←back to thread

The Case Against 30-Year Mortgages

(www.wsj.com)
13 points paulpauper | 4 comments | 11 Oct 25 16:42 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
yawgmoth ◴[11 Oct 25 17:11 UTC] No.45550817[source]▶
Isn't the alternative less home ownership and less growth in quality of life? Didn't all of those programs increase demand which made people homeowners?

There are a number of reasons why homes are expensive today and it's not just "social programs bad".

replies(2): >>45551168 #>>45551175 #
jleyank ◴[11 Oct 25 17:54 UTC] No.45551175[source]▶
I grew up in a 1200 sq ft house with 3 br, one bath and a 1-car garage. Built in 1940. Typical small home for a middle class ish family (us). Now, they’d want a 2200+ sq ft home with 3+ baths, a 2-car garage and parking pad. And people are surprised when much more house costs much more money. Not factoring in the entry of private equity for airbnb or rental. Same amount of land as the lot sized for the older homes were good. Kids had to play somewhere.

When people go on about the need for affordable housing, they’re not asking for the 1940 model described above nor for 200 sq ft urban rabbit warrens. They want the big house/good lot house with a good commute for little money. And probably a pony.

replies(1): >>45551694 #
1. GOD_Over_Djinn ◴[11 Oct 25 18:58 UTC] No.45551694[source]▶
> When people go on about the need for affordable housing, they’re not asking for the 1940 model described above nor for 200 sq ft urban rabbit warrens. They want the big house/good lot house with a good commute for little money. And probably a pony.

You must not live in an HCOL area. In my city, a 1000sf 100 year old house, no garage, small lot, is going to run you at least 800k. I would be perfectly happy in one of those houses, but not at that price point.

replies(1): >>45551860 #
2. jleyank ◴[11 Oct 25 19:18 UTC] No.45551860[source]▶
That’s my point. People want affordable. The market tends to deliver (blindingly) expensive. It might not be possible to build something affordable in popular areas - there is a minimum cost of construction. This is somewhat constant methinks. There is a cost of land, which is staggeringly variable. And there is the friction of the whole process which is also quite variable.

If people really want cheaper housing, they need to provide remote work or well distributed satellite employment

replies(1): >>45552636 #
3. GOD_Over_Djinn ◴[11 Oct 25 20:56 UTC] No.45552636[source]▶
This is the opposite of what you said. You implied that people’s expectations of how much house they should have are overly inflated, and that is the problem.

Your second comment implies that the costs of land, permits, inspections, etc outstrip the actual construction costs to the point that building smaller is disincentivized

replies(1): >>45558571 #
4. jleyank ◴[12 Oct 25 14:43 UTC] No.45558571{3}[source]▶
Both, I think, can be true. People don't want a closet. Housing anywhere the job nexus is seems to be expensive. (Stupid) regulations seem to be a thing. What is desired might not be possible in the desired areas. I worry it's just not possible.