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

121–130 of 394 posts

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#121

Post by anovikov »

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…

The catch here is that homeownership rate is the highest in history now except 2000s speculative subprime bubble when a lot of purely investment properties were bought at 103% mortgage by people who could not afford the risk.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#122

Post by carlosjobim »

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…

In almost every place in the world, at almost any point in history, the propaganda will always tell you that you've never had it better than you have it now.

But once you start digging and thinking, you start realizing that it's not true.

I understand that most hackers reading the above sentence are already raging, but were you actually there to know that things were worse in the past, or has it been hammered so strongly into you that you're now greatly offended at suggestions that it isn't true?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#123

Post by repeekad »

forgotaccount3 wrote: post #110
GodelNumbering wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> undeniably a little cool that luxuries got cheap, but it's severely un-cool that necessities got expensive Well said. Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. My personal take is that a lot of support for contemporary political extremism in many countries comes from the fac…

> Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. It's not really coming from those though? At the same time that housing costs have ballooned, we've also had a significant migration back to cities. When a larger % of the population are living in high density locations you are going…

Why does being in a city “naturally” mean less home ownership? More demand and higher prices yes, but you also should be earning more and dense housing projects should be trivial to justify. It’s legislation all the way down, politicians protect the interests of the wealthy who want to rent seek regardless of location. Look at how mamdani got a common sense luxury home tax in NYC, before that ultra wealthy owned multiple homes just because they could.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#124

Post by pbhjpbhj »

gravypod wrote: post #80
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…

"No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do." - William Levit (the Levittown one)

His point appears to be that each person should only look after their own interests?

Is that your intent in posting it?

Many of us, my siblings and our families inclusive, owe our lives to socialised medicine.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#126

Post by bluGill »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #48
AbsurdCensor wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does this correct for mortgage? Because owning through a bank loan still amounts to a monthly subscription.

If you live there for 30 years - and don't cash-out-refinance - in 30 years your subscription costs go much lower.

However if you rent for less than the mortgage you can invest the difference into something that will grow in value more than the house (which SHOULD track inflation) and in turn end up about the same in the end.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#127

Post by jltsiren »

ch4s3 wrote: post #66
twoodfin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Owning a home creates a stable, personal nexus with a set of vital institutions: Family, community, local economy, government, … As a driver and measure of well-being, it’s probably at least 10,000 years old, since agriculture made migratory hunter-gatherer societies obsolete.

> 10,000 years old, since agriculture made migratory hunter-gatherer societies obsolete. This isn't really how the transition to agriculture worked. Historically agricultural elites captured lands with conscripted armies and forced people to farm. There are plenty of examples where central authority collapsed and the archeological evidence shows us that people largely stopped farming.

When archaeological evidence shows that people largely stopped farming, it usually means that those people largely stopped existing. Or at least living in that area. Apart from a few rare exceptions, agriculture is the only viable way to support substantial populations.

Farming came first, and with it came larger communities and higher population density. That led to surplus, which enabled elites and other forms of existence beyond basic subsistence. And that lifestyle mostly spread organically. Not because the agricultural elites didn't try to conquer hunter-gatherer societies, but because there were so few hunter-gatherers to conquer. Conquered lands were mostly farmed by descendants of farmers from neighboring regions, because they formed the majority of the population.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#128

Post by Xirdus »

inigyou wrote: post #96
usui wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of being able to spend less on cheap junk if the surplus is eaten up and outspent by important things that inflated during that timespan?

And you don't even have a choice. If junk was expensive and houses were cheap, you could scale your junk consumption. You can't scale your house consumption.

You can to a degree. You can buy/rent a way too small house/apartment for your large family (what many immigrants do). You can also get roommates. If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#129

Post by JKCalhoun »

GodelNumbering wrote: post #85
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…

> undeniably a little cool that luxuries got cheap, but it's severely un-cool that necessities got expensive Well said. Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. My personal take is that a lot of support for contemporary political extremism in many countries comes from the fac…

"…not because they are racist/prejudiced or whatever…"

Perhaps wealthy actors (or those representing them) are attempting to distract the aggrieved—focus their anger toward some non-wealthy group.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#130

Post by bluefirebrand »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #43
vintermann wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in a place which is used only for vacation homes, or worse, only as investment objects, you know the value of owner occupancy. Non-occupants contribute very little to the actual value of a place - they don't work here, they don't buy here. But they capture much of the value of other people trying to make the place a pleasant place to live, though rising real estate values.

It's very easy to see that owner-occupancy is an incoherent metric. Stipulate that owning a home is good. As the number of homes goes up, owner-occupancy necessarily goes down (you can only occupy one home at a time). Homeownership might rise or fall while this is going on. But that doesn't matter; the number of homes going up is good, so the fact that the metric falls when it rises tells you that either (1) the metr…

> As the number of homes goes up, owner-occupancy necessarily goes down

Not necessarily at all. Plenty of people rent who would like to own homes too

Post reply on HN