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

Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

realtor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 550 posts

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#371

Post by supertrope »

antonvs wrote: post #299
shlant wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The common factor: the capital class screwing over the working class. This thought terminating cliche is getting real old. What are your solutions? and what evidence do you have that those solutions will solve the problems? Shaking your fists at "the elites" and regurgitating populist slop is not going to

It's the opposite of a thought-terminating cliche. It refers to an entire world and body of work, which include solutions. You could start by reading Marx, who laid a lot of the groundwork. > Shaking your fists at "the elites" and regurgitating populist slop is not going to I like the way you trailed off halfway through your knee-jerk reaction, underscoring just how much your response is an automated result of indoct…

Kapital describes the problem well. His proposed solutions were awful.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#372

Post by epistasis »

win311fwg wrote: post #217
epistasis wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New things do tend to cost more than old things, that's pretty much always the case! Where I live, people are blocking the construction of new apartments because the cost of the new ones is a bit higher, 10%-50%, than the average existing apartment. The idea behind blocking the new apartments is that "new expensive apartments don't help anybody" and people get very upset that the new housing is going to the type of p…

> the type of person that can afford to pay slightly more for the newer apartment. Relying on that is the root problem. I could technically afford the new house, but in the end I couldn't find a good reason to tie up that much capital for something that does the same thing as what I've already got, only shinier. If the price were more reasonable then I'd make the move and then someone else could move into my much che…

And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied, so there are slightly wealthier people who are actually paying to alleviate the housing shortage crisis with their higher rents.

Yet the same people lobbying to block the building of these new apartments are still saying that "nobody lives there" because it doesn't fit their mental model of the world.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#373

Post by inglor_cz »

Arodex wrote: post #369
reducesuffering wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had the technology to build skyscrapers for over 100 years. They're illegal in 90% of the city

Few people want to live in sterile skyscrapers.

What about subjecting this theory to a practical experiment?

In many places of the world, the skyscrapers are full, and the people who move there leave behind another apartment for those who don't want to live in a skyscraper.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#374

Post by smallmancontrov »

fooker wrote: post #342
smallmancontrov wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you didn't mean to imply that I should feel an obligation to compensate the risk of a capital loss, what was your argument? No, the system works the way it does because it was built by the rich, for the rich, to ensure they had a way to get paid for being rich. You can, of course, choose to deliberately not understand that.

That's an amusing misunderstanding of history. I can see why you'd feel this much animosity if you strongly believe this. Good luck changing things without understanding how they work though.

Enjoy the high interest rates <3

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#375

Post by smallmancontrov »

triceratops wrote: post #370
smallmancontrov wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you didn't mean to imply that I should feel an obligation to compensate the risk of a capital loss, what was your argument? No, the system works the way it does because it was built by the rich, for the rich, to ensure they had a way to get paid for being rich. You can, of course, choose to deliberately not understand that.

> I should feel an obligation to compensate the risk of a capital loss Where did they say that?

"Landlords ... assume risk on your belalf."

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#376

Post by [deleted] »

epistasis wrote: post #366
greenie_beans wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would love to hear a YIMBY consider the market forces/how capitalism works and not just reduce it to regulation. aka when it costs over $500k to build a single apartment unit and most of those costs are construction with very little of the regulation burden driving up that cost.

Sorry, you think that YIMBYs don't consider this? Perhaps you should follow some YIMBYs! What does it take to get a more efficient building market? Lots of building, lots of competition in building. Low barriers to new contractors becoming builders, etc. It's truly only the YIMBYs who ever talk about any of this stuff in my experience.

[deleted]

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#377

Post by supertrope »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #296
chadgpt3 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let's move all land ownership to the government and let landlords build housing on it

The landlords could then pay rents to the local government. We could call that landlord taxes or something and use that to fund local services with them. Wait...

Chicago has relatively affordable housing purchase prices as property taxes are very high. The government has taxed away property appreciation. Unfortunately the deferred compensation promises they have made to public sector employees are coming due and further tax hikes are needed.

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#378

Post by rafram »

nullorempty wrote: post #351
rafram wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said a one-bedroom is $2,000?

I'd say at least 2K. But the poster above says it's over 3K.

The poster above was quoting the median for all apartments in New York City, the (second-?)most expensive market in the country. Nationally it’s about $1,600 for a 1br: https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/us/

Re: Wages in America Are Too Low for the 30% Rule to Work for Renters Anymore

#380

Post by greenie_beans »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #358
greenie_beans wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would love to hear a YIMBY consider the market forces/how capitalism works and not just reduce it to regulation. aka when it costs over $500k to build a single apartment unit and most of those costs are construction with very little of the regulation burden driving up that cost.

>it costs over $500k to build a single apartment unit and most of those costs are construction with very little of the regulation burden driving up that cost. What? What? I dare anyone here who's simping for regulation to try to develop from scratch something that does not benefit from the myriad of exemptions that apply to 1-few family residential development (because there'd be no political will for the racket if t…

it most certainly is not going to cost me $100k in engineering to design a SFH in arguably one of the most regulatory burdened states in the US: vermont
Post reply on HN