A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses • Hacker News Board

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#351

Post by tathougies » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

newsoul2019 wrote: post #189

stale2002 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? It give me freedom to rent. At any point that I feel like it, I can pick up and move. Whether it is to a place across the street or on the other side of the country. I wouldn't have nearly that much freedom if I had the misfortune of owning my own place.

Do you see this as a temporary or permanent situation in your life? What is your "end game" so to speak?

> What is your "end game" so to speak?

One very reasonable 'end game' for those who do not want to own is to invest enough cash in the stock market so that your rate of return supersedes your rent, thus guaranteeing that, if rent increases are within reason, you are able to finance renting interminably. Stock markets typically have a higher rate of return than real estate, so...

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#352

Post by Balgair » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #268

On one of my harder-hearted days I would've felt schadenfreude (rich assholes waste obscene amounts of money on tacky shit, get burned, film at 11), but today I feel sorry for them. The whole thing is just sad. On the macro level, such a tragic mis-deployment of resources. And on the micro level, misplacing one's priorities on material things and finding out the hard way that it doesn't bring any meaning to your life…

With the lack of 'wealth' that many Millenials are experiencing, it's not only real estate that is going to be affected. Stocks and other areas are also going to feel the effects. Strangely, it's not a lack of supply that will be the issue here, it's a lack of buyers. Millenials just don't have the cash to pay the Boomers for the houses and stocks they accumulated and the Banks can only buy and sell the properties to each other for so long, collecting fees each time they hand off. Though we're in a good job market right now, we're still not seeing any real rise in wages.

EDIT: As an example of the Banks buying up houses: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/20/business/econ...

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#353

Post by nightski » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

akcreek wrote: post #304

brightball wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and disagree. On the one hand, yes, you're right that the repair expenses can be a big deal. If you don't want anything but the basics for the technology in your home, sometimes a home warranty can be a good option too but experiences vary significantly. On the flip side though, after my 15 year mortgage is up I'm not going to pay another dime outside of maintenance on this thing. On a 30 year, you'll still p…

>On the flip side though, after my 15 year mortgage is up I'm not going to pay another dime outside of maintenance on this thing. You'll have property taxes as well, which could be meaningful depending where you live. I was talking to one of my neighbors the other day who has lived in his home here in Seattle for over 40 years and he told me he is taking out a equity line of credit against his fully owned home to pay…

You are absolutely correct. However, there are better ways to handle a roof replacement than incurring the $10k+ cost in one year. It's a foregone conclusion that you will need a new roof, just a matter of when. Best to start saving right away every month and include that in your overall cost calculation. It's much easier to pay for a roof over 25 years instead of all at once. Plus then you can use interest to your advantage.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#354

Post by tathougies » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

ijpoijpoihpiuoh wrote: post #234

pjc50 wrote: post #5

This is not only "first world problems", but 1% first world problems. Well, maybe 5%: given > For their retirement in a suburb of Asheville, N.C., Ben and Valentina Bethell spent about $3.5 million in 2009 to build their dream home: a roughly 7,500-square-foot, European-style house with a commanding view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Put $3.5m into https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta... and yo…

While 700 square meters is indeed absurd for any family, 150 square meters seems a bit limiting. There are reasonable use-cases for houses larger than that. A living room, a kitchen, three bedrooms and an office will be hard to eke out of that much space. The justification is pretty idiotic: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/13/mega-homes-banne... 50% higher than the average? OK, but what if you have above ave…

Yeah, it would be better to only give zoning approval to projects that can meet certain density requirements.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#355

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #331

jandrese wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> over the long term on average home prices don't increase. I assume you mean adjusted for inflation here? Even then that hasn't been true. The problem with renting is that you're still paying the mortgage, only in the renting case you're also paying the middleman who then pays the mortgage. This is why rent per month is higher than mortgage per month for the same house. So the returns from that downpayment you inste…

The problem with renting is that you're still paying the mortgage, only in the renting case you're also paying the middleman who then pays the mortgage. This is why rent per month is higher than mortgage per month for the same house. That statement is very location specific.[1] In SF, it's cheaper to rent than to buy (on a monthly basis) and because of rent control, it's often cheaper to rent versus buy over your lif…

[deleted]

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#356

Post by secabeen » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

rifung wrote: post #318

jandrese wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> over the long term on average home prices don't increase. I assume you mean adjusted for inflation here? Even then that hasn't been true. The problem with renting is that you're still paying the mortgage, only in the renting case you're also paying the middleman who then pays the mortgage. This is why rent per month is higher than mortgage per month for the same house. So the returns from that downpayment you inste…

> I assume you mean adjusted for inflation here? Even then that hasn't been true. I used the numbers from here: https://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/ms28533.... Specifically in section IIIA "The stylized fact from the studies on long-run housing capital appreciation is that over long horizons, house prices only grow a little faster than the consumer price index" > The problem with renting is that you'r…

The thing that pushed me over the top on renting was purchasing a house with an accessory dwelling that we could rent. Houses with rentable space often don't sell for that much more than those that don't have said space, but they come with an income stream.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#357

Post by jandrese » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #345

jandrese wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every lease I've seen has a provision that allows the Landlord to kick you out if you are deemed to be a nuisance. IIRC there are renters rights in many areas that make this more difficult, requiring a court order typically, but not all areas have this and Landlords will put those clauses in the lease regardless just in case the tenants aren't familiar with the law.

I mean, most HOAs will kick you out if you are deemed to be a nuisance, as can a city council.

HOAs don't have the power to evict you from your own house. They might act like they do, but they don't. Their power basically ends at sending sternly worded letters and in exceptional cases putting a lien on the property. If the homeowner just ignores their letters they can't do much.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#358

Post by mcguire » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #68

charlesdm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hardly call a 150m2 home a "mega home", even in London.

Apparently, the average home in the jurisdiction of Westminster council is 100m²: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/13/mega-homes-banne... There's also the issue that house prices are insane: > Earlier this year, the council banned a 1,590 square metre, £40m, mega-home

1600m^2 is ~17,000ft^2. That's...huge.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#359

Post by Balgair » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

MrFantastic wrote: post #339

Balgair wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True! We've decided to be nimble, and it does take a toll (no pool tables, no big patio furniture, smaller couches, etc). But saving the cash is worth it to us. 12% on 1000k/mo rent comes out to an extra 1440/year that could be saved. To us, such a thing is worth the weekend of moving hell.

I bet moving costs at least $400 out of pocket plus you have to value you time. 2 people packing and moving is 20+ hours each. 40 hours * $20/hr = $800 so you are breaking even at best.

Well, you loose that bet then! ;)

Also, paying myself is a strange concept. Yeah, it's 'lost time' but only to me and my family. It's not like other forms of employment. Besides, it keeps us a bit lighter on the clutter, though we would like some more things in life. $800 payed to myself is a lot different than $800 paid to some movers.

Re: A Growing Problem in Real Estate: Too Many Too Big Houses

#360

Post by gkfasdfasdf » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

pram wrote: post #280

module0000 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everybody follows each other in a grand parade to oblivion. You sir, are a genius. I love that wording. That should have been on the welcome brochure we all get as babies, assuming we could read it.

I mean, that’s a pretty common theme in the Bible: As one dies, so dies the other—they all have the same breath. Man has no advantage over the animals, since everything is futile. All go to one place: All come from dust, and all return to dust.

In the Qur'an as well! Chapter 102:1-2, very roughly translates as "Surely the accumulation of wealth distracts you, distracts you until you visit the grave"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Takathur