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

Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 768 posts

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#361

Post by pj_mukh »

turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

I really think most of the solution is in the first part of your plan.

There’s no need to micromanage tenant-landlord relationships or setup governmental panels on who historically deserves to live where, if the government can just make sure there is an oversupply of decent housing at all affordability levels.

The rest really takes care of itself at that point.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#362

Post by turtledove »

paisawalla wrote: post #357
turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

Ah yes, I also was deeply enamored with Coruscant the first time I saw it depicted. It never occurred to me to reverse engineer the planning policies which could give rise to such a nightmare however.

What? I'm out here saying "having homelessness is bad." And "reduce open parking lots so we can house people."

I think you'll find if you increase housing supply and density you're likely to end up with more natural spaces, not less.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#363

Post by anovikov »

turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

Only way to achieve it is to return segregation

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#364

Post by turtledove »

acchow wrote: post #354
turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

I guess you are unaware of all the money people pour into their homes - renovations, furniture, upkeep, maintenance. People spend all kinds of money on nice things, but nothing comes close to the home itself. There will always be a market for this.

My home is currently valued at 1.7m. I'm acutely aware of the cost of owning and maintaining a home.

But "homes have costs" does not axiomatically lead to "housing must therefore be a market."

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#365

Post by tomato-sauce »

rsync wrote: post #328
sidlls wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare Western Europe to the US. Maybe to specific regions or super-urban areas, e.g., the LA to SD corridor or the Bay Area. In which case the two are comparable: there are few if any middle-class families in the bay area that own their homes except by inheritance or some other luck (gift, lottery). Even condos and other high-density housing are all but completely out of reach for all but the top 10% of i…

"... there are few if any middle-class families in the bay area that own their homes except by inheritance or some other luck ..." This is a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of middle class (by Bay Area standards) folks who have bought houses in Fremont and San Pablo and San Leandro and Hayward. In fact, even in Marin there are parts of Novato and weird pockets of West Marin (Forest Knolls ?) where this was, an…

I’m surprised anyone has heard of Forest Knolls! I grew up there. It definitely used to be weird and relatively affordable for the middle class but not really any more. Last year someone bought a house in the neighborhood for $1.3 m. It was worth $350k when my parents moved to the area about 25 years ago. The new owners have a pair of new Porsches in the driveway. Maybe that counts as middle class in the Bay Area these days but it’s still not obtainable for the vast majority of Americans.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#366

Post by pj_mukh »

adam_arthur wrote: post #352
usrn wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High immigration + no construction -> High demand + low supply. Then on top of that you have record inflation with stagnant wages. The market is being completely rational. What "overvalued" here means is "are homes expensive compared to local wages" not "are homes irrationally expensive." Normally this would drive construction but the market is distorted by credit such that new construction is less economical (a resu…

US population is effectively flat over the past two years. Home construction is at an all time high. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTSA People keep repeating these statements about underbuilding or lack of supply as if they're backed by data, but it's just he said she said. Number of housing units to households is the same as it was in the year 2000, and in line with historical levels. Home price gains were…

High construction in Idaho does nothing for housing in New York. National construction rate averages are pointless. Gotta break it down by geography and locations of (in-person) jobs.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#367

Post by turtledove »

Ferrotin wrote: post #350
turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

Why on earth would anybody build apartments or rent out property under your scheme?

The government would pay to do it. Or there would be taxes or rents paid to developers in accordance to the number of people housed x the quality of the housing. Or people like me would rent units because housing is important, and rent their space at cost.

We can choose to pay for housing for everyone, we just have to adjust the formulas we use to decide who benefits.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#368

Post by paisawalla »

turtledove wrote: post #362
paisawalla wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, I also was deeply enamored with Coruscant the first time I saw it depicted. It never occurred to me to reverse engineer the planning policies which could give rise to such a nightmare however.

What? I'm out here saying "having homelessness is bad." And "reduce open parking lots so we can house people." I think you'll find if you increase housing supply and density you're likely to end up with more natural spaces, not less.

You're out here saying 640 sqft ought to be enough for anyone.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#369

Post by ido »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #288
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses in the US couldn't serve as intergenerational asset simply because they are built of wood with average livespan of ~70 years. While in Europe houses are generally build of brick or cement and last centuries.

The really old homes I’ve seen in Europe are made out of wood oddly enough. Of course, when the house was built in the 1400s, it is probably a ship of Theseus. Well, most homes that are around for a whole have to be maintained, even (especially) if they are made out of concrete or brick.

I think it depends where in Europe? In Germany and Austria they're mostly made of masonry.

Here for example is a 1000+ years old church in Vienna: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Rupert%27s_Church,_Vienna

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#370

Post by Siira »

immigrantheart wrote: post #301

Sorry this is just another dumb me trying to see what solution could be. Maybe 3rd world countries could start opening up their citizenship/PRs for US/Western Europe/Canada/Japan/Korea/1st world citizens. i.e, Give up your origin citizenship, say US, for Indonesia for example (because Indonesia doesn't allow dual citizenship), and gain these benefits for you: - Extremely cheap cost of living - You can own a house and…

And how are you going to generate a US level income in Indonesia? This can only work for retired people living completely off passive income, and even then, it ignores the many cultural and infrastructural problems of living in a poor place.
Post reply on HN