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

Buying a Home Is Probably Even Worse Than NYTimes/NerdWallet Calculators Imply

tinkerdeck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Buying a Home Is Probably Even Worse Than NYTimes/NerdWallet Calculators Imply

#71

Post by sorcerer-mar »

msgodel wrote: post #66
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's especially negative about population growth from immigration as compared to domestic population growth, or simply productivity growth from technological advancement? All of these increase the value of land. Why are you singling out immigration? (I suspect I know what's special, but curious to hear your answer anyway)

Getting kicked out of your house being necessary to support it is one big issue. This never seemed to make sense when we had domestic population growth and if we can't fit people without taking drastic measures like that maybe we're just out of room.

Just because you didn't come across this idea (or exist) when there wasn't high immigration doesn't mean "it never seemed to make sense when" there wasn't high immigration.

You're being intellectually lazy.

Re: Buying a Home Is Probably Even Worse Than NYTimes/NerdWallet Calculators Imply

#72

Post by sorcerer-mar »

archagon wrote: post #68
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I'm advocating for the prevention of feudalism where a permanent landed gentry can extract wealth in perpetuity through no contribution whatsoever than having a deed. I agree that property square feet is a bad metric. The right way to do this is actually to tax based on the unimproved value of the land, which would in fact create many many more multifamily dwellings by virtue of increasing the carrying cost of lan…

In my opinion, a person should not be forced to move just because of economic circumstances outside their control. Unless you're a spry 20-something with no real connections, moving will be incredibly disruptive and potentially traumatic. One person's "landed gentry" is another's "housing stability."

In my opinion, options should be balanced against each other and then we should pick the least-bad or most-good ones.

The "allow zero carrying costs indefinitely on any land" option entails runaway wealth inequality, skyrocketing housing costs, major impediments to family and household formation, and destruction of the payoff period for any capital expenditures made in a geography as younger generations have to create new cities from scratch over and over again, creating enormous financially unsustainable infrastructure sprawl (see: Houston) as redevelopment is too difficult against the vested interests of the landed gentry (see: NYC and SF). This of course causes decay, bankrupts cities and states, and ends up reducing the quality of life for everyone, including the landed gentry.

The "incur carrying costs" option entails old people reverse mortgaging their property until they die, or selling and moving into something more suitable for their needs.

Re: Buying a Home Is Probably Even Worse Than NYTimes/NerdWallet Calculators Imply

#73

Post by msgodel »

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #71
msgodel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting kicked out of your house being necessary to support it is one big issue. This never seemed to make sense when we had domestic population growth and if we can't fit people without taking drastic measures like that maybe we're just out of room.

Just because you didn't come across this idea (or exist) when there wasn't high immigration doesn't mean "it never seemed to make sense when" there wasn't high immigration. You're being intellectually lazy.

Regardless if this is the cost of migration it's an absolute loss for the native population. Suggesting it before suggesting net emigration is absolutely insane.

Re: Buying a Home Is Probably Even Worse Than NYTimes/NerdWallet Calculators Imply

#74

Post by sorcerer-mar »

msgodel wrote: post #73
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you didn't come across this idea (or exist) when there wasn't high immigration doesn't mean "it never seemed to make sense when" there wasn't high immigration. You're being intellectually lazy.

Regardless if this is the cost of migration it's an absolute loss for the native population. Suggesting it before suggesting net emigration is absolutely insane.

It's the cost of growth, including growth by domestic birth or by technological advancement.

Net emigration is bad for its own reasons. Namely that municipalities, states, and business financial models are all dependent on the reverse. The perils of population decline can't possibly be unknown to someone so "interested" in immigration dynamics.

That's why I didn't suggest it. Not only does it not solve this problem, but it creates several more.

Re: Buying a Home Is Probably Even Worse Than NYTimes/NerdWallet Calculators Imply

#75

Post by red-iron-pine »

nunez wrote: post #64
bravetraveler wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd point out that while an asset, yes, it is a liability. Not in the typical financial sense, either! I'm hesitant on buying because I have next to no certainty in my role. If I be a good little Business Man and make someone else filthy rich, have all the make-up beers, and show up on time: at-will employment is still a thing. I may still be forced out by circumstance. Equity might make the hit softer, I don't know.…

I bought recently. Mortgage lenders seem to be much more willing to work with people who can't make their mortgage than landlords are. Deferred plans, interest only payments, and more. In Texas, landlords can evict you within three days of missing a rent payment. THREE. DAYS! I got hit with this letter when auto pay screwed up. It's pretty scary.

that sounds like a Texas and a "non-tenant-friendly" problem -- plenty of states ain't like that.

and as someone who owns and rents property, finding good renters is hard and costly. if one of my normally good tenant gets screwed and needs a little patience and wiggle room I'd rather work w/ them then roll the dice over some noob. e.g. if they're out of work for a longer than expected then they can help paint the place, finish up some landscaping, etc.

Re: Buying a Home Is Probably Even Worse Than NYTimes/NerdWallet Calculators Imply

#76

Post by CommenterPerson »

Central NJ was a great place to buy, at least until Covid. A great way to build wealth here has been: start at a young-ish age at a low end. Over time, sell / rent that out and keep moving up slowly using a mortgage for your primary residence. Over the decades one can own their own residence and have one or more rental properties. Those bring in steady retirement income, which does not depend on daily stock market gyrations.

These rent vs. buy calculators all end up in paralysis by analysis. Everything depends on assumptions. Yes, in the Bay area the calculations may work one way. But there are so many ways around that. A remote job. Starting with a rental property 100 miles away.

Post reply on HN