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

251–260 of 394 posts

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#251

Post by jvanderbot »

saghm wrote: post #219
jvanderbot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we're not talking about reality, we're talking about the measures of it. A metric would fall down on corner cases, so identifying the corner cases is how you determine if a metric is a good one. "% people owning homes" is maximized by joint ownership, as well, but the corner cases are interesting: It is lower with big families living together or when anyone rents. On the other hand, the "% homes lived in by owne…

I feel like this could just as easily be accounted for as "are you paying rent to the person who owns it or not?", which rules out family members.

Yes, that would be a new metric, though, wouldn't it?

What's the goal - defend A vs B?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#252

Post by jorgen123 »

anal_reactor wrote: post #244
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 p…

Is that true, though? When my parents got married in the 60's in the Netherlands, they had to move in with my grandparents because there was no housing available and eligibility was restricted. It took a few years and a 2nd child before they were eligible to rent an apartment. Perhaps that does not show up in the statistics?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#253

Post by beedeebeedee »

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…

Hi, this is a well known phenomenon in politics that is much discussed in political science and sociology, and goes by many names (strategic polarization, racial capitalism, split labor market theory, etc, and depending upon how you frame it, it encompasses all politics going back to Plato’s Republic). There are many examples where elites have stoked division amongst the poor (usually along ethnic or religious differences, but any difference can be utilized).

The most famous examples in America were the divisions created between poor white and poor black Americans during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era to prevent them from forming class solidarity, and then later, the Southern strategy that enabled Nixon and the Republican Party to regain power during and after the Civil Rights era.

If you are unfamiliar with this topic, you can look at wiki articles and blogs like these, and then go deeper by reading academic papers and books on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_labor_market_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Reconstruction_in_Americ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://belonging.berkeley.edu/new-southern-strategy

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#254

Post by vel0city »

rayiner wrote: post #118
inigyou wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average temperatures were also lower in 1970 and we didn't put as many of the jobs in places where you absolutely needed an AC. What's average income less average house price? Has that gone up or down?

> Average temperatures were also lower in 1970 Yes, but not enough to change whether you want AC or not: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/washington-dc/yea... . In DC in 1970 you had 98 days above 85 degrees. The year before was 80 and the year after was 71. Last year was 72 and the year before was 93. There are more warm days, but you wanted an AC in the DC area back in the 1970s too. > and we didn't put a…

> The south and mid atlantic was always a huge share of the population.

The population share of the South and West regions of the US have grown while the population share of the Northeast and Midwest have shrunk.

https://www.census.gov/popclock/data_tables.php?component=gr...

What are the fastest growing metro areas in the US these days? DFW, Austin, Houston, Phoenix, Orlando, Atlanta, Raleigh, Tampa, Nashville. Which ones are in the cooler parts of the country?

I agree overall its not like half the population moved to the Sun Belt, but a pretty large amount of the population growth in the US has been focused on the hotter parts of the country.

You're pointing to days over 85 as days you need AC. To me that's pretty warm, but not unbearable. Days where it never goes below 80F for a week or more at a time, or places with extreme humidity mixed with such high temperatures, now that's a place where you need AC.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#255

Post by Fargren »

eulers_secret wrote: post #160
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.

You can have these things without owning a house. Community is IMO easier in apartments, the higher density means there’s a bigger pool of folks you might click with. Community gathering spots are more prevalent as well: pools, playgrounds, green spaces, etc are common amenities. Especially if you get a dog, you will meet lots of people. Of course it depends on which complex you live in. If I move I will miss my apar…

You can own and appartment and live in it. For some reason ownership every discussion with USAmericans seems to come with the premise that home ownership implies houses. The vast majority of home owners I know personally own a flat.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#256

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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.

That's not a useful metric, because the mortgage interest deduction means that it's almost always financially optimal to take out a mortgage even if you have the assets to pay cash.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#257

Post by pixl97 »

anal_reactor wrote: post #244
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 p…

>we have historically low average number of people per house.

I'd like to see the actual statistics method used to calculate that. Saying it's marriages alone just doesn't past the smell test for me. Just because people aren't married doesn't mean they don't live together and the number of unmarried people living together is higher than ever. What makes far more sense is the number of children people have has fallen off a cliff which drastically drops the number of live at home adult children.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#258

Post by jimberlage »

ecshafer wrote: post #243
mchusma wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the problem with getting this done in the US is the lack of public transit and the dysfunction in public schools.

If you could avoid a $700 car payment and still get to school/job/grocery store on time, a lot of Americans would.

But if you can't, and you are paying $700 anyways, why not at least use the fact that you're paying $700/month to travel anywhere and get a bigger parcel of land all to yourself? There's a big incentive to have single-family homes for rent as long as that math is true.

And if you can live in a dense area and get around OK, but paying $700/month saves you from $800/month in private school payments, then the math might still make renting SFH better even if the transit is there.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#259

Post by cpburns2009 »

shipman05 wrote: post #153
frig57 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything better now than it once was? Hard disagree, take me back to the early 2010s

The early 2010s, the age of financial bailouts, Occupy Wall Street, and two "forever" wars. No one ever thinks they're living through a Golden Age.

The 2010s were the beginning of the decline. The '90s and 2000s were the Golden Age.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#260

Post by moate »

win311fwg wrote: post #249
moate wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Okay, if you just want to have a conversation with yourself I can see myself out as you addressed literally none of what I said and went off on some affordability tangent about housing in general.

Housing prices are too high for most people to afford. That wasn't what the sentence I responded to was asking about.

Post reply on HN