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

If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#581

Post by dnautics »

fighterpilot wrote: post #554
dnautics wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think geoism is just naive? This idea that the state can magically assign a value to property and not have it go sideways for the politically disenfranchised (the poor) is pure fantasy. If you haven't gone through the process of buying a house. I suggest trying it (especially during a frothy market), and each step of the way stop and think, "how would geoism get turned around to screw the poor".

Poor people don't own property, though. So how could it disenfranchise them?

In this case, I am saying that political disenfranchisement is the dominant reason for poverty, and how well meaning policies can wind putting in barriers poor people from owning property in the first place. I'm sure you can imagine how this closes the cycle.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#582

Post by michaelmrose »

Retric wrote: post #478
Justsignedup wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that density means more people, more homes, more availability. That means more jobs open up and makes the place more lively. More desireable. That means the house property value will go up. They are thinking "will this make the property value go down in the next 5 years"? vs "will this make the property value skyrocket in the next 10 years". We are catering to short-term gains at the expense of long-term…

That’s only true up to a tipping point when poor people move in. Parts of Detroit are a great example where poor people are diving down the value of houses around them. People essentially want to be surrounded by people of almost exactly their economic class to somewhat richer. To rich and stores they can’t afford to stay ie gentrification, to poor and you have to move ie white flight.

I think you have it exactly backwards the cost goes down due to the area being a less desirable location allowing the poor to afford the houses there. If you analyzed the situation better it is extremely likely that there is an underlying cause that isn't poor people moving in. The economic situation in Detroit has been shit and getting shittier for years now leading to the people who are more capable and therefore able to command a higher salary to tend to move elsewhere.

A house that a doctor and a lawyer are competing to buy is going to be go for more than the one an auto mechanic and a fireman are competing for.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#583

Post by nopeNopeNooope »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #540
davidw wrote: post #125

Here's why investors buy up houses: they know your neighbors will do the dirty work of artificially constraining the housing supply, which makes it a good investment. Here's one who comes right out and explains this: > Meanwhile, local opposition to building is so commonplace and the approval process so cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, even when a proposed project complies entirely with requirements, approv…

And, at least in California, realtors will always push prices up. It’s pretty much never in their best interest to lower the price. Even the buyer’s agent gets paid a percentage of the sale price, so if they try to lower it they’d be essentially working against themselves. And this is without even accounting for all the schemes realtors create (like listing below market to get a lot of offers and create artificially…

That sounds insightful, but there's no point in screwing a buyer for a tiny today payday.

Those agents work on volume, so if you think they're pushing you to not get the lowest price, it's so they can close the deal, not because their incentives aren't aligned with yours. If they're telling you to offer more, it's because they have better knowledge of the market and the game than you.

They're banking on many commissions a month, not on the fractional share of that extra $10k you don't want to fork over.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#584

Post by symlinkk »

AQuantized wrote: post #563
symlinkk wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Screw you, I got mine!” The capitalistic attitude in a nutshell.

More like "I got screwed and I'd rather other people get screwed than get screwed further." Obviously not selfless, but I don't think the housing market is their fault.

Yeah why fix anything ever? If it was bad for me it should be bad for them too right?

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#585

Post by JAlexoid »

AQuantized wrote: post #563
symlinkk wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Screw you, I got mine!” The capitalistic attitude in a nutshell.

More like "I got screwed and I'd rather other people get screwed than get screwed further." Obviously not selfless, but I don't think the housing market is their fault.

BANANA results in higher homeless rates, that means that denying any building anywhere... you're actively supporting increase in homelessness.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#586

Post by fighterpilot »

dnautics wrote: post #581
fighterpilot wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor people don't own property, though. So how could it disenfranchise them?

In this case, I am saying that political disenfranchisement is the dominant reason for poverty, and how well meaning policies can wind putting in barriers poor people from owning property in the first place. I'm sure you can imagine how this closes the cycle.

Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that?

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#587

Post by michaelmrose »

nradov wrote: post #545
Justsignedup wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that density means more people, more homes, more availability. That means more jobs open up and makes the place more lively. More desireable. That means the house property value will go up. They are thinking "will this make the property value go down in the next 5 years"? vs "will this make the property value skyrocket in the next 10 years". We are catering to short-term gains at the expense of long-term…

More homes and more people doesn't necessarily make an area more desirable. Many people prefer space, privacy, and quiet. Those things are more important to them than property values.

That is fantastic for retirement but 80% of people who live in Urban areas value above all else seemingly proximity to jobs which are driven themselves by the proximity of many people which is often driven by the proximity to desirable features like ports.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#588

Post by PicassoCTs »

The sweet irony, that in the end privatized pensions created a sort of socialism via capitalistic means, more thoroughly central integrating every economic branch then lenin could ever have dreamed for.

Poisoning innovation and competition, by simply owning whole industry sectors, and demanding "rock-steady" profits without disruption.

Investing in ever larger centralization schemes aka disruptions were external organizations protected enterprise-profits. (Taxis)

Eating even the black-market, by dragging "dead-money" from tax-havens and criminal enterprises into investment bubbles like the housing market.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#589

Post by dnautics »

fighterpilot wrote: post #586
dnautics wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, I am saying that political disenfranchisement is the dominant reason for poverty, and how well meaning policies can wind putting in barriers poor people from owning property in the first place. I'm sure you can imagine how this closes the cycle.

Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that?

> Wouldn't the LVT reduce property prices, which counteracts that?

1. Don't assume

2. If you are poor, which do you think is easier? A higher initial capital expenditure? Or a higher upkeep cost?

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#590

Post by kody »

symlinkk wrote: post #584
AQuantized wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like "I got screwed and I'd rather other people get screwed than get screwed further." Obviously not selfless, but I don't think the housing market is their fault.

Yeah why fix anything ever? If it was bad for me it should be bad for them too right?

In fact, I'll actively try to make things worse for them to try and eke out a little profit.
Post reply on HN