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

Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 718 posts

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#291

Post by 34679 »

option wrote: post #154
triceratops wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If housing prices nosedive, so does rent. Not everyone in a tent encampment needs to be a buyer.

I’d say my point still applies, perhaps with a smaller degree. If rents drop 3x (an economic disaster pretty much) are tent encampment inhabitants rushing to rent, coming up with deposits and getting pre-approved?

You keep using that word "rushing" but there's no solution that I'm aware of that would cause hordes of homeless to rush towards housing.

What we can do is judge whether a policy helps or hurts. Higher housing costs causes more homelessness. Period.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#292

Post by tmh79 »

m_ke wrote: post #265
tmh79 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have seen a "boom" relative to 2009-2012 when literally zero new housing was built, they have not seen a boom relative to 1900 - 2009, especially when accounting for business cycle. I understand that you are seeing what you perceive to be a lot of housing construction, but relative to historical trends and population/household size trends, there is very little housing construction happening in NYC.

The "boom" is relative to all of 2000s. Look at the number of permits in 2015 [1], especially in the outer boroughs. My argument, as someone who grew up in Brooklyn and Queens, is that building new housing doesn't really drive the prices down. I have a lot of friends who had to move or shut down their small businesses because of the rising costs. [1]( https://www.buildingcongress.com/advocacy-and-reports/report... )…

"building new housing doesn't really drive the prices down" there is a lot of empirical evidence against this claim, and almost no evidence for it. Rising costs in cities are due to a few factors: (1) lack of new housing, (2) changing economic conditions in which high paying jobs are moving from the suburbs to the cities (to be fair, there is a small factor in very few cities of super rich people buying housing and not living in it, but that is largely confined to Manhattan, London, and suburban Vancouver, but is not broadly an issue in housing affordability) From after WWII through the 80s, American cities were largely in this strange largely racism induced recession (white flight to the suburbs) which caused a historical aberration of cheap housing and commercial space in cities. That trend was a very short counter trend blip in the 5000 year history of real estate in cities. The way forward is to build a lot more housing in cities, as its eminently clear that lots of people want to live in them, that living in cities is better for the environment than the alternative, and that our economy would be doing much better if the desired urbanization was actually allowed.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#293

Post by antcas »

sudosteph wrote: post #149
ardit33 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upstate NY and NYC proper are very different areas (might as well be different states). Upstate NY have more in common with west MA, Vermont, NH, than with folks in the NYC area (where most of NY residents live). The difference even more than someone from Alexandria/D.C with south VA, (e.g Danville, Roanoke, Halifax County etc...).

Yeah, I've noticed that as well, which is why I mentioned "upstate" specifically. We do get people from both parts, but tbh I don't think most of us NC people can tell the difference other than by food preferences and that the people from upstate tend to be more 2nd amendment. Otherwise, both seem more similar to each to other than to southerners. But is it wrong to call people from upstate NY "New Yorkers" - or is t…

It's not wrong, but we'll assume you think we're from the city and start trying to explain where our specific part of Upstate NY is.

Upstate New Yorkers also works fine as an alternative.

Michigan has it easy with their conveniently hand-shaped state. NYS but not NYC is a pain to describe.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#294

Post by malandrew »

formerchamp wrote: post #194
m_ke wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the people I know who left NYC also left because of housing costs, even though New York has been putting up new housing at an insane rate. https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/mortgages/migration-study/

It doesn't help when there are insane regulations like dedicating double digit percentage of new units to be "affordable"/subsidized/section 8. Anyone with a full time minimum wage job would not qualify for "affordable" housing, you literally have to not work at all, it's such a scam.

Don't get me started on this. I helped an friend get into below market rate (BMR) housing in SF. She paid approximately $330k with almost no money down for a 2 bedroom, 2 bath condo in the center of Hayes Valley. Today, equivalent market rate units in her building sell for $1.5k to $2m.

Basically, there is a supply of homes that are available to you at three points: 70%, 90% and 110% of the median income. How these three points are chosen I don't know. Very few are at 110% of median income. Most are available to those that make 70% or 90% of the median income.

The reason this is bullshit is because it's estimated that you need to earn about 400% of the median income to be able to afford a market-rate home in SF. This pretty much leaves everyone between 110% and 400% of the median income without any real options.

Worse yet, by making a policy that covers the just above the center of the income distribution to the bottom, you basically disincentivize those voters from becoming active and involved in supporting solutions that help the entire distribution. Basically those between 110% and 400% end up a permanent minority unable to achieve support for policies that will help their cohort.

Needless to say, I don't live in California anymore, despite earning almost 3x what she earns because I can't really afford to buy into the market. California is fundamentally broken.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#295

Post by andrewprock »

jedberg wrote: post #188
wwweston wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There have been good solutions run up through the state house What are the best solutions you've seen? > They only want to help poor people if it doesn't affect their property value. I'm sure there are some unsavory high net worth individuals who are happy to support policies keeping housing expensive just to keep assets inflated even if it means access to housing is harder for everyone. But I'd guess for a lot of…

> What are the best solutions you've seen? SB 827 was pretty good. [0] SB 50 was a good idea with a bad execution [1] > if the story of net outflow is true. The article says that California still saw a net inflow due to births and incoming foreign migrants. > Either the existing supply is being manipulated in some way, It is, via rent control, which has shown time and again to only help people who already have housin…

Prop 13 is essentially "rent control" for homeowners, and largely has the same effects as rent control for renters.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#296

Post by refurb »

jayd16 wrote: post #202
rayiner wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tax advantages of moving states is just too trivial It’s not. For a family with $85,000 a year, getting rid of state tax could mean an extra several hundred dollars a month in income.

You'll spend the time and effort to move for a couple grand a year? Does that really make sense? How many years does it take to break even?

Spoken like someone who is out of touch.

Yes, for a family making $85K, having an extra $3-4K in your pocket every year is a big deal.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#297

Post by sjg007 »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #279
jedberg wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being priced out of one's home is a red herring that the low tax zealots want you to believe to keep prop 13 in place. Somehow in the 49 other states that don't have Prop 13, people aren't priced out of their homes from taxes. There are other options. There are home equity lines, reverse mortgages, or even freezing tax payments and adding them as liens on the property at time of transfer. But even if you're worried a…

Property taxes are paid on the sale price. It is not a punitive tax to fund new entrants. An example: Consider a 75 year old senior couple on fixed retirement income living in their fully paid 40 year old home. They paid the 300k mortgage and the house is worth 1 million.They raised their kids who attended public schools for 12 years each. Property taxes are used for public school education. 45% of California budget…

Normally property taxes are paid based on assessed value. Assessed value is a function of market value that is determined recent neighborhood/comparable sales. The problem with Prop 13 is that it doesn't allow for the taxes to capture increased market value.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#299

Post by refurb »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #210
bnjms wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define regressive and progressive. I see these terms used all the time but I've never seen a description that matched the words.

No parental leave, assisted suicide, sick leave, non competes are allowed, their schools leaders are religious and backwards, still fighting abortion rights, illegal marijuana, etc.

So progressive means "things I like" and regressive is "things I don't like"?
Post reply on HN