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

51–60 of 235 posts

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#51

Post by cma »

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…

Easy solutions: $10 sauna bag and a Kindle, get your veggies canned from an efficient factory.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#52

Post by borski »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #18
refurb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, ok? That doesn't change the point this house cleaner was able to get creative and a bunch of property.

He did that on the backs of those trying to get into the housing market now.

What’s the alternative? Nobody renting, ever?

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#53

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #49
cammikebrown wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t “need” any of that.

You don't "need" very much of anything. People get by with a 100-200sqft room shared with other people, but that doesn't mean it's what I would want to live in.

I feel like it's kinda missing the point of the article to say that you "need" 500sqft for canning. That is a want, plain and simple. Wants can be expensive. Indulging wants like this is something that rich people can afford to do, and if you are rich that is good for you! But indulging this want is far from economically efficient, especially in a high cost of living real estate market. It's basically the exact opposite of the point of the article.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#54

Post by cma »

endisneigh wrote: post #16
gruez wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>your opportunity cost is 0. not really, you still need to factor in the cost of capital (ie. downpayment) and the risk that the housing market might collapse.

> not really, you still need to factor in the cost of capital (ie. downpayment) and the risk that the housing market might collapse. I disagree - if you're talking about bubbles collapsing that's true no matter how you store your money, e.g. inflation ruining savings, stock market correction, etc. You need a place to live anyway and government incentives will reduce your cost of living far below renting anyway. What…

Why not buy securities with inflation protection? The treasury offers them.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#56

Post by AnthonyMouse »

endisneigh wrote: post #30
paulryanrogers wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Now you're just making an argument equivalent to "it's not weird that some cars appreciate, look some of the classic Mustangs" instead of distinguishing it from housing in any way.

The reason housing increases in value to the extent that it does is that areas where it's in high demand prohibit creating more of it. It would be like prohibiting the construction of new cars. Obviously that would make existing cars cost more in general, independent of the fact that some cars are worth more than others.

The problem with your argument is that it's predicated on it being physically impossible to build more housing of the same type that people want. If people prefer to live close enough to the ground that they don't have to ride an elevator for an hour to get there then you build a thousand ten story buildings instead of one ten thousand story building. If people like higher floors because they have a better view then you build two hundred 50 story buildings instead of a thousand ten story buildings. You can build more of whatever the market demands, so the price falls to the construction cost (absent zoning), and remains there because increased demand causes more construction rather than higher prices.

To get to the point of true scarcity due to land you would have to need thousand story buildings because covering the city in twenty story buildings wouldn't be enough housing for its population. But even if that's possible in theory, it's not the case anywhere in practice.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#57

Post by endisneigh »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #56
endisneigh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Now you're just making an argument equivalent to "it's not weird that some cars appreciate, look some of the classic Mustangs" instead of distinguishing it from housing in any way. The reason housing increases in value to the extent that it does is that areas where it's in high demand prohibit creating more of it. It would be like prohibiting the construction of new cars. Obviously that would make existing cars cost…

> The reason housing increases in value to the extent that it does is that areas where it's in high demand prohibit creating more of it. It would be like prohibiting the construction of new cars. Obviously that would make existing cars cost more in general, independent of the fact that some cars are worth more than others.

Yes, and the areas that are desirable and the ones that are restricting the construction. Even if we suppose that you allow infinite construction, there will always be certain houses or parcels of land that will cost more, perhaps because of being closer to certain things.

Your example ignores reality. It is sometimes just not possible to build more housing that shares the exact same properties of existing houses.

If an area is desirable because of nature, then naturally those who first live there will prevent the destruction of said nature that brought them there to begin with.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#58

Post by kiba »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #7
refurb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a wealthy SF landlord story, this is an house cleaner . It’s an impressive story of someone slowly building up a real estate portfolio in the Bay Area. Most of it through creative means and living lean. It’s actually an impressive story.

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…

Land is what should appreciate, not the building built on top of it, which should deprecate. What make land valuable is the collective work and contribution of a community.

However, since lands are scarce and a collective effort to maintain, maybe it should be taxed for the benefit of the community and rewards given to the people who put it to the most valuable use, by not taxing buildings and other improvements built upon it.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#60

Post by AnthonyMouse »

endisneigh wrote: post #57
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're just making an argument equivalent to "it's not weird that some cars appreciate, look some of the classic Mustangs" instead of distinguishing it from housing in any way. The reason housing increases in value to the extent that it does is that areas where it's in high demand prohibit creating more of it. It would be like prohibiting the construction of new cars. Obviously that would make existing cars cost…

> The reason housing increases in value to the extent that it does is that areas where it's in high demand prohibit creating more of it. It would be like prohibiting the construction of new cars. Obviously that would make existing cars cost more in general, independent of the fact that some cars are worth more than others. Yes, and the areas that are desirable and the ones that are restricting the construction. Even…

> Even if we suppose that you allow infinite construction, there will always be certain houses or parcels of land that will cost more, perhaps because of being closer to certain things.

In which case those parcels of land would end up with high density housing on them so more people can live near those things, until such time as the cost per square foot falls below the construction cost.

> If an area is desirable because of nature, then naturally those who first live there will prevent the destruction of said nature that brought them there to begin with.

"Nature" e.g. Montana or Alaska or the Ozarks. Do you believe these to be the places with high land costs and restrictive zoning laws?

Post reply on HN