3 ms·

I posted this in my own comment, but I agree that a lot of people won't buy homes until they drop even more. Unfortunately, I don't know how much more they're g

by pstack 15y ago

I posted this in my own comment, but I agree that a lot of people won't buy homes until they drop even more. Unfortunately, I don't know how much more they're going to drop. There is a lot of artificially maintaining the value of homes, because politicians want to keep the voting block happy (people in debt with a family). I bought my home, because rates dropped below 5% and I had a chunk of money on hand, found a home I really liked, and was kind of sick at the thought that I'd just handed over almost $200k in just over ten years by renting apartments. I make a solid income and owning a home isn't a trivial expense to me, so I can't imagine someone making a go at it if they have a family and an income that is half or a third. Prices should drop to whatever their natural un-aided point would be, so that all those people out there who will either never own a home or only do so by getting into unfathomable debt (all over again) will actually be able to own a piece. Imagine what the long term benefit to the economy would be if prices dropped just long enough for tens of millions of people to lock in rates on their own home? It would transform the economy as well as, perhaps, society. Owning a home would be the rule, instead of exception. Being in debt to own a home would be an exception. High rent would be an exception. There would be much more discretionary income to put back into other industries. Or, better, for people to stick into their savings so that they can retire with a home to live in and finances to support themselves.

chopsueyar 15y ago
At the end of the day, the majority of these homes being financed are obsolete in terms of energy-efficiency. Energy costs will be the main concern. We need to cool or warm our air, heat our water, refrigerate our food, and mechanically dry our clothing. If prices were to diminish as you speculate, the real cost of home ownership would be property taxes, utilities, and maintenance. How many of these homes built in the last 30 years will last another 30 years? What does it cost to cool a poorly insulated wood-frame 2000sqft house? What will it cost to cool in 10/20/30 years?
- kd0amg 15y ago
  Energy costs will be the main concern. We need to cool or warm our air, heat our water, refrigerate our food, and mechanically dry our clothing. Housing around here is not particularly expensive, but the house's gas bill peaks a little over a tenth of the rent in an Upper Michigan winter, and the electric bill doesn't really get near that peak. There would have to be some pretty significant change before energy costs were that much of a concern.
lurker19 15y ago
Do you also get kind of sick when you notice that food and clothing and flowers and education and entertainment cost money also? If no, why is housing different? If yes, what do you think income should be used for?
- pstack 15y ago
  I don't think you understand my point. Housing should cost whatever supply and demand value it at. That means that when everything goes belly up because of stupid lending and stupid borrowing, those people should have to sell their homes at a loss and people should be able to come in and buy those now cheap (because of a new ratio of supply and demand) homes on the cheap. In other words, I want the natural value (free market) of things -- not some artificially inflated value, because government and committees felt obligated to bow to home-owners in saving their asses and maintaining the value of their assets. If I buy a car and then my financial situation changes, I may need to get rid of that car on the quick and someone can get a good deal out of it. Why should the government come in and rescue me by ensuring that I get a solid high value for my car, at the expense of another person who could have benefited from circumstances that otherwise would have made the car affordable to them? I know we don't tend to have a truly free market much of anywhere, but it seems particularly shitty to artificially maintain a high value in housing at the expense of a huge chunk of society that can't afford ridiculous (artificially so) housing prices.

by pstack 15y ago

chopsueyar 15y ago

At the end of the day, the majority of these homes being financed are obsolete in terms of energy-efficiency. Energy costs will be the main concern. We need to cool or warm our air, heat our water, refrigerate our food, and mechanically dry our clothing. If prices were to diminish as you speculate, the real cost of home ownership would be property taxes, utilities, and maintenance. How many of these homes built in the last 30 years will last another 30 years? What does it cost to cool a poorly insulated wood-frame 2000sqft house? What will it cost to cool in 10/20/30 years?

kd0amg 15y ago
Energy costs will be the main concern. We need to cool or warm our air, heat our water, refrigerate our food, and mechanically dry our clothing. Housing around here is not particularly expensive, but the house's gas bill peaks a little over a tenth of the rent in an Upper Michigan winter, and the electric bill doesn't really get near that peak. There would have to be some pretty significant change before energy costs were that much of a concern.

lurker19 15y ago

Do you also get kind of sick when you notice that food and clothing and flowers and education and entertainment cost money also? If no, why is housing different? If yes, what do you think income should be used for?

pstack 15y ago
I don't think you understand my point. Housing should cost whatever supply and demand value it at. That means that when everything goes belly up because of stupid lending and stupid borrowing, those people should have to sell their homes at a loss and people should be able to come in and buy those now cheap (because of a new ratio of supply and demand) homes on the cheap. In other words, I want the natural value (free market) of things -- not some artificially inflated value, because government and committees felt obligated to bow to home-owners in saving their asses and maintaining the value of their assets. If I buy a car and then my financial situation changes, I may need to get rid of that car on the quick and someone can get a good deal out of it. Why should the government come in and rescue me by ensuring that I get a solid high value for my car, at the expense of another person who could have benefited from circumstances that otherwise would have made the car affordable to them? I know we don't tend to have a truly free market much of anywhere, but it seems particularly shitty to artificially maintain a high value in housing at the expense of a huge chunk of society that can't afford ridiculous (artificially so) housing prices.