5 ms·

The implication of these articles seems to be a very American idea that people NEED a house. Condo? Won't do. Rent and invest in something more diversified? Cra

by cheriot 10y ago

The implication of these articles seems to be a very American idea that people NEED a house. Condo? Won't do. Rent and invest in something more diversified? Crazy talk. I'm American. I just don't understand why people here think so much space is so necessary. Just because we had that luxury for the last 75 years doesn't mean we always will. It's not even a bad thing.

throwaway2048 10y ago
as if condos are any cheaper, and who wants to rent their whole life?
- hiram112 10y ago
  Not sure if you're from the US, but condos are usually apartment like dwellings that people do own outright. They are cheaper than houses of a similar size, but, at least where I live, the HOA fees negate about 50% of the difference in price.
techsupporter 10y ago
I'm selling my single-family house (in a large urban area) and moving to a small condo building (not an apartment conversion) for just this same reason. My house, small as it is, takes up such a minuscule amount of the actual dirt that I own. Just not having to maintain the yard--tiny amount that I do just to keep the weeds trimmed down--is motivation enough. And here's the thing: I still have an outdoor area, deeded to me as part of my condo unit, for doing things like having a small garden or woodworking (if I was interested in either of those, but they're the most common "but I couldn't possibly" rebuttals I've heard). I get a deeded parking space, can paint the walls whatever color I want, and even have approval from the (tiny) condo board to run all of the network wiring inside the walls I can stand. Obviously I'm unmarried sans kids and pets, yeah? Nope, I have a spouse, a kid, and a dog. And you know what? We're all going to fit perfectly. The new place even adjoins a public park, is across the street from a 24-hour grocery, has frequent all-day (and 24-hour) transit, and is within walking distance of two of the best schools in the city. And all for about $200k less than a free-standing house in the same area. I'm thrilled to not need as much space. And yes, parents, it is entirely possible do to so comfortably, even with your kid having his or her own bedroom.
- creshal 10y ago
  > And all for about $200k less than a free-standing house in the same area. A total price far over $200k is considered cheap?
  - techsupporter 10y ago
    If I want to be a 35-minute bus ride from a job that pays a six-figure income (actually quite a few jobs, but I only have one of them) yet still live in an exceptionally walkable area inside a region of the country with moderate temperatures and a vast array of indoor and outdoor activities both private and social? Yes, I think that a total price exceeding $200,000 is acceptable. I will be paying just under $350,000 for this new residence. When I lived in a metro area with a much lower median residence price, my commute to work by single-occupant vehicle was 40 minutes (to get that low of a house price) and statements like "be sure to not waste water, we don't have much of it" were commonplace on the news. FWIW, I'm not in San Francisco.
dagw 10y ago
Are condos really that much cheaper than houses in the US?
- techsupporter 10y ago
  If Zillow is to be believed, yes. Let's take two cities: - Seattle[0]: Median sale price for a property classified as a condominium, $413k; median sale price for a single-family house, $672k. - San Francisco[1]: Condo, $658k; single-family, $1.14m 0 - http://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/ 1 - http://www.zillow.com/San-Francisco-CA/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/San-Francisco-CA/home-values/
  - dagw 10y ago
    Are you taking into account that most condos are much smaller than most houses? You really should be comparing the median price of a condo where a family of 4 can comfortably live to the median price of a house where a family of 4 can comfortably live. I suspect that difference will, if not disappear, at least be much smaller.
    - techsupporter 10y ago
      I did not, and I admit that I should have (and only thought of it after clicking "reply"). On the other hand, I also thing we--as American society--need to have a discussion about what constitutes "comfortably." I have coworkers who are appalled at the idea that my three-person-with-pet family lives "comfortably" (kid has a separate bedroom, all of us have space for our hobbies, and there's storage) in a 900sqft house. We're moving to a 770sqft condo and the bulk of that "missing" space is reclaimed by going from a two-level house to a flat because the number of rooms is remaining the same.
    - lawpoop 10y ago
      In the most abstract sense, I think you have a point, but the reality is that in America, there aren't condos a family of 4 can "comfortably" live in-- it's not considered acceptable that two kids might share a room, or have a dine-in kitchen. Americans just aren't willing to put up with as little space as Europeans are. There just isn't much overlap in square footage between houses and condos overall-- so I think it's still valid to compare houses to condos. Condos are cheaper because they are smaller. They don't make small houses anymore; that market need is met by condos.
wwweston 10y ago
> Condo? Won't do. Rent and invest in something more diversified? Crazy talk. I see a lot of merit in the rent + diverse investment approach (and that's what I've chosen so far), but this is needlessly dismissive. Condos won't do for some households. They might be a better option if there were a larger variety of floorplans/sizes beyond 1-2 bedroom. And if HOAs were sane, which most aren't. Though I do appreciate them as a glimpse of what the world would quite likely be more like if a lot of libertarian ideas were adopted. Renting can be nice, but it leaves you quite vulnerable to changes in demand for housing and consequent price changes. Better not ever be on a fixed income. And there are other ways you can end up being forced out of where you're at than being priced out. > Just because we had that luxury for the last 75 years doesn't mean we always will. But it's certainly worth asking why an economy that recently was able to provide one standard of living to more of its participants seems to have trouble doing so now. And housing is not just any luxury, not just any commodity. It's the matrix of communities. It's the geographic and social context of people's lives. Bedrock stuff.
- techsupporter 10y ago
  > But it's certainly worth asking why an economy that recently was able to provide one standard of living to more of its participants seems to have trouble doing so now. You and iamleppert ask the same (good) question but I think that it has a somewhat simple answer: This economy still does provide housing to everyone...just not in the locations where several of those people want to be. My hometown of nowheresville, SomeOilState on the former fringes of BigCity is a classic example. Just a handful of years ago, I bought my first house for under $150,000 there. It came with a 1/4 acre lot, a pool, three bedrooms and about 1,800sqft of (air conditioned!) living space. Not to mention the two-car garage. In the intervening time since I left that property, its value has shot to more than $200,000 (and it doesn't have a pool any more). But it now has the attractive quality of being a <30 minute drive to many new corporate headquarters and inside a suburb with a growing tax base so that suburb can afford large-city-style amenities. A friend of mine living just north of downtown BigCity lives in a townhouse right next to a light rail station. He bought his property six years ago and it has gone up in value 2.5 times; he regularly gets letters from real estate agents asking if he wants to sell to their clients for cash. On the other hand, my 14-acre plot of land out in really-middle-of-nowhere, SomeOilState has gone down in value. There used to be three houses along the same country road as it. Now there is just one because the other two burned and were demolished and not replaced. I'd give away the plot if someone wanted it but no one wants to live there because there are very few jobs. As a society, we've started deciding that we want to live closer to jobs and schools and shopping and amenities...not farther from them. And areas that had fewer jobs now, usually, have more of them because those jobs are moving around from other places. On top of it all, those growing areas are experiencing pushback from residents--new and old alike--who object to new construction and more housing units. Therefore, the prices climb because, as you correctly pointed out, housing is not fungible.
iamleppert 10y ago
Of course not everyone needs a house. The point is at least it used to be an option for a lot more people. We're talking about the change in affordability here, not asking if a house makes sense to buy or not. Just because you don't want a house or it doesn't make sense for you doesn't mean thats the case for everyone.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I've always been somewhat neutral on whether or not I own a house. I'd rather not live in a condo, however. I'm from Indiana (the only state I've lived in) and condos there were usually more expensive than a house or apartment with added maintenance fees. Some of them had minimum age limits or forbade children living there. You might own the inside, but you had rules like an apartment. I don't know if they differ in other areas. The entire problem with the rent solution is this: When housing prices go up, so does rent. I understand SF has some rent controls, but those aren't going to help a new renter. Sometimes renting is actually more expensive than the monthly payments of buying a house. I only need a minimum of space personally, but I do want a safe and clean place to live. That is difficult to find in cheap (and some mid-priced) rentals. And as far as space is concerned: This has just as much to do with regulation as it does with people's comfort levels. I don't know about SF regulations, but I know some places limit how many people can live in an apartment, especially if they aren't related. Lots of places limit what sorts of buildings can be built in an area and place minimum space requirements on the units. And other such things. The smallest of the places I know of - a studio or a rented room with shared bathroom and kitchens - are difficult for a couple and certainly not appropriate for a family. Some places child services will take kids away if they share a bedroom with parents, though this might not be the case everywhere. Still, lots of people do live in small housing if it is available.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  "or forbade children living there" I'm stunned that this would be legal for all but a small class of dwelling (retirement homes, perhaps). If you get pregnant you're kicked out? How does that even work logistically?
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    I'm not sure exactly. I've not lived in one. Those sorts of places do indeed tend to be mostly folks older than child-bearing age. This is a bad comparison, since I don't view children as animals, but here it goes anyway: I'm going to guess it is dealt with much like some of the housing associations deal with certain pets - some don't allow you to keep chickens, for example. Eventually, most of these places can force people out of their homes for such things.
ergo14 10y ago
Clearly you don't have children yet. I like my little one to have a safe green place to play and invite friends to. Or just enjoy some clean air :-) I'm not an American nor do I live there. There is a reason so many people like living in the suburbs.
surfmike 10y ago
As an American who recently moved back from Oslo, the biggest difference I notice is that family-friendly condos with greenspace are much harder to find in America, at least on the SF Peninsula. It's the norm in Oslo to live in an apartment or rowhouse, but usually with very generous green courtyard space that let kids roam around and play. In the SF peninsula, most apartment buildings either take up the whole lot or fill most of their undeveloped space with parking lots.
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  It's the same here in Vilnius. The city has quite a small population, but is quite large for its size. Around virtually all apartment buildings (outside the city center) there is a lot of green space - at least it's one thing the Soviets got right!
- superuser2 10y ago
  >very generous green courtyard space that let kids roam around and play I don't know why this isn't more common. Designs that maximize surface area for windows lend themselves to courtyards naturally. I particularly love the buildings with apartments on 3 sides and a fence/gate facing the street - you get both a nice community area, and an extra security layer (buzzers at both the front gate and the particular stairwell).
orestes910 10y ago
Condos can be dangerous. One second you're enjoying your nice condo, the next you're paying your $15k share of the repair cost of the buildings elevator. The invest in something more diversified talk sounds like the ramblings of someone with a lot of money. The reality is that for most people their mortgage payment will be their largest monthly expense. Why wouldn't they want't that massive monthly payment working for them rather than just throwing it away. The alternative you suggest implies that they should pay that monthly payment (which is probably higher when renting) and then dump the same amount into diversified investments? Seriously?
- lawpoop 10y ago
  > Condos can be dangerous. One second you're enjoying your nice condo, the next you're paying your $15k share of the repair cost of the buildings elevator. Isn't the same true of houses? Don't you have to pay for roofs, water heaters, air conditioners, etc?
  - pfarnsworth 10y ago
    You can choose to push off your repairs, like I do with the roof, or you can try to fix them yourself, like my house's previous owner. And if you do choose to do something, you can choose the quality and the timeframe. With an HOA you are forced to spend the money and have little say as to how you want to spend it and in what timeframe.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
We don't need space. We need to not be constantly pushed further and further away from work by never-ending rent rises.
PopsiclePete 10y ago
It's not like Condos in San Fran are affordable either, though. Last time I looked. I don't have 20% to put down on $750k. And why is it $750k? Because we can't have new construction, no, that would diminish the property values of the "established gentry", excuse me, the people who were lucky enough to buy something in 1997. So let's screw over an entire generation of Americans, maybe even 2 generations, so that the 50-somethings can keep their cushy retirement funds, i.e., their existing properties. America. The Greatest Country on Earth, unless you have less than $2-3 million in total assets, in which case you can fuck right off and go live somewhere on a farm in Nebraska.
- zaccus 10y ago
  There are plenty of people who are happy to live in Nebraska. Warren Buffet is happy in Nebraska. You think you're too good for it or something? Yeah, either be worth a couple million, or buy property in a smaller city or town. If said city or town is lame, make it better. We live in one of the biggest countries in the world. You don't have to live in SF or Manhattan, nor are you entitled to.
lawpoop 10y ago
> Rent and invest in something more diversified? Crazy talk. This seems like pie-in-the-sky talk from high-income earners. It's not like people are just freely choosing to invest in a house over other investments. Instead, since they have to pay for housing no matter what, they are trying to mitigate loss, if not make a return, on the sunk cost of dwelling. If they are renting, they don't have "extra" money that they can arbitrarily put towards whatever they choose. I don't know the population breakdown in San Francisco, but I would bet that the majority are not developers. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and have very little savings. Their house is the single largest store of wealth for people in America. If they do have savings, it's likely to be in an IRA or a 401k, so they aren't free to apply that to whatever area of investment they like, either.
- superuser2 10y ago
  People who become homeowners aren't buying condos analogous to their current apartments, they're buying (comparatively) enormous houses with front and back yards and 2-car garages. This is not just trying to recover sunk costs, this is a substantial upgrade in consumption. Also, remember that interest is front-loaded in the amortization schedule, and that disappears into the void same as rent. You can pay your mortgage for a long time without building substantial equity.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
eikenberry 10y ago
One difference is that a house didn't normally cost more than renting. It required the down payment, but after that could very easily be cheaper than renting and it was its own investment. So you were able to invest in other things while also investing in real-estate. This of course assumes the price of housing is reasonable, but it was for many years and still is in many places. Another big reason to prefer a house is that Apartments are very often not family friendly and have very little sound proofing (to protect others from your crying baby and to keep others from waking your finally sleeping baby).

by cheriot 10y ago

throwaway2048 10y ago

as if condos are any cheaper, and who wants to rent their whole life?

hiram112 10y ago
Not sure if you're from the US, but condos are usually apartment like dwellings that people do own outright. They are cheaper than houses of a similar size, but, at least where I live, the HOA fees negate about 50% of the difference in price.

techsupporter 10y ago

I'm selling my single-family house (in a large urban area) and moving to a small condo building (not an apartment conversion) for just this same reason. My house, small as it is, takes up such a minuscule amount of the actual dirt that I own. Just not having to maintain the yard--tiny amount that I do just to keep the weeds trimmed down--is motivation enough. And here's the thing: I still have an outdoor area, deeded to me as part of my condo unit, for doing things like having a small garden or woodworking (if I was interested in either of those, but they're the most common "but I couldn't possibly" rebuttals I've heard). I get a deeded parking space, can paint the walls whatever color I want, and even have approval from the (tiny) condo board to run all of the network wiring inside the walls I can stand. Obviously I'm unmarried sans kids and pets, yeah? Nope, I have a spouse, a kid, and a dog. And you know what? We're all going to fit perfectly. The new place even adjoins a public park, is across the street from a 24-hour grocery, has frequent all-day (and 24-hour) transit, and is within walking distance of two of the best schools in the city. And all for about $200k less than a free-standing house in the same area. I'm thrilled to not need as much space. And yes, parents, it is entirely possible do to so comfortably, even with your kid having his or her own bedroom.

creshal 10y ago
> And all for about $200k less than a free-standing house in the same area. A total price far over $200k is considered cheap?
- techsupporter 10y ago
  If I want to be a 35-minute bus ride from a job that pays a six-figure income (actually quite a few jobs, but I only have one of them) yet still live in an exceptionally walkable area inside a region of the country with moderate temperatures and a vast array of indoor and outdoor activities both private and social? Yes, I think that a total price exceeding $200,000 is acceptable. I will be paying just under $350,000 for this new residence. When I lived in a metro area with a much lower median residence price, my commute to work by single-occupant vehicle was 40 minutes (to get that low of a house price) and statements like "be sure to not waste water, we don't have much of it" were commonplace on the news. FWIW, I'm not in San Francisco.

dagw 10y ago

Are condos really that much cheaper than houses in the US?

techsupporter 10y ago
If Zillow is to be believed, yes. Let's take two cities: - Seattle[0]: Median sale price for a property classified as a condominium, $413k; median sale price for a single-family house, $672k. - San Francisco[1]: Condo, $658k; single-family, $1.14m 0 - http://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/home-values/ 1 - http://www.zillow.com/San-Francisco-CA/home-values/ http://www.zillow.com/San-Francisco-CA/home-values/
- dagw 10y ago
  Are you taking into account that most condos are much smaller than most houses? You really should be comparing the median price of a condo where a family of 4 can comfortably live to the median price of a house where a family of 4 can comfortably live. I suspect that difference will, if not disappear, at least be much smaller.
  - techsupporter 10y ago
    I did not, and I admit that I should have (and only thought of it after clicking "reply"). On the other hand, I also thing we--as American society--need to have a discussion about what constitutes "comfortably." I have coworkers who are appalled at the idea that my three-person-with-pet family lives "comfortably" (kid has a separate bedroom, all of us have space for our hobbies, and there's storage) in a 900sqft house. We're moving to a 770sqft condo and the bulk of that "missing" space is reclaimed by going from a two-level house to a flat because the number of rooms is remaining the same.
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    In the most abstract sense, I think you have a point, but the reality is that in America, there aren't condos a family of 4 can "comfortably" live in-- it's not considered acceptable that two kids might share a room, or have a dine-in kitchen. Americans just aren't willing to put up with as little space as Europeans are. There just isn't much overlap in square footage between houses and condos overall-- so I think it's still valid to compare houses to condos. Condos are cheaper because they are smaller. They don't make small houses anymore; that market need is met by condos.

wwweston 10y ago

> Condo? Won't do. Rent and invest in something more diversified? Crazy talk. I see a lot of merit in the rent + diverse investment approach (and that's what I've chosen so far), but this is needlessly dismissive. Condos won't do for some households. They might be a better option if there were a larger variety of floorplans/sizes beyond 1-2 bedroom. And if HOAs were sane, which most aren't. Though I do appreciate them as a glimpse of what the world would quite likely be more like if a lot of libertarian ideas were adopted. Renting can be nice, but it leaves you quite vulnerable to changes in demand for housing and consequent price changes. Better not ever be on a fixed income. And there are other ways you can end up being forced out of where you're at than being priced out. > Just because we had that luxury for the last 75 years doesn't mean we always will. But it's certainly worth asking why an economy that recently was able to provide one standard of living to more of its participants seems to have trouble doing so now. And housing is not just any luxury, not just any commodity. It's the matrix of communities. It's the geographic and social context of people's lives. Bedrock stuff.

techsupporter 10y ago
> But it's certainly worth asking why an economy that recently was able to provide one standard of living to more of its participants seems to have trouble doing so now. You and iamleppert ask the same (good) question but I think that it has a somewhat simple answer: This economy still does provide housing to everyone...just not in the locations where several of those people want to be. My hometown of nowheresville, SomeOilState on the former fringes of BigCity is a classic example. Just a handful of years ago, I bought my first house for under $150,000 there. It came with a 1/4 acre lot, a pool, three bedrooms and about 1,800sqft of (air conditioned!) living space. Not to mention the two-car garage. In the intervening time since I left that property, its value has shot to more than $200,000 (and it doesn't have a pool any more). But it now has the attractive quality of being a <30 minute drive to many new corporate headquarters and inside a suburb with a growing tax base so that suburb can afford large-city-style amenities. A friend of mine living just north of downtown BigCity lives in a townhouse right next to a light rail station. He bought his property six years ago and it has gone up in value 2.5 times; he regularly gets letters from real estate agents asking if he wants to sell to their clients for cash. On the other hand, my 14-acre plot of land out in really-middle-of-nowhere, SomeOilState has gone down in value. There used to be three houses along the same country road as it. Now there is just one because the other two burned and were demolished and not replaced. I'd give away the plot if someone wanted it but no one wants to live there because there are very few jobs. As a society, we've started deciding that we want to live closer to jobs and schools and shopping and amenities...not farther from them. And areas that had fewer jobs now, usually, have more of them because those jobs are moving around from other places. On top of it all, those growing areas are experiencing pushback from residents--new and old alike--who object to new construction and more housing units. Therefore, the prices climb because, as you correctly pointed out, housing is not fungible.

iamleppert 10y ago

Of course not everyone needs a house. The point is at least it used to be an option for a lot more people. We're talking about the change in affordability here, not asking if a house makes sense to buy or not. Just because you don't want a house or it doesn't make sense for you doesn't mean thats the case for everyone.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

I've always been somewhat neutral on whether or not I own a house. I'd rather not live in a condo, however. I'm from Indiana (the only state I've lived in) and condos there were usually more expensive than a house or apartment with added maintenance fees. Some of them had minimum age limits or forbade children living there. You might own the inside, but you had rules like an apartment. I don't know if they differ in other areas. The entire problem with the rent solution is this: When housing prices go up, so does rent. I understand SF has some rent controls, but those aren't going to help a new renter. Sometimes renting is actually more expensive than the monthly payments of buying a house. I only need a minimum of space personally, but I do want a safe and clean place to live. That is difficult to find in cheap (and some mid-priced) rentals. And as far as space is concerned: This has just as much to do with regulation as it does with people's comfort levels. I don't know about SF regulations, but I know some places limit how many people can live in an apartment, especially if they aren't related. Lots of places limit what sorts of buildings can be built in an area and place minimum space requirements on the units. And other such things. The smallest of the places I know of - a studio or a rented room with shared bathroom and kitchens - are difficult for a couple and certainly not appropriate for a family. Some places child services will take kids away if they share a bedroom with parents, though this might not be the case everywhere. Still, lots of people do live in small housing if it is available.

CalRobert 10y ago
"or forbade children living there" I'm stunned that this would be legal for all but a small class of dwelling (retirement homes, perhaps). If you get pregnant you're kicked out? How does that even work logistically?
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  I'm not sure exactly. I've not lived in one. Those sorts of places do indeed tend to be mostly folks older than child-bearing age. This is a bad comparison, since I don't view children as animals, but here it goes anyway: I'm going to guess it is dealt with much like some of the housing associations deal with certain pets - some don't allow you to keep chickens, for example. Eventually, most of these places can force people out of their homes for such things.

ergo14 10y ago

Clearly you don't have children yet. I like my little one to have a safe green place to play and invite friends to. Or just enjoy some clean air :-) I'm not an American nor do I live there. There is a reason so many people like living in the suburbs.

surfmike 10y ago

As an American who recently moved back from Oslo, the biggest difference I notice is that family-friendly condos with greenspace are much harder to find in America, at least on the SF Peninsula. It's the norm in Oslo to live in an apartment or rowhouse, but usually with very generous green courtyard space that let kids roam around and play. In the SF peninsula, most apartment buildings either take up the whole lot or fill most of their undeveloped space with parking lots.

lucaspiller 10y ago
It's the same here in Vilnius. The city has quite a small population, but is quite large for its size. Around virtually all apartment buildings (outside the city center) there is a lot of green space - at least it's one thing the Soviets got right!
superuser2 10y ago
>very generous green courtyard space that let kids roam around and play I don't know why this isn't more common. Designs that maximize surface area for windows lend themselves to courtyards naturally. I particularly love the buildings with apartments on 3 sides and a fence/gate facing the street - you get both a nice community area, and an extra security layer (buzzers at both the front gate and the particular stairwell).

orestes910 10y ago

Condos can be dangerous. One second you're enjoying your nice condo, the next you're paying your $15k share of the repair cost of the buildings elevator. The invest in something more diversified talk sounds like the ramblings of someone with a lot of money. The reality is that for most people their mortgage payment will be their largest monthly expense. Why wouldn't they want't that massive monthly payment working for them rather than just throwing it away. The alternative you suggest implies that they should pay that monthly payment (which is probably higher when renting) and then dump the same amount into diversified investments? Seriously?

lawpoop 10y ago
> Condos can be dangerous. One second you're enjoying your nice condo, the next you're paying your $15k share of the repair cost of the buildings elevator. Isn't the same true of houses? Don't you have to pay for roofs, water heaters, air conditioners, etc?
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  You can choose to push off your repairs, like I do with the roof, or you can try to fix them yourself, like my house's previous owner. And if you do choose to do something, you can choose the quality and the timeframe. With an HOA you are forced to spend the money and have little say as to how you want to spend it and in what timeframe.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

We don't need space. We need to not be constantly pushed further and further away from work by never-ending rent rises.

PopsiclePete 10y ago

It's not like Condos in San Fran are affordable either, though. Last time I looked. I don't have 20% to put down on $750k. And why is it $750k? Because we can't have new construction, no, that would diminish the property values of the "established gentry", excuse me, the people who were lucky enough to buy something in 1997. So let's screw over an entire generation of Americans, maybe even 2 generations, so that the 50-somethings can keep their cushy retirement funds, i.e., their existing properties. America. The Greatest Country on Earth, unless you have less than $2-3 million in total assets, in which case you can fuck right off and go live somewhere on a farm in Nebraska.

zaccus 10y ago
There are plenty of people who are happy to live in Nebraska. Warren Buffet is happy in Nebraska. You think you're too good for it or something? Yeah, either be worth a couple million, or buy property in a smaller city or town. If said city or town is lame, make it better. We live in one of the biggest countries in the world. You don't have to live in SF or Manhattan, nor are you entitled to.

lawpoop 10y ago

> Rent and invest in something more diversified? Crazy talk. This seems like pie-in-the-sky talk from high-income earners. It's not like people are just freely choosing to invest in a house over other investments. Instead, since they have to pay for housing no matter what, they are trying to mitigate loss, if not make a return, on the sunk cost of dwelling. If they are renting, they don't have "extra" money that they can arbitrarily put towards whatever they choose. I don't know the population breakdown in San Francisco, but I would bet that the majority are not developers. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and have very little savings. Their house is the single largest store of wealth for people in America. If they do have savings, it's likely to be in an IRA or a 401k, so they aren't free to apply that to whatever area of investment they like, either.

superuser2 10y ago
People who become homeowners aren't buying condos analogous to their current apartments, they're buying (comparatively) enormous houses with front and back yards and 2-car garages. This is not just trying to recover sunk costs, this is a substantial upgrade in consumption. Also, remember that interest is front-loaded in the amortization schedule, and that disappears into the void same as rent. You can pay your mortgage for a long time without building substantial equity.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

eikenberry 10y ago

One difference is that a house didn't normally cost more than renting. It required the down payment, but after that could very easily be cheaper than renting and it was its own investment. So you were able to invest in other things while also investing in real-estate. This of course assumes the price of housing is reasonable, but it was for many years and still is in many places. Another big reason to prefer a house is that Apartments are very often not family friendly and have very little sound proofing (to protect others from your crying baby and to keep others from waking your finally sleeping baby).