Hacker News Reader

Sounds like a problem that'll fix itself if no businesses can hire. Unfortunately it will probably be on a long time frame.

I think part of the problem is that while maybe wages will be pushed up a bit, eventually the equilibrium is still a situation we won't like. Like long commutes and bad living situations.

But is it a bad equilibrium?

If someone is willing to trade the time and cost of a long commute, can’t we trust that they decided it’s worth it?

I keep hearing how we need to make the Bay Area affordable, but I’m also thinking “price is a signal” and people deciding to live elsewhere is exactly what we want.

I spent time in a developing country and the government is struggling to creating new economic centers but failing miserably (mostly due to poor people willing to sacrifice for higher wages). If they had their way they’d love to not have a metro area of 15M but two metro areas of 7.5M.

Not sure we should be accommodating everyone in the Bay Area (or wherever), people deciding to move to Austin is a good thing.

Perhaps a bad example of a free market in action, what with the rigid zoning laws and regressive tax incentives.

Idk, we do live in a bit of a climate emergency so using government policy (not the free market) to discourage density seems like a bad way to achieve that. Also I guess I left out the worst bit of the high cost of living equilibrium. Homelessness has been connected pretty cleanly to high housing costs. It isn't even that surprising, people find moving difficult and even more so when you're at the bottom of the economy just scraping by and then you actually run out of money. There's also a common feeling that forcing people to move is a bad thing. That seems at least reasonable to me.

But it makes no sense to solve for one dense urban area when you could have people go elsewhere and create a different sense urban area.

And it doubly doesn’t make sense when it’s more costly.

I think it doesn't really seem like that's the equilibrium. Instead it seems like it causes long commutes. In the bay area huge numbers of people commute into sf from huge distances. It does seem like the situation being different would be better.

Yes, often it is a bad equilibrium. When prices rise, taxes rise, and often people who were able to live somewhere no longer can. They're forced to move, eventhough they'd rather stay. This also happened in the bay area, where people were involuntarily forced out of their homes.

See for an example: https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/03/23/after-decades-in-wic...

Taxes don’t rise in CA due to Prop 13.

These stories don't really make sense to me though, why are single elderly people living in the home that housed their whole family with children, now that the children have moved out? Shouldn't a family home be used for a family? And shouldn't prime location housing in the middle of big cities be used for the people that contribute most and are most needed there?

I think it's perfectly normal for a single senior citizen to "move over" and let another family take over their family home, while they downsize to an apartment, or relocate to a different location, since they are not required by work to live there.

I don't understand where this sentiment comes from, that a person should live in the same home their whole life, and once you have moved into a home it becomes someone else's problem to make sure you stay there the rest of your life, regardless of money and income? That is really unrealistic and obviously an incredibly inefficient use of resources.

I'm getting really tired of the fact that the boomers are the richest group of people in society, by far, and still the ones who are the most entitled and complaining. They already get hugely compensated for "having to move" by cashing out on the old houses, so what's the problem?

Edit: That's the whole purpose of the real estate tax, to avoid people hoarding big houses that they don't need. It's just working as intended.

Wait till you’re old and live in a house filled with memories. And especially when you’re older, you should be able to rely on your friends and family around you, and not be forced to move to a new area where you know nobody, and cannot ask anyone for help.

I actually like the idea that you buy a house, pay it off and keep it in the family for next generations. I bought it, it’s mine, I paid for it, and now some else determines I have to move away to make room for someone else?

If you like that idea, that's fine, and sure it's "nice" from some point of view. But it's also obviously inefficient and therefor it will cost extra, and it makes sense for the country to have those incentives.

If you are promoting the traditional way of the family home for generations, then your kids and grandkids would live in the same house for that to make sense, not having an empty huge house for 1 single divorced boomer

Yes the solution is to make minimum wage 100 grand a Year

The elites love when shortage increases their asset values, but increase wages? What are we, communists?

Amazon and eCommerce in general is really well positioned to fill the gaps left in failing towns, which means the quaint stores that die off in the interim have a much different landscape to return to. Cafes and restaurants don't tend to have as much trouble, but small goods, homewares, boutiques and so on can really struggle to fit into the new paradigm.

Yes, it will take a while. I feel like the problem is that everything happened too quickly. The growth has been happening for a long time, but suddenly we got ten years worth of growth in one year. It will take a while to even out.

Pretty much has destroyed California as an entire state.

Presumably it should have made many o the old residents a lot of money, though, so it isn't all bad? The value of their homes increased threefold, after all?

I imagine they would have rather kept their town than a bundle of cash. If it's just a matter of shifting suburbs in a big city that's one thing, but people who choose a ski town to live in do it for the community and way of life.

So if they would've rather kept their town, why the hell did they sell?

It's not an ultimatum where they had control over the outcome, the community was already changing around them, so they either live with inflated prices for everything and a fracturing community, or they sell and try somewhere new. You can see the writing on the wall in other words.

You also have to be able to afford to not sell when where you live gentrifies, prices for everything go up, local taxes go up, restaurants get fancier, services cost more, groceries go up, if you were renting then you get priced out.

Prices went up because real estate prices went up because people sold - not the other way around.

When people don’t sell, market prices still go up: it’s called supply and demand, and in the situation you describe, there is very little supply.

But then it's the same people who wanted to "own their town" who are raising the prices for their neighbors, not some alien invaders pushing the poor locals away.

What are you expecting to have happened? The town to get together and everyone refuses to sell?

Like I said it wasn't an ultimatum people were given to sell or keep their town, it didn't just spring on them one day in a town meeting where they could vote to gentrify or not.

Some people are going to sell because they're moving on, some people die and their estate sells, it's just going to happen. Over time more of them get sold to holidaymakers and investors, and you can start to pick up on what's happening, but it's not like you have personal agency over the problem anymore. You could refuse to sell, but your neighbor might not. Prices are going up, the town is changing whether you like it or not.

I don't expect anything, I just find the notion of selling without wanting to sell funny.

I guess I'm not sure what your point is then.

Think of a young couple, new kid, want a bigger house in their home town, no longer possible because their wages at the ski lodge don't actually let them afford a home the size they need. They sell their current one and leave. I'm not saying feel sorry for them, just using it as an example.

Some friends in WA sold without wanting to sell.

The market value of their home grew enormously, and with it their property taxes. They live frugally on a low, fixed income and eventually the tax burden grew too much. So yeah, they got a nice capital gain, but they had to move away from the home they bought as newlyweds and raised their family in. It probably would've been better for their children's inheritance if they hadn't sold the house, too.

Shit happens, I suppose.

Sounds like shitty property tax laws. That kind of law is not normal in the rest of the world, afaik.

It's a very common type of property tax law in the USA, and quite popular here on HN (see: opposition to Prop. 13 in CA).

It sounds insane to me - so basically if you want to buy your own home to be safe against rent inflation, you can still be priced out of your own home. How does that make any sense?

Well, only if your home is really oversized. The "issue" is that retired people are "forced" to move to a home sized for 1/2 people and not stay forever in a home made for 6 people, unless they have savings to pay for the property tax. And that's "sad" somehow

Yeah but they were still forced to do something that actually makes sense, I mean considering the big picture it's good that an actual family now get to live in that home, that really needs a big home. And the couple downsized to a suitable home, and got a big pile of cash for the inconvenience. Seems like it's working great if you ask me, what's the issue here and how is it any "better" if we would spend tax money for singles/couples to live in large family homes that they don't need and can't afford?

Prices also went up because the housing supply disappeared. There simply weren't any houses available to buy or rent for a while. People were willing to pay a ton of money for anything thay they could find. So, naturally, many land lords increased rent to force the old tenants out, and then rented to new, higher-paying tenants from out of town.

That doesn't help families who want to stay in the area at all. If they don't want to leave, the increased value of their homes is worthless.

It's worse because their kids can't afford to buy a home now and they have to leave.

Not if they're renters, or the children of current residents now forced to leave their hometowns.

> Half of my friends and acquaintances have had to move out of town and commute for work.

And I guess they also made huge amounts of money selling their homes in town, and now live in houses much bigger outside of town... Or if they were renting, they were taking a risk to begin with and can't really expect that work/life-balance opportunity to exist unchanged forever.

This sounds like Snow Valley. Pretty much what happened.