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

201–210 of 394 posts

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#201

Post by mchusma »

ecshafer wrote: post #192

Housing can not be a viable asset class, or it will continue to rise in prices. Step 1 is Land Value Taxes. Step 2 is remove/greatly reduce zoning, allow construction and streamline the process. If you allow density, building up, and incentivize it, then it will be built. Developers spend tens of thousands of dollars in permits and interest payments before they can put a shovel in the ground. Being a landlord isn't r…

The issue is not investment at all, we want more investment into housing.

But you are absolutely correct you cannot both want housing to be a good investment (increase in value faster than inflation) and an affordable (drop in price lower than inflation).

Don’t subsidize demand. Allow more supply. Private homeowners, big developers, all of the above. Build.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#202

Post by rawgabbit »

spwa4 wrote: post #175
rawgabbit wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#203

Post by 100percentjake »

mauvehaus wrote: post #164
repeekad wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mult…

Because multi-family buildings (required for higher density) come with more complicated ownership models. Owner occupied triple deckers in Boston, for example, often come with their own condo associations because there needs to be some way to handle the shared maintenance and expenses. That's for a three unit building. Now scale that to a twenty or one hundred unit building. At some point, it makes sense for a single…

Pulling from fuzzy memories here, but to my knowledge the legal framework for the bastardized entity known as Homeowners Associations here in the US originated from the exact thing your describe; multiple person ownership in parts of a single building.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#204

Post by threetonesun »

vel0city wrote: post #113
threetonesun wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

True, although I've also moved houses and turned everything over. Having lived at the current place for a while I find it's important to, every five years or so, turn everything over and re-evaluate it. Even if my domicile isn't changing I'm still changing as a person.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#205

Post by Brystephor »

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…

1,2,and 4 all have owners and non-owners. Are you suggesting that the parents of the adult children and the adult child should also be marked as owners?

How does the multi generational preference living theory work given the correlation to rent to income ratio? Is multi generational living preference a cause or a symptom?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#206

Post by ozgrakkurt »

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.

50 year mortgage incoming to raise the home ownership rate to 90%

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#207

Post by wasabi991011 »

RationPhantoms wrote: post #199
randusername wrote: post #84

I find it hard to trust economic narratives when so many metrics cited upon further inspection do not really measure what they are implied to measure. Or maybe we measure what is easiest to measure, not what is best. I see this everywhere, though. Jobs data is really job openings not actual hires. Unemployment data is really paperwork filing not people out of work or retiring early. And now home ownership is really "…

To your last point, the Minneapolis Fed just put out a call for a new actual-owner backed housing occupancy rate called HPOP which I think is a step in the right direction: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2026/new-homeownershi...

Are you aware that you are linking to TFA of this exact hackernews post?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#208

Post by watwut »

Xirdus wrote: post #170
watwut wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city. I would loose a job, easy access to friends, access family nearby in the process. All those matter, I value all three. Meanwhile, if I dont buy latest toy, whether phone or sports equipment or netflix subscription, I adapt and dont care in 3 days.

That's why I said "worse come to worst". Where I'm from, it's not that uncommon to drive 3 hours to work, and as a result have no social life outside closest family. People do it because the alternative is homelessness.

I would argue that their situation straightforwardly sux. And no amount of gadgets, fridge connected with wifi, etc etc will really unsux it.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#209

Post by ch4s3 »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #178
ch4s3 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm sharing Gallop survey data about happiness, it's the "happiness" data everyone uses, and what OP was referring to as well. I'd challenge the idea that GDP per capita correlates to happiness. Mississippi has a higher GDP per capita than France and I'm not sure that tells us anything about who is happier.

> probably wrong on all points here by your own data

again, it's not my data its the data OP referenced initially, I just linked to it.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#210

Post by vablings »

mchusma wrote: post #201
ecshafer wrote: post #192

Housing can not be a viable asset class, or it will continue to rise in prices. Step 1 is Land Value Taxes. Step 2 is remove/greatly reduce zoning, allow construction and streamline the process. If you allow density, building up, and incentivize it, then it will be built. Developers spend tens of thousands of dollars in permits and interest payments before they can put a shovel in the ground. Being a landlord isn't r…

The issue is not investment at all, we want more investment into housing. But you are absolutely correct you cannot both want housing to be a good investment (increase in value faster than inflation) and an affordable (drop in price lower than inflation). Don’t subsidize demand. Allow more supply. Private homeowners, big developers, all of the above. Build.

The issue is that housing should not be an investment but due to rising labor and materials costs and also more restrictive code, they are now an investment.
Post reply on HN