Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackorange | Hacker News Reader

I think this is a fallacy perpetuated by unrealistic ideals. I bought a house for 175K at 24. I only make 50K a year. I don't have a college degree.

Lot of people saying buying houses is hard, unrealistic, or impractical want to buy mansions with a 10 second commute to their workplace in silicon valley but the reality is most people are not living like that.

Wage workers are still buying houses no problem in what are considered "low income" areas as they have been and interest rates are better than ever.

View on HN

My ideal is for real housing prices to remain somewhat steady - ie. I don't like that I have to pay much more than inflation to get a house compared to what my parents pay.

It'd be nice to be able to afford a house where I grew up without having to tie a ridiculous amount of my net worth up in this one very pricey illiquid asset, even if I could get the mortgage.

If you can accept technology changes over time (goodbye horse and carriage), and that society changes over time (hello LGBTQI rights), why is it unreasonable to accept the price you pay for goods will change? Naturally, its a given that's not the only change. The materials to build have changed, transporting them has changed, wages have changed. Prices are not going to be the same.

These are policy decisions being made that make it so it is harder to purchase housing near my job or where I grew up, as well as being net detrimental to economic growth (and the growth of wages and output which lowers prices).

This is backwards. If society gets more expensive because we no longer oppress certain groups in the same ways, then it should have been the case that people from these groups were the ones getting cheap housing in the past since they were “buying” a shitty social experience.

But that’s not the case. It was straight white families who got cheap housing while at the same time holding minorities back.

I presented a broad example that society is changing. I did not associate a variation in pricing due to the oppression or lack thereof of certain groups.

Housing has become significantly more expensive relative to wages, which is where the problem lies.

We have 1) inflation and 2) population growth. Given the limited amount of resources, land, and labor, why on earth would house prices remain steady?

You'd need at least one of these factors to be reversed, or demand for standalone housing to go down for cultural or economic reasons, before you see long term downward trends.

In general though I agree with the poster above that the affordability "crisis" is really an expectations crisis. Everyone wants to live in a nice neighborhood with great schools that is close to the top employers, but there's simply not enough space, so this results in high competition and therefore prices. For some reason nobody wants to move to the rust belt where houses are nice and cheap. People don't want houses, they want the BEST houses.

> We have 1) inflation

Sorry, my criteria for discussing economics is that someone knows what the term "real" means in that context.

Most local community colleges offer economic courses for not too much.

> For some reason nobody wants to move to the rust belt where houses are nice and cheap. People don't want houses, they want the BEST houses.

I would just like to live in the same neighborhood that I grew up in.

This pricing out hasn't always been the case and it's not like these "best" houses became considerably better - it's been the last 10-15 years.

That's so much hogwash. You're telling me a million dollar rundown craptastic house in Vancouver is the BEST house?

Real estate is local. Your expectations aren’t reasonable unless housing can be built as quickly as demand rises.

So why can't we not block building housing?

I don't know where it's being blocked in your view but to use my earlier example of silicon valley, maybe there is a limitation of geographic space, resources in relation to population, and zoning considerations. Maybe silicon valley workers could sponsor the building of a floating land mass to add additional residential space unbound by traditional limitations.

Or we could just not zone as heavily? A recent building near me got blocked because it would add 0.001% (I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I promise I'm being dead serious that was the number) shadow to a nearby park. That is absurd and to pin it on "silicon valley workers" is nativist and dumb.

I know people who live where there is no zoning and went from having nothing but empty land next to their house, to a car mechanic, loud gym, fireworks stand, and many other undesirable businesses (to be living beside) in their backyard. You definitely will want some zoning. I am not familiar with zoning laws in your area and know you are not advocating for no zoning at all, but just food for thought.

Houses don’t go up in value. It’s the land. What makes a piece of land valuable is it proximity to work and leisure. Land in growing cities and towns should go up in value. The only way to make housing price constant is to give people the ability to tear down an old building and built something higher. That’s how cities like Tokyo have more stable housing prices compared to western cities.

That's simply not true.

Houses have labour and material components. The materials have a labour component too. It's now more expensive to build a house (per square foot) than it was 30 years ago because of wage inflation.

This is one reason why real estate is viewed as a good hedge against inflation.

What you're saying is you want interest rates to remain steady.

The monthly cost to own a home is the same as it ever was, inflation adjusted. It's interest rates that have changed.

Where?

Three years ago, I could've bought a house at 60% of current market rate now in my town of 700K. I wasn't in a position to buy that house (under median) then, and I don't want to buy it now given market conditions. The other issue is that the median housing price in my city is now above the FHA limit for this area... so no 10% down mortgages. Again, that wasn't the case 3 years ago.

I also need to replace my lease vehicle next year, so there are two challenging life purchase decisions pending at the moment, and market/global conditions are putting pressure on both.

Where? Almost everywhere except for a few high cost cities. Take your pick.

There are currently 71 homes for sale in Nashville, TN at or under $175K.

Are there? I'm seeing two, one of which is 1b1b 588 square feet and not connected to water/sewer and the other looks rather rough.

[1]https://tinyurl.com/t27bjyej

Well, if Nashville is like Tucson... or any other similarly sized city, those houses are likely not in a great part of town. We have 203 houses and condos under $175k in Tucson right now. I wouldn't live in any of them for their location(s) alone. Suckers from out of state have been buying... and I am sure regret the decision when they have homeless, tweakers and other ne'er-do-well's sleeping in the back yard or stealing anything that isn't bolted down.

Zillow has been buying in my neighborhood, and they overpaid... plain and simple. The offers my neighbors received were too good to be true. I mean, $50k to $150k over the z-estimate. Everyone in Tucson is laughing at Zillow all the way to the bank. Prices are going to crash here and its going to be brutal.

Ahh, you see, I have an ex-wife and a child I share custody with. I'm in the place that I'm in. Others are probably similarly constrained geographically.

I do WFH -- someday, I may head away from my current place, but I'm not that flexible yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com