Re:Y Combinator Learns Basic Income Is Not So Basic After All
by RestlessMind on Monday August 27, 2018 @05:28PM
(#17854718)
> I see zero reason why 2400 square foot homes would lose any value whatsoever if we built more small homes
One factor why house prices are high is that demand exceeds supply. By building small homes, a lot of demand would be catered to by a new pool of housing. Heck, even those who could afford bigger houses but prefer smaller houses for whatever reasons (eg. frugality) would be removed from demand side. So now there would be a downward pressure on house prices.
Re:Y Combinator Learns Basic Income Is Not So Basic After All
by DoreenMichele on Monday August 27, 2018 @05:54PM
(#17854904)
In much of the US, homes are gaining value at better than minimum wage rates per hour. Given that people working minimum wage jobs cannot work 24/7, owning a home is putting money in your pocket faster than a minimum wage job.
This means that downward pressure on home prices amounts to slowing hyperinflation to a more reasonable rate. This isn't remotely the same as gutting the equity for existing homeowners (much less putting them "upside down," where they owe more than the house is worth).
http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/real-estate-news/united-...
In the 1950s, most new homes were around 1200 square feet and held about 4.5 people. Today, the typical new home is over 2400 square feet and holds about 3.5 people (IIRC).
I see zero reason why 2400 square foot homes would lose any value whatsoever if we built more small homes so people who can't afford a house that big can still afford a place of their own.