4 ms·

A breath of fresh air. The biggest consequence of locking people out of wealth-building opportunities like homeownership is the terminal state of such decisions

A breath of fresh air. The biggest consequence of locking people out of wealth-building opportunities like homeownership is the terminal state of such decisions leaves us looking more like Mexico than Switzerland. Shouldn't we have all have a shared desire to lift society up? It's the same argument for how I'd prefer the average person in society to have more education than not. When people have no opportunity to get ahead, they have nothing to lose, which is net loss for society at large. We want to encourage people to live in good areas.

jeffbee 4y ago
OK but let's be clear: in any future steady state that actually works, nobody will have a rational expectation of building wealth through homeownership.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- djha-skin 4y ago
  Homeownership shouldn't be about building wealth. It should be about having a place for your family to live while you grow old. The best thing about the rate hike is that it has banished real estate investors and others who drive prices high and are only there to get rich.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Homeownership should be like a piggy-bank, not like a stock. Because let's be clear, any other homeownership wealth building scheme is a pyramid scheme. And I don't know how you could say this will stop homeownership being a wealth building scheme, because it certainly allows that to continue.
- bumbledraven 4y ago
  Unless perhaps your home is on a rural property with enough acres.
- floren 4y ago
  Thank god.
outside1234 4y ago
The great thing is that this is good for everyone. The value of the land will go up because its value can be realized and amortized across many units. The per mile per capita cost of roads will go down because it is amortized across more people. This is just good policy in action.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  It definitely has to happen, but thinking this is good for everyone is lying to yourself. If, for example, you live in an expensive second-rate suburb, a proliferation of affordable homes in first rate suburbs will eventually drive your home's value into the gutter.
- raldi 4y ago
  Bad for people who want to buy single-family houses, because the price of land will go up and a bunch of the stock will be converted to apartments, bad for people who own apartment buildings because now they have competition, good for pretty much everyone else.
kodah 4y ago
I read through the article and couldn't tell whether these are rentals or whether the units are for sale. The vast majority of duplexes I saw in the Bay were rentals, which doesn't really solve the wealth building side of the equation. A lot of YIMBYs are focused on more housing but at least the ones I've talked to on here seem unconcerned with home ownership. Here's to hoping the residents can own them.
- hooverd 4y ago
  Eh, some of them believe that home ownership leads to bad politics.
  - kodah 4y ago
    I'd argue ignoring how important home ownership is and will be in the future makes them dressed up NIMBYs given that they are already homeowners.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  Getting a condo map is hard, so I didn't bother trying. That forces these into being rentals.
- scythe 4y ago
  In expensive California cities, it's common for multiple unrelated (by romance or blood) adults to share a house. These situations outcompete homeowners in the market because they have two or more incomes and no dependents. So in the current market climate, increased multi-unit rental housing also increases opportunities for homeownership. It's good to give people the opportunity to own a home, but it's also important to recognize that some people simply aren't in a place in life where that's practical — such as me, for instance, doing a residency, where I'll likely move away afterwards.
  - kodah 4y ago
    As I said in another thread, what makes this dubious is that YIMBYs are already home owners. Sure, the rental stock needs to get up to an acceptable level where renting one side of a two bedroom duplex isn't $3.5k/month, but I'm understandably more concerned with helping people build generational wealth. At the very least, I'd expect YIMBYs to be championing both, but many of them are specifically against home ownership while owning homes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2037 4y ago
"...looking more like Mexico than Switzerland." I'm confused. Is this something specific about Mexico vs Switzerland landscape or culture or strictly economics (GDP per capita)? Also, the idea that homeownership is about wealth-building is not true in many highly advanced countries, including Germany, France, and Japan. They don't have the "housing casino" that exists in US, Canada, UK, and Australia.

jeffbee 4y ago

OK but let's be clear: in any future steady state that actually works, nobody will have a rational expectation of building wealth through homeownership.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
djha-skin 4y ago
Homeownership shouldn't be about building wealth. It should be about having a place for your family to live while you grow old. The best thing about the rate hike is that it has banished real estate investors and others who drive prices high and are only there to get rich.
epistasis 4y ago
Homeownership should be like a piggy-bank, not like a stock. Because let's be clear, any other homeownership wealth building scheme is a pyramid scheme. And I don't know how you could say this will stop homeownership being a wealth building scheme, because it certainly allows that to continue.
bumbledraven 4y ago
Unless perhaps your home is on a rural property with enough acres.
floren 4y ago
Thank god.

outside1234 4y ago

The great thing is that this is good for everyone. The value of the land will go up because its value can be realized and amortized across many units. The per mile per capita cost of roads will go down because it is amortized across more people. This is just good policy in action.

bcrosby95 4y ago
It definitely has to happen, but thinking this is good for everyone is lying to yourself. If, for example, you live in an expensive second-rate suburb, a proliferation of affordable homes in first rate suburbs will eventually drive your home's value into the gutter.
raldi 4y ago
Bad for people who want to buy single-family houses, because the price of land will go up and a bunch of the stock will be converted to apartments, bad for people who own apartment buildings because now they have competition, good for pretty much everyone else.

kodah 4y ago

I read through the article and couldn't tell whether these are rentals or whether the units are for sale. The vast majority of duplexes I saw in the Bay were rentals, which doesn't really solve the wealth building side of the equation. A lot of YIMBYs are focused on more housing but at least the ones I've talked to on here seem unconcerned with home ownership. Here's to hoping the residents can own them.

hooverd 4y ago
Eh, some of them believe that home ownership leads to bad politics.
- kodah 4y ago
  I'd argue ignoring how important home ownership is and will be in the future makes them dressed up NIMBYs given that they are already homeowners.
zbrozek 4y ago
Getting a condo map is hard, so I didn't bother trying. That forces these into being rentals.
scythe 4y ago
In expensive California cities, it's common for multiple unrelated (by romance or blood) adults to share a house. These situations outcompete homeowners in the market because they have two or more incomes and no dependents. So in the current market climate, increased multi-unit rental housing also increases opportunities for homeownership. It's good to give people the opportunity to own a home, but it's also important to recognize that some people simply aren't in a place in life where that's practical — such as me, for instance, doing a residency, where I'll likely move away afterwards.
- kodah 4y ago
  As I said in another thread, what makes this dubious is that YIMBYs are already home owners. Sure, the rental stock needs to get up to an acceptable level where renting one side of a two bedroom duplex isn't $3.5k/month, but I'm understandably more concerned with helping people build generational wealth. At the very least, I'd expect YIMBYs to be championing both, but many of them are specifically against home ownership while owning homes.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throwaway2037 4y ago

"...looking more like Mexico than Switzerland." I'm confused. Is this something specific about Mexico vs Switzerland landscape or culture or strictly economics (GDP per capita)? Also, the idea that homeownership is about wealth-building is not true in many highly advanced countries, including Germany, France, and Japan. They don't have the "housing casino" that exists in US, Canada, UK, and Australia.