A record number of Americans can't afford rent • Hacker News Board

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#51

Post by tmnvix » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:26 PM UTC

darkwizard42 wrote: post #35

tmnvix wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past, owning a 'second' or 'holiday' home was an expensive proposition - it actually cost you money. For some time now - because of rapid capital gains and the short term rental market - it makes you money. Many more people are willing and able to do it.

Actually, this seems to be largely an American problem. In Europe, Canada, and Mexico (at least just these areas I'm familiar with), it was common to have a cottage or small home in a faraway part of the "countryside" as a mini-vacation home. Definitely wasn't accessible to everyone, but was FAR from the level of wealth needed in America to operate a "second-home"

The same applies to New Zealand. Lots of families would own a 'bach' in some remote area near a lake, river, or on the coast. These were typically very basic - what you might call a cabin in North America.

Nowadays though, it's common to own that second dwelling in a city or other built up area.

Just last week I was talking with a family member (mid-60s, about to retire). They are planning on buying a small apartment in the city their son and grandchildren live in. They are not selling their existing house in another city to do this. They plan to use it only while visiting and have explicitly stated that they see it as an investment. They are by no means 'rich'. 30 years ago this would have been unheard of for people in their position.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#52

Post by jfim » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:26 PM UTC

darkwizard42 wrote: post #33

Looking to learn more on the subject, but why isn't it in the interest of any city these days to NOT build more housing? They are almost perfectly incentivized to attract working young people and families to help increase their tax base (property tax, income tax, sales tax) and housing would help them do that. Given most large cities are facing huge financial deficits, wouldn't this make sense? (Yes, I'm aware of reg…

For California specifically, there's proposition 13 which caps the rate of increase of property taxes for housing to a rate that's below inflation.

For areas like the Bay area where the cost of living is high (making city employees expensive), zoning for residential instead of commercial means that they're limiting their future tax base while having to provide services to these houses, so cities avoid building housing as much as possible.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#53

Post by brightball » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:26 PM UTC

wnc3141 wrote: post #29

tmnvix wrote: post #5

A useful starting point in dealing with this (and the housing crisis in general) would be to determine what proportion of homes are not being used as a primary residence. I suspect it has risen dramatically over the past couple of decades. If it turns out that that is the case, the next step would be to find out why.

we absolutely need to progressively tax property by number of properties owned. As you own more of a scarce asset, margins on rents are driven toward zero. An aside, I often see worry of corporate ownership of property. While of course this is an issue, the bulk (72%) 1. of the problem lies with simply affluent people who own (fewer than ten) investment properties. I do think however, a fair penalty is to just tax ba…

Agreed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39293808

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#54

Post by beretguy » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:26 PM UTC

cglan wrote: post #25

This is basically the late stage of us continually not building enough housing for years and years. I'm not sure how anyone thought this would turn out differently. As long as housing is an "investment", which in turn means that people lock up big portions of their net worth into housing, and then vote against policies that would make housing cheaper (it's the rational thing to do) then this will be the outcome. Just…

And what happens when we run out of places to build? Or when we build so much it will take an hour or more to go to the grocery shop to buy milk?

Simply “build” is not the answer. “Building smart” would be a better answer. Build “vertically” instead of “horizontally”. Build 10+ stories residential buildings. And build shopping malls vertically too. Build walkable cities so that people don’t have to rely on cars. Etc.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#55

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:27 PM UTC

wnc3141 wrote: post #29

tmnvix wrote: post #5

A useful starting point in dealing with this (and the housing crisis in general) would be to determine what proportion of homes are not being used as a primary residence. I suspect it has risen dramatically over the past couple of decades. If it turns out that that is the case, the next step would be to find out why.

we absolutely need to progressively tax property by number of properties owned. As you own more of a scarce asset, margins on rents are driven toward zero. An aside, I often see worry of corporate ownership of property. While of course this is an issue, the bulk (72%) 1. of the problem lies with simply affluent people who own (fewer than ten) investment properties. I do think however, a fair penalty is to just tax ba…

Your solution to high rents is to increase taxes?

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#56

Post by dmazzoni » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:27 PM UTC

gcgbcfy wrote: post #38

cglan wrote: post #25

This is basically the late stage of us continually not building enough housing for years and years. I'm not sure how anyone thought this would turn out differently. As long as housing is an "investment", which in turn means that people lock up big portions of their net worth into housing, and then vote against policies that would make housing cheaper (it's the rational thing to do) then this will be the outcome. Just…

This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. But homes == money. As someone who is a real estate investor, it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.

The homes aren't where the jobs are, though.

Who cares if there are vacant homes in downtown Detroit for sale or rent? If you moved there you wouldn't be able to get a job

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#57

Post by weard_beard » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:27 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #39

aorloff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because costs are rising and vacancy is rising.

Rents are rising far faster than costs. Vacancies are rising because landlords gouge.

Maintenance, sewer, trash, mortgage and taxes have doubled or tripled. Get out with this nonsense.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#58

Post by sjwhevvvvvsj » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:28 PM UTC

gcgbcfy wrote: post #38

cglan wrote: post #25

This is basically the late stage of us continually not building enough housing for years and years. I'm not sure how anyone thought this would turn out differently. As long as housing is an "investment", which in turn means that people lock up big portions of their net worth into housing, and then vote against policies that would make housing cheaper (it's the rational thing to do) then this will be the outcome. Just…

This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. But homes == money. As someone who is a real estate investor, it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.

“it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.”

And as with many other ways to make a living at the expense of society - such as fraud, theft, and abuse - it should be illegal.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#59

Post by jan3024 » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:28 PM UTC

gottorf wrote: post #48

gcgbcfy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. But homes == money. As someone who is a real estate investor, it’s no secret, we are jacking up the prices. It’s what we do for a living.

> This has been disproven so many times. There’s more vacant homes in the US than homeless people. It hasn't been disproven. There being more vacant homes than homeless people just means that the market isn't clearing, because the minimum price acceptable to the landlord is higher than the maximum price acceptable to the homeless. This could be from any number of reasons, none of which "disprove" the fact that the la…

I consider the fact there’s a surplus of housing to disprove the fact that there’s a shortage of housing. Seems obvious to me.

Re: A record number of Americans can't afford rent

#60

Post by Modified3019 » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 8:28 PM UTC

prasadjoglekar wrote: post #11

foooorsyth wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence that more people are attempting to live alone now than in the past (in the US)? Genuine question -- don't know the trend national trend.

Avg HH size in the US https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h... Mean is a bit of a misleading number here since the distribution really is discrete - and there are a lot more 1 and 2 person homes today than before, which is contributing to the lower average.

Note, these questions are not explicitly aimed at you to try and answer, I’m just throwing out what I’m not clear on

Could this really just be showing that less people are marrying and having kids?

A further question would what is called a “household” (and how that has changed over time). Is a 4 room house with 4 renters room renter, 4 households or just one by the owner?

How does people owning multiple houses affect this number?