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

461–470 of 768 posts

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

#461

Post by Gortal278 »

shaky-carrousel wrote: post #387
turtledove wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Travel more. There is plenty of smug ignorance around the world.

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

#462

Post by t_mann »

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.

Well, crashes are a real thing, and these guys are in the business of trying to predict them. Let's remember to revisit their statement in five years.

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

#463

Post by jokethrowaway »

halotrope wrote: post #450

Everyone seems to agree that speculation in housing is a global problem with adverse effects on communities and societies. Toronto seems to be a good example of how the end-game will look like. People are priced out of owning a home for good and/or have to leave places where they might have been living for their whole life. Rent controls don't seem to work, and just cancelling (by whatever means) the market for real…

I don't think what the market thinks of the value of the houses is going up. It's mostly inflation and people thinking everything else will go down compared to houses (stocks, fiat, crypto).

If we stopped messing with the market and started using a currency with actual backing in physical resources, maybe we would experience less recessions and crises.

Avoiding all the short term pain is not free just because the government say so, you'll have to pay it sooner or later.

In a market without government actors capable of breaking rules probably owning houses wouldn't be that valuable. There is plenty of unused land in the world and without a government starting a new city or profitable businesses would be way easier than now.

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

#464

Post by jillesvangurp »

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)…

The inevitable outcome of housing inflation and elimination of the middle class is slums: illegal housing. People will have to live somewhere. And when that becomes unaffordable they'll just improvise.

This is not a technical problem but a policy problem. The solution is changing the policy. The current policy is to drive up housing prices by creating completely artificial scarcity. All the land is owned and earmarked. Just not for housing. This problem exists in most wealthy nations. There is no shortage of space. Just of access to that space. Mostly that's completely intentional and reinforced by generations of politicians acting on the will of the people they represent to ensure that can never change.

You have NIMBYs and vested financial interests basically. Nobody wants their property devalued. So, social housing always is unpopular with the locals. Places like San Francisco where the homeless take dumps on Market Street are of course a bit extreme. But same principle. No shortage of space there.

But it's all reserved and off limits. So, the homeless are camping out there. In the middle of a city full of some of the richest NIMBYs on this planet. That's not a temporary solution. That's a slum and it is growing. Complete with people just shitting all over the place. Slums are what happens when you let things escalate.

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

#465

Post by dgb23 »

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?

I feel like there's a difference between making a sustainable profit and squeezing every bit out of a trade or contract. I'm not as idealistic as GP, but think we should aim at improving things.

Markets and competition work really well on frontiers in a situation where basic things are covered, because like this more people can participate freely.

There are many things that we have figured out to a pretty high degree and that benefit from collaboration and (very) long term thinking. I think housing, transport, basic medicine/treatment and perhaps to some degree food and water belong to that category. You can always have the luxury/explorative version on top with markets and that model works pretty well where it is applied.

To contrast, if your under such financial stress so you constantly worry whether some big bill is coming your way or you cannot even afford the very basics, then your stuck in a perpetual loop. Landlords, collectors and even police come knocking. It takes a lot of courage, discipline and enough luck and stamina to get out of this. In my opinion this is a a monumental task and effort _wasted_ on a inefficient and short sighted system of power relations.

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

#466

Post by turtledove »

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?

A farmer and a landlord are different things. My family are farmers, I've been a landlord. (FWIW, before anyone calls me a hypocrite, I paid back every renter every penny of profit I made from them plus appreciation.)

The labor that the farmer puts in should absolutely be rewarded. But the labor of a farmer is absolutely nothing like a landlord who makes money purely because they had enough money to buy housing. Plenty of landlords hire property management firms, and do little to no labor at all, but still make a profit.

That modality doesn't exist in farming and food the same way it does in housing today.

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

#467

Post by throw123123123 »

usrn wrote: post #355
throw123123123 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US immigration is cratering, it's a national crisis nobody cares about. The supply constraint is old but its not why housing is high - housing prices are high even in places where there is a lot of construction. Monetary policy explains it a lot better, and it predicts that at some point the trend will reverse.

Perhaps legal immigration is but immigration overall is very high. I've hit my quota, here's my reply: illegal immigrants still have to live somewhere So they're going to take housing off the market. They manage to rent houses in various ways (employers, government programs, ngos etc.)

An illegal immigrant cant have a bank account, credit check or buy a home. Is that what you perceive as competition in the housing market?

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

#468

Post by LatteLazy »

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)…

Housing isn't a market because there are 1001 restrictions on supply and subsidies for holding large amounts.

I'm far from right wing, but let's not pretend the issue here is a market not working. It's that we rigged the whole system and then blame "the market" for the results...

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

#470

Post by turtledove »

marvin wrote: post #440
turtledove wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Offer incentives for less desirable properties, eh? That sounds suspiciously like having different prices, just with extra steps.

I suppose, in the same way negative interest rates are just interest rates with extra steps.

Start from a position of "everyone gets a home" and then ask "in that case, how do we make sure folks who end up in less desirable homes are compensated?"

I suppose you could frame it in the language of prices, but in this case the price is paid to the tenant.

Post reply on HN