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

91–100 of 235 posts

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#91

Post by colechristensen »

VRay wrote: post #84

People are fighting the wrong fight when they attack this guy (or attack the people attacking this guy, for that matter) It isn't SF Bay Bros'/foreigners'/companies' fault that houses are too expensive. It's because of strict zoning laws and a lack of building enough housing to match supply with demand[1]. Demand keeps going up way faster than supply, nationwide, and we're all feeling the squeeze [1]: A great example…

I mean, don’t the people who live in a place have the right to decide they don’t want to invite in population until their homes are turned into a megacity? And if people don’t like the prevailing political opinions of a place that doesn’t want to change its nature to suit them, aren’t there plenty of other places to go?

The market its screwed up in the Bay Area because they in way more jobs than they wanted to let in housing, that’s a problem, but I don’t begrudge people that want to put limits on density because they want to live in a certain kind of place.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#92

Post by np_tedious »

cma wrote: post #54
endisneigh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think you're training about i bonds, and they are capped at 10k / person / year

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#93

Post by TedShiller »

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…

> There's no reason why housing appreciates year after year. It should be a depreciating asset

Totally. That's why that $50,000,000 house in NYC should eventually cost only $1.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#94

Post by djbebs »

colechristensen wrote: post #91
VRay wrote: post #84

People are fighting the wrong fight when they attack this guy (or attack the people attacking this guy, for that matter) It isn't SF Bay Bros'/foreigners'/companies' fault that houses are too expensive. It's because of strict zoning laws and a lack of building enough housing to match supply with demand[1]. Demand keeps going up way faster than supply, nationwide, and we're all feeling the squeeze [1]: A great example…

I mean, don’t the people who live in a place have the right to decide they don’t want to invite in population until their homes are turned into a megacity? And if people don’t like the prevailing political opinions of a place that doesn’t want to change its nature to suit them, aren’t there plenty of other places to go? The market its screwed up in the Bay Area because they in way more jobs than they wanted to let in…

No, they don't.

Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#95

Post by onion2k »

strken wrote: post #79
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oppos…

You don't strictly speaking need indoor plumbing, a private bedroom, windows, or paint that doesn't have lead in it. If you're rich enough to afford windows, a bedroom you don't share with another family, and to not have your kids die from heavy metal poisoning, then good for you! But indulging many of these wants is hardly economically efficient.

Are you seriously suggesting that the need for a "summer kitchen for canning fruit" and a "private bedroom" represent the same human needs? Because if you are that might be the funniest, most entitled thing I've ever read on HN.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#96

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

djbebs wrote: post #94
colechristensen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, don’t the people who live in a place have the right to decide they don’t want to invite in population until their homes are turned into a megacity? And if people don’t like the prevailing political opinions of a place that doesn’t want to change its nature to suit them, aren’t there plenty of other places to go? The market its screwed up in the Bay Area because they in way more jobs than they wanted to let in…

No, they don't. Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

People who rent also have voting rights for electing local governments in many places in the world.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#97

Post by Luc »

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…

Some might call it trolling…

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#98

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

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…

If you don't like some area and you think prices are too high, don't buy there. The solution is so simple.

Population growth alone would bring an expectation of rising housing costs.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#99

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

srvmshr wrote: post #81
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…

> It should be a depreciating asset, like a car or at most value-neutral. The building unit depreciates, but the total value usually goes up due to the land value, not the construction value. Cars would also appreciate hypothetically if metals suddenly became more expensive.

Wasn't there actually an "inflation" of used car prices in recent months because of supply issues?

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#100

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

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.

House prices also appreciate when the surrounding area becomes more attractive. People call it "gentrification" and hate on it, but the reality is that the surrounding area is being improved (meaning nicer shops, better facilities, access to jobs and hospitals and so on), which is a good thing.
Post reply on HN