|
Radbot posted:I don't think DINKs who want smaller homes are a "very niche" minority, but I'm willing to be convinced. Can I see the data that's informing your opinion? The data I have shows that Millennials can't afford many of the homes on the market and are delaying children until much later than their predecessors. There are a few companies that build (or will help a person build) tiny houses when contacted by someone who has a site. There are no companies that are tiny house "developers" in the sense of proactively purchasing properties for redevelopment or platting greenfield sites. Orange Spot LLC comes closer to that model than any other company I'm aware of, but even they typically have a client in mind before they make a move. So yes, you would need to search out one of these companies and talk to them. For the second time in this thread I'll remind you that Google is your friend, and a search of "tiny home builders" will direct you to these companies on the first page of search results.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't think DINKs who want smaller homes are a "very niche" minority, but I'm willing to be convinced. Can I see the data that's informing your opinion? The data I have shows that Millennials can't afford many of the homes on the market and are delaying children until much later than their predecessors. I think they usually rent - if I had to guess I'd wager that this generation is less prone to the "rent -> money thrown away, mortgage interest/property tax/maintenance -> buy,buy,buy" salesmanship tactic and is more cautious about homebuying in general. I don't have any data to support that though, just conjecture. I imagine people who are okay with small spaces are largely living in apartments in dense areas as opposed to small freestanding structures that only house a single family.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Hardly. It wouldn't be due to a lack of understanding, it would be due to being angry about a system that prevented poor people from owning cars. In a world where cars are artisanally crafted and whose supply is controlled and curtailed by current car owners who want to keep their car values up, blaming the ensuing high car prices on free market economics would be totally misguided and reveal a lack of understanding of what is going on. I guess if it makes you feel better to blame market economics for everything that is too expensive according to you, go ahead. Radbot posted:That's cool, good for you. Personally I'd rather pay to have a conventionally constructed, small home built for me (particularly because manufactured homes have lifespans that are much, much shorter than conventional homes), but apparently "free market economics" are the "obvious reason" that I can't find anyone willing to take my money. Earlier you were complaining about the high cost of new homes, and when presented with a lower cost solution, now you complain that it isn't good enough for you. I hope that you realize that "custom" and "inexpensive" are at odds with each other. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't think DINKs who want smaller homes are a "very niche" minority, but I'm willing to be convinced. Can I see the data that's informing your opinion? The data I have shows that Millennials can't afford many of the homes on the market and are delaying children until much later than their predecessors. lol you don't get to ask me for data to validate that you're a weirdo who wants things nobody else wants. millenials can afford homes, they just can't afford homes in cities where they want to live. the median price of a home is like $220k which is affordable, it's just way out in the burbs i understand now why it's difficult for me to understand exactly what you want, you don't know what you want either but you sure are mad the world isn't handing it to you on a sliver tray boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
zillow lists like 70 homes >1,100 sq/ft >$200k in denver so i think you're just picky and happy being unsatisfied
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
There's only one house in my neighborhood that's a burn adjacent to Chicago that's under 2000 feet (a mere 1966) at the low price of 650k. I'm going to rent forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:I understand why you think land and structures are the same commodity. Nope, I never said that. What I said is that they are usually sold together. We also weren't talking about commercial properties, but rather single family houses, where it is rare to sell the land under a house and not the house itself or vice versa. The idea was that single family houses are like cars and that there are plenty of old used cars on the market that poor people can afford due to depreciation, so the question was "why aren't there plenty of old used houses on the market that poor people can afford, too?" The answer is that most houses grown in value. It's true that this includes the value of the land under the house, and that the house itself might be depreciatng, but that's a pointless distinction to draw when most sellers won't let you buy just the house and not the land under it. Even condos, which don't come with any land at all, don't depreciate nearly as fast as a car does. Often they even gain some value over time All I'm saying is that it's a bad analogy because home depreciation/appreciation is not similar to car depreciation, and car depreciation is why there is such a healthy inventory of affordable cars
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Depreciation is a decrease in price. Do you know why prices change? Supply and demand, basically. All you're saying is that cars are different because their different supply / demand makes their prices different. Which is obvious. The same concept applies for housing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Nope, I never said that. What I said is that they are usually sold together. We also weren't talking about commercial properties, but rather single family houses, where it is rare to sell the land under a house and not the house itself or vice versa. Choosing a commercial property was dumb cause it confused the issue. My bad. Residential properties also receive split assessments for land and structure. Here's a single family house:  Yes it's true that when you buy a house, you typically purchase fee simple title to both the land and the structure. But that's not really material in the context of developing the property, whether we're talking about the initial development by the subdivider of the land or the potential redevelopment of the property. Any time someone is building a new structure they absolutely value the land and the structure independently. QuarkJets posted:The idea was that single family houses are like cars and that there are plenty of old used cars on the market that poor people can afford due to depreciation, so the question was "why aren't there plenty of old used houses on the market that poor people can afford, too?" The answer is that most houses grown in value. It's true that this includes the value of the land under the house, and that the house itself might be depreciatng, but that's a pointless distinction to draw when most sellers won't let you buy just the house and not the land under it. I'm beginning to wish I had never introduced the car analogy because people keep going off on these weirdo depreciation tangents when the whole point was just "if zoning is restrictive you'll only get expensive houses, just like if we restricted the supply of cars you'd only see expensive cars being made."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
And you have that last part backwards. Car depreciation is not why there's healthy inventory of affordable cars. The healthy inventory inventory of affordable used cars is why there's car depreciation. And that healthy inventory comes from an absence of government restrictions on the number of cars that can exist in your area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Even rent in podunk backwoods New Hampshire is expensive. Like atleast $700 for a 1 bedroom with no utilities. Like what the gently caress, how can anyone afford that, I make $15/hr and can't afford that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Maybe the solution isn't trying to pack all the millions of people in each metropolis into a ten mile radius and instead spreading the jobs around to hundreds of 500kish towns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Yeah what this country needs is even more efficiency leading to higher unemployment. I agree cities are more efficient but that isn't necessarily good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah what this country needs is even more efficiency leading to higher unemployment. I agree cities are more efficient but that isn't necessarily good. While we are at it, we can take up hammers and smash all the machines that have replaced manual laborers!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah what this country needs is even more efficiency leading to higher unemployment. I agree cities are more efficient but that isn't necessarily good. sometimes efficiency is, in fact, good, and not, bad
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Enjoying the back and forth, but wondered about something that hasn't been mentioned so far. What about the china style model where an initial certain square footage per family member residing there has a very reasonable property tax, and anything over that (including multiple properties) is taxed at a much higher rate. Would this not work as a nudge to keep house sizes down, prevent real estate hoarding from all but dedicated property managers, and possibly nudge development into smaller houses? Maybe throw in some grandfathering that only covers the lifetime of the current owner (no corporations like prop 13) so that people already in "too large" houses don't have to pay a ton, but even then, phasing it in would probably nudge plenty of people to downsize. That way the truely rich would still have their large houses, but would pay for the privilege in a form of progressive taxes, and that money could even be ear marked for new development of houses under a certain size (be they single unit homes, apartments, whatever)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah what this country needs is even more efficiency leading to higher unemployment. I agree cities are more efficient but that isn't necessarily good. Efficiency for the employees as well. You have a lot more leverage if you can find a job at a bunch of other companies all within public transit distance as opposed to having to move because you just left the only game in town.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
In general, fat american'ts (and increasingly chubby chinese) buying big mcmansions and limiting housing density to rock bottom levels is not sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 13:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
poopinmymouth posted:Enjoying the back and forth, but wondered about something that hasn't been mentioned so far. That's an interesting idea and something I've never heard about. I'm going to try to find a little more on it. Where did you learn about it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah what this country needs is even more efficiency leading to higher unemployment. I agree cities are more efficient but that isn't necessarily good. You still haven't said anything about how your Ebenezer Howard 2.0 Plan would be implemented, but I'd be curious to hear details
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:That's an interesting idea and something I've never heard about. I'm going to try to find a little more on it. Where did you learn about it? I believe it was mentioned by an expat living in China in a financial thread. They might actually have been bullshitting or misrepresenting, but I thought the gist of the idea sounded promising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:You still haven't said anything about how your Ebenezer Howard 2.0 Plan would be implemented, but I'd be curious to hear details It absolutely wouldn't, but neither would my idea to build large office buildings at every rail station and build 10x as much rail in general as well as have dedicated bus lanes on every arterial street plus require cars to pull over for buses like they would an ambulance. Also once everyone can work from home there's no productivity reason to cram everyone into megacities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:It absolutely wouldn't, but neither would my idea to build large office buildings at every rail station and build 10x as much rail in general as well as have dedicated bus lanes on every arterial street plus require cars to pull over for buses like they would an ambulance. I'm not asking about the political feasibility, I'm asking about what steps you'd take were it political feasible. Forcible relocation of residents and/or employers? Massive tax credits for decamping to smaller cities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
State/federal Tax incentives for establishing businesses in the targeted metros and tolls on roads/trains leading into the megacities to discourage suburbs from leeching off the downtown. If you want to work somewhere, live there. This would hurt home values and thus be impossible to implement without a god emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't think DINKs who want smaller homes are a "very niche" minority, but I'm willing to be convinced. Can I see the data that's informing your opinion? The data I have shows that Millennials can't afford many of the homes on the market and are delaying children until much later than their predecessors. That doesn't mean they want smaller houses, though. Typically, when somebody buys a house, they want room to settle down and be able to expand their lifestyle without having to move to do so, since they're tying themselves to a mortgage. What happens to that house the size of a 1br apartment when you decide to fall in love and have two kids? Or when you get a job the next state over and have to move? Renting is better suited for most millenials right now; there's no reason for somebody in their early twenties to be buying a house except "I want it and don't care whether its suitable for my lifestyle", "I'm a sociopath who can't tolerate my nearest neighbor being closer than fifty feet away", or " I want to live exactly like my parents did when I was growing up, except with rad parties". If you own the land, a contractor will happily build you whatever the hell you want (assuming that local zoning, ordinances, permitting, etc allow it). Abu Dave posted:Even rent in podunk backwoods New Hampshire is expensive. Like atleast $700 for a 1 bedroom with no utilities. Like what the gently caress, how can anyone afford that, I make $15/hr and can't afford that. New Hampshire isn't really as podunk as it looks, given that massive numbers of people go there to live a relatively cheap and rural lifestyle while still being in commute range of civilization. I paid $650/mo plus utilities for a 2br in podunk, backwoods Florida, and was able to afford it on less money, though things were tight when I didn't have a roommate to split it with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Enjoying the back and forth, but wondered about something that hasn't been mentioned so far. the main problem with this is the same as a national flat tax - how do you safely legislate one of the very few methods that local governments have to fund themselves? it's a nice idea in theory but in practice you'd be completely loving with 100,000+ local budgets which rely on their property taxes to make payroll. or if you instituted a national prop tax hike your party won't be elected to office for five generations mastershakeman posted:Also once everyone can work from home there's no productivity reason to cram everyone into megacities. so are people just gonna like flip burgers at home and post them in the mail
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
I wasn't aware the burger flippers are the ones buying mcmansions or driving up prices of luxury condos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I wasn't aware the burger flippers are the ones buying mcmansions or driving up prices of luxury condos. well you did say 'once everyone works from home'
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
The fantasy that technological improvements in communications will lead to massive decentralization of employment dates back to the telegraph. And yet even in this age of email and Skype the majority of businesses place an emphasis on face to face interactions. I believe the percentage of Americans working from home is still only like 2%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:The fantasy that technological improvements in communications will lead to massive decentralization of employment dates back to the telegraph. And yet even in this age of email and Skype the majority of businesses place an emphasis on face to face interactions. I believe the percentage of Americans working from home is still only like 2%. Most of that is due to the management class' utter terror of their employees slacking off. "Who cares if the work is done, Jim looked at YouTube!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Most of that is due to the management class' utter terror of their employees slacking off. "Who cares if the work is done, Jim looked at YouTube!" My friend is a great example of this, he works about 2 hours a day but he moves his mouse every 10 minutes for 9 hours. The problem is, there isn't enough work for him to do 8 hours a day. Even loving off all day, he is the leading salesman for a startup technical medical company, and they pay him really drat well. I'm always at a loss as to how I should internalize this, since my jobs have always been physical and demanding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Most of that is due to the management class' utter terror of their employees slacking off. "Who cares if the work is done, Jim looked at YouTube!" Actually, the reason the telegraph didn't lead to decentralization of the workplace was because quite a bit of work still needed to be done by hand, in person. Even today, that's still the case - and when it stops being the case, it won't be because everyone's working from home, it'll be because everything that isn't already being done from home was automated away, so we won't need to worry about affordable housing for the poor because they'll all be dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, the reason the telegraph didn't lead to decentralization of the workplace was because quite a bit of work still needed to be done by hand, in person. Even today, that's still the case - and when it stops being the case, it won't be because everyone's working from home, it'll be because everything that isn't already being done from home was automated away, so we won't need to worry about affordable housing for the poor because they'll all be dead. I think this is rather dismissive of the communication involved in doing any sort of business, independent of the presence of automation, unless you're literally talking about general AIs replacing humans and "talking" via electricity. This is a fair few steps beyond what most people talk about in terms of automation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Also if you guys seriously believe that businesses will get rid of the only communication method that leaves no sort of paper or digital trail, I dunno what to tell you
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I wasn't aware the burger flippers are the ones buying mcmansions or driving up prices of luxury condos. Having high density residential isn't just for ease of job commute, but basically all and every services that human beings could and need to use being much closer as well. Not only that, but many businesses love having such a large consumer/client base so close to feed them. Basically its the "Location, location, location" aspect built into the town deliberately. Plus it isn't just work and productivity that gets more efficient. Everything from infrastructure, power, waste, etc all goes up in efficiency when things are dense and well designed for that density.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:lol you don't get to ask me for data to validate that you're a weirdo who wants things nobody else wants. millenials can afford homes, they just can't afford homes in cities where they want to live. the median price of a home is like $220k which is affordable, it's just way out in the burbs $220k is affordable to millennials? Interesting, why do you say that? Popular Thug Drink posted:zillow lists like 70 homes >1,100 sq/ft >$200k in denver so i think you're just picky and happy being unsatisfied 70 homes in the hottest housing market in the country is virtually nothing. Can you link me to some of these homes, by the way? I didn't see that many in Denver, only if you include the entire metro area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Having high density residential isn't just for ease of job commute, but basically all and every services that human beings could and need to use being much closer as well. Not only that, but many businesses love having such a large consumer/client base so close to feed them. Basically its the "Location, location, location" aspect built into the town deliberately. And it's also insanely expensive, back to where this thread started about rent increases. If you want cheap housing it needs to be spread out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Radbot posted:$220k is affordable to millennials? Interesting, why do you say that? Doesn't seem too unreasonable to save up over a period of ~6-7 years for a 40k down payment (you can also get a sub-20% downpayment but it's probably a bad idea). That gets you like ~$900 mortgage payments at 4% for a 30 year mortgage, which seems affordable. I can't really say what salary you need in order for that to be a good idea, but it's certainly a thing one can do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:And it's also insanely expensive, back to where this thread started about rent increases. If you want cheap housing it needs to be spread out. Not if you provide adequate supply, and if you are already talking about a universe where we FORCE redistribution of population, why don't we do something less insane and actually address supply in dense markets?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:And it's also insanely expensive, back to where this thread started about rent increases. If you want cheap housing it needs to be spread out. I wouldn't say insanely expensive. Sure, there is more front-loaded costs especially not when considering more long term costs and overall benefits. Not to mention some of the costs are self-induced for short-sighted/selfish reasons as has been mention in the thread before. Spreading out, out and out you can end up with something like a Detroit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:39
|
|