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

221–230 of 235 posts

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#221

Post by jjav »

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.

Of course there is a reason, multiple ones.

Land, of course, but that's the easy one so let's ignore it for the sake of argument for a moment. Let's say land price remains constant.

Housing will still appreciate simply because everything related to it goes up. Contractor labor and supplies.

So to build a new identical house on an empty lot next to an older house will cost more than it cost to build that old house. But they houses are identical so they compete for the same buyer. So inevitably the old house value will go up to match the new house that cost more to build.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#222

Post by aww_dang »

sangnoir wrote: post #204
aww_dang wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I did it and so can you" What is the antithesis here? "You won't succeed, so don't bother trying. Become an employee, rail against capitalism and wage slavery." Dismissing it as luck can only work if the author succeeded on the first try. Did everyone succeed on the first try? Before it can be called "survivor's bias", you need to survive. If you croak at the first unforeseen and perhaps unfair hardship... What is…

> Dismissing it as luck can only work if the author succeeded on the first try. This is wrong, or your definition of "luck" is different to mine and most other people, I assume.

Winning 50 coin flips in a row is lucky. Winning 50 coin flips out of 100 is persistence.

Quitting after 3 coin flips because the flipper sneered at you is called being a quitter. Maybe it was unfair and unlucky that he sneered, but the reason you didn't get 50 wins isn't because the world is unfair or that you are unlucky. It is because you didn't flip a coin 100 times.

Certain ideologies empower you for success. Others turn you into a victim.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#223

Post by aww_dang »

camgunz wrote: post #214
aww_dang wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I did it and so can you" What is the antithesis here? "You won't succeed, so don't bother trying. Become an employee, rail against capitalism and wage slavery." Dismissing it as luck can only work if the author succeeded on the first try. Did everyone succeed on the first try? Before it can be called "survivor's bias", you need to survive. If you croak at the first unforeseen and perhaps unfair hardship... What is…

Not everyone can or wants to be persistent enough to do this kind of thing. In isolation these stories are interesting. As policy, these stories argue against changes to housing and zoning in the US, which are obviously needed. Like, "live in and remodel a shed and wait to capitalize on a historically bad housing market wipeout" isn't useful advice, much less a housing policy.

Agreed. I'm not advocating for a housing policy in this observation.

Waiting for housing policy to fit with your ideal of a just world isn't reasonable advice for everyone. There are things which for practical intents and purposes, are beyond our control. If you are looking for change, it is better to focus on the things within immediate control.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#224

Post by onion2k »

jjav wrote: post #219
onion2k wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive".

> You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive". This goes full circle to what you were arguing against earlier. It is indeed true that humans always strive for more than minimal subsistence and this is part of living. Thus it is not illogical to have things which go beyond the bare minimum to survive. They're technically "wants", but that's what it means to live.

My argument here is that people have needs that are more than things that are "the absolute minimum necessary for you to not die" in order to live a decent human life with dignity, but that don't extend as far as "a second kitchen". That isn't hard to understand.

Everyone posting to say "but if you accept that needs are more than air and water then you must be saying a home-based cannery is essential for the human condition!" are just being idiots.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#225

Post by more_corn »

bradlys wrote: post #151
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…

Main thing I see people attacking this guy over is the “I did it and so can you” mentality more than anything. It’s survivorship bias at its strongest. No different than the FIRE post trending here as well. Dude literally saw his NW double in a year and income go up 50% cause of stock appreciation. Along with incredible starting salary and overall close to top tier comp the entire way - and no kids or what not. I thi…

Living below your means is repeatable (and desirable). Riding a bike instead of driving a car is repeatable (and beneficial). Buying land and building a house, buying distressed property and carefully investing time and money to rehab it… all repeatable. All things that benefit society.

This isn’t capitalist fetish porn.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#226

Post by more_corn »

camgunz wrote: post #214
aww_dang wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I did it and so can you" What is the antithesis here? "You won't succeed, so don't bother trying. Become an employee, rail against capitalism and wage slavery." Dismissing it as luck can only work if the author succeeded on the first try. Did everyone succeed on the first try? Before it can be called "survivor's bias", you need to survive. If you croak at the first unforeseen and perhaps unfair hardship... What is…

Not everyone can or wants to be persistent enough to do this kind of thing. In isolation these stories are interesting. As policy, these stories argue against changes to housing and zoning in the US, which are obviously needed. Like, "live in and remodel a shed and wait to capitalize on a historically bad housing market wipeout" isn't useful advice, much less a housing policy.

That was your takeaway? Mine was entirely different. Here are some things I took away: ADUs and in-law units are great. It’s too hard for a group of friends to buy an apartment building. They had to masquerade as a slumlord to do it. That’s probably a failing in laws and policies. Buying property is a viable strategy to rise in this society. Buying land and building a house is possible, but harder than it should be. It’s possible to buy damaged property, make it livable and rent it to people who want it without selling your soul.

I’ve got some money in the stock market that would probably serve humanity better if I bought some unlivable property and spent the time and money to make it livable. Not sure if I want to be a landlord, but the first part appeals to me. We need more housing and I’d love to put my resources behind that effort. Yes, we need sweeping policy changes too. Link me your proposal and I’ll give it a read.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#227

Post by more_corn »

bradlys wrote: post #145
nemo44x wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some people find it frustrating to see that the system does in fact work; that the narrative they’ve chosen to believe is just cynical and wrong. That a person on a house cleaners income can find a way to own property in SF as well as around the country. And be good about it by finding properties that need some love and investing in them. I thought it was a great story about a person that saw the vast opportu…

lol - did you not look at the prices they were dealing with? They bought an apartment building with friends and their share of the mortgage was only $900/month - half of which was shared with their partner. $900/month is a joke - even for back then. They bought land with cash that was even remotely near SF as well - unfathomable now. This person bought before prices in SF were so above and beyond what anyone near tha…

Remember when there was a drastic exodus of renters from SF about a year ago? Multi unit apartment buildings were selling for remarkably affordable prices. A friend of mine was looking at a property that fit in the mentioned cost profile. There was a brick wall that either concealed a good foundation or a colossal problem so he passed. If he’d persisted and drilled a hole it could have been a winner. That part of the story was repeatable in the last year. It’s not unreasonable to find a buildable lot for $40k within two hours drive of SF (I’ve looked) that part is repeatable. I found a house in Sonoma county for $450k. Needed work, that part is repeatable. I imagine you could find property to rehab and rent in Wisconsin if you tried. Maybe what you mean is “this sounds like more effort than I’d be willing to put in”

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#228

Post by camgunz »

more_corn wrote: post #226
camgunz wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone can or wants to be persistent enough to do this kind of thing. In isolation these stories are interesting. As policy, these stories argue against changes to housing and zoning in the US, which are obviously needed. Like, "live in and remodel a shed and wait to capitalize on a historically bad housing market wipeout" isn't useful advice, much less a housing policy.

That was your takeaway? Mine was entirely different. Here are some things I took away: ADUs and in-law units are great. It’s too hard for a group of friends to buy an apartment building. They had to masquerade as a slumlord to do it. That’s probably a failing in laws and policies. Buying property is a viable strategy to rise in this society. Buying land and building a house is possible, but harder than it should be.…

I'm not saying those things aren't in there, but they're pretty niche. Like, how often is a group of friends trying to buy a multi-unit building?

The big bad here is lack of housing supply brought on by NIMBY-ism and a shortage of tradespeople (maybe this also speaks to our inability to evolve housing construction as well), and the danger is more or less that policymakers and voters will read this story and think "see, all you have to do is and you too can own a home in one of the most expensive places on Earth."

For policy and such, the problem is complicated. Going to housing site:vox.com in DDG isn't a bad idea. But secondarily, I'm interested in prefab and modular housing. A lot of it is better suited to modern housing needs (more efficient--not just 2x4s, fiberglass and Tyvek, cheaper, less construction waste, way less build time on site, smaller and thus higher density, etc).

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#229

Post by dr_dshiv »

yholio wrote: post #139
dr_dshiv wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does new apartment construction impact nearby home values? Usually positively. There can be other issues, of course (more people!) but it’s not right to present increasing density as ripping off the neighbors. https://www.sandyjournal.com/2021/10/04/370780/how-does-new-...

The value of land increases with density, but the utility of existing properties decreases.

What's an example of decreased utility? Less parking?

My biggest issue with increased density is shit design. Like, when they spent all the money on lawyers to get approval and stiffed the architects. When it is a nice 5 story building I love it.

Post reply on HN