New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#261

Post by FloatArtifact » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:55 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.

Get rid of property tax or somebody below a certain income.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#262

Post by TimorousBestie » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #254

rayiner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Whic…

To your point about high humidity exacerbating heat, I think it’s relevant to consider wet bulb globe temperatures (WBGT) instead of air temperature. It’s more objective than heat index or the ad hoc “feels like” metrics. Above 30-35C WBGT, humans start dying without intervention.

In the United States at least, days with high WBGT have increased and more places experience them. I hear the same is true also in Europe.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#263

Post by BeetleB » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

vinyl7 wrote: post #250

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%

50% is anything but mediocre.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#264

Post by Silamoth » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #126

TeMPOraL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this correct for mortgage? Because owning through a bank loan still amounts to a monthly subscription.

If you live there for 30 years - and don't cash-out-refinance - in 30 years your subscription costs go much lower. However if you rent for less than the mortgage you can invest the difference into something that will grow in value more than the house (which SHOULD track inflation) and in turn end up about the same in the end.

In what world is rent lower than mortgage? Part of the reason my fiancé and I bought a house is because it was cheaper than renting. Not just long-term, but our monthly payment is actually noticeably lower.

Of course, we did need to pay a down payment. But if you amortize that over a 30 year mortgage period, we’re still better off buying than renting.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#265

Post by all2 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

FloatArtifact wrote: post #261

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.

Get rid of property tax or somebody below a certain income.

Property tax is theft.

By applying a tax to a _thing_ that someone owns, you are saying 'actually, this thing you have is mine, and if you don't pay me for the privilege of having it, I will take it away from you'.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#266

Post by itake » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:02 PM UTC

FloatArtifact wrote: post #261

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.

Get rid of property tax or somebody below a certain income.

I really don't feel great how people in high density housing subsidize home ownership costs for the people in the burbs.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#267

Post by jmyeet » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:02 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.

This is just wrong. Western economies have largely been hollowed out from productive output in favor of hoarding land and property because there is inelastic demand and increasing prices has become a political goal.

It should be super expensive to own more than one house. This by the way is what China did where Xi Jinping famous said "houses are for living, not for speculation" [1] as he quietly popped the real estate bubble a decade ago.

Increasing house prices are just enriching the already rich and stealing from the next generation. Nothing more. Houses should depreciate in value. They should not be an asset class.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_are_for_living,_not_for...

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#268

Post by nisegami » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:03 PM UTC

all2 wrote: post #265

FloatArtifact wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get rid of property tax or somebody below a certain income.

Property tax is theft. By applying a tax to a _thing_ that someone owns, you are saying 'actually, this thing you have is mine, and if you don't pay me for the privilege of having it, I will take it away from you'.

Land ownership is theft. Why should people have a right in perpetuity to the land that we all share?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#269

Post by itake » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:03 PM UTC

all2 wrote: post #265

FloatArtifact wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get rid of property tax or somebody below a certain income.

Property tax is theft. By applying a tax to a _thing_ that someone owns, you are saying 'actually, this thing you have is mine, and if you don't pay me for the privilege of having it, I will take it away from you'.

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but who pays for the roads to houses in the suburbs and why is it the people living in apartments that don't use many roads?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#270

Post by ffsm8 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:03 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…

luxeries also haven't gotten cheap, really - their manufacturing has been outsourced into places which often don't pay decent wages - so it's just out of sight/out of mind.

We're currently living in a time where some of the issues are being hidden by the nature of a global market - it's friggin impossible to make any good analysis with a global market, it has just too many influences and ways to hide criteria...