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

Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

architectsjournal.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 202 posts

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#71

Post by YouWhy »

jstanley wrote: post #51
serial_dev wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d add fertility rate as another powerful metric: when people feel safe, supported, and optimistic, they have kids. So if housing, income stability, healthcare, and trust in the future are in place, you’ll usually see that reflected in birth rates. All this only makes sense in the context of large groups; at the individual level, many factors determine whether someone has children. What the puppet masters will tell…

> when people feel safe, supported, and optimistic, they have kids. I actually thought that wasn't the case. Across the entire world, people in more precarious circumstances have more kids. I don't know why.

> people in more precarious circumstances have more kids. I don't know why.

Did you consider that the judgement of precariousness of the people's situation is in your value system, and does not necessarily transfer to their value system? Especially this could be due to you having access to more information than them

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#72

Post by vidarh »

westmeal wrote: post #8
bwb wrote: post #2

IMO... one of the most important benchmarks for judging the effectiveness of a government is the cost of housing. Cheap and basic housing is so key for economic well-being. I would love to see very basic, small, apartments created by governments on a mass level to try to overcome the current situation. Like persistently have a department of government just building to meet needed demands in economic centers. What oth…

Its kinda funny you mention this because a lot of communist countries did pretty much this with high rise apartments. They're still there too.

Par of Khrushchev's legacy was switching away from the earlier focus on higher quality housing that largely favoured the elite in favour of throwing up cheap housing fast to alleviate the severe housing crisis.

But as a result, a more enduring part of his legacy became that due to economic stagnation, a large proportion of this really poor quality housing that was indeded as a stopgap to meet desperate short-term housing need, survived not just Khrushchev, but the Soviet Union...

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#73

Post by twelvechairs »

scotty79 wrote: post #54
nly wrote: post #6

Over the last 50-70 years the UK made the choice to stop building social housing and to sell off the existing stock with aggressive government subsidies. Complaining now is a bit like complaining there's no milk after you sold the dairy farm to build a casino. I read TFA but I'm not seeing anything but useless outrage that would have been better placed 20-30 years ago I became a first time property owner at 36 and it…

> I have to refinance every 5 years, because that's the game in the UK, so if rates spike I'm also screwed. Could anyone explain why is that the case? If the mortgage is till 70 then why are you forced to remake the agreement every 5 years? Can't you stick to original one?

Most(?) UK loans are fixed for a 5 years or so and then revert to the standard variable rate of the bank. Variable rates can make financial planning uncertain. But the bigger issue is often just the standard variable rate you get put on isn't the best rate, so you are generally advantaged to review and move.

US loans on the other hand are government backed to allow for longer fixed terms (30 years etc.)

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#74

Post by willis936 »

thrance wrote: post #49
graemep wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If houses ever return to good affordability I'm screwed. Which creates a huge pool of people who are opposed to making houses more affordable.

This is the thing I never see addressed. Wouldn't fixing the housing crisis necessarily involve slashing down property values? Which are for a lot of people their only form of savings? Genuine question by the way, I would like an answer.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the people who had houses that lost value are screwed. It just means that they didn't pocket as much profit as they could have. They bought a value and a rate they could afford. They're no more or less screwed if the value of the house goes down. They're screwed if they can't pay the mortgage. Lots of people are screwed by high housing costs. The only rational conclusion is to lower housing costs. I say this as someone paying a mortgage.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#75

Post by bingo3131 »

scotty79 wrote: post #54
nly wrote: post #6

Over the last 50-70 years the UK made the choice to stop building social housing and to sell off the existing stock with aggressive government subsidies. Complaining now is a bit like complaining there's no milk after you sold the dairy farm to build a casino. I read TFA but I'm not seeing anything but useless outrage that would have been better placed 20-30 years ago I became a first time property owner at 36 and it…

> I have to refinance every 5 years, because that's the game in the UK, so if rates spike I'm also screwed. Could anyone explain why is that the case? If the mortgage is till 70 then why are you forced to remake the agreement every 5 years? Can't you stick to original one?

No idea how it works in other countries but in the UK there are fixed-rate mortgages and variable-rate mortgages. Fixed rate ones are where the interest rate is locked in at the time the mortgage is taken out so any changes to the national base rate (positive or negative) do not change how much you have to repay, variable-rate mortgages are when the interest rate will fluctuate as the national base rate rises and falls.

Fixed-rate mortgages are time-limited (typically between 2-5 years) and after that you either switch to a variable rate mortgage or you take out a new fixed-rate mortgage based on the interest rates at the time.

People that bought properties just before COVID got dirt-cheap fixed-rate mortgages as the Bank of England base rate was 0.5%. Anyone sensible locked it in for 5 years which is typically the maximum available. After those 5 years were up, the base rate was about 5% which is a huge jump. I think most people have locked theirs in for 2 years now in the hopes that in a couple of years the base rate will be much lower.

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#76

Post by graemep »

AlexSW wrote: post #46
logicchains wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare the growth in GDP per capita in Japan Vs the UK, the UK isn't doing particularly better in spite of all that immigration.

It's not obvious to me that comparing GDP per capita is a fair comparison when talking about one country with immigration vs one without. A lot of the immigration I believe to be not so skilled. But we needed lower-skill jobs filled too.

its quite complicated and changes over time.

Post Brexit changes make it easier for high skilled workers and harder for low skilled. I have not idea how big the actual change has been.

There have been other events and rule changes that have had an impact - covid and Ukrainian visas.

Some interesting data here: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/mi...

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#77

Post by Ekaros »

milesrout wrote: post #61
scotty79 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have to refinance every 5 years, because that's the game in the UK, so if rates spike I'm also screwed. Could anyone explain why is that the case? If the mortgage is till 70 then why are you forced to remake the agreement every 5 years? Can't you stick to original one?

A bank would be mental to commit to a fixed interest rate on a mortgage for 30 years. Economic conditions change.

Fixed rates are possible, but often the margins are pretty significant especially when rates are very low. Say rate is 0.25%, margin is 0.5-1%, fixed rate might be 1.5%+0.5-1%... When leveraged to max this could be big chunk...

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#79

Post by floydnoel »

tarkin2 wrote: post #65
petesergeant wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%, and it’s not clear there’s any solution to that, because voters will punish anyone who tries to fix it.

Well, the renters will reward any government that pushes down house prices i.e. builds more houses. And I assume there are more renters than home owners.

but which group is more active in voting and politics?

Re: Waiting 100 years for a home isn't a housing crisis, it's a moral collapse

#80

Post by qalmakka »

tarkin2 wrote: post #65
petesergeant wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%, and it’s not clear there’s any solution to that, because voters will punish anyone who tries to fix it.

Well, the renters will reward any government that pushes down house prices i.e. builds more houses. And I assume there are more renters than home owners.

It depends on the country or area unfortunately
Post reply on HN