San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#431

Post by glenra » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 7:38 AM UTC

JonFish85 wrote: post #194

enraged_camel wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

What, exactly, is "crazy" about it? As a renter, you don't control your own destiny. You're at the whim of your landlord. As a home-owner, or better yet, a property-owner, you have much more control over your living situation. Don't like the paint color? Change it. Don't like your stove? Get a new one. Want to plant some new flowers? Go for it. As a renter, you're going to be dealing with rents rising year over year.…

> Not to mention the fact that, if you're paying $1,000/mo for rent, at the end of the year, you have almost nothing to show for your $12,000. In a house/home, you have equity in said house.

Suppose you buy a $300k house with a 15% downpayment. That means you spent $45k to GET the house. Now if the rent payments and the mortgage payment are both about the same, both spend $12k/year to keep their house, but the homeowner gains a very small amount of equity (most of the payment in the early years goes to interest on the mortgage) but the renter has an extra $45k of liquid net worth! If the renter invests in the stock market or a money market fund he gets some ROI from that - income the homeowner can't get. Plus being more solvent is valuable in itself in these hard times.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#432

Post by davidw » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 8:31 AM UTC

cbosch wrote: post #407

davidw wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a native Oregonian - born and raised in the Willamette valley. The weather made me want to get the hell out, though. It's not that it rains that much, it's just that it's gray and bleak so often. During the winter, it's usually around 5C or maybe up to 10C (that's about 40-50F). The cold and drizzly weather is absolutely miserable if you like the outdoors, because you can't really do much. Too warm for snow and "…

ha! that's wolf creek road in eugene. an awesome road for cycling. I live in san francisco but I visit my friends in eugene in july. luckily, in july, the weather in eugene is typically superb. I think it'd be pretty tough for me to handle all the grey during the rest of the year. the bay area has a lot of paradise weather - I grew up in marin - and when I went to the east coast for school I had trouble with the grey…

> ha! that's wolf creek road in eugene. an awesome road for cycling.

Yep, I've ridden and raced up that climb a number of times. It's beautiful in the summer. There are some really great rides out there in the coast range, a lot of them really remote.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#433

Post by nightski » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 9:02 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #286

nightski wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintaining a home can cost more than you might imagine. The reason it is profitable for landlords (at least for apartments) is due to the fact there many are paying rent within the same building (economy of scale). Second, taxes are significant. Where I live (Fargo, ND) property taxes equal a rent payment alone. So it almost makes more sense (monetarily) to pay rent and invest the extra money into something more luc…

Could you explain why you think you, as a renter, don't pay property taxes?

Oh I am sure I do. That does not change the fact that for a $250k home I would pay ~400 a month in taxes (of course more or less depending on a variety of factors). Rent is currently $550 for a nice two bedroom apartment with balcony and heat included.

Let's not forget that I have to heat that house all winter, which is a couple hundred a month in and of itself. I could go on.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#434

Post by BSousa » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 9:33 AM UTC

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #402

dllthomas wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, these individuals might be able to sell their homes at substantial profit, but they'll still have to move once they sell. They have to move if they were renting, too, and would be have less money (if they didn't leave the very instant rent rose at all) instead of more. Of course, that's just saying that it's better to be long an asset when its price jumps. Also, if your work doesn't tie you to a region and you…

> Also, if your work doesn't tie you to a region and you've purchased a house, and rents are high, you can always rent out your house instead of selling it. That's a couple of big ifs, but even so, unless you have purchased a house as an investment with the intention of renting it out, this is another one of the rationalizations that prospective home buyers use to convince themselves that they're making a smart decis…

I've done just that. My wife an I bought our house 4 years or so ago. House payments including all the interest and accompanying costs were lower if we wanted to rent a smaller crappier house in the same location at the time. Now we are moving countries and renting our place. Rent we are asking for is 50-60% higher than the costs we have and have so many people interested we may just up the rent a bit.

But I do have some experience renting places as my family has a few properties they rent and I used to manage a lot of the related work.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#435

Post by x0x0 » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 10:09 AM UTC

crusso wrote: post #309

king_jester wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing cooler than seeing some run-down urban area transformed into a place that's more successful and vibrant through renovation and revitalization. This change almost always coincides with a displacement of people, esp. existing communities of those with lower incomes or communities inhabited mostly by people of color. What exactly is cool about the destruction of a standing community that is caused by i…

You use words like "destruction" inappropriately, I think. Ironically, things like wage controls, rent controls, and welfare have locked these very people into a cycle of poverty out of which they have trouble escaping. Continuing communities that are perpetually in blight is not the an obvious good. Allowing the system to change naturally with healthy commerce would seem to be an improvement. One would hope that gov…

my god, it's like a republican freemarketer madlibs

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#436

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 11:03 AM UTC

wooster wrote: post #418

tptacek wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His wording was hyperbolic but his point wasn't far off the mark if you compare the restaurant scene in SF (or NYC or Chicago) to that of South Bay.

By that standard, one of the best restaurants in NYC is above a Whole Foods and adjacent to a food court.

This is a little like talking about the restaurant scene in Yountville. I mean, yeah, but what else is there in Yountville?

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#437

Post by Jgrubb » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 11:31 AM UTC

ebiester wrote: post #193

davidw wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tucson,+az&hl=en&ll=32.176194... Looks like they include a lot of land for whatever reason that's not really "city" - and don't include some that is. I don't know what the job climate is like there, or life in general, but it seems like a fairly nice place: college town, desert climate, but they also have a ski resort (!) just out of town, because to the north east they have a 3000 mete…

It used to be much worse -- a lot of the land grab was due to Arizona law years ago. But Tucson, as it has grown, has seen a lot of infill. Even so, places that look empty often have 1 per 3 acre housing.

Interesting, thanks for all the info! I've only been there once, and it the hills outside town were on fire at the time, but it still seemed like a cool neighborhood and cool town over all if you can handle the desert thing...

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#438

Post by rapind » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 12:09 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #230

gknoy wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who recently (this past year) went from being a renter to a homeowner, and had previously been a home owner for several years, it's not all rational... but here are some of the reasons. I don't have to worry about the rent going up every year / six-months. If I plan to own the house for multiple years, a large chunk of my money goes to equity: I'm banking away value for later that you will get back when yo…

>>If I plan to own the house for multiple years, a large chunk of my money goes to equity: I'm banking away value for later that you will get back when you sell the house. (Assuming the market doesn't go pear-shape: a big assumption.) In contrast, money you spend on rent is a pure cost, and irrevocably lost. This logic is fundamentally flawed. Contrary to the popular conventional wisdom (repeated by our Baby Boomer p…

The epilogue is using a pretty specific comparison, which is a little out of whack in my experience. Rent / Mortgage comparisons are usually a little closer.

That being said, I completely agree with this article. The most important point is that buying is often worthwhile due to government meddling... it's difficult for other investments to compete with a house ownership appreciation that's tax free.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#439

Post by king_jester » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 12:35 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #309

king_jester wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing cooler than seeing some run-down urban area transformed into a place that's more successful and vibrant through renovation and revitalization. This change almost always coincides with a displacement of people, esp. existing communities of those with lower incomes or communities inhabited mostly by people of color. What exactly is cool about the destruction of a standing community that is caused by i…

You use words like "destruction" inappropriately, I think. Ironically, things like wage controls, rent controls, and welfare have locked these very people into a cycle of poverty out of which they have trouble escaping. Continuing communities that are perpetually in blight is not the an obvious good. Allowing the system to change naturally with healthy commerce would seem to be an improvement. One would hope that gov…

> Ironically, things like wage controls, rent controls, and welfare have locked these very people into a cycle of poverty out of which they have trouble escaping.

Uh what? Things like rent control and welfare allow people to have shelter and eat when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Systemic poverty occurs not because there is a welfare program, but rather because of classism, racism, and capitalism. That's not hyperbole, this is well understood in logical argument and through real world evidence.

> Continuing communities that are perpetually in blight is not the an obvious good. Allowing the system to change naturally with healthy commerce would seem to be an improvement.

Except that said development skews heavily towards white people and heavily disfavors black and hispanic people. This doesn't address livability for people and communities, this kind of attitude is a direct endorsement of systemic racism and classism.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#440

Post by anothermouse » Tue, Jul 09, 2013, 1:32 PM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #316

ahh wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second, and there's basically no solution for it. Other than lie about your job, I guess. I tend to tell girls I'm a "mathematician", which is sort of true, is about equally nerdy but doesn't instantly cue low-status associations, and doesn't lead to further questions. It works about as well as anything I could say would, but I'm still clearly low-status and it sucks. What's your proposed solution to dating as a…

The last time a young lady asked me what I did for a living I did the Old Spice guy impersonation and mentioned I was getting flown abroad to do it for an audience. She married me, so I now have the luxury of not caring anymore what people think of my answers, but they're generally some flavor of "I run a company which does X", where X is one thing I think they'll find interesting. Possible Xes include "helped teach…

My go to solution to this problem, back when I needed one, was as soon as the girl in question asked "what do you do?" I'd reply directly with "I'm a computer programmer - what do you do?" and should they say they are a musician or whatever I'd jovially reply instantly with "Oh well, I guess we have nothing in common then", and pretend that the conversation was over. They were always very interested to talk then, and the conversation was firmly on a flirtatious footing.

Writing this now, I realise that there is an corner case I hadn't covered in this plan. Solving it is left as an exercise to the reader, but I'd suggest something along the lines of "Emacs or vi?"