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

A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 440 posts

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#431

Post by qes »

cblum wrote: post #210
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you rent, if you secure a 12 month lease, you know exactly how much you’re spending in housing over the next year. Only for exactly 12 months though. After that, your rent could double for all you know, and there’d be nothing you could do. You can move, of course, but now you’ve been forced to upend your life. I live in a rent stablized apartment, and I feel lucky not just because my current price is lower tha…

True, but from my perspective moving is a small, point in time hassle that you go through every couple years as a renter, as opposed to a lifelong stream of issues that you have to deal with as a homeowner.

And from my perspective moving is an enormous hassle. Multiple vehicles, recreational vehicles, even a project car, and then of course a garage full of tools. Thousands of pounds of weights and gym equipment. King size latex beds that weigh a small ton, 4 beds altogether. Couches, dressers, half a dozen large TV's, file cabinets, a six-monitor desktop setup. Moving once a decade is more than enough, thanks.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#432

Post by dang »

enraged_camel wrote: post #311
brightball wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and disagree. On the one hand, yes, you're right that the repair expenses can be a big deal. If you don't want anything but the basics for the technology in your home, sometimes a home warranty can be a good option too but experiences vary significantly. On the flip side though, after my 15 year mortgage is up I'm not going to pay another dime outside of maintenance on this thing. On a 30 year, you'll still p…

>>Personally, I can't imagine having kids and dogs without a yard. Wow, you can’t? edit: laughing at all the downvoters. I think y'all should become more familiar with how people in other countries manage to live. sorry, but "i can't imagine having kids and dogs without a yard" sounds incredibly, I mean incredibly privileged and entitled.

Would you please stop posting flamebait comments to HN? There's no information here.

We've asked you countless times to stop posting low-quality comments to HN. If you keep it up we are eventually going to ban you.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#433

Post by toomuchtodo »

treis wrote: post #302
mcguire wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yeah, except 2008 kinda put a dent in that.

Only if you were forced to liquidate before the rebound. Even if you bought at the absolute peak in ~2008 you'd still be way ahead today.

A townhouse in the western Chicago suburbs I bought in 2006 for $280k and walked away from in 2012 finally sold to the next owner this year for $208k. It will still be another decade or two (if ever, depending on the rate at which property taxes rise to offset Illinois pension obligations) before it appreciates back to what I paid.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#434

Post by flashgordon »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #93

One of the trends that I can only hope continues is getting rid of this idea that home ownership (especially single family home ownership) is the American dream. I live in and own a detached single family home (was a compromise with my spouse) and to be honest, I hate it. I hate having to take care of the yard, to deal with unreliable tradespeople when things break, to deal with the huge expense of minor home repairs…

Actually this is a great way if that works for you. But I love a detached SFA precisely for this reason. I love taking care of my own yard. Doing my own repairs with my own two hands (for me there is a certain satisfaction in it - must be pathological). I want absolutely no restrictions to what I can do with my lawn, my walls, my decorations etc. I want to be able to have my own workship with own tools etc. It may not be an American dream (I am not even one) but it is my dream and is the dream for millions of others (americans or otherwise).

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#435

Post by woofie11 »

gruez wrote: post #408
woofie11 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real estate is most efficient when it's managed in the public sector. The government owns all or most of the land, and provides everyone with free housing from taxes. Free markets tend towards a land-owning aristocracy and peasant renters being charged what the market will bear. I'm not suggesting any particular course of action. I know of no way to move real estate into the public sector without the short-term trans…

>The government owns all or most of the land, and provides everyone with free housing from taxes. I for one don't enjoy soviet apartment blocks.

Have you ever lived in one? The architecture wasn't pretty, but thy have a lot of upsides too: Everyone has enough space for a family. There's a real sense of community. There's plenty of green space and playgrounds. They're also super-sturdy.

I have to admit that I really prefer soviet apartment blocks to, for example:

* massive cramming of housemates in London, New York, San Francisco, or similar areas with rent going to a landed gentry

* to being saddled with mortgage debt which takes half of my post-tax income, with that going to a financial system

* to living outside of economically-viable areas, where cheap housing might be found, but where I have a lousy job

or many of the other pathologies of the current market. The capitalist model works just fine when land is cheap or free, as it was for most of America's history. Once it's about inherited land ownership and collecting rents, it breaks down.

However, in a democracy with public housing, you'd likely end up with something much nicer than soviet-style apartment blocks. Compare British health care to soviet health care.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#436

Post by woofie11 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #81
woofie11 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a fair expectation to have. Free markets are nearly optimal for commodities, restaurants, and similar sorts of goods, as well as many competing small businesses. They grind along for IP, utilities, and some sectors of education, as well as large businesses. They break down almost completely for large-scale finance, real estate, medicine, and other sectors of education. Curiously, much of this was predicted b…

>They break down almost completely for large-scale finance, real estate, medicine, and other sectors of education. You just rattled off a list of sectors where the free market is the least free (though in the case of finance I think they more than earned it). Of the four things you mentioned I would deregulate two, regulate the crap out of one and get the federal government out of the business of backing loans on ano…

There's a difference like night-and-day between regulated markets and government-provided services.

If I had my druthers, finance, real estate, and health care would be run by the government. If I couldn't get that, I'd have at least real estate and health care almost completely deregulated -- some transparency and truth-in-advertising laws, but not much more.

It's often painted as a scale from free markets to regulated markets to government-run, but I'm not sure that's a fair model. In many cases, the so-called mid-point of regulated markets works the worst.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#437

Post by fjsolwmv »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #93

One of the trends that I can only hope continues is getting rid of this idea that home ownership (especially single family home ownership) is the American dream. I live in and own a detached single family home (was a compromise with my spouse) and to be honest, I hate it. I hate having to take care of the yard, to deal with unreliable tradespeople when things break, to deal with the huge expense of minor home repairs…

You are conflating home ownership with house ownership. You can buy a condo and pay someone to maintain it for you, just as your apartment landlord can hire unreliable managers tradesworkers to fail to fix your water heater.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#438

Post by fjsolwmv »

scarface74 wrote: post #348
treis wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you were forced to liquidate before the rebound. Even if you bought at the absolute peak in ~2008 you'd still be way ahead today.

It depends on the neighborhood and unfortunately the racial and the economic makeup of the neighborhood. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/1... Anecdotally speaking, I bought a house in a new minority subdivision in 2003 brand new build. The value went up by about $40K by 2008, crashed to $40K less than I bought it, and today it’s still worth $4K less than I bought it in 2003. It’s still a ni…

If you live in your house instead of paying transaction costs to sell, lower property value just means lower property taxes and a more prosocial working class neighbors.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#439

Post by fjsolwmv »

zcid wrote: post #305
LarryDarrell wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I've noticed is that in my area all the modest neighborhoods (2 bed, 1 bath, sub $200k) are being bought up by landlords. This leads to a neighborhood of renters, which is a lot different than a neighborhood of owners. The Havers can buy a lot more houses than the Have-Nots and I'm left wondering what the price of single family homes would be if renting them was illegal and they were all placed on the marke…

We really need some stronger regulation on renting. I'd like something along the lines of federal rent control. Limit the rent that can be charged to reduce the profitability of buying up house after house. This would be unpopular with the current owners of homes as it would lower property values, but over time they would remain much more stable.

Much simpler would be to raise property taxes to a reasonable level and redistribute that via a citizens' dividend /UBI. That gives you free market efficiency with no rent-seeking non-local owners sucking away the wealth, only reasonable fees for management and liquidity services.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#440

Post by fjsolwmv »

Balgair wrote: post #116
andechs wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's similar to a telecommunications giant - as the customer, you need to pay a cost of switching (moving expenses, hookup fees etc.). So it's in their best interests to try to squeeze customers when possible, even with the occasional person that moves out, they'll net a lot more from tenants who just don't bother to dispute the increase.

True! We've decided to be nimble, and it does take a toll (no pool tables, no big patio furniture, smaller couches, etc). But saving the cash is worth it to us. 12% on 1000k/mo rent comes out to an extra 1440/year that could be saved. To us, such a thing is worth the weekend of moving hell.

$1440/yr seems hardly worth the effort for he hassle and cost of moving every year. Compounding rent increase over years makes it substantial.

I suppose you don't have kids though, which may simplify things.

Post reply on HN