6 ms·

It's not just the hip spots anymore. This comment is pretty out of touch.

by ervine 4y ago

TheBlight 4y ago
Plenty of homes available for <100k here: https://www.zillow.com/detroit-mi/ https://www.zillow.com/detroit-mi/
- ervine 4y ago
  It's alright man, we'll agree to disagree. Housing is artificially constrained by treating it as an investment opportunity. Your solution is to pick up and leave everyone and everything you know because someone else decided that housing should be used as a game at the casino. I know it's allowed, but is this what we want for society? I hope not.
- flyandscan88 4y ago
  I hope you get shown similar sympathy when your house value crashes
  - TheBlight 4y ago
    I don't view housing as an investment. I look at it as I need a place to live. If I make money on it after I'm done living there then that's great.
    - brandall10 4y ago
      If that's the case, why not just rent?
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        You'll never finish paying rent, but you will finish paying your mortgage eventually. Also, your mortgage payment won't increase much while you own your house (just the part for property taxes), while rents will often go up (and sometimes down) with the market. So if you are in it for the long term, a house will provide stability after 10 or so years. And that isn't even considering the fact that it is your place to make for your needs vs. your landlord's.
        tmn 4y ago
        You’ll never stop paying. Pick rent or property taxes. Obviously property taxes are less than rent in your typical case. But it’s not even an order of magnitude difference
        seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        No, it is around...a third where I live maybe? Or maybe a 4th of what rent would be like. But I can always sell/downsize and retire to somewhere with cheaper property taxes, which is something I couldn't do renting. Rents don't do that. But watch the rent to home price ratio. There is definitely a point where renting just makes more sense, like when I was paying $1000/month on something that the landlord was trying to sell for a $1 million. Ya, buying in that case would be purely for speculation.
      - twblalock 4y ago
        Some non-investment reasons: stability, locking in your cost of living for many years, the ability to remodel your home to make it look the way you want it to, and no risk of being forced to move because the home you live in gets sold and the buyer wants to live in it themselves. In Japan, houses generally depreciate over time, yet the home ownership rate is still 60% because the other benefits of home ownership are so attractive. If you know you want to live in a particular area for a long time, and you can afford it, home ownership is usually an attractive move.
      - Valakas_ 4y ago
        Because after 30 years of paying rent... you own nothing. After 30 years of paying a mortgage... you own land and a building.
        swat535 4y ago
        OP said that they don't view housing as an investment thus owning the "land" should absolutely not matter. They might as well rent if its cheaper.
        Valakas_ 4y ago
        AFAIK an investment is when you put money into something expecting it to increase in value. Buying a house just so that at the end you own it is not an investment, that's just a purchase with a loan.
- JasserInicide 4y ago
  You're arguing in bad faith and you know it. The same phenomenon has been happening has been happening in rural places as well.
  - TheBlight 4y ago
    I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out that there are affordable places to live and the issue isn't supply but it's that you don't want to live there.
    - altpaddle 4y ago
      It is a problem of supply. You're probably a person who believes in free market economics. In every market high prices are a signal that supply is constrained relative to demand. As for the quip about it not being a right to live in 'hip' cities, it shouldn't be a right either for NIMBY homeowners to obstruct housing production.
      - TheBlight 4y ago
        Your need for shelter could be adequately (and cheaply) met in many areas all over the country. You aren't entitled to be sheltered wherever you find desirable.
- gilbetron 4y ago
  As a big naysayer of Detroit, the place is finally starting to bounce back because of the intended and unintended contraction.
- cableshaft 4y ago
  I clicked a handful of those and every single one of them looked like they needed roughly 75-100k worth of repairs to make them livable. Then on top of that I would be worried about my safety if I lived there. Not the best example.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

It's not just the hip spots anymore. This comment is pretty out of touch.

by ervine 4y ago

It's not just the hip spots anymore. This comment is pretty out of touch.

TheBlight 4y ago

Plenty of homes available for <100k here: https://www.zillow.com/detroit-mi/ https://www.zillow.com/detroit-mi/

ervine 4y ago
It's alright man, we'll agree to disagree. Housing is artificially constrained by treating it as an investment opportunity. Your solution is to pick up and leave everyone and everything you know because someone else decided that housing should be used as a game at the casino. I know it's allowed, but is this what we want for society? I hope not.
flyandscan88 4y ago
I hope you get shown similar sympathy when your house value crashes
- TheBlight 4y ago
  I don't view housing as an investment. I look at it as I need a place to live. If I make money on it after I'm done living there then that's great.
  - brandall10 4y ago
    If that's the case, why not just rent?
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      You'll never finish paying rent, but you will finish paying your mortgage eventually. Also, your mortgage payment won't increase much while you own your house (just the part for property taxes), while rents will often go up (and sometimes down) with the market. So if you are in it for the long term, a house will provide stability after 10 or so years. And that isn't even considering the fact that it is your place to make for your needs vs. your landlord's.
      - tmn 4y ago
        You’ll never stop paying. Pick rent or property taxes. Obviously property taxes are less than rent in your typical case. But it’s not even an order of magnitude difference
        seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        No, it is around...a third where I live maybe? Or maybe a 4th of what rent would be like. But I can always sell/downsize and retire to somewhere with cheaper property taxes, which is something I couldn't do renting. Rents don't do that. But watch the rent to home price ratio. There is definitely a point where renting just makes more sense, like when I was paying $1000/month on something that the landlord was trying to sell for a $1 million. Ya, buying in that case would be purely for speculation.
    - twblalock 4y ago
      Some non-investment reasons: stability, locking in your cost of living for many years, the ability to remodel your home to make it look the way you want it to, and no risk of being forced to move because the home you live in gets sold and the buyer wants to live in it themselves. In Japan, houses generally depreciate over time, yet the home ownership rate is still 60% because the other benefits of home ownership are so attractive. If you know you want to live in a particular area for a long time, and you can afford it, home ownership is usually an attractive move.
    - Valakas_ 4y ago
      Because after 30 years of paying rent... you own nothing. After 30 years of paying a mortgage... you own land and a building.
      - swat535 4y ago
        OP said that they don't view housing as an investment thus owning the "land" should absolutely not matter. They might as well rent if its cheaper.
        Valakas_ 4y ago
        AFAIK an investment is when you put money into something expecting it to increase in value. Buying a house just so that at the end you own it is not an investment, that's just a purchase with a loan.
JasserInicide 4y ago
You're arguing in bad faith and you know it. The same phenomenon has been happening has been happening in rural places as well.
- TheBlight 4y ago
  I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out that there are affordable places to live and the issue isn't supply but it's that you don't want to live there.
  - altpaddle 4y ago
    It is a problem of supply. You're probably a person who believes in free market economics. In every market high prices are a signal that supply is constrained relative to demand. As for the quip about it not being a right to live in 'hip' cities, it shouldn't be a right either for NIMBY homeowners to obstruct housing production.
    - TheBlight 4y ago
      Your need for shelter could be adequately (and cheaply) met in many areas all over the country. You aren't entitled to be sheltered wherever you find desirable.
gilbetron 4y ago
As a big naysayer of Detroit, the place is finally starting to bounce back because of the intended and unintended contraction.
cableshaft 4y ago
I clicked a handful of those and every single one of them looked like they needed roughly 75-100k worth of repairs to make them livable. Then on top of that I would be worried about my safety if I lived there. Not the best example.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]