New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#141

Post by soco » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:10 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #129

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…

"…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.

This is seriously the basis of the manual of populism as mass control tool: identify something attacking their group identity, hang it before their eyes, and they will follow you blindly in every other aspect. Many books have been written about this and nowadays we can see their implementation at work about everywhere.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#142

Post by JKCalhoun » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:10 PM UTC

frig57 wrote: post #134

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…

Everything better now than it once was? Hard disagree, take me back to the early 2010s

See ya, I'm time-traveling back to the 70's, ha ha.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#143

Post by jimberlage » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

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…

Most people don't see that as viable because American cities don't have the public transit needed to make that viable, and equally important, don't have condos built that are the size of a family home. And there's a big push among suburban parents to judge their kids for living in cities, even if they're not as dangerous as the parents think.

If we modeled Spain, we could have more condos. That would require good, safe transit, condos with green space and multiple rooms at a SFH price point, and a cultural change among the older generation to view cities as having less crime.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#144

Post by watwut » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

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 articles with similar claim I have seen attributed disproportional value to, basically, stupid crap: better phone, more entertainment (streaming movies), cloth I buy once in a while, cheaper gym nearby, some or other luxury I would miss for roughly 3 months and then forgot.

And that leads us to "only housing has gotten more expensive relative to income" - precarity does matter. If I am one sickness or two paychecks from not being able to pay rent, it causes a lot more actual real material insecurity then "having slower phone while everybody else has equally slow phone".

Likewise, if you have trouble to find a job, fear of loosing it makes you work 12 hours a day in a job you hate, it affects you a lot more then whether you can stream movies.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#145

Post by JKCalhoun » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

xnx wrote: post #117

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...

Oh, thank god, TVs are less expensive.

;-)

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#146

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:12 PM UTC

carlosjobim wrote: post #122

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 stro…

There are a lot of factors. Some things are worse than the past. However other things are better. There is no universal correct weighting of these different factors.

In general I think that nobody would be willing to go far back in time. You don't need YouTube, but would you want to live without it? How about electric lights? Safe drinking water? Flush toilets?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#147

Post by kakacik » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:12 PM UTC

smallmancontrov wrote: post #50

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…

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

In Europe its only housing, and still proportionally cheaper than what US has, often in higher quality for older homes (bricks / concrete vs cheap creaky wooden houses).

The idea of saving massive amounts for my kids potential university studies is ridiculous to me. Same for any health issue. I mean any health issue as long as I can work, and then social state takes over (that is not ideal but at point nothing is).

This is also how happiness can be defined - lack of (much shorter list of) constant worries and pressures to deliver, sustain etc.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#148

Post by nxm » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:13 PM UTC

mlinhares wrote: post #139

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…

Life is much harder when you don't have a roof over your head or when that roof can be taken away from your or take more from your salary than you were anticipating. I don't think people understand the psychological safety of knowing you will not pay a single dime more on a loan for your home for 30 years. It completely erases that worry from your head.

Then come the property taxes

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#149

Post by dachworker » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #39

This isn’t “putting people first,” it’s baking in the cultural assumption that adults live separately from kin. Consider the examples: > Housing unit 1. A couple owns their home. The woman’s parents live with them. > Housing unit 2. A couple owns their home. Their son, a recent college graduate, lives with them. > Housing unit 3. A man owns his home. A friend lives with him. > Housing unit 4. A couple owns their home…

It's an economic metric, not a political statement.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#150

Post by amanaplanacanal » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #103

rayiner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The numbers are just bullshit. The current inflation numbers tell us the price of health insurance is falling for example. When reality seems to be in conflict with logic, the next step is to question assumptions.

Is the cost of health insurance falling because people are settling for worse plans?