5 ms·

Exactly this and the rhetoric of ‘spending on a house’ isn’t really a fair comparison. When you buy a house there is an implied level of investment/saving as a

Exactly this and the rhetoric of ‘spending on a house’ isn’t really a fair comparison. When you buy a house there is an implied level of investment/saving as a by product of the fact that bricks and mortar in many countries are seen as a good store of value. When you spend money in a restaurant it’s just gone, there is no chance of your annual meal/get together being counted towards your savings if/when you need to rustle up some extra cash. There’s also the fact that it is almost always cheaper to host a meal at home opposed to paying for an entire group of friends/family to dine out.

konschubert 3y ago
Yea, but we should really get away from seeing houses as investments. it means that all old people end up living with too much space, and young families with too little space.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  In theory, it means that young families should buy the absolute maximum house they can afford. Stretch and limit spending in every other area as much as possible, then hold it as long as possible. Then "old people" can sell and downsize to trade space for cash. Looking back, it seems like a lot of places looked a lot like this for a long time. It is fairly recent that we see people swapping every 4-7 years, at surprisingly high cost.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  95% of the country is completely undeveloped. The problem isn't a lack of space, but too many people wanting to live in the most desirable eras. Many people don't seem to realize that the housing boom in the 50s and 60s wasn't people just building these buildings in ultra-premium areas, but building them in cheap, relatively undesirable areas. But the mass of people moving to these areas ended up making them desirable, and ultimately also not very cheap. This effect was so substantial that from 1950 to 1960 the population of most major cities actually declined [1], in spite of a rapidly booming population! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_the_United_States_by_decade#1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_i...
  - bombcar 3y ago
    This is the thing people miss and forget, that there should be natural ebb and flow, but population centers are instead just getting bigger and bigger without really getting more dense. (It's actually still happening, but people dismiss where it is happening as "suburbs" but if you live in a "suburb" that is 60 miles from "the city" and basically never go to the city, it's really it's own thing.)
  - konschubert 3y ago
    People moved to suburbs, not to Nevada. They didn't quit their jobs. They just commuted by car. Today, the sprawl has reached a point where commuting into the city is no longer an option. That's why the old method no longer works. We need to add density in the population centres where there are opportunities and jobs. Not force young families to choose between a good job and a house.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Your own example is pretty interesting. From 1950 to 1960, the population of Reno (capital of Nevada) increased by more than 40%! [1] Of course you're right there was also a huge surge in commuting, but people weren't the only ones leaving cities. Businesses also moved outside cities, taking advantage of cheaper real estate themselves, and new businesses also cropped up to service the booming suburban populations. And IMO this is all a much more reasonable thing to aim for. Density can only take you so far. There are hard limitations and it comes with lots of nasty stuff. I think the only reason things are taking as long as they are to naturally go this direction is because of the hyper-centralization of businesses and seemingly endless low interest rates, making companies with billion dollar valuations quite trite. And at that scale, the long-term cost impact of real estate in an ultra-premium location versus in the middle of nowhere is a rounding error. But monopoly money economics will end, probably sooner rather than later - and it may well end up solving this problem, alongside a slew of others. [1] - https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23113/reno/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23113/reno/population

konschubert 3y ago

Yea, but we should really get away from seeing houses as investments. it means that all old people end up living with too much space, and young families with too little space.

_ea1k 3y ago
In theory, it means that young families should buy the absolute maximum house they can afford. Stretch and limit spending in every other area as much as possible, then hold it as long as possible. Then "old people" can sell and downsize to trade space for cash. Looking back, it seems like a lot of places looked a lot like this for a long time. It is fairly recent that we see people swapping every 4-7 years, at surprisingly high cost.
somenameforme 3y ago
95% of the country is completely undeveloped. The problem isn't a lack of space, but too many people wanting to live in the most desirable eras. Many people don't seem to realize that the housing boom in the 50s and 60s wasn't people just building these buildings in ultra-premium areas, but building them in cheap, relatively undesirable areas. But the mass of people moving to these areas ended up making them desirable, and ultimately also not very cheap. This effect was so substantial that from 1950 to 1960 the population of most major cities actually declined [1], in spite of a rapidly booming population! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_the_United_States_by_decade#1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_i...
- bombcar 3y ago
  This is the thing people miss and forget, that there should be natural ebb and flow, but population centers are instead just getting bigger and bigger without really getting more dense. (It's actually still happening, but people dismiss where it is happening as "suburbs" but if you live in a "suburb" that is 60 miles from "the city" and basically never go to the city, it's really it's own thing.)
- konschubert 3y ago
  People moved to suburbs, not to Nevada. They didn't quit their jobs. They just commuted by car. Today, the sprawl has reached a point where commuting into the city is no longer an option. That's why the old method no longer works. We need to add density in the population centres where there are opportunities and jobs. Not force young families to choose between a good job and a house.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Your own example is pretty interesting. From 1950 to 1960, the population of Reno (capital of Nevada) increased by more than 40%! [1] Of course you're right there was also a huge surge in commuting, but people weren't the only ones leaving cities. Businesses also moved outside cities, taking advantage of cheaper real estate themselves, and new businesses also cropped up to service the booming suburban populations. And IMO this is all a much more reasonable thing to aim for. Density can only take you so far. There are hard limitations and it comes with lots of nasty stuff. I think the only reason things are taking as long as they are to naturally go this direction is because of the hyper-centralization of businesses and seemingly endless low interest rates, making companies with billion dollar valuations quite trite. And at that scale, the long-term cost impact of real estate in an ultra-premium location versus in the middle of nowhere is a rounding error. But monopoly money economics will end, probably sooner rather than later - and it may well end up solving this problem, alongside a slew of others. [1] - https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23113/reno/population https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23113/reno/population