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

Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 183 posts

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#91

Post by Dig1t »

ta1243 wrote: post #66
dragontamer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is tied up in people's houses. If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. So the question is if the wealthy can remain wealthy, or if the poor can get houses? I'm sorry, but... as a Catholic the choice is obvious to me. Blessed are the poor, etc. etc. We should favor those who don't have…

> I'm sorry, but... as a Catholic the choice is obvious to me In the UK the 13th largest landowner is the church. If it used its lands to build at average density of Hackney it could house 2.5 million people.

I’m not religious, but it is worth noting that the Catholic Church does provide an insane amount of charity to the less fortunate. Their churches do take up space but they also do provide a ridiculous amount of shelter and free food for poor people.

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#92

Post by curun1r »

lucidguppy wrote: post #12

Feedback systems with long delays are going to be easier to destabilize than systems with short feedback cycles. There's a lot of "memory" in housing prices. Houses are just about the hardest item to build in America today. You need land, and you cannot make them in a factory. All cost cutting measures have been in materials (to the point where quality is degrading). Regulations push new players out of the market - i…

> You need land, and you cannot make them in a factory

The land part is true, but there are people working on the second part. One of the more exciting ones I’ve seen recently is Cover [0]. They do the majority of building in their factory and only the foundation work and assembly is done onsite. But they’ve got enough flexibility to adapt their designs to the lot and they help buyers with the permitting hassles, so it’s a lot more appealing than some of the other kit home options. And, more importantly, their product has a luxury feel, so it doesn’t feel like you’re compromising. They’re focused on the LA area and the ADU market right now, but if that works out, it’s easy to see them getting a lot of funding to scale out their efforts to other markets. I’m hopeful that an approach like this can drive down the cost of new construction, especially when combined with streamlined permitting in places with housing crises where the political motivation will be there to adopt more a more builder-friendly environment.

If anyone is interested in seeing an actual finished project, a luxury real estate YouTuber did a tour [1] of one of their houses recently.

[0] https://buildcover.com/

[1] https://youtu.be/h2_CcNuNgXw

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#93

Post by geodel »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #35
NDizzle wrote: post #3

With sliding definitions of both "middle class" and "afford" I believe this answer will always be "no".

You can always pick a median income. What's sliding with the definition of "afford"? I thought there was broad agreement that housing should be no more than 30% of your gross income, give or take a couple percent based on who you ask.

Sliding because features of housing keep increasing. Things that were luxury few decades back and still in most parts of the world are part of an economy house in US.

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#94

Post by hotpotamus »

dragontamer wrote: post #78
hotpotamus wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they care more about their daughter finding a house, and they have 3, then why don't they give her one?

Houses that are good for wealthy retired people are not so good for young couples raising children. In particular, the school systems that are around such homes. Location, Location, Location. Secondly: those houses have tenants. They're not sitting empty. Thirdly, for the young couple. Being tied to your parents financially basically makes them a slave-owner of you. When the parents drop by or use the yard to store p…

It doesn’t sound like they’re particularly willing to make sacrifices then.

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#95

Post by riversflow »

dragontamer wrote: post #78
hotpotamus wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they care more about their daughter finding a house, and they have 3, then why don't they give her one?

Houses that are good for wealthy retired people are not so good for young couples raising children. In particular, the school systems that are around such homes. Location, Location, Location. Secondly: those houses have tenants. They're not sitting empty. Thirdly, for the young couple. Being tied to your parents financially basically makes them a slave-owner of you. When the parents drop by or use the yard to store p…

> Thirdly . . .

I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the concept of giving. If I give something to my family, it is theirs. They can use it, lend it, sell it, destroy it.

I agree with parent comment, if they have 3 houses, buy one for their daughter. As in put her name on the deed. Either they care about her and love her and their grandchildren or they are selfish and would rather have 3 rentals then what’s best for their kids.

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#96

Post by willis936 »

hotpotamus wrote: post #70
willis936 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We can't have this, because a huge fraction of household wealth is tied up in people's houses. If you stop protecting them as investment accounts, you nuke the retirement accounts of 100 million people. As someone staring down never having the ability to get into that club: that's a price I'm willing to pay. In fact I'm willing to pay much more than that. This is the issue that dictates my vote.

I don't think I follow - which club are you not getting into, retirement or home ownership? Because if you don't have a home, then you aren't the one paying if the value decreases.

I don't own a home. Housing depreciation is a price I'm happy to pay. That is indeed the cheekiness of my comment.

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#97

Post by dragontamer »

riversflow wrote: post #95
dragontamer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses that are good for wealthy retired people are not so good for young couples raising children. In particular, the school systems that are around such homes. Location, Location, Location. Secondly: those houses have tenants. They're not sitting empty. Thirdly, for the young couple. Being tied to your parents financially basically makes them a slave-owner of you. When the parents drop by or use the yard to store p…

> Thirdly . . . I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the concept of giving. If I give something to my family, it is theirs. They can use it, lend it, sell it, destroy it. I agree with parent comment, if they have 3 houses, buy one for their daughter. As in put her name on the deed. Either they care about her and love her and their grandchildren or they are selfish and would rather have 3 rentals then what’s be…

Heh, fair enough.

I'm very tangentially related to them. (Sister's husband's parent + sister's husband's sister). So I'm not really going to meddle with their life choices.

----------

But I'm trying to say that policies that help their daughter (even if it costs them a bit of wealth by subtracting it from their 3x houses due to looser construction laws causing more houses to be built and therefore lowering the prices of houses in this area) is something they likely will support.

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#98

Post by Dylan16807 »

geodel wrote: post #93
Dylan16807 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always pick a median income. What's sliding with the definition of "afford"? I thought there was broad agreement that housing should be no more than 30% of your gross income, give or take a couple percent based on who you ask.

Sliding because features of housing keep increasing. Things that were luxury few decades back and still in most parts of the world are part of an economy house in US.

Okay, but I'd say that's the definition of housing changing, not the definition of afford.

But there's a lot of places where you can't even get an affordable apartment. And it's hard to get a smaller house at a proportionally smaller price.

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#99

Post by whatindaheck »

I just turned 30. If I can’t afford a house in the next 10 years I’m going to be a lifelong renter.

Why get a 30 year mortgage at 40, to only pay it off at 70 and then die in two decades? It feels like the wrong thing to do but…I really don’t know how else to look at it.

Sure. I could afford a house today where I grew up. But I’d have to surround myself with the highly undesirable culture (in my opinion) in those places. To put it nicely.

Re: Americans don't believe middle class can afford homes

#100

Post by NDizzle »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #35
NDizzle wrote: post #3

With sliding definitions of both "middle class" and "afford" I believe this answer will always be "no".

You can always pick a median income. What's sliding with the definition of "afford"? I thought there was broad agreement that housing should be no more than 30% of your gross income, give or take a couple percent based on who you ask.

Dot com boom and 2008, moreso 2008, that 30% slid up to around 50%. People justified it to themselves because, as mentioned elsewhere, "Real estate always goes up!"
Post reply on HN