Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand how housing can increase in cost in a stable steady manner It's the density death spiral. Dense housing gets more expensive (yes, dense housing IS more expensive!), that in turn drives even more density. The only way to fix it? Promote suburbs and smaller cities. There is literally _no_ other fix.
I wonder if Texas, especially around Dallas, is settling into a pattern that'll work well. If you have enough land, that is. Instead of single big city with dense downtown surrounded by progressively less dense housing, there are multiple cores. Smaller cities, close enough that their suburbs mix. On the surface that does seem more workable than building mega-cities.
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
111–120 of 155 posts
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Newer homes have been trending smaller and smaller for a long time. Especially in the western US. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/10/smaller-n... > Median new-home sizes are at a 13-year low.
I must not be looking at the right place then. All the new homes I've seen recently are 2000+ sq. ft. The only ones that are smaller are usually townhomes and are even less affordable than the bigger homes I just mentioned they are located near downtowns or other heavily populated areas.
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is reducing “r” desirable? Why not try to raise “g” instead?
Inequality is a social poison all on its own. For example, democracy is meaningless when men of means can buy elections.
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#114How can an entire economy have a growth rate? Is it not measuring how much "new money" was put into the system?
Money doesn't affect the size of your economy, in general money is not even relevant to the discussion, save for the fact that it gives us a unit of measurement. Money is a relative resource, in a simplified manner, money dictates who gets what fraction of the pie. By printing more money you're not making more pie, just dividing the existing pie into thinner slices. Economies grow because of improvements in technolog…
So if you need a haircut but can't afford one, and I give you a new £10 note to get a haircut, and the barber works the extra 10 minutes to do that haircut and earn that £10 there's no new pie there.
Looks like 10 minutes more output to me.
"Printing more money" does make more pie. That's exactly what happens every time a loan is taken out, or government hires somebody who would otherwise be unemployed.
"Printing more money" leads to "shredding more money" via loan repayments and increased tax take, all via increases in the utilisation of existing resources.
That because "printing more money" is about buying something. That something has to at least potentially exist or more money will not be printed and circulated in the first place.
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just shudder to think about all my trips to Home Depot over the last 20 years of owning a home. I never did those when I was renting. Yes, I didn't get to renovate or pick my paint colours. And yes my money paid down someone else's mortgage. But I suspect if you add it all up...
You should add it all up. Some of the things you purchased at Home Depot can be counted in the cost basis of the home and reduce your capital gains tax if you later sell it.
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It seems to defy logic There are more people than ever and the surface area of the planet hasn't increased.
The surface area of the planet is pretty much entirely unrelated to the cost of housing.
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it would be interesting to have more transparent costs, especially with inflation. New siding every 20 years is $40k, a new roof might be $30k every 25 years, a new driveway, etc.
Biggest of them all: interest. On a $1M mortgage, you’ll almost pay $2M as interest over 30 years even at 7%. Historically interest was never as low as during the pandemic. And most people bought houses using mortgages. The average “cost” of owning a house is much more than the selling price, even before you account for the upkeep.
Also, where I live 7% wasn't the case in past 20 years, and even now its rather 1.5% + whatever bank puts on.
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
People get much larger houses today because they can afford much larger houses. This comes from both increased prosperity and having fewer kids. 1950s: The average new home sold for $82,098. It had 983 square feet of floor space and a household size of 3.37 people, or 292 square feet per person. 2010s: The average new home ($292,700) offers 924 square feet per person (2.59 people per household, 2,392 total square fee…
$82,098 in 1955, adjusted for inflation, was worth $727,502.05[1]. So homes were actually much more expensive back then. [1] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=82098&year1=19...
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yes, dense housing IS more expensive Dense housing is more expensive. Dense living massively less so.
It's actually the inverse. The raw construction cost of a housing unit in a dense building is cheap. Living there is not. People in dense cities spend a larger percentage of their paycheck on housing than people in sparse cities ( https://smartasset.com/mortgage/housing-spending-2021 ).
Not true. The cost per foot of construction of a single family home is lower than that of a small apartment building. A small apartment building has a lower cost per square foot than a mid-rise apartment. And a mid-rise apartment building has a lower cost per square foot than a high-rise apartment building.
Taking only construction costs into account, when land is cheap, single family homes make the most financial sense, and dense housing doesn't make sense.
Well, except for manufactured homes. They have a lower construction cost per square foot than single family homes, but when most people talk about density they aren't talking about trailer parks.
Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just shudder to think about all my trips to Home Depot over the last 20 years of owning a home. I never did those when I was renting. Yes, I didn't get to renovate or pick my paint colours. And yes my money paid down someone else's mortgage. But I suspect if you add it all up...
You should add it all up. Some of the things you purchased at Home Depot can be counted in the cost basis of the home and reduce your capital gains tax if you later sell it.
For better or for worse.