undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjmclnx7mo ago0 comments

I look at it as an expense. If you can sell and make a few bucks, great. But I doubt any new buyers will make out.

I expect in the not to distant future, the only way someone will get to own a house is to inherent one.

0 comments

> I expect in the not to distant future, the only way someone will get to own a house is to inherent one.

Only if the current insanity around zoning and regulation persists. In many real estate markets, it's literally illegal to increase the supply of housing; in others, price controls make it unappealing to invest in increasing the supply of housing.

I don't know what kind of toxicity is unique to the Anglophone world that exacerbates this problem, but at some point we just need to rip off the band-aid, tell existing homeowners to cry more, and just build, build, build. There's no inherent reason why the price of houses should so far exceed income in this vast country.

jmclnxOP7mo ago

>just build, build, build. There's no inherent reason why the price of houses should so far exceed income in this vast country

You are right, but there is always a but :)

Seems right now the "good jobs" are only being create around a few mega cities. DC, NY, SF and a few others. DC stalled a bit I think due to DOGE. In a lot of those areas NIMBH is big. So if you build like crazy in many "fly over" states, where is is plenty of land, at best the builders will not make a profit. But probably the houses will stay empty.

As with everything else, politicians will not make the hard decisions due to fear.

I use to be against term-limits, but the last 25 years proved me wrong :(

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse