This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There's a lot of potential risk, and while not all of it's the sort of thing that explodes a large portion of your asset portfolio, there's some of that class along with the "whoops it's all asbestos", "how do you like dem mold spores" and "tenant from hell that you have to take to your state's supreme court to evict", or just the hailstorm- or leaky-shower-scale problem.
And people can definitely fuck it up. People fuck up the value of homes they live in! This guy swears he'll get your basement renovation done at half the cost, no permits required, and he just needs to cut some notches in this one beam. Labor's expensive for roof repairs right now, just throw some more shingles on top and it'll last another ten years no problem. What does it matter how if the washer and dryer^andsomeotherstuff^ are on the same circuit? The housing inspector said no visible knob-and-tube.
I'd also like to argue that housing as an asset has only risen so consistently because of bad broader-scale policy decisions, but a) I've been saying that for a long time and the regulatory environment can stay stupid long enough for you to stay solvent generations, and b) the last time I decided maybe the counterintuitive economic theory had a point after guessing wrong for decades, MMT self-detonated.
There's a steelman that the risks are out-of-whack with the returns, as evidenced the variety of property management businesses and the relatively low rate of FTX-scale detonations there.
But the extent that's a largely floating on the price of housing being high enough that a small cut off is coming off a large pie. There's a sense where this is revolution-complete, since those high housing prices are the result of a combination of increasing population and immense regulatory and economic pressures against building new (or even replacement) housing, especially in high-demand areas but even in stupid ones, and especially at the lower cost end of the market. But there's another sense where if you could get even a portion of the people needed to have a successful blood-in-the-streets revolution (or the Canadian solution) to get off their couch, you could also change the political calculation, or just move a lot of similarly-minded people to take over a state the Libertarian Party way.
True re. housing as asset; but not for me. I'm different in that the property I [the greater family investment pool] own is across several countries and is in desirable locations that will remain desirable even in the 85% worst case climate change scenario; and we don't actually rent most of it out. It mainly gets used by members of the pool or lent to people we know in exchange for other services or for adhoc payments; lets us avoid tenants rights or squatters rights situations by not being landlords or absentee assholes; and it's better for out karma. It doesn't scale, but we don't want it to.
Actually owning property for rent as a small time investor is a fucking pain and half; even more so if you don't live in the same building. Much easier if you have lawyers on call and float a huge amount of money than owning 2.5 rental units 600 miles apart.
I've actually managed to avoid the pitfalls of getting fucked by tradies by being a former tradie myself; but it is precarious.
That's fair, although it sounds less like One Weird Trick and more that you've got a Very Particular Set Of Skills. Which still says something, but it's something different.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But has it? Here is the St. Louis Fed's real residential property index, which was at 60 in 1971 and about 160 today. In contrast, this calculator claims that $60 invested in the SP500 would be worth $1,540 today after
taxesinflation.Which is not to say that owning housing is not a good investment; if you live in it, you save on rent, and if you don’t, you collect rent. But most of your returns are going to be from something other than the appreciation of the property.
My claim is less that housing prices have been the Single Best Return On Investment, and more that they're just very consistently rising.
Separately, I don't think the St Louis Fed's residential property price index is really an apples-to-apples comparison to stock investments or what I'm motioning around, but their documentation on what data means exactly is pretty painful. This measure is probably closer, but because it's an average of sale values rather than of all values some of the drop in 2008 is probably about decreasing velocity at the top of the market, and it does hide some of the inflation-related 'real' value drops.
But that measure does not seem to be adjusted for inflation. Per the BLS inflatiin calculator, the 26,000 average in 1970 = 211,000 today, so today's $505,000 is 2.39x the 1970 price. That is about the same (actually somewhat less) than the 2.59x increase in the real price index I linked to (60.9 to 157.9).
I spelled out that the Fed numbers I was providing did not include inflation at the end of the post above. (I'm also not sure, but I'm 99% confident the SP500 isn't adjusted for inflation either. Yes to be clear, stocks are still going to end up having larger absolute growth.)
The exact look of the chart varies a lot depending on what inflation and housing price index you use, and some of them will show drops around the 2008 and 1979 (sometimes 1989), but even those will be less volatile than the stock market, unsurprisingly, and that's what I'm pointing toward.
Which is simultaneously obvious and kinda weird! Housing prices are not obviously goods like an opera or string quartet that should be this subject to the Baumol effect, and while land values (and regulatory overhead) are part of the difference in value, you can at least imagine some counterfactual world where a flood of cheap housing brought the average house price lower even if some individual local markets still skyrocketed as they have in our world.
Oops, when I said "$60 invested in the SP500 would be worth $1,540 today after taxes," I meant after inflation, not after taxes. And with dividends reinvested. See calculator here: https://ofdollarsanddata.com/sp500-calculator/
Edit:
Real income has increased substantially over the years, and as real income increases, people can afford to pay more for important purchases such as housing, both in absolute terms and as a pct of income. So, it is not surprising that housing prices have risen slightly faster than inflation. And, of course, new houses have grown in size over time
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
upkeep is small compared to the returns of home appreciation and not having to rent.
and scarcity of desirable locations. the option always exists for people to move from expensive to cheaper areas, yet many people still like the expensive areas
rising interest rates are a problem though; risk is mitigated by going as far out in duration as possible putting as little down as possible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link