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

New US homeownership measure puts people first

minneapolisfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 394 posts

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#111

Post by jenniferhooley »

inigyou wrote: post #90
jenniferhooley wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we just wait for automation and robotics to make building housing much cheaper and the free market system to fix things - which 5 years ago I assumed was too far out, but with all the advances in the sector, seems like we might get significantly cheaper building costs within the next 10 years or so.

The cost of housing mostly isn't in the building. If it was, we'd just build smaller and have houses. But you can't because the land costs too much.

Huh? I have a 650sqft house, it costs 430K in a small town. I looked at building a new place, it would cost roughly the same to hire a building team to make it - not to mention years of waiting on development. The land is fairly affordable if I buy a little bit out of town. It's the cost of building that is stopping me.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#112

Post by ipdashc »

GodelNumbering wrote: post #33

There was a youtube video sometime ago that argued about how life has vastly improved in every single aspect (with numbers about how 'stuff' has gotten universally more affordable), only housing has gotten more expensive relative to income and how that proves we have a better quality of life because of that. It got me thinking that maybe the home ownership, or having a place you can call yours, disproportionately aff…

> disproportionately affects people's sense of content and wellbeing

It's probably not just homeownership, but the cost of real estate as a whole. And not even just residential. Isn't the often-lamented "loss of third places" at least in part due to those places not being able to pay rent unless they heavily monetize?

I've also heard the theory that the arts often take off in an area when real estate prices drop and it suddenly becomes possible to build cheap art studios and such. No proof or anything, just something I've heard random people talk about online, but it makes some sense.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#113

Post by vel0city »

threetonesun wrote: post #101
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore is surveyed as either the happiest or second-happiest country in Asia (IIRC), with at one point a >95% homeownership rate due to government policy (although I believe that's now closer to 90%, in part due to foreign immigration?). It seems self-evident that having a home is somewhere on the order of 1000000x more important than being able to buy lots of cheap junk that barely matters.

Also if you buy lots of cheap junk for your apartment and then have to move, you will not be happy.

In some ways I actually liked the moving every few years aspect of renting. Every move made me really re-evaluate all the junk I had and if it was really worth it to hold on to. Do I really want to have to move this thing I didn't even really use to yet another place? I got to live in a lot of different places, have some different lifestyles, have some different roommates, and live a pretty different kind of life every now and then.

Living in the same place now for years makes it too easy to just hold on to junk, it makes it too easy to just fall into the same routine.

There's some pros and cons each way. It really depends on what you're wanting in life at the moment.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#114

Post by Xirdus »

rayiner wrote: post #64
smallmancontrov wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Health care, housing, and education are the big three drivers of mandatory expenses in most peoples' lives. It's undeniably a little cool that luxuries got cheap, but it's severely un-cool that necessities got expensive. I'm glad to see a focus on pushing statistics to do a better job of reflecting that, but yeah, this is all downstream of structural incentives so fixes are only going to happen through legislative ch…

> Health care, housing, and education are the big three drivers of mandatory expenses in most peoples' lives. BLS says housing, transportation, and food are the top 3. Insurance/pensions is #4, but that also includes car and homeowners insurance and retirement contributions. Over the past 50 years, both transportation and food got cheaper. Moreover, clothing actually used to be one of the top categories, but that’s f…

I don't know about the first half of those 50 years, but over the second half (2001-today), transportation - or at least cars - got significantly more expensive. Disappearance of cheap new cars + massive supply reduction of used cars + repair costs of old cars + gas prices.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#116

Post by scottious »

AbsurdCensor wrote: post #37
bluGill wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both also make the assumption that owning a house is good. Renting should be just as good.

Renting isn't 'good' though in many metrics. Ownership is, and that's what the push should be for, rather than promoting basically a monthly subscription to have a roof over your head.

It's not that simple. Owning a home is not just a better version of renting. It's a whole different thing with pros and cons.

Your mortgage is the lowest amount you'll pay. On top of that you have to manage the upkeep of the house, which costs both time and money. Lots of people go through phases in their lives where they move around and owning just doesn't make sense for a few 1 to 2 year stretches.

On the other hand, rent is the highest amount you'll pay. You generally don't have to worry about upkeep, and you're free to move. The commitment is lower and that has real value for certain people at certain stages of their lives.

I rented for 6 years in different areas until I figured out what I liked, and then I bought a house. Those 6 years weren't just wasted years. Those were very valuable years where renting really made the most sense.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#117

Post by xnx »

GodelNumbering wrote: post #33

There was a youtube video sometime ago that argued about how life has vastly improved in every single aspect (with numbers about how 'stuff' has gotten universally more affordable), only housing has gotten more expensive relative to income and how that proves we have a better quality of life because of that. It got me thinking that maybe the home ownership, or having a place you can call yours, disproportionately aff…

Possibly referencing the "Chart of the Century": https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-8...

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#118

Post by rayiner »

inigyou wrote: post #98
rayiner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manufactured goods, food, and clothing. Note that we tend to think of these things as not being a big deal, but that’s colored by the fact they’re so cheap. In 1970, a wall mount AC was about $400, when the median family income was under $10,000. Lots of people simply could not afford one. Today, a wall mount AC is still $400, while the median family income is over $80,000. People dismiss the fact that an AC unit has…

Average temperatures were also lower in 1970 and we didn't put as many of the jobs in places where you absolutely needed an AC. What's average income less average house price? Has that gone up or down?

> Average temperatures were also lower in 1970

Yes, but not enough to change whether you want AC or not: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/washington-dc/yea.... In DC in 1970 you had 98 days above 85 degrees. The year before was 80 and the year after was 71. Last year was 72 and the year before was 93. There are more warm days, but you wanted an AC in the DC area back in the 1970s too.

> and we didn't put as many of the jobs in places where you absolutely needed an AC

I don’t think that’s true. The south and mid atlantic was always a huge share of the population. And the midwest was a bigger share than today, while the temperate west coast was a smaller share. You need AC in Chicago too: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/chicago/yearly-da.... Even in the 1970s in Chicago you had 30-60 days over 85 every year.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#119

Post by OrvalWintermute »

I’m happy to see our metrics being improved because much of the economic policy seems to have been based around what was good for boomers.

Not what was good for young people who, for the most part, can’t afford to live in houses and these days are getting ripped off with overly expensive apartments too, so they never have a chance to buy a house and build equity.

Post reply on HN