New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#181

Post by LPisGood » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:27 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 seems like an interesting theory, but when I look at the two ways it may be actuated it seems to fall apart.

Either there is explicit collusion where they meet and discuss how to do these things, or there is implicit collusion where they all act in their own best interests and the results is the same. Neither of these mechanism seems particularly likely to me.

I would be happy to hear some thoughtful explanation of how other people approach this issue

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#182

Post by Xirdus » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:28 PM UTC

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #157

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.

> If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city. It is rarely the case that someone who can't afford housing in their current location can afford to move away from their support networks to a place with no jobs. Places with significantly cheaper rent almost invariably give you significantly less income, if you can even get a job without connections (which are important in general, b…

You misunderstand. Keep your job. Move away. Drive to work 3 hours one way everyday. Have no life except work, commute, sleep and family.

And yes, it will drive your QoL to the ground, I'm fully aware of that. I'm just saying it's neither impossible nor infeasible nor unheard of. It's "merely" undesirable. Extremely undesirable. But possible.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#183

Post by bell-cot » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:28 PM UTC

tndibona wrote: post #73

Actually I don't think this metric goes far enough. In my opinion a homeowner should "own" their home. I.e should have majority equity in his or her home. An owner who pays 3% down is basically a risk bearer for the bank. The bank really owns the majority and is renting out the "owner". I don't think my opinion is fringe. It does measure the risks of not being able to make rent and getting evicted.

Yes. Unfortunately, the Minneapolis Fed would get a whole lotta push-back if they suggested any such metric. That risk bearing & interest-rent is a near-perfect way for the 0.01% to milk the "could afford a house" demographic.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#184

Post by runako » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:29 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.

Where are you seeing inflation numbers showing health insurance falling?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#185

Post by shipman05 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:30 PM UTC

Xirdus wrote: post #114

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…

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.

Inflation has been high enough that it messes with our perception of things, but I believe the data shows otherwise (at least in the US).

- Disappearance of cheap new cars: You can get entry level Chevys, Kias, and Hyundais for - Massive supply reduction of used cars: I actually don't have good data on this, but it seems like there's pipeline is still borked from COVID era irregularities. That said, cars these days have much better quality and last longer. A car with more than 100,000 miles in the 90s was near the end of its life. That's a typical listing Facebook marketplace these days.

- Repair costs of old cars: Repairs can be expensive, but again, cars today are much more reliable than they were in the 90s or earlier. Even simple things like recommended oil change frequency changing from 3k miles to 10k miles for most models makes a huge difference in total cost of ownership.

- Gas prices: Gas prices have certainly spiked recently (gee, I wonder why), but the cost of gas in real dollars has been higher several times in the past 25 years (see the second chart here: https://www.macrotrends.net/4453/us-gasoline-prices) It peaked in 2008 over $6 per gallon in 2026 dollars.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#186

Post by thaumasiotes » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #130

thaumasiotes wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All you have to do is let the number keep going up. Yes, it's a necessary outcome.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#187

Post by usui » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

Xirdus wrote: post #172

usui wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough, you're correct. It is... possible

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#188

Post by testing22321 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:32 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 are the big three drivers of mandatory expenses in most peoples' lives

In every developed country two of those are basic human rights, and you get them free even if you’ve never worked simply because you don’t want to.

Every developed country except one, that is.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#189

Post by Nicholas_C » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:35 PM UTC

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.

I see you have read James C Scott as well.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#190

Post by alexjplant » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:35 PM UTC

dktp wrote: post #79

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…

There was an interesting video by Ben Felix that makes a case that home ownership doesn't significantly (or at all) increase happiness - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G_OSohLC_A That being said housing has gotten worse for both buying as well as renting. I think there is a case to be made that having a place you feel comfortable/home in (whether rented or owned) affects people's wellbeing disproportionately.

> home ownership doesn't significantly (or at all) increase happiness

N=1 but for me it didn't. I'm probably repeating myself on this site but 70 years ago a home was a box that kept you out of the weather. Now it's an investment that you have to treat as a going concern. Many industries - contractors, window salesman, landscapers, HGTV, realtors, mortgage brokers, driveway pavers, deck builders, HOAs, etc. - have substantial swaths pushing this neo-feudalist "your home is your castle bro they aren't making more land" narrative so that people are socially pressured into dumping their life savings into a non-fungible asset then spending even more on ridiculous things like building pergolas and updating a 10-year-old bathroom to purportedly improve its value. Everybody's become a property speculator and wants to "get on the ladder".

The upshot is that I spent a lot of time and money on a bunch of stuff I didn't care about for my house because I was concerned with getting my money out of it when I sold. Conversely I chose not to pursue several interesting projects that I liked because they might have been dealbreakers to potential buyers. The whole thing is depressing. It's centered around building/projecting wealth and getting one over on the next guy more than it is on having a place to live. Corporate homeowners have nothing to do with this.