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 -
I almost didn't write this, because from my perspective, "In a world where most people don't have coherent thoughts on Topic X, here's a politician who also doesn't have coherent thoughts on Topic X," may be a bit boring. I decided to write it anyway, because it gives a quick hook to the root of the issue, and I might as well lay it out in detail somewhere.
So, Trump speaks on the price of housing. For some societal context, there has been a bit of a movement toward trying to lower the cost of housing. YIMBY is oriented somewhat in this direction; I've even heard the phrase "Housing Theory of Everything" describing the perspective the high housing costs have a variety of other knock-on effects, and so it would be desirable to lower the cost of housing.
Trump highlights the core of the problem. He doesn't want to lower the value of "existing" housing. "People who own their home" should be kept wealthy with high house prices. But the kicker is that there's no way to economically separate the value of "existing" housing and the "people who own their homes" from, uh, "non-existing" housing? As sure as the day is long, if you have a stock of houses, each worth $1M, and then conjure out of thin air a plentiful amount of previously "non-existing homes" that only cost $500k to buy but are otherwise just as desirable, what's going to happen when an existing homeowner decides to sell their house? They'll list it for $1M, but all the potential buyers will look at that, look over at the same deal for only $500k, look back and think, "WTF? Why would I spend that much?" They're going to buy the cheap one. And so, if the existing homeowner wants to successfully sell his home, he will have to lower the price.
...but since everyone already knows that he would have to lower the price (since the price of whatever magical disconnected-from-existing-housing has been lowered), then everyone already knows that the "value" of that existing home is, uh, lower. These things are obviously connected; you can't just hold one constant and tweak the other.
I continue to maintain that the vast majority of folks out there simply do not have a coherent view on the simple question, "Should the cost of housing be higher or lower (or, I guess, the same)?" They want to magically keep the value just exactly as high or higher for existing homeowners, but somehow magically make housing otherwise generally cheap.
You can try (and oh boy does the government try) to come up with ways to just throw cash at the problem, but these efforts generally run into two major types of problems. First, that cash has to come from somewhere. Almost always, that's taxes. Who do you think is paying those taxes? This one we might file under the "obfuscation theory of government". If you hide it well enough that people don't realize that the cash being thrown at the problem to make it look like their right pocket is just as wealthy as it ever was is in fact coming out of their left pocket, they just might not realize?
Second, most schemes end up having to play endless whack-a-mole for the follow-on effects if they want to maintain general cheap housing while keeping house prices high. For example, all the business about throwing cash at first-time home buyers. Some of that reduces the cost to folks who don't own a house, and some of that increases the price of the houses (going to the sellers), and that seems like it could just solve the problem, right?
Well, consider a renter. They're not getting the bag of cash thrown their way. But the price of the houses that they'd like to rent are going up. So their rent is going up. So the cost of "housing" isn't going down for them. Are you going to play whack-a-mole and start subsidizing rent, too? This way Venezuela lies. What if you just jack up the FTHB cash-throw? Just accept that renting is going to be basically infeasible, because getting into the home-borrowership (to use a phrase from Arnold Kling) carousel is now too economically attractive in comparison. Sure, you'll end up with fake and gay high house prices, but everyone "gets in", right? But even then, your 'wealth' is fake and gay. Suppose you want to sell your house and reap the sweet sweet value that you have. Well, where are you going to live? Renting is infeasible (by design). Are you going to buy a different house that also has a fake and gay high price? Suddenly, your gainz disappear. All the while you're paying more interest, more property tax, and more transactions costs (that realtor still costs 3% of a fake and gay high price).
Someone will surely try to come up with this scheme and that scheme to whack this mole or that mole, but I press X to doubt that you can technocrat your way to a solution, especially one that doesn't cost gigantic bags of cash coming out of the general treasury (and ultimately, taxpayers' pockets).
The fundamental question, "Should the cost of housing be higher or lower (or, I guess, the same)?" confuses a lot of people and is probably one of the core problems of our time that produces a multitude of political dysfunction.
As somebody who has a mortgage and is considering moving, I think about housing prices a lot. The conventional wisdom seems to be that high home prices are a good thing for homeowners, but I can't entirely figure out why that's true in the general case.
If your home is "worth" 10x your purchase price, you can only use that by selling it or using it as collateral for debt.
If you're selling it, you're either moving into a new purchased property or a rental. If you're moving into a new property, it's likely just as inflated as your current home unless you're engaging in geographic abitrage by moving from Martha's Vineyard to Monkey's Eyebrow, Kentucky. If you're moving into a rental - well, any rational landlord is going to set rates at the absolute highest point the market can handle, and that's informed by home prices. If every housing market in the country took a 50% pounding, I'd likely be better off in terms of relocating than I am now.
I can understand the collateral for debt argument, but I don't know how common that is, as I am a peasant who avoids debt whenever I can. Maybe somebody else here can fill in the gaps on this one.
Given all that, what exactly am I missing here? Why are high home valuations for homeowners considered to be such an unalloyed good?
For most people, wealth is only useful for retirement. The model is: you save and invest and develop wealth so that eventually you can stop working and live off that wealth until you die.
Two common ways to do that now are down-sizing from a large home where you raised a family to a smaller home/condo/retirement community (what my parents did) or a reverse mortgage if you don't have kids to pass assets on to. In both cases an inflated housing market gives you more cash.
I would guess it's rare to use leverage on your home to enter the capitalist class, but that's also a possibility. For instance, my first home has risen in value >$100K and I can potentially access that equity to help fund my new business.
More options
Context Copy link
Leverage. Suppose you bought your house for $100,000 and still owe $70,000 on your mortgage. If it's still worth $100,000, you have $30,000 in equity. If it's worth $1,000,000 you don't have $300,000 but rather $970,000 in equity. Even if all the other houses have gone up as much, you've won.
Right, but that equity is only useful if you're going to sell it, or you need to borrow money and can afford to make the payments. If I were to buy a $100,000 house tomorrow, and I make the kind of money for which the loan is comfortably affordable but not so much that I could comforably afford a house worth much more than that, being able to borrow $900,000 isn't much of an advantage. Maybe if circumstances change such that I need to borrow money and I can get a better interest rate on a HELOC than I would on a personal loan, but even then the origination fees combined with the fact that the bank now has a lien on your house makes it a questionable decision unless the circumstances call for it.
It's not very liquid but it is wealth and it is useful. If the 10X increase is straight inflation, you've gained $67,000 in the same currency as you bought the house in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the geographic arbitrage you mention is pretty common. My mother and step-father were, at one point, considering moving to a pretty rural area of Kentucky since they could get a lot of land quite cheap. Additionally there's a size/quality arbitrage that occurs. When you're younger, have kids and a growing family, you probably want a larger house than when you're older and retired. So even if you stay in the same geographic area there's an arbitrage to a relatively less desirable house that may be better suited to your needs.
My impression is many homeowners also perceive their house and its equity as a retirement investment. In many (most?) places around the country your home is likely to be the most valuable asset you own. Even if one doesn't intend to cash out that asset themselves, it is something very valuable to leave to one's progeny. Either in the form of cash from a sale or as a place to live.
Agreed, I live in a suburb in the Northeastern US and it's pretty common for people to sell; move to places like Georgia or the Carolinas; and end up with a much nicer house (fully paid off); and a bunch of extra money to boot.
Even among people who don't end up doing it, just knowing that it's a potential option provides peace of mind and a safety net for taking financial risks such as quitting one's job and starting a business; taking an early retirement plan that's 90% likely to succeed, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If I was in DINK couple, or an irresponsible parent, a reverse mortgage would be very tempting; after all, if I don't have anyone I want to leave my wealth to, what do I care if the bank takes it after I die?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link