Hacker News Reader

> Unfortunately, right now your only choices in the developed world are: an extremely fancy luxurious living arrangement (most condos, apartments, houses, etc) far beyond your means or an illegal tent under the highway.

In the city where the author is based, there's plenty of derision of "luxury" places, but it's just Nimby code for "don't build anything, I want to keep renting my basement at $2k/m". Actual luxury places are the ones they live in, paid for presumably by borrowing against their land value.

Even at $1.4m, new builds have a veneer of what amounts to AirBnBification, as far as I've seen from the few I've actually visited. They're expensive and poor quality with relatively little space, fake wood finishes, vinyl flooring like anything else, and a standard package of appliances

The way I've been framing this is that it costs basically $2m CAD in this city to paint your house, if you wanted to be able to. You can buy something below that, but you don't have the same amount of agency over it that you would with a detached house.

Point is though that I find it's rare for any rented place or condo to be fancy by any stretch, it's all pretty ordinary stuff you'd expect but dressed up like it's expensive. The kitchen is still in the living room and has 4 sq ft of space to move around in, the cupboards are usually still particleboard, where there might have been a closet 20 yrs ago there's now machinery or venting, and the doorknobs are crunchy.

> Instead of 7.5%, make it 10% or even 15%, 20%, whatever it takes. that takes self discipline out of the equation and fixes the imbalance between spending and saving.

No thanks, I’d rather it be half what it is now in the US with the other half be investable by myself. Just putting that into an index fund would have resulted in significantly better returns.

This is never going to happen because the US Social Security system is almost entirely pay-as-you-go since current contributions fund the vast bulk of current payments. The social security fund is a bit of an accounting fiction since it is just one part of the government owing money to another part of the government.

Even if it were practical though, how would you deal with those left destitute because of poor timing (retiring just after a market crash) or who just made poor investment decisions?

I'm not a fan of housing as an investment but ignoring that it is an investment is a social form similar to tax evasion.

This author owns there own home and even if they have an infinite length mortgage they are likely to end up with new principal to do a reverse mortgage on and similar investment return to someone buying on margin with no interest. It's basically just moving the elitist pension system from the job to the housing.

The author ending up at an inheritance of no value is not all that different than someone leaving only the house if houses weren't an investment and they had a pension to death. The house acted as a vehicle to give them all the investment structure they lacked. The problem with this situation is the people who are excluded from home ownership and paying rents.

I pay forced (happy with it) 11%, add extra and get extra from employer up to a total of 15%.

Used to be in a union (in a sector I don't work in anymore) that bumped that up to 18%.

7.5% is woefully little.