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

Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

realtor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 550 posts

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#271

Post by lifestyleguru »

f6v wrote: post #218
lifestyleguru wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every amount of new housing will be purchased by competitive investors. You are heavily underestimating the amount of money unsophisticated investors have, and the psychological effect of owning more and more of territory. Most people will never say no to owning more money and territory.

Tax homes that aren’t your primary residence to the point where it’s not a good investment.

This never works in real economy with real people. Even in Germany with very rigid address registration laws people invest in real estate like there's no tomorrow.

In other countries with lax address registration laws like Poland, real estate can be the only investment vehicle without capital gains tax. Yes, if you sell real estate in Poland after 5 years you pay zero capital gains tax and anyone can buy (please invest and make that mofo pop). Opposite to every other investment vehicle from bonds to shares to even currencies where the capital gains tax exists.

It's just pure rectified human greed.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#272

Post by richwater »

daveguy wrote: post #220
jader201 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all the jobs to get replaced by AI, I would be happy to see realtors to be first in line (but I also think this is wishful thinking). I feel like I get very little value out of what seems to be a mostly fixed/required price. I know flat fee realtors exist, and if/when we sell our home, I’ll be looking into this heavily. But I feel like they rank up there with car salespeople/dealers.

Realtors are experts in the market. A good realtor pays for themselves by getting you the best selling price or finding the best home for your price range. If you don't understand opportunity cost, then obviously it appears to be a ripoff. But once you understand, it's clear that realtors have value. And realtors are probably going to be the last to be replaced with AI. It's all about value judgement and AI is garbag…

The decade of zirp between like 2013 and 2021 created a lot of shitty realtors because anyone with a pulse could sell or buy a house with ease. The true value of realtors is in bad economic conditions where serious work is needed to market and negotiate.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#273

Post by mlhpdx »

pc86 wrote: post #207
mlhpdx wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supply and demand, supply and demand. It’s not that complicated. I’m not sure how or why this article got published by an organization that should, given its very nature, understand economics. The article doesn’t paint them or their members as people I’d trust in either side of a major financial transaction.

To the extent that an organization can understand anything, this one understands economics just enough to argue for policies that will get its members more money, and argue against policies that won't. Real estate is the quintessential stay-at-home-mom backup job so it's no surprise by and large they are not known for having a nuanced and academic understanding of economic theory. They want wages to go up so that hom…

> it's no surprise by and large they are not known for having a nuanced and academic understanding of economic theory

The folks I’ve worked with have been as dedicated to their career path as anyone, and while their expertise and skill varies that isn’t different than any job. I understand your point, but your (mis?)characterization hits me as a little biased and shallow.

It’s not “theory”; it’s literally what they do.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#274

Post by shlant »

littlexsparkee wrote: post #215
shlant wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that you blame apartment prices on landlords? If you build more apartments then market rent goes down and landlords can't charge more if people can just find cheaper apartments. It's not like landlords just choose whatever price they want - it's significantly bound by the demand.

don't forget about algorithmic collusion https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-r...

what proportion of the housing crisis do you think is because of what you linked, and what would be your evidence?

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#275

Post by rafram »

john_strinlai wrote: post #99
rafram wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$35,000 in 1998 is $72,500 in 2026, which is still a totally fine income. I know people living pretty well on that in New York City .

> I know people living pretty well on that in New York City. median asking rent in 2026 for NYC is $3616/mo ($43,392/yr) meaning rent alone would be 60% of that income, assuming that the $72.5k figure is after taxes (which it probably isnt). if you take taxes off, you're probably at like 55-60k. that means rent alone is 70%-77% of income! "living pretty well"?

Yes, because you really don't have to pay that much. Those expensive apartments go to people who aren't very price sensitive (either because they actually have the money, or because they want to live it up in their 20s/30s and are spending beyond their means) or who are willing to live with enough roommates to make it affordable. If all you can find is a $3.5k unit, you'll need to get a roommate. But you can find better if you put in the work and look beyond StreetEasy.

The median household income in New York City is only $81,000 per year! People make it work!

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#276

Post by greenie_beans »

vovavili wrote: post #250
throwaway041207 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my neck of the woods (New England), home prices have doubled since March of 2020. I have yet to read a comprehensive overview of how this happened and how we get out of it. Of course, people went nuts offering over the asking price when interest rates were super low so I understand, to some degree, that baselines were reset. But the current housing market doesn't feel sustainable. I don't understand how a proper m…

>I have yet to read a comprehensive overview of how this happened and how we get out of it Allow me to introduce you to Bryan Caplan - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1952223415

i would love to hear a YIMBY consider the market forces/how capitalism works and not just reduce it to regulation. aka when it costs over $500k to build a single apartment unit and most of those costs are construction with very little of the regulation burden driving up that cost.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#277

Post by littlexsparkee »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #97

Very Recently, wasn't there a lawsuit against apartment owners for a vast price fixing scheme based on them all using the same software package that was telling them all to raise prices at the same time.

yes, RealPage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealPage

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#278

Post by shlant »

hgoel wrote: post #157
shlant wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that you blame apartment prices on landlords? If you build more apartments then market rent goes down and landlords can't charge more if people can just find cheaper apartments. It's not like landlords just choose whatever price they want - it's significantly bound by the demand.

It's largely landlords causing trouble building housing where it's needed because it would limit how much they can make.

are you referring to NIMBY homeowners? because yes, people who own houses are the most likely to prevent more housing from being built (although not the only reason more housing isn't being built)

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#279

Post by selectodude »

epistasis wrote: post #197
win311fwg wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One main driver is that there's not being built enough new housing. I recently entertained the idea of building a new house. Not terribly surprising, but worth mentioning that the time and materials to put up the structure was going cost even more than buying a used house. If nobody can afford to buy a less expensive used house then naturally nobody is going to build the much more expensive new house either. Therei…

New things do tend to cost more than old things, that's pretty much always the case! Where I live, people are blocking the construction of new apartments because the cost of the new ones is a bit higher, 10%-50%, than the average existing apartment. The idea behind blocking the new apartments is that "new expensive apartments don't help anybody" and people get very upset that the new housing is going to the type of p…

You gotta look at the motivations. Rich people and activists can both agree that affordable housing requirements are a good thing. The higher the better. This makes the project not pencil out so everybody is happy - the homeowners who don’t want new neighbors and the activists who think that everything is gentrification. The only people who get screwed are the only people who don’t have a vote, the non-residents. Which is why zoning policy and approvals cannot be locally controlled.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#280

Post by raybb »

rootusrootus wrote: post #74
estearum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth being precise about this because it's a really important point. Most people who we call "landlords" are simultaneously a landlord and a property manager. Property management is an important and productive job. But the vast majority of such people's financial outcome is actually from being a landlord , that is doing literally nothing except holding a piece of paper granting them monopoly on a plot of land.…

> If you remove landlords (but keep property managers, developers, etc In this scenario, who owns the property? And if you are advocating that everyone should own their home, what is the point of a property manager? What about the people who do not actually want to own their home?

Community land trusts, cooperatives, nonprofits, universities, local government, etc.

The problem is always financing. If you're going to own a place you need a lot of upfront capital. If you own a place and plan to maximize rent increases it's easy to leverage your new asset to buy more properties. But if you just want to keep it near cost then you need a new infusion of capital for each new property. So, by their nature such endeavors don't grow as fast as rent maximizing landlord can grow.

Post reply on HN