Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Also, if you've bought a home, increased supply might mean that your "investment" (because homes now seem to be primarily investments rather than a place to live) becomes less valuable.

No, if you've bought a home, you want ever increasing prices. But people forget that during the first half of life, you generally try to move somewhere bigger each time you move. If prices increase 10% on average, your $500k property is now worth around $550. Yay!

However, the house you want to buy, that cost $1m when you bought your current property, now costs $1.1m. So actually, you lost $50k for the standard of living you're looking for, rather than gained it.

If prices decreased 10%, you would seem to have lost $50k, until you want to move somewhere bigger and therefore can cash in the proportionally bigger "discount".



This raises the fundamental question: do people have the inherent democratic right to determine the population density of their own neighborhoods?

If yes, everyone will do as you say and vote to restrict housing supply to maximise their property value.

Democracy works great for deciding if your community wants a nicer dog park or a bigger library, not so great for deciding if your community should consists of single family homes or 4-5 story apartments.


>However, the house you want to buy, that cost $1m when you bought your current property, now costs $1.1m. So actually, you lost $50k for the standard of living you're looking for, rather than gained it.

I have 50K in cash which I can leverage into 250K worth of mortgage. That gets me more home despite the price increase. In turn, I get to pocket the difference between interest and home value increases when I eventually sell and retire to a place with normal housing cost.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: