Live data from Hacker News

A record number of Americans can't afford rent

apnews.com

131–136 of 136 posts

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

#131
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land is a finite resource that nobody created. Would you be offended if someone claimed to own a cubic kilometer of the sky and declared nobody else could use it without paying him?

Land is a finite resource, but buildings can be built up vertically. Unless your town looks like manhattan, land is not scarce for new housing.

Just for the record, building vertically is also a finite solution, just as building sprawl is horizontally constrained, so to is vertical ( and subterranian ) expansion.

Manhattan only exists due to Manhattan schist, exceptional bedrock due to old volcanic flow.

Many locations have poor subsoil for tall buildings, even with the best foundations there are other limits to building height.

There's a lot of potential space, sure, but not infinite space - it's finite on planet and bottlenecked by transport and terraforming off planet.

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

#132
I had the fun idea to fix the minimum wage to the price of the average house in some radius. Say 10 km. It use to be that you could buy a house for 1-3 years of salary. If a house costs on average 360 000 the monthly salary should be 10 000. It doesn't have to happen abruptly, it can gradually phase in. The fun angle is that having rich people build in the area everyone benefits. If a lot of cheap housing is build people will leave for places with better salaries but others will enjoy the access to cheap labor.

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

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced remote work is better than the market solution from an environmental point of view. Seems like having people as densely concentrated as they can be is best from an environmental standpoint. Remote is definitely better than the status quo of subsidized suburbs housing car commuters though.

> subsidized suburbs housing car commuters Suburbs are subsidized? What do you mean?

They generate little value per acre. More acres = more infrastructure cost.

Look at the graph in this example @2:59: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI?si=BVi7PNEizNnQ7FKh&t=179

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

#134
post #91

It’s pretty sinister that home owners can get a tax deduction but renters cannot deduct rent.

some states (like Mass) do allow a renters deduction on your state taxes

The total renters deduction in Massachusetts cannot exceed $4k, quite low compared to some of the tax advantages of a home.

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

#135
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…

What's the point of building more housing if it's all owned by the same handful of investment firms? In my community, over the last few years, one investment firm has spent billions, purchasing nearly 60% of the rental properties. There's smaller players that also own a significant chunk. These handful of investment firms control the rental market, setting the price however they want, since their product (housing) is…

> What's the point of building more housing if it's all owned by the same handful of investment firms?

If that was the case, the point would be an increased supply pushing the price down.

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

#136

My extreme political opinion is that no one should be allowed to own more than one property in which they do not reside.

Even a less “extreme” version would be: you pay 2x property taxes on your second home, 3x on your third etc. Sorted from lowest to highest property tax. So if your property tax on the first house (chronologically) is $1, and the property tax on the second is $5, you pay 1 + 5x2 = $11.

Not "Homes" (As in, properties in which you reside). Those could be taxed at the normal rate.

I'm talking about anyone (including individual corporations) owning more than one property in which they do reside.

Post reply on HN