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

Priced out of home ownership

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#981

Post by ta1243 »

tmnvix wrote: post #274

People intuitively jump to the conclusion that the problem is caused by a lack of building. While more building would help, a lack of it isn't the main cause of this problem. Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause? In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price infla…

> This is a problem of underutilisation in my view. Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence.

Not in London - according to a pressure group saying there are too many houses used as non-primary-residence [0] - they claim just 1 in 45 houses are either airbnb, second homes, or empty, and half of those are second homes (i.e. someone with a small flat in the city and their main house in the country)

On top of that you have the hidden demand. A typical 3 bed house will house 4 or 5 30yo adults in a HMO because there simply isn't enough housing.

Lower rates means House prices are higher sure, but that's because the monthly cost will always rise to meet what's affordable. If supply outweighed demand then prices would fall.

[0] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6553693f7d629a133b6a4...

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#982

Post by elliottkember »

tmnvix wrote: post #274

People intuitively jump to the conclusion that the problem is caused by a lack of building. While more building would help, a lack of it isn't the main cause of this problem. Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause? In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price infla…

> What will cause prices to fall is higher interest rates. This is what has been happening in NZ.

I hope so. But this assumes a fair market. I believe the NZ market will be pumped up through government action in order to avoid paper losses for property investors, landlords, and also for regular family property owners' unrealised gains.

Case in point: reinstating full interest deductions for residential property, reducing the tax investors pay. A $2.5b kickback to landlords. 60 per cent deduction in 2023/24, rising to 80 per cent in 2024/25 and 100 per cent in 2025/26.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#983

Post by vsuperpower2020 »

carom wrote: post #817
tmnvix wrote: post #274

People intuitively jump to the conclusion that the problem is caused by a lack of building. While more building would help, a lack of it isn't the main cause of this problem. Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause? In my view this is symptomatic of a more fundamental issue - global asset price infla…

>Too many properties are being used as investments and not as a primary residence. Following this logic it would be a net positive to buy an apartment building, move everyone out, and live in it as a single family home.

How do people even think of these things? You're not a computer. You have the ability to intuit when people are not talking about some stupid edge case that literally never happens.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#984

Post by ericmay »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #898
ericmay wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dwelling units in Detroit don't satisfy demand in San Francisco. They do help though. Individuals need to realize they can’t afford to live in a place like California and have to give up that luxury if they want more affordable housing arrangements.

> They do help though. Individuals need to realize they can’t afford to live in a place like California and have to give up that luxury if they want more affordable housing arrangements. But this is no solution at all because everybody knows that. People want to live in California because there are jobs in California and not in Mississippi. In Mississippi you pay $100 less for a house and then make $200 less in incom…

> In Mississippi you pay $100 less for a house and then make $200 less in income, so who is going to do that?

I understand your point but you’d have to validate this assumption.

You’re also not accounting for the costs to build more housing in California. Instead something you may want to look at is moving employers to Mississippi (or wherever).

To take your point to its logical conclusion everyone in America would move to California for the highest paying jobs relative to housing. But that would never work in the real world even if we had no restrictions on housing development.

When you look at the entire planet I think this becomes more pronounced. When you look at hyper-local environments as well (say Manhattan) it also demonstrates the point.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#985

Post by ericmay »

closeparen wrote: post #939
ericmay wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dwelling units in Detroit don't satisfy demand in San Francisco. They do help though. Individuals need to realize they can’t afford to live in a place like California and have to give up that luxury if they want more affordable housing arrangements.

Living in a productive, walkable city is only a luxury because our public policy makes it so. We can unmake it, and we should, is the point.

I agree with you, but we don’t need to focus this on only San Francisco. Other cities should be walkable and productive. Tech companies should relocate jobs from “status” cities to non-status cities across the country.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#986

Post by ericmay »

diordiderot wrote: post #973
ericmay wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dwelling units in Detroit don't satisfy demand in San Francisco. They do help though. Individuals need to realize they can’t afford to live in a place like California and have to give up that luxury if they want more affordable housing arrangements.

Yeah those junior analysts should just transfer to Goldmans Poughkeepsie branch.

People join Goldman because it opens doors to other higher paying jobs.

If they don’t like it they can relocate to other financial services jobs in other locations, make less money, but have more discretionary income to spend on houses. Everyone can’t work at the most prestigious companies or life in the most prestigious zip codes.

Alternatively maybe Goldman should open tech and investment banking jobs in Poughkeepsie.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#987

Post by happyraul »

Kephael wrote: post #540
Cheer2171 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle is building far more than many other cities and rents are lowering as a result. Rents are up nationally, but down over 7% in Seattle. If you've visited recently, the amount of new construction and cranes is immense. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hyunsoorim/2024/05/20/here-are-...

There were cranes everywhere back in 2017, now the cranes are mostly gone. My rent increases every year, generally by 10%.

Your rent has doubled since 2017?

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#988

Post by antifa »

EgregiousCube wrote: post #448
fire_lake wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inequality is another issue. Even with enough homes, if they are all owned by minority of the population who extract rents from the rest the situation remains pretty dire.

Is inequality bad in and of itself? If there's a healthy market of buyers and sellers, but also a lot of inequality, is that a problem?

Irrelevant, the problem is runaway inequality, not general inequality.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#989

Post by closeparen »

ericmay wrote: post #985
closeparen wrote: post #939

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in a productive, walkable city is only a luxury because our public policy makes it so. We can unmake it, and we should, is the point.

I agree with you, but we don’t need to focus this on only San Francisco. Other cities should be walkable and productive. Tech companies should relocate jobs from “status” cities to non-status cities across the country.

Some cities have untapped potential for more suburban sprawl. It's unlikely that any such place capable of attracting tech investment has enough commutable land to make a difference before succumbing to the same problems.

Every area that's a candidate for urban density and public or active transportation has people living in it already. Those people are not any different from San Franciscans in terms of their concerns about gentrification, traffic, parking, shadows, or change.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#990

Post by selfmodruntime »

7bit wrote: post #947
selfmodruntime wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You conveniently forgot immigration. Canada alone has added 500.000 people to their populace since the beginning of the year.

Immigration Numbers alone are Wörth nothing. How many people emigrated. How many people died? Tell me how the Population Numbers chnaged per years instead If Just looking at Immigration.

> How many people died?

Well since Canada only has a slightly declining natural population rate, not many in comparison to births?

They added 500.000 people to their populace since the beginning of the year. The births are on top of that.

It‘s not true that immigration numbers are worth nothing. Immigration happens mostly in densely populated areas, thereby further increasing home prices.

Post reply on HN