5 ms·

I don’t think houses should be used by anybody to build up wealth.

gaganyaan 3y ago
As a blanket statement, I don't think that makes much sense. You'd be opposed to someone working hard on their own house over the years to improve it so that they can sell it when they're older?
- amrocha 3y ago
  Realistically that doesn't really happen. It's all about land, the building itself is a liability not an asset.
mgolawala 3y ago
Thank you for pointing this out. Houses can be cheap, or they can be a good investment. Not both. I think I read that here on hacker news a few years ago, and it has stuck with me.
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  I don't think this is true. The investment value of a house is not its appreciation, but rather its ability to generate income in the form of rent.
  - msm_ 3y ago
    There's no contradiction. If it's easy to generate rent income from a house then houses will appreciate in price. For example, if I can buy a house and pay off the loan just from rent payments then it's a great investment.
- jjav 3y ago
  > Houses can be cheap, or they can be a good investment. Not both. > I think I read that here on hacker news a few years ago, and it has stuck with me. It's repeated in every HN discussion about housing. Also, it's too simplistic. It's basically impossible (barring a complete market meltdown like Detroit back then) to not increase your net worth owning a house. You have to live somewhere. If you buy a house you (very slowly) end up owning it. A house has nonzero value. Now you have some equity, aka wealth. Even if the price depreciates it's not zero, so you built some wealth (vs renting where you could've rented for 60 years and still own nothing).
Ajedi32 3y ago
So apartments shouldn't exist? Or...? I understand your perspective; there's a reason the term "rent-seeking" has a negative connotation. But I don't really see an alternative that wouldn't be worse. Different tax rates for primary residences sounds like a potentially okay compromise (though it would make renting more expensive, by design).
- packetlost 3y ago
  No. Build more condos. We generally still need the density.
- martin_a 3y ago
  > So apartments shouldn't exist? Or...? The state/county/city/whatever entity could provide those and make it a +/-0 thing for their books. They don't need to make money by doing that. "Social housing" is a concept that has been pretty much lost, I think.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    It hasn't been lost. Some of us are just old enough to remember what the projects were like, and we're glad they're gone.
    - digging 3y ago
      Nope, you're just old enough to remember the propaganda. Social housing (in the US) has always been underfunded to make it look bad. It was a worst-of-both-worlds compromise which served to undermine confidence in government and promote racism. There is literally no reason a municipal government can't run high quality social housing. That's why it happens, outside of the US.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        > has always been underfunded to make it look bad. I Yes, the "secret capitalists hiding in the woodpile" theory of why communism sucks. You, of course, are immune to the other side's propaganda, and your own brain is a perfect simulator of the real world so you've run mental experiments that prove to you irrefutably how awesome it would be. If only other people paid for it for you. > That's why it happens, outside of the US. This is shit throughout all of western civilization. Go check out Ireland, or any place in Europe right now. It's shit everywhere.
packetlost 3y ago
Fair.

As a blanket statement, I don't think that makes much sense. You'd be opposed to someone working hard on their own house over the years to improve it so that they can sell it when they're older?

amrocha 3y ago
Realistically that doesn't really happen. It's all about land, the building itself is a liability not an asset.

mgolawala 3y ago

Thank you for pointing this out. Houses can be cheap, or they can be a good investment. Not both. I think I read that here on hacker news a few years ago, and it has stuck with me.

DontchaKnowit 3y ago
I don't think this is true. The investment value of a house is not its appreciation, but rather its ability to generate income in the form of rent.
- msm_ 3y ago
  There's no contradiction. If it's easy to generate rent income from a house then houses will appreciate in price. For example, if I can buy a house and pay off the loan just from rent payments then it's a great investment.
jjav 3y ago
> Houses can be cheap, or they can be a good investment. Not both. > I think I read that here on hacker news a few years ago, and it has stuck with me. It's repeated in every HN discussion about housing. Also, it's too simplistic. It's basically impossible (barring a complete market meltdown like Detroit back then) to not increase your net worth owning a house. You have to live somewhere. If you buy a house you (very slowly) end up owning it. A house has nonzero value. Now you have some equity, aka wealth. Even if the price depreciates it's not zero, so you built some wealth (vs renting where you could've rented for 60 years and still own nothing).

Ajedi32 3y ago

So apartments shouldn't exist? Or...? I understand your perspective; there's a reason the term "rent-seeking" has a negative connotation. But I don't really see an alternative that wouldn't be worse. Different tax rates for primary residences sounds like a potentially okay compromise (though it would make renting more expensive, by design).

packetlost 3y ago
No. Build more condos. We generally still need the density.
martin_a 3y ago
> So apartments shouldn't exist? Or...? The state/county/city/whatever entity could provide those and make it a +/-0 thing for their books. They don't need to make money by doing that. "Social housing" is a concept that has been pretty much lost, I think.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  It hasn't been lost. Some of us are just old enough to remember what the projects were like, and we're glad they're gone.
  - digging 3y ago
    Nope, you're just old enough to remember the propaganda. Social housing (in the US) has always been underfunded to make it look bad. It was a worst-of-both-worlds compromise which served to undermine confidence in government and promote racism. There is literally no reason a municipal government can't run high quality social housing. That's why it happens, outside of the US.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      > has always been underfunded to make it look bad. I Yes, the "secret capitalists hiding in the woodpile" theory of why communism sucks. You, of course, are immune to the other side's propaganda, and your own brain is a perfect simulator of the real world so you've run mental experiments that prove to you irrefutably how awesome it would be. If only other people paid for it for you. > That's why it happens, outside of the US. This is shit throughout all of western civilization. Go check out Ireland, or any place in Europe right now. It's shit everywhere.

packetlost 3y ago

Fair.