5 ms·

They will die though

by jncfhnb 2y ago

BenFranklin100 2y ago
Boomers are choosing to age in place and the youngest Boomers are in their late 50s. Do you want to wait 20 years?
- micromacrofoot 2y ago
  life expectancy in some cities is closer to 80 now, some millennials will be buying their first houses in their 50s
toomuchtodo 2y ago
1.8M/year (55+ cohort) is potentially not fast enough to bring about housing policy change in a timely manner from this alone. Non market housing is also a necessary component besides YIMBY. Housing locked up from market forces is housing that can remain affordable. Vienna is an example: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Vienna%20housing&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  I think you’ll find the real problem is that younger homeowners face the same incentives as old ones
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    I am a younger homeowner and am aggressively YIMBY. YMMV. Could not care less about value appreciation, it is housing, not an investment.
    - BenFranklin100 2y ago
      If you own a SFH, you might even make a bundle someday by selling your land to a developer who puts in denser multi family.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Additional wealth does not appeal to me, affordable housing does. That bundle has very little value if I’m a contributor to the problem.
        BenFranklin100 2y ago
        By selling your single family home to a developer who puts many homes on the same lot as your former SFH, you will be helping solve the problem.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Only if those multi family units are sold at a reasonable price, or rented at a sustainable rent. There is no guarantee this happens if I sell to a developer. It is guaranteed if I develop the property.
        BenFranklin100 2y ago
        It doesn’t matter a whit what price the developer tries to sell them at or what a landlord tries to charge for rent. There is something called ‘supply and demand’ and it applies to housing as it does to everything else. More units expand the supply and put downward price pressure on existing units. The reason housing costs are so high is that there are too few homes and thus landlords and homeowners charge outlandish prices because people have little recourse but to pay since they are so few options.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        yeah but you have to move to realize the value. put the money into the stock market instead and you can sell off the stock to realize the gains without having to move. except for the hottest areas (eg you bought in san Francisco in 2009), the sp500 beats real estate.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      That’s the kind of claim people often make at the end of act 1
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - nunez 2y ago
      housing _is_, unfortunately, considered an investment for many people that cannot make relatively-significant money otherwise. (note: i am also against the housing-as-an-investment school of thought.)
      - maxerickson 2y ago
        If you allow private ownership, it's gonna be a significant financial asset that people work to optimize (which is not very distinguishable from an investment). Personally, I like the problems you end up with in market system that has sufficient supply (which we don't particularly have).
      - BenFranklin100 2y ago
        The federal government through various tax mechanisms encourages home to be viewed as investments: 1. Mortgage tax deduction. 2. Sales tax exclusion on the first $500,000 3. Capital gains tax rate on the remainder. Local government through zoning codes act as cartel limit the supply of homes which work to increase prices. The financialization of homes is a direct result of government programs.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  Expansion of housing vouchers at the US federal level would significantly address the needs of those who can’t afford market rate housing. Vouchers are more flexible, time-limited, and face less political opposition than local subsidized housing options.
_heimdall 2y ago
In addition to others point out the timing issue, in many cases you'd end up buying a home that has been lived in for 40 years and is likely well due for expensive updates. Sure its a house and that's not nothing, but it may not really help with the "affordable" part that's missing today.

They will die though

BenFranklin100 2y ago

Boomers are choosing to age in place and the youngest Boomers are in their late 50s. Do you want to wait 20 years?

micromacrofoot 2y ago
life expectancy in some cities is closer to 80 now, some millennials will be buying their first houses in their 50s

toomuchtodo 2y ago

1.8M/year (55+ cohort) is potentially not fast enough to bring about housing policy change in a timely manner from this alone. Non market housing is also a necessary component besides YIMBY. Housing locked up from market forces is housing that can remain affordable. Vienna is an example: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Vienna%20housing&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

jncfhnb 2y ago
I think you’ll find the real problem is that younger homeowners face the same incentives as old ones
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I am a younger homeowner and am aggressively YIMBY. YMMV. Could not care less about value appreciation, it is housing, not an investment.
  - BenFranklin100 2y ago
    If you own a SFH, you might even make a bundle someday by selling your land to a developer who puts in denser multi family.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Additional wealth does not appeal to me, affordable housing does. That bundle has very little value if I’m a contributor to the problem.
      - BenFranklin100 2y ago
        By selling your single family home to a developer who puts many homes on the same lot as your former SFH, you will be helping solve the problem.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Only if those multi family units are sold at a reasonable price, or rented at a sustainable rent. There is no guarantee this happens if I sell to a developer. It is guaranteed if I develop the property.
        BenFranklin100 2y ago
        It doesn’t matter a whit what price the developer tries to sell them at or what a landlord tries to charge for rent. There is something called ‘supply and demand’ and it applies to housing as it does to everything else. More units expand the supply and put downward price pressure on existing units. The reason housing costs are so high is that there are too few homes and thus landlords and homeowners charge outlandish prices because people have little recourse but to pay since they are so few options.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      yeah but you have to move to realize the value. put the money into the stock market instead and you can sell off the stock to realize the gains without having to move. except for the hottest areas (eg you bought in san Francisco in 2009), the sp500 beats real estate.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    That’s the kind of claim people often make at the end of act 1
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nunez 2y ago
    housing _is_, unfortunately, considered an investment for many people that cannot make relatively-significant money otherwise. (note: i am also against the housing-as-an-investment school of thought.)
    - maxerickson 2y ago
      If you allow private ownership, it's gonna be a significant financial asset that people work to optimize (which is not very distinguishable from an investment). Personally, I like the problems you end up with in market system that has sufficient supply (which we don't particularly have).
    - BenFranklin100 2y ago
      The federal government through various tax mechanisms encourages home to be viewed as investments: 1. Mortgage tax deduction. 2. Sales tax exclusion on the first $500,000 3. Capital gains tax rate on the remainder. Local government through zoning codes act as cartel limit the supply of homes which work to increase prices. The financialization of homes is a direct result of government programs.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
Expansion of housing vouchers at the US federal level would significantly address the needs of those who can’t afford market rate housing. Vouchers are more flexible, time-limited, and face less political opposition than local subsidized housing options.

_heimdall 2y ago

In addition to others point out the timing issue, in many cases you'd end up buying a home that has been lived in for 40 years and is likely well due for expensive updates. Sure its a house and that's not nothing, but it may not really help with the "affordable" part that's missing today.