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

491–500 of 550 posts

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

#491

Post by Henchman21 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #107
miltonlost wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go tell that to Oklahomans and others still making a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour

They’re reaping what they sowed based on how their states population votes. Oklahoma is doing exactly what’s its people wanted and voted for.

Every time I see this I wonder what % of the population actually voted. Because it’s really hard to say this is what people wanted when the vote is made up mostly of angry seniors (for instance).

I see* that 54% voted in the 2024 general election. Let’s say that vote was close (as it usually is in the US I could be wrong.) so that the vote went 60/40 split. That 60% only represents 33% of the population of Oklahoma.

Seems hard to say thats what people wanted when nearly half of them expressed no opinion, or worse, were unable to vote for reasons we simply don’t know.

I do wonder what the results would be if voting were mandatory and there was enough time given for ALL to vote. Don’t you?

* — https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-stats/ok

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

#492

Post by Aurornis »

matips wrote: post #182
cpburns2009 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly my problem with these arguments that demonize landlords. I've lived in multiple cities where I knew I'd only live there for a couple years, and I'm only interested in renting. How do you live somewhere short term without someone owning the rented property?

You could buy property and sell it later. Of course it is not a solution to current situation when real estate are very expensive, but in theoretical discussion where real estates are affordable you can buy it and sell when you move.

> You could buy property and sell it later.

Real estate transactions are extremely expensive. Even if you sell the property for the same price you paid for it, you lose a huge amount of money in the process.

This is not a replacement for renting.

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

#493

Post by Aurornis »

estearum wrote: post #386
Aurornis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you remove landlords (but keep property managers, developers, etc, which are all different jobs sometimes played by the same people) You need to be specific about what you mean by “remove landlords” because that’s a nonsensical statement by itself. Some party must be responsible for the investment to produce the property. Some part must own the property. The most charitable interpretation of what you’re trying t…

You tax away all the gains generated by the land value, which effectively eliminates the "landlord" component of a rental fee and directs the owner's incentives toward producing value via construction, improvements, or services instead of rent-seeking on an asset they did not create and which would continue to exist if they never set foot on it.

> You tax away all the gains generated by the land value, which effectively eliminates the "landlord" component of a rental fee and directs the owner's incentives toward producing value via construction, improvements, or services instead of rent-seeking on an asset they did not create and which would continue to exist if they never set foot on it.

Wishful thinking to imagine that landlords are going to suddenly become homebuilders instead.

That money is going into other investments, like the stock market.

In the process you've destroyed the availability of rental housing.

Better question is: Why are you so focused on punishing landlords instead of getting more housing to market? These conversations always seem to revolve around punitive measures against landlords and rent-seeking, completely forgetting what problem we're trying to solve.

In many cases, the proposals are so backwards that they would disincentivize new rental construction and reduce new housing supply.

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

#494

Post by chadgpt3 »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #323
chadgpt3 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would I own a microwave if I only needed a microwave for two months?

A microwave is orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to purchase than housing. In fact, they appear to be too cheap to be available at Aaron's for rent. So you're going to have to cough up $50 for a microwave from Walmart if you only want one for two months.

Houses would be a reasonable price if you couldn't profit off them, too. Probably cheap enough that anyone could get a mortgage working at McDonalds and if you had a good job you could just buy one.

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

#495

Post by llbbdd »

Henchman21 wrote: post #488
llbbdd wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like you don't live in the US. Maybe read less reactionary news.

I live in the US and this seems pretty spot-on to me. Hard to hear perhaps, but best to hear it, eh?

Then touching grass remains a good recommendation for you and the person I replied to. Only hard to hear because I wish more of my countrymen were connected to reality.

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

#497

Post by estearum »

Aurornis wrote: post #493
estearum wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tax away all the gains generated by the land value, which effectively eliminates the "landlord" component of a rental fee and directs the owner's incentives toward producing value via construction, improvements, or services instead of rent-seeking on an asset they did not create and which would continue to exist if they never set foot on it.

> You tax away all the gains generated by the land value, which effectively eliminates the "landlord" component of a rental fee and directs the owner's incentives toward producing value via construction, improvements, or services instead of rent-seeking on an asset they did not create and which would continue to exist if they never set foot on it. Wishful thinking to imagine that landlords are going to suddenly becom…

Huh? Why would I care what landlords decide to do with their time?

Lol, landlords do not create rental stock. Developers do that. Property managers manage it. They should be rewarded for doing so. Instead we reward landowners for holding a piece of paper.

It has nothing to do with “punishing” landlords. It has to do with paying people for behaviors we want to incentivize. Developers and property managers do useful things we want more of. Landlords do not. We should not pay them for doing nothing of value. Why are you so fixated on giving landlords money they did not earn?

It’s simply not true these proposals would disincentivize rental construction or reduce new housing supply. If you think it would, you need to think a bit more.

Go ahead and plug into your favorite LLM: “Does a high land value tax incentivize or disincentivize production of new housing stock?”

Here’s the first line from Claude: “It strongly incentivizes new housing production. Here’s why:…”

You simply don’t understand what’s being proposed if you think that would be the effect.

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

#499

Post by rainsford »

mancerayder wrote: post #490
throwaway041207 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my neck of the woods (New England), home prices have doubled since March of 2020. I have yet to read a comprehensive overview of how this happened and how we get out of it. Of course, people went nuts offering over the asking price when interest rates were super low so I understand, to some degree, that baselines were reset. But the current housing market doesn't feel sustainable. I don't understand how a proper m…

Here are two. Suburbs, good ones with low crime, access to jobs and good schools are desirable. Desirability leads to prices going up. Prices going up leads to property tax revenue going up. That budget going up leads to a higher $/pupil for schools, better infra, etc... Increasing desirability. So, not a supply problem. Here's another. Jobs are in cities. People don't like commutes, and value not owning a car if pos…

> So, not a supply problem.

What do you mean it's not a supply problem? Suburbs and the housing within them aren't naturally occurring features with limited supply. They're not oil deposits. You can just build more of them.

Same thing with places like NYC or Paris or London. The point isn't that they need more development, it's that other places need more development so people who want the NYC experience in the US don't have exactly one city to choose from. You don't make NYC cheaper with more building in NYC, you make NYC cheaper by making more NYC like cities.

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

#500

Post by HDThoreaun »

beej71 wrote: post #481
HDThoreaun wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demand for housing increased faster than supply. As people gain wealth they demand more housing, so just looking at population changes doesn’t tell you much about housing demand.

Where is the demand coming from, is what I'm getting at. Because it's not from the population on this case, it would seem.

First, lets remember that housing is extremely inelastic, Demand doesnt need to outstrip supply by very much for people to start bidding up properties and prices to double.

Ive never been to Australia, cant speak to the specific situation there, but where I live it is very common for people to have roommates. Many people even share bedrooms to save money. Post covid labor prices for the lowest paid workers has increased substantially. These low paid workers are the most likely to have roommates/shared rooms, and one of the first things they do when they get more money is move into places of their own. Where I live at least you also see the opposite happening. Since housing supply is legally unable to expand people who previously would be living on their own now often find themselves needing roommates, pushing housing demand down.

There are also many people who want second homes and tons of other ways for housing demand to shift without changing population.

Post reply on HN