[hibikir]

Housing is an auction, and a bet on how well the area is going to do. If you live in a place that has very high demand, prices are going to go up if there's no building being done. But it's not all rising prices: My house's value hasn't outpaced inflation through the last 20 years, because it's in the wrong part of St Louis. People with blue collar occupations have no problem buying around me: You can buy a 4 bedroom house for under 300k, and their salaries have gone up far more than the price of the houses.

So house pricing problems? Just localized regulatory problems. We'd have a much smaller problem if more metro areas were attractive to people, instead of having such a big separation between of winners and losers.

[dangus]

There is a documented housing supply shortage on a national level.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/homes/housing-shortage/index....

Plus, mortgage rates are set at a national level. Your house price went up dramatically in the last two years even though the purchase price didn’t increase because someone new to the neighborhood has to pay a higher monthly payment to buy.

I would argue that the amount of homes that lost value enough to fully compensate the rapid increase in interest rates is going to be extremely low, even in towns and neighborhoods facing rapid decline.

It’s also the case that more metro areas grew than declined: https://www.businessinsider.com/2020-census-fastest-growing-...

In other words, pick any random person in the US and it’s more likely than not that they live somewhere that is growing.

[DeathArrow]

Who do you think are the winners, and who do you think are losers.

You can buy in the wrong part of a city but you will pay much less. Who wins, people who pay less or people who pay less? I think it depends on what they are after.

[yterdy]

>Housing is an auction

Between the recent (nationwide) realtor fee debacle and RealPage et al.'s (multi-state) price-fixing, it's probably more accurate to say that housing is a (national) grift.