3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.