Hacker News Reader

Comment by hbcondo714 | Hacker News Reader

I just did a Ask HN related to this: Did you purchase a house recently?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37204037

If so, how? Did you use a real estate agent? Mortgage rates are the highest in more Than 20 Years[1]. Did you put more than 20% down? Or did you pay cash for a foreclosure, auction, fixer-upper or wholesale home? Are there any sites / apps / services you would recommend for finding a home?

For context, California housing affordability is at its lowest level in nearly 16 years where a minimum annual income of $208,000 was needed to make monthly payments of $5,200[2]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37171849

[2] https://www.car.org/en/aboutus/mediacenter/newsreleases/2023...

View on HN

Homes are still moving in my area of Orange county. Average home sale is > 2x what we paid in the first half of 2016. Jumbo loans at 7%. It truly blows my mind.

I feel like Colorado is creeping up there in terms of costs comparable to California. I'm disappointed rent control keeps failing to pass committee, they bumped my rent 12.5% this year. I didn't get a 12.5% pay increase, I can tell you that.

Rent control only makes housing less affordable in the long run, this is the consensus of economists [0], and ignoring this is the left-wing equivalent to pushing oil & gas and continuing to ignore the consensus opinion of climate scientists - beneficial to ones short-term interests but absolutely screwing the future.

[0]: https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/

> Rent control only makes housing less affordable in the long run

Rent control doesn’t exist to make housing affordable in general, or in the long run; it exists to prevent existing residents from being priced out of their existing residence, particularly against localized (in time and/or space) market movements.

It is intended to (or, at lrast, it is not an unknown cost when it is adopted) to make housing more expensive for others (new market entrants, and, when rent control is targeted by age, income, or other conditions, those existing residents not eligible) to provide that benefit.

Absent general new supply restrictions which are the actual problem, it is a redistributive that makes an area brcoming attractive to new and richer populations less destructive to existing and more econonically precarious communities. If there are problematic general new supply restrictions it magnifies the effect, but the solution is to deal with the new supply restrictions.

Greenhouse gas emissions don't exist to make the earth cooler in general; or in the long run; it exists to make existing residents of Earth richer.

It is intended to make the earth warmer for others (future Earth entrants).

It is redistributive in that it heats the earth for future, richer, more technologically advanced populations that will be more equipped to handle the heat and runaway warming, while allowing more wealth accumulation for the less technologically advanced (and thus more deserving) current human society.

yes, in very much the same way as climate - destroying what exists (affordable housing) in order to benefit incumbents is bad politics, bad policy, and bad ethically.

nevermind that, looking at the poll, most indicate that rent controlled apartments fall into the hands of the rich anyways - who then are protected from poorer renting populations moving in. See: New York City.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com