Live data from Hacker News

The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

granolashotgun.com

211–220 of 235 posts

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#211
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you grow carrots, you would prefer to keep the overall supply of carrots low so that your carrots will fetch the highest price. But what you are actually doing is increasing the supply of carrots. So incentives and results are two different things and we shouldn't conflate the two. I assume by "incentives", you mean that they'd manipulate the law to limit other suppliers. I'm sure that happens, but as a landlord y…

landlords rarely build housing, they usually buy up existing housing and rent it out and the don't have to do anything illegal to restrict the housing supply - they can lobby, regulate, and vote

I don't know what you mean "rarely", because clearly a lot of housing is built and intended as rental property.

Regardless, the small landlord who buys a single family house and rents it out still puts a new house into the rental market, making it more affordable than it previously was on the purchase market. Along the way a landlord typically makes improvements and pays for maintenance, which improves the supply.

If you don't like laws then complain about the laws. The act of renting a house to someone else is not the problem.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#212
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land rent works very differently than most other markets because land is of limited supply. "Fair market price" is determined by what people who live in an area can afford to pay, rather than primarily supply and demand. Add to that restrictive zoning laws and you end up with a situation where most landlords are extracting significant economic rents from their tenants without needing to provide any extra service or q…

I don’t disagree that zoning impacts prices, but it’s still “fair market price”, no? I choose to move to SF knowing that rents were absurd compared to other cities I could have moved to. But I choose to roll the dice on SF being the better choice. I get it that people who grew up in SF face a different choice - leave or not. But it’s still a choice for them.

If someone owned all the water in the world, then "fair market price" is whatever they choose to set the price at. That doesn't mean that as a society we should be comfortable with allowing one person to own all the water in the world.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#213
post #84

People are fighting the wrong fight when they attack this guy (or attack the people attacking this guy, for that matter) It isn't SF Bay Bros'/foreigners'/companies' fault that houses are too expensive. It's because of strict zoning laws and a lack of building enough housing to match supply with demand[1]. Demand keeps going up way faster than supply, nationwide, and we're all feeling the squeeze [1]: A great example…

Capitalism inherently exploits economically unequal systems, and thus incentivizes them in both the private and public sectors (especially in the US where politicians are basically owned outright[1]). So, yes, it is "companies"... or more specifically, large wealth-owned profit-takers, that are the root cause of the supply-demand curves AND the zoning AND all of the other contributing factors. The fact that there are different sets of capitalists (rent and investment exploiters versus labor exploiters) who have varying influence on politicians is secondary to the fact that the politicians are primarily if not solely doing the bidding of capitalists. Attempts at corporate externalizing of risk happen in multiple contradictory directions, thus causing inconsistent public policy. Regardless, privatized-profit motivated externalization of public risk is the core problem. GDP-centric increases in productivity mean precisely fuckall for working class quality of life until we solve for the fact that the entirety of increased productivity gains have gone to the wealthy in the past 5 decades[2]. I do think as a society we should build more affordable housing in densely populated areas, but allowing capitalists to hold the reins for that would accelerate all of the problems of late stage capitalism.

Lastly, Japan has succeeded where others have failed because of a cultural difference which highly values new builds over old homes. They dispose of their homes and rebuild, as often as the US disposes of old cars and builds replacements... So political leverage by real estate investors is less of a concern there, a 30 year old home might be considered close to worthless. At the same time it creates other risk externalization problems like a colossal amount of inefficiency and waste. The only way to get a similar result of reasonable pricing in urban areas where real estate is profit-driven as opposed to use-driven, would be though affordable public housing as a counterbalance. We've seen time and again that capitalist housing development will naturally result in more capitalist-driven inequality. Investors will continue to buy making the bubble worse, then when the bubble pops the rich buy even more stock as disproportionately middle class and poor investors are forced to liquidate, as happened in the 2008 bust.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

[2]:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/pi... (or the same chart any of dozens of places)

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Main thing I see people attacking this guy over is the “I did it and so can you” mentality more than anything. It’s survivorship bias at its strongest. No different than the FIRE post trending here as well. Dude literally saw his NW double in a year and income go up 50% cause of stock appreciation. Along with incredible starting salary and overall close to top tier comp the entire way - and no kids or what not. I thi…

>"I did it and so can you" What is the antithesis here? "You won't succeed, so don't bother trying. Become an employee, rail against capitalism and wage slavery." Dismissing it as luck can only work if the author succeeded on the first try. Did everyone succeed on the first try? Before it can be called "survivor's bias", you need to survive. If you croak at the first unforeseen and perhaps unfair hardship... What is…

Not everyone can or wants to be persistent enough to do this kind of thing. In isolation these stories are interesting. As policy, these stories argue against changes to housing and zoning in the US, which are obviously needed. Like, "live in and remodel a shed and wait to capitalize on a historically bad housing market wipeout" isn't useful advice, much less a housing policy.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#215
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those things I listed are things I've either done, or that someone I know has done. Arguing that you need windows or a private room is ridiculous. You do not need them, though they're a reasonable want that nearly everyone has. Not having a private room to sleep in didn't kill me, it doesn't kill the billions of people who do it, and it wouldn't kill you. The broader point here is that whittling away everythin…

Needs are things that people need in order to live with dignity and respect; they are not simply "things you'd die if you didn't have."

You don't need dignity or respect to live.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#216
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s at the root of all these stories about, ”I can’t afford to live where I grew up” . Buddy, I can’t either, but when my parents bought it was a fruit orchard. Today it’s the hottest real estate market in the world. It’s apples and oranges.

A colleague told me about her daughter - she finished college and has a regular job but cannot afford to move out. That's in rustbelt central. Yes, you can live with roommates, but if you are late 20's it becomes awkward, and when at some point the children arrive it becomes a habitability issue.

I mostly agree with your point but how does living with roommates become awkward?

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Needs are things that people need in order to live with dignity and respect; they are not simply "things you'd die if you didn't have."

You don't need dignity or respect to live.

You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive".

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#218
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, don’t the people who live in a place have the right to decide they don’t want to invite in population until their homes are turned into a megacity? And if people don’t like the prevailing political opinions of a place that doesn’t want to change its nature to suit them, aren’t there plenty of other places to go? The market its screwed up in the Bay Area because they in way more jobs than they wanted to let in…

No, they don't. Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

> No, they don't.

> Ifbyou want control over who can move in somewhere, or what can be built somewhere, you have a simple solution, buy the land in question.

That seems contradictory. The existing owners did by definition buy that land they own. So you're saying thus they get to decide, but also that no they don't.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need dignity or respect to live.

You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive".

> You should learn what it means to live. It's more than simply "being alive".

This goes full circle to what you were arguing against earlier.

It is indeed true that humans always strive for more than minimal subsistence and this is part of living. Thus it is not illogical to have things which go beyond the bare minimum to survive. They're technically "wants", but that's what it means to live.

Re: The carpetbagger’s guide to home ownership

#220
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Asian thinking: “It’s my land, I should be able to do with it what I want”.

"Asian" - so in your mind, from Iran to India to Japan, all people have the same culture?
Post reply on HN