4 ms·

>I still need to be able to outbid other buyers who might have no qualms about taking on an unaffordable debt It's still not the bank's fault that people will

>I still need to be able to outbid other buyers who might have no qualms about taking on an unaffordable debt It's still not the bank's fault that people will voluntarily enter unsustainable agreements because they think they need to live in overpriced areas. The banks in this scenario are merely an accessory to financial suicide. So I think my point still stands: how do we break up this obsession with living in overpriced areas? Improved remote work opportunities? Better cultural opportunities outside major metropolitan areas?

derg 7y ago
Build more housing in the major metropolitan areas to meet demand is a fantastic start to it all. Look at how much is built in the big desirable cities. It's not enough, which is driving up prices to absurd levels (looking at you specifically San Francisco in particular). Decommodify housing where possible and take away it's ability to devolve into strictly a monetary investment vehicle. >Better cultural opportunities outside major metropolitan areas? There is so much historical inertia behind the cultural opportunities in many places that this one will be hard to do and take an inordinate amount of time I think.
karatestomp 7y ago
> It's still not the bank's fault that people will voluntarily enter unsustainable agreements because they think they need to live in overpriced areas. Difficulty: houses are more expensive near good schools, because demand is higher, so you can't get away with cheaper housing without harming your children's future prospects. And no, it's not mostly a funding thing, so just distributing funds more evenly won't fix it. It has a lot more to do with selection bias, of which housing prices are a major part.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 7y ago
  Housing prices haven't been based on the underlying asset for decades. An expensive home is a place to live and sleep, but it's also: 1) a ticket of admission into a good school district 2) a ticket of admission to a local economy with well-paying jobs 3) a retirement investing account I do think changing the way schools are funded will help the first point, and the rise of remote-work will help with the second point, but as to the third point - who knows. There are too many government incentives to buying a home that I don't think it'll change any time soon.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
>So I think my point still stands: how do we break up this obsession with living in overpriced areas? Improved remote work opportunities? Better cultural opportunities outside major metropolitan areas? The areas aren’t overpriced, they’re correctly priced given the reduction in value of many types of labor due to automation and outsourcing. This is a structural change where many Americans now have to compete with people in poorer countries who are up and coming, and at the same time facing redundancies due to technology sufficiently automating their tasks that far fewer people can output more labor. The obsession is not with living in overpriced areas, the obsession is trying to be in the top quintile/decile and having a network of people in the top quintile/decile because you see the value of labor of the rest of the population going down. This the solution has to involve either making more people’s labor more valuable, or reducing people’s need for income from their labor. The first might be accomplished by better educating people so their labor is more valuable and funding research and development, and/or reducing the amount of labor available. The second can be accomplished with a universal basic income. Whether this would continue to let a country be economically competitive against other countries in the world, I don’t know, but probably not.

derg 7y ago

Build more housing in the major metropolitan areas to meet demand is a fantastic start to it all. Look at how much is built in the big desirable cities. It's not enough, which is driving up prices to absurd levels (looking at you specifically San Francisco in particular). Decommodify housing where possible and take away it's ability to devolve into strictly a monetary investment vehicle. >Better cultural opportunities outside major metropolitan areas? There is so much historical inertia behind the cultural opportunities in many places that this one will be hard to do and take an inordinate amount of time I think.

karatestomp 7y ago

> It's still not the bank's fault that people will voluntarily enter unsustainable agreements because they think they need to live in overpriced areas. Difficulty: houses are more expensive near good schools, because demand is higher, so you can't get away with cheaper housing without harming your children's future prospects. And no, it's not mostly a funding thing, so just distributing funds more evenly won't fix it. It has a lot more to do with selection bias, of which housing prices are a major part.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 7y ago
Housing prices haven't been based on the underlying asset for decades. An expensive home is a place to live and sleep, but it's also: 1) a ticket of admission into a good school district 2) a ticket of admission to a local economy with well-paying jobs 3) a retirement investing account I do think changing the way schools are funded will help the first point, and the rise of remote-work will help with the second point, but as to the third point - who knows. There are too many government incentives to buying a home that I don't think it'll change any time soon.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

>So I think my point still stands: how do we break up this obsession with living in overpriced areas? Improved remote work opportunities? Better cultural opportunities outside major metropolitan areas? The areas aren’t overpriced, they’re correctly priced given the reduction in value of many types of labor due to automation and outsourcing. This is a structural change where many Americans now have to compete with people in poorer countries who are up and coming, and at the same time facing redundancies due to technology sufficiently automating their tasks that far fewer people can output more labor. The obsession is not with living in overpriced areas, the obsession is trying to be in the top quintile/decile and having a network of people in the top quintile/decile because you see the value of labor of the rest of the population going down. This the solution has to involve either making more people’s labor more valuable, or reducing people’s need for income from their labor. The first might be accomplished by better educating people so their labor is more valuable and funding research and development, and/or reducing the amount of labor available. The second can be accomplished with a universal basic income. Whether this would continue to let a country be economically competitive against other countries in the world, I don’t know, but probably not.