|
Wrong thread sorry
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Apparently a little under $100k. (Per household, even, not per person.) The median net worth of black Bostonians is $8
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:But $1M of wealth isn't excessive; it's basically the amount you need to retire with an average household income. In an equitable society everyone would retire with a mil. As others have mentioned, that's average and not median. You're actually talking about roughly the top 10% of Americans, and even that's only because most people have a lot of value tied up in their homes. In some ideal world where housing was provided to all people (which would be the case in any world where wealth was equitably distributed like this), it would make even less sense to have as much as $1M. While (as I think I mentioned) I would probably choose something more like $5M as the "doesn't make sense to have more than this" figure, just lol at the idea that anyone who isn't a lost cause to begin with is being pushed away by people bad-mouthing people with $1M in assets. It's very easy for people in the top 10-20% to lose track of reality, which is how you end up with people seeing average income/wealth figures and thinking they're representative of the country as a whole (instead of heavily distorted by wealth concentration at the top).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Lucky Ducks!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:As others have mentioned, that's average and not median. Average and median are the same in an equal society. "In an equal society" being the point; you're shaming people for having roughly the same standard of living as they would have in an equal society. This is all heavily dependent on age: a 65 year old retiree with a million is enjoying something like an egalitarian-equivalent standard of living. A 25 year old millionaire is rich as poo poo. Edit: Obviously I'm ignoring a lot of related issues around private ownership, inequality, etc. for the sake of the news thread; I just wanted to illustrate that $1 million isn't necessarily extraordinary. PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Lucky Ducks!!! White Bostonians will claim there's no racism around here until they're blue in the face. Because if you don't ever see black people, you can't possibility discriminate against them. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Average and median are the same in an equal society. "In an equal society" being the point; you're shaming people for having roughly the same standard of living as they would have in an equal society. If one is talking about an ideal equitable society, then it makes more sense to consider per capita for the world, since the US's extreme wealth is derived from foreign exploitation. And even if you ignore that, an equitable society, due to the definition of equitable, would be one where everyone has around the per capita wealth, so that still would support the idea of capping it at $1M (since it'd basically inherently be capped at that, or something close to that). Regardless, like I said, $1M is a bit lower than I'd personally choose, but I can't help but question the perspective and motives of someone who feels the need to contest that. $1M is certainly not normal, even in the current US, and even if it might feel normal to someone who is in the top 10%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:but I can't help but question the perspective and motives of someone who feels the need to contest that. $1M is certainly not normal, even in the current US, and even if it might feel normal to someone who is in the top 10%. The perspective / motive for me is not being homeless.   As an additional perspective, a new renter (aka, not someone protected under rent control from a long time ago) will average around $36,000 per year in rent paid in my county. If this person works his or her entire professional career here (let's say 30 years) and then move away, she'll have spent more than $1,000,000 in rent even before all the inevitable rent increases. Want to cap wealth at <$1M? Sure, be my guest. I am all in favor of a fair, equitable society and we're seriously screwed in that regard right now. Just make sure you destroy the Top 5% too, so that you don't simply gently caress over the 95%. If you allow the retained wealth / land ownership of the existing elite classes to remain and just say "we've fixed it moving forward" you're going to create a Dickensian-stereotype permanent underclass out of literally everyone else in the country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:and even if it might feel normal to someone who is in the top 10%. In most of our age range 20-40 it's pretty abnormal even for: educated, white, with middle class backgrounds in relatively high paying professions. Pre tax 110,000 a year was 90th percentile at 35 in 2017. At that rough income level I'd expect a chunk of people to hit it between 45 and 55. Depending on luck and location.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
median wealth for American households older than 65 is ~$250,000 I pulled that figure from a random article which sourced the 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances so I'm not sure if that figure includes home equity but I'm pretty sure it does. The vast majority of Americans will never have $1,000,000 in their life and achieving that is not a realistic goal for middle class households either before or after retirement. From the same source 35-44 year olds have a median wealth of $61,000. If American wealth were distributed with perfect equity there would be about $300,000 per adult, so redistributive policies should probably be set with that in mind. It's sometimes a pet peeve of mine that Democrats sometimes talk about policies "for the middle class" that are obviously really aimed at the people with $ 1 million in assets and $100,000 a year in income, but I guess that's just how politics works. Of course in places like California where housing is really hosed up building new housing is probably one of the best ways to reduce inequality, both by reducing the value of existing stock and providing more wealth to those without. Seriously LA has a housing shortfall of like 500,000+ units, its just absurd. Building new houses is the only way to fix these absurd prices. When places like marin set the poverty level at an income of $100,000 per year its not done arbitrarily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Sundae posted:The perspective / motive for me is not being homeless. Yeah, but when you get one of these homes, you also get a huge debt to pay for it. You're only above a million when that debt is paid off, assuming you ever do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Yeah, but when you get one of these homes, you also get a huge debt to pay for it. You're only above a million when that debt is paid off, assuming you ever do. I doubt that's the way wealth is being calculated, just based on the median being positive at all. Most homeowners in CA probably have a much higher appraised value than their mortgage load, just because property appreciates so quickly here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Seriously LA has a housing shortfall of like 500,000+ units, its just absurd. Building new houses is the only way to fix these absurd prices. They built homes like mad during the previous bubble (and this one) and prices did nothing but skyrocket nearly the whole time. You need to get rid of Prop 13 (or at least make it only applicable to retirees with single homes they live in and lose eligibility for when they die, move out, or sell/give to a family member) + implement strong rent controls + implement strong price controls + building more homes to fix the housing cost/availability issue in CA and I don't think the political will (in govt. or the populace) is there to do it unfortunately. I think there have been some vague noises about repealing or amending Prop 13 for certain zones but even doing only that right now is still a long shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 09:15
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Of course in places like California where housing is really hosed up building new housing is probably one of the best ways to reduce inequality, both by reducing the value of existing stock and providing more wealth to those without. Seriously LA has a housing shortfall of like 500,000+ units, its just absurd. Building new houses is the only way to fix these absurd prices. When places like marin set the poverty level at an income of $100,000 per year its not done arbitrarily. PC LOAD LETTER posted:Building more homes (or apartments) is necessary but it won't fix the prices. Whenever you suggest things like this, the bloc of home-owning voters hears: "I want to make you poor." The only way you'll get it passed in modern America is if you disenfranchise home-owners. But, both of you are forgetting public transportation. Real, useful, public transportation that would allow people to travel 25-50 miles in roughly an hour, that is reliable, frequent and not just a bathroom for homeless people would allow urban areas to expand while likely increasing home prices in the core areas that now exist. In principle, everyone could win. But that might let "the wrong people" in to the suburbs, and would certainly require we take a compassionate and practical approach to homelessness (give them places to stay/poo poo), so I don't know how it ranks compared to ending Prop 13. Specific to Los Angeles: Right now it takes 40 minutes to do 13-ish miles from downtown Santa Monica to the Ortho stop on the Expo Line. If you wanted to make Santa Clarita (more of) a bedroom community for Los Angeles, you'd need to triple the average speed of transport between the two. That requires a lot of planning and work, but it isn't physically impossible or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Whenever you suggest things like this, the bloc of home-owning voters hears: "I want to make you poor." Because paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest to a bank doesn't make people poor. Affordable housing does 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest to a bank doesn't make people poor. [capitalism brain] Banks good. People with less money buying houses Bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest to a bank doesn't make people poor. I'm not sure I either agree or disagree with you, but it doesn't matter. A lot of older people bought houses and used them as their primary savings method and I don't think they are going to be keen to trade the asset they think they have now for payments made to a bank that are long gone. silicone thrills posted:[capitalism brain] Banks good. People with less money buying houses Bad. Ehh, capitalists think that people with less or no money buying houses is good, as long as they can make sure the government or a pack of suckers makes them whole on the value of the loans they gambled on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:I'm not sure I either agree or disagree with you, but it doesn't matter. A lot of older people bought houses and used them as their primary savings method and I don't think they are going to be keen to trade the asset they think they have now for payments made to a bank that are long gone. What is the other option. If housing prices can never be allowed to come down because previous bad policy incentivized a generation to use their dwelling as their primary savings, then well there's eventually going to be a crash anyway because housing prices can't grow faster than the economy forever. Eventually people will not be able to afford homes and one of two things will happen: housing prices will continue to surge as properties are bought and held empty by large investors with nowhere else to dump their cash, creating a larger and larger class of permanent renters and homeless people until they outvote the homeowners and don't have to offer any compromises like buying out homeowners to finally get affordable housing OR large investors won't prop up the price of housing, and with no one to sell to (because everyone who needs a home to live in can't afford them), there will be another massive housing crash that will wipe out that imaginary value anyway. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest to a bank doesn't make people poor. If ny house is worth $75,000, and you reduce the valuation to $25,000, you've made me $50,000 poorer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:If ny house is worth $75,000, and you reduce the valuation to $25,000, you've made me $50,000 poorer. Is that actually true tho. Say you bought that house for $25,000 (lol) and it has appreciated to $75,000 (lol these are silly numbers, but just as a thought experiment). How do you get that $50,000 out. You can sell the house, except...now you have no place to live and all the other houses in your town tripled in value too along with rents. Or you can get a HELOC but that didn't actually make you richer you have to pay that back with interest on top and if you don't the bank takes your house. So your house sticker price increasing doesn't really make you "richer" since you can't both get that money and still have a place to live that you own. The only thing it does is make you poorer by increasing your property taxes. Skyrocketing housing prices only makes landlords and investors richer, not homeowners. Furthermore: VitalSigns posted:What is the other option. If housing prices can never be allowed to come down because previous bad policy incentivized a generation to use their dwelling as their primary savings, then well there's eventually going to be a crash anyway because housing prices can't grow faster than the economy forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is that actually true tho. This is basically what I was about to say, but much better put. A house depreciating in value isn't the same as losing money right out of your bank account.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
When calculating net worth it does matter. It also matters when dealing with the debt used to buy that home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:When calculating net worth it does matter. HootTheOwl posted:It also matters when dealing with the debt used to buy that home. Incidentally we're already seeing this start to happen with housing as "savings" not panning out. As baby boomers age and can no longer physically keep up huge houses and yards, they're finding themselves trapped in their McMansions as young people can't afford / don't want to pay insane prices to live in tacky monstrosities that would eat up their entire paychecks in mortgage payments. https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-vs-baby-boomers-big-houses-real-estate-market-problems-2019-3 quote:Fifteen years ago, boomers were building large, elaborate houses in states like Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina, The Wall Street Journal reported. Now, faced with the effort of maintaining such houses, they're looking to downsize. It's almost like housing as a primary / only savings vehicle is a really terrible idea for a whole mess of reasons, only the least of which is the inability of homebuyers to project out housing fashions 30 years in the future to ensure they can sell for a profit! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Does that matter when you can't actually get that money out. I can also sell you a beanie baby for a million dollar check and you can sell it right back to me for that same million dollar check, and now I've got a million-dollar "asset" and my net worth has skyrocketed even if no one else will pay me a million dollars for it in real life I can write a number down on a piece of paper. take a step back from comparing beanie babies to an asset market that everyone needs to survive that's by all measures not keeping up with demand yes it's possible to be forced into a position where you have to sell the house at an inopportune time and take a haircut. that's why houses aren't considered liquid assets. the same goes for any illiquid asset
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Does that matter when you can't actually get that money out. you can get the money out  people take out equity loans all the time, reverse mortgages exist, etc.i don't disagree with you about the terrible focus that people have on their home valuations and how this informs so much of local politics. but property is not entirely an illiquid asset, and it functions in some weird grey space as a sort-of investment for tons of middle and lower middle class people
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:take a step back from comparing beanie babies to an asset market that everyone needs to survive that's by all measures not keeping up with demand The argument was that it doesn't matter if you can actually get the money out, as long as you have a high net worth on paper. If that's the argument then it doesn't matter whether it's a house or a beanie baby, if you can't get the money out. You're making a different argument: that most of the time you can get the money out. But I've already disproved this (which is why HootTheOwl said it's all about paper wealth not about liquidity). Yes you can sell your house (maybe, see the BI article about McMansions I posted), because other people need a place to live and will buy it assuming housing fashions haven't changed rendering your McMansion worthless. But once you sell it you need a place to live and all the other houses and rents in your city went up by about the same amount. So that money isn't savings you have to turn around and spend it on the same inflated housing costs you thought you were profiting from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you can get the money out That doesn't make you richer, you have to pay that back with interest on top and if you don't you lose the house and now you need a place to live and housing costs are insane luxury handset posted:reverse mortgages exist, etc. If you live longer than the bank predicts when they make your offer, and you never need to move it can work out for a small number of people, but even then it's obviously unsustainable. Someone has to buy these houses from the bank eventually, that can't happen if housing prices continue to grow faster than wages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The argument was that it doesn't matter if you can actually get the money out, as long as you have a high net worth on paper. If that's the argument then it doesn't matter whether it's a house or a beanie baby, if you can't get the money out. the idea is the same that drives people to buy houses in the first place but in reverse. the rent vs. buy equation works out to renting if you plan on moving within a few years or if the market is too hot or whatever. same goes for the reverse- you sell and revert to renting if your life situation changes where it's going to be more dynamic or if the housing market is way overheated compared to rent prices. this isn't some beep boop perfect algorithm where the moment you make a SUBOPTIMAL move you immediately burst into flames e: Why the gently caress am I engaging vital signs? I'm sorry, thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:the idea is the same that drives people to buy houses in the first place but in reverse. the rent vs. buy equation works out to renting if you plan on moving within a few years or if the market is too hot or whatever. same goes for the reverse- you sell and revert to renting if your life situation changes where it's going to be more dynamic or if the housing market is way overheated compared to rent prices. Everybody obviously can't sell their houses at once into an overheated market in order to rent for a few years and lock in that profit. The idea that housing prices can continue to rise faster than wages forever, because we can all somehow simultaneously take advantage of arbitrage is absurd (by definition everyone can't simultaneously take advantage of arbitrage) I feel like this discussion is difficult because it's really hard for most people to see the forest for the trees. You can look at an individual and say "wow so and so bought a house for $50,000 in 1980 and now it's appraised at $2 million, they're set" but if you take a step back and think about the entire system at work here it should be obvious why "oh we can all just sell our houses to everyone else's grandchildren for 40x what we paid for it" can't be everyone's retirement plan for every generation. Mathematically it can't work. E: to try to make this more clear, there are two sides to every transaction. If someone is selling into an overheated market, someone else is buying into an overheated market. That buyer is not going to get their money out, by definition, because they bought into an overheated market. "Everyone" can't get their paper wealth out of a real estate sector that increases faster than wages forever because someone needs to be buying for that to happen and buyers can't spend more than their income on housing or they starve. And even for the sellers, well now they have to rent, and rents are increasing faster than wages so they're not really richer because they just took on huge housing costs they didn't have before with their paid off house. And they can't buy again because prices are increasing. Unless prices fall, but yall are arguing that must never ever be allowed to happen because it will make current owners "poorer" E2: Well okay you can decouple housing prices from the ability of working people to actually pay those prices by creating insane amounts of money to dump on the balance sheets of investment banks with nowhere to put that money except by buying up housing stock to hold empty. And if you're willing to just dump more and more money on it you can keep a real estate crash from happening, but you're also creating a larger and larger class of people who can never and will never own a home of their own, and in a democracy they have the vote so you just created an electorate whose economic interests are emphatically against propping up housing prices and eventually they will outvote the dwindling numbers of homeowners. I guess you could always institute a dictatorship though, if you want to sustain infinite real estate price growth for longer. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Building more homes (or apartments) is necessary but it won't fix the prices. I know you aren't denying that more housing needs to be built, but you might be underestimating the scale of the problem. California has had a consistent deficit of new housing since even before prop 13, since like 1970. The housing bubble didn't come close to resolving those shortages. California requires so much more housing that its difficult even to wrap your head around it. Just to keep prices steady at the current absurd levels, the state would have to double annual construction. So in a scenario where someone passes new policy that "only" increased new housing construction by 50%, housing prices would still continue to increase. People might then come to their leaders and complain "oh my god you're building homes like mad but prices are still skyrocketing! You said building more would reduce costs but rent's now higher than ever! Building new houses clearly doesn't reduce housing costs!" The problem of course, is that the state is so far away from meeting new housing needs that even good policies only just reduce the rate of increase, rather than actually bringing real costs down. I'm concerned that some people want to downplay the need for new housing because they are afraid policies that increase construction of new homes are going to disproportionately benefit developers. If you don't want private entities handling construction however, you need some other mechanism. You can't just ignore the problem. and yes I know politically nobody wants to hear this kind of thing. I'm hopeless at political communication however, which is why I mostly stick to policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
The problem, as others have said, is that actually building enough housing to outpace demand would lower prices and current homeowners will therefore vote against it because they will perceive it as a threat to their paper net worth. Which is why we need to make the case that housing as an investment is terrible loving policy, and show them how the appreciation of their house is actually making them poorer because their costs increase while most of them will never be able to actually realize their paper gains, and also we need to buy them out as part of an affordable housing initiative in order to get them on board and make sure they don't get hosed over. Nobody wants to hear that though, but it must be done, because endless housing inflation is unsustainable. Eventually young people will not be able to afford to buy those houses for what their aged owners are expecting, and from there it can go one of two ways: a catastrophic real estate crash that wipes out that paper wealth until houses can sell again (the exact thing we tried to avoid when we were killing affordable housing initiatives in order to protect "property values") or the government steps in with QE and showers investors with enough money to buy and hold all these properties and until finally the ranks of the permanent renters increase enough to vote in those affordable housing policies anyway except with zero reason to compensate the dwindling homeowner voting base for the fall in prices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That doesn't make you richer, you have to pay that back with interest on top and if you don't you lose the house and now you need a place to live and housing costs are insane goalpost moving here. you asked if people could get money out of their property, i said they can, then you asked how this makes them richer. not sure i'm following what you're trying to argue other than just trying to win any argument VitalSigns posted:Which is why we need to make the case that housing as an investment is terrible loving policy, and show them how the appreciation of their house is actually making them poorer because their costs increase while most of them will never be able to actually realize their paper gains, and also we need to buy them out as part of an affordable housing initiative in order to get them on board and make sure they don't get hosed over. if you said this to any middle class homeowner they would laugh in your face and ignore anything you said after that. like this is wildly unrealistic regarding how middle class people climb the property ladder you're right in many of the details. housing as investment kind of sucks, it's just what people do because it's one of the few forms of pseudo-investment available to the middle class. single family housing requires tons of government subsidy to be viable. appreciation of value is not a global certainty, there are many places where property values decrease for many reasons but in any place where there is anything like an affordable housing crisis, single family homeowners of any income strata are only seeing their property values rise, and the only people being directly hosed over by this are the folks at the very bottom of the ladder whose property values lead to increased property taxation leads to loss of property, aka gentrification Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:goalpost moving here. you asked if people could get money out of their property, i said they can, then you asked how this makes them richer. not sure i'm following what you're trying to argue other than just trying to win any argument No you are moving the goalposts. The original assertion was: Epicurius posted:If ny house is worth $75,000, and you reduce the valuation to $25,000, you've made me $50,000 poorer. The quoted argument is: a fall in housing prices makes you poorer, and the corollary is that a rise in prices makes you richer. I explained how this isn't true by pointing out that even if you get money out of the house by selling it or by a HELOC or whatever, the appreciated home didn't make you "richer" because you have to pay back a HELOC or if you sell the house you now need to pay for housing somehow which has increased in price by the same ratio. And the entire time you own you're paying higher taxes as property values go up, and you're paying interest on the high sticker price you bought for while you wait and hope to sell at an even higher price (which again won't benefit you because after you sell you still need a place to live) luxury handset posted:if you said this to any middle class homeowner they would laugh in your face and ignore anything you said after that Yes they would (that is the problem), but I am right and they are wrong, so they would be better off listening to what I have to say. Again, what is the alternative. Housing prices cannot increase faster than wages forever, because eventually young people will be completely unable to buy old peoples' homes off them for the profit that they are expecting on paper. What then: answer this question. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Maybe take this to the urban planning thread, where it belongs, or ask Friendbot about how this sort of policy issue works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No you are moving the goalposts. The original assertion was i wasn't responding to them? i was responding to you VitalSigns posted:The quoted argument is: a fall in housing prices makes you poorer, and the corollary is that a rise in prices makes you richer. I explained how this isn't true by pointing out that even if you get money out of the house by selling it or by a HELOC or whatever, the appreciated home didn't make you "richer" because you have to pay back a HELOC or if you sell the house you now need to pay for housing yeah, uh, net worth VitalSigns posted:Again, what is the alternative. Housing prices cannot increase faster than wages forever, because eventually young people will be completely unable to buy old peoples' homes off them for the profit that they are expecting on paper. What then: answer this question. you're overlooking the role of the suburbs as a historical sink for cheap housing and the continual viability of federal subsidy for this housing. like there's a big reason 70's era inner ring suburbs are the new concentrations of poverty anyway you seem to see this discussion as an equal debate between two reasonable positions and i don't see it that way, so take it to the urban planning thread if you feel like continuing it. or better yet, don't
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:this is wildly unrealistic regarding how middle class people climb the property ladder The "property ladder" only exists as a concept because the unsustainable increase in housing prices makes buying a starter home a better way to save a down payment on a larger home than any other investment even after taking into account the massive transaction costs of buying and selling a home. If instead we had sane housing policy such that prices are low and home appreciation keeps pace with inflation, then there would be no need for a "property ladder", you would be better off saving for your down payment by investing in liquid securities that pay at or slightly above inflation whose transaction costs when you buy and sell them are insignificant compared to buying and selling your starter home, not to mention all the other insane risk you take on when you buy a starter home (whoops you got unlucky and need to spend tens of thousands in repair or turns out there's something so wrong with it you can never sell), that don't exist with say TIPS or whatever conservative medium term investment you could choose instead if housing prices weren't doubling every 10 years E: luxury handset posted:i wasn't responding to them? i was responding to you luxury handset posted:yeah, uh, net worth luxury handset posted:you're overlooking the role of the suburbs as a historical sink for cheap housing and the continual viability of federal subsidy for this housing. like there's a big reason 70's era inner ring suburbs are the new concentrations of poverty luxury handset posted:anyway you seem to see this discussion as an equal debate between two reasonable positions and i don't see it that way, so take it to the urban planning thread if you feel like continuing it. or better yet, don't if you don't want to talk about this stop quoting me, quoting me to bitch about how you don't want to talk about this is nuts. Make a post in that thread if you like and I'll reply there. Answer this question: if we refuse to build affordable housing because current homeowners demand their home value increase faster than wages forever, what happens when young people can no longer mathematically pay the prices that homeowners are expecting. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:If ny house is worth $75,000, and you reduce the valuation to $25,000, you've made me $50,000 poorer. VitalSigns posted:Is that actually true tho. Yes. You can argue about if it's a good thing/necessary evil or not, but that's a separate question. Having houses be many American family's largest investment makes increasing property values very important for those people, often to the detriment of everyone else. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
I genuinely do not give a poo poo if people with houses feel poorer because they have less theoretical money that they can't actually use if it means I have affordable housing, like just straight up if you cannot make a "sacrifice" like my house is worth less than I thought to help the millions of people who are paying exorbitant rent or literally homeless, I don't care. I hope you die alone in your house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I genuinely do not give a poo poo if people with houses feel poorer because they have less theoretical money that they can't actually use if it means I have affordable housing, like just straight up if you cannot make a "sacrifice" like my house is worth less than I thought to help the millions of people who are paying exorbitant rent or literally homeless, I don't care. I hope you die alone in your house. Building enough that house prices simply don't grow much is probably enough. If you aren't counting on appreciation it's significantly cheaper to rent than buy, at least where I live.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I genuinely do not give a poo poo if people with houses feel poorer because they have less theoretical money that they can't actually use if it means I have affordable housing, like just straight up if you cannot make a "sacrifice" like my house is worth less than I thought to help the millions of people who are paying exorbitant rent or literally homeless, I don't care. I hope you die alone in your house. pretty bold pro-gentrification take here imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 00:50
|
|