New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#161

Post by bell-cot » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #124

gravypod wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do." - William Levit (the Levittown one)

His point appears to be that each person should only look after their own interests? Is that your intent in posting it? Many of us, my siblings and our families inclusive, owe our lives to socialised medicine.

> His point appears...

No, Levit said that in 1948, when Americans were vastly better-connected (socially) than today, "Godless Communism" was their #1 fear, and everybody was aware of communism's easy appeal to those who felt dispossessed.

I'd read the quote as a clever way to say "let me sell millions of cheap houses to Americans, and you'll never have to worry about the commies".

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#162

Post by Xirdus » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:18 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…

The food also became qualitatively different over the same period. We're not eating the same meat, bread, fruits, cheese etc. that our grandparents did at our age.

Durable goods became much less durable, too. Furniture is the biggest one I'd say - they're just not built to last anymore. Whether it's planned obsolescence or just extreme cost cutting, we aren't comparing apples to apples here.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#163

Post by win311fwg » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:18 PM UTC

AlotOfReading wrote: post #152

jenniferhooley wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Houses depreciate. Markets can do funny things (remember the COVID days when a used car could sell for more than the same new car?), but generally the remaining value of a standing structure is going to be a fair bit less than the cost to build the same thing new. It is likely that the parent also sees >50% land value on the current property now that the house has been lived in and is showing some wear and tear, but key here is that to rebuild the building from scratch it would cost as much as the land plus current building is worth just to build the same structure again.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#164

Post by mauvehaus » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:19 PM UTC

repeekad wrote: post #123

forgotaccount3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. It's not really coming from those though? At the same time that housing costs have ballooned, we've also had a significant migration back to cities. When a larger % of the population are living in high density locations you are going…

Why does being in a city “naturally” mean less home ownership? More demand and higher prices yes, but you also should be earning more and dense housing projects should be trivial to justify. It’s legislation all the way down, politicians protect the interests of the wealthy who want to rent seek regardless of location. Look at how mamdani got a common sense luxury home tax in NYC, before that ultra wealthy owned mult…

Because multi-family buildings (required for higher density) come with more complicated ownership models. Owner occupied triple deckers in Boston, for example, often come with their own condo associations because there needs to be some way to handle the shared maintenance and expenses.

That's for a three unit building. Now scale that to a twenty or one hundred unit building. At some point, it makes sense for a single entity to handle the common maintenance through outright ownership and rent. Individual families have the flexibility to leave if things suck without being financially tied to the building long-term and subject to changes in housing prices. Yes, moving as a renter is expensive. It's still lower cost and friction than moving as an owner.

Source: rented for years in cities. Now happily a homeowner in the hinterlands of Vermont.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#165

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:19 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #129

GodelNumbering wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> undeniably a little cool that luxuries got cheap, but it's severely un-cool that necessities got expensive Well said. Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. My personal take is that a lot of support for contemporary political extremism in many countries comes from the fac…

"…not because they are racist/prejudiced or whatever…" Perhaps wealthy actors (or those representing them) are attempting to distract the aggrieved—focus their anger toward some non-wealthy group.

[deleted]

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#166

Post by matwood » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:20 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #150

CPLX wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers are just bullshit. The current inflation numbers tell us the price of health insurance is falling for example. When reality seems to be in conflict with logic, the next step is to question assumptions.

Is the cost of health insurance falling because people are settling for worse plans?

It's a bit like when the inflation basket subs ground beef for steak, and then says food is getting cheaper.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#167

Post by surcap526 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 2:20 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…

[dead]

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#168

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

rawgabbit wrote: post #94

rayiner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Health care, housing, and education are the big three drivers of mandatory expenses in most peoples' lives. BLS says housing, transportation, and food are the top 3. Insurance/pensions is #4, but that also includes car and homeowners insurance and retirement contributions. Over the past 50 years, both transportation and food got cheaper. Moreover, clothing actually used to be one of the top categories, but that’s f…

I have a hard time believing healthcare expenses is not in the top three.

It might be that a lot of the cost doesn't show up in the data because it comes out of your paycheck before it's "yours," in the form of your employer's contribution to health insurance premiums. (Anecdotally this is true for me - "my" portion of premiums would not be in the top three, but the total premiums are #2 after housing (for a while when I had roommates they were #1, which is ridiculous).)

(BLS gets this data from surveys: https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cex/home.htm )

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#169

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

repeekad wrote: post #123

forgotaccount3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. It's not really coming from those though? At the same time that housing costs have ballooned, we've also had a significant migration back to cities. When a larger % of the population are living in high density locations you are going…

Why does being in a city “naturally” mean less home ownership? More demand and higher prices yes, but you also should be earning more and dense housing projects should be trivial to justify. It’s legislation all the way down, politicians protect the interests of the wealthy who want to rent seek regardless of location. Look at how mamdani got a common sense luxury home tax in NYC, before that ultra wealthy owned mult…

One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds. Build factory for city blocks, then just pop them up, constantly, keeping the line busy.

It should really be city that is building the new housing (even if in the end it gets subcontracted, at least the top level have vested interest in keeping the quality and cost in check). Maybe even offer some rent-to-own programs where part of rent gets put into savings that can be used to either buy it after few years of use or be withdrawn when moving so renter have nice lil bit of money to put forward for buying new apartment/home.

Then the city can actually plan for it, rather than hope housing developer that bought the land does something good for city and not just their own pocket.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#170

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

watwut wrote: post #154

Xirdus wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why I said "worse come to worst". Where I'm from, it's not that uncommon to drive 3 hours to work, and as a result have no social life outside closest family. People do it because the alternative is homelessness.