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

Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

denverite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 391 posts

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#231

Post by yyyk »

hangonhn wrote: post #25
koolba wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone should try this with medicine. Instead of subsidizing insurance (demand side), let’s spend the money to bring doctors to the USA from all over the world and have them work in free clinics (supply side).

You basically can’t or it won't have the same effects because medicine doesn’t really follow the same dynamics as most other markets: the supplier (doctor) has an information asymmetry and thus makes most of the decisions, while the buyer (patient) is not usually the payer (insurance) so aren’t really incentivized to save. Kenneth Arrow famously analyzed the healthcare market and made the above insight: https://asset…

It's even worse. This isn't a simply supply-demand curve. Supply here often increases demand (patients live more and longer; They need more care).

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#232

Post by thehappypm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111
JKCalhoun wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure investors are persuaded by money and little else — if renting is profitable they'll build rentals.

> if renting is profitable they'll build rentals The point is it's difficult and expensive to build in America. The core competency of construction in most cities is knowing how to grease the community boards', planners', affordable-housing advocates' and permitting offices' palms.

it isn’t really all that difficult, but it is difficult to build in the places that the jobs are.

There are tons economically depressed towns that would absolutely love to have an infusion of property tax revenue

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#233

Post by FireBeyond »

jmye wrote: post #197
FireBeyond wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be an NP in as few as 4-5 years out of high school with some courses. That’s to me the definition of not knowing what you don’t know. I’m a critical care paramedic who has corrected many NPs on fairly fundamental learning. I’ve found that nurses with significant field experience do very well, but there are plenty of courses who will “zero to hero” you fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, PAs go through a prog…

> NPs are not subject to oversight. Sorry, this is fundamentally incorrect. To the point I can only assume you’ve made up every other thing you’ve said. Though I’m fascinated by a paramedic having opinions on someone else’s medical training. The world would be better if we had less strident opinions on things we know we don’t know anything about.

If you want to be pedantic, then everyone has oversight through medical licensing boards, including physicians.

But if you mean "supervising physician"? Then let's see:

* Alaska - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician.

* Arizona - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician.

* Colorado - Full Practice Authority (NPs can perform the full scope of practice without a supervising or collaborating physician.

We're six states in, and half have no requirement for an NP to have any supervision from a physician.

Let's keep going though:

Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho... zero supervision required. At this point I couldn't be bothered going through the list. This list, from the AAFP telling physicians about their responsibilities in supervising NPs state by state: https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/practice-and-career/ma...

So to put that back on you, explain my fundamental incorrectness.

And again, if you're talking about DOH oversight, then that seems a little disingenuous, as even the Chief of Medicine at a Level 1 Trauma Center practices under that insight.

I'm very well aware of the limitations of my scope of practice. That's why I operate under online and offline protocols. But hey, maybe I should have done another year or two of school so I could have a "full scope of practice without any need for a supervising physician". Not sure the ad hominem has any relevance.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#234

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

lbourdages wrote: post #217
brailsafe wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't say 70 year mortgages, they said 70 years to pay off a mortgage, which is still a bit exaggerated (maybe), but would come from the contingent of people who got themselves into variable rate fixed payment mortgages for comically expensive properties, and that had a significant amount of interest remaining before the feds started cranking up interest rates. If rates go up from 2% to 6+% while you're holding…

> If rates go up from 2% to 6+% while you're holding onto a $2m detached house, it's a bad situation to be in. I find it mind boggling that banks will lend money to people that cannot sustain a 4% increase to their mortgage rate. Rates have been over 10% in the 80's!

"Rates have been over 10% in the 80's!"

House prices relative to income were much lower back then.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#235

Post by _carbyau_ »

14 wrote: post #192
standardUser wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater If you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision. You should have been certain that the house was worth $400k to you at the time of purchase. Otherwise you're a speculator, and we shouldn't be bailing out speculators. It's called buyer's remorse. We accept…

While at the end of the day I don’t think people should be bailed out, I don’t agree that everyone who over paid is a speculator. Many people are just wanting to own their own home. The market has been crazy for the last 5 years. Many people are just buying to own not to flip it for a huge profit. So when a new home owner buys something and suddenly the value drops $100k and the bank wants the money I do feel slightl…

> So when a new home owner buys something and suddenly the value drops $100k and the bank wants the money I do feel slightly sorry for them.

I feel a little sorry for them but they are not missing the money total of "the whole house". They can sell the house, have a shitty $100k debt, a tale of woe, and hopefully a better idea of how to go about spending money they didn't have.

I feel there are too many people who "borrow as much as they can for the best house they can get" rather than being sensible about their money and using a mortgage as a hedge against paying rent and future rent raises. Some of them make it, some of them don't.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#236

Post by cocaclub »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #225
Alive-in-2025 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never know what your house or apartment or condo is worth, even to you. Maybe you can afford $400k barely, but you'll be hugely squeezed. Or maybe you'd get a bigger place if prices had dropped for your family size. You hope conditions won't change. You can look at the current market trends to try to value it. But things will change in the next few years probably. You can guess, but you'll never "know with pretty…

This is the rat race. You are competing with all the other humans around you in the same playspace of reality. A mortgage is a loan that gives you money you don't have (yet). If you are spending money you don't have, do it wisely or suffer the consequences. I think no special treatment. Everyone else in the same space has the same rules/uncertainty as every argument you offered.

These are my feelings too, but in the interests of compassion, I would suggest a return of some proportion of equity to (human, non-LLC, non-corporate, primary resident) buyers in cash, up to bank failure. Hopefully they can then buy another house at the presumably much lower prevailing market rate. Someone has to lose, let it be in order of "he who should have known what he was doing in making this catastrophe possible."

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#237

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Supermancho wrote: post #196
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course Source? Why of course?

>> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course > Source? Why of course? Maybe I'm talking past someone, but the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years (albeit, slightly different wealt…

> the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years

National corporate landlords haven't been buying up anything for hundreds of years.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#238

Post by rossdavidh »

Not saying it's not noteworthy, but Austin rents have also been trending down lately.

I just recently heard the term "accidental landlord", which is someone who can't (or won't) sell at a price low enough to actually get rid of their house, so they rent it out. I know that's a factor in Austin; I wonder if it's part of the story in Denver?

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#239

Post by JumpCrisscross »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #161
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everyone could live where they wanted to live, then ya, why wouldn't everyone want to live in the best cities? I moved from midtown Manhattan to western Wyoming. People have diverse preferences. (Even if we assume uniform preferences, densifying the population into a few cities so we can reclaim our wildlands sounds like a dream.)

> I moved from midtown Manhattan to western Wyoming. If I could afford to live in Jackson, I would love to someday. But alas, Jackson real estate makes Seattle look cheap.

The point is everyone in Jackson doesn't want to live in Manhattan and vice versa. There are multiple equilibria. Same for Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Re: Denver rent is back to 2022 prices after 20k new units hit the market

#240

Post by ipnon »

rossdavidh wrote: post #238

Not saying it's not noteworthy, but Austin rents have also been trending down lately. I just recently heard the term "accidental landlord", which is someone who can't (or won't) sell at a price low enough to actually get rid of their house, so they rent it out. I know that's a factor in Austin; I wonder if it's part of the story in Denver?

In a proper market economy there are many accidents in everyone’s career as they adapt to changing market conditions. Only in a planned economy do some market segments face no surprises.
Post reply on HN