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

361–370 of 394 posts

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#361

Post by itake »

FloatArtifact wrote: post #344
itake wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> I really don't feel great how people in high density housing subsidize home ownership costs for the people in the burbs. That's a good point, and it's why I qualified my statement by saying under a certain income. You say high density as if it's a bad thing.

Pros and Cons. I currently have an upstairs neighbor that plays piano at 4am.

As a high density resident, I would like to capture all of the pros of having a smaller foot print, since there is nothing insulating me from the negatives.

My neighbor in Seattle only needed 5 homes to convince the gas company to dig up our road and install a gas line down our street. There is no way the gas company had the money for that purely on the revenue they may collect from those 5 homes...

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#362

Post by AngryData »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #315
AngryData wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only shortage is in pay. I and many other people left trades becauses wages were crap for jobs that take 20 years of your life away. Despite the memes about trades, the majority of trade workers are not making bank unless they have an unusual specialty and a union. 1 plumber in Manhatten doing making bank doesn't make the plumbers all across the rest of the nation wealthy.

Ok? If you want natives to take these jobs construction prices will go up. So we need immigrants to affordably build things. If all construction workers are native going forward the vast majority of people will never be able to afford a home other than inheriting one.

Labor is a fraction of the cost of trade work. The highest expensive is in most cases the bulk construction materials, next is the cost of management and bureaucracy. The excuses of labor costing more here is just that, an excuse, most often used by large corporations to try and excuse them offshoring everything and hollowed out the organization for short term gains.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#363

Post by CalRobert »

BeetleB wrote: post #350
CalRobert wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concrete houses suck and Europeans need to get off their high house about them. I own a concrete brick house in Europe and I’d strongly prefer a wooden American one. It’s hard to insulate, hard to alter, uglier, has a terrible embodied carbon footprint, has too much thermal mass, and alterations that would make it more livable (like having eaves) are illegal.

On the flip side, window AC's are really effective at cooling the single room they're in. In the wooden house I have, I just can't get the room that cool if the temperature is in the 90's, because the internal walls provide very little insulation. It was trivial when I lived in concrete buildings. It's a ridiculous waste to have to use central air conditioning to cool a whole house when I really just need to cool 1-2…

OK, but window AC and also mini and multi split systems, which are also like this, work just fine in wooden houses, so I don’t see the connection. I had multi splits in a wooden house in Ireland.

Edit: re-reading… I guess it depends on the house but I definitely have had a substantial temp difference between rooms in a wooden house

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#364

Post by BrenBarn »

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'.

Sounds fine to me! I mean, it depends on how much the person owns. But I'm fine just saying "you own too much, you don't get to own that much anymore".

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#365

Post by BrenBarn »

all2 wrote: post #348
pandaman wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine you wanted to say "ignores the Declaration of Independence", which you quoted? Sure, if you believe that this declaration endowed you with the unalienable property rights then just go ahead and don't pay the property tax, what is going to happen if your property rights are truly unalienable, right? Also, how theft would be even possible if property rights had been unalienable? If someone stole from you and…

I know this is a facetious dismissal, but I'll try to respond anyway. > I imagine you wanted to say "ignores the Declaration of Independence", which you quoted? Correct. > Sure, if you believe that this declaration endowed you with the unalienable property rights then just go ahead and don't pay the property tax, what is going to happen if your property rights are truly unalienable, right? I'm not advocating for brea…

> I'm not advocating for breaking laws, regulations, or rules of the nation I live in.

What if we change the laws to remove or limit those property rights?

> This is less about the pragmatics of 'possession' and its intricacies (the old adage 'possession is 9/10s of the law' is relevant here), and more about the policies of the governments that rule, and ultimately that answer to the people they rule.

What if most of those people want to reduce the property rights of a small wealthy minority?

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#366

Post by paulus_magnus2 »

[Invert, always invert] If you're not a homeowner then "you'll own nothing and be happy",

Homes are not #1 best investment asset and they shouldn't be but the world works better if people own homes they live in. It's a matter of not having the most significant part of your life being exposed to the market volatility. Plus it nicely aligns incentives of the neighbourhood.

Go and check areas that are mostly rental and see how maintenance (of both homes and infrastructure) is forgotten on the altair of rentmaxxing.

Of course if you're at $400k at FAANG, your best investment isn't realestate but for majority of middle class and working class buying your own home, taking a good care of it and passing it to your grandchildren is a very good investment. Also the society benefits.

The easiest way to solve the unafordability without putting everyone into negative equity is WFH. Land is only expensive near where traditionally the good jobs are. Just allow people to move to a low cost area, build there and WFH

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#367

Post by krackers »

xnx wrote: post #117
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…

Possibly referencing the "Chart of the Century": https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-8...

This may not account for enshittification. Clothes are "cheaper" in both senses of the word. Same for furnishings.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#368

Post by applfanboysbgon »

ch4s3 wrote: post #230
vablings wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might also point out that Finland has very good social programs, probably some of the best in Europe

Right, my point is that you can't boil happiness down to a single causal factor and if you could the evidence doesn't support home ownership being that factor.

> my point is that you can't boil happiness down to a single causal factor

This is not a claim I ever made. The claim I made was that homeownership was of significantly higher importance than affordability of cheap consumer goods. Obviously there are other factors.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#369

Post by meindnoch »

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #311
PunchyHamster wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds. Build factory for city blocks, then just pop them up, constantly, keeping the line busy. It should really be city that is building the new housing (even if in the end it gets subcontracted, at least the top level have vested interest in keeping the quality and cost in check). Maybe even offer some rent-to-own programs where part of rent gets put into savings that…

> One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds I disagree. I have yet to see a nice-place-to-live low-income project. In USA Russia Brazil or Southeast Asia.

Does this look like a bad place to live? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Round_Houses_in_Moscow

Easter European commie blocks usually have strategically placed parks, shopping, kindergartens, schools, medical facilities within walking distance. For this reason, apartments in these areas are actually appreciating at a faster rate than housing built from the 90s onwards. It's hardly a Pruitt-Igoe.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#370

Post by curious_curios »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #326
jimberlage wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Ther…

No body is forced to have a $700 car payment. That's a luxury financing $30k+ on a brand new or nearly new car.

Though with gas, maintenance, insurance on top of the car payment, that $700 is probably the floor of car ownership.
Post reply on HN