5 ms·

Homeownership is a luxury, not a right. Its still within reach in many locales. If the locals value education as a product they will bid it up. I dont see how

Homeownership is a luxury, not a right. Its still within reach in many locales. If the locals value education as a product they will bid it up. I dont see how this isnt just the market telling educators they should go elsewhere?

jra6 10y ago
I'll be the first to advocate for higher salaries for educators, nurses, firefighters, police officers and essential public employees. I think they provide an absolutely fundamental service to our communities. That said, Stanford has a similar housing support program for its professors because when you're moving from Iowa to Palo Alto, it doesn't matter how much your pay has increased. You're going to need equity support to buy a home.
- sjg007 10y ago
  Stanford owns the land the houses are on. They have deed restrictions that mean you have to sell the house to another eligible Stanford employee when you leave and you can only price it within a specific range... in addition to offering down payment assistance.
dcosson 10y ago
> Homeownership is a luxury, not a right. Why do we spend $100+ billion per year of tax payer dollars subsidizing luxury purchases? (via the federal mortgage interest deduction)
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  That's chump change compared to the subsidies through FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. The US government plays a direct role in subsidizing homeownership because it creates community cohesion.
  - maerF0x0 10y ago
    someone cannot have community cohesion as a long term renter? Anecdata to illustrate the point. A friend of mine and his family rented their home for something like 20 yrs. It often makes sense to have people not buy. The capitalization for a house can be long in the past, meaning that the cost vs rent is very favorable to the landlord. Similarly, the only reason to sell an asset is when you think you can make more money on the equity elsewhere. If its true that the landlord can take their equity elsewhere for a better return, maybe the renter (soon to be owner) should be investing elsewhere? Also, afaik young people are increasingly mobile, meaning they're going to be giving a large portion of their equity (either downpayment or profits) to real estate agents' commissions, banks closing costs, legal fees, etc etc. if housing is not affordable, its probably because of artificially (or temporarily) restricted supply.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      The data doesn't agree with your anecdotes. Millennials will move out to the suburbs just like their parents did to have a yard for their kids. http://www.curbed.com/2016/6/21/11956516/millennial-first-time-home-trends-suburbs http://www.curbed.com/2016/6/21/11956516/millennial-first-ti...
- orangecat 10y ago
  We shouldn't, but any politician who even hints at ending it would be crucified. See http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-p...
- gm-conspiracy 10y ago
  Lobbyists? We've spent over $100+ billion on corn subsidies since 1995, too. Distortions.

jra6 10y ago

I'll be the first to advocate for higher salaries for educators, nurses, firefighters, police officers and essential public employees. I think they provide an absolutely fundamental service to our communities. That said, Stanford has a similar housing support program for its professors because when you're moving from Iowa to Palo Alto, it doesn't matter how much your pay has increased. You're going to need equity support to buy a home.

sjg007 10y ago
Stanford owns the land the houses are on. They have deed restrictions that mean you have to sell the house to another eligible Stanford employee when you leave and you can only price it within a specific range... in addition to offering down payment assistance.

dcosson 10y ago

> Homeownership is a luxury, not a right. Why do we spend $100+ billion per year of tax payer dollars subsidizing luxury purchases? (via the federal mortgage interest deduction)

toomuchtodo 10y ago
That's chump change compared to the subsidies through FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. The US government plays a direct role in subsidizing homeownership because it creates community cohesion.
- maerF0x0 10y ago
  someone cannot have community cohesion as a long term renter? Anecdata to illustrate the point. A friend of mine and his family rented their home for something like 20 yrs. It often makes sense to have people not buy. The capitalization for a house can be long in the past, meaning that the cost vs rent is very favorable to the landlord. Similarly, the only reason to sell an asset is when you think you can make more money on the equity elsewhere. If its true that the landlord can take their equity elsewhere for a better return, maybe the renter (soon to be owner) should be investing elsewhere? Also, afaik young people are increasingly mobile, meaning they're going to be giving a large portion of their equity (either downpayment or profits) to real estate agents' commissions, banks closing costs, legal fees, etc etc. if housing is not affordable, its probably because of artificially (or temporarily) restricted supply.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    The data doesn't agree with your anecdotes. Millennials will move out to the suburbs just like their parents did to have a yard for their kids. http://www.curbed.com/2016/6/21/11956516/millennial-first-time-home-trends-suburbs http://www.curbed.com/2016/6/21/11956516/millennial-first-ti...
orangecat 10y ago
We shouldn't, but any politician who even hints at ending it would be crucified. See http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-p...
gm-conspiracy 10y ago
Lobbyists? We've spent over $100+ billion on corn subsidies since 1995, too. Distortions.