4 ms·

Is it wrong of me to be sad that it's rent and not home prices?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> wrong of me to be sad that it's rent and not home prices? Rents are higher frequency than home prices. Ceteris paribus, prices follow yields.
jeffbee 1y ago
Yes, it is in fact quite wrong and one of the biggest obstacles in American society is fetishization of homeownership.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  Why is it wrong to want to have equity in the place you live? "Ownership" could be a house, it could be a townhome, it could be flat. But in the US, "owning" an apartment is very rare, while real estate investors buy up all the valuable land in the urban cores of cities and rent it.
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    If you want equity in real estate nobody is stopping you. The problem is when people get this idea that we need to discourage investors from building very greatly desired rental housing.
    - chrsw 1y ago
      This is the big problem with treating your home as an investment. People who just want a place to live near where they work now have to play this game too. And it's not cheap game.
      - JKCalhoun 1y ago
        That was what rentals were supposed to be. And then there was also such a thing as a "starter home". From what I see in Omaha, it's the developers that got greedy — figuring they could get more dosh turning a higher-end home than a starter home on the same lot.
        tghccxs 1y ago
        That’s not greedy though? Are you greedy if you build more valuable software and then charge more for it?
        unethical_ban 1y ago
        Of course it's greed. The question is how ethical the greed is in a given situation. If it's luxury software, no problem. If it contributes to a housing affordability issue, not so much.
    - JKCalhoun 1y ago
      I'm pretty sure investors are persuaded by money and little else — if renting is profitable they'll build rentals.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > if renting is profitable they'll build rentals The point is it's difficult and expensive to build in America. The core competency of construction in most cities is knowing how to grease the community boards', planners', affordable-housing advocates' and permitting offices' palms.
        thehappypm 1y ago
        it isn’t really all that difficult, but it is difficult to build in the places that the jobs are. There are tons economically depressed towns that would absolutely love to have an infusion of property tax revenue
    - unethical_ban 1y ago
      My problem is that the wealthy get wealthier while the middle class gets subjugated to permanent renter class. Go ahead, develop! And sell equity in the property. I've wondered if I would support my city requiring a certain percentage of dense urban lots be flats for sale vs. rental.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  You may object to it, but a home has been the smartest investment I've ever made.
  - 1270018080 1y ago
    The "fuck you got mine" attitude so many homeowners have and deliberate supply restriction to increase property values makes it a smart investment on paper, at the cost of screwing everyone else coming after you.
    - JKCalhoun 1y ago
      I'm not sure why it has to be that way. Build more houses.
      - apwell23 1y ago
        then it wouldn't be "smartest investment"
        JKCalhoun 1y ago
        I moved from an expensive real estate market to a less expensive one. That has nothing to do with appreciation — just equity. Further, when I downsize — even in the same real estate market — that too is equity working in my favor independent of appreciation.
        sokoloff 1y ago
        How is getting your own money back, many years later, without appreciation "equity working in [your] favor"? Without the appreciation (and leverage multiplying that), buying housing would be nowhere near as good an investment. (As it stands today, it's phenomenal, of course.)
        JKCalhoun 1y ago
        The alternative of course is giving your money to a landlord (and zero equity and zero money back). That is certainly less favorable?
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  The problem isn't home ownership, it's zoning regulations being done locally so that areas full of owner-occupied single-family homes are the only ones eligible to vote on whether higher density housing can be built there, in combination with the "got mine" attitude that causes them to vote in the way that constrains supply. It's good for people to be able to own their homes. They should be able to own their homes instead of paying a large fraction of their paycheck to landlords as rent or banks as mortgage payments. But that requires housing costs to get lower rather than higher, which in turn requires some kind of state- or national-level policy to prevent local homeowners from sustaining the opposite.
- specialist 1y ago
  > fetishization Yes and: As you know, encouraging home ownership is policy. Meant to reduce elderly poverty. It worked, plus all sorts of adverse effects that now hitting hard. I'd rather we had pensions, universal healthcare, and maybe ponies.
staringback 1y ago
Not wrong at all. Previously owner-occupied single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course Source? Why of course?
  - Supermancho 1y ago
    >> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course > Source? Why of course? Maybe I'm talking past someone, but the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years (albeit, slightly different wealth sources). The pattern of smaller, high density housing, is the most efficient way to build profit in a population center. As density increases, central hubs appear. Land (specifically residential land) skyrockets in value as it's most scarce, within and immediate^1 and surrounding areas. 1 family paying rent on the land is less efficient than 1xN. The investment necessary to risk and realize those N returns are out of the reach of any entity other than a conglomerate. Singular elite investors generally do not engage in that risk, although there have been historic outliers. Cities also find it more expedient to eminent domain aging single family homes, more than taking on the corporate owned high density housing, further entrenching their relative durability. Despite the highly variable timelines, American cities have followed the common pattern of density housing owned by corporations replacing single family homes, in population centers, for a very long time. ^1 For some value of immediate, based on available mass transit and other environmental factors
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years National corporate landlords haven't been buying up anything for hundreds of years.
iamtheworstdev 1y ago
home prices are falling in a lot of places. :shrug: denver could always be next
Arubis 1y ago
Anecdotally, Denver home prices appear to be down compared to a few years ago as well. The ~850sqft unit next to mine sold for $700k 2-3 years ago and I’m certain it’d go in the low 600s now.
comte7092 1y ago
Denver home values peaked in May of 2022 and have yet to recover: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DNXRSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DNXRSA
- harambae 1y ago
  What you're saying is technically true, but that graph shows the current prices very close to the all time high.

> wrong of me to be sad that it's rent and not home prices? Rents are higher frequency than home prices. Ceteris paribus, prices follow yields.

jeffbee 1y ago

Yes, it is in fact quite wrong and one of the biggest obstacles in American society is fetishization of homeownership.

unethical_ban 1y ago
Why is it wrong to want to have equity in the place you live? "Ownership" could be a house, it could be a townhome, it could be flat. But in the US, "owning" an apartment is very rare, while real estate investors buy up all the valuable land in the urban cores of cities and rent it.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  If you want equity in real estate nobody is stopping you. The problem is when people get this idea that we need to discourage investors from building very greatly desired rental housing.
  - chrsw 1y ago
    This is the big problem with treating your home as an investment. People who just want a place to live near where they work now have to play this game too. And it's not cheap game.
    - JKCalhoun 1y ago
      That was what rentals were supposed to be. And then there was also such a thing as a "starter home". From what I see in Omaha, it's the developers that got greedy — figuring they could get more dosh turning a higher-end home than a starter home on the same lot.
      - tghccxs 1y ago
        That’s not greedy though? Are you greedy if you build more valuable software and then charge more for it?
        unethical_ban 1y ago
        Of course it's greed. The question is how ethical the greed is in a given situation. If it's luxury software, no problem. If it contributes to a housing affordability issue, not so much.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure investors are persuaded by money and little else — if renting is profitable they'll build rentals.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > if renting is profitable they'll build rentals The point is it's difficult and expensive to build in America. The core competency of construction in most cities is knowing how to grease the community boards', planners', affordable-housing advocates' and permitting offices' palms.
      - thehappypm 1y ago
        it isn’t really all that difficult, but it is difficult to build in the places that the jobs are. There are tons economically depressed towns that would absolutely love to have an infusion of property tax revenue
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    My problem is that the wealthy get wealthier while the middle class gets subjugated to permanent renter class. Go ahead, develop! And sell equity in the property. I've wondered if I would support my city requiring a certain percentage of dense urban lots be flats for sale vs. rental.
JKCalhoun 1y ago
You may object to it, but a home has been the smartest investment I've ever made.
- 1270018080 1y ago
  The "fuck you got mine" attitude so many homeowners have and deliberate supply restriction to increase property values makes it a smart investment on paper, at the cost of screwing everyone else coming after you.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    I'm not sure why it has to be that way. Build more houses.
    - apwell23 1y ago
      then it wouldn't be "smartest investment"
      - JKCalhoun 1y ago
        I moved from an expensive real estate market to a less expensive one. That has nothing to do with appreciation — just equity. Further, when I downsize — even in the same real estate market — that too is equity working in my favor independent of appreciation.
        sokoloff 1y ago
        How is getting your own money back, many years later, without appreciation "equity working in [your] favor"? Without the appreciation (and leverage multiplying that), buying housing would be nowhere near as good an investment. (As it stands today, it's phenomenal, of course.)
        JKCalhoun 1y ago
        The alternative of course is giving your money to a landlord (and zero equity and zero money back). That is certainly less favorable?
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
The problem isn't home ownership, it's zoning regulations being done locally so that areas full of owner-occupied single-family homes are the only ones eligible to vote on whether higher density housing can be built there, in combination with the "got mine" attitude that causes them to vote in the way that constrains supply. It's good for people to be able to own their homes. They should be able to own their homes instead of paying a large fraction of their paycheck to landlords as rent or banks as mortgage payments. But that requires housing costs to get lower rather than higher, which in turn requires some kind of state- or national-level policy to prevent local homeowners from sustaining the opposite.
specialist 1y ago
> fetishization Yes and: As you know, encouraging home ownership is policy. Meant to reduce elderly poverty. It worked, plus all sorts of adverse effects that now hitting hard. I'd rather we had pensions, universal healthcare, and maybe ponies.

staringback 1y ago

Not wrong at all. Previously owner-occupied single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course Source? Why of course?
- Supermancho 1y ago
  >> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course > Source? Why of course? Maybe I'm talking past someone, but the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years (albeit, slightly different wealth sources). The pattern of smaller, high density housing, is the most efficient way to build profit in a population center. As density increases, central hubs appear. Land (specifically residential land) skyrockets in value as it's most scarce, within and immediate^1 and surrounding areas. 1 family paying rent on the land is less efficient than 1xN. The investment necessary to risk and realize those N returns are out of the reach of any entity other than a conglomerate. Singular elite investors generally do not engage in that risk, although there have been historic outliers. Cities also find it more expedient to eminent domain aging single family homes, more than taking on the corporate owned high density housing, further entrenching their relative durability. Despite the highly variable timelines, American cities have followed the common pattern of density housing owned by corporations replacing single family homes, in population centers, for a very long time. ^1 For some value of immediate, based on available mass transit and other environmental factors
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years National corporate landlords haven't been buying up anything for hundreds of years.

iamtheworstdev 1y ago

home prices are falling in a lot of places. :shrug: denver could always be next

Arubis 1y ago

Anecdotally, Denver home prices appear to be down compared to a few years ago as well. The ~850sqft unit next to mine sold for $700k 2-3 years ago and I’m certain it’d go in the low 600s now.

comte7092 1y ago

Denver home values peaked in May of 2022 and have yet to recover: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DNXRSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DNXRSA

harambae 1y ago
What you're saying is technically true, but that graph shows the current prices very close to the all time high.