live in a very nice apartment, but I know that money could be better spent elsewhere.

It's funny because I see it as "trickle down economics" in action. For example, while I might be able to afford the apartment otherwise, the fund frees up would could be disposable income for me. The hope is probably I'd spend that money in the local economy.

Except instead what it does is give me more money to save, I sure don't feel any urge to go and waste it on expensive overpriced Downtown restaurants every night.

Re: How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost?

#150

Post by danans »

fergie wrote: post #134
losteric wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowhere! If you're in SF, move out to the east bay Besides that, hope residents use legislation to balance out the market... progressive taxes in aesthetically pleasing areas, education/public transportation in economically competitive areas, condos/up-zoning in popular urban areas.

Is Oakland OK or is it really sketchy? Getting mixed messages.

I live in Oakland. Oakland is composed dozens of distinct areas, with wildly varying crime rates. Adjectives like OK and sketchy don't begin to describe its complexity.

If crime is your major fear there are several places with crime rates that are low. Conversely there are areas with very high crime rates.

If you don't know which is which, ask a local whom you trust for advice and maybe a tour. It's an incredible place to live but one that will challenge any simplistic description.

Post reply on HN