HN

Comments (310)

• Menu

  ecshafer
  Housing can not be a viable asset class, or it will continue to rise in prices. Step 1 is Land Value Taxes. Step 2 is remove/greatly reduce zoning, allow construction and streamline the process. If you allow density, building up, and incentivize it, then it will be built. Developers spend tens of thousands of dollars in permits and interest payments before they can put a shovel in the ground. Being a landlord isn't really an issue, morally, ethically, or with regards to people buying houses. The issue is when there are limited number of units, and people turn them into investments.
• Menu

  GodelNumbering
  There was a youtube video sometime ago that argued about how life has vastly improved in every single aspect (with numbers about how 'stuff' has gotten universally more affordable), only housing has gotten more expensive relative to income and how that proves we have a better quality of life because of that.It got me thinking that maybe the home ownership, or having a place you can call yours, disproportionately affects people's sense of content and wellbeing. Also, doesn't help that laws and government policy heavily favor home owners (perhaps because home owners vote at a lot higher rate than renters)
• Menu

  randusername
  I find it hard to trust economic narratives when so many metrics cited upon further inspection do not really measure what they are implied to measure.Or maybe we measure what is easiest to measure, not what is best.I see this everywhere, though. Jobs data is really job openings not actual hires. Unemployment data is really paperwork filing not people out of work or retiring early. And now home ownership is really "count everyone in the home if the owner resides there".
• Menu

  azath92
  Looking at the statistics that are used to measure growth and performance at a population level are such a great window into how they themselves are opinionated stances.The two measures are both great measures of house ownership that measure different things. The article frames the second one as better, and if you are looking to see the ownership proportion of people (for example as they note to look at the numbers of young people who live with parents) thats great. If however you care about the housing development decisions that will incentivise owner occupancy you might care more about the standard owner occupancy per household.I often see this with respect to GDP/GDP per capita vs mean income and other economic measures, but its great to see a non economic measure like this compared in this way.
• Menu

  tndibona
  Actually I don't think this metric goes far enough. In my opinion a homeowner should "own" their home. I.e should have majority equity in his or her home. An owner who pays 3% down is basically a risk bearer for the bank. The bank really owns the majority and is renting out the "owner". I don't think my opinion is fringe. It does measure the risks of not being able to make rent and getting evicted.
• Menu

  rayiner
  This isn’t “putting people first,” it’s baking in the cultural assumption that adults live separately from kin. Consider the examples:> Housing unit 1. A couple owns their home. The woman’s parents live with them.> Housing unit 2. A couple owns their home. Their son, a recent college graduate, lives with them.> Housing unit 3. A man owns his home. A friend lives with him.> Housing unit 4. A couple owns their home. Their two young children live with them.> Housing unit 5. Three roommates rent their home. The owner lives elsewhere.> As illustrated in Figure 1, these five housing units are home to 14 adults. Because four of these five housing units have their respective owners as residents, the owner-occupancy rate—the measure traditionally viewed as the homeownership rate—on the cul-de-sac is 80 percent. However, because only seven of the 14 adults are actually owners of the homes they live in, the HPOP is much lower, at 50 percent.I think 1, 2, and 4 should all count as “owning their home.” The new measure is also a recipe for confounding attempts to compare the metrics over time, as demographic change brings in cultures that embrace multi-generational living. So what seems to be a drop in homeownership rate could instead reflect a growing and aging sub-population where the cultural preference is for parents to live with adult children instead of separately.
• Menu

  xyzelement
  Perhaps this measure is useful to something but I find it directionally annoying as I don't think "higher is better" as it would be with the more traditional metric.Here's an example from the page - a couple and the wife's parents - a couple and their college grad sonIn this example the two couples (4 people) are counted as home owners and the 3 others (wife's parents, the son) as non owners - so the ownership rate is 4/7 = 57%.On the traditional metric that scenario would be 100% because roughly each family owns its home which is good.Now look at what would have to happen for the new rate to move to 100 - the wife's parents and the son would need to move out and buy separate homes. In other words the metric "punishes" living with family even if that's what you want to do.I find the traditional metric is more useful. If I am a renter that indicates the desire to have a separate place - so it makes more sense to "ding" the ownership metric.
• Menu

  BeetleB
  Looking at this, seeing that 50% are homeowners is actually astoundingly good. In a lot of countries 50% cannot afford to be homeowners.This is an international community here on HN, would love to hear takes from other countries.
• Menu

  pmnelson
  Another similarly flawed measure is household income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...), which is used frequently as a measure of socio-economic class. Under this measure, a single adult making $90k and a household of two adults and two children making $90k combined are treated equally, which has always struck me as quite stupid.
• Menu

  bell-cot
  No mention of vacation homes, homeless people, or some other situations - but their new metric appears to treat those properly.(Yes, I saw the reference to dorms, nursing homes, & prisons.)
• Menu

  redwood
  Everything in the study makes perfect sense. However one thing that's not discussed is change in culture and expectations. For example the United States is probably the only country where there's a general expectation that grandparents parents and adult children all live in separate homes... and most other countries multi-generation living is the norm. And perhaps some of those norms are starting to float into the United states. On the other hand no doubt the fact that people are not able to live to the traditional American norm is contributing to malaise. Still it feels a little simplistic to characterize everyone's goal is having their own home.Maybe a way to handle this better would be to look at the size of the home because if a home can easily fit multiple generations it feels like a very different situation. Also it's somewhat arbitrary who happens to be the owner on the deed not to mention key questions like whether or not the home is truly owned outright versus largely in debt to a mortgage
• OrvalWintermute
  I’m happy to see our metrics being improved because much of the economic policy seems to have been based around what was good for boomers.Not what was good for young people who, for the most part, can’t afford to live in houses and these days are getting ripped off with overly expensive apartments too, so they never have a chance to buy a house and build equity.
• Menu

  Aurornis
  TL;DR: Instead of measuring the percentage of homes that are owned by people who live there, they want to measure the percentage of adults who own a home.Feels like an apples and oranges situation. The two numbers each have their own value but they’re measuring different things.One is calculated based on the number of houses, the other is a measured based on the population of adults or households. Both measures have always existed. Trying to replace one with the other doesn’t seem right because they both have value for different reasons.
• the_real_cher
  [dead]
• maweaver
  [flagged]
• yoshitha2010
  [flagged]
• Menu

  usainvasion
  [flagged]
• Menu

  whack
  > the U.S. homeownership rate is 53 percentI hope this number drops below 50%. Well below 50%. Maybe then we can finally vote down the NIMBY regulations and NIMBY politicians. And start rapidly expanding our housing supply. Given our current political system, it seems high homeownership rates are the root cause of the housing affordability crisis