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

Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 768 posts

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#421

Post by turtledove »

nivenkos wrote: post #397
turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

A more practical solution is housing coops like the BRF system in Sweden. Individual landlordism is mostly banned (there are some company rentals though) - you buy the place you live in, and there are restrictions on renting it out (no more than 2 years in a row, etc.). It's helped a lot here. I don't think that social housing is a good solution. It's a complete disaster here in Sweden, with 12+ year waiting times, a…

I love housing co-ops as well. If we ended up in a system like that, I'd be thrilled.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#422

Post by b112 »

paisawalla wrote: post #368
turtledove wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? I'm out here saying "having homelessness is bad." And "reduce open parking lots so we can house people." I think you'll find if you increase housing supply and density you're likely to end up with more natural spaces, not less.

You're out here saying 640 sqft ought to be enough for anyone.

So many of these ideas are some other vision in disguise.

Cars are bad, you see, and therefore, let's pick some irrelevant problem (parking lots), and conflate it with housing issues.

First, most places have zero housing issues. Mostly, certain tiny areas(with large populations) of California do, but the rest of North America has no shortage of land to build on.

And unlike California, most of the world doesn't seem to have issues with zoning for new builds.

In fact, in most of NA housing is quite affordable, with the exception of a current bubble, which exists due to COVID issues, a once in a century event.

This has only been going on for a year or so, and is already starting to cool.

Californians: a note. Your issues are not nation wide.

Others: stop trying to solve other pet peeves, by conflating issues. I assure you, you just end up sounding uninformed.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#423

Post by somenameforme »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #302
InTheArena wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for MMt(at least the way that certain people perceived MMT to be) We are about to pay for 12 years of easy money policies.

The crux of MMT is the idea that spending creates money and taxing destroys money, so deficits are made up and only inflation matters. Doesn’t seem like a “so much for” moment for MMT, which also predicts this if there’s too much money in the economy. The real question is whether there’s political appetite for the MMT-prescribed treatment here, which is to significantly raise taxes. I’m guessing no.

Why would taxation "destroy money" in times of endless deficits? All that taxed money, and much more on top, is spent before it's even received.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#424

Post by kriops »

turtledove wrote: post #413
piotrkaminski wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is very, very far from being a commodity.

In what sense? I mean, I'd love it if that were the case, but at least here in the US housing is extremely commodified.

Wikipedia: "A commodity is an economic good (...) that has full or substantial fungibility. (...)"

On the basis of geography alone, housing can not be a commodity.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#425

Post by paisawalla »

turtledove wrote: post #416
paisawalla wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will you be deciding who gets to have a view of the ocean, and who gets to sleep next to the overpass? First come first serve? Birthright?

You could have a lottery, adjust prices within a regulated range, offer incentives for less desirable lots. You could reward developers for lots that have long wait lists and lots of interest, incentivizing developers who build places people want to live.

Ah hmm, that's interesting. How have lotteries for highly desired goods worked out in other centrally planned regimes? Did we find a pretty broad socioeconomic distribution among dacha owners in the USSR?

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#426

Post by turtledove »

notch656a wrote: post #409
turtledove wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And also no. Today, if I cannot pay, I get no housing. Taxes allow us, as a community, to decide that we should all chip in a little bit extra (commensurate to our means) to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads. Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, so there's less incentive to maximize the cost of housing.

>Also, government operated facilities do not have a profit motive, Great, so the shit-show we have now, except without any incentive to efficiently spend. Sure that will go over swimmingly. Everyone knows that government construction projects are known for coming on-time and on-budget, and for the best value.

Seattle just built a major light rail expansion ahead of schedule and under budget.

But I specifically believe in building more, smaller units. Places with eg 20 apartments. By building smaller scoped projects, costs are better understood up front, maintenance costs are lower, and you need less specialized construction expertise.

Building 50 20-unit complexes to house a thousand families is going to serve everyone better than building one mega project to house a thousand families.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#427

Post by forty »

throwaway1777 wrote: post #282
mrtnmcc wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent has also gone up

Not only that; rent can keep going up.

And I'll add to that: if you ever have no income (which can happen when you retire for example), at least as a owner you have somewhere to live.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#428

Post by jjav »

turtledove wrote: post #345

The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better. We all need it, and we should figure out mechanisms to make it available to all. Practically that means paying to build and maintain housing stocks, changing tax incentives so developers are incentivized to build more housing and less luxury housing, charging a premium for unused land in desirable areas (parking lots don't house people)…

> The sooner we collectively decide that housing shouldn't be a market, the better.

How do you or we decide it's not a market?

If people are paying money for housing, it's a market. And it's not just money, but the largest lifetime expense by an order of magnitude and more.

> I'm also of the much more radical opinion that we should protect tenants over landlords in nearly every case

That's already the case, at least in many places (I know not all). If you take it too far the result is no landlords, thus no rentals. Perhaps that's ok if everyone wants to buy, but if there is anyone who wants to rent, it's useful to have rentals.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#429

Post by cycrutchfield »

turtledove wrote: post #408
cycrutchfield wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically everybody should live in a Khrushchyovka. Real central planning communist slum type housing.

There's a meme that shows "leftist housing", and it depicts concrete tenements. It shows "capitalist housing", and it depicts tents under a bridge. Haha. But memes aside, no, there are many, many examples of public and social housing that are not concrete slums. Look at Singapore, Paris, the Marxhof in Vienna. Quayside Village in Vancouver. If you'd like, I can provide links to many examples from many countries aroun…

As many people have told you repeatedly throughout this thread, your understanding of the great success of glorious public housing worldwide is seriously misguided at best.

But I suspect you most likely just glean all of your political opinions from memes, which could explain some things.

Re: Homes in 97% of U.S. cities are overvalued, Moody's says

#430

Post by chrisseaton »

seizethegdgap wrote: post #188
pcmoney wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Full health coverage” according to all my EU and especially British friends I would still be on a waitlist for a surgery I had 2+ years ago.

I'm waiting 4 months to see my GP for a physical in Wisconsin.

In Europe they don’t even normally have physicals! The NHS has never just checked up on me like that - they just couldn’t afford to do it.
Post reply on HN