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

171–180 of 394 posts

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#171

Post by rawgabbit »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #150
CPLX wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would wager they are non insured and going to the emergency room when desperate. As another poster linked healthcare costs have grown exponentially.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-8...

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#172

Post by Xirdus »

usui wrote: post #151
Xirdus wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like these are much worse than the alternate reality where I simply have to spend more on or lose access to consumables, if I had to choose one or the other. For people that use the same smartphone for 10 years, never shop for clothes, never go out to eat, etc., it seems unfair that we'd construct a dichotomy (assuming it's even a valid one) and choose the one that worsens the resources that everyone needs rat…

I didn't say it's nice to downsize. I said it's possible to downsize.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#173

Post by PunchyHamster »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #124
gravypod wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I think it's more that communism appeals to those that didn't really made it or worked for what they have.

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

commonly mistaken with communism, yes.

Country having strong social services and caring about their citizens is not the same as communism.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#174

Post by ahf8Aithaex7Nai »

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.

I couldn’t agree more. I’ve lived in the city my whole life and have seen rents rise. That’s been extremely frustrating for me because I’ve been at the mercy of market trends and have worried about what would happen if, at some point, I didn’t earn as much anymore, or if rents rose so much that they became too expensive even for me. What would I do then? The worry that, despite a relatively good income, I might be at risk of poverty in old age because I have to hand over a good portion of my take-home pay to a landlord month after month is very frustrating in the long run.

A year ago, my partner and I bought a small house a short distance (40 minutes by car) from the city, and I moved into a much smaller, cheaper, and less central apartment in the city. I still spend a large part of my time in the city, but I’m also at the house regularly, especially on weekends. I’ve been much more relaxed ever since, because I know that I can give the city’s rental market the middle finger at any time and retreat to our house.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#175

Post by spwa4 »

rawgabbit wrote: post #137
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this is all downstream of structural incentives You are mostly right and the structural incentives are more related at root to unsustainable national debt than any legislative choice (unless that's what you were referring to)

I don’t follow your logic. The recent legislative choice by the current administration is continued tax breaks, corporate tax holidays, and capricious tariffs. There is no serious discussion about the debt.

Nobody spends like republicans.

Trump increased the national debt by $7.8 trillion in his first term (rising from ~$19.9 trillion at inauguration to ~$27.75 trillion when he left office), 39% increase (more than WW2, the Manhattan project and the Moon landing combined)

Each and every US citizen will be required to pay $22,400 for the (ahem) accomplishments of Trump's first term.

So far in his second term, Trump has added $3.2 trillion so far, if you calculate by the end of his second term it will be about $8.8 trillion.

Each and every US citizen will be required to pay $25,000 for his accomplishments now.

For comparison: you owe $9,200 for Barack Obama's last term, and $20,300 for Joe Biden's term. Oh and Clinton was by far the cheapest president since WW2, increasing the debt by a measly $600 during his 2nd term.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#176

Post by taeric »

vintermann wrote: post #29
ajross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If however you care about the housing development decisions that will incentivise owner occupancy Genuine question: who, precisely, cares about "incentivising owner occupancy" as a policy goal? What interest does that serve and why should the government prioritize maximizing that metric? Basically right now we measure "what fraction of homes are occupied by an owner" and not "what fraction of people live in their o…

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.

This depends heavily on the industry of the area. Go to a college town and you will find owner occupancy is not that big of a deal. Go to a luxury resort town and they literally make their money from non-residents transiently moving through.

I don't think you can get any of these situations non-organically. But schools and worker dormitories have a lot in common. More than most seem to admit to.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#177

Post by huijzer »

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…

> I'm glad to see a focus on pushing statistics to do a better job of reflecting that

“You have lies, damned lies, and then you have statistics”

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#178

Post by PunchyHamster »

ch4s3 wrote: post #75
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.

Finland is consistently ranked as the happiest country in the world and has a home ownership rate comparable to the US. Denmark ranks 3rd and has a slightly lower home ownership rate than the US. Oh, and Singapore ranks 36th[1], while the US is 23rd[2]. So you're probably wrong on all points here. [1] https://data.worldhappiness.report/country/SGP [2] https://data.worldhappiness.report/country/USA I'm curious what pe…

> I'm curious what people are quibbling with here? Romania has the world's highest rate of home ownership at 96% and only ranks as 34th in happiness.

which means they are happier than 35th, the France, which has double GDP per capita

So you're probably wrong on all points here by your own data

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#179

Post by Swizec »

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…

> Owning your own home does not align with the density required for a city to function

Much of Europe would like a word. I grew up in a block of flats where everybody owned. 16 apartments, around 60 people, lived on the footprint of a typical American house. All our parents were homeowners, together they owned the building. Two buildings actually and the land they stood on.

So a total of 32 apartments, 120 people, a small parking lot, and a bit of green lawn owned by the people who lived there and self-governed through a sort of HOA. Little communities like this were extremely common in the city.

Nowadays with my generation homeownership is becoming a little more rare. Still people own apartments in these self-governed buildings, but many have become priced out. Too much demand not enough build.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#180

Post by throwforfeds »

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've never owned a car since I live in NYC (I'm in my 40s), so the only transportation numbers I'm vaguely familiar with are with the subway. The MTA budget has gone way up over the past 50 years [1] and the cost to build the subway in NYC is hovering in the $2 billion/mile range. This is largely political and bureaucratic, as in Japan and Europe it's about $200 million - $400 million/mile. [2]

So clearly something is going wrong with the way we deal with our mass transit as well if Paris can do things for a fraction of NYC.

[1] https://nypost.com/2017/06/25/it-took-50-years-for-the-mta-t... [2] https://www.city-journal.org/article/why-cant-new-york-contr...

Post reply on HN