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

Just Be Rich

keenen.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Just Be Rich

#651

Post by datacruncher01 »

McScroogy wrote: post #535
donnythecroc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is all down to the basic human need of a home. In the 70s and 80s even 90s someone on a teacher's salary could own their own home in a major world city - say London. Now, literally zero chance. Because homes have become an asset class and the rich can outbid regular people so they are pushed out. That's the problem. I couldn't care less how many billionaires there are if regular people can afford a decent…

The rich outbidding poor people is not what is causing a housing shortage. There are only so many houses a rich person can occupy. Even if you assume that every rich person keeps a number of spare houses, there are not enough rich people to cause a housing shortage.

Less rich and more upper middle class (doctors, lawyers, etc) who are buying lots of properties as rentals.

Re: Just Be Rich

#652

Post by joh6nn »

chrisseaton wrote: post #549
lou1306 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment was about house owning, though. Owning a house is becoming more and more a thing for the upper classes, it wasn't always like this.

> Owning a house is becoming more and more a thing for the upper classes Something like 60% of US people own a home. 30% even own their home completely outright, with no mortgage. Obviously 30%, let alone 60%, of the population cannot be considered 'upper class', and 'middle class' is probably even a stretch. The home ownership rate seems broadly stable since the 60s to me, with gentle ups and downs with the economy,…

4th paragraph of that Wikipedia article: "The name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home. This latter percentage will be significantly lower than the homeownership rate because many households that are owner-occupied contain adult relatives (often young adults, descendants of the owner) who do not own their own home, and because single building multi-bedroom rental units can contain more than one adult, all of whom do not own a home."

Re: Just Be Rich

#653

Post by jimbokun »

donnythecroc wrote: post #64
Barrin92 wrote: post #49

I'm just gonna quote what I think is a very important part from the Graham piece itself >" People who don't look any deeper than the Gini coefficient look back on the world of 1982 as the good old days, because those who got rich then didn't get as rich. But if you dig into how they got rich, the old days don't look so good. In 1982, 84% of the richest 100 people got rich by inheritance, extracting natural resources,…

The problem is all down to the basic human need of a home. In the 70s and 80s even 90s someone on a teacher's salary could own their own home in a major world city - say London. Now, literally zero chance. Because homes have become an asset class and the rich can outbid regular people so they are pushed out. That's the problem. I couldn't care less how many billionaires there are if regular people can afford a decent…

In the US at least, I would put healthcare and education costs way above house prices as bigger problems.

Re: Just Be Rich

#654

Post by bagpuss »

dTal wrote: post #632
laurent92 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entrenched money stabilizes the world. Imagine putting 10% of the billionaires of the world on a boat, those who pull the strings of their empires to keep their nations into status-quo, and imagine the boat sinks. A year later, all those entrenched interests dematerialize, fewer powers hold people together, diplomacy isn’t as balanced as it has been when billionaires weighed in, and war starts. That’s the story of th…

The Titanic sank in 1912. That's a pretty glaring error when you're making such a sweeping assertion as this.

it took a while to reach the bottom.

Re: Just Be Rich

#655

Post by Bootvis »

csomar wrote: post #608
Bootvis wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netherlands really has most? I honestly don’t believe that without any supporting evidence.

A bit surprising, huh? According to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_eq... The Netherland, indeed, is the worst. It's close to having a minority own everything while everybody else has 0 (a 1.0 coefficient).

I’m really surprised. It went up a lot from 2018 and 2019 so I don’t fully trust the result but that might be bias talking.

Re: Just Be Rich

#656

Post by rafale »

wonderwonder wrote: post #614
TuringNYC wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the premise of what youre saying. I dont think the ratio is 5:1, but probably more like 1:5 -- but -- more importantly -- doesnt this make it good for renters because now there are investment properties in an ample environment looking for people to rent? I would argue that it is low interest rates AND low supply. If supply was sufficient then renters would just rent the houses which were purchased, possi…

It does not as the new owner now has to have the rates high enough to cover the mortgage on the house he just purchased in a bidding war. moreover, the person that wanted to buy it and live in it is now priced out and has to pay rent and misses out on the asset appreciation.

To cover the mortgage, the owner has to pass it to the renter. If the renter could afford the rent, he can afford the mortgage, which mean he can probably afford the house in the first place. Sounds like the stupid people outbidding each other will lose money on the rent because renters are not outbidding each other.

Re: Just Be Rich

#657

Post by filleduchaos »

csomar wrote: post #595
TeMPOraL wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about just, people buying multiple houses/apartments to rent them out? IANAE, but I have a sinking feeling the situation would quickly improve if ownership had per-person limits (and no easy way to pool the limits into a company). Countries could build new housing faster than the population grows, but as long as it can be scooped up by the wealthy for renting out, the scarcity would prevail.

> I have a sinking feeling the situation would quickly improve if ownership had per-person limits Running an economy on feelings is a sure way to ruin an economy. People who buy multiple dwellings would be more than happy to rent them. Renting is good. It provides a liquid market to access housing. If the market is efficient, rent or buy should be a preference rather than a financial decision: The financial impact sh…

> Renting is good

[House] renting is only "good" for the people making a profit off it. For the actual renters it's patently absurd.

"Rent-seeking" is a term with negative connotations for a reason.

Re: Just Be Rich

#658

Post by bluedino »

sbacic wrote: post #159
donnythecroc wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is all down to the basic human need of a home. In the 70s and 80s even 90s someone on a teacher's salary could own their own home in a major world city - say London. Now, literally zero chance. Because homes have become an asset class and the rich can outbid regular people so they are pushed out. That's the problem. I couldn't care less how many billionaires there are if regular people can afford a decent…

> In the 70s and 80s even 90s someone on a teacher's salary could own their own home in a major world city - say London. You can still have that. All you need is a real estate tax. But nobody wants that. People don't want cheaper homes, they want to become part of the home-owner elite and get their own appreciating asset.

Property taxes in certain areas of the US (most of the East Coast, for example) are already ridiculous. You could buy a house in the midwest for you what you pay in property tax alone in New Jersey.

Re: Just Be Rich

#659

Post by Mauricebranagh »

imtringued wrote: post #224
mnsc wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much every mainstream economist defending the mainstream economy to preserve the status quo in that widening the income gap is a good thing for the mainstream economy you mean?

Pretty much every economist thinks "high prices? make more!". That applies to housing too.

Which is then snapped up in a lot of cities (London SF Vancouver) by the newly rich from places like China / Russia as a way to get their money out of the country.

Re: Just Be Rich

#660

Post by Bootvis »

stephanheijl wrote: post #638
mdorazio wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to revisit your assumption about wealth inequality in The Netherlands. It’s on par with that of most of Europe, significantly lower than in the US [1]. [1] https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rank...

You linked an income inequality graph, which is distinct from wealth. If you look at the list on Wikipedia [1] and sort by Wealth Gini (2019) you will find that the Netherlands are #1. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_eq...

Any explanation for the jump from 2018 to 2019?
Post reply on HN