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

411–420 of 768 posts

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

#411

Post by dvh »

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?

You build apartment and sell it to people for profit.

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

#412

Post by b112 »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #392
turtledove wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“profit from rent is amoral”. Care to elaborate on this? Does this ethical standard also extend to other human needs as well? For instance should farmers not be able to profit from providing food?

It's just backdoor socialism, and I say that as a Canuck!

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

#413

Post by turtledove »

piotrkaminski wrote: post #395
turtledove wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Housing is very, very far from being a commodity.

In what sense? I mean, I'd love it if that were the case, but at least here in the US housing is extremely commodified.

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

#414

Post by somenameforme »

scarface74 wrote: post #250
throw123123123 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you checked your portfolio lately?

Yes, and that’s even more of a reason to be putting extra money into the market if you have a ten year+ time horizon.

I'd reference the Nikkei 225 circa 1990 [1]. That graph is not inflation adjusted. Up to 1990 everybody thought Japan was well on its way to becoming the world's largest economy on an exponential and unstoppable economic acceleration. And it was unstoppable. Then it stopped.

I am not saying this will be the case, but rather that we're at what is likely the largest inflection point in modern history, and trying to predict where the world will be at in 10 years has become effectively impossible.

[1] - https://www.macrotrends.net/2593/nikkei-225-index-historical...

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

#415

Post by qeternity »

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.

The land the asset, less so the structure.

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

#416

Post by turtledove »

paisawalla wrote: post #390
turtledove wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You could have a lottery, adjust prices within a regulated range, offer incentives for less desirable lots.

You could reward developers for lots that have long wait lists and lots of interest, incentivizing developers who build places people want to live.

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

#417

Post by paisawalla »

nivenkos wrote: post #401
paisawalla wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Pricing? You can have the government / housing co-ops sell properties and just forbid private renting out in absentia.

The point is that 1 KWh is 1KWh, but your home on the top floor of Millennium Tower is not equivalent to my home across from the 680 overpass. Housing is not a commodity like electricity, it's not fungible.

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

#418

Post by [deleted] »

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)…

[deleted]

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

#419

Post by turtledove »

merrywhether wrote: post #402
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)…

Isn’t there tension between what I’m assuming is land-value tax to push developers to create more housing and keeping people in the home they’ve lived in for 20 years? That home has probably become inefficient from a public value standpoint and would better contribute if it was a multi-unit dwelling. I’m with you that people should be able to continue to afford to live in the same neighborhood even (with a shift in t…

Yes! And thank you for approaching this with a thoughtful question.

One solution to this would be to guarantee a unit in any multi family or apartment building to the current resident, and pay for their relocation while the new unit is being built.

Alternatively, buy units from people who are leaving or who have passed away.

We do need to knock down some houses to build more housing, but we can do it in a way that is minimally disruptive.

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

#420

Post by jokethrowaway »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #336
brnaftr361 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're paying taxes, yeah? And if you were to overlook those tax payments, what would become of your supposed ownership? And subject to eminent domain? Not to mention the many laws of the lands and social expectations besides. How much do you really own?

In that sense, you don't own your body either: At any time, the government could send goons to shoot you or jail you or harvest your kidneys. Even if you leave the country, they could put a bounty on your head or send assassins. Sure, there's courts and laws, but they pick the judges and can choose to change the laws. They could pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow giving themselves the right to harvest your kidn…

What you say is absolutely correct.

While you have governments that can legally steal everything from you just because they can, you'll never really be free.

That said, there are degrees of freedom.

Property taxes in the US are very high so I consider it an inferior degree of freedom compared to owning a house in a country where I don't have property taxes. The more corporation / income tax I have to pay the less free I am, hence why I'll move to a country which charge less corporation / income tax.

Sure, I'm still owned by the government because they have soldiers and guns and I have none - but at least I can live my life as close as possible to how I'd like to live it.

It is possible to fix this situation once and for all: abolish the government and its idea of legitimacy, let people organise their own defence from the goons of other countries by paying voluntarily.

You won't end up with a much different system, you'll still have some people not paying anything and some people paying more to defend their community - but at least I would pay voluntarily what's needed for my defence without enriching the politicians, fake intermediaries with empty promises, and it wouldn't be coerced out of me under threat of fines and imprisonment.

Post reply on HN