Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year • Hacker News Board

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#231

Post by tzs » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:39 PM UTC

anoonmoose wrote: post #122

thepasswordis wrote: post #88

I'm so frustrated by some of the conversations people get in around housing. They want to live in the most desirable places on planet earth, and seem to think that we should just abolish the concept of property ownership to accomplish this. What do you guys think happens when you get what you want, and nobody can "own" property anymore? Do you think there is an unlimited amount of single family 3000 square foot homes…

> Here's a house in Indiana for $125K Laketon, IN, population 606, had its post office closed in 2010 and, from a quick perusal of Google Maps, probably doesn't have a single traffic light. Doubt there's much public transit out that way. Only 30 miles to a town I might be able to get a job in, though...

> Doubt there's much public transit out that way. Only 30 miles to a town I might be able to get a job in, though...

Lots of people in the SF area and lots of other big cities have commutes of 30 miles or more. And I'd bet the traffic on those commutes is a lot worse, so 30 miles in the Laketon area is likely equivalent to maybe 10 miles in SF.

I'd expect entertainment and cultural events are limited in Laketon, but it's a 100 mile drive to Indianapolis and 140 mile drive to Chicago. With all that you'd be saving on housing compared to SF weekend getaways to those cities should be affordable.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#232

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:39 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #120

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are reasons for that, but they are generally bad ones involving people not wanting to live near other people Could have just ended the sentence there.

That's not it though, really. People with a bit of cash - the kind who show up to planning commission hearings at 2 in the afternoon on weekdays - can very easily go buy some land in a remote place and do just that. They like city amenities though.

Maybe? Some of us have significant others, who believe staying close to family and whatnot is of some importance. I don't, but I am biased since I left mine thousands of miles away and have not looked back much.

If it was up to me, I would already have moved somewhere with lower taxes, but "kids, school and so on" currently takes priority over my selfish needs.

Yes. I pay for them. I better like them. Otherwise, I will be the one complaining during next board meeting.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#233

Post by icelancer » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:39 PM UTC

aprdm wrote: post #91

JamesBarney wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If banks stopped lending based on creditworthiness they'd be doing a lot less lending causing far more people to not be able to afford a house.

IMO they need to change their model. If someone has been affording rent at 2k for many years, then they can afford a mortgage at 1.5k, that's not the case nowadays.

Renting on a yearly basis at $24k/year is very different than committing to the deed transfer on land + house at $18k/year on a 30 year term.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#234

Post by pickovven » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:40 PM UTC

nineplay wrote: post #170

thepasswordis wrote: post #88

I'm so frustrated by some of the conversations people get in around housing. They want to live in the most desirable places on planet earth, and seem to think that we should just abolish the concept of property ownership to accomplish this. What do you guys think happens when you get what you want, and nobody can "own" property anymore? Do you think there is an unlimited amount of single family 3000 square foot homes…

I'm with you friend. Posters throw out lines like "property shouldn't be an investment" as though the idea that property has intrinsic value is something invented in the last 50 years or so, not something that has been true for millennia. I've been told that "housing is a right" which, if conceded, still runs into your point - housing may be a right, housing in the most expensive and populated areas in the US is not…

Your point would be more compelling if people weren't specifically blocking additional housing so their investment appreciates.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#235

Post by weo3dev » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:40 PM UTC

desperadovisa wrote: post #164

paxys wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a twisted framing of the issue. No one wants to "abolish property ownership". In fact housing proponents want the exact opposite – give everybody the opportunity to own a house rather than a select few large corporations and investors. Let me build my own house on a piece of land in or near the city, just like my grandparents did just a couple of generations ago. Remove years worth of excessive permits,…

Sorry but with all due respect, "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere" is absolutely an acceptable answer. You're acting like you're entitled to live where ever you want, but the simple reality is that this is not possible. You need to come to grips with that objective fact.

No post body was provided.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#236

Post by paxys » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:41 PM UTC

daenz wrote: post #217

paxys wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a twisted framing of the issue. No one wants to "abolish property ownership". In fact housing proponents want the exact opposite – give everybody the opportunity to own a house rather than a select few large corporations and investors. Let me build my own house on a piece of land in or near the city, just like my grandparents did just a couple of generations ago. Remove years worth of excessive permits,…

>And no, "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere" isn't an acceptable answer. As someone who grew up in a small town, do you understand how condescending this is? People have homes there, have families there, work hard and live decent lives. Just because they live at a pace you're not accustomed to, doesn't make living there some kind of hellish existence. Many would say the same about a filthy, overcrowded, crime…

You seem to want to get offended for no reason. If I forced everyone from your town to move to downtown New York would they be happy about it? Or could it be that different people have different lifestyle preferences?

I'm sure where you live is lovely, but I still don't want to move there myself.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#237

Post by pickovven » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:41 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #88

I'm so frustrated by some of the conversations people get in around housing. They want to live in the most desirable places on planet earth, and seem to think that we should just abolish the concept of property ownership to accomplish this. What do you guys think happens when you get what you want, and nobody can "own" property anymore? Do you think there is an unlimited amount of single family 3000 square foot homes…

The current state of things are that most property rights are abolished. Why do all my neighbors get to decide if my property has 10 or 20 units on it?

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#238

Post by notch656a » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #180

idiotsecant wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the insane mortgage rates we saw in the last few years really are going to be a generational redistribution of wealth that we'll talk about for the next century, I think. That might have been the last train out of town for the middle class to widely own housing in a lot of cases.

People have been making this argument since 1990. The Federal Reserve MANDATES that consumer prices go up 2% per year. If house prices ever go down, they'll be there - waiting - to pump them up. Prices will rarely ever go down substantially for a long period of time unless the Fed completely changes (I doubt it). You can either: 1) try to time the market (difficult in housing, I'd argue not as impossible as equititie…

Housing prices exploded to compensate for the negative real interest rates. The people who got the handouts were rich people who owned multiple houses and sold them off. For the most part others didn't get that hot of a deal. In effect it was a regressive tax that the poor paid for the rich by paying in inflation the cost to make multi-home owners rich.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#239

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #189

throwaway22032 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK social housing has a bad reputation because poor people are far more likely to just be nightmares to live nearby. I lived in one throughout my entire childhood. Around half of people were OK, the other half just generally dickheads. That has 0 to do with racism. Many UK towns have trivial populations of non-"White British". The problem is mostly that over time (years or generations) poverty gradually turns…

You can make a decent argument that concentrated poverty does cause some problems. Which is why you should do your best to spread all kinds of housing throughout a city, including plenty of upzoning in wealthier areas.

"You can make a decent argument that concentrated poverty does cause some problems."

What differs between it being concentrated or spread out? I see you're making the argument that it should be spread out, but I don't see any explaination of the benefits.

Edit: why disagree? This is an honest question.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#240

Post by paxys » Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

desperadovisa wrote: post #164

paxys wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a twisted framing of the issue. No one wants to "abolish property ownership". In fact housing proponents want the exact opposite – give everybody the opportunity to own a house rather than a select few large corporations and investors. Let me build my own house on a piece of land in or near the city, just like my grandparents did just a couple of generations ago. Remove years worth of excessive permits,…

Sorry but with all due respect, "too bad, go live in the middle of nowhere" is absolutely an acceptable answer. You're acting like you're entitled to live where ever you want, but the simple reality is that this is not possible. You need to come to grips with that objective fact.

Why is it not possible? The only "objective fact" is that people in certain areas in this country have lobbied hard to make sure that no one else should be able to move in anywhere around them. These rules are all reversible.