Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says • Hacker News Board

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

#601

Post by mmarq » Fri, May 06, 2022, 12:54 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #552

jillesvangurp wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 earmarke…

> 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. That's not the problem either, the scarcity is (with the exception of foreign - i.e. Chinese and Russian - money laundering) natural and not artificial. The true problem is that following mechanization in agriculture many people emigrated from rural areas, resulting…

> The true problem is that following mechanization in agriculture many people emigrated from rural areas

That happened at the latest 40 years ago (in fact it happened more than a century ago), while house prices went crazy roughly after 2000.

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

#602

Post by MrMan » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:01 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #552

jillesvangurp wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 earmarke…

> 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. That's not the problem either, the scarcity is (with the exception of foreign - i.e. Chinese and Russian - money laundering) natural and not artificial. The true problem is that following mechanization in agriculture many people emigrated from rural areas, resulting…

more people need to move to cities, not more sprawl. there are lots of cities where NIMBY/ YIMBY stuff isnt an issue but people on HN dont want to live in those places.

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

#603

Post by turtledove » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:11 PM UTC

agentgumshoe wrote: post #504

turtledove wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fair question, and one I'm not entirely satisfied that I have the answer for. Ideally, in my mind, I wouldn't own my home but I'd also be on the hook for maintenance and upkeep. But I recognize this does not meet everyone's needs and needs more thought. I would also hope that we would tend to build fewer mansions in favor of more multi family complexes, cohousing, coops, and small community oriented housing…

You know this kind of leads towards communism... Which I think is the key problem with any kind of shared equality by force system, it will work nicely so long as no one running things decides they don't want it to, then it works really poorly.

Looking at any single step on a path and rejecting it because the extreme end of the path isn't desirable is a quick way to never make any progress.

We can improve things, we can do social good, and never slide to authoritarianism. (I assume you are talking about authoritarian communism vs, eg, council communism.)

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

#604

Post by turtledove » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:12 PM UTC

carom wrote: post #487

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.

How often would people have to move?

When they wanted to. Forcing people to move is, imo, needlessly cruel.

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

#605

Post by throw1234651234 » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:16 PM UTC

southerntofu wrote: post #528

jillesvangurp wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 earmarke…

> The current policy is to drive up housing prices by creating completely artificial scarcity. This is true but not in the way that you mean. As you said there is no shortage of space. But it's important to point out that on a global scale there is no housing shortage either. Vacant dwellings outnumber homeless people by far in most industrialized countries where homelessness is rampant (for example: 3 million empty…

"This is true but not in the way that you mean. As you said there is no shortage of space. But it's important to point out that on a global scale there is no housing shortage either. Vacant dwellings outnumber homeless people by far in most industrialized countries where homelessness is rampant (for example: 3 million empty dwellings here in France)."

I always wonder about public transportation. It never really took off in the US, but it IS way more efficient. If we had very fast subways / trains, we could theoretically stretch housing way out away from the city. Then there is more equal opportunity for jobs / attending universities without living on campus.

I know this is a bit off topic, but it always seems to me like having QUALITY public transportation is efficient, but I can't quite defend it.

Not even to the exclusion of cars. For example I know a lot of workers who drive their car to the subway station in Toronto (and other cities) and then spare themselves the traffic and gas cost of sitting on the highway for 2 hours. And this is the ONLY solution for a big city, since most can't afford to live by the jobs/colleges (even suburban single-bathroom costs are over a million 40 mins out from downtown).

EDIT: I can see residents downtown paying the most taxes being against it though - all it does for them in personal terms is erode their power. Makes their real estate cheaper (removes exclusivity of quick access to offices / educational facilities) and makes the downtown areas accessible to people who can't live there.

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

#606

Post by ryan93 » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:16 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #588

nivenkos wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly anyone can get rent control apartments though. The system has failed.

Not true. There are over a million rent-controlled apartments in Sweden.

How many people want those million homes though?

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

#607

Post by turtledove » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:17 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #553

aqme28 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree of course, but I'm not sure what your point is, other than to be a little bit distracting. It seems pretty reasonable for a government to subsidize modest multi-family homes without subsidizing mansions.

GP was explicitly arguing for government-assured “oversupply of decent housing at all affordability levels.” I do not support government assurance nor ownership for the high-end or luxury levels of affordability.

No, I definitely was not.

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

#608

Post by diordiderot » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:18 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #544

account42 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the farmer disappears, the food will no longer be produced. If the landlord disappears, the house will still be there.

You think houses will stand for long without any maintenance?

Landlords don't maintain the bloody house. They use tenant money to pay someone else to do it

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

#609

Post by turtledove » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:21 PM UTC

throwaddzuzxd wrote: post #531

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 sometime…

Do you really need to own and park a car for the things you describe? Could you use a short term rental like a Zipcar? Or hire a taxi or Uber?

Or use a bike?

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

#610

Post by mschuster91 » Fri, May 06, 2022, 1:21 PM UTC

mmarq wrote: post #601

mschuster91 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's not the problem either, the scarcity is (with the exception of foreign - i.e. Chinese and Russian - money laundering) natural and not artificial. The true problem is that following mechanization in agriculture many people emigrated from rural areas, resulting…

> The true problem is that following mechanization in agriculture many people emigrated from rural areas That happened at the latest 40 years ago (in fact it happened more than a century ago), while house prices went crazy roughly after 2000.

> while house prices went crazy roughly after 2000.

It began earlier, the problem (why the situation in urban areas exploded) was that after ~2000-2005 it simply became apparent that the future was the Internet and there was no way government or much less the private companies would ever put up the money to provide actual high speed Internet to rural areas - and so all the new "digital" companies set up shop in urban areas, and people flocked to where the new jobs were.

Had the US government taken care to make sure that the companies not pocket literal billions of funds without providing the service that the government funded [1] you would not be in the mess you are now.

[1] https://eu.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/2021/07/14/weve-spent-...