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

Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#71

Post by mlinhares »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #62
ethanwillis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it is it doesn't invalidate the argument. Outside my "city" you can get housing for much much cheaper and have the same commute as if you lived in the city itself. But at some point you're going to have to give up this notion that population density can be made infinite. At some point you can't simply cram more "work" into a city.

> But at some point you're going to have to give up this notion that population density can be made infinite. Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong, and Singapore would like to have a word with you.

Or any big city in Europe?

Sometimes I wonder if Americans travel out of the US at all.

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#72

Post by blast »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #51
tssva wrote: post #28

When we 1st separated in 2011 my ex-wife and I along with our young daughter stayed in the same house for about a year. It was definitely not the most comfortable of situations but I've had worse living arrangements in my life. After selling the house we both rented town houses. We should have done more communicating about that because we unknowingly ended up renting 2 doors down from each other. That was the living…

My sister lives 4 houses down from our parents and did it on purpose but refuses to speak to them or let them see their granddaughter. Some people do weird shit.

Some of this has to do with balancing closeness and distance. One reason why it can get weird is that one motive can be conscious while the opposite motive is unconscious. So for example I might be consciously distant by refusing to speak to them or let them see the granddaughter, while at the same time I show my need for closeness unconsciously, by living 4 houses down.

It's tough stuff and I don't mean to comment rudely on your family situation.

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#73

Post by brailsafe »

threeseed wrote: post #38

> Housing Costs Are So High They left out the "in the trendy, inner city areas we want to live in" part. Because whilst housing prices are rising in cities we are also seeing major declines in populations for smaller towns. And whilst our parents were willing to sacrifice and embrace these towns which in turn became gentrified it doesn't seem current generations feel the same way.

> And whilst our parents were willing to sacrifice and embrace these towns which in turn became gentrified it doesn't seem current generations feel the same way.

Many of them are/were also simply anti-social, racist, or just moved where they could plausibly drive to a job, and then kept that job for eternity, depending on what generation and which geography they come from, and for some of those, that actually meant moving to the areas we want to live in too, but can't because they all own it and the local government.

Although some people aren't willing to sacrifice certain luxuries, I don't know that living approximately where you already live and work is one of those. This idea comes up all the time of "just move to some arbitrary cheaper place" but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of those places require cars, and are quite isolated. Much of the time the difference in cost is made up in property taxes anyway, because the place is so low-density it can distribute the cost of the town's maintenance in an effective way.

It turns out that places that people want to live, much of the time, are places where other people live, for all sorts of practical and spiritual reasons, rather than in the woods

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#74

Post by slymon99 »

4death4 wrote: post #63
slymon99 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities have jobs. Cities have opportunity. Cities have diversity. Why should we expect, encourage, or even desire that young people sacrifice economic and social opportunity and mobility? Why is the response to high housing cost in cities lecturing "current generations" about their choices? There are glaringly obvious problems in many of our cities that make housing so expensive. Is it so outrageous to try to solve t…

But why do cities have all the opportunity? Most likely because the capital owning class lives in cities and has been systematically draining wealth from more rural areas via globalization and the erosion of workers' rights. I'm not saying young professionals need to concern themselves with such lofty ideals, but I do think it's a valid to question why there are only a few pockets of opportunity left in the country.

Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America?

Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology, and that these demands are better matched to the agglomeration affects of true urban density, where the best and brightest can learn from each other?

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#75

Post by ericskiff »

threeseed wrote: post #38

> Housing Costs Are So High They left out the "in the trendy, inner city areas we want to live in" part. Because whilst housing prices are rising in cities we are also seeing major declines in populations for smaller towns. And whilst our parents were willing to sacrifice and embrace these towns which in turn became gentrified it doesn't seem current generations feel the same way.

While intuitive, this does not seem to be supported by facts

https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renting-statistics

If your thesis were true, we might expect rent to be roughly stable and similar to inflation over the past few years as they drop in some regions and rise in others.

Instead, national average asking rent has well outpaced inflation.

There are a number of trends which you could point to as possible factors (The rise of AirBnB, large companies buying up properties to rent, etc) but it seems the key issue is a fundamental lack of supply which is driving housing prices upwards, pricing out buyers and increasing the pool of renters.

https://www.realtor.com/research/us-housing-supply-gap-march...

Since the 2005-2008 housing crisis, new household formation has outpaced single family home construction significantly each year. We're near all-time vacancy lows for both buyers and renters.

A free market should eventually seize the opportunity to build to meet that demand (and new home starts are up this year finally) but the housing crisis caused long-term shifts in the industry which will take time to recover, and then supply chain problems during Covid caused massive material cost spikes which further delayed construction.

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#77

Post by nobodyandproud »

slymon99 wrote: post #74
4death4 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why do cities have all the opportunity? Most likely because the capital owning class lives in cities and has been systematically draining wealth from more rural areas via globalization and the erosion of workers' rights. I'm not saying young professionals need to concern themselves with such lofty ideals, but I do think it's a valid to question why there are only a few pockets of opportunity left in the country.

Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America? Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology, and that these demands are better matched to the agglomeration affects of true urban density, where the best and brightest can learn from each other?

I cannot find this reference now—I want to say ancient, possibly Roman—but cities have a brain-drain effect and lead specialization; whereas rural individuals have to do many things in order survive.

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#78

Post by randomdata »

4death4 wrote: post #63
slymon99 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities have jobs. Cities have opportunity. Cities have diversity. Why should we expect, encourage, or even desire that young people sacrifice economic and social opportunity and mobility? Why is the response to high housing cost in cities lecturing "current generations" about their choices? There are glaringly obvious problems in many of our cities that make housing so expensive. Is it so outrageous to try to solve t…

But why do cities have all the opportunity? Most likely because the capital owning class lives in cities and has been systematically draining wealth from more rural areas via globalization and the erosion of workers' rights. I'm not saying young professionals need to concern themselves with such lofty ideals, but I do think it's a valid to question why there are only a few pockets of opportunity left in the country.

Cities offer opportunity at the extreme end of the spectrum due to the concentration of people offering scalability. A professional spots team in the city, for example, can attract tens of thousands of paying spectators. "Field of Dreams" might attract a half dozen spectators on a good night. That's the difference between making millions and not being able to put food on the table.

But for the average Joe who will never leverage themselves into those extremes, I'm not sure the data actually shows greater opportunity. My read from the data is the average Joe is generally worse off in the city with respect to job prospects and compensation.

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#79

Post by climb_stealth »

tssva wrote: post #28

When we 1st separated in 2011 my ex-wife and I along with our young daughter stayed in the same house for about a year. It was definitely not the most comfortable of situations but I've had worse living arrangements in my life. After selling the house we both rented town houses. We should have done more communicating about that because we unknowingly ended up renting 2 doors down from each other. That was the living…

What gets me is that this wasn't even your worst living arrangement. I hope things have been moving up for you since.

Re: Housing costs are so high that divorced couples are still living together

#80

Post by 4death4 »

slymon99 wrote: post #74
4death4 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why do cities have all the opportunity? Most likely because the capital owning class lives in cities and has been systematically draining wealth from more rural areas via globalization and the erosion of workers' rights. I'm not saying young professionals need to concern themselves with such lofty ideals, but I do think it's a valid to question why there are only a few pockets of opportunity left in the country.

Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America? Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology, and that these demands are better matched to the agglomeration affects of true urban density, where the best and brightest can learn from each other?

> Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America?

Obviously it's not the cities themselves draining the wealth, but rather a spiral of excess capital accumulation. It just so happens that many of the people perpetuating this cycle live in cities. Generally, increasing one's capital is done by taking money that was being funneled one place, and funneling it to yourself instead. For example, CVS can open a pharmacy and undercut local competition. Once the local pharmacies close, cash flows that were once destined for local pharmacies go to CVS instead. Local pharmacies would have kept the profits locally, but CVS siphons them from the community into the pockets of shareholders, most of whom happen to live in cities. These city-dwelling shareholders can they pay others to perpetuate this cycle.

> Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology.

Is it, though? Consumer spending is about 70% of GDP. What is your personal spending on tech vs. non-tech items? Personally, I spend vastly more money on non-tech items compared to tech items. The margins are obviously much lower, so they don't have splashy stock tickers.

Post reply on HN