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

Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

washingtonexaminer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#91

Post by zrn900 »

d6e wrote: post #10
zrn900 wrote: post #2

Capitalism working its magic. As the resources and people to exploit abroad dwindled, it started eating itself from inside out to profit as was predicted. https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/tose5z/landl...

This is a cartel, not capitalism. It's literally voters doing regulatory capture and preventing new housing because they want their property values to go up.

> This is a cartel, not capitalism

When there wasnt regulatory capture in late 19th, entire US ended up getting owned by ~12 robber barons. The housing situation was the same back then: Barons would be buying up or building entire neighborhoods in which people would have to live like feudal tenants on knife's edge.

These futile attempts to redeem capitalism are making it difficult to address the problems that it creates.

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#92

Post by aodntkem »

pyuser583 wrote: post #60
aodntkem wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak for the UK market where land with permission to build upon is scarce. Land in desirable areas is always scarce and I would imagine that includes many US cities. In the U.K. there are only a few housebuilders that operate at any scale, and they have the best links into gaining owrmission and buying land to develop. ‘Landbanking’ is the keyword for the phenomenon in the UK, but ultimately the housebuil…

How do you feel about taxing land, but not the structure built on it?

I’m probably biased against the idea and so I’ve not given it much thought.

I owned a place and lived in an expensive part of London and over 10-15 years, through normal gentrification, I saw the centre of the city become far less fun as communities were pushed out due to rising prices. Everyone nearby had to be in a specific socioeconomic bracket to be there, which made it a bit, meh.

I’d be worried a land tax wouldn’t be progressive and so whilst it might be an economically efficient to force highest $value use, that might push out character businesses. That happened in London as well. Chain coffee shops everywhere, no sense of community or neighbourhood. No families etc.

It might be tweakable but the reason I’m also biased towards social housing is that’s what existed in the UK and it was only after that got privatised that housing became an issue / an asset class

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#93

Post by itake »

aodntkem wrote: post #59
s1artibartfast wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This artificial scarcity rationale is more of a conspiracy theory than realistic possibility. It would require hundreds of thousands or even millions of construction workers to coordinate, and also have a way to prevent new builders from competing. If you really think it is true, you should go into construction, undercut the competition, and get rich quick. The real answer is much more boring. High costs of land, lab…

I can only speak for the UK market where land with permission to build upon is scarce. Land in desirable areas is always scarce and I would imagine that includes many US cities. In the U.K. there are only a few housebuilders that operate at any scale, and they have the best links into gaining owrmission and buying land to develop. ‘Landbanking’ is the keyword for the phenomenon in the UK, but ultimately the housebuil…

> step in and build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent

This makes me super nervous. This means private citizens will compete with government bids on land in desirable areas.

> build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent.

The government participating in the market this way robs the middle class and gives it to the homeless.

In my city in Seattle, the government found its cheaper to buy existing apartments and hotels than to build a brand new building (reducing the housing supply for middle class. Socialized housing is horrible to live in. Rampant indoor drug use (cigs, marijuana, fent, meth), gang and drug violence, and noise. The government can't/wont kick them out, so everyone trying to get back on their feet can't due to the horrible living conditions.

Seattle also requires new private developments to allocate a % of units for low income people, in order to get a massive tax break. This sounds nice on paper, but it also hurt middle/upper class homeowners that have enough land to build 2-4 units on their property.

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#94

Post by aodntkem »

itake wrote: post #93
aodntkem wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak for the UK market where land with permission to build upon is scarce. Land in desirable areas is always scarce and I would imagine that includes many US cities. In the U.K. there are only a few housebuilders that operate at any scale, and they have the best links into gaining owrmission and buying land to develop. ‘Landbanking’ is the keyword for the phenomenon in the UK, but ultimately the housebuil…

> step in and build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent This makes me super nervous. This means private citizens will compete with government bids on land in desirable areas. > build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent. The government participating in the market this way robs the middle class and gives it to the homeless. In my city in Seat…

> This makes me super nervous. This means private citizens will compete with government bids

This is why culturally and politically the west is on the path that it is. In a real democracy the counterbalance to $power is one person, one vote.

If you disable government from taking meaningful action, you remove the power of voting, and $accumulation dominates decision making reducing a citizen’s relative power over their future.

In my opinion this is the underlying force that is the cause of political angst in the US and UK, enabling demagoguery. People have less power now than when their governments put a man on the moon (NASA), or decided to build single-payer healthcare free for everyone (NHS/UK), and just did it through direct employment and ownership.

Those institutions rotted as soon as private provision and crony cost-plus contracts were not only agreed to, but the state itself wasn’t allowed to bake it’s own biscuits.

I’m not saying no private institutions, I’m just saying that by completely disabling government’s direct (ie ownership stakes) involvement in some areas, citizens and taxes subsidise private profits by underwriting the likes of Boeing, or in the UK’s housing situation — private landlords.

I think there’s a balance to be struck, but culturally government ownership or involvement is ideologically frowned upon to such an extent that those governments can’t directly improve the life of the average citizen leading to destabilisation.

At most, in my lifetime, UK and US governments just print money and put it on the table for private firms to grab. In my Great Grandparent’s generation the government built things

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#96

Post by itake »

aodntkem wrote: post #94
itake wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> step in and build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent This makes me super nervous. This means private citizens will compete with government bids on land in desirable areas. > build competing social developments to house those that can’t afford market rent. The government participating in the market this way robs the middle class and gives it to the homeless. In my city in Seat…

> This makes me super nervous. This means private citizens will compete with government bids This is why culturally and politically the west is on the path that it is. In a real democracy the counterbalance to $power is one person, one vote. If you disable government from taking meaningful action, you remove the power of voting, and $accumulation dominates decision making reducing a citizen’s relative power over thei…

If the government starts buying land (creating more demand and reducing the supply), prices will get even worse for people that don't want to live in socialized housing.

The government can do many things, but one thing it should not do is take away homes from the middle class.

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#97

Post by Auracle »

7jjjjjjj wrote: post #78
Auracle wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, although that also would help (though I don't think the downside is worth it). I'm talking about people up north realizing that massive amounts of immigration isn't exactly great for home/rental pricing. "Build more homes" is easy to say but hard to do - you need skilled workers, there's only so much land in specific areas, NIMBYism, etc. "Reduce immigration" for some is hard to say but in practice is easy to do,…

The problem is that people generally have good reasons to immigrate. People don't deserve a lower standard of living just because they weren't born in a first-world country.

People in our country don't deserve a lower standard of living because other people want to live here either. A country/government exists to help its own people.

Where's the line? How many people should be allowed, and of what caliber? That number is the whole point of having an immigration system.

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#98

Post by Auracle »

supertrope wrote: post #55
Auracle wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, although that also would help (though I don't think the downside is worth it). I'm talking about people up north realizing that massive amounts of immigration isn't exactly great for home/rental pricing. "Build more homes" is easy to say but hard to do - you need skilled workers, there's only so much land in specific areas, NIMBYism, etc. "Reduce immigration" for some is hard to say but in practice is easy to do,…

If the electorate wants to restrict immigration so be it. But it won't solve housing shortages caused by restrictive zoning. When apartments, duplex, townhomes, condos, etc. are literally illegal this will cause a shortage. Parking minimums mandates, setback requirements, floor area ratio rules, may issue permitting processes push down supply and push up cost. Just imagine if we banned building new grocery stores or…

The thing is I think you city people can't see the forest for the trees. Yes, on a city level zoning/permitting can be an issue.

However, I live in the middle of nowhere. The nearest town to me has a population of 600. Homes that were $300k pre-pandemic are now $500-$600k. Zoning is no issue here. There aren't many places in our country where home prices have gone down or stayed the same.

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#99

Post by supertrope »

Auracle wrote: post #98
supertrope wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the electorate wants to restrict immigration so be it. But it won't solve housing shortages caused by restrictive zoning. When apartments, duplex, townhomes, condos, etc. are literally illegal this will cause a shortage. Parking minimums mandates, setback requirements, floor area ratio rules, may issue permitting processes push down supply and push up cost. Just imagine if we banned building new grocery stores or…

The thing is I think you city people can't see the forest for the trees. Yes, on a city level zoning/permitting can be an issue. However, I live in the middle of nowhere. The nearest town to me has a population of 600. Homes that were $300k pre-pandemic are now $500-$600k. Zoning is no issue here. There aren't many places in our country where home prices have gone down or stayed the same.

When people are priced out of urban cores they select housing in suburbs. When those seeking suburban housing are priced out they bid up the price of rural housing.

There are a lot of immigrants working in construction. Decreased immigration in the past few years has pushed up wages especially in lower wage jobs like construction laborer. Trade wars and the aftershocks of the Covid pandemic have pushed up the cost of materials. 3% mortgages supercharged demand.

Restricting immigration won't stop a San Jose, CA resident from moving to Boise, ID.

Re: Home buyers need 80% more income to buy than 4 years ago

#100

Post by mock-possum »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #47
mock-possum wrote: post #46

> Auto loan debt increased by $12 billion to $1.61 trillion I really can’t understand how people are so desperate to drive a new car that they’d go into debt to do it. Why would you sign up for years worth of payments on a $15k+ car when you could just buy a used one outright for like $4k, and not have to worry about it? A house, sure, you then own real estate, you even can borrow money against the value you’ve alrea…

Honestly I’ve never seen a $4k car that I would consider worth purchasing and driving. I’d be too concerned about reliability and maintenance. Then again I haven’t seen any new cars in the $15k range that I’d consider driving either.

Yeah I guess I just have very different requirements for cars than other people. All I really need is a thing on wheels that goes when I push the go button, and has an empty space for me to stuff a stereo into.
Post reply on HN