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

751–760 of 768 posts

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

#751

Post by oicU00 »

paulmd wrote: post #338
frosted-flakes wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-essential surgeries tend to have longer wait times (such as hip replacements in elderly people), but conversely, essential care is accessible to everyone at no cost and in a timely manner. I live in Canada, and recently had appendicitis. My appendix was removed less than 24 hours after symptoms began, and 10-12 hours after I arrived at the hospital. I walked in to the ER (after a very painful car ride), they aske…

> Non-essential surgeries tend to have longer wait times (such as hip replacements in elderly people) Something ridiculous like 70% of lifetime healthcare spending in the US occurs in the last two years of a person's life (half-remembered number from like 10 years ago). The uncomfortable truth is that we spend way too much on hail-mary treatments for people who are almost certainly going to die, and too much on usele…

No post body was provided.

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

#752

Post by spopejoy »

Ekaros wrote: post #711
carapace wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdote: I live in Park Merced: > Parkmerced is a neighborhood in San Francisco, California, designed by architects Leonard Schultze and Thomas Dolliver Church in the early 1940s. Parkmerced is the second-largest single-owner neighborhood of apartment blocks west of the Mississippi River after Park La Brea in Los Angeles. It was a planned neighborhood of high-rise apartment towers and low-rise garden apartments in s…

Seems like rent controls are the issues. Causing markets to be inefficient. No surprises there. Get rid of them and maybe supply increases as it can better match demand and capability of renters to pay.

Markets are not a magical oracle of true value though, especially in our current, deeply distorted economy which has the rich gobbling up assets and increasing prices well beyond any livable standard, which is the point of TFA.

Isolating price controls as some kind of glaring inefficiency in an otherwise rational system sounds like ideology, not reason.

It should be manifestly clear that an unregulated market has not served us well for the issue of housing, not just for the indigent but for all non-wealthy individuals and families who spend well over 50% of their income now on rent or mortgage payments.

Attacking rent control in isolation is irrational. Yes it can create a bad situation for landlords in the absence of any other policies designed to mitigate the disaster we are in. But saying that "market efficiency" is the answer is just sticking your head in the sand.

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

#753

Post by [deleted] »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #680
oicU00 wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does your policing add to the conversation? Unrelated syntax and semantics is not related to US housing

Based on your green account name, it appeared you were new to HN. I commented because the site guidelines include: > “ Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.” Your comment, “Don’t forget to mention they still have full health coverage in the EU.” was doing exactly what the guidelines ask us not to. My hope was that bringing attention to this would help deflate the impending generic argu…

[deleted]

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

#754

Post by oicU00 »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #680
oicU00 wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does your policing add to the conversation? Unrelated syntax and semantics is not related to US housing

Based on your green account name, it appeared you were new to HN. I commented because the site guidelines include: > “ Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.” Your comment, “Don’t forget to mention they still have full health coverage in the EU.” was doing exactly what the guidelines ask us not to. My hope was that bringing attention to this would help deflate the impending generic argu…

I did not see that or a TOS as part of sign up

If the HN communities behavior is to point to a TOS I didn’t agree to at sign up, I’ll go ahead and logout and stay away

That’s some bait n switch, end run around norms, patronizer enabling, dark pattern nonsense.

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

#755

Post by techsin101 »

techsin101 wrote: post #457
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We lack space in the few urban areas people want to live in. If people were flexible about where they wanted to live, you’d think that the cheap land/lightly zoned places would prosper, but they don’t.

most of US cities have no public transportation, weird parking zonning rules that making it impossible to have small commercial scene and lack of parks.. just handful of cities are actual cities, not just offices for suburbs.

most of US cities are just offices for suburbs not really cities.

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

#756

Post by matheusmoreira »

turtledove wrote: post #618
matheusmoreira wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disagree that this is a universal desire. We don't all want to have more money than everyone else. Plenty of us just want to have enough money to live modestly and comfortably.

> have enough money to live modestly and comfortably

That necessarily means having more money than everyone else. If you don't, the people who do can and probably will make things very uncomfortable for you.

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

#757

Post by hackerfromthefu »

discardable_dan wrote: post #101
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.

Yes and no. I would agree, but housing is, for the most part, fungible (at least for people with tech salaries). If I sold my house, I could pay for rent in my high-cost area for the better part of a decade with just the income off the sale. I am starting to think I might be crazy not to sell and pocket the money: I could rent down the street and pay rent off my salary while that large pile of money collects rent. A…

Look more than 10 years into the future.

20 years from how as a renter your ongoing costs will be high.

20 years from now as a home owner with the mortgage lower and inflation on everything higher, your ongoing costs will be low.

Owning a house is an exercise in deferred gratification, similar to owning most businesses.

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

#758

Post by hackerfromthefu »

aeroplanetext wrote: post #656
nemo44x wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are buying them though. I think the problem is people think they’re richer than they are and don’t want to live in the places their income and wealth suggest they should. Previous generations handled this better.

People are very opposed to the idea that they can’t buy a house where they grew up, or in an area they feel is comparable. Which I suppose I can understand. But to your point — things change, you aren’t rich enough, it sucks, get over it.

But so much of the new age groups is sold the dream HARD by social media ala Instagram. Aspirationalism is far worse than it was with previous generations.

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

#759

Post by Handytinge »

oicU00 wrote: post #754
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on your green account name, it appeared you were new to HN. I commented because the site guidelines include: > “ Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.” Your comment, “Don’t forget to mention they still have full health coverage in the EU.” was doing exactly what the guidelines ask us not to. My hope was that bringing attention to this would help deflate the impending generic argu…

I did not see that or a TOS as part of sign up If the HN communities behavior is to point to a TOS I didn’t agree to at sign up, I’ll go ahead and logout and stay away That’s some bait n switch, end run around norms, patronizer enabling, dark pattern nonsense.

It's not a ToS, they're guidelines. You're not legally bound, relax.

The point of these guidelines is that _generally_ most people follow them and it stops this place going to garbage like every forum before it, and allows it to stay a place for professionals to discuss topics, rather than us vs them flamebaiting and boring jokes.

You're totally welcome to go, but you're also welcome to stay. If you step back and calm down, you might find you like it here :).

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

#760

Post by hackerfromthefu »

BeetleB wrote: post #671
bezospen15 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newsflash, they aren't losing money

Some data would be nice. I've followed real estate investments for a while, and renting houses is fairly poor if you paid all cash for the house. The math is easy to do. Most RE investors I know who do this make good money only if they buy a significantly undervalued house - often one that is unsellable. They buy it, put in $50K to repair it, and then rent it out. Those who buy regular houses at 20% down and rent it…

Its refreshing to see some maths on this, I hope the people who complain about housing profits read your post, and are capable of doing maths.
Post reply on HN