New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#231

Post by phil21 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

AlotOfReading wrote: post #152

jenniferhooley wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I have a 650sqft house, it costs 430K in a small town. I looked at building a new place, it would cost roughly the same to hire a building team to make it - not to mention years of waiting on development. The land is fairly affordable if I buy a little bit out of town. It's the cost of building that is stopping me.

If I look at the value of the place where I'm living, a bit more than 2/3rds of it is attributable to land instead of structure. This ratio will change depending on whether you have a multistory structure on a small plot of land, or a SFH with a yard on a larger plot, but land/value ratios > 50% are typical.

I guess it depends on how you look at the numbers.

My current place would sell for say $1.4M or so.

The lot itself is worth around $600-700k if it was empty.

A similarly sized home would cost well over $1m to construct to similar quality levels - normalizing a bit for modern construction techniques and all that.

So about $2.4m to build new, or $1.4m to buy a fairly similar 25 year old home next door. New construction here costs more than the older structures on the land in most cases. This ignores permitting and financing costs which throws a light wrench into those calculations, likely making it a bit more expensive on the build side.

That is using numbers I would pay a custom builder for, but even if you add in 20-30% profit for the builder the math isn't super great for the new build end of things.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#232

Post by WD-42 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

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.

Investment certainly feels like a problem. The amount of completely empty homes in my area (coastal ca) is disgusting. There are entire real estate brokers that specialize specifically in investment - these people aren’t even pretending that their clients will use the house, they may never even step foot in it.

Meanwhile economic stratification continues and the other side finds it increasingly difficult to make the down payment.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#233

Post by ajsnigrutin » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

PunchyHamster wrote: post #169

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…

One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds. Build factory for city blocks, then just pop them up, constantly, keeping the line busy. It should really be city that is building the new housing (even if in the end it gets subcontracted, at least the top level have vested interest in keeping the quality and cost in check). Maybe even offer some rent-to-own programs where part of rent gets put into savings that…

There's no need for the city to build it, they have zoning plans, and they can easily zone "that corn field over here" into an aera of commie-style apartment buildings (5+ floors, commercial on ground floors, apartments above, garages underground), and assign some percentage of space for green areas.

I live in one of those used-to-be-commie countries, and we somehow manage to keep cornfields in prime locations, and in many areas, the most the local government allows you to build is a two-apartment two-story house, but none of the non-built land is actually buildable, so you need to demolish something else first. Here and there someone is able to build something with maybe 6-8 apartments (probably with an envelope switching hands), but that's it.

It's as if some rich people connected to the government managed to get a lot of realestate in the 1990s when communism fell, and now they don't want prices to drop. But hey, we're building office buildings without any issues and making airbnb even easier instead... so yeah... the situation is pretty bad.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#234

Post by testing22321 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

cpburns2009 wrote: post #220

testing22321 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

All of those are free to the poor in the US with our very generous welfare to the bottom and top percentiles.

What a shame it’s not for everyone

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#235

Post by ch4s3 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #71

ch4s3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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’m not sure you’re disagreeing with me: Those who owned the land and didn’t have to migrate / soldier around or work someone else’s land to survive were doing well for themselves!

The people farming didn't really own the land, in many cases they were captured or corralled in place and forced to farm. The were also forced to dig canals and occasionally do the soldiering. All of the early Mesopotamian city states use corvée labor. Being an early farmer was super shitty, and no one did it by choice.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#236

Post by JKCalhoun » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

LPisGood wrote: post #181

JKCalhoun wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"…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…

I agree that your two examples don't stand up to scrutiny.

There is historic precedent for blaming immigrants (as an example, or just others, if you like) for one's woes. So on one hand you have well-known "playbooks" that don't require some secret meeting of a cabal.

That aside though, even if actors don't collude, if they're each throwing a lot of things at the wall, they may well all arrive at the same things that seem to "have stuck". It's as though there are universal fears and even prejudices among populations of people.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#237

Post by gravypod » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

bell-cot wrote: post #161

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> His point appears... No, Levit said that in 1948, when Americans were vastly better-connected (socially) than today, "Godless Communism" was their #1 fear, and everybody was aware of communism's easy appeal to those who felt dispossessed. I'd read the quote as a clever way to say "let me sell millions of cheap houses to Americans, and you'll never have to worry about the commies".

Yes, exactly. The idea was that people could be content with our system if people's material conditions were good. We seem to have lost this insight and continued for the next 50-60 years to degrade the quality of life.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#238

Post by palmotea » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:12 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

That's been a long standing element of capitalist propaganda: attempt to distract and invalidate people's real, legitimate complaints about their situations by noting that not even the Kings of old had color TVs and refrigerators.

Who cares if your housing situation is insecure, getting healthcare is challenging, and politically you're dis-empowered? Look at the boob tube and rejoice at your good fortune!

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#239

Post by Xirdus » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:13 PM UTC

shipman05 wrote: post #185

Xirdus wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

> You can get entry level Chevys, Kias, and Hyundais for For comparison, an entry level car in 2001 was The extra safety features is part of why transportation has become less affordable, yes.

> I actually don't have good data on this, but it seems like there's pipeline is still borked from COVID era irregularities.

That, plus Obama-era Cash for Cars, plus engines becoming so complicated and expensive to fix that 10+ year old broken cars are scrapped rather than repaired at much higher rates.

You used to be able to buy a car for literally less than $1000 that would last you a few good years with minimal maintenance.

> 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.

Not 5x more reliable, as in requiring 5x fewer engine renovations over 15 years now that it costs 5x more to do so.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#240

Post by bluefirebrand » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:14 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #186

bluefirebrand wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Here's a hypothetical: if everyone owns a home, no one rents homes anymore, right? I mean why would you?

So why would anyone buy a second home in that scenario? Maybe as a studio or whatever, perhaps. But as homes become less useful as a rental investment, the number of non owner-occupied homes seems like it will decrease too?