Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#31

Post by graceful6800 »

Yiin wrote: post #7
bobson381 wrote: post #4

30 year mortgage is founded partly on the idea that your house will be worth more in the future when you sell it. That you can lock in a lower price now. Number cannot always go up. We are at the top of the carbon pulse. Financialization has taken us far from the material baseline of the rock we are flying through space on. Debt will only get us so far. For this and many other reasons, why would you believe a house "…

inflation disagrees with your premise, there is no reason why number can't always go up, there are plenty of countries that prove otherwise.

Mathematics agrees with you, there are in fact infinitely many numbers.

Physics and reality do not. Once the number gets big enough it loses all practical value. Humans are not really built to reason about very large numbers. At some point you reach Zimbabwean inflation and your currency loses all value because everyone is paid in the trillions. Then you reset your currency back to lower numbers because that's what humans and their systems can handle.

So, no, the number cannot always go up. There is a practical ceiling beyond which numbers lose meaning and value.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#32

Post by burlesona »

Comparing to the 1980s maybe misses that the population was much younger then, and there’s still a general trend of people moving more when they’re younger and settling down when they’re older. I would have liked to see the data broken down by age cohorts.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#33

Post by rogerrogerr »

Carrok wrote: post #17
petcat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're falling for the trap of just thinking of buying a house as an investment . Buying a house can be an investment, but it's also buying a place to live. Even if the home's value merely keeps pace with inflation over 30 years, you've converted a largely fixed housing payment into ownership rather than paying ever-increasing rent indefinitely.

Along the same lines, you are buying a place. A place that you own and can do whatever you like with. I spent twenty years renting and twenty years of feeling like you can’t hang a picture on the wall, paint a room, upgrade an appliance, or really do anything to improve your surroundings, tends to get tiring.

Why can't you hang a picture on the wall? Fixing holes in drywall is super trivial, a good life skill to learn.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#34

Post by louthy »

bobson381 wrote: post #16
Jtarii wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a house as an investment is so dumb. Its only an investment if you are renting it out to someone else, otherwise you are just gambling.

Agree here. But I'm a doomer/collapsenik - so, the same future coming for "retirement" is the same future coming for "house always appreciates in value". Maybe 1990 -> 2020 was an okay 30 year period, 2026 -> 2056 sure won't be.

> 2026 -> 2056 sure won't be.

You have evidence from the future?

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#35

Post by danvoell »

I feel like US is too heavily weighted on incumbant "rent seeking" through law and policy. We were just in Tokyo and Seoul, the average costs of rents in New York City: ~$3,900 – $4,200 vs Tokyo: ~$1,200 – $1,350 and vs Seoul: ~$950 – $1,100. Renters will move if there are affordable newer options in cities instead of treating boomer asset holding rent seekers as a privileged class.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#36

Post by the_sleaze_ »

cma256 wrote: post #28
bobson381 wrote: post #4

30 year mortgage is founded partly on the idea that your house will be worth more in the future when you sell it. That you can lock in a lower price now. Number cannot always go up. We are at the top of the carbon pulse. Financialization has taken us far from the material baseline of the rock we are flying through space on. Debt will only get us so far. For this and many other reasons, why would you believe a house "…

This is false. Can you cite a source for the idea that the 30-year mortgage was "founded" on the idea of appreciation? The thirty year mortgage was introduced to reduce the housing appreciation requirement the old balloon loan system relied on.

I agree.

The mortgage was to allow people to eventually OWN THE PROPERTY, not a leveraged investment.

It's an interesting development that some (most?) regular people have forgotten that there is a 3rd option, not just rent or loan. You can actually OWN the thing and pay only property tax on it.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#37

Post by [deleted] »

cautiouscat wrote: post #3

It’s getting prohibitively expensive. Before brokers fees were banned in Boston, a $2,000/mo apartment could have cost you $8000 just to move in . That’s for first, last, security and brokers fee. That’s a worst case scenario but even just first and last months rent is $4000. It’s getting outrageous.

[deleted]

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#38

Post by morkalork »

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #29
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way back when I started my career - I almost COULDN'T take a good job in Boston, because I couldn't figure out how I could literally live there long enough to get my first few paychecks to pay for my rent. I decided that I'd just go into credit card debt and live in the crappiest hotel that I could find until I had enough money to pay the first/last/security deposit. Luckily, I found some shady landlord on Craigslist…

Easy fix, the department of defense has been doing it for years in Southwest DC. Just build corporate housing. Then we can have little Amazon towns where all your needs are met and everyone lives in perfect harmony in downtown San Fransisco.

Could even include Amazon store credits in the compensation package!*

* Non-transferrable, no cash value, forfeit upon separation, taxes on items purchased with credits must still be paid in USD by user

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#39

Post by inigyou »

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #29
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way back when I started my career - I almost COULDN'T take a good job in Boston, because I couldn't figure out how I could literally live there long enough to get my first few paychecks to pay for my rent. I decided that I'd just go into credit card debt and live in the crappiest hotel that I could find until I had enough money to pay the first/last/security deposit. Luckily, I found some shady landlord on Craigslist…

Easy fix, the department of defense has been doing it for years in Southwest DC. Just build corporate housing. Then we can have little Amazon towns where all your needs are met and everyone lives in perfect harmony in downtown San Fransisco.

As long as they stick to housing it could be an improvement over the status quo.

Vertical integration isn't that unethical if you religiously stick to only integrating what would otherwise suck.

Re: Why Do Fewer Renters Expect to Move?

#40

Post by danvoell »

danvoell wrote: post #35

I feel like US is too heavily weighted on incumbant "rent seeking" through law and policy. We were just in Tokyo and Seoul, the average costs of rents in New York City: ~$3,900 – $4,200 vs Tokyo: ~$1,200 – $1,350 and vs Seoul: ~$950 – $1,100. Renters will move if there are affordable newer options in cities instead of treating boomer asset holding rent seekers as a privileged class.

To add, renters not moving is a renter problem. It's a real estate owner benefit.
Post reply on HN