Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake • Hacker News Board

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#721

Post by horsawlarway » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:19 PM UTC

tstrimple wrote: post #705

horsawlarway wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not being adjacent to a major urban area is in many respects like going back in time some proportion to your distance from one. This whole conversation devolves into this single point, in my opinion. There is land out there that is cheap as fuck-all. Lots of places will flat out hand you the deed if you promise to live there and build a house. Some places will subsidize you moving into a house for $1. You just have…

The push to spread further out makes no sense to me. Suburban communities are already unsustainable, rural communities even worse. Economies of scale matter a whole lot here. The number of miles of road needed to service a rural community is exponentially higher than urban areas. This cost is not borne by those communities, but rather is subsidized heavily by urban workers. Rural areas also have a higher carbon footp…

Everywhere was once rural(ish - depending on how far back you want to go).

Nothing you're saying is wrong, but it belies the point.

At some point, someone has to do the investment that makes a place appealing. I'm not saying "everyone should live like current rural residents".

I'm saying the investment that should be happening is "take a rural space and make a medium/high density area". Usually by creating a foundational lynchpin for income (ex: battery factory, chip factory, etc) and encouraging remote work.

> Pushing more people into areas with few opportunities just exacerbates this problem.

Pushing more people into areas with few opportunities creates opportunities in those areas.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#722

Post by theIV » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:19 PM UTC

Nemo_bis wrote: post #711

keerthiko wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NYC, a lot of the affordable housing stock are part of co-ops, where the board has to approve your finances before you can move forward with a purchase. If your monthly income is less than a certain multiple (you would think 3x, but it's usually 5x - 10x depending on the co-op) of your monthly payments ie maintenance + mortgage + insurance, they can reject your application. And even if you found a condo (usually 2…

"A lot"? I've been researching this earlier in another place and didn't come up with much, do you have a link on how to list them?

Anecdotal, but: Head over to https://streeteasy.com/ & do some searches with whatever you deem to be "affordable," then compare between the various "building types" in their filtering.

It's been a little while since I've done this–I, at least temporarily, gave up the idea of buying something in the city–but I noticed similar trends to keerthiko. Similar to when I was actually looking at places with a broker.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#723

Post by michaelje » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:19 PM UTC

This was a thoughtful read - but found the conclusion avoided the biggest challenge of all - that housing is not just a financial decision - but rather, people require housing to live their lives.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#724

Post by michaelje » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:20 PM UTC

This was a thoughtful read - but found the conclusion avoided the biggest challenge of all - that housing is not *just* a financial decision - but rather, people require housing to live their lives.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#725

Post by keerthiko » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:21 PM UTC

Nemo_bis wrote: post #711

keerthiko wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NYC, a lot of the affordable housing stock are part of co-ops, where the board has to approve your finances before you can move forward with a purchase. If your monthly income is less than a certain multiple (you would think 3x, but it's usually 5x - 10x depending on the co-op) of your monthly payments ie maintenance + mortgage + insurance, they can reject your application. And even if you found a condo (usually 2…

"A lot"? I've been researching this earlier in another place and didn't come up with much, do you have a link on how to list them?

I used streeteasy[0] almost exclusively during my home search. They label every listing by home type (co-op, condo, townhouse, etc)

I don't think I found a condo under 800k, while there are plenty of co-ops across the boroughs, including Manhattan, in the 300-800k range.

EDIT: just noted you said "in another place". In my experience it's very hard to find this information in America outside NYC without investigating individual buildings.

[0]: https://streeteasy.com/for-sale/nyc/price:300000-800000

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#726

Post by mulmen » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:22 PM UTC

acabal wrote: post #460

Indeed, and the article is right in saying there isn't really a way out. Humanity paints itself into these kinds of corners fairly frequently over the course of history: entrenched systems where many suffer, but where too many powerful people benefit for it to be able to change. Traditionally, the solution has been violent revolution. That's really the only way to (for example) tell 66% of Americans that their bigges…

> And I would argue that January 6 was more of a social-media-fueled livestream event than any kind of attempt at coherent political change.

It wasn't isolated: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/25/905785548/unmasked-protesters....

I don't know if any of them had pitchforks but some of them had guns.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#727

Post by rootsudo » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:22 PM UTC

olyjohn wrote: post #704

vjk800 wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. If your complaint is that you need to be a millionaire to get basic housing, it's because you live with other rich people. Since the overwhelming majority of humanity lives in houses with value far below 1M$, we can conclude that no-one really has to live in a place with only 1M$ houses, but you, for some reason, want to do so. Living in a posh neighbourhood is a luxury, like Ferrari (which, by the way, costs…

Dude, this guy isn't talking about some posh high end part of Seattle. I just sold my "quaint 1200sqft starter house" in a remote South Seattle neighborhood for $675,000. It's 45+ minutes by transit to downtown. You know what I paid for that just 5 years earlier? $350,000. This is the part of town where the grocery store has security guards all over the place, and the bank has thick bulletproof glass between you and…

Going to the Safeway on Rainer is really on you. It does get dicey at night, but the day is okay.

One reason I would never live in "South Seattle" it's a literal food desert. The WinCo being in Kent is it's only saving grace, but even the QFC a bit north of the Safeway on Rainer - yeah.

The fun part is, all the good brands are routinely on sale/discounted heavily because the local population either does not like or can't afford it - e.g. cheeses. Always 20-40% discount on cheese.

Not so common in north outside Seattle limits, or even along the border - but yeah to go back to point -

"This is the part of town where the grocery store has security guards all over the place, and the bank has thick bulletproof glass between you and the teller, and the transit options such big time. If you want to live anywhere remotely near where the jobs are, every house is near $1m+ now."

Is why the good houses cost 1,000,000+. Community and neighborhood alongside school district.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#728

Post by jonfw » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:23 PM UTC

I think the issue has been worsened because it was easier, politically, to work around the problem by making mortgages more attainable rather than by doing something to decrease the value of the home.

In the short run, everybody is happy- developers make money and build houses, consumers and investors can borrow cheap money with little leverage to get a worthwhile asset, and existing homeowners see their house appreciate and can re-fi to take advantage of the cheap cash.

However, this strategy doesn’t scale. You can only make mortgages so attainable, before you get 2008 all over again.

I think inflation has been the answer- with massive inflation, we can decrease the real value of a house and make mortgates more expensive without people ending up underwater.

Of course, inflation has many of its own problems, like we’re seeing today

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#729

Post by inconceivable » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:24 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #706

bityard wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to be blunt, but if modest homes in your area are $1m, then you are in a VERY high-cost-of-living area and what you see here is not at all typical of the rest of the country. Where I live, a charming 1200sqft starter home in a blue collar neighborhood goes for $150-$200k.

[flagged]

i'd say you're describing something that's pretty obvious on its face.

what's not obvious is this dynamic has been going on for over a century and a half in california and the greater american west in general. the white native reaction was at first the chinese exclusion act, then japanese internment / asset seizure.

the difference is this time the legacy white property owners are cashing out (cashing in?) in a huge way in both sales and rent as asians move in, so you can expect it to continue.

it's white flight, but financially inverted. in other words.... asian gentrification.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#730

Post by vanilla_nut » Mon, Mar 06, 2023, 8:24 PM UTC

mjr00 wrote: post #379

mjmahone17 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, we’ve made it so new condos are so hard to get built that a 2 bedroom condo in a walkable neighborhood (which you likely need when you retire) is the same or more expensive than a 4 bedroom suburban home. In order to be able to downsize, you need the smaller unit to be less expensive than your current home, and in many markets right now that’s barely, if at all, the case.

> a walkable neighborhood (which you likely need when you retire) Really don't agree with this -- retiree doesn't mean "decrepit". You're still very capable of driving. My own parents recently retired to a rural area in the US, in a neighborhood with other retirees, where they're a 5 minute drive from the nearest grocery store and a 30 minute drive from the nearest "city" of ~20k people. It's very walkable in the sen…

I don't think it's safe to bank entirely on driving-as-transportation in old age. My grandparents and my partner's grandparents all live(d) in unwalkable places in the US, and it was hell on their families when they slowly lost the ability to drive. You somehow have to either drive them around yourself (expensive and a massive time commitment), move them in with you, or move them into a retirement community when they eventually lose the ability to drive safely around others. It's inevitable!