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

The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

granolashotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 235 posts

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#21

Post by endisneigh »

hackerfromthefu wrote: post #19
endisneigh wrote: post #11

I believe the smartest thing you can do if you are reading this in America is to buy a house that you can afford in an area you would like to live in for more than a few years with more than 1 bedroom and rent out the additional bedrooms. Setting aside appreciation, doing this is the closest thing to a guaranteed success imaginable. Leverage lowers your start-up costs, renting enables all your house work to be deduct…

There can be massive opportunity cost lost to dealing with the various interpersonal interaction (ie work) thats required to rent a room in a house you are personally living in. If you're making a good salary, thats probably not worth it.

I don't see it any differently than having a roommate, which is something a lot of people who have good salaries have anyway.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#22

Post by vinceguidry »

seibelj wrote: post #12
HarryHirsch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impressive in the way a trainwreck is impressive. There's no reason why housing appreciates year after year. It should be a depreciating asset, like a car or at most value-neutral. But misguided government policies have caused housing to be out of reach for the greater part of the population. Have you seen the housing price index for Pittsfield, MA: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS38340Q Pittsfield. I…

Another way to look at it is that there is absurd amounts of empty land throughout the country. Places were undesirable and cheap, and people of moderate means bought them, improved the area, and over decades it became a desirable area. Young people need to go to shitty places that are cheap and then make the place better. Many young people want to live in SF or NYC. Go to Detroit instead.

The process of making unwanted real estate wanted is called real estate development. It's not done by "young people just moving there." That just makes crappy real estate more crowded.

Real estate development is very much a "build it and they will come" sort of deal. It takes capital, a lot of it, to make an area desirable. You can't just dump it anywhere, there has to be a good reason to dump it in this particular area otherwise the hip young people will go somewhere that did have a good reason. And the poor investors who poured money into a development in that area won't see any appreciation or significant profit, because no one else is developing the area, just them. Lots and lots and lots of money going into lots and lots and lots of developments, that's what turns the sticks into the burbs.

You just can't put the family cart before the development horse, every young person starting a family has different reasons for moving out to the sticks. Left alone without already-developed real estate, they'll just spread out evenly across rural America.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#23

Post by HarryHirsch »

endisneigh wrote: post #20
HarryHirsch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impressive in the way a trainwreck is impressive. There's no reason why housing appreciates year after year. It should be a depreciating asset, like a car or at most value-neutral. But misguided government policies have caused housing to be out of reach for the greater part of the population. Have you seen the housing price index for Pittsfield, MA: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS38340Q Pittsfield. I…

I'm not sure why people have this silly take. Land in desirable areas is scarce. Why shouldn't it appreciate it? Housing is nothing like a car.

The frontier has been settled since 1890, but housing prices have been stable from 1950 to 1980, then they started creeping up, with a big burst around 2000 and another beginning 2018. Desirable can't be the answer.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#24

Post by ip26 »

seibelj wrote: post #12
HarryHirsch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impressive in the way a trainwreck is impressive. There's no reason why housing appreciates year after year. It should be a depreciating asset, like a car or at most value-neutral. But misguided government policies have caused housing to be out of reach for the greater part of the population. Have you seen the housing price index for Pittsfield, MA: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS38340Q Pittsfield. I…

Another way to look at it is that there is absurd amounts of empty land throughout the country. Places were undesirable and cheap, and people of moderate means bought them, improved the area, and over decades it became a desirable area. Young people need to go to shitty places that are cheap and then make the place better. Many young people want to live in SF or NYC. Go to Detroit instead.

That’s at the root of all these stories about, ”I can’t afford to live where I grew up”. Buddy, I can’t either, but when my parents bought it was a fruit orchard. Today it’s the hottest real estate market in the world. It’s apples and oranges.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#25

Post by endisneigh »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #23
endisneigh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why people have this silly take. Land in desirable areas is scarce. Why shouldn't it appreciate it? Housing is nothing like a car.

The frontier has been settled since 1890, but housing prices have been stable from 1950 to 1980, then they started creeping up, with a big burst around 2000 and another beginning 2018. Desirable can't be the answer.

A burst happening has nothing to do with desirability not being the answer. Less desirable areas had bigger bursts. Relatively, desirable areas will always appreciate, by definition. Housing isn't a mass produced fungible commodity like a car.

People comparing cars to houses make no sense.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#26

Post by hellbannedguy »

rekabis wrote: post #10
fideloper wrote: post #5

> 5) You don’t need as much house as you’ve been lead to believe. Instead of trading up for a larger fancier house with more debt as you age, consider living simply and buying additional homes for diversified income. IMO (in the process of doing this myself), this is the most important point

> 5) You don’t need as much house as you’ve been lead to believe. For living arrangements, you are mostly correct. I can exist very comfortably in about 1,000ft². Heck, even 800ft² would be comfy and cosy. My problem involves my hobbies and domestic activities: I need a 200ft² cool room for the enormous amounts of fruits and vegetables I harvest every year, canning all that shit needs a 150ft² summer kitchen so I don…

I am so tempted to get rid of my books.

I will keep the 1st editions, and most reference books.

I feel can toss everyone of my computer books. (Not one did I find well written, or worth keeping. If anyone decided to write a computer/programming book take out every unneeded word. Maybe take a technical writing course if you live near a good university?)

It's just hard to get rid of reference books.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#27

Post by josephcsible »

endisneigh wrote: post #21
hackerfromthefu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can be massive opportunity cost lost to dealing with the various interpersonal interaction (ie work) thats required to rent a room in a house you are personally living in. If you're making a good salary, thats probably not worth it.

I don't see it any differently than having a roommate, which is something a lot of people who have good salaries have anyway.

What do you mean exactly by "a lot"? I don't think having roommates is very common for people who can afford not to.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#28

Post by endisneigh »

josephcsible wrote: post #27
endisneigh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it any differently than having a roommate, which is something a lot of people who have good salaries have anyway.

What do you mean exactly by "a lot"? I don't think having roommates is very common for people who can afford not to.

In NYC, Bay Area, Boston, LA and Hong Kong I know people making top 15% income and have roommates. They don't necessarily need to, though.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#29

Post by paulryanrogers »

endisneigh wrote: post #25
HarryHirsch wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The frontier has been settled since 1890, but housing prices have been stable from 1950 to 1980, then they started creeping up, with a big burst around 2000 and another beginning 2018. Desirable can't be the answer.

A burst happening has nothing to do with desirability not being the answer. Less desirable areas had bigger bursts. Relatively, desirable areas will always appreciate, by definition. Housing isn't a mass produced fungible commodity like a car. People comparing cars to houses make no sense.

It's a complex issue, though both aren't necessarily wrong. Land is limited and its raw volume rarely changes. Housing could be increased through scaling up, developing greenfield, or redeveloping underutilized land.

If housing were thought of more as a consumable than ones primary investment that would accelerate better use of land for housing.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#30

Post by endisneigh »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #29
endisneigh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A burst happening has nothing to do with desirability not being the answer. Less desirable areas had bigger bursts. Relatively, desirable areas will always appreciate, by definition. Housing isn't a mass produced fungible commodity like a car. People comparing cars to houses make no sense.

It's a complex issue, though both aren't necessarily wrong. Land is limited and its raw volume rarely changes. Housing could be increased through scaling up, developing greenfield, or redeveloping underutilized land. If housing were thought of more as a consumable than ones primary investment that would accelerate better use of land for housing.

Even if zoning didn't exist and land was perfectly used certain property would just be worth more than others.

Imagine all of humanity living in a single skyscraper that can be built up indefinitely. Perhaps a condo closer to the ground floor would be more expensive, or maybe at the top, or maybe west, east, etc.

Certain land being worth more than others is more a function of the inherent differences in things than anything else.

Post reply on HN