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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#991

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ericmay wrote: post #984
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

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

This is basically the efficient market hypothesis. If it was better to live in Mississippi then people would be doing it. Which allows housing in California to be overpriced by the amount that jobs in California pay better, before it starts happening. Which is bad, because then all of the people still in California are overpaying for housing.

> You’re also not accounting for the costs to build more housing in California.

Stop inhibiting it from being built and people will voluntarily pay to build it.

> Instead something you may want to look at is moving employers to Mississippi (or wherever).

But how? And is that even good? There are some benefits to having regions specialize in things.

> To take your point to its logical conclusion everyone in America would move to California for the highest paying jobs relative to housing.

The high paying jobs are for people in particular industries that are currently concentrated in California. Those people do live in California, or other similarly situated places like New York, rather than places like Mississippi or West Virginia.

The way you prevent everybody in that industry from wanting to move to the same city is by creating more housing in every city, so that it balances and the result is not net migration but rather just an increase in real wages at the expense of incumbent landlords.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#992

Post by 7bit »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #990
7bit wrote: post #947

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It‘s not true that immigration numbers are worth nothing.

Conveniently replying to something I never said. Clever.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#993

Post by SCM-Enthusiast »

setgree wrote: post #974
SCM-Enthusiast wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the land it's built on is an appreciating asset.

a person buying a condo in Vancouver generally isn't purchasing land, and if they are, then yes, the land might appreciate even as the thing built on it degrades over time due to a bunch of natural processes (e.g. wood decays)

someone buying a condo is absolutely buying land. That land just is split up across x number of condos. The appreciation that you get on the Condo, is the fact that the land is usually in a very ideal location. That's when the economics of "Going up" even makes sense.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#994

Post by SCM-Enthusiast »

trashtester wrote: post #970
SCM-Enthusiast wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the land it's built on is an appreciating asset.

Purchasing a single piece of land with the expectation that it will increase in value, is similar in many ways as to do so with single stocks. Land and stock tend to go up in value. But land also sometimes go to 0, just like stocks. With the booming American car industry in the 50's and 60's, who would have thought that houses in Detroit could go from having a premium price in 1970 to be sold for $1 40 years later? W…

A single peice of land may or may not appreciate. but a diversified portfoilio of land will always appreciate if the last 10,000 years has anything to say about it.

The rockefellers and other "Old Money Family's" have the three rules to building multi-generational wealth. Land, Art and Gold.

Even for detroit, land prices have only increased since the 80's[0] and over long time horizons, i'm sure will be back in line with other "Single peice land bets".

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS19804Q

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#995

Post by rr808 »

missedthecue wrote: post #267
rr808 wrote: post #11

I always assumed when the baby boomers retired there would be a flood of big family houses coming up for sale. I see it in my parents that they're pretty comfortable staying in the family house as long as possible, I'm happy with this. It is made a lot easier by the fact that prices keep going up so staying in a house that is oversized financially is rewarding. I'd like to think it'll all come to and end one day as t…

How does this logic work when the next generation/incoming demographic is even bigger? Boomers aren't an isolated bloc of people followed by 20-year-olds. It's a continuous expanding number of X year olds every year. For specific USA numbers: There are 18.7 million 65-69 year olds. There are 21.1 million 60-64 year olds. There are 22.3 million 55-59 year olds. Etc... You can't have one demographic retire/die off and…

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/...

You are right, but I think in the 10 years lots of the 55-59 people die off so wont be larger. Then the pyramid shrinks.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#996

Post by roenxi »

NoGravitas wrote: post #739
roenxi wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we have 100 houses and 99 people, it is just unlikely that anyone will have a problem finding somewhere to live. These non-human corporate entities don't have a real incentive to leave the houses empty. There is always a win-win deal to be had renting the house out. It is certainly possible to have situations where someone chooses to leave a house empty. If it is happening at scale then that suggests either tax or…

> These non-human corporate entities don't have a real incentive to leave the houses empty. They may have such an incentive. In an idealized market where everyone has perfect information, they wouldn't, but we don't live in such a market. In practice, it may be more profitable to leave a house empty to drive up rent on your other properties, and to save the maintenance costs that tenants would bring, especially if yo…

> In practice, it may be more profitable to leave a house empty to drive up rent on your other properties

I'm not seeing it, rent is usually far in excess of maintenance costs. Run me through how this works. Say I have an empty house, maintenance costs for tenanting it are $5,000 and I have Dan the Desparate who will rent it for $10k/annum, and for the sake of argument his next best alternative is homelessness.

What external circumstances exist here where I'm going to be better off not letting him use the house? Something like not being able to evict him on demand I can see being a factor, which is specific to the deal. But I don't see how what I do here could affect the rent any other properties I might have. I'm don't see how Dan being homeless can serve my interests here.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#997

Post by Earw0rm »

vixen99 wrote: post #969
Earw0rm wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK has massively high house prices - at least in "desirable" areas, and some not so desirable ones where it's possible to commute to work in a desirable area. That doesn't necessarily reflect a shortage, it also reflects availability of money - and therefore the market bearing higher prices. It also reflects the unevenness of the UK economy: the expensive and unaffordable housing is mostly in and around London (where…

If actions speak louder than words then the UK government is not massively anti-immigration. I would say that devolution of power in Britain has ensured that governments are not actually that powerful and unelected authorities with views of their own, hold sway with opinions which do not reflect the electorate. Polls suggest that a majority of people would like reduced migration. Problems abound. https://migrationobs…

Asking people - or indeed governments - in isolation if they'd like less migration is a bit like asking if they'd like less rain. Leaders and media who were up-front about the reality of the choices we face would make for a less toxic situation, but they're too lazy and cowardly, it's easier to lie for political points than to tell hard truths.

Agree re the NHS, my overall views are left, but the centre-right analysis that it's a National Sickness Service is correct, where is the investment in public health to reduce demand? Most Brits barely get out for a walk once a week, our environment doesn't prioritise health (driving everywhere, fast food outlets..) and the complaints when the state actually tries to do anything about it are endless.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#998

Post by hiatus »

DrNosferatu wrote: post #49

To efficiently live in cities, many large public works have historically been completed, for example: - Cities across the world built thorough sewage systems, preventing the need for private citizens to empty their litter buckets out the window – a large river in Chicago was even reversed! - Cities across the world built mass transit networks, enabling citizens to move around efficiently without relying solely on pri…

> Public affordable housing is a necessary infrastructure, just like sewers and transit, to create livable cities for all residents.

How do residents, by definition people who already reside there, benefit from public affordable housing?

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#999

Post by DrNosferatu »

hiatus wrote: post #998
DrNosferatu wrote: post #49

To efficiently live in cities, many large public works have historically been completed, for example: - Cities across the world built thorough sewage systems, preventing the need for private citizens to empty their litter buckets out the window – a large river in Chicago was even reversed! - Cities across the world built mass transit networks, enabling citizens to move around efficiently without relying solely on pri…

> Public affordable housing is a necessary infrastructure, just like sewers and transit, to create livable cities for all residents. How do residents, by definition people who already reside there, benefit from public affordable housing?

If you’re renting, you would stop spending such a large part of your income in rent.

If you’re a resident that already owns their home, and has absolutely no unfulfilled housing needs, you will benefit from a more prosperous society with less people struggling and more equality - and that’s a positive on its own right.

(along with its positive knock-on effects)

In fact, it’s the very goal this measure aims to achieve.

Re: Priced out of home ownership

#1000

Post by CRConrad »

tossandthrow wrote: post #859
arp242 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People just want a house to live in. That's it. They don't want a "broad based index fund" or investments or anything else. They just want a house to live in. With all the stability that comes with it. And then spend their free time doing more useful things. Also it doesn't scale; we can't all be investing all the time. This kind of reductionism where everything boils down to financials is exactly how we ended up in…

Parent commenter is talking about a financial decision. You can have a place to live without buying. Your comment is malplaced.

And GP told GGP why buying a house isn't just a financial decision.

As many others also told GGP, you cannot have a place you're certain to live in on your own terms without buying.

So yeah, someone's comment was malplaced, all right... But it wasn't the GP.

Post reply on HN