5 ms·

People who own houses in CA and Bay Area in particular, especially those who bought recently, why would they want housing prices to go down?

by option 10y ago

groby_b 10y ago
Because we understand the problems of monoculture and non-diverse communities? Because we know where income inequality leads? Because we'd rather see fellow humans have a place to live in, instead of seeing our bank account grow? Because for some of us, social responsibilities matter too, not just money?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  But this isn't a little bit of money we're talking about. This is a lot of money. This is levels of money that a family likely can't bear. Now, if, as prices went down, the loans went down as well, that'd be another story.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  For a teeny tiny fraction of you this is true - and it has no bearing on anything. Nobody's asking the minority anything.
- xienze 10y ago
  > Because for some of us, social responsibilities matter too, not just money? You'd be changing your tune if the $1M+ house you bought suddenly went underwater to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.
  - groby_b 10y ago
    I lost 50% on my house, and I'm still saying this, so no, I probably wouldn't. I get that this is a huge burden. I don't suggest that's the magic fix, or that this should happen across the board at such staggering numbers. I'd prefer if it didn't happen to such an extent again to me, either. I was merely answering the OPs question why anybody owning a house would want them to go down at all. We are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. They need to come down, and they will, sooner or later. The only question is if we want to handle this in a controlled way, or as a collapse, like last time 'round.
    - option 10y ago
      > "Because we know where income inequality leads?" - income inequality is not the real problem. The real problem is that lower end of the spectrum is too low and has been stagnating for too long. Whether fixing the real problem will lead to lowering income inequality or not is irrelevant. For case studies on "take money from rich and give to poor" visit any of the post-communist countries (I am actually from one). > "We are currently on an unsustainable trajectory." - Why? Which trajectory is sustainable? > "The only question is if we want to handle this in a controlled way, or as a collapse, like last time 'round." - Lol, there is no question about that. The real question is how?
      - marcosdumay 10y ago
        You don't solve it without some amount of "take money from the rich and give to the poor". It's just that the chosen amount being "everything" is a ridiculous idea. People seem unable to think about politics without turning into extremists.
      - groby_b 10y ago
        That's what "income inequality" is a shortcut for. I apologize, I of course meant "the disturbing increase in income inequality". I didn't intend to advocate for absolute income equality :) Which trajectory is sustainable? One where housing prices don't significantly outperform income growth, where the price range allows people of all ends of the spectrum to find housing, and where the inventory isn't constrained as much by regulations that only serve the purpose of "ensuring property values". > Lol, there is no question about that. The real question is how? I'm curious - if there's no question about that, your "why would they want housing prices to go down" doesn't make sense. What do I miss? I want them to go down now & controlled because I'd like a controlled descent. It seems you agree on that :) "How" is a surprisingly tricky question that, among other things, depends on local economics. The solution for LA will look different than the solution for SF. (And SF is in a deep pickle. I'm glad the LA problems are not quite as bad yet) Affordable housing projects (and financing them) will play a key role. But they're far from the only part - we'll also need to talk about densification, fixing blighted neighborhoods, simplifying the permitting process. There will need to be changes to the rent control system, meaningful fixes to minimum wage, improved public transit, fixes to the nonsensical zoning system... And Prop 13 needs to die a fiery death. Many of these changes are going to be somewhat painful for existing homeowners, but the inevitable collapse if we don't address this will be more painful.
davidw 10y ago
Realistically: they won't. What could happen is that they stop rising so quickly.
ch4s3 10y ago
Because prices are artificially high, and allowing the market to adjust supply will prevent a flight of demand. You can't sell your $2.5 million dollar ranch home for $2.5 million if Google and Facebook move to Seattle and prices crash due to lack of demand. *edit I'm being a bit hyperbolic by suggesting that Google would move anytime soon outside of extraordinary circumstances. My point is that is prices rise too high as a result of supply that is constricted by regulation, then demand will no longer exist at some price point. And due to the nature of real estate as a vehicle for retirement savings, when the price adjusts down, people are likely to try to sell off fast to mitigate risk. This in turn can cause rapidly plummeting prices, which would be bad for almost everyone.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  Google and Facebook already have Seattle offices. Big-G and FB are going to close down offices in the single largest talent pool in the world? Not hardly.
  - ch4s3 10y ago
    Clearly not any time soon, but if housing prices rise to the point that their workers can't afford to live within a few hours commute of their main campus, they'll have to pay significantly more or move more of their workforce elsewhere. They probably won't keep raising wages forever, but demand will raise as long as the do, and with it prices. It isn't hard to imagine a tipping point where it simply becomes a better economic move to locate elsewhere. I guarantee if several big tech-cos move, so will the talent.
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  Considering that most folks' life savings is in their house I think your going to be hard pressed to find support for your argument amongst property owners. I doubt anyone who has invested there wants to think about Silicon Valley ceasing to be Silicon Valley.
  - ch4s3 10y ago
    I don't disagree. The fact that retirement savings are intertwined with one's housing is an issue that is key to this problem, and there don't seem to be any solutions that aren't bad for someone. However, if nothing happens, prices will eventually reach a point that will reduce demand drastically down. Then what happens to people home values and savings?
raldi 10y ago
So my friends and family will stop leaving the city and state.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

People who own houses in CA and Bay Area in particular, especially those who bought recently, why would they want housing prices to go down?

by option 10y ago

People who own houses in CA and Bay Area in particular, especially those who bought recently, why would they want housing prices to go down?

groby_b 10y ago

Because we understand the problems of monoculture and non-diverse communities? Because we know where income inequality leads? Because we'd rather see fellow humans have a place to live in, instead of seeing our bank account grow? Because for some of us, social responsibilities matter too, not just money?

st3v3r 10y ago
But this isn't a little bit of money we're talking about. This is a lot of money. This is levels of money that a family likely can't bear. Now, if, as prices went down, the loans went down as well, that'd be another story.
1_2__3 10y ago
For a teeny tiny fraction of you this is true - and it has no bearing on anything. Nobody's asking the minority anything.
xienze 10y ago
> Because for some of us, social responsibilities matter too, not just money? You'd be changing your tune if the $1M+ house you bought suddenly went underwater to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.
- groby_b 10y ago
  I lost 50% on my house, and I'm still saying this, so no, I probably wouldn't. I get that this is a huge burden. I don't suggest that's the magic fix, or that this should happen across the board at such staggering numbers. I'd prefer if it didn't happen to such an extent again to me, either. I was merely answering the OPs question why anybody owning a house would want them to go down at all. We are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. They need to come down, and they will, sooner or later. The only question is if we want to handle this in a controlled way, or as a collapse, like last time 'round.
  - option 10y ago
    > "Because we know where income inequality leads?" - income inequality is not the real problem. The real problem is that lower end of the spectrum is too low and has been stagnating for too long. Whether fixing the real problem will lead to lowering income inequality or not is irrelevant. For case studies on "take money from rich and give to poor" visit any of the post-communist countries (I am actually from one). > "We are currently on an unsustainable trajectory." - Why? Which trajectory is sustainable? > "The only question is if we want to handle this in a controlled way, or as a collapse, like last time 'round." - Lol, there is no question about that. The real question is how?
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      You don't solve it without some amount of "take money from the rich and give to the poor". It's just that the chosen amount being "everything" is a ridiculous idea. People seem unable to think about politics without turning into extremists.
    - groby_b 10y ago
      That's what "income inequality" is a shortcut for. I apologize, I of course meant "the disturbing increase in income inequality". I didn't intend to advocate for absolute income equality :) Which trajectory is sustainable? One where housing prices don't significantly outperform income growth, where the price range allows people of all ends of the spectrum to find housing, and where the inventory isn't constrained as much by regulations that only serve the purpose of "ensuring property values". > Lol, there is no question about that. The real question is how? I'm curious - if there's no question about that, your "why would they want housing prices to go down" doesn't make sense. What do I miss? I want them to go down now & controlled because I'd like a controlled descent. It seems you agree on that :) "How" is a surprisingly tricky question that, among other things, depends on local economics. The solution for LA will look different than the solution for SF. (And SF is in a deep pickle. I'm glad the LA problems are not quite as bad yet) Affordable housing projects (and financing them) will play a key role. But they're far from the only part - we'll also need to talk about densification, fixing blighted neighborhoods, simplifying the permitting process. There will need to be changes to the rent control system, meaningful fixes to minimum wage, improved public transit, fixes to the nonsensical zoning system... And Prop 13 needs to die a fiery death. Many of these changes are going to be somewhat painful for existing homeowners, but the inevitable collapse if we don't address this will be more painful.

davidw 10y ago

Realistically: they won't. What could happen is that they stop rising so quickly.

ch4s3 10y ago

Because prices are artificially high, and allowing the market to adjust supply will prevent a flight of demand. You can't sell your $2.5 million dollar ranch home for $2.5 million if Google and Facebook move to Seattle and prices crash due to lack of demand. *edit I'm being a bit hyperbolic by suggesting that Google would move anytime soon outside of extraordinary circumstances. My point is that is prices rise too high as a result of supply that is constricted by regulation, then demand will no longer exist at some price point. And due to the nature of real estate as a vehicle for retirement savings, when the price adjusts down, people are likely to try to sell off fast to mitigate risk. This in turn can cause rapidly plummeting prices, which would be bad for almost everyone.

jonathankoren 10y ago
Google and Facebook already have Seattle offices. Big-G and FB are going to close down offices in the single largest talent pool in the world? Not hardly.
- ch4s3 10y ago
  Clearly not any time soon, but if housing prices rise to the point that their workers can't afford to live within a few hours commute of their main campus, they'll have to pay significantly more or move more of their workforce elsewhere. They probably won't keep raising wages forever, but demand will raise as long as the do, and with it prices. It isn't hard to imagine a tipping point where it simply becomes a better economic move to locate elsewhere. I guarantee if several big tech-cos move, so will the talent.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
Considering that most folks' life savings is in their house I think your going to be hard pressed to find support for your argument amongst property owners. I doubt anyone who has invested there wants to think about Silicon Valley ceasing to be Silicon Valley.
- ch4s3 10y ago
  I don't disagree. The fact that retirement savings are intertwined with one's housing is an issue that is key to this problem, and there don't seem to be any solutions that aren't bad for someone. However, if nothing happens, prices will eventually reach a point that will reduce demand drastically down. Then what happens to people home values and savings?

raldi 10y ago

So my friends and family will stop leaving the city and state.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]