Hacker News Reader

Comment by lpapez | Hacker News Reader

> Not everything is a purely financial decision. A home is primarily a place to live, not an investment opportunity.

I am always shocked at how many people simply don't understand this.

For example: no matter how many index funds I buy, I will still have to find a landlord who allows pets in their home if the current landlord decides to kick me out for a better tenant (whatever that means for them).

I don't have to deal with that in my own home. My home, my rules. And this is worth more to me than knowing I optimized my investment portfolio.

Human dignity has value. Shelter security has value. Knowing that you won't be moving in the next few months has value. But the value of these things cannot be measured in dollars.

View on HN

A very US-centered view for sure, I see just tons of insecurity and other negative emotions. Europeans don't have this with such ferocious intensity.

One of happiest countries in the world - Switzerland, has minimal home ownership, people simply focus on more important matters in life (and rules and their actual enforcement are on next 10 levels compared to general US, yet nobody does biggest financial move in their lives based on those).

In this thread, I mostly see young folks frustrated that their easy investment chance evaporated, although it was never actually easy but people owned and desired to own radically less in the past. A bit of greed, a bit of FOMO, a bit of emotions described above. And an intense sense that a big, well-located house (not an apartment, hell no) is not everybody's right, but their basic human right enforced by some Geneva convention and UN forces. They will happily accept brutal communism with whatever else it brings just that they can get it too.

Or its one of those few topics where HN really isn't the best place to look for balanced opinions. I get it, I would maybe feel the same if I was in such situation bound with such mindset.

No, it's the other way round. Wanting a place you can call your own is a basic fundamental human desire. It's the insanity of the world today that such a basic thing is viewed as a luxury and people engage in semantic gymnastics to justify permanent renting.

Sure desire but not right, and then almost everybody engages in exactly same desire, in exactly same self-centered perspective (I want best possible location, biggest house, ideally biggish land around, convenient to work and fun and schools etc.).

Its physically impossible to satisfy everybody who wants that, we don't (yet) build cities in 3D with this in mind. Such demand will literally every single time outstrip supply unless given society is in deep demographic spiral.

There used to be times when people thought about buying houses when they reached cca 40. Worked their way to it, patiently. These days, 30 year old will complain to you how world is unfair since he already doesn't have it all since he wants to retire at 50. Or how they are priced out of some great place since almost everybody wants to live there too, including boss of his boss of his boss. Working class was priced out places like Manhattan maybe 50 years ago in much higher numbers, and nobody bat an eye.

> Such demand will literally every single time outstrip supply unless given society is in deep demographic spiral.

I am not sure that is the case. Or at least there is no natural law that would mandate this. And why is it less of a problem in say, India? In India, big cities see massive growth in terms of number of livable units built. They don't have the NIMBY culture of the US or the oppressive zoning restrictions, and many more people can aspire to own a flat by the time they are in the late 30s or 40s.

I think most people people would be fine if they knew they would be afford to buy in their 40s. But I don't see that happening for a lot more of the Zoomer generation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com