Home Ownership

[NopeNopeNopeNope]

Originally Posted by BigChief [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My maid charges $1,200 a night for her place.

Pfft I can find a maid-outfit in-call for cheaper than that. Blonde, and told her name is Christie and to respond only to Christie

Now let’s see Paul Allen’s place

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do we think that new towns are going to open up in Nebraska and that will solve the housing issue?

Opposite problem, the plains regions are depopulating over time.

Another part of the problem with cost affecting young adults is all the mcmansions being built nowadays. Seldom is new construction the sort of 2 bedroom/1 bath starter-type homes that were so common a hundred years ago.

A lot of the more popular cities actually are running out of physical space for new construction. New York City has had that problem for a very long time but now a lot of other cities which didn't historically have that issue are running into it. Numerous west coast cities come to mind.

Danth

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am having a hard time understanding the housing market.

I often hear this one response when someone points out that millennials can't afford to buy one:



But.. Am I the only one that is like, wait we're at maximum occupancy here? There are more people than homes can be built? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like...

Are we at a lack of supply because we could have many more houses than we have, but we just wont build them?

Or are we at a lack of supply because we're reaching maximum occupancy and no mater how you shake it, we're screwed?

I just seem to think that if we have more demand than we have supply of homes, that it's not a solvable solution.

Do we think that new towns are going to open up in Nebraska and that will solve the housing issue?

I just dont see how supply of homes being a problem can just be fixed. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

None of those things. Like Topgunben has alluded to, local zoning laws and safety/environmental regulations have made it unprofitable to construct most non-luxury housing.

I'll shutup and let him talk, cya later.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Pulgasari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

None of those things. Like Topgunben has alluded to, zoning laws and safety/environmental regulations have made it unprofitable to construct most non-luxury housing.

I'll shutup and let him talk, cya later.

You know what I find interesting though? its middle class housing that people cant afford, like basically it's oh if you want to buy a home, you have to live in the stix where non-luxury homes are built.

Im not saying people deserve luxury but if we define plumbing and a less than 1hr commute to down town as luxury then we might be at the end times.

(the stix are where these homes are:

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I own three homes, my son owns three homes, etc

*snickers)

[Patriam1066]

My home in rice village is not at all in the stix weirdo. The ranch is obviously and the house in Utah is a vacation home outside park city

[Gustoo]

No we already have adequate laws. Its called zoning. Homes are residentially zoned. Owning a home for rental purposes and air B and B purposes is a commercial activity. We have specific local zoning for hotels and stuff, since they fuck neighborhoods we don't put them in the same places usually.

So just enforcing laws against big tech would be workable.

Also fixing the home loan system. Home loans are for people to become home owners, because we used to believe we didn't want everyone around us to be serfs. Home loans are now being used more like business loans, so they favor giving new home loans to people that already own homes, as collateral. These homes are then used for commercial purposes (rental, air B and B) and therefore should be part of a business loan process rather than a home loan process.

Theres a lot of pretty straight forward ways to help this, but like everything it means less profits for wealthy people so its hard to pass.

As it is, they allow corporations funded by china and other outside nations to buy american homes and collect rent from us, LOL. "they" being the legislative branch. So it's a big fat joke, since they clearly don't give a shit about making american life as good as possible for most people.

[hobart]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Home loans are now being used more like business loans, so they favor giving new home loans to people that already own homes, as collateral. These homes are then used for commercial purposes (rental, air B and B) and therefore should be part of a business loan process rather than a home loan process.

This is not true for the most part. Some people do game the FHA loan program, but most people who buy residences to rent do put substantially more down than the type of people who would need programs to buy a home.

I never ended up pulling the trigger, but I was able to find a loan for a second home (that I could have rented out part time) with 15% down. Typically that's more like 20%-25%. Still, me putting down $120K on an $800K in a resort area is not the reason people can't afford homes.

[Byue]

Originally Posted by Gustoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

owners, because we used to believe we didn't want everyone around us to be serfs.

Actually, one could argue that debt incumbent homeowner don't go on strike.

Home ownership is very high in north America but average everywhere else because for what people say it is, it's not the safest investment you can make.


The problem with housing is that it is a necessity.
A lot like healthcare, it should have no business trying to make a profit.

Because look, I know I'm stupid and a fucking leftist but being a homeowner is not a job. Furthermore, if you rent your house to someone, you don't provide him with a house, he is providing you with one. (If we take the homeowners who wait for rent to pay the mortgage)


I just realized the USA rank very fucking low on homeownership charts lol. Last time I checked was so long ago, shit changed and so my pinion must also change.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Byue [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, one could argue that debt incumbent homeowner don't go on strike.

Home ownership is very high in north America but average everywhere else because for what people say it is, it's not the safest investment you can make.


The problem with housing is that it is a necessity.
A lot like healthcare, it should have no business trying to make a profit.

Because look, I know I'm stupid and a fucking leftist but being a homeowner is not a job. Furthermore, if you rent your house to someone, you don't provide him with a house, he is providing you with one. (If we take the homeowners who wait for rent to pay the mortgage)

Correct, but homes require continuous investment and service personal which accomplish related tasks. Would they then be government workers? Plus, USSRs housing solution, with a careful consideration to avoid "western decadence" was more abhorrent than their cars. Why is my government house so much shittier looking than that guy's?! *Points at Zuckerberg*

[Byue]

Originally Posted by Gwaihir [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Correct, but homes require continuous investment and service personal which accomplish related tasks. Would they then be government workers? Plus, USSRs housing solution, with a careful consideration to avoid "western decadence" was more abhorrent than their cars. Why is my government house so much shittier looking than that guy's?! *Points at Zuckerberg*

yes well, look, I don't point out Liberia to point out everything that doesn't go quite right with capitalism so it would be nice if Russia wasn't an example of what shit can be because capitalism can be great, but it can also mean you are the woman being enslaved and trafficked for sex so it has ups, and it has downs, we learned to live with the ups and avoid the downs is all.

plus, a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. is debatable, but not an entirely bad idea at face value.

Notwithstanding this, if you take a wealthy capitalist society under a president, say Kennedy and that president starts an open arm race, knowing full well the soviets will have to take funding from social project to fund the military and ultimately collapse under that weight, you obviously get shitty houses but are we talking about your new house in Siberia or the housing situation in the USA?

I merely said that housing is a tough topic because everyone absolutely need one of those.

And seriously, who can disagree that a homeowner waiting for rent to pay mortgage is not offering any services, we provide him/her with a free house she can collect from one day. Let's also evidently take away the homeowners who don't need your rent to pay the mortgage, those are either people like you and me, or big landlord like the Koch brothers, or ted turner and shit.

I didn't even go in the good or bad, it's just evidently happening.
Homeowners thinking they do a job or provide a service.

Also the continual investment you mentioned is why houses aren't the best investment you can make.
They are not bad but can be full of surprises, especially if you end up renting it.