New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#151

Post by usui » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:15 PM UTC

Xirdus wrote: post #128

inigyou wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you don't even have a choice. If junk was expensive and houses were cheap, you could scale your junk consumption. You can't scale your house consumption.

You can to a degree. You can buy/rent a way too small house/apartment for your large family (what many immigrants do). You can also get roommates. If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city.

I feel like these are much worse than the alternate reality where I simply have to spend more on or lose access to consumables, if I had to choose one or the other. For people that use the same smartphone for 10 years, never shop for clothes, never go out to eat, etc., it seems unfair that we'd construct a dichotomy (assuming it's even a valid one) and choose the one that worsens the resources that everyone needs rather than the more fungible one.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#152

Post by AlotOfReading » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:15 PM UTC

jenniferhooley wrote: post #111

inigyou wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of housing mostly isn't in the building. If it was, we'd just build smaller and have houses. But you can't because the land costs too much.

Huh? I have a 650sqft house, it costs 430K in a small town. I looked at building a new place, it would cost roughly the same to hire a building team to make it - not to mention years of waiting on development. The land is fairly affordable if I buy a little bit out of town. It's the cost of building that is stopping me.

If I look at the value of the place where I'm living, a bit more than 2/3rds of it is attributable to land instead of structure. This ratio will change depending on whether you have a multistory structure on a small plot of land, or a SFH with a yard on a larger plot, but land/value ratios > 50% are typical.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#153

Post by shipman05 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:15 PM UTC

frig57 wrote: post #134

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…

Everything better now than it once was? Hard disagree, take me back to the early 2010s

The early 2010s, the age of financial bailouts, Occupy Wall Street, and two "forever" wars.

No one ever thinks they're living through a Golden Age.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#154

Post by watwut » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:15 PM UTC

Xirdus wrote: post #128

inigyou wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you don't even have a choice. If junk was expensive and houses were cheap, you could scale your junk consumption. You can't scale your house consumption.

You can to a degree. You can buy/rent a way too small house/apartment for your large family (what many immigrants do). You can also get roommates. If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city.

> If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city.

I would loose a job, easy access to friends, access family nearby in the process. All those matter, I value all three.

Meanwhile, if I dont buy latest toy, whether phone or sports equipment or netflix subscription, I adapt and dont care in 3 days.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#155

Post by amanaplanacanal » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:15 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #91

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this is all downstream of structural incentives You are mostly right and the structural incentives are more related at root to unsustainable national debt than any legislative choice (unless that's what you were referring to)

I don't see how. National debt is just a form of money-printing. And it has to equal private savings.

Not necessarily local savings though. Savings from other countries works just fine.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#156

Post by jltsiren » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:16 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #136

jltsiren wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When archaeological evidence shows that people largely stopped farming, it usually means that those people largely stopped existing. Or at least living in that area. Apart from a few rare exceptions, agriculture is the only viable way to support substantial populations. Farming came first, and with it came larger communities and higher population density. That led to surplus, which enabled elites and other forms of e…

> When archaeological evidence shows that people largely stopped farming, it usually means that those people largely stopped existing No, there are signs of habitation. If you look at the evidence from the alluvial plain around ancient Babylon and similar cities from the early history of cities in the region you see people returning to fishing, hunting, and sort of opportunistic planting on river banks. These cities…

That's what I meant by "largely stopped existing". With the decline of agriculture, there was a major decline in food production and therefore a major decline in population.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#157

Post by applfanboysbgon » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:16 PM UTC

Xirdus wrote: post #128

inigyou wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you don't even have a choice. If junk was expensive and houses were cheap, you could scale your junk consumption. You can't scale your house consumption.

You can to a degree. You can buy/rent a way too small house/apartment for your large family (what many immigrants do). You can also get roommates. If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city.

> If worse comes to worst, you can move another hour or two away from the big city.

It is rarely the case that someone who can't afford housing in their current location can afford to move away from their support networks to a place with no jobs. Places with significantly cheaper rent almost invariably give you significantly less income, if you can even get a job without connections (which are important in general, but especially important in rural areas where everyone knows each other). That can work out for you if you have substantial savings or a comfy remote tech job, but if you have those you probably don't need to move in the first place.

Your other points are valid ways to technically scale housing down but, I think, bring with them a significant decrease in quality of life that far outweighs what is gained by being able to afford 500 big macs and 10 pairs of shoes.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#158

Post by smaudet » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #89

smallmancontrov wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Durable goods have deflated compared to wages while health care, housing, and education soared. If you are given the job of spinning this (or take it upon yourself in a bid for access), focusing on the former to the exclusion of the latter is how you do it. "Think of the iPhones! Never mind that rent in a mid-rate city is 1 iPhone and 2 big screen TVs every month!"

It’s true there’s a spin in that direction. But I think there’s also a tendency to take things for granted in the other direction because they have become so cheap. Food and clothing used to make up significant line items for ordinary people. I remember in the 1990s seeing ads for discount cereal (“it comes in a bag on the bottom shelf but it’s just as good as the branded stuff!”). When was the last time you saw a co…

> A lot of the durable goods that became very cheap were a huge quality of life improvement that we simply take for granted.

Like the previous poster mentioned, I'm not sure that's really such a quality of life improvement.

First of all, food. I don't know where you shop, but the cost has definitely doubled, even tripled.

Second of all, the idea that it's some "good" that these things are "cheap" relative to wages - before they may have been expensive, but they were also investments. It doesn't really matter that much, because you can save to obtain them, and don't need to worry about re-obtaining them. Being in a situation where durable goods are cheap, but cost of living is high, means that you are disproportionately struggling - you can't save anything, any good that these products provide is outweighed by it being too expensive to live...

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#159

Post by PunchyHamster » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

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…

It's very likely. It's place we rest, do some of the fun part of life and a place to call our "own" in world where increasingly nothing is.

On top of that having that high mortgage or even rent hanging over your head, making sure you can't really downgrade work to something more fun but maybe less paid can be stressful too. Especially in the firing season where you might be let go and take months to find new job.

And housing taking higher and higher part of the income is also effectively getting us poorer or at least stagnate.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#160

Post by eulers_secret » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #52

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…

Owning a home creates a stable, personal nexus with a set of vital institutions: Family, community, local economy, government, … As a driver and measure of well-being, it’s probably at least 10,000 years old, since agriculture made migratory hunter-gatherer societies obsolete.

You can have these things without owning a house.

Community is IMO easier in apartments, the higher density means there’s a bigger pool of folks you might click with.

Community gathering spots are more prevalent as well: pools, playgrounds, green spaces, etc are common amenities. Especially if you get a dog, you will meet lots of people.

Of course it depends on which complex you live in. If I move I will miss my apartment and its community. I won’t miss my window aircon though, central air would be awesome.