Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

denverite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 391 posts

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#251

Post by mindslight »

tptacek wrote: post #72
mindslight wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are NPs not just the trend of enshittification? Most doctors already aren't very engaged in the tiny 15 minute slices of appointments, and now we're supposed to be happy that they'll be even less educated? The most straightforward way to address the doctor shortage is to make it so doctors are spending most of their time on healthcare, rather than appeasing "insurance" company bureaucrats with onerous paperwork.

Nurse-Practitioners work harder to get their certification than almost anybody who comments on HN and it is not OK to talk about them this way.

What an oddly personal reaction. Did you get bored of infosec or something?

Being HN, we're talking about systems and cohorts, not individuals. I've had some great individual NPs that were more actively engaged than most doctors. PAs as well. And I've had plenty of crappy MDs just phoning it in. But none of that is really relevant to the system meeting higher demand by simply lowering its standards rather than actually being reformed.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#252

Post by arcticfox »

bombcar wrote: post #209
phkahler wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Smaller more affordable homes would be a better solution. Most people who rent cant afford to buy, but rent is a worse deal long term.

It’s actually quite hard to definitively quantify if renting or owning is better in a given area/scenario. Obviously the case near me where the mortgage payment on a house would be $2600/mo but the rent for the identical one next door is $2000 is going to swing heavily toward renting, but there’s more to it than just that. Maintenance is huge and real and people just seem to ignore it on the “own” side, but 5-10% of…

> but 5-10% of the value of the house a year in maintenance isn’t unheard of.

I assure you I am not paying ~$30k in maintenance on my ~$400k house every year... that would be comical

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#253

Post by Marsymars »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159
Marsymars wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not terrible if property values fall somewhere between inflation and GDP growth.

Presumably GDP growth per capita , but even then, why would that be any better than "not a cent more than inflation", or for that matter even for housing prices to decline over time (e.g. through increased automation in construction)?

Yes, of course, the cost of things decreasing (net of externalities) is good.

(Was just making the distinction between inflation and purchasing power - things can have an inflation-adjusted rise in price while still becoming cheaper with respect to purchasing power.)

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#255

Post by rsync »

DaveZale wrote: post #119
at-fates-hands wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far south are you? I lived in Colorado Springs for a few years as a ski bum and all my friends in Denver used to mock me driving back and forth, but my rent was almost $500 cheaper living in Springs. You're 100% right though.

just a little west of Pueblo. We're about 1/3 of the cost of living in the Denver area. We get plenty of migrants from the Denver area and elsewhere. Of course, the sales tax and other taxes are going up. Probably heading to a truly rural area with a nice community soon. I lived in many big cities over the years. They are toxic and unsafe. I know that because I worked in public health. If you look at the morbidity an…

“just a little west of Pueblo …”

Canon City in the house.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#256

Post by ekelsen »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #204
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that rents I have little sympathy for people paying property taxes annually that are less than what I have to pay in one month. There should of course be sanity in the system. If you’re retired and can’t the afford property taxes on your home it’s not okay to squeeze you for that little bit of money.

You're not making any sense. Someone paid for a house, they fully expect to pay a lot less than renters do. That's the point of buying a house.

The point of buying a primary house is to be able to do what you want with it. And to know you can live there as long as you want.

Economics dictates how valuable those things are and what premium they have over renting.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#257

Post by graeme »

bee_rider wrote: post #241
standardUser wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater If you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision. You should have been certain that the house was worth $400k to you at the time of purchase. Otherwise you're a speculator, and we shouldn't be bailing out speculators. It's called buyer's remorse. We accept…

But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings. Realistically, we should account for that. Also, if continuing the building ends up requiring some policy change (supported by changing laws and regulations)… it seems reasonable to protect normal people, doing normal things, from massive financial chaos that is explicitly caused by the government changing policies on them. At least f…

>But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings. Realistically, we should account for that.

Why? If it makes society as a whole much poorer.

The convention is fairly recent and the cause of enormous problems.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#258

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54
aynyc wrote: post #33

Just because this doesn’t magically solve the housing crisis, doesn’t mean it’s not a good start. We have to stop looking at magical solutions that will solve all our problems in one shot. We have to start somewhere.

> because this doesn’t magically solve the housing crisis It does. Twenty thousand units represent about 5% of Denver's housing stock [1]. Commit to adding this many units to the housing stock every year for the next 10 years and you'll have solved the housing crisis. (You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater, but that's a separate issue.) [1] http://censusreporter.org/pr…

[deleted]

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#259

Post by graeme »

tamimio wrote: post #198

Rents are high because landlords are greedy and are paying already inflated house prices. Owning is expensive because banks are greedy, pumping out the created credit for mortgages, which is an imaginary number based on no actual value, because somehow banks are allowed to create money! Here's the plot twist: you spend 30 years or even more (in Canada that has reached 70 years!) to pay the mortgage only to find out t…

This article suggests rents are high because we make it difficult to build homes. Are Denver landlords less greedy than landlords in Seattle?

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#260

Post by bee_rider »

graeme wrote: post #257
bee_rider wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings. Realistically, we should account for that. Also, if continuing the building ends up requiring some policy change (supported by changing laws and regulations)… it seems reasonable to protect normal people, doing normal things, from massive financial chaos that is explicitly caused by the government changing policies on them. At least f…

>But, the convention in the US is that people see their houses as a form of savings. Realistically, we should account for that. Why? If it makes society as a whole much poorer. The convention is fairly recent and the cause of enormous problems.

Because policies they cause huge financial harm to normal people become unpopular, and don’t spread as a result. And also because it is bad for society if we modify the rules in ways that makes it harder to plan ahead.
Post reply on HN