New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#301

Post by anon291 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:20 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…

People say things like this, and yet housing has -- for most of history -- been a viable asset class, including in the times that people idolize as the great boom times of America.

The main issue is mismanaged regulation, as always. Real estate is probably one of the best examples of that. For example, in my city of Portland, OR, it's easier to keep an existing structure and not build new housing than to build new housing (because then you can do things by right). To build new housing, you have to hire a company called 'faster permits' (seriously, that's what it is called, look it up) which promises to 'expedite' the process of having things approved. If you, like me, are skeptical of engaging in investments in which you have to bribe your government to approve housing, then you won't put your money into building housing. Portland is probably not alone in these sketchy arrangements, which is why real estate developers often seem sleezy -- due to how the government manages itself, only the sleeziest people are willing to engage at all.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#302

Post by ndriscoll » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #109

ndriscoll wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't vote when I rented in San Francisco for a few years because I had no intention to stay, and thought it immoral to disenfranchise the locals. Actually in my opinion you shouldn't be able to vote until you've lived somewhere for at least 5-10 years. Certainly even if you can, you shouldn't if you know you're only there temporarily. I don't see why you think owning should only be slightly better after 10 years;…

Risk is why owning needs 10 years. If the economy collapses you value goes down, by 10 years it will likely either have recovered, or at least not be done much. If the economy goes down and you lose your job in the process you have to sell to that down market and lose money. Management companies have a terrible reputation. While you can use them, it is likely they will be much more costly than doing things yourself.…

The point is if you're renting, you're already paying for those things while also introducing a middleman and losing autonomy. There's no reason why renting "should" be a better choice even on a relatively short timeframe. e.g. if more were automated to reduce transaction costs, and if the housing market were more stable, then it seems like it'd obviously be better for society for people to own even if only for a few years. On longer timeframes, we should certainly want people to own; we want people to view their surroundings as something they should take care of.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#303

Post by CPLX » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #184

CPLX wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers are just bullshit. The current inflation numbers tell us the price of health insurance is falling for example. When reality seems to be in conflict with logic, the next step is to question assumptions.

Where are you seeing inflation numbers showing health insurance falling?

The CPI showed health care price dropping by 7% in the most completed numbers, which were June.

It's fucking ridiculous and obviously so. The problem does involve methodology and so on but mostly it's just that "the map is not the territory" to be honest. The CPI is a synthetic measurement.

There are other examples too. It's not just health insurance. For example, interest rates are generally excluded from the CPI. So they don't affect the tracked price of owning a car even if they cause car payments to go up by double-digit percentages. Which has actually happened.

If you want a link though: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.htm

Scroll to health insurance and note that it's showing over a 7% decrease year over year.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#304

Post by smallmancontrov » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

HaZeust wrote: post #296

tokioyoyo wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

Also, the Federal Reserve bought $2 trillion of mortgage backed securities, pumping the housing market massively.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#305

Post by luisln » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #301

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…

People say things like this, and yet housing has -- for most of history -- been a viable asset class, including in the times that people idolize as the great boom times of America. The main issue is mismanaged regulation, as always. Real estate is probably one of the best examples of that. For example, in my city of Portland, OR, it's easier to keep an existing structure and not build new housing than to build new ho…

[dead]

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#306

Post by big_toast » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:46 PM UTC

tokioyoyo wrote: post #282

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 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 thought about that for a while and agree that's a big problem. I wonder if people unwilling to 'exit' bear some responsibility too?

I agree most owners are incentivized to have their leveraged ROIC be high. So they put pretty strong pressure against supply increases.

Defectors (other neighborhoods, cities, regions, states) and other living options might tank actual long term ROIC of supply constrained places. The economics eventually stop working in the supply constrained place as the real cost of housing production is significantly lower elsewhere.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#307

Post by profdevloper » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:47 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

If there is reduced demand for new housing due to increased inventory, there's less of a demand on construction for new housing. The expenses involved in new builds is both labor and building codes/restrictions - construction firms undercut Americans by hiring foreign labor that they can pay under the table.

I would much prefer Americans pay a premium for skilled American labor and choose to live in more modestly-sized homes.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#308

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:53 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…

> Which ones are in the cooler parts of the country

There are very few “cooler parts of the country.” Europe’s “no AC” culture was because, until the 2000s, almost everywhere had less than 15 days a year over 30C (85F). There’s only a handful of cities like that in the U.S., such as San Francisco and Seattle. Even in the northern latitudes the U.S. gets really hot. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, averaged about 50 85F+ days a year in the 1970s. Boston and Minneapolis were in the 30-60 range during that decade.

To put that into context, Germany over the last decade is seeing 15-20 30C+ days a year. It hit 30-31 only in two years recently, 2018 and 2019. Those years had 7,000-8,000 deaths each year. Germany’s epic heatwaves killing thousands of people was a mild summer in Cedar Rapids or Boston or Minneapolis even in 1970.

The U.S. is just a very hot country, even in the northeast and upper midwest. AC is a huge, lifesaving standard of living improvement almost everywhere in the country. And we shouldn’t take for granted the developments that enabled 88% of the country to have access to that technology.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#309

Post by profdevloper » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

loudmax wrote: post #300

HDThoreaun wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think immigration from developing nations does raise the standard of living for the immigrant (e.g. India), but not for the host nation -- it's called "regression to the mean". As far as GDP goes, I always think of this:

> Two economists are walking in a forest when they Come across a pile of shit.

> The first economist says to the other "Ill pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit." The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.

> They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says "l pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit." The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.

> Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#310

Post by pandaman » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

all2 wrote: post #285

itake wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not saying taxes are bad. I'm saying specifically that taxing property itself is bad. If someone 'owns' a thing, why would they pay rent to some landlord (the state)? I acknowledge that I'm indulging in equivocation by saying 'assessing taxes from property is essentially paying rent to the state'. I assert that the equivocation is valid because the outcomes of not paying rent and not paying property taxes is the…

This depends on what you mean by "own". We have property rights, which are colloquially referenced as "ownership" but, by definition, these are rights and don't exist outside the state, which enforces them. So yes, your rights are given to you by the state and you don't really have any without the state enforcing them. If you could naively own your property then you could just tell the tax collectors to fuck off, what are they going to do with your property if it had been truly yours?