15 ms·

If a house wasn't seen as a way to get rich we would have more housing. Everyone could put their savings into other investments and pay a pittance for their hom

If a house wasn't seen as a way to get rich we would have more housing. Everyone could put their savings into other investments and pay a pittance for their home.

ls15 4y ago
I would be fine with that, as long as I get the nicest home of all.
- dubswithus 4y ago
  Some of the crappiest houses near SF sell for millions. I get the argument that the land is worth a lot. It's worth a lot to speculators.
danuker 4y ago
Problem is, housing is key to a rich life. Whether you live in a car-dependent suburb, or in a city, real estate that lets you save time when living will always be more valuable. In addition, low interest rates might be the reason people CAN buy houses with enormous valuations. Not just housing is overvalued, but companies' stocks also. https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
- dubswithus 4y ago
  Housing anywhere is expensive for the remote worker that doesn't need to be close to the city because property has dramatically increased in price relative to wages. > Not just housing is overvalued, but companies' stocks also. Berkshire has outperformed houses.
cameronh90 4y ago
You can buy a cheap house. The catch is: it's in a remote town in Ohio. If I could have bought my 4 bed house with average garden on the outskirts of London for £50k, I wouldn't have bought it. I'd have bought an 6 bed house with a swimming pool, huge garden, double garage and driveway in central London instead, for the price I paid for my house. Not to get rich, just because I'd like more space, a pool, a big garden and a short walk to one of the world's best city's centre. It's a physical impossibility to build everyone a large detached family home in the city centre, and most people don't want to live in apartments forever. I believe the real solution is allowing small towns to grow into cities, and building a ton of very fast and effective rapid 24/7 transport so you can ferry people into the urban core of large cities from those cheaper smaller cities. We can scale out fast trains in a way that we can't scale out cycling, walking and cars. In my mind, the ideal model for a livable megacity is an extremely large conurbation of individually small, walk/cyclable cities with low to mid-density housing, with the cities separated from each other by large public green spaces and all linked together with rapid public transport, and huge disincentives for cars.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > most people don't want to live in apartments forever. I believe this would not be the case if we built apartments better. For my personal take I'd need a communal workshop / garage to store and work on my motorcycle, far better sound deadening, equivalent square footage of personal space, a nice playground for my kids, affordability to move to N+1 bedrooms when N+1th child arrives, and that fresh clean air feeling that the suburbs has which downtown SF's crap and urine infested streets do not... oh and as affordable as the suburbs (net of benefits of being central)
  - RHSeeger 4y ago
    There is a significant portion of the population that believe that everyone wants to own a home, nobody wants to rent ever, and all landlords are direct relatives of Satan. I'll note from personal experience that, on places like Reddit, mentioning that some landlords are great and sometimes renting is a good option... has a fair likelihood of causing an outpouring of downvotes.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      yeah that's a decent point, it's completely possible to amass the same amount of equity in a different asset class and use the proceeds from that asset to pay your rent. That's approximately the same as being mortgage free & having the taxes & maintenance covered... You do get less freedoms as a renter though. Like I've never had the option to choose any kind of paint, tile, carpet, on demand water heater, reverse osmosis water line etc etc.
      - RHSeeger 4y ago
        > You do get less freedoms as a renter though But you get other freedoms, like being able to move without having to go through the pain and cost of selling you house. That being said, I do agree that "all things being equal", it's better to own than rent; but there are certainly cases where renting makes more sense. Plus I don't think all landlords are evil. I've had a number of them that were fantastic people; more than the number of bad ones I've had.

If a house wasn't seen as a way to get rich we would have more housing. Everyone could put their savings into other investments and pay a pittance for their home.

ls15 4y ago

I would be fine with that, as long as I get the nicest home of all.

dubswithus 4y ago
Some of the crappiest houses near SF sell for millions. I get the argument that the land is worth a lot. It's worth a lot to speculators.

danuker 4y ago

Problem is, housing is key to a rich life. Whether you live in a car-dependent suburb, or in a city, real estate that lets you save time when living will always be more valuable. In addition, low interest rates might be the reason people CAN buy houses with enormous valuations. Not just housing is overvalued, but companies' stocks also. https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe

dubswithus 4y ago
Housing anywhere is expensive for the remote worker that doesn't need to be close to the city because property has dramatically increased in price relative to wages. > Not just housing is overvalued, but companies' stocks also. Berkshire has outperformed houses.

cameronh90 4y ago

You can buy a cheap house. The catch is: it's in a remote town in Ohio. If I could have bought my 4 bed house with average garden on the outskirts of London for £50k, I wouldn't have bought it. I'd have bought an 6 bed house with a swimming pool, huge garden, double garage and driveway in central London instead, for the price I paid for my house. Not to get rich, just because I'd like more space, a pool, a big garden and a short walk to one of the world's best city's centre. It's a physical impossibility to build everyone a large detached family home in the city centre, and most people don't want to live in apartments forever. I believe the real solution is allowing small towns to grow into cities, and building a ton of very fast and effective rapid 24/7 transport so you can ferry people into the urban core of large cities from those cheaper smaller cities. We can scale out fast trains in a way that we can't scale out cycling, walking and cars. In my mind, the ideal model for a livable megacity is an extremely large conurbation of individually small, walk/cyclable cities with low to mid-density housing, with the cities separated from each other by large public green spaces and all linked together with rapid public transport, and huge disincentives for cars.

maerF0x0 4y ago
> most people don't want to live in apartments forever. I believe this would not be the case if we built apartments better. For my personal take I'd need a communal workshop / garage to store and work on my motorcycle, far better sound deadening, equivalent square footage of personal space, a nice playground for my kids, affordability to move to N+1 bedrooms when N+1th child arrives, and that fresh clean air feeling that the suburbs has which downtown SF's crap and urine infested streets do not... oh and as affordable as the suburbs (net of benefits of being central)
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  There is a significant portion of the population that believe that everyone wants to own a home, nobody wants to rent ever, and all landlords are direct relatives of Satan. I'll note from personal experience that, on places like Reddit, mentioning that some landlords are great and sometimes renting is a good option... has a fair likelihood of causing an outpouring of downvotes.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    yeah that's a decent point, it's completely possible to amass the same amount of equity in a different asset class and use the proceeds from that asset to pay your rent. That's approximately the same as being mortgage free & having the taxes & maintenance covered... You do get less freedoms as a renter though. Like I've never had the option to choose any kind of paint, tile, carpet, on demand water heater, reverse osmosis water line etc etc.
    - RHSeeger 4y ago
      > You do get less freedoms as a renter though But you get other freedoms, like being able to move without having to go through the pain and cost of selling you house. That being said, I do agree that "all things being equal", it's better to own than rent; but there are certainly cases where renting makes more sense. Plus I don't think all landlords are evil. I've had a number of them that were fantastic people; more than the number of bad ones I've had.