Live data from Hacker News

Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

goodreason.substack.com

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#891

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.

Tbf, SF is listed as the second highest population density among non-metro areas, behind NYC (according to Wikipedia)

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 w…

It arguably dates back further, with Hispanics rather than Asians

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#893
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see this I have to laugh. If you live in Tokyo, I'd love to hear your anecdotal experience. I have stayed and visited japan for the last 35 years, and find all of the "Tokyo is so affordable and buildable" is hilarious. The breathless articles I read about it leave out fundamental aspects (the incredible density, the absolute destruction 70 years ago, the corruption [especially in Shinjuku], the size of…

So Tokyo isn't affordable and livable because it's dense? I lived in Japan so I understand where you're coming from...but the fact that "fleeters" are even a thing should tell you they are doing something right with housing prices. Can you imagine an American person in Seattle deciding to just work 30 hours at a conbini and being able to rent a studio? A couple things: 1. Sure, Tokyo is dense and can be kinda soul cr…

I agree that there's gotta be a place to live (that doesn't require a 1hr car drive or a multi-hour commute) to support city living at reasonable working wage and that is not possible in most rapidly urbanizing/gentrifying areas of the US (it is possible in Detroit or even NY to some extent).

That probably means something of a couple hundred ft2, not 1000. However, the reasons for homelessness in Hawaii vs Tokyo (I've actually seen some in the last 5 years!) has a lot to do with weather, social acceptance, and income from panhandling (which doesn't happen in Tokyo).

Also, a lot of the homeless I see outside (not the hidden homeless who have one or more jobs) in the US have problems that would lead to incarceration in Japan (drug use, untreated mental illness). At the same time I've known older people in Japan who would be in memory care in the US who were helped by the community to remain living in their houses in Japan. It is much safer in Japan, but at the same time any activity that makes it feel less safe is much more likely to be "policed".

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#894

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]

so... Asians are at fault for the rising cost living?

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#895
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…

There is some irony, though, in being in one of the most portable sectors of the economy but complaining about having to live “where the jobs are.” I think a lot more of it has to do with FOMO and wanting to live a particular tech lifestyle rather than needing to live in Washington or California to work in tech.

Other jobs literally have to move to continue their work in a particular industry. When a factory relocates, line workers need to move too. Nurses often have to move, or learn a new job. Sure, you may not have a high status FAANG job, but there’s way more remote work in tech than probably any other industry. I think it’s more an issue of managing expectations and wanting it all, than lack of opportunity to find a job in an area with a decent quality of life

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#896
post #644

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.

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…

I live in rural BFE utah, (Cedar City, 45 minutes east of St George). Average home prices here have gone from 200k to 400k in 3 years. I'm a freelance dev, earn maybe 80k, but that fluctuates a lot, and 400k is a tough number to swallow when it was 200k a few years back, I keep hoping it'll go back to those days, but I doubt it will.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of makes sense. When you own a property, you have to maintain it and pay property taxes. When you add all that up, you either need a lot more than rent, or you need the mortgage to be lower than rent so you can afford those other expenses.

But it's not as though property taxes and ongoing maintenance costs don't exist for apartments. The income the owner receives from the rents has to cover all of that.

How much does being able to call an expense an expense figure into things? Like, why wouldn't I set up a company owns my house and rents it back to me?

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#898
post #116

Easily fixed with a tax system: 1) first home tax-free - the address you submit your yearly taxes on. Incentivize people to own at least one home. 2) second property you pay taxes for both homes now - no more tax free benefit since you are able to afford more than one place. 3) more than 2 properties you pay taxes for all of them times some factor 0.05*N houses. Fudge around with the factor to allow more supply for a…

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Georgism(LVT) would fix so many things. I'd literally vote for a single issue party to get it passed at this point.

Maybe it's time to start one, I group myself w/ anarcho-syndicalist, but a practical one that believes some hybrid system like what we have now meets star trek is probably the best we can hope for, but LVT seems like the best way to move us there, other than creating huge employee-owned syndicates that compete w/ the other big companies, and have very loyal employees and customers.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you are being downvoted. Buying small, building equity, and trading up has always been a thing in home ownership.

The new play may be buying big and buying the building not the land. Inflation on goods and services is having trouble keeping up with rates

I think a lot of people on this site don’t understand how much materials cost as well as labor today.

Re: Maybe treating housing as an investment was a mistake

#900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

same issue with my chinese wife alltough she doesnt has a PHD… We could work in lovely amazing places in france but we have to stay in the capital. yet with time it changes… actually they (the asian you say) would face less discrimination but they just dont know it so they could be also racist by themselve (english is not my best, just trying to explain, of course they are not racist) I see this in my street, 2 kebab…

> actually they (the asian you say) would face less discrimination but they just dont know it so they could be also racist by themselve (english is not my best, just trying to explain, of course they are not racist)

Thank you for speaking on our behalf and enlightening us on where we would/would not experience more/less racism.

Post reply on HN