Hacker News Reader

Comment by k3oni | Hacker News Reader

And why would they participate in the market and sell? Most of my older neighbors have paid off their house and are retired so now they have where to live without paying a mortgage every month so no extra expense for that. Isn't this the general idea of some people thinking ahead? What would they do if they sold? Go to a nursing home?

I was talking with one of them a couple years ago about the idea of downsizing. They couldn't find anything that meet their requirements so they didn't.

View on HN

The tone of the whole thing is quite odd. It's like saying "Boomers who won't cash in their IRAs distort stock market", but houses are not just an investment mechanism! Everyone starts out house-negative, so the assumption that people are going to sell down from 1 house to 0 is a bit bizarre. Sure, some might eventually downsize, rent, or move to shared living, but not everyone will. I'm not sure why this is a surprise.

I agree hence my comment. For me personally i'm looking at paying our main property off and call it a day. No more mortgage, no more bank that can get my house in case something happens etc etc. Plus with no more mortgage and other bank payments your life becomes a bit simpler.

The market is sill there for housing, if the market supports new housing they will be built.

It becomes a lot simpler once you get the bankers off your back. Being mortgage free and having your own house is very liberating feeling.

The way it used to be is you would own a larger house to raise a family. Then your 2 kids would leave and you would sell and buy something smaller and cheaper and often in a warmer climate.

I mean, the argument is ridiculous. They are blaming people who own houses for not selling houses. Build more houses --simple. Allow development. What's the next headline? Young people without real-estate holdings are first time buyers.

I think that's over simplifying it, that's certainly one dimension, but the need of the article explores a different angle entirely. I think it's getting at the more complex problem of how public policy coupled with longer life expectancy has housing markets in something of a strangle hold. It's a really difficult problem.

It seems like there was this huge assumption that Boomers would be interested in downsizing, but it was totally false.

Boomers like their houses and their big gardens. They have no interest in moving to an apartment or even a townhouse. Why should they uproot themselves from their current lifestyle and disrupt their existing social networks if they can afford to stay?

Exactly... the guy in the article is painter, a job that is easily transportable. Move to Detroit, it's starting to improve and they are almost giving the property away.

Inkster is giving property away, but rent in the desirable neighborhoods of Detroit is well over a grand a month. In the modern high rises with a nicely updated kitchen, you're looking at two grand. House prices in Indian Village are honestly pretty unaffordable for local salaries (I say as a fairly well-paid Big 3 engineer). If I were going to recommend a place to move to -- Lansing, Grand Rapids, Ames, Columbus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com