Will a 50-Year Mortgage Make Homes More Affordable?
Key topics
The article discusses the potential introduction of 50-year mortgages and their impact on housing affordability, with commenters largely expressing skepticism about their effectiveness in making homes more affordable.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
32s
Peak period
17
0-1h
Avg / period
4.5
Based on 36 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 10, 2025 at 8:31 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 10, 2025 at 8:32 PM EST
32s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
17 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 11, 2025 at 10:16 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
So, unfortunately not.
(increasing supply would take targeted capital cost reduction, monopoly busting around new home builders and their land acquisition partners, and rapidly increasing the trades labor supply by hundreds of thousands of workers in the near term without immigration; none of this is likely to happen within the next three years)
China has built enough housing for everyone who will ever live in China, because they overbuilt during their housing frenzy [1] and they’ve reached the decline of the population curve where more people are dying every year versus those being born. Japan has more housing than people because their population has also reached the population curve decline [2], and will continue to decline forever (creating surplus housing supply). We need enough housing to cover peak population in each country [3], but also a system to lock out investment from front running humans for the ownership. Otherwise, Capital will consume housing while also trying to destroy jobs with offshoring, AI, and automation. To those who say, “just build more,” well, let me know when you’re going to show up to pour a foundation and start framing, because the evidence is robust in the US we’re having a heck of a time building more supply. You have to build more (which includes supply chains for affordable materials and a constant supply of tradespeople), and what you do build, ensure that supply gets into the hands of folks who need affordable housing (instead of housing anyone under 40 cannot afford, or entire built to order subdivisions by investors that are going to be rented out). The political will is lacking, because strong policy intervention will be required.
If immigration in flows to the US have mostly stopped due to this administration’s policies, ~2M+ people a year 55+ die every year, and ~3M people turn 18 every year, assuming a continuing declining total fertility rate (currently 1.6 and continuing to fall) and smaller family formation (couples and families with only 1-2 children, if any, versus families >4), what is the target build rate and the delta to get there? You can either build more, destroy demand, or some combination of both.
I’ve seen various reports that the housing shortage is anywhere between 2M-8M units, but I think Fannie Mae’s estimate of ~4M is likely the most accurate [4]. I’m a big fan of the Vienna public housing model [5], but again, political appetite is lacking to implement.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-housing-glut-populatio... | https://archive.today/OqYat
[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/look-japans-reverse-housing-c...
[3] https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38252549
[5] https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/economic-growth/regio...
Even if the US builds more, how many more people can we fit in Seattle, San Francisco, New York City? We have to build in Buffalo, Toledo, Shreveport also, but getting people to live in those cities rather than bid up housing in the former is impossible without some sort of residency control (like Chinese hukou which no longer works well there either).
We know what happens when population begins to decrease, you get some affordability in Tokyo and even more in places where people are moving to Tokyo from. Could that work here? Maybe.
(I cannot speak to Buffalo, but I donate to A Tiny Home For Good, which provides housing for the disadvantaged in Syracuse; I strongly believe their model would scale given appropriate resources, as it relates to homelessness)
https://www.atinyhomeforgood.org/about
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-homeless-people-are-i...
There are multiple categories of homeless people, with some (the most visible ones) choosing what cities they are unhoused in. Seattle (where I live) is never going to be able to house all of them: the more money we throw at the problem (and we spend a lot!), the worse it gets for obvious reasons. It is much easier to solve homeless problems in a city that isn’t a destination due to climate, social services spending, or drug availability. We do lots of tiny home villages here also, they cost around $100k/year/unit to run, which doesn’t make sense, but that’s what the non profits are charging and what the city/county are paying.
Indeed.
The Great Reshuffle: Remote Work and Residential Sorting - https://fedinprint.org/item/fedpwp/102079/original | https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/FRBP/Assets/working-... [pdf] | https://doi.org/10.21799/frbp.wp.2025.36
> This paper studies the significance of migration in evaluating the welfare impacts of remote work. By analyzing individual location history data, we first document an increase in net migration towards suburbs and smaller cities in the US since 2020. We demonstrate that the migration wave has been disproportionately fueled by high-income individuals, who were more likely to move due to remote work. Consequently, regions with substantial in-migration observed the greatest rise in housing expenses. This also led to changes in local demand for services and associated employment. Employing a stylized welfare accounting framework, we show that migration mitigated the increase in housing cost burdens for both high- and low-income groups, with the advantages being greater for low-income individuals. Conversely, dispersed job growth, as a result of migration away from major urban centers, curtailed the increase in job accessibility, especially for high-income groups. Factoring in the spatial impacts of migration on housing costs and job accessibility, the welfare inequality surge related to remote work is considerably tempered.
As someone who holds excess capital this makes me so hard.
15 year car loans?
... in exchange for over a million dollars more paid over the life of the loan.
I don't think that's making any meaningful difference to anyone other than lenders.
Another way to think about it. Longer mortgages means more available buyers (for a given price level). More buyers means prices up.
None of this is being done for the actual struggling people in the community.
Or maybe it's the reverse.
However, USA’s fixed interest rates, and your ability to refinance to a lower rate, aren’t really sustainable in a 59 year loan (they aren’t sustainable for 30 year loans). A lot of people are going to be locked into the same house for generations because they got a good rate 30-40 years ago. Also, it doesn’t really increase supply, we are going to quickly degrade into a European housing market of interest only loans and renting as a normal way of life.
I doubt many people, if any, will do this though.
And uhhh, there's the small matter of "what you're putting in SPY" being rather offset by the $1M+ extra in payments and interest over the life of the loan.
The only people this benefit, truly, are lenders.
Maybe? At present the 15-year fixed is at 5.57% and the 30-year is at 6.15%. It's impossible to predict what a 50-year mortgage would cost since we don't know what the government will throw at it or what goofily-named government-sponsored enterprises would be created to buy these mortgages, but... more. The tools banks use to measure the risk of a mortgage right now don't even apply if the common situation becomes that the house and the owner are likely to age out into decrepitude during the life of the loan.
If the 50-year becomes a real thing we can use the government to backstop all this and provide financial support when all the obvious things go wrong (at enormous taxpayer expense). Might as well, we provide a lot of stuff to keep the 30-year going, which is definitely not a loan that would exist otherwise. It's unwise to pretend that this is all a perpetual motion machine that's only going to make itself stronger over time if we use it cleverly.
Always goes up is not the usual.
The supply will stay the same, the demand and therefore the prices will increase.
Only the property owners and lenders will make money.
But if it mimics the rise of the same idea in Japan, it could indicate peak real estate as coincided relatively closely with the introduction of the 50 year mortgage in Japana,
Different circumstances, different “song”. But perhaps a similar tune.
50-Year Mortgages That Children Can Inherit (21 points, 36 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31967700
UK Gover[n]ment keen on 50-year mortgages (27 points, 60 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31958362
BTW if you're commenting you should vote the story up so other people can see it.