6 ms·

$100,000 still a lot of money. You can buy a beer in Vietnam for 20 cents. The problem in the Bay Area, where I live, is we artificially limit the amount of hou

$100,000 still a lot of money. You can buy a beer in Vietnam for 20 cents. The problem in the Bay Area, where I live, is we artificially limit the amount of housing. So prices move to infinity.

nxpnsv 7y ago
Just imagine the house you could build from 500000 Vietnamese beers...
- hadlock 7y ago
  Heineken actually, briefly, ran an experiment where they made the bottles more rectangular, so that they could be filled with earth and then cemented together as glass bricks: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-heineken-bottles-were-square-62138490/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-heineken-bo... Glass is a pretty good insulator and generally weather-proof, UV-resistant etc, and cheap to produce.
  - davidw 7y ago
    I've visited this in person: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tom-kellys-bottle-house https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tom-kellys-bottle-house It's kind of neat if you're ever in the area.
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    > In Sima Valley, California That's Simi.
aledalgrande 7y ago
I would say that is a problem in any place where it is desirable to live these days. Locations I've experienced first hand: London, Sydney, Bay area, Los Angeles, Vancouver... and I'm sure there are many more where you can't buy on that salary.
- em3rgent0rdr 7y ago
  Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction. Meanwhile in desirable places which allow more construction, like Tokyo, housing prices have stabilized [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-affordable-housing-strategy-build-build-build/#76e93ff548d5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-af...
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction. Toronto has more construction (120) cranes than anyone else in North America (Seattle & LA second at 50), and prices are still crazy even with a building boom. * https://www.on-sitemag.com/heavy-equipment/toronto-remains-unrivalled-in-north-american-construction-crane-count/1003964481/ https://www.on-sitemag.com/heavy-equipment/toronto-remains-u... * https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/economic/2019/08/toronto-tops-crane-count-list https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/economic/2019/0... And that 120 is just in the city proper, the suburbs have more towers as well: * https://www.livabl.com/2019/07/246-cranes-toronto-suburban-condos.html https://www.livabl.com/2019/07/246-cranes-toronto-suburban-c...
    - mixmastamyk 7y ago
      Cranes suggest there is demand, not that it has yet been met.
      - throw0101a 7y ago
        One can not "limit construction" (per GP) and yet still have high prices.
      - brutus1213 7y ago
        Three points. 1) The condos being built in Toronto are "luxury" apartments .. apart from space (perhaps to justify the lack thereof), many trimmings are opulent (granite counters seem standard now). 2) Toronto does restrict houses (not condos) because of the greenbelt put in place about a decade ago. 3) The transit system in Ontario and the highways are quite horrible for people living far away (e.g. above the green built).
Joelexander 7y ago
Ive thought a lot about this. For many residents, building more housing and letting more people in would irreparably change the “character” of the neighborhood. This can mean more crime, traffic, and pollution. Past a certain density automotive transportation becomes unfeasable and people will be forced to rely on public or other alternative forms of transportation like walking or riding a bike. Reducing housing costs would mean changing the way we build cities,shifting to a European or Asian model. Whereas most Californians are very attached to their way of living.
- abfan1127 7y ago
  that attachment has a cost.
- josephg 7y ago
  I'm not convinced. Rising housing prices are already dramatically changing SF. If you want to let residents maintain their way of living, I don't see how thats achieved by pricing poorer residents out of the city entirely. I'm sure most residents would prefer to live in apartments in SF than move to another city entirely. As for transport, cars are already pretty unfeasable in SF with the population as is. Whats so bad about investing more in public transit and biking? As for crime and traffic, most larger cities in Europe are much cleaner and safer than SF. More residents means city hall has more money to play with, which it can re-invest into schools, parks, the police, public transit and other things. Cheaper accomodation makes it easier to re-house homeless people and it makes homeless shelters more affordable for the city.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >As for transport, cars are already pretty unfeasable in SF with the population as is. Whats so bad about investing more in public transit and biking? Simple: Americans hate public transit and biking, and want to stick with cars no matter how infeasible it is. They'd rather commute two hours, each way, in gridlocked traffic than get on a train. And they don't mind becoming fat because of this lifestyle. >As for crime and traffic, most larger cities in Europe are much cleaner and safer than SF. That's true, but I will point out that because of Europe's use of diesel, most European cities reek of diesel fumes, and this is bad for public health there.
refurb 7y ago
Interestingly housing is very expensive in the cities in Vietnam, on a relative basis. A friend’s mother sold a 1000 sq ft home in Saigon for $250,000. New apartments are often $100k+. Considering the average wage is $6,000 in Saigon, the housing is outrageous.
- rchaud 7y ago
  Similarly, a good chunk of urban housing in Canada, Australia and NZ are priced completely out of line with what median salaries in those areas could afford. These are likely houses marketed towards "investors", aka rich people who don't need a mortgage or have a network of private lenders who specialize in providing credit for the house-flipping industry.
  - seem_2211 7y ago
    I live in the Bay Area now, but I grew up in Hamilton, New Zealand. I'm back home with greencard stuff at the moment. On my parents relatively modest street houses are now selling for $850k. These were houses that cost $400-500k ten years ago. People simply do not make the incomes necessary to make these prices sustainable. I have one friend, of everyone I grew up with and went to University who's making north of $100k as someone in their mid-late twenties. Everyone else is making substantially less. Whereas in the Bay Area half of my friends are making $100k + (and often substantially more than that).
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      This is scarcity. It's caused by growing demand in population, and dwindling supply with less people building homes. The equitable solution is probably to split up land more, and let people convert houses to condos and the like.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    That's going to change quite drastically quite soon. The talk around the industry and in society generally is that house prices in Aus at least are going to dip.
davidjnelson 7y ago
It’s a lot compared to 10k/year, but not when trying to buy a decent pad in the Bay Area. Income is extremely relative. Age, health, dependents, quality of life, location, expectations, etc etc. I had a fantastic quality of life on 10k/year many moons ago, for instance. But everything is always changing. I learned recently that the atoms that make up our bodies change in large quantities from moment to moment :-o The “happiest man on earth” according to fmri studies led by the Dalai Lama at the Mind And Life Institute lives on $50/mo and donated all his money from book sales to helping the poor. Source: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SEUSXW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SEUSXW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The problem in the Bay Area, where I live, is we artificially limit the amount of housing. So prices move to infinity. The article doesn't talk about people not being able to afford housing, it talks about them renting in desirable areas rather than buying elsewhere. If anything, it's about a rent/buy price spread resulting from housing inventory being taken up by investors who prefer to own and rent out rather than sell, driving up purchase prices to a greater multiple of rent prices than would otherwise be the case. Which, if viewed as problematic, is not a problem that building more housing solves. You'd have to also make it less attractive to be a landlord.
- freyr 7y ago
  > You'd have to also make it less attractive to be a landlord. More apartments, condos, and houses lead to more rental units, which lowers rents, which makes it less attractive to be a landlord.

$100,000 still a lot of money. You can buy a beer in Vietnam for 20 cents. The problem in the Bay Area, where I live, is we artificially limit the amount of housing. So prices move to infinity.

nxpnsv 7y ago

Just imagine the house you could build from 500000 Vietnamese beers...

hadlock 7y ago
Heineken actually, briefly, ran an experiment where they made the bottles more rectangular, so that they could be filled with earth and then cemented together as glass bricks: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-heineken-bottles-were-square-62138490/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-heineken-bo... Glass is a pretty good insulator and generally weather-proof, UV-resistant etc, and cheap to produce.
- davidw 7y ago
  I've visited this in person: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tom-kellys-bottle-house https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tom-kellys-bottle-house It's kind of neat if you're ever in the area.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  > In Sima Valley, California That's Simi.

aledalgrande 7y ago

I would say that is a problem in any place where it is desirable to live these days. Locations I've experienced first hand: London, Sydney, Bay area, Los Angeles, Vancouver... and I'm sure there are many more where you can't buy on that salary.

em3rgent0rdr 7y ago
Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction. Meanwhile in desirable places which allow more construction, like Tokyo, housing prices have stabilized [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-affordable-housing-strategy-build-build-build/#76e93ff548d5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-af...
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction. Toronto has more construction (120) cranes than anyone else in North America (Seattle & LA second at 50), and prices are still crazy even with a building boom. * https://www.on-sitemag.com/heavy-equipment/toronto-remains-unrivalled-in-north-american-construction-crane-count/1003964481/ https://www.on-sitemag.com/heavy-equipment/toronto-remains-u... * https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/economic/2019/08/toronto-tops-crane-count-list https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/economic/2019/0... And that 120 is just in the city proper, the suburbs have more towers as well: * https://www.livabl.com/2019/07/246-cranes-toronto-suburban-condos.html https://www.livabl.com/2019/07/246-cranes-toronto-suburban-c...
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    Cranes suggest there is demand, not that it has yet been met.
    - throw0101a 7y ago
      One can not "limit construction" (per GP) and yet still have high prices.
    - brutus1213 7y ago
      Three points. 1) The condos being built in Toronto are "luxury" apartments .. apart from space (perhaps to justify the lack thereof), many trimmings are opulent (granite counters seem standard now). 2) Toronto does restrict houses (not condos) because of the greenbelt put in place about a decade ago. 3) The transit system in Ontario and the highways are quite horrible for people living far away (e.g. above the green built).

Joelexander 7y ago

Ive thought a lot about this. For many residents, building more housing and letting more people in would irreparably change the “character” of the neighborhood. This can mean more crime, traffic, and pollution. Past a certain density automotive transportation becomes unfeasable and people will be forced to rely on public or other alternative forms of transportation like walking or riding a bike. Reducing housing costs would mean changing the way we build cities,shifting to a European or Asian model. Whereas most Californians are very attached to their way of living.

abfan1127 7y ago
that attachment has a cost.
josephg 7y ago
I'm not convinced. Rising housing prices are already dramatically changing SF. If you want to let residents maintain their way of living, I don't see how thats achieved by pricing poorer residents out of the city entirely. I'm sure most residents would prefer to live in apartments in SF than move to another city entirely. As for transport, cars are already pretty unfeasable in SF with the population as is. Whats so bad about investing more in public transit and biking? As for crime and traffic, most larger cities in Europe are much cleaner and safer than SF. More residents means city hall has more money to play with, which it can re-invest into schools, parks, the police, public transit and other things. Cheaper accomodation makes it easier to re-house homeless people and it makes homeless shelters more affordable for the city.
- magduf 7y ago
  >As for transport, cars are already pretty unfeasable in SF with the population as is. Whats so bad about investing more in public transit and biking? Simple: Americans hate public transit and biking, and want to stick with cars no matter how infeasible it is. They'd rather commute two hours, each way, in gridlocked traffic than get on a train. And they don't mind becoming fat because of this lifestyle. >As for crime and traffic, most larger cities in Europe are much cleaner and safer than SF. That's true, but I will point out that because of Europe's use of diesel, most European cities reek of diesel fumes, and this is bad for public health there.

refurb 7y ago

Interestingly housing is very expensive in the cities in Vietnam, on a relative basis. A friend’s mother sold a 1000 sq ft home in Saigon for $250,000. New apartments are often $100k+. Considering the average wage is $6,000 in Saigon, the housing is outrageous.

rchaud 7y ago
Similarly, a good chunk of urban housing in Canada, Australia and NZ are priced completely out of line with what median salaries in those areas could afford. These are likely houses marketed towards "investors", aka rich people who don't need a mortgage or have a network of private lenders who specialize in providing credit for the house-flipping industry.
- seem_2211 7y ago
  I live in the Bay Area now, but I grew up in Hamilton, New Zealand. I'm back home with greencard stuff at the moment. On my parents relatively modest street houses are now selling for $850k. These were houses that cost $400-500k ten years ago. People simply do not make the incomes necessary to make these prices sustainable. I have one friend, of everyone I grew up with and went to University who's making north of $100k as someone in their mid-late twenties. Everyone else is making substantially less. Whereas in the Bay Area half of my friends are making $100k + (and often substantially more than that).
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    This is scarcity. It's caused by growing demand in population, and dwindling supply with less people building homes. The equitable solution is probably to split up land more, and let people convert houses to condos and the like.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  That's going to change quite drastically quite soon. The talk around the industry and in society generally is that house prices in Aus at least are going to dip.

davidjnelson 7y ago

It’s a lot compared to 10k/year, but not when trying to buy a decent pad in the Bay Area. Income is extremely relative. Age, health, dependents, quality of life, location, expectations, etc etc. I had a fantastic quality of life on 10k/year many moons ago, for instance. But everything is always changing. I learned recently that the atoms that make up our bodies change in large quantities from moment to moment :-o The “happiest man on earth” according to fmri studies led by the Dalai Lama at the Mind And Life Institute lives on $50/mo and donated all his money from book sales to helping the poor. Source: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SEUSXW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SEUSXW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The problem in the Bay Area, where I live, is we artificially limit the amount of housing. So prices move to infinity. The article doesn't talk about people not being able to afford housing, it talks about them renting in desirable areas rather than buying elsewhere. If anything, it's about a rent/buy price spread resulting from housing inventory being taken up by investors who prefer to own and rent out rather than sell, driving up purchase prices to a greater multiple of rent prices than would otherwise be the case. Which, if viewed as problematic, is not a problem that building more housing solves. You'd have to also make it less attractive to be a landlord.

freyr 7y ago
> You'd have to also make it less attractive to be a landlord. More apartments, condos, and houses lead to more rental units, which lowers rents, which makes it less attractive to be a landlord.