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

371–380 of 768 posts

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

#371

Post by 5ersi »

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)…

Nobody "decided" that housing is a market. If something can be bought and sold, then this is inherently a market.

Yes, we can and should regulate markets, and we probably all agree that the purpose of the housing is for people to have a roof over their head, as opposed to use housing as an (speculative) investment market. This can easily be regulated via taxes (on ownership and transactions), but it comes with a caveat: if something is over-regulated to benefit the user, then there is less incentive for investor/landlord to build housing, which makes housing scarcer and drives prices up.

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

#372

Post by jdhendrickson »

turtledove wrote: post #359
mutatio wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nearly every case" is very wishy washy, I assume you have some specifics, what about trashing a property, who absorbs that cost? Living where one has historically lived is interesting, take London - you're implying it should be a birth right for natives - what about the immigrant flow into such cities, how would you reconcile the "right of natives" with human capital?

Not a birthright, I don't think it should move across generations, but I do think that it's needlessly cruel to force someone out of their home because wealthier people want to live there. As for tenants v landlords, I believe it should be difficult to evict tenants except in cases where the tenant is clearly a danger to others or to the home itself. If they are vandalizing the property, that should be an eviction. L…

Do you not see any obvious flaws in your desired changes?

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

#373

Post by turtledove »

anm89 wrote: post #358
Ferrotin wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quoted post unavailable.

It's absolutely realistic, and the fact that you're writing it off so quickly shows your ignorance. Social housing is successful in many parts of the world. Look at Singapore, for instance.

Mandatory parking minimums are going away in cities across the US, and units are getting more housing as a result.

Washington State is considering removing single family zoning.

Cities like Paris have many smaller apartment complexes that are public housing.

Everything I've suggested either exists or is being discussed seriously in some capacity. But, by all means keep your head in the sand rather than try to engage with actual housing policy.

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

#375

Post by paisawalla »

turtledove wrote: post #359
mutatio wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nearly every case" is very wishy washy, I assume you have some specifics, what about trashing a property, who absorbs that cost? Living where one has historically lived is interesting, take London - you're implying it should be a birth right for natives - what about the immigrant flow into such cities, how would you reconcile the "right of natives" with human capital?

Not a birthright, I don't think it should move across generations, but I do think that it's needlessly cruel to force someone out of their home because wealthier people want to live there. As for tenants v landlords, I believe it should be difficult to evict tenants except in cases where the tenant is clearly a danger to others or to the home itself. If they are vandalizing the property, that should be an eviction. L…

So the landlord what, eats all of the downside in that scenario? But I'm sure you'd also restrict their ability to raise rents on other tenants (if they have multiple units) to compensate, so why would the landlord even do this to begin with? It's potentially 100% downside and restricted upside.

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

#377

Post by notch656a »

turtledove wrote: post #367
Ferrotin wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The government would pay to do it.

That's just a loopback to where you started. When government pays, you pay.

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

#378

Post by adam_arthur »

pj_mukh wrote: post #366
adam_arthur wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Housing is fungible in a remote work world. So construction in cheaper locales can help reduce costs in HCOL areas. E.g. people migrate from CA to FL, reduces number of households in CA. Not for local jobs of course

But anyway, beyond fungibility, demographic trend is towards population decline. Spread between population growth and rate of new home construction is at an all time high.

And even CA recently passed a law allowing densification on certain SFH plots

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

#379

Post by WA »

conductr wrote: post #139
brewdad wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll find out over the next 6-12 months. At some point, a lot of home buyers started shopping by payment without regard to total price. With interest rates near their lowest in anyone's lifetimes that was workable. With interest rates rising, as buyers who haven't locked in lower rates begin looking at the current payments on offer, they will have to look at lower priced homes or drop out of the market. If this boom…

The concept of the cash buyer is a bit of a farse as well. What usually takes place is a cash offer. They just need to proof of funds to do this. But then, they get financing to close. Nobody in their right mind is putting that sum of cash in real estate when they could borrow at 2% or whatever it was before the recent run up. The mortgage interest even has favorable tax treatment so it’s effectively much less. Oh an…

Because for some people, it’s not about maximizing financial returns, but to have only their name in the deed and not the bank. Zero hassling with banks is freedom.

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

#380

Post by turtledove »

pj_mukh wrote: post #361
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.

Hundred percent. I have a personal ethos that believes profit from rent is amoral, but we could probably address housing concerns without meeting my personal ethics standards, which I freely admit are more extreme than most.
Post reply on HN