881–890 of 1001 posts
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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How precisely does “the government” do this house price propping up? Primarily by not allowing construction of new housing supply.
All the economic research I’ve read says repealing zoning laws induced no meaningful decrease in home price. That makes sense - home builders build to maximize profit and aren’t in the business of devaluing property they buy to develop. They develop it in a way that appreciates prices to improve their margins. But like this piece there seems to be some view that market forces are shaped by immoral behavior on someone…
What way would that be?
All producers of goods and services maximize profit. That doesn't explain the unique housing sector price developments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather Google and Facebook and the other mega-hire companies would build up outside the bay area, rather than continuing to pack more people in.
If you consider the relatively low density, mostly restrictively zoned Bay Area to be "packed in", I'd hate to hear what you think of e.g. New York.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What…? 300K post taxes is basically 150K, the are probably paying 60K+ in rent and another 30+ in other basic cost of living expenses.
People with a $300k/year income don't face a 50% tax rate all in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather Google and Facebook and the other mega-hire companies would build up outside the bay area, rather than continuing to pack more people in.
The Bay Area isn’t remotely “packed in.” It’s good that the state of California is starting to take steps to prevent its current inhabitants from pulling the ladder up behind them.
> Meanwhile, renters are desperate. They’re begging for housing prices not just to slow, but to fall. I have a friend who is a head chef at a decently popular bar and restaurant on Broadway in Capitol Hill, Seattle (very trendy part of town if you aren't familiar, steep commercial rent). He lives in a 400 sq ft studio and is barely, barely making it from one paycheck to the next. I am sitting on a 2.6% interest rate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China has an enormous amount of housing. Their prices are still sky high
There's a huge cultural difference there though -- people don't trust stocks, bonds, or bank accounts. Housing is the only investment most people will consider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suggesting that the conclusion is telling homeowners that their asset is now "worthless" is extreme hyperbole. Homeowners live in their house. You need only apply the same metaphor from the article. Nobody might be willing to pay money for my couch, but I still keep it in my living room and use it.
Yep. Even if I bought a house at the peak and the market tanks I can still sell it (at a loss) and buy a comparable house because those are cheaper too. The people who get screwed are the multiple-home-owning rent seekers and I'm ok with that. Treating your primary residence as an investment has been bad financial philosophy for all of time.
And people who suddenly find themselves underwater on their mortgage. Assuming they face no economic shocks they might be able to ride it out, but that sounds like a very stressful situation to be in.
doesn't that have something to do with computer programming?
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…
99% of people do not allocate capital, do not write laws, and do not drive policy decisions (yes, we vote, but at least in the US your vote has little impact on these things).
We need to agree on what we think the absolute minimum a person should get for working a full-time job. I personally think a person should be able to afford a home if they work full-time with their own salary. Yes, even someone working full-time at starbucks in the Bay Area should be able to pay the mortgage on 1 very small, crappy condo likely with a long-ish commute. Anything less is unacceptable. Working more hours, attaining more degrees/credentials/experience should allow you to afford slightly nicer standards of living.
Anyone that currently can't afford a mortgage on 1 crappy condo in their city should get a new job that pays at that end or move or quit working all together. Let the "smart/capable" people who "deserve" a decent standard of living do the work.
If and when they decide they want to provide others the same standard of living to others for 40hours/week of work, then everyone can go back to work. If everyone did this tomorrow, we would have new policies and laws in weeks-to-months to overhaul housing. Yes, some people would die in the meantime, but it would make the world a better place. We celebrate people going overseas to get blown up as heroes, maybe some poor and middle class people can die domestically as heroes instead to make this happen as well.
Since we can't even start the conversation about the minimum acceptable compensation for working a full-time job, there's probably no way the rest could happen. It is frustrating how a couple weeks-to-months of widespread action (or inaction) by the working-class and poor could change life for so, so many and generations to come, but knowing there is less than 1% chance it will ever happen.
Maybe the working class does deserve their exploitation.