Hacker News Reader

Comment by bradlys | Hacker News Reader

Thing is: It was doable 10-30 years ago (depending on region).

I have neighbors who bought their $3m homes when they weren't even $800k (adjusted for inflation). And since salaries + stocks have grown much faster than their property tax burden (basically frozen) - they're all retiring early.

People have expectations based on what they grew up with or what their parents grew up with or what they saw people achieving as they grew up. Can't blame them when they get out into the market and finally start saving that they're gonna be 10 years behind for the rest of their life...

View on HN

>It was doable 10-30 years ago

And 150 years ago you can probably buy a few acres of land in SF Bay Area for less than the inflation-adjusted price of a townhouse in Mountain View these days.

Real estate is one thing that does not scale infinitely. Population grow, things change.

>can't blame them when they get out into the market and finally start saving that they're 10 gonna be 10 years behind for the rest of their life...

That's the thing about Americans. The speed of change in this country has finally increased after decades, especially when comparing to many fast developing countries. A lot of people just don't know how to adjust for that.

Wouldn't be such a big issue if housing policy kept up with the change. That's the biggest issue for young people. They want the change but young people aren't in control. (And for whatever historical reasons - young people still don't vote enough to enact the change they wish to see)

I'm not sure if there is any policy that would lead to everyone being able to afford the same amount of real estate as if it were 30 years ago. That's just impossible given the context and population growth.

We could easily build more high density. There are a lot of young people who are interested in high quality high density housing - but it's just not available. Not everyone wants or needs a SFH. We don't build up in this country almost at all and that would solve a lot of the pressure. (It would also allow for people to use other means of transport that they actually prefer - many young people don't want to drive!)

There are a ton of people who are interested in living in densely populated big cities but the issue is that there isn't enough high rises or tall residential buildings to offset the demand.

There's definitely policy that could be done but it'd destroy the existing value for homeowners and landlords. That's why it doesn't get passed - obviously.

Also what the SF Bay Area lacks is family oriented high density housing. High density housing is built for the young and single. Family oriented means easy access to fenced in playgrounds and parks, small but numerous bedrooms with large living rooms, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com