3 ms·

Owning a home as a form of wealth necessarily conflict with affordability. We need to consider one or the other in order to make the best use of land, which are

by kiba 6y ago

Owning a home as a form of wealth necessarily conflict with affordability. We need to consider one or the other in order to make the best use of land, which are finite. If we choose to make having a home a priority, then we need to choose affordability both so that people are less likely to be homeless and so that people can do other thing with their money.

bluGill 6y ago
Not true. A house is a form of wealth because you live there. If you don't own a house you need to rent someplace. If you live in the house long enough you pay it off and live there rent free! The above assumes that you actually pay the house off of course. Many people don't.
- akomtu 6y ago
  No, you don't get to live in "your" house rent free. About 3% of the house value per year goes to property taxes, repairs, utility bills, grass lawn maintenance, hoa dues, insurance and so on. A paid off house is like a brokerage account with insane fees and liability.
  - jjav 6y ago
    The cost of owning a house needs to always be compared to the alternative. By owning, the principal+interest payment disappears when it is paid off. Sure you continue paying other expenses. If you rent, you pay the full and increasing market rate, forever.
dslkfjg 6y ago
If you have been watching California's experiments with homelessness, especially San Fran. you may have learned that homeless people prefer being homeless even when given free accomodations and when i say accomodations I mean nice hotel rooms of their own. This is because homelessness is a side-effect of mental illness and drug addiction. The later is not all drug addiction, ( I used to live next to an "invisible" heroin addict which we only learned about when he OD'd) it's a certain type of disorganized-thinking and lifestyle which some addicts manifest. The cost of housing doesn't cause homelessness; it causes roommates and the conflicts and violence and chaos that imposes on people's lives which is significant if under-studied.
jjav 6y ago
> Owning a home as a form of wealth necessarily conflict with affordability. It's impossible for a home to not be wealth, unless somehow infinite houses could be built for free. So an argument can be had on how much wealth it should be and who gets to define that, but it is inescapable that it has some value.

by kiba 6y ago

bluGill 6y ago

Not true. A house is a form of wealth because you live there. If you don't own a house you need to rent someplace. If you live in the house long enough you pay it off and live there rent free! The above assumes that you actually pay the house off of course. Many people don't.

akomtu 6y ago
No, you don't get to live in "your" house rent free. About 3% of the house value per year goes to property taxes, repairs, utility bills, grass lawn maintenance, hoa dues, insurance and so on. A paid off house is like a brokerage account with insane fees and liability.
- jjav 6y ago
  The cost of owning a house needs to always be compared to the alternative. By owning, the principal+interest payment disappears when it is paid off. Sure you continue paying other expenses. If you rent, you pay the full and increasing market rate, forever.

dslkfjg 6y ago

If you have been watching California's experiments with homelessness, especially San Fran. you may have learned that homeless people prefer being homeless even when given free accomodations and when i say accomodations I mean nice hotel rooms of their own. This is because homelessness is a side-effect of mental illness and drug addiction. The later is not all drug addiction, ( I used to live next to an "invisible" heroin addict which we only learned about when he OD'd) it's a certain type of disorganized-thinking and lifestyle which some addicts manifest. The cost of housing doesn't cause homelessness; it causes roommates and the conflicts and violence and chaos that imposes on people's lives which is significant if under-studied.

jjav 6y ago

> Owning a home as a form of wealth necessarily conflict with affordability. It's impossible for a home to not be wealth, unless somehow infinite houses could be built for free. So an argument can be had on how much wealth it should be and who gets to define that, but it is inescapable that it has some value.