New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#241

Post by moate » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:16 PM UTC

win311fwg wrote: post #106

inigyou wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of housing mostly isn't in the building. If it was, we'd just build smaller and have houses. But you can't because the land costs too much.

Why would you build a small new home when you can buy a large used home for the same price?

1- Costs of operating an larger house are higher than a smaller house 2- Yearly maintenance of a new house is cheaper than an older house (older the house, the greater this gets) 3- Easier to keep a smaller house tidy 4- Mobility/lifestyle issues. 5- Indifference towards resale value

Not everyone wants a giant house, and plenty of people like a small one. It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#242

Post by Xirdus » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:20 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #208

Xirdus wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would argue that a reply to "you can't scale your house consumption" doesn't need to say how much the situation sux or what amount of gadgets will or will not unsux it.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#243

Post by ecshafer » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:21 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.

To be more specific, I dont think owning a sfh to rent out should be good. But building an apartment complex should be a good investment. Unrestrict building, and tax underutilized land.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#244

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

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…

I've posted it already, but at least in my country (Netherlands) it seems like the problem isn't the lack of housing, but lack of marriages. If people ages 30-60 married each other at the rate they used to in 60's, then there would be no housing crisis.

The statistic that doesn't compute for me is how is it possible that we're having a housing crisis while at the same time we have historically low average number of people per house.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#245

Post by win311fwg » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:21 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #138

inigyou wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of housing mostly isn't in the building. If it was, we'd just build smaller and have houses. But you can't because the land costs too much.

"If it was, we'd just build smaller and have houses." Someone needs to tell the big developers. They keep turning out McMansions (and somehow selling them?). There's no profit in building smaller.

The local business producing single-wides seems to be doing fairly well and has been in business for over 60 years, so I am not sure it is accurate to say that there is no profit. The market is small, though. If you can afford a small new house you can also afford a large used house and most people are going to choose the larger house every time. In aggregate, there isn't a whole lot of incentive for someone to build a small house.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#246

Post by shmolyneaux » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:25 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.

Here's a follow-up video by Ben Felix posted more recently about the case for home ownership: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16eA5ebWMQQ

In the end, home ownership is more based around the kind of life you want to live than costs/benefits of the house as an asset. As a Canadian I see that many of my friends would choose to pay a lot more each month on the principle of a mortgage than they would ever save in a registered account.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#247

Post by ajsnigrutin » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:26 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.

You can spin many things to sound as racism if you want them to.

My small eu country has in the recent years started importing workers from asian countries, and people are against that... of course it's branded as 'racism' in the media.

The reality is, that some businesses have been having troubles with finding workers to do hard work for minimum wage (which is easily solvable by paying people more and creating better working conditions, but hey, think of the profits), and importing foreign workers means that wages can stay down. We're talking about AI and how we'll all lose jobs,and at the same time, importing new people, and that doesn't compute for many, especially those underpaid who can't negotiate for better options because the government approved new foreign workers in their field.

Then you have the more on-topic problem of importing thousands of "outsiders" into a relatively small city (~300k pop), without building any housing, neither for them, nor for locals, who want to move out their 30+yo "kids" out of their childhood bedrooms, nor for others living a bit further away who'd like to live closer to work. Sure, you can fit 8 "poor foreigners" into a 2-bedroom apartment with 4 bunk beds for 200/month each, and it'll be cheap for them, but for a young couple wating a child, 1600eur for such an apartment is around 1/2 of their combined income, so nope, no apartment and no kids for them, since they have nowehre to put them, and "we need foreigners, because our people are not having enough kids".

Then the third problem is integration... and the government does nothing about it, no language courses, no nothing... the laws say that businesses must use our native language, but in some areas, you can interact even with waiters or shop clercs (so, first line of interaction with customers) who can't speak a word of it.

But hey, it's easier to say "racist people hate foreigners", than to solve the issues.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#248

Post by qlte » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:30 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.

* assuming you don’t live in a state with a Medicaid work requirement/disqualified by earning “too much” as working poor, and lucky enough/have dependents to win a Section 8 voucher from the lottery after waiting for months to years

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#249

Post by win311fwg » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:32 PM UTC

moate wrote: post #241

win311fwg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you build a small new home when you can buy a large used home for the same price?

1- Costs of operating an larger house are higher than a smaller house 2- Yearly maintenance of a new house is cheaper than an older house (older the house, the greater this gets) 3- Easier to keep a smaller house tidy 4- Mobility/lifestyle issues. 5- Indifference towards resale value Not everyone wants a giant house, and plenty of people like a small one. It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.

I don't think anyone is talking about giant houses. Last time I priced a new 1,500 sq ft home they wanted over $800,000. That was an instant nope from me. Another commenter pointed out that their 650 sq ft home would be $400,000 to build new. These are already beyond most people's affordability even before considering the cost of the land.

So when we talk about small and affordable we're talking more like 100 sq ft. Large compared to that is what most would call a modest home.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#250

Post by vinyl7 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #217

Looking at this, seeing that 50% are homeowners is actually astoundingly good. In a lot of countries 50% cannot afford to be homeowners. This is an international community here on HN, would love to hear takes from other countries.

Instead of praising a mediocre number, maybe we should strive to make that number 90%