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

531–540 of 768 posts

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

#531

Post by throwaddzuzxd »

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)…

> charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)

Housed people need parking lots though. Tons of places are not, and never will be accessible with public transports. I live in a city with a great public transport network but I still need a car, as much as I'd love not needing one: I need to visit friends or family outside the city, I have to make bulk grocery shopping sometimes and bags are not enough, I sometimes buy big housing furniture, I even had to retrieve parcels outside of the city sometimes... Heck, even to go to work, sometimes I'm late, or I missed my bus, or public transports are on strike, or anything can happen that I need my car to save 1 hour.

> abolish mandatory minimum parking

Same as above, that's an awful idea.

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

#532

Post by matheusmoreira »

turtledove wrote: post #475
shetill wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason the housing has turned into such a market is not because the evil overlords are deciding. It's due to overwhelming demand and the supply cannot keep up, so landlords have the freedom to choose any prices. The reason there is so much demand is because there are way more people on this planet now than there ever used to be. So if you want cheaper houses, solve the overpopulation problem first.

Landlords don't need to raise rent if their costs aren't rising.

Landlords don't need to raise prices. They want to. We all want to have more dollars than everyone else and landlords are no exception.

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

#533

Post by southerntofu »

qeternity wrote: post #398
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.

> we choose to operate as natural monopolies No, not at all. We don’t choose natural monopolies. We recognize them. The whole point is they are naturally occurring whether we want them or not. Housing shares nothing in common with the other services you mention which are anything but commodities! The natural monopoly of the electrical company isn’t electricity, it’s distribution. Power is a commodity, and delivery is…

There is no reason we have to pay for anything. Money is not a natural construct and is a leaky abstraction. Our ancestors built housing long before currency was even invented.

Public services are not a "natural monopoly". They are a deliberate political choice (that was paid in blood by the lower classes, see also Haymarket Affair for example). We could very easily make housing free for all, or just affordable (see also HLM program in France).

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

#534

Post by cloutchaser »

nxm wrote: post #509
cloutchaser wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem in almost every country with out of control house prices is low interest rates since the dot com crash. That's where everything went wrong. At 0-1% interest you can get insane mortgages for 90-95% of the value of the property, pushing the price up to where people spend every last cent they can on mortgages, but at $xxxx per month you can easily afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in mortgages. Raise i…

If there is a recession, young people will not be in a position to buy homes

Most recessions are over in 1-2 years. A 50% price drop in house prices won’t go back up that quickly

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

#535

Post by BlargMcLarg »

maccard wrote: post #489
glerk wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing shouldn't be a market? Then how would housing be allocated? The state builds and gives housing to everyone? Maybe you should take a trip to Eastern Europe one of these days to see the final result of what you're advocating. Pros: everyone is given an apartment to live in. Cons: your city's skyline looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/5X1sIeP.jpg "We collectively decide" just means you decide for me. You think…

Eastern European cities aren't the only examples. Nordic cities (e.g. Stockholm and Copenhagen) are great examples - they have different problems but people are housed. Cities like Berlin don't have a speculative housing market due to excellent renters rights meaning the majority of people rent long term. Finally, Vienna is the poster child for "how to do social housing".

Almost every major city in Europe has the exact same problems. Or arguably worse, depending on your socioeconomic status. Where this myth of "European cities are great" is coming from I don't know, and I would love to know.

>Due to excellent renters rights meaning the majority of people rent long term

This backfires spectacularly once you realize landlords continue to hold the reigns and put up huge demands to avoid "bad renters". As long as the rights don't cover the entirety, landlords will continue to pressure renters in different, more obscene ways.

And in today's society, renting long term also isn't as great as people make it out to be, when your long term rent is a glorified broom closet and there's a great job opportunity a few cities over.

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

#536

Post by refurb »

turtledove wrote: post #393
notch656a wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The government would pay to do it. That's just a loopback to where you started. When government pays, you pay.

Yes. And also no. Today, if I cannot pay, I get no housing. Taxes allow us, as a community, to decide that we should all chip in a little bit extra (commensurate to our means) to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads. Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, so there's less incentive to maximize the cost of housing.

Hilarious how your system gets more and more complex requiring more and more rules.

You’re basically taking a market that has an artificially constrained supply and trying to replace it with an entirely planned system.

Why?

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

#537

Post by qeternity »

southerntofu wrote: post #533
qeternity wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we choose to operate as natural monopolies No, not at all. We don’t choose natural monopolies. We recognize them. The whole point is they are naturally occurring whether we want them or not. Housing shares nothing in common with the other services you mention which are anything but commodities! The natural monopoly of the electrical company isn’t electricity, it’s distribution. Power is a commodity, and delivery is…

There is no reason we have to pay for anything. Money is not a natural construct and is a leaky abstraction. Our ancestors built housing long before currency was even invented. Public services are not a "natural monopoly". They are a deliberate political choice (that was paid in blood by the lower classes, see also Haymarket Affair for example). We could very easily make housing free for all, or just affordable (see…

> There is no reason we have to pay for anything. Money is not a natural construct and is a leaky abstraction. Our ancestors built housing long before currency was even invented.

As you note, there are other ways to pay for things than money. Whether it's "paid in blood" or other barter system, there is always a cost to pay.

> We could very easily make housing free for all, or just affordable (see also HLM program in France).

Would love to hear your very easy solutions. Affordability is relative. If you have more demand than supply (as we do with housing) the only way to increase affordability in real terms is to shift the supply curve. This shift is not free, and somebody has to pay for it. This is where the "omg it's so easy" arguments typically fall apart.

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

#538

Post by Bayart »

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.

> I buy electricity from a monopoly provider in my area, run the government. Is that a market?

It's not a market for you, but it is to your provider. And it naturally impacts the cost that's layed upon you, whether directly through electricity bills or through taxes if it's subsidised.

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

#539

Post by sokoloff »

turtledove wrote: post #470
marvin wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, it would be a tragedy if someone’s taxpayer-provided housing was insufficiently desirable that we must create a bureau to determine how much additional largess they should receive. That system seems likely to end well.

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

#540

Post by sokoloff »

nivenkos wrote: post #524
bjourne wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden doesn't have social housing. What you are discussing is called rent control and means that landlords can't decide rents for their properties by themselves. Without rent control you'd get even more segregated cities as many areas would become too expensive for most to live. Landlords and their lobby organizations want rent control abolished though because doubled rents would greatly increase their profits.

The First hand contract inequality is terrible though. Just ban landlordism directly and let people buy their residences.

What of people who can’t or don’t want to afford to buy and maintain a property? Several times in my life I benefited from renting a room, apartment, or house (in college, just after college, after a breakup/move out, moving to a new city with an unstable job).

It would have been a massive financial burden and personal inconvenience if I had to buy/sell every one of those times.

Post reply on HN