Live data from Hacker News

Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

fullstackeconomics.com

301–310 of 344 posts

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe there's an ideal size for a given area based on geography and maybe many areas are already at that size.

A single family home is never the ideal size for any amount of geography.

It might be ideal for the family.

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#302
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice try. Landlords and homeowners and the finance industry don't control the market... they just form a political bloc that controls zoning and taxes and transportation infrastructure and central finance, and these knobs in turn control the market. For some reason, they always vote for policies that pump their holdings. Can't imagine why. These policies do create problems, though, and it's not only reasonable to att…

Again, landlords aren’t a big enough group or coordinated enough to do anything. There’s no landlord lobby. Homeowners are a different story. It’s them who stop us from building more. But yea, it’s just the market and there’s no conspiracy and landlords are the last people to blame. Your comment on my cognitive abilities is a petty insult and is not allowed on this platform.

Blackrock doesn’t have any lobbyists? Apartment consortiums don’t have lobbyists?

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#303
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But eventually the vacant apartments will get rented out because they're costing their owners money Owners make money leaving properties vacant all the time. In fact, in many markets capital gains have been much more significant than rental income for a long time now.

Not in a down market. Everybody's a genius in a bull market, where you make money just because your assets went up in value. In a bear market, where your assets go down in value, anyone without cash flow goes bankrupt.

A 13 year old would have made money in real estate over the last 5 years. One could have literally selected a property at random and made money, even one that was trashed.

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#304
post #141
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need to purchase a home - but historically - if you did - you've been much better off financially. it's not the purchase of the home that made you better off financially, but the ability to purchase a home. If you had that ability, investing in another asset at the same leverage level (such as shares) would net you even more financial income (obviously, its higher risk).

Depends where you're talking about in Canada from 2001 to present day the average return of housing has beat the stock market. There is also a question of what amounts you're investing. Paying down a mortgage is sort of like having ever declining rent, but if you're investing in the market instead you face ever increasing rent so the amount of the investment is different between the two scenarios. For instance, after…

> For instance, after paying off a mortgage entirely, my housing costs will be effectively repairs, property tax and utilities. That's a tiny fraction of rent.

no, if you paid off the mortgage, then the cost of your "rent" is just the cost of the capital sitting in the house (plus those maintenance costs you mentioned).

There's no such thing as free living. it is possible that rent is more expensive - but over time, this ought to normalize, as expensive rent will incentivize build-to-rent and arbitrage the difference to make a profit.

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#305
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was all part of the plan to build a nation of mindless debt slaves. It was very effective.

the 30 year mortgage was one of the greatest financial innovations of our time. Allowing anyone to pay off 2022 costs in 2052 dollars. I understanding hating credit card debt, buy now pay later, and other horrible "financial engineering" but the 30 year mortgage is overall a great thing for everyday people.

If everyone gets the benefit, does anyone really get the benefit? In a zero-sum game of prospective home owners bidding against eachother, if both of two opponents the option of longer mortgages, does affordability actually increase? The sticker price just gets bigger.

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#306

https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco... nb that there is little relation to interest rates, which have been steadily declining since 82: https://www.freddiemac.com/pmms with the recent spike, we are currently at ~2000 interest rates, when homes were at 4x incomes, rather than 7+x home prices have been absolutely bonkers, with two massive bubbles (we are in one right now) and the fact that this…

Housing is an investment, you're not meant to live in it. Money is also an investment, you're not supposed to use it as a medium of exchange.

Go kneel and beg in front of the owners of capital and land. Your concerns will be ignored.

You think this is psychotic? I doubt that, I can guarantee that secretly you are thinking the same thing. You would rather see yourself and everyone else around you suffer, for a chance to become one of the corrupted yourself.

The "working class" does not derive anything from interest and capital gains. It pays more in that it could possibly get back. It is in its collective interest to abolish all rent seeking and let capital yields and profits shrink to 0% as perfect market theory predicts.

But no, everyone wants to start their own feudal little dynasty. Eternally passing our obligation to work for them to their descendants, despite the fact that we won't be alive when those descendants are alive, forcing us to pass the debt onto our own descendants.

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe there's an ideal size for a given area based on geography and maybe many areas are already at that size.

A single family home is never the ideal size for any amount of geography.

A single family home is the ideal, period. Ideally with ten or more acres.

Some people would increase density until we're all living in Blade Runner hoping it would make rents drop.

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's always the answer. For some reason it's makes some people on here angry, but the only long term viable solution to expensive housing is to end NIMBYism and draconian zoning laws. Anything else is a short-term half-measure, including affordable housing, rent controls, etc. If you want to actually solve the housing crisis, you just have to build more housing. It really is that simple.

Or maybe there's an ideal size for a given area based on geography and maybe many areas are already at that size.

Stop inviting more people then, why do you hog all the jobs and then complain that people are coming to the place with all the jobs?

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#309
post #302
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, landlords aren’t a big enough group or coordinated enough to do anything. There’s no landlord lobby. Homeowners are a different story. It’s them who stop us from building more. But yea, it’s just the market and there’s no conspiracy and landlords are the last people to blame. Your comment on my cognitive abilities is a petty insult and is not allowed on this platform.

Blackrock doesn’t have any lobbyists? Apartment consortiums don’t have lobbyists?

Homeowners outnumber them and local politicians listen to them more than to some far away group of people in NYC. Really it is quite simple, homeowners vote in tax cuts for themselves which also apply to landlords.

Re: Why the government took home prices out of its main inflation index

#310
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But eventually the vacant apartments will get rented out because they're costing their owners money (in taxes, mortgages, maintenance) and not bringing any in, and you can't spend more than you make forever. Rents go down when landlords go bankrupt. That's what happened in 2009-2010. It took about 4 years after peak homebuilding, and 2.5 years after peak home prices, and about 12-18 months after the financial crisis…

> But eventually the vacant apartments will get rented out because they're costing their owners money Owners make money leaving properties vacant all the time. In fact, in many markets capital gains have been much more significant than rental income for a long time now.

In a lot of cities and countries you pay less taxes if your property is considered unsuited for rental or is just an empty plot of land. There is an incredible financial incentive to avoid providing housing as much as possible.
Post reply on HN