How Many Years of Life Does That House Cost? • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 6:20 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #79

pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want to have pets? Do you want to redecorate to your own taste? Can you even find anywhere to rent? Not everywhere has a liquid rental market. Moving only once every 10 years sounds great. Renting means maybe having to move on notice as short as one month. Back when I was renting I moved about every 3 years, although that was also house-sharing with other young professionals. Rent is usually more expensive tha…

> after 20 years you have no more payments . You have no more principal and interest payments. You still have property taxes (~$1000/mo for me) and most will pay insurance (~$300/mo) and you'll have on-going maintenance; I think it's wise to ballpark the last at 1% of the house market value. I'm a two-time homeowner and it absolutely fits my family life situation very well, but it's a common fallacy that housing cost…

[deleted]

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

#242

Post by Mz » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 6:27 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #231

0xbear wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a dude who makes $800k/yr and still lives paycheck to paycheck. Lack of savings is not necessarily caused by lower income. People tend to shovel money out the door as quickly as it comes in.

Wow, I wouldn't even know how to spend that much. If I made that much I'd retire after two or three years.

Maybe. Or maybe not.

I read a great article at some point that advised people who wanted to be writers to just go do that while they were young and poor and not wait until they had saved up money to finance it. Because the reality is that once you have the fancy high paid job and the fancy house, car and clothes that not only go with it but are essentially required, the amount you thought you needed changes.

For certain jobs, expensive suits and other things you might think are frivolous luxuries are nearly impossible to do your job without. It can be nigh impossible to unhook your income from this treadmill where the faster you run, the further behind you fall in certain metrics.

Millionaires are sometimes like the guy who needed the cart to carry cart repair supplies: Once you are rich and famous, now you need that mansion, not for the space or prestige but for security purposes, and you may also need a bodyguard, a bullet proof limo, etc.

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

#243

Post by markvdb » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 6:30 AM UTC

Be my hero and compile a similar map for the EU, from Eurostat data. One possible starting point:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

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

#244

Post by woodpanel » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 6:47 AM UTC

0xbear wrote: post #225

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.

I know a dude who makes $800k/yr and still lives paycheck to paycheck. Lack of savings is not necessarily caused by lower income. People tend to shovel money out the door as quickly as it comes in.

On Topic: is the house paid, rented or is he paying off a mortgage? :-)

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

#245

Post by woodpanel » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 6:52 AM UTC

lathiat wrote: post #239

GFischer wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/29/world/a-120-year-lease-on-... PARIS, Dec. 28— Andre-Francois Raffray thought he had a great deal 30 years ago: He would pay a 90-year-old woman 2,500 francs (about $500) a month until she died, then move into her grand apartment in a town Vincent van Gogh once roamed. But this Christmas, Mr. Raffray died at age 77, having laid out the equivalent of more than $184,000 for an apartment…

To be fair: What were the chances, that this 90-year old women would become the Guinness Book of Records entry for "oldest person on the planet"?

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

#246

Post by chaostheory » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 6:53 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #218

chaostheory wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the salary. It's also the opportunities to do things as in for the SF Bay Area we can go to wine country one weekend, go snow boarding another, sail, surf, hike; there's a lot of stuff to do here. I'm sure people can say the same for the NY metro and other similar places. I've lived in cheaper but boring places. The financial tradeoff is fair.

>It's not just the salary. It's also the opportunities to do things as in for the SF Bay Area we can go to wine country one weekend, go snow boarding another, sail, surf, hike; there's a lot of stuff to do here. You can do all of those same things just living an hour east of SF.

Doesn't the SF Bay Area include the cities an hour east of SF?

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

#247

Post by rconti » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 6:55 AM UTC

vecinu wrote: post #234

shostack wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often missing from discussions of lower CoL areas is risk from different job markets. This is harder to factor in, but since not everyone can work remotely, you need to consider job market liquidity. If there is a recession can you easily find another job? Do you have a decent selection of local employers to ensure sufficient competition in terms of wages and benefits? Etc. Living in a high CoL area seems to correlat…

I'm not sure how true this is. My coworkers mention that during the 2007/2008 recession in SF they saw all of their coworkers/friends laid off and leave the Bay Area. It took one of my coworkers a whole year to find another job during that period, even though he was in a high CoL area and initially had a "great selection" of jobs.

I don't know a single person that lost a job in 2007/2008. Everyone just hunkered down. Stopped job hunting, employers stopped hiring, everyone just stayed quiet.

Now, I know my anecdote doesn't mean much, because supposedly unemployment went up. Traffic certainly got better. But my point is, the anecdotes aren't worth a ton. I'm not making mine up -- I'm dead serious. Nobody I know got laid off, nobody I know left the area.

I also know far more people who have moved TO California than out of it, and the only people I know who moved out were a couple of people in the past 3 years.

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

#248

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 6:55 AM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #246

hueving wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not just the salary. It's also the opportunities to do things as in for the SF Bay Area we can go to wine country one weekend, go snow boarding another, sail, surf, hike; there's a lot of stuff to do here. You can do all of those same things just living an hour east of SF.

Doesn't the SF Bay Area include the cities an hour east of SF?

> Doesn't the SF Bay Area include the cities an hour east of SF?

No, an hour east of SF is deep in the Central Valley.

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

#249

Post by rconti » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 7:00 AM UTC

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…

I'm not sure. I know a guy in the Dallas area that works in finance, who keeps dragging his heels because he thinks a $300k place is so unaffordable. I don't get the dynamic -- it seems cheap to anyone in the Bay Area (Or San Diego, or Portland, or Seattle, or LA, or New York City, or.. most cities on the eastern seaboard). My understanding is that pay is fairly decent in Dallas. I don't get how $300k is anywhere near burdensome.

And yet, here I am in one of the most expensive markets in the world, and I can swing housing, but he cannot bring himself to do it. That's not to say it's less affordable there; it could be a matter of personal psychology, but regardless, I don't get it.

All I know is that I've noticed over the past decade or so, everyone who argues that they can buy property far cheaper in XYZ location far away from the bay area, and live like kings... somehow... don't.

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

#250

Post by barrkel » Sat, Sep 09, 2017, 7:03 AM UTC

uiri wrote: post #173

Retric wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Keeping retired people alive requires devoting some proportion of current economic output to their welfare. Whether that proportion is paid from private savings, public savings, or current taxation ultimately doesn't change the fact that it comes out of current production. You can't save (nice) food, health workers, winter heating, etc.

So the real fight is what proportion of current output goes to old people. Private schemes try to ensure wealthy old people get the biggest slice. Public schemes are more vote driven. It doesn't make them Ponzi schemes.