New US homeownership measure puts people first • Hacker News Board

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#391

Post by xyzzyz » Sat, Jul 25, 2026, 1:22 AM UTC

Xirdus wrote: post #390

xyzzyz wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the furniture became less durable as it became much cheaper. You can still buy durable furniture, but people just aren't interested in it for the most part.

But the durable furniture you can still buy is now several times more expensive than 30 years ago, much more than the inflation. Apples to apples, they became less affordable, not more. If you add up the cost of replacing everything every so often, the downtime caused by the replacing, and the periods where your possessions are a little broken but not enough to replace them - there's a strong argument that lower pric…

I don’t think it’s true. I have been recently to a store here in Virginia that specializes in furniture made by Amish in USA, and while significantly more expensive than IKEA/Wayfair sort of stuff, I doubt that it was significantly more expensive than similar stuff 30 or 50 years ago.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#392

Post by AbsurdCensor » Sun, Jul 26, 2026, 12:13 AM UTC

matwood wrote: post #224

scottious wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Owning a home is not just a better version of renting. It's a whole different thing with pros and cons. Your mortgage is the lowest amount you'll pay. On top of that you have to manage the upkeep of the house, which costs both time and money. Lots of people go through phases in their lives where they move around and owning just doesn't make sense for a few 1 to 2 year stretches. On the other han…

> Your mortgage is the lowest amount you'll pay. > rent is the highest amount you'll pay. I don't like these 2 statements because they are only true at a starting point. If someone gets a mortgage today for $2k/month, 10 years from now it'll still be $2k/month, or even less if rates drop and they refinance. Rents OTOH will continue to rise with inflation. I had a $2k/month mortgage at my last house and the house next…

Yes and no to both parts. Mortgages often come with things like property taxes and insurance, both which go up over time, and often by significant amounts. These things also apply to rents, but are wrapped in. In many areas rents will rise far above inflation rates. It would in theory be impossible to have a mortgage that is more than rent for the same property unless the landlord is making 0 money.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#393

Post by AbsurdCensor » Sun, Jul 26, 2026, 12:14 AM UTC

Silamoth wrote: post #264

bluGill wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live there for 30 years - and don't cash-out-refinance - in 30 years your subscription costs go much lower. However if you rent for less than the mortgage you can invest the difference into something that will grow in value more than the house (which SHOULD track inflation) and in turn end up about the same in the end.

In what world is rent lower than mortgage? Part of the reason my fiancé and I bought a house is because it was cheaper than renting. Not just long-term, but our monthly payment is actually noticeably lower. Of course, we did need to pay a down payment. But if you amortize that over a 30 year mortgage period, we’re still better off buying than renting.

Zero. Like in zero places would rent be less than a mortgage unless somehow the landlord was making 0, and then at that it would be the same price as a mortgage but without the risk of being locked in for 30 years.

Re: New US homeownership measure puts people first

#394

Post by Nicholas_C » Tue, Jul 28, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #218

Nicholas_C wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you have read James C Scott as well.

His book, and Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything as well as some miscellaneous books on Mesopotamia. The Dawn of Everything does a great job challenging some popular ideas around state formation as well.

I found the Dawn of Everything to be misleading - I did research on a few parts of the books that I found interesting and discovered the authors present many things as fact which weren't true or hand wave away or omit contradicting facts/viewpoints. Against the Grain was amazing though.