511–520 of 768 posts
1950 - $3,300 - $7,354
1960 - $5,600 - $11,900
1970 - $9,870 - $17,000
1980 - $17,709 - $47,200
1990 - $29,943 - $79,100
2000 - $41,989 - $119,600
2010 - $49,276 - $221,800
2020 - $67,521 - $336,900
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given that commoditization is a scale, I would say it could be toward that end of the spectrum if we wanted it to be. Commoditization is only a scale inasmuch as the underlying goods are fungible. Corn is a commodity because nobody cares about differences between individual kernels, but if some process came around that only worked with super-specific kernels, then you'd be reducing the commoditization of corn. I ca…
Those are things you're attaching because of privilege though. One visit to China will give you a view of just how much housing can be commodtized. Endless rows of apartment buildings, each identical, supplying everything you could need. If you're without a home, one house is very much like another. It's only once you have money and ambition that you might want a better view, better schools.
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.
What if someone less fortunate 'wins' the mansion on the beach. How do they afford the future upkeep?
And now they are “clawing back” future price appreciation because it’s literally like winning the lottery if you get a place in a prime location as public housing is heavily subsidized.
If you get selected for a prime area apartment it’s a huge financial win 5 years down the road when you sell at market prices.
And oh yes, Singaporeans game the hell out of the system. From carefully falling under household income limits, to bidding on a new public housing unit despite owning one now.
The government is constantly trying to keep up with all the new incentives each new rule creates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I think that, in the UK, you don’t actually own the land your house sits on; Lord Such-and-Such owns it, and collects rent from you. I've never heard this before. Is this actually true? Is this some background technical legal truth that isn't noticed in practice?
Called a leasehold. Not all property is like this though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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. Plen…
I wouldn't have called you a hypocrite even if you didn't pay back anything. Living in the real world™ doesn't mean you can't criticise it. If we can't challenge things we take part in, how do we improve anything?
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)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I think tenants should be protected if, eg, their income drops due to a layoff or unforseen medical expense. They should stay if they can't pay? Who takes the loss? It would be sensible to have a government program to help people in such circumstances. But if you'd be asking for the landlord to just take the loss, that's not sensible. The owner is probably barely breaking even on rent vs. costs, so they can't a…
Given the house for rent is an investment, it’s obvious who should be taking the loss: the investor.
This also assumes good faith on behalf of the renters.
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…
> At some point, a lot of home buyers started shopping by payment without regard to total price Isn't this how everyone has always shopped for housing? House prices are just a Present Value calculation. For example, if you can afford $3,000/mo over the next 25 years and you have a copy of Excel or OpenOffice calc handy: Affordable house price at a 5% mortgage rate: =PV(0.05/12,25*12,-3000,0) => $513K + [your down pay…
https://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/property-statist...
I have no idea where interest rates are going to end up however I wouldn't assume that the relevant reference point is late 2019 to now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, Great, so the shit-show we have now, except without any incentive to efficiently spend. Sure that will go over swimmingly. Everyone knows that government construction projects are known for coming on-time and on-budget, and for the best value.
Its not like private sector is free from overspending and funds misallocation - most of money that flows in there is still controller by the jerks on top that are stroking their ego by investing in buzzwords. The invisible hand of market is myth as much as santa is.
Additionally, there are numerous governmental restrictions on minimum square footage, sometimes onerous building codes, impact fees, and zoning restrictions to name a few.