Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake • Hacker News Board

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#311

Post by bluGill » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #188

dbetteridge wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the article agrees with you? It primarily talks about the unfairness of the current system, the NIMBY problem reducing housing stock and the issue of regulations intended to curb new building reducing the stock of houses so that only the elite and existing homeowners can afford them. The section on renting/alternatives is mainly just a discussion about alternatives to the current unfair approach and some cases…

Buying a house for 10% down all in would be a dream in the majority of the US. Yes, FHA or FDA allow 3.5% or even 0% down in some circumstances but you're going to end up in an undesirable area (FDA) and be paying hundreds a month for mortgage insurance (both FHA and FDA). Which, while it sounds like something everyone should have, is you paying for the bank's insurance in case you default on the mortgage. To avoid t…

Realtors commissions? There are none, the seller pays those in almost all case. It is possible to hire a buyers agent who works for a fee from you, but that isn't common (and I'm not sure how it works) so I'll ignore it. There are closing costs, but they are not a percentage in general.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#312

Post by jariel » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

ajxs wrote: post #277

jariel wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm down-voting you because you haven't made an argument in the face of the issue. The flaw the assumption is that somehow 'buying' a home that is 15x your annual salary, that takes your entire life to pay off, is some kind of 'freedom'.

What's a reasonable alternative, just pay someone else's mortgage instead? Go live in the woods and opt out of the economy entirely? A mortgage is debt, yes. However the money you put into the mortgage is wealth that you're slowly accruing. If you're just renting a property someone else owns you're not accruing anything at all. No one thinks that taking on a 20-30 year debt is a good thing. People only do it out of n…

I'm not offering an alternative, I'm pointing out the OP didn't make an argument, or rather one that wasn't based on any reasoning.

"just pay someone else's mortgage instead?" - it has nothing to do with what the owner of the property is doing with their money. If rent is a more viable option, then rent.

Ontario, Canada has a soft kind of rent control that works somewhat well for renting, that's an option.

Including housing in inflation calculations would be another 'option' because very low interest rates create bubbles.

Focusing on affordability in zoning.

Taxing rental income.

Taxing homes sales over a certain price.

Increasing or reducing property taxes.

There are a million variables to make the housing situation work better and crude 'own vs. rent' statements without arguments are not going to help.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#313

Post by bovine3dom » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #295

bovine3dom wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's bypass democratic majority rule, The trouble is that it is only a local majority. There are a larger number of people who would like to live in high-demand areas, but they can't vote to make that possible because they don't live there. > by taking away something people vote to protect - and not just anything, but their homes -, No-one is suggesting taking away their homes. Just making it more uneconomical to…

> The trouble is that it is only a local majority. There are a larger number of people who would like to live in high-demand areas, but they can't vote to make that possible because they don't live there. Any majority is a "local majority". Would it be OK for third parties to come into your community / town etc, and decide for you? That would be a nice racket for lobbyists, too: various interests could hire majoritie…

Yeah, within reason, more global considerations should be taken into account when making local decisions.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#314

Post by gpvos » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

(2020)

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#315

Post by edent » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

tlarkworthy wrote: post #244

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually who you are born to is probably the number 1 driver of inequality. If you really wanted something more equitable, you would probably require that no children be raised by their parents and be turned over to a state run children's home at birth.

So you want to drag the majority down in order to reach a level of lowest common denominator of "equity". Pure insanity. Yes the life you are born into is not "fair". But you must also appreciate that the family unit is one of the strongest forces of altruism and inter human bonding for the majority. Break the family and you break the parts of society that are not run on finance. It's would truly cause an incredible…

Although completely impractical, it's an interesting thought experiment. If you knew that your bio-kid was going to be placed with a random family, and you wanted that child to have the best start in life, you'd lobby to improve the quality of schools in all districts.

Instead, at the moment, rich people move district or pay for private tuition. Because they want the best opportunities for their offspring.

There is no way in the world that people would accept a situation where all babies are randomly shuffled at birth. But - if there was - the rational self interested agent would want to improve opportunity everywhere so their genetic material had a better chance.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#316

Post by lormayna » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

dbetteridge wrote: post #174

yrgulation wrote: post #78

Property ownership is bad. Rent for life, dont leave inheritance to your children so they can rent for life too. All you need in life is clothing, entertainment, a bit of travel to distract you from your tiny living space, maybe a gadget or two and of course onsite work. Oh and praise from you manager to add meaning to your daily grind. Or so “they” say while “they” amass thousands of properties and massive fortunes…

I mean the article agrees with you? It primarily talks about the unfairness of the current system, the NIMBY problem reducing housing stock and the issue of regulations intended to curb new building reducing the stock of houses so that only the elite and existing homeowners can afford them. The section on renting/alternatives is mainly just a discussion about alternatives to the current unfair approach and some cases…

You are lucky, in Italy the average net salary is around 1400€/months and a 2 bedroom flat costs between 150k and 200k euro outside big cities. So you need at least 12 years of full working to repay your house.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#317

Post by gremlinsinc » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #73

tlarkworthy wrote: post #68

Next up, living in families shown to be inefficient, newborns should be matched in a skills based auction at birth. => There is more to life than supply and demand, and home ownership has a hidden effect on societal responsibility, wellbeing and a life milestone

Actually who you are born to is probably the number 1 driver of inequality. If you really wanted something more equitable, you would probably require that no children be raised by their parents and be turned over to a state run children's home at birth.

I'd posit - political corruption is the number 1 cause of inequality.

Politicians are the least qualified to govern. As written in Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy (I'm paraphrasing):

The problem w/ society is that those who want to govern probably shouldn't, and those most apt and equipped to govern (humility, intelligence, compassion) don't want or apply for the position...

So instead of randomly divying out kids, the better solution: 100% random draw elections.

You can turn it down if you want, but nobody can "run for election".

You can't tell me 500 strangers couldn't come together in a decade-long term, and manage this country in a fair/equitable way -- better than say a group of 500 congress-people where about 80% or greater have pocketed cash from corporate donors.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#318

Post by bo1024 » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

brobdingnagians wrote: post #80

Even from the title, the implication is that "home ownership" is a "policy" from the government rather than just a natural state of people acquiring and improving the land. It implies the government can simply revoke home ownership by a new policy. Property ownership and improvement isn't a privilege "given" to us by a benevolent government with their immaculate "policies" from time immemorial. People are the source…

Hmm, if your philosophy is "we own the government," then is it "we own the land"? Or is it "I own this bit of land and good luck to the rest of you"?

A philosophy that starts from "I" naturally supports private ownership of land (enforced by the government, thank you very much). But a philosophy of "we" suggests collective ownership of land, where my community could indeed grant or revoke my privilege to use a certain part of our land.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#319

Post by nemo44x » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #126

Homes logically really shouldn't be an appreciating asset. After build(including warranty fixes) they should be in best condition they ever will be(unless further invested). And then just wear down from there and require maintenance to even keep functioning. So after 10, 20 or 50 years it should cost less, not more. I wonder how will this look in let's say 100 or 200 years. That is after we have reached full urbaniza…

The materials and labor required to build them gets more expensive though. So while the materials wear down over time, those same materials get more expensive. And some of those materials, especially structural, will last a long time if taken care of.

Furnaces, water heaters, etc go to 0. But foundations, framing/walls, flooring, etc can last hundreds of years.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#320

Post by viraptor » Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

daemin wrote: post #235

dbetteridge wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the article agrees with you? It primarily talks about the unfairness of the current system, the NIMBY problem reducing housing stock and the issue of regulations intended to curb new building reducing the stock of houses so that only the elite and existing homeowners can afford them. The section on renting/alternatives is mainly just a discussion about alternatives to the current unfair approach and some cases…

Also given that the median house prices are just below a million in Melbourne, and "slightly" above a million in Sydney, it makes saving up 20% for a deposit quite an endeavour. Then you need to account for all the other fees and stamp duty as well adding a few more percentage points of savings required. The big problem in Australia is that nobody really in the government wants to do things to make houses more afford…

There's another way out which seems to be popular recently - move out of the city and get prices closer to $200k median for an ok house. You can see available houses in Victorian towns disappearing off the market over the last year as people move out enabled by remote work.

I get that not everyone can do it, but it's a possibility for more sanity in house ownership for a groups. Unfortunately that also allows Melbourne market to not crash for longer...