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

Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

architectsjournal.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 202 posts

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#141

Post by tarkin2 »

petesergeant wrote: post #124
tarkin2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the renters will reward any government that pushes down house prices i.e. builds more houses. And I assume there are more renters than home owners.

> The 2011 Census tells us … around 64% of UK households owned their home That’s not the same as the number of voters, obviously, but I’m not sure it’s a safe assumption, even before it gets into the actual voting dynamics from FPTP… there’s also presumably a lot of renters with their eyes on Mom and Dad’s home as an inheritance.

If they inherit the house they would be out of the mortgage casino and lower housing prices won't affect them so much.

Of course it won't be as valuable as an asset, but assuming they are primarily using it as a house rather then an asset then lower housing prices may not significantly affect their voting behaviour.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#142

Post by mystified5016 »

thrance wrote: post #49
graemep wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If houses ever return to good affordability I'm screwed. Which creates a huge pool of people who are opposed to making houses more affordable.

This is the thing I never see addressed. Wouldn't fixing the housing crisis necessarily involve slashing down property values? Which are for a lot of people their only form of savings? Genuine question by the way, I would like an answer.

Real estate as savings or an investment only works if prices only go up forever.

This is the core issue with all modern capitalist economies. They rely on infinite unbounded growth.

Obviously real estate prices cannot trend to infinity or the system collapses. You are here.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#143

Post by [deleted] »

globular-toast wrote: post #27
nly wrote: post #6

Over the last 50-70 years the UK made the choice to stop building social housing and to sell off the existing stock with aggressive government subsidies. Complaining now is a bit like complaining there's no milk after you sold the dairy farm to build a casino. I read TFA but I'm not seeing anything but useless outrage that would have been better placed 20-30 years ago I became a first time property owner at 36 and it…

> If houses ever return to good affordability I'm screwed. Uhh, why? Unless you were planning on selling up and spending it all on a cruise or something house prices are immaterial to home owners. > I have to refinance every 5 years, because that's the game in the UK, so if rates spike I'm also screwed. This is the real problem. It's partly our fault, of course, for agreeing to a mortgage which we couldn't afford if…

[deleted]

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#144

Post by AstralStorm »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #133
StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which are for a lot of people their only form of savings? It's fake savings unless you are speculating on properties. Most people only own the place they actually live in and only resell to buy another place. A general property market crash doesn't affect the value of your house compared to other house so it's mostly neutral in this regard. Of course people who borrowed before the crash will be in debt for longer t…

A case where it isn't fake savings is where people who work and live an a very expensive urban area, like london, may use the home as a retirement investment. So when they retire they move to a less expensive area and can use the difference in housing costs in the two areas as a retirement nest egg.

It's an interesting way to try to save, and assumes anyone will want and be able to buy it.

And that you will be able to keep the expensive property with expensive costs. Plus compare if living in the expensive vs cheap place gets you more savings...

No, it does not make sense. I can see holding a property for a child, but not as retirement.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#145

Post by lores »

oezi wrote: post #106
lores wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you buy a house at 500K with a 400K mortgage. House prices fall 50%, you owe 400K on a 250K house. Banks would repossess as the loan value can't be guaranteed by the asset. Separately, you could default on the loan if laws allow it, losing much of your wealth and making it impossible for you to get a loan for the 150K to move to another house. You could keep paying the loan, spending many years of income fo…

In which country can Banks reposess if market value falls? In Germany that risk is 100% on the bank. No reprocessing without you failing to pay anyway.

I misspoke - you would not be able to remortgage and would need to repay the loan when the term expires, or be repossessed. In the UK, most people are on a 2 or 5 years fixed-rate mortgage, after which you don't need to remortgage but really want to, because the variable rate is typically a lot more expensive - so you're throwing even more money into the hole.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#146

Post by petesergeant »

tarkin2 wrote: post #141
petesergeant wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 2011 Census tells us … around 64% of UK households owned their home That’s not the same as the number of voters, obviously, but I’m not sure it’s a safe assumption, even before it gets into the actual voting dynamics from FPTP… there’s also presumably a lot of renters with their eyes on Mom and Dad’s home as an inheritance.

If they inherit the house they would be out of the mortgage casino and lower housing prices won't affect them so much. Of course it won't be as valuable as an asset, but assuming they are primarily using it as a house rather then an asset then lower housing prices may not significantly affect their voting behaviour.

> but assuming they are primarily using it as a house

Unlikely unless they’re an only child

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#147

Post by Qem »

dustincoates wrote: post #47
globular-toast wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If houses ever return to good affordability I'm screwed. Uhh, why? Unless you were planning on selling up and spending it all on a cruise or something house prices are immaterial to home owners. > I have to refinance every 5 years, because that's the game in the UK, so if rates spike I'm also screwed. This is the real problem. It's partly our fault, of course, for agreeing to a mortgage which we couldn't afford if…

> Uhh, why? Unless you were planning on selling up and spending it all on a cruise or something house prices are immaterial to home owners. I don't know how it is in the UK, but in Paris, I hear from a lot of people that their retirement plan is to sell their Parisian apartment and move to a lower cost area with what they've gained. Doesn't work out if your "investment" is underwater.

> Doesn't work out if your "investment" is underwater.

With climate change it will be literally what will happen to many homeowners in low lying coastal areas some decades from now.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#148

Post by carlosjobim »

helij wrote: post #127
carlosjobim wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But that's just like any fake token being used by olds as a retirement plan. Seeing as the olds control almost all of the wealth of industrialized nations, they should as a group be held entirely responsible for paying for entitlements and benefits for other elderly. The young should not be burdened with this. They have more burdens than they can handle already and are soon genetically extinct unless the olds ta…

Please stop spreading generational divide. Those olds were burdened with this just like today's young. Somehow some people think olds had it easy. Housing issues are not us(young) vs them(old).

> Please stop spreading generational divide.

I have more things in common with any young person from the other side of the world than I have with the olds from my own nation, city or street. It is what it is.

The olds have been waging a vicious economic war of extermination against the young for the entire 21st century. And now the cycle has to stop, because there are almost no more youth to exploit, and will be even less in the future.

No previous generation behaved like the current olds. We have to be much better than them, and let their twisted ways be forgotten.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#149

Post by Qem »

vodou wrote: post #20
bwb wrote: post #2

IMO... one of the most important benchmarks for judging the effectiveness of a government is the cost of housing. Cheap and basic housing is so key for economic well-being. I would love to see very basic, small, apartments created by governments on a mass level to try to overcome the current situation. Like persistently have a department of government just building to meet needed demands in economic centers. What oth…

Maternal mortality rate.

Also infant mortality rate.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#150

Post by BlueTemplar »

Eavolution wrote: post #88
oytis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High density is supposed to be good isn't it? And density of European cities is still nowhere near what people have in East Asia

Why is it supposed to be good? Having lived in a (relatively small) city and in the countryside, I vastly prefer the countryside and actually find it more convenient in a lot of ways. An example would be the shops are a lot bigger as the land is cheap, so a 20m drive in the country gets me to a massive shop, but in the city half an hour on a bus or a 15m drive gets me to a much smaller one.

If by 'drive' you do not mean bike (or maybe moped), then that way of life does not have a future (or even present, for most people).
Post reply on HN