New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#291

Post by peteey » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:58 PM UTC

redwood wrote: post #34

Everything in the study makes perfect sense. However one thing that's not discussed is change in culture and expectations. For example the United States is probably the only country where there's a general expectation that grandparents parents and adult children all live in separate homes... and most other countries multi-generation living is the norm. And perhaps some of those norms are starting to float into the Un…

Right now adult Americans can freely chose to live with their parents, and overwhelmingly chose not to.

The article links ownership to costs. Attributing diminishing ownership as "norm float" needs some justification. I suspect multi-generational norms seen elsewhere are rooted in poverty and a lack of opportunity.

Suppose I told you I am losing weight because I cannot afford food, I don't think you should speculate I chose to go on a diet.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#292

Post by HDThoreaun » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:58 PM UTC

profdevloper wrote: post #283

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…

Why is immigration always absent from these discussions on HN? the US has absorbed millions of people through immigration (both legal and illegal) which puts pressure on housing supply which drives up prices since supply is relatively inelastic. Enforcement of immigration policy would increase housing supply without needing to build more capacity in the short term and would lower prices.

We need immigration because there’s a construction worker shortage. No immigrants = even more expensive to build new homes

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#293

Post by memcg » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:00 PM UTC

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…

"Housing unit 3. A man owns his home. A friend lives with him."

I own my home. If I let a friend stay with me for unstated terms(friendship, charity, money, sex, whatever) then I no longer should be counted as owning my home?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#294

Post by tokioyoyo » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:03 PM UTC

HaZeust wrote: post #289

tokioyoyo wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been part of housing-related online discussions for a decade now, and everything reads like a wish-list. - Majority of people own their homes. So it’s in their best interest for the housing prices at the very least not go down. - Less, but still, some amount of people are buying houses with sky high prices. After a huge purchase, they will also do their best to ensure prices don’t go down. - Another good chunk o…

I've always wondered if UBI can replace the category of "viable asset class" that homes are now, wherein UBI offers upward mobility now AND generational wealthy in the future - the same way owning a house does. Wouldn't that be a valid populist play, an actual policy rooted in pragmatic, and all-around a winning strategy?

UBI is also another topic that has been discussed intensively for the past couple of decades. I don’t see it being implemented almost for the same reasons as cheap housing. On top of it, we experienced UBI-lite during pandemic, and saw the inflationary result. “But it wasn’t perfect UBI” argument won’t really fly either in the current political world.

People are generally selfish and will want the best for themselves and their loved ones.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#295

Post by mlinhares » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

100percentjake wrote: post #227

nxm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then come the property taxes

This seems like FUD. Anecdotally, even with property taxes, insurance, and all the rest of it, my 1,000 sq-ft 40s constructed house is 60% the cost of what my girlfriend was previously paying to rent a 1bd apartment on the outskirts of our town. And that is with a "first time homebuyer" $0-down mortgage I got through a local credit union.

The landlord also pays property taxes, so this comment must be trolling.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#296

Post by HaZeust » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:11 PM UTC

tokioyoyo wrote: post #294

HaZeust wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered if UBI can replace the category of "viable asset class" that homes are now, wherein UBI offers upward mobility now AND generational wealthy in the future - the same way owning a house does. Wouldn't that be a valid populist play, an actual policy rooted in pragmatic, and all-around a winning strategy?

UBI is also another topic that has been discussed intensively for the past couple of decades. I don’t see it being implemented almost for the same reasons as cheap housing. On top of it, we experienced UBI-lite during pandemic, and saw the inflationary result. “But it wasn’t perfect UBI” argument won’t really fly either in the current political world. People are generally selfish and will want the best for themselves…

>"On top of it, we experienced UBI-lite during pandemic, and saw the inflationary result."

I sympathize with this take because it's the one I had, until I saw the data. On top of genuinely appealing to the fact it wasn't perfect UBI - which doesn't make it an invalid take just because you pre-emptively pointed it out - our inflation during COVID-era relief was overwhelmingly from abuse of PPP loan applications and payouts, disaster relief funds - and a healthy chunk to the federal subsidizing of state/local governments [1]:

"Congress has obligated approximately $5 trillion in response to the COVID pandemic although significant portions of this money remain unspent. For reference, in fiscal 2020, the total state spending for all 50 states was $2.28 trillion, or less than half of the pandemic relief spending. Of the obligated relief funds, approximately $1.8 trillion went to individuals and families through $844 billion in stimulus check payments and $666 billion in enhanced unemployment compensation.

Additionally, businesses received approximately $1.7 trillion, much of which came from the $835 billion Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and $349 billion Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program. State and local governments received $745 billion, the health care industry received approximately $482 billion, and other remaining industries received approximately $288 billion."

To add, there's also the case that one of the industries most hurt from COVID, which was automobile sales, was impacted by the stimulus checks - but by less than 20% [2]:

"Despite this substantial demand response, fiscal transfers account for less than 20% of the surge in auto prices"

1 - https://www.taf.org/covid-19-relief-funds-two-years-later-wh...

2 - https://www.nber.org/papers/w34954

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#297

Post by ajsnigrutin » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #273

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bette…

Because the issues are nearly unsolvable. Your small EU country probably has a replacement rate of something like 1.5 which means you're heading towards extinction. This puts a crimp on labor and increases wages, and it leaves openings in higher paying jobs which people want. You end up with no one to do naturally lower paying non-specalized labor. Modern standards of not having 100 people die in a house fire have ch…

It could be 1.7 if we actually built apartments young people could afford.

It could be 1.9 if we had better paid jobs for those without college.

We could have even more if kindergarden didn't cost as much, and if people could afford everything else.

"Back in the time", you'd start work at 18 (or even earlier, most people didn't go to college), settle down with a partner at 20, 21, and what else is there to do than to make a kid? And since it was communism, having a kid meant you'd get a larger apartment. You're 23, 24... another kid, why not, you're still young. Third kid? An even larger apartment!

Now, you need college to get any kind of proper job, so nothing before 25yo, then you need to build up your career, and the age of first kid is going towards 30yo (for mom) or more. That's before accounting for the place to put your kids in. We used to build apartment buildings in communist times, now we don't. And it's not unique to communist areas, even in places like london and paris, low income housing blocks were being built in the 1960s, 1970s and even 80s,... now? Almost nothing.

So, change the law, import as much workers as you've built housing for, give priority to locals with zero houses already, give tax breaks and create assimilation programs (language first) for foreigners. You can't just bring people in, without having (livable) places to put them in and then leave them be. Hey, you big company needing workers... until you pressure your mayor to approve more housing, you won't get them, and mayors listen to "big money". But nope.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#298

Post by carlosjobim » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #146

carlosjobim wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In almost every place in the world, at almost any point in history, the propaganda will always tell you that you've never had it better than you have it now. But once you start digging and thinking, you start realizing that it's not true. I understand that most hackers reading the above sentence are already raging, but were you actually there to know that things were worse in the past, or has it been hammered so stro…

There are a lot of factors. Some things are worse than the past. However other things are better. There is no universal correct weighting of these different factors. In general I think that nobody would be willing to go far back in time. You don't need YouTube, but would you want to live without it? How about electric lights? Safe drinking water? Flush toilets?

It depends on what your situation would be and where, when you go back in time. Most people in the world today live in absolute misery, so that's not much argument. The enormous abundance of game animals in the past is just one factor which is mostly forgotten today.

In a world without clocks, no electric lights are needed. The safest and highest quality drinking water comes from springs and streams, still today. Flush toilets aren't needed if you live rurally. And so on.

Not to forget, that the less you are used to comforts, the more physically and mentally fit you will be as a person.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#299

Post by siriusastrebe » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #292

profdevloper wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is immigration always absent from these discussions on HN? the US has absorbed millions of people through immigration (both legal and illegal) which puts pressure on housing supply which drives up prices since supply is relatively inelastic. Enforcement of immigration policy would increase housing supply without needing to build more capacity in the short term and would lower prices.

We need immigration because there’s a construction worker shortage. No immigrants = even more expensive to build new homes

Why can't we train our own citizens to become construction workers?

If you claim that people "don't want to work" for those wages, then isn't immigration keeping our wages down?

Wouldn't business owners pay more for labor if there wasn't a stead supply of under the table illegal immigrants doing it for less?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#300

Post by loudmax » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #292

profdevloper wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is immigration always absent from these discussions on HN? the US has absorbed millions of people through immigration (both legal and illegal) which puts pressure on housing supply which drives up prices since supply is relatively inelastic. Enforcement of immigration policy would increase housing supply without needing to build more capacity in the short term and would lower prices.

We need immigration because there’s a construction worker shortage. No immigrants = even more expensive to build new homes

We also need immigration because it grows the GDP, makes for a dynamic and resilient economy, increases scientific and technological output and raises the standard of living.

Immigration is what made America great.