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

Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

zillow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 359 posts

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#101

Post by pxeboot »

shados wrote: post #86
throwaway713 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent Ah, so you want to live in San Francisco

There IS a reason why rent in high cost areas are so, well, costly. If you go to NYC or SF and make 400k/year after tax, who cares if housing costs you 300k out of that. Especially if you're buying, in which case you can get part of your money back once you sell.

And when the bubble pops, how long will you be able to make your 30k/month mortgage payments?

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#102

Post by PhasmaFelis »

geodel wrote: post #39
baddox wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In pretty much every analysis involving housing costs, I try to mention that percentage of income spent on housing is not a great metric. A better metric is absolute income minus housing costs. All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent, because that remaining 25% would be a heck of a lot of money. I doubt this metric would significantly change the conclusions of this ar…

While you are right, it is an exceptional scenario to earn that kind of money. So it is statistically insignificant to calculate absolute income minus rents etc.

It's quite significant even within much more common ranges. If you make $60K/year and spend 25% of it on rent, you net nearly 20% more than someone who makes $40K and spends 5% on rent. Looking solely at percentage of income spent on housing will lead you to a very wrong conclusion in that circumstance.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#103

Post by Bud »

coding123 wrote: post #96
maxerickson wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the dispute is more wether 75% rent is a likely choice in the million dollar scenario. (vs the contentment with remainder)

This entire thread is so strange to me, if you're spending $750000 per year renting, shouldn't you be buying $750,000 properties once a year instead?

We're talking about San Francisco. There aren't any $750k properties. ;)

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#104

Post by PhasmaFelis »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45
baddox wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In pretty much every analysis involving housing costs, I try to mention that percentage of income spent on housing is not a great metric. A better metric is absolute income minus housing costs. All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent, because that remaining 25% would be a heck of a lot of money. I doubt this metric would significantly change the conclusions of this ar…

> I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent No, you wouldn’t. As income goes higher, long-distance transportation becomes (a) more comfortable and (b) smaller as a fraction of income. De-camping to Washington State and commuting to San Francisco doesn’t make sense at $200,000; it does at $1 or 2 million.

> No, you wouldn’t.

The hell I would too.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#105

Post by manfredo »

coding123 wrote: post #96
maxerickson wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the dispute is more wether 75% rent is a likely choice in the million dollar scenario. (vs the contentment with remainder)

This entire thread is so strange to me, if you're spending $750000 per year renting, shouldn't you be buying $750,000 properties once a year instead?

I think the idea that the grandparent commenter was pointing out is that pointing to higher percentages of income going towards rent is an overly simplistic metric. If the percentage of income spent on rent goes from, say, 20 to 40%, but average incomes double then the total amount of post-rent income still went up by 50%.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#106

Post by PhasmaFelis »

forapurpose wrote: post #91
baddox wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In pretty much every analysis involving housing costs, I try to mention that percentage of income spent on housing is not a great metric. A better metric is absolute income minus housing costs. All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent, because that remaining 25% would be a heck of a lot of money. I doubt this metric would significantly change the conclusions of this ar…

> percentage of income spent on housing is not a great metric. A better metric is absolute income minus housing costs. / All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent, because that remaining 25% would be a heck of a lot of money. It makes sense, but that doesn't make it true. Is your argument based on your personal beliefs, or is it based on actual outcomes in the economy?…

> It makes sense, but that doesn't make it true. Is your argument based on your personal beliefs, or is it based on actual outcomes in the economy?

Seems to me it's based on basic arithmetic. Are you arguing that $250,000/year isn't a very comfortable take-home wage?

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#107

Post by firic »

knuththetruth wrote: post #95
jpttsn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have other countries solved the problem? Which ones?

The US solved the problem in the postwar period by taxing the wealthy at high rates, providing subsidized housing and education, and numerous other social democratic benefits to their population. This, combined with liberal immigration policies, resulted in tremendous growth.

and of course by bombing all of the competitors factories making the US a monopoly in manufacturing.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#108

Post by hshehehjdjdjd »

pxeboot wrote: post #101
shados wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There IS a reason why rent in high cost areas are so, well, costly. If you go to NYC or SF and make 400k/year after tax, who cares if housing costs you 300k out of that. Especially if you're buying, in which case you can get part of your money back once you sell.

And when the bubble pops, how long will you be able to make your 30k/month mortgage payments?

You won’t, because you were smart and rented instead. :)

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#109

Post by hshehehjdjdjd »

anoncoward111 wrote: post #90

There's correlation here, but likely not causation. The real underlying cause in the drop in birth rates is an increase in working hours, an increase in commuting times, an increase in college tuition and health care costs, and also an increase in divorce rates. These days, even getting married is an expensive financial arrangement. Having kids is just another layer on that. Housing prices have increased because of c…

Getting married is expensive? How so?

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#110

Post by anoncoward111 »

hshehehjdjdjd wrote: post #109
anoncoward111 wrote: post #90

There's correlation here, but likely not causation. The real underlying cause in the drop in birth rates is an increase in working hours, an increase in commuting times, an increase in college tuition and health care costs, and also an increase in divorce rates. These days, even getting married is an expensive financial arrangement. Having kids is just another layer on that. Housing prices have increased because of c…

Getting married is expensive? How so?

The legal fees themselves aren't very expensive. If you can resist the societal pressures to have a large and extravagant wedding with many guests, then even the wedding itself isn't particularly expensive.

The main cost of getting married is getting divorced. Legal fees add up a lot here, and the division of assets is costly.

Now, you could argue your marriage won't end in divorce, but 60% of marriages in the US do.

Post reply on HN