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

171–180 of 350 posts

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

#171

Post by jpatokal »

lscharen wrote: post #98
jpatokal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha. It's powered by ArcGIS, the Oracle of the mapping world, meaning it's all proprietary, locked down and expensive. If you want freer alternatives, check out CartoDB, Mapbox and QGIS.

Except for the fact that you can sign up for ArcGIS Online as an individual for free and all of the application templates (in addition to tons of other Esri projects) are up on github. e.g. https://github.com/Esri/storymap-cascade Almost everything they release is under the Apache license.

Huh, color me surprised (I used to work in the GIS space, but have moved on to cloudier pastures). Then again, Microsoft's now all gung ho about open source at least on paper, so perhaps ESRI can change its spots as well...

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

#172

Post by dave84 »

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…

Canberra[0] and Brasilia[1] were both created to be the capital of their respective countries, but I'd imagine it's easier when you're the government. Ireland did the opposite and tried to decentralise the government among existing towns and cities in an effort to boost local economies.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia#History

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra#Decisions_to_start_an...

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

#173

Post by uiri »

Retric wrote: post #144
PoachedSausage wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 u…

I agree that private pensions are not necessarily Ponzi schemes. It is possible that they are operated that way. It is also possible that they are operated like an actual investment fund. Without looking at the books, it is difficult to tell.

However, social security and other government funded pensions are Ponzi schemes. The money you pay in is given to people who are retired at that time. The money you get out is paid by people who are working at that time.

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

#175

Post by refurb »

prklmn wrote: post #53
sbenitoj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent is NOT throwing money away, it is HIGHLY dependent on where you're living. There are MANY sunk one-time costs you have to pay when buying a home, including: --realtor commission (averages 6% of home price, or approximately 1.5 years of 30 year mortgage payments) --title fees (frequently 1% of purchase price) --other legal and bank fees The NYT has a buy vs rent calculator that helps make decisions like these: ht…

The one time costs involved in buying a house do not refute the idea that renting is throwing money away.

No, but it highlights the fact that even when you own a home you're still "throwing money away".

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

#176

Post by technion »

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…

A lot of these calculators seem to miss changing costs to.

Ten years ago, I rented a small apartment for $350 per week. Now a literally identical apartment, 20km further from the CBD is going for $600 per week of rent. (I'm not in the US).

Mortgages don't consistently go up in a way that meets these sorts of increases.

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

#177

Post by kodablah »

geff82 wrote: post #156

I always wonder why it is an unknown fact for many that in Texas houses are still very affordable, even in metropolitan areas. I follow the market there closely, and you can get quality homes for the cheap. Is it that the high property taxes work their magic in that they hold the upfront purchase price low? It would have pros and cons - while keeping your house when retired gets more difficult, buying one when still…

Oh it's quite known as the population growth rate (especially from interstate migrants) shows over the past several years. Granted life affordability is only one of many reasons.

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

#178

Post by gozur88 »

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…

>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."

Yes, but what you can say is "If I move to this other place I can work ten fewer years for my house even if I make less money."

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

#179

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

A lot of these places are so insane, that insane places like New York look like values by comparison.

My taxes are 75% of my mortgage, but it's still worth 1/3 the salary to pay 1/7 the cost vs living in The Bay Area.

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

#180

Post by gozur88 »

ianai wrote: post #60
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…

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.

I have very little sympathy for the 40% or so of the population who could save for retirement but don't.
Post reply on HN