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

Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–497 of 497 posts

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#491

Post by kwhitefoot »

sershe wrote: post #357
kwhitefoot wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can walk to all those things even though I live in a 130 m2 house with an 800 m2 garden full of mature fruit trees. There are four supermarkets within 2 km, the doctor and chemist are 1 km away. In many countries it isn't necessary to sacrifice living space for convenience. It is largely a political choice for the country as a whole even though it is an economic one for most of the individuals. Even in densely popu…

1km or especially 2km is not in any way a reasonable walk. It is just barely reasonable for a healthy adult in good weather, and still tedious. I personally find that mid-density is the worst of both worlds, and not just in this regard... I used to live in downtown Vancouver BC and it was great to have everything I use within 200m, now I live in the kind of area you describe (semi-urban detached houses) and I almost…

1 km not a reasonable walk? That's about 1300 steps for me, a fifteen minute dawdle or ten minute brisk walk.

I can walk to the nearest shop fill a small rucksack/daysack with the day's shopping and be back home in 45 minutes without hurrying.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#492

Post by sershe »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #491
sershe wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1km or especially 2km is not in any way a reasonable walk. It is just barely reasonable for a healthy adult in good weather, and still tedious. I personally find that mid-density is the worst of both worlds, and not just in this regard... I used to live in downtown Vancouver BC and it was great to have everything I use within 200m, now I live in the kind of area you describe (semi-urban detached houses) and I almost…

1 km not a reasonable walk? That's about 1300 steps for me, a fifteen minute dawdle or ten minute brisk walk. I can walk to the nearest shop fill a small rucksack/daysack with the day's shopping and be back home in 45 minutes without hurrying.

Most people would prefer not to walk 25 extra minutes (1km two ways of standard 5kph ped speed) every day just to buy food, even in good weather. When it's raining, snowing, etc., or when they are old, have children with them, are not so fit, even more so. Many people have things to do with these 25 minutes, too.

When I used to buy groceries daily on foot, it took me about 5 extra steps, one way, to get to the store from the sidewalk that I was already traversing from the bus stop that was 150m from my apartment... and then I carried them 100m to said apartment. That is the density that most people can accept when they think about "walkable"... These days I pick up a week's worth of groceries (impossible to carry, and I say is as a backpacker) on my way from the gym, or occasionally in a separate trip that takes the same 25 minutes round-trip for travel, except I do it once a week, or could do it even more rarely. And if you drive, it doesn't really matter if the store is 2-3km away on the street (which it is), or if it was 10-25km away on a highway.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#493

Post by kwhitefoot »

sershe wrote: post #492
kwhitefoot wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 km not a reasonable walk? That's about 1300 steps for me, a fifteen minute dawdle or ten minute brisk walk. I can walk to the nearest shop fill a small rucksack/daysack with the day's shopping and be back home in 45 minutes without hurrying.

Most people would prefer not to walk 25 extra minutes (1km two ways of standard 5kph ped speed) every day just to buy food, even in good weather. When it's raining, snowing, etc., or when they are old, have children with them, are not so fit, even more so. Many people have things to do with these 25 minutes, too. When I used to buy groceries daily on foot, it took me about 5 extra steps, one way, to get to the store…

It's not 25 extra minutes. I just do it as part of going for a walk. We did the same with the children when they were too small to leave at home.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#494

Post by sershe »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #493
sershe wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people would prefer not to walk 25 extra minutes (1km two ways of standard 5kph ped speed) every day just to buy food, even in good weather. When it's raining, snowing, etc., or when they are old, have children with them, are not so fit, even more so. Many people have things to do with these 25 minutes, too. When I used to buy groceries daily on foot, it took me about 5 extra steps, one way, to get to the store…

It's not 25 extra minutes. I just do it as part of going for a walk. We did the same with the children when they were too small to leave at home.

Ok, apparently for this situation to be livable you not only have to be healthy AND the weather has to be good (you don't go on a walk with kids every day when it's 100 degrees out or when it's blizzard of rain), you also have to have plenty of time for daily walks :)

Again, my point is, for most people, in most circumstances, 1km is a borderline unreasonable walk, and 2km is absolutely unreasonable and not "walkable" in any way. Sure, for some people in very special circumstances (and climates, or times of year) it might work out, but that is not a good basis for policy.

Also frankly it's just an inferior quality of life when your walk is to the grocery store thru dense burbs... I happen to have 2 large-ish parks nearby so I walk there, but not every day and in any case neither is on the way to any grocery store. I would never just walk around the neighborhood - instead, if both were 1km away, I'd drive to a park or a hike if I had to... then drive to a grocery store.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#495

Post by m463 »

dgudkov wrote: post #175
jcbrand wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people who live in cooperatives and I've explored it for myself as well. You might pay less in a cooperative, but you're expected to be more involved in its internal politics and in keeping things running, so you're likely making up for the lower monetary price by paying with your time and energy. There are also many opportunities for interpersonal conflicts. > you constantly have to give up a significant port…

>...doing nothing This is unfair. There is nothing wrong with passive income. Owning shares or bonds, or having a bank deposit is also "doing nothing" yet no one would blame anyone for it.

As long as you pay for maintenance and don't raise the rent, it seems like it would be the same as an investment.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#496

Post by pdimitar »

akomtu wrote: post #423
swiley wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have both if dense housing was allowed to be built and people bought condos.

Another solution is a ban on new office buildings in areas with insufficient housing supply. Right now the corps happily build new offices in cities that are already overcrowded to the tilt, and the city councils turn a blind eye to this. I realize that such a law would have no sponsors.

This started becoming bigger and bigger problem in Sofia (capital of Bulgaria, in the Balkan Peninsula, Eastern Europe). I live for 20 years here and now I want to get out because almost every plot of land eventually gets filled with the same faceless concrete and glass block that the office buildings are.

Aesthetic sentiments aside, those office buildings bring stress to the local infrastructure in many ways.

One win however is that local businesses that serve food and drinks at least survive which is not a small win during COVID-19 times.

Re: Home ownership is the West’s biggest economic-policy mistake

#497

Post by Nursie »

WalterBright wrote: post #489
Nursie wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helping to push up prices as they do so, attracting more speculators. That's not a net zero. They also hold what are limited resources for a non-zero amount of time, reducing supply in aggregate. More speculators, more supply constraint. This is not some sort of idealised marketplace where people can dip in and out without any effect.

You're missing that they short things they believe are overvalued, like in bubbles. > This is not some sort of idealised marketplace where people can dip in and out without any effect. You're right. Speculators work to decrease the peak of a bubble and increase the value of a dip. The misapprehension is thinking the effect is only one way.

> You're missing that they short things they believe are overvalued

In the housing market? LOL.

> Speculators work to decrease the peak of a bubble and increase the value of a dip.

Except that's nonsense, they increase the demand on an already massively in-demand resource, accelerating price rises.

Your ideas fly in the face of observable reality.

Post reply on HN