3 ms·

It really strikes me that we've basically re-invented old-school landed aristocracy on a small scale in our big American cities. anyone who was lucky enough to

It really strikes me that we've basically re-invented old-school landed aristocracy on a small scale in our big American cities. anyone who was lucky enough to have bought a home 25+ years ago in a city like San Francisco or Seattle or Boston or NYC is a millionaire now, and home ownership is completely out of reach for the average inhabitant of a city. Buying a home is a pretty big reach even for very high earners, like the average audience of HN. Ultimately, housing cannot be both A) an appreciating, scarce investment and B) equitably and humanely distributed.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 5y ago
As an advocate of houses as an investment, I've always been against A, except to the extent that the appreciation matches inflation, and even then it should only match inflation because you don't count the investment in keeping it "nice" Houses are an investment in shelter over your head. They work out well long term if you live in them long term, but you should never look at what they are worth if you sell, except when calculating your net worth. Even then a renter should have a higher net worth because rent is increasing with inflation, while the house payments are not: the renter needs to have more to cover future rent.
- chii 5y ago
  > the renter needs to have more to cover future rent. If you're comparing like for like, then a renter with the same amount of capital as a house owner would work out just as well, because the renter would have invested that capital into the stock market (which, i believe, have out-paced real estate). If you're comparing a renter who don't own any capital, to somebody who owns a house, then of course the house owner is better off - they have more capital!
  - bluGill 5y ago
    One small detail, because the home owner has less rent he needs less capital. I fully agree that you can do just as well renting as buying in the long run. Which is better is different for each person, and partially depends in things not knowable in the future.
  - opportune 5y ago
    The stock market has outperformed real estate, but not when you consider the real estate is usually invested at 5x (or more) leverage
Cd00d 5y ago
It's worth noting that a lot of people continue to borrow on their homes or take out equity. I bought a home outside NYC in the fall, and the owners got very little cash out of the deal, in spite of having been here for 35 years. Which means, that many of those that look like millionaires now may be struggling to keep up with property taxes and can't afford to relocate near comparable.
- bradlys 5y ago
  Property taxes basically don’t exceed 3% of home value. So, unless they’ve been behind for 30+ years... they’re going to come out ahead.
  - Cd00d 5y ago
    Sorry, to clarify: where I live, let's say that 3% is roughly $2k per month. And, if you've continued to borrow against your home you'll still have mortgage payments. That can be unsustainable housing expenses in retirement for many people.
refurb 5y ago
Has land in Manhattan (at least the lower part) been anything BUT for the rich for the past 150 years?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bluGill 5y ago

As an advocate of houses as an investment, I've always been against A, except to the extent that the appreciation matches inflation, and even then it should only match inflation because you don't count the investment in keeping it "nice" Houses are an investment in shelter over your head. They work out well long term if you live in them long term, but you should never look at what they are worth if you sell, except when calculating your net worth. Even then a renter should have a higher net worth because rent is increasing with inflation, while the house payments are not: the renter needs to have more to cover future rent.

chii 5y ago
> the renter needs to have more to cover future rent. If you're comparing like for like, then a renter with the same amount of capital as a house owner would work out just as well, because the renter would have invested that capital into the stock market (which, i believe, have out-paced real estate). If you're comparing a renter who don't own any capital, to somebody who owns a house, then of course the house owner is better off - they have more capital!
- bluGill 5y ago
  One small detail, because the home owner has less rent he needs less capital. I fully agree that you can do just as well renting as buying in the long run. Which is better is different for each person, and partially depends in things not knowable in the future.
- opportune 5y ago
  The stock market has outperformed real estate, but not when you consider the real estate is usually invested at 5x (or more) leverage

Cd00d 5y ago

It's worth noting that a lot of people continue to borrow on their homes or take out equity. I bought a home outside NYC in the fall, and the owners got very little cash out of the deal, in spite of having been here for 35 years. Which means, that many of those that look like millionaires now may be struggling to keep up with property taxes and can't afford to relocate near comparable.

bradlys 5y ago
Property taxes basically don’t exceed 3% of home value. So, unless they’ve been behind for 30+ years... they’re going to come out ahead.
- Cd00d 5y ago
  Sorry, to clarify: where I live, let's say that 3% is roughly $2k per month. And, if you've continued to borrow against your home you'll still have mortgage payments. That can be unsustainable housing expenses in retirement for many people.

refurb 5y ago

Has land in Manhattan (at least the lower part) been anything BUT for the rich for the past 150 years?