3 ms·

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.

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.