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

Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 257 posts

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#211

Post by mutatio »

mywittyname wrote: post #162
chrisseaton wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since many cities currently lack the recently-aging housing that would normally be filtering down market right now Huh.... in the UK house prices go up for older houses. You'd pay a premium to get an interwar house, or a 19th century house. Do people not like old houses in the US? They're usually better built, with more character, built on more land, in my experience.

Is this the case outside of London? Prices for older homes in more historic cities are high, even in the USA. But that's because commuting in Boston or DC is a fucking nightmare and most new development is occurring pretty far from the city centers. (though, not nearly to the degree of London) When you get to places like Nashville, it's still possible to build a new home 15 minutes from downtown. Plus, fly-over citie…

It is the case everywhere in the UK. Old mill towns in the North, especially the Peak District, have housing made from granite, a lot of these were built during the height of the industrial revolution, they're absolute tanks compared to modern flat packs.

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#212

Post by hntrader »

panic wrote: post #139
hsitz wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? In what economy do most people not have to pay just to live somewhere?

Our highways are free for everyone to use and maintained using tax money. It's not inconceivable that housing could work the same way.

Our highways are free because they're a public good (in the economics sense) and prone to monopoly pricing due to geographic constraints on competition.

While it isn't inconceivable that housing could be public, the same underlying economic rationale isn't there, and private housing works really well. You'd be solving a non-problem (or, to the extent that there is a problem, it's one that's easily addressed by simply increasing private housing stock) and risking a lot to do so.

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#213

Post by asplake »

mutatio wrote: post #211
mywittyname wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the case outside of London? Prices for older homes in more historic cities are high, even in the USA. But that's because commuting in Boston or DC is a fucking nightmare and most new development is occurring pretty far from the city centers. (though, not nearly to the degree of London) When you get to places like Nashville, it's still possible to build a new home 15 minutes from downtown. Plus, fly-over citie…

It is the case everywhere in the UK. Old mill towns in the North, especially the Peak District, have housing made from granite, a lot of these were built during the height of the industrial revolution, they're absolute tanks compared to modern flat packs.

Erm, the characteristic stone in the Peak District is sandstone, but yes. My last house was built in the 1760s and I describe it as the heaviest object I have ever owned.

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#214

Post by SimonPStevens »

wishinghand wrote: post #207
eurasiantiger wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intent is not to die of waterborne infection.

What's the risk of that? Never heard of that happening to anyone in my experience of living my whole life the USA with single faucet sinks.

Short video by Tom Scott on the subject for those interested.

https://youtu.be/HfHgUu_8KgA

tldw; Older homes in the UK had a water storage tank in the roof space that fed the water heating tank. This couldn't be classified as drinking water so wasn't allowed to be combined with the safe mains water that fed the cold tap. These days modern houses mostly use combi-boilers with no storage tank, so mostly both hot and cold are drinkable and it's not an issue. But preferences still lean towards the separate taps.

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#215

Post by djbebs »

tehjoker wrote: post #177
imtringued wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy that we live in an economy where all you have to do to live until 80 years is pay to live somewhere. We don't even have to hunt our own food.

Unlike food, land simply exists. That's why rents are so abhorrent. You are taxed by nobility simply because its theirs, not because they render any service. For food, you are paying because someone had to perform labor for you. Land can be parceled out using any system people can devise. Rent is completely artificial. Strangely, the people that do nothing for you charge FAR more than the people who hunt for you. An…

If you'd like you're welcome to lobby for the homestead act again. That would solve your lack of land without having to violate other peoples rights

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#216

Post by gnicholas »

nimos wrote: post #187
gnicholas wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, if landlords were allowed to use larger security deposits, some would choose to do this instead of raising the monthly rent. My friend is looking to rent out an ADU, and the first idea was to have a sizable security deposit in order to filter applicants who fully intended on paying rent from those who would be more likely to use the eviction moratorium. But apparently California tightened the rules aro…

Hmmm - I just paid 2 months deposit in 2021. Googling seems to say that is allowable. "Effective January 1, 2020, landlords may not request a security deposit of more than one month’s rent for an unfurnished unit, and two month’s rent for a furnished unit, if the unit is rented to a service member." The one month limit seems specific to service members.

Wow, confusing language in there. But NOLO makes it clear that the service member limitation relates to both clauses, not just the last one. [1] Good catch!

Seems the limit for non-service members is still 2 months, or 3 for furnished. Landlords can add 1/2 month for a water bed, curiously.

1: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-security-...

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#217

Post by Splizard »

rainyMammoth wrote: post #54
WJW wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying has costs too. Mortgages are an obvious example, but even if you could afford the house without debt the money could also have been invested in something that yields income like stocks or bonds. If the amount you'd receive in income from investing the house price can cover the rent of an equivalent house, it can make sense to rent as you come out ahead overall. It does not surprise me at all that rich people (…

I am with you. There is a huge lobby to make people buy houses. Not enough people question if it is a good investment. The opportunity cost to buy vs rent is huge.

Perhaps this is because land is over-valued.

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#218

Post by thomastjeffery »

hntrader wrote: post #212
panic wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our highways are free for everyone to use and maintained using tax money. It's not inconceivable that housing could work the same way.

Our highways are free because they're a public good (in the economics sense) and prone to monopoly pricing due to geographic constraints on competition. While it isn't inconceivable that housing could be public, the same underlying economic rationale isn't there, and private housing works really well. You'd be solving a non-problem (or, to the extent that there is a problem, it's one that's easily addressed by simply…

> Our highways are free because they're a public good (in the economics sense) and prone to monopoly pricing due to geographic constraints on competition.

And homes are not? Certainly not at the same scale, but we are seeing the same problems with landlords that we see with monopolists.

Landlords are able to charge extremely high rents and there is not enough available/affordable land to build competition, especially in cities experiencing NIMBYism and gentrification.

> You'd be solving a non-problem (or, to the extent that there is a problem, it's one that's easily addressed by simply increasing private housing stock)

It's clearly a problem. That's why we're here talking about it in the first place. It's also clearly not "easily addressed", or that would have happened already. Sure, we need to remove barriers to increasing housing stock, but that isn't likely to be enough; especially in the short term.

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#219

Post by thomastjeffery »

gph wrote: post #77
warent wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was a well known problem that in the US class disparity (i.e. the gap between middle class and upper class) is increasing. The middle class is evaporating, becoming very rich or borderline poverty. Am I confused? WaPo isn't really saying anything new or controversial.

It's more like the middle class is bifurcating between upperish middle class and lower-middle class. In-demand tech workers, doctors, high-level admins/managers, etc. are getting higher and higher wages while other professions that used to be middle class as starting to stagnate and fall behind such as low-level office workers, journalists, teachers, mid-to-low level managers, etc. I wouldn't consider either group to…

> I think the issue is that the article is inflammatory click-bait because it makes it seems like rich people are getting a break while poor people are getting shafted.

Why? Do you seriously think that is untrue? Go talk to some poor people. Hell, just talk to someone who is 18-29: there is a 52% chance they are stuck living with their parents[1]. We're definitely getting shafted over here.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-...

Re: Rents for the rich are going down, rents for the poor are going up. Why?

#220

Post by mutatio »

asplake wrote: post #213
mutatio wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the case everywhere in the UK. Old mill towns in the North, especially the Peak District, have housing made from granite, a lot of these were built during the height of the industrial revolution, they're absolute tanks compared to modern flat packs.

Erm, the characteristic stone in the Peak District is sandstone, but yes. My last house was built in the 1760s and I describe it as the heaviest object I have ever owned.

Yeah you're right, this is the characteristic rock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gritstone
Post reply on HN