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

381–390 of 768 posts

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

#381

Post by danans »

zamfi wrote: post #314
trgn wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is rotating from housing as commodity investment to housing as intergenerational asset, something which has happened in a lot of other countries already (see e.g. Western Europe, mentioned in other comments here). House prices will remain up because any gain from sale will be plowed into the next home. It's a ratchet upward. Higher mortgage rates are somewhat irrelevant in this dynamic, because the home itself…

> USA was inoculated for a very long time, because horizontal expansion over cheap land allowed for expansion of supply. That era is over. True. > Car and highway technology is no longer adequate to expand cheaply and still remain within viable commuting distance. False. The US has mind-boggling amounts of land available. What's changed is the ability and desire to build on it. Used to be, the government would pay yo…

> The US has mind-boggling amounts of land available. What's changed is the ability and desire to build on it.

Times have changed and most people don't want to live in marginal lands that are available in mind boggling quantities. In addition, the reason that a lot of cities were built a few generations ago in the hinterlands was because manpower was needed for resource extraction industries, which have since either become highly automated or fallen into secular decline. We are no longer a nation of farmers and miners.

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

#383

Post by pasquinelli »

melissalobos wrote: post #4

Isn't this one of those "If everyone is crazy, you're crazy" situations? If every house is overvalued by some metric, then maybe the metric is wrong. People's perceptions of value are a large part of the actual value(meaning what someone would really pay) for things like housing that should depreciate over time.

who's everyone exactly? it's moody's saying that homes in 97% of //cities// are overvalued. or, in other words, moody's is predicting a sudden drop in house prices in basically all american cities.

is it not typically the case that, before the price of something goes off a cliff, most people think it's worth the going price?

your first sentence is quippy, but i don't think it's saying anything.

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

#384

Post by jdblair »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #277
trgn wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is rotating from housing as commodity investment to housing as intergenerational asset, something which has happened in a lot of other countries already (see e.g. Western Europe, mentioned in other comments here). House prices will remain up because any gain from sale will be plowed into the next home. It's a ratchet upward. Higher mortgage rates are somewhat irrelevant in this dynamic, because the home itself…

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.

All houses need maintenance and upkeep to survive.

My wood frame house in Oakland was built in 1896. Clearly it lasted longer than 70 years. Brick is a terrible building material in California, due to earthquakes.

My brick house in Amsterdam was built in 1886. However, the piles it sat on were wood, which decayed, and the house sank 8 cm.

Both needed new foundations, both were gutted and remodeled on the inside to update them to modern standards.

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

#385

Post by turtledove »

5ersi wrote: post #371
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 cave…

I buy electricity from a monopoly provider in my area, run the government. Is that a market? I buy sewer and garbage service likewise.

There are some commodities we choose to operate as natural monopolies because competition and profit seeking leads to bad outcomes for society. My argument is fundamentally that housing is the same.

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

#386

Post by paisawalla »

turtledove wrote: post #373
anm89 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comple…

It's really incredible that you're saying "superficially similar policies are being enacted in multiple, disparate geographies around the world, in vastly differing cultural and economic contexts, so you can't deny that all of them should coincide in one totally separate place I've chosen."

I notice you didn't mention Berlin's rent control fiasco btw

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

#387

Post by shaky-carrousel »

turtledove wrote: post #373
anm89 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comple…

It's funny. There are ignorant people everywhere. But smug ignorance, that I only find it in Americans, for some reason. Maybe it's that "best country in the world" mentality leaking. That mentality doesn't make humble people.

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

#388

Post by notch656a »

turtledove wrote: post #373
anm89 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comple…

About a third of Singapore is persons who don't have Citizenship nor PR. Their public housing is propped up by making like 1/3 of the often lower earning workers (who are ineligible for public housing) pay taxes so that the Citizens and PR holders can profit.

If 'Success' is your metric, the Singapore analogy to America would be to import way more Canadians and Mexicans, ban them from public housing and then make them pay for it.

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

#389

Post by cycrutchfield »

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.

So basically everybody should live in a Khrushchyovka. Real central planning communist slum type housing.

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

#390

Post by paisawalla »

turtledove wrote: post #385
5ersi wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cave…

I buy electricity from a monopoly provider in my area, run the government. Is that a market? I buy sewer and garbage service likewise. There are some commodities we choose to operate as natural monopolies because competition and profit seeking leads to bad outcomes for society. My argument is fundamentally that housing is the same.

How will you be deciding who gets to have a view of the ocean, and who gets to sleep next to the overpass? First come first serve? Birthright?
Post reply on HN