7 ms·

Why would you want a house to last so long? Are you expecting your children and your grandchildren to keep living there after you die?

Jensson 2y ago
A house that lasts long will stay well longer, you don't want to live in a house that will fall apart next year.
JoelMcCracken 2y ago
the reasons are myriad. Because in a general way you can't say "I want X that will work perfectly until time Y". Instead, Xs are made my a process. That process can cost more or less: more meaning better quality ingredients, higher quality processing, tighter quality controls, whatever. This all yields end results are on a spectrum of quality - a likelihood that the item will last Y time within Z margin of error. As chain is only as good as its weakest link - many systems will fail with a single broken element. And every time one of those elements breaks, I have a new problem with which to deal. Spend my precious free time figuring out how to do it myself? Try finding someone who will fix it for me, and hope they aren't going to just rip me off? The example of a home lasting long is especially wild to me. In the US at least, the home is one of the major mechanisms of increasing wealth over lifetime and inter-generational wealth. People frequently buy homes in order to build equity. Having homes that only last a few decades means that they are worth significantly less, and/or require significant repairs and remodels after relatively short time. I know that when I bought my home, which was made circa 1920, I was really happy that, while old, I could be fairly confident it wasn't about to fall over.
- astrange 2y ago
  > In the US at least, the home is one of the major mechanisms of increasing wealth over lifetime and inter-generational wealth. That's mostly because of land values, not building values. And it's largely not a natural occurrence, but it's due to NIMBYism and property tax regimes designed so that young people will pay for all the services used by retirees.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Isn’t this circular, since by definition non-retirees pay for retirees…?
    - astrange 2y ago
      That's not by definition, although it is how social security works. Retirees have assets but not income (or they have low income). Younger people are the other way round. So depending on how governments use income taxes vs sales taxes vs property taxes it changes who pays for things. California is the worst about this because of Prop 13, which basically means if you don't move then your property tax is much lower than it should be and newer residents pay for you.
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Who else would pay for retirees, if not the non-retirees? Most of their assets are paper value, because they are located in stocks, their only home (and they have to live somewhere), etc… that if sold en masse would simply get pennies on the dollar or require expenditures elsewhere.
        johngladtj 2y ago
        The retirees would pay for their own retirement? Is the concept of saving and then drawing down your savings to pay you living expenses unknown to you?
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Are you intentionally ignoring the millions of retirees in the US who don’t have enough saved up?
  - JoelMcCracken 2y ago
    This is wild. If what you said is true, then there would be no appreciable value to be extracted by flippers. Their entire schtick is built around what you are saying being untrue. I’m sure you have reasons for believing this, but I cannot fathom it. Put another way, look at what empty lots sell for, and compare that to what a similar lot with a (not dilapidated) house sells for, in areas where the land values would be similar. The only exceptions I could imagine perhaps being the places with crazy property values. But, the US is large (so, not just San Francisco)
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > In the US at least, the home is one of the major mechanisms of increasing wealth over lifetime and inter-generational wealth. I just don't buy that. Most people who do that seem to ignore the heavy costs of owning a house in the meantime: taxes, repairs, maintenance, insurance, commissions, upgrades, lawn care, pest control, utilities, alarm systems, etc. I've serially owned houses over the decades. Sometimes I'll look at what I sold them for, when, and compare with their current zillow value. The return on every one is less than if I'd invested the money in the stock market, and that's NOT counting all those major ongoing costs I listed. It's just on the price.
  - mapt 2y ago
    You're neglecting the cost of actually living in a similar dwelling. What would renting an identical house in the same neighborhood cost you?
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Let me put it this way. None of the houses I've bought were bought as an investment. I bought them as places to live in and enjoy. I've lost money on two of them, quite a bit. Keep in mind that if your house burns down, your generational equity goes up in flames.
      - mapt 2y ago
        That's orthogonal. The point is that your question should not be "have I made a profit on these houses relative to an index fund" like a speculator. Your question should be "would I have made a profit on these houses relative to an index fund if I had kept them rented out to tenants 100% of the time at market rates?". The core to living in a residence you own shouldn't be the asset value, it should be the living. If you're neglecting the market rate for that quality of life in favor of focusing on asset appreciation, you're approaching homeownership in a backwards manner that is ultimately destructive.
  - JoelMcCracken 2y ago
    I mean, it’s not a foregone conclusion that you’ll do better than otherwise. You could buy when prices are high and sell when prices are low. There is an ongoing calculus also about how long you need to live in a house before you end up saving money; it’s something like, if you sell your house within 5 years buying, assuming prices are equal, you’ll loose money bc of various purchase costs. I pay less for my mortgage than I did for my apartment, probably approximately 85%. That was last in 2016; in general, I understand that locally rent prices have gone up since then. Of course my mortgage hasn’t, but let’s set that aside. Also, my house is much better than my apartments were, so. Anyway, the issue is that you have to live somewhere, rent vs mortgage. That’s the difference to consider.
jknoepfler 2y ago
For the same reason I want a cast iron skillet to last. Why would I buy cheap garbage cookware and throw it in the dump every few years when a nice dutch oven, skillet, stainless steep pans (etc.) will last me for life and be nicer to use? Given that I myself bought a house built in 1900 with original wood floors and loved it, I don't think it's unrealistic for someone thirty years from now to want the same. Our needs are unlikely to have changed much... if they don't want it, they can sell it or tear it down. That's up to them!
DontchaKnowit 2y ago
Why wouldnt you want a house that lasts? It will retain value better, require less maintanance, and yeah, maybe you want to pass it on to future generations. Makes sense to me

Jensson 2y ago

A house that lasts long will stay well longer, you don't want to live in a house that will fall apart next year.

JoelMcCracken 2y ago

the reasons are myriad. Because in a general way you can't say "I want X that will work perfectly until time Y". Instead, Xs are made my a process. That process can cost more or less: more meaning better quality ingredients, higher quality processing, tighter quality controls, whatever. This all yields end results are on a spectrum of quality - a likelihood that the item will last Y time within Z margin of error. As chain is only as good as its weakest link - many systems will fail with a single broken element. And every time one of those elements breaks, I have a new problem with which to deal. Spend my precious free time figuring out how to do it myself? Try finding someone who will fix it for me, and hope they aren't going to just rip me off? The example of a home lasting long is especially wild to me. In the US at least, the home is one of the major mechanisms of increasing wealth over lifetime and inter-generational wealth. People frequently buy homes in order to build equity. Having homes that only last a few decades means that they are worth significantly less, and/or require significant repairs and remodels after relatively short time. I know that when I bought my home, which was made circa 1920, I was really happy that, while old, I could be fairly confident it wasn't about to fall over.

astrange 2y ago
> In the US at least, the home is one of the major mechanisms of increasing wealth over lifetime and inter-generational wealth. That's mostly because of land values, not building values. And it's largely not a natural occurrence, but it's due to NIMBYism and property tax regimes designed so that young people will pay for all the services used by retirees.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Isn’t this circular, since by definition non-retirees pay for retirees…?
  - astrange 2y ago
    That's not by definition, although it is how social security works. Retirees have assets but not income (or they have low income). Younger people are the other way round. So depending on how governments use income taxes vs sales taxes vs property taxes it changes who pays for things. California is the worst about this because of Prop 13, which basically means if you don't move then your property tax is much lower than it should be and newer residents pay for you.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Who else would pay for retirees, if not the non-retirees? Most of their assets are paper value, because they are located in stocks, their only home (and they have to live somewhere), etc… that if sold en masse would simply get pennies on the dollar or require expenditures elsewhere.
      - johngladtj 2y ago
        The retirees would pay for their own retirement? Is the concept of saving and then drawing down your savings to pay you living expenses unknown to you?
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Are you intentionally ignoring the millions of retirees in the US who don’t have enough saved up?
- JoelMcCracken 2y ago
  This is wild. If what you said is true, then there would be no appreciable value to be extracted by flippers. Their entire schtick is built around what you are saying being untrue. I’m sure you have reasons for believing this, but I cannot fathom it. Put another way, look at what empty lots sell for, and compare that to what a similar lot with a (not dilapidated) house sells for, in areas where the land values would be similar. The only exceptions I could imagine perhaps being the places with crazy property values. But, the US is large (so, not just San Francisco)
WalterBright 2y ago
> In the US at least, the home is one of the major mechanisms of increasing wealth over lifetime and inter-generational wealth. I just don't buy that. Most people who do that seem to ignore the heavy costs of owning a house in the meantime: taxes, repairs, maintenance, insurance, commissions, upgrades, lawn care, pest control, utilities, alarm systems, etc. I've serially owned houses over the decades. Sometimes I'll look at what I sold them for, when, and compare with their current zillow value. The return on every one is less than if I'd invested the money in the stock market, and that's NOT counting all those major ongoing costs I listed. It's just on the price.
- mapt 2y ago
  You're neglecting the cost of actually living in a similar dwelling. What would renting an identical house in the same neighborhood cost you?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Let me put it this way. None of the houses I've bought were bought as an investment. I bought them as places to live in and enjoy. I've lost money on two of them, quite a bit. Keep in mind that if your house burns down, your generational equity goes up in flames.
    - mapt 2y ago
      That's orthogonal. The point is that your question should not be "have I made a profit on these houses relative to an index fund" like a speculator. Your question should be "would I have made a profit on these houses relative to an index fund if I had kept them rented out to tenants 100% of the time at market rates?". The core to living in a residence you own shouldn't be the asset value, it should be the living. If you're neglecting the market rate for that quality of life in favor of focusing on asset appreciation, you're approaching homeownership in a backwards manner that is ultimately destructive.
- JoelMcCracken 2y ago
  I mean, it’s not a foregone conclusion that you’ll do better than otherwise. You could buy when prices are high and sell when prices are low. There is an ongoing calculus also about how long you need to live in a house before you end up saving money; it’s something like, if you sell your house within 5 years buying, assuming prices are equal, you’ll loose money bc of various purchase costs. I pay less for my mortgage than I did for my apartment, probably approximately 85%. That was last in 2016; in general, I understand that locally rent prices have gone up since then. Of course my mortgage hasn’t, but let’s set that aside. Also, my house is much better than my apartments were, so. Anyway, the issue is that you have to live somewhere, rent vs mortgage. That’s the difference to consider.

jknoepfler 2y ago

For the same reason I want a cast iron skillet to last. Why would I buy cheap garbage cookware and throw it in the dump every few years when a nice dutch oven, skillet, stainless steep pans (etc.) will last me for life and be nicer to use? Given that I myself bought a house built in 1900 with original wood floors and loved it, I don't think it's unrealistic for someone thirty years from now to want the same. Our needs are unlikely to have changed much... if they don't want it, they can sell it or tear it down. That's up to them!

DontchaKnowit 2y ago

Why wouldnt you want a house that lasts? It will retain value better, require less maintanance, and yeah, maybe you want to pass it on to future generations. Makes sense to me