Live data from Hacker News

Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

swissinfo.ch

421–430 of 600 posts

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#421
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's a downside, unless you prefer hearing prayer 5 times a day. I fled Bosnia during the war, but I visit it occasionally and each time it appears more religiously extremist than the last. All other countries should take a look at what has happened there and consider the importance of implementing cultural integration in addition to economic integration when accepting large incoming migrant population…

> I'm not sure that's a downside, unless you prefer hearing prayer 5 times a day Is/Was prohibited anyway in Switzerland, so this vote didn't change anything on that fact. Though this argument has been used during the campaign before the vote.

A good point. I'm not familiar with the switzerland law or referendum.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#422
post #81
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zurich is not comparable to London, Berlin or Prag due to the fact that it is an order of magnitude smaller than most European cities. The diameter of Zurich is just 13 km. The city itself is tiny and the "city center" is even tinier. This leads to the variance of the rent being very high: In the very center of town you might have to pay 1500 CHF for a 1-bedroom apartment, but if you can live also 5 km from the city…

> 1500 CHF for a 1-bedroom apartment That's cheap compared to London (zone 1).

And completely unrealistic in Zurich. Unless the price refers to a 1-room apartment (which in US English would be a studio, in Switzerland typically all rooms are counted for apt descriptions, a 1-bedroom apt is called a 2- or 2.5-rooms apt)

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how having [already legally silenced] minarets affects the culture of Swiss people that don't attend mosques in the slightest apart from its visual impact on the surrounding area. (I'm not sure minarets or lack thereof affects anyone's culture that much tbh) Frankly I'd have thought enshrining the principle of intolerance of the symbols of a particular religion in the constitution represented a more subs…

It would be a visible symbol that Islam is part of mainstream culture which it is not. It is part of other cultures and these cultures have very different views on social norms and order, laws and politics.

If you incorporate tribalism into a national constitution, all it does is amplify tribalism in society. Whatever social problems exist between unassimilated immigrants and locals will get worse, not better. A constitution is probably the single least constructive place possible in which to wage culture wars. It should be steering the country towards helping different cultures coexist, not feeding into both the xenophobia of one group while formalizing the outsider status of another one.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#424
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why people believe/feel that buying land and/or a house is the pinnacle of... something. Sure, it gives the person a feeling of control and stability. But rooting oneself in one labor market (vs. being mobile) decreases one's employment options and therefore their salary. It's also very risky, as it's the equivalent of putting one's eggs in one basket and leaves their financial wellbeing in the…

And on the opposite, I never understood how people can not own a house and waste money on renting for decades. Where market for houses in western countries is very limited due to stupid regulations and every year a few millions of people move to that country causing renting prices to increase by XX% each year. It decreases my financial stability. Losing a job for less than a month is a financial disaster, I still to…

http://jlcollinsnh.com/2012/02/23/rent-v-owning-your-home-op...

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a house doesn't necessarily mean buying in the suburbs. We've got kid and live in the city, and we know other families that do as well. Probably still a minority, but a growing trend. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that people with kids lived in cities too.

This is a weird comment. Is this a Baltimore thing? American cities are full of families. With the possible exceptions of San Francisco and Manhattan, they are mostly families, aren't they?

Sorry, I meant we're in the minority of families that live in a city, not that a minority of people in the city are families. The latter is true, as you point out: 57% of Baltimore households are families.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#426
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And on the opposite, I never understood how people can not own a house and waste money on renting for decades. Where market for houses in western countries is very limited due to stupid regulations and every year a few millions of people move to that country causing renting prices to increase by XX% each year. It decreases my financial stability. Losing a job for less than a month is a financial disaster, I still to…

> waste money on renting How is renting wasting money? Are you not living in the unit? You're gaining 100% benefit by paying rent and receiving a roof over your head. You must mean a waste by losing out on building equity? That's a crap shoot in itself. A hot housing market and equity can go into the toilet at anytime due to very irrational market conditions. Look at the housing markets of Las Vegas or Miami for exam…

My big reason for giving up on renting is the control. I ended up being forced to move twice after landlords sold the building I happened to be living in. It was a frustrating experience. This is much less likely to happen with my own house (natural disasters, eminent domain, etc.).

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But by European standards, Chicago is a small city of about 100,000 people surrounded by an enormous commuter town.

To pick a random European city, let's compare Chicago to Amsterdam: http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.com/2015/01/amsterdam-area... . Amsterdam's metro region has about 670,000 people living in neighborhoods above 20,000 people per square mile. Chicago has between 1.1-1.3 million people (twice as many) living at that density or higher: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Z3ai_T6K_40/T4I6B9akQDI/A... . It's actually mo…

Those cumulative density charts for population density are the best representation I've ever seen of that stat. Did you make those charts?

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#428
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As already mentioned, you're ignoring a fact that even by working there for 10 years, it's close to impossible to buy a part of land and build a house anywhere near a city. Land and house prices are too high to stay there for live. It's only profitable to live there, make savings and buy 2-3 houses in Uk/Germany for it. Like two of my co-workers did.

I've never understood why people believe/feel that buying land and/or a house is the pinnacle of... something. Sure, it gives the person a feeling of control and stability. But rooting oneself in one labor market (vs. being mobile) decreases one's employment options and therefore their salary. It's also very risky, as it's the equivalent of putting one's eggs in one basket and leaves their financial wellbeing in the…

I own and rent.

I own a house worth about £300k with a mortgage of £140k. The mortgage repayments are £500 per month.

I wanted to upgrade my house to somewhere larger in a nicer area but didn't want to wipe out my savings to raise a deposit. So I made the decision to rent somewhere instead.

It feels like the best of both worlds. I get all the upside of a big house without any liability for something going wrong (boilers, high end kitchen equipment, etc). I've rented the house I own to some tenants and the profit from the rent I make goes towards my rented house.

Best case scenario - one day I'll own my old house outright and continue to rent. I might even buy another house to rent out at some point. Worst case - the market goes tits up I stop renting and return to the house I own where my mortgage is very affordable.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do incur a lot more costs as a property owner than as a renter, which you should bear in mind. Over the life of your average 20-25 year mortgage you should expect to have to replace numerous appliances, encounter a couple of catastrophic and unexpected issues (leaking roof, etc.), and after 10 years the decor will be outdated and shabby. To get optimum resale value you will have to sink a lot of time/money into r…

I was waiting for someone to mention that. Home ownership is expensive and makes you inflexible. Also, consider property taxes (which will scale with inflation) and the fact home owners insurance is more expensive than renters. And besides finance you need to consider if you want the responsibility of owning a home. Cutting the grass, shoveling snow, cleaning gutters, fixing things, painting, etc. It's a lot of work.…

Another counter-point: when you buy a house, even while the mortgage isn't paid off, you can immediately start renting parts of it and end up in a situation where your mortgage payments are equaled or exceeded by your rental income. I also believe that this is taxed differently from normal income, especially so if you're renting rooms in a house you live in vs. owning rental property.

In the Bay Area at least, a single-bedroom apartment is easily $2000 a month. If you play your cards right, a single-family home in a desirable neighborhood for tech workers or others can be had for under $1m with 4 reasonably-sized bedrooms, a garage, and a yard. You can then rent out 2 of the bedrooms at $1400/month each and end up with your mortgage payment from your tenants each month. There are still maintenance costs and very significant property taxes (~single-tens of thousands per year on such a property), but you also build equity, which you can later sell (minus the mortgage interest). Depending on the mortgage, you could also use this situation to over-pay mortgage payments in order to pay off the property faster and reduce the amount spent on interest if that works out to a better investment opportunity than anything else you could do with the same money (any early payoff penalties included).

It does seem to me that renting is a mixture of paying for convenience and throwing money away, given the above scenario and considering how after 5 years, the home owner ends up with ~$150k in equity assuming the housing market stays flat (it doesn't in the Bay Area, e.g. http://www.paragon-re.com/3_Recessions_2_Bubbles_and_a_Baby ) , taxes, maintenance, and interest included, you should still come out ahead with the house. Once you also factor in that renting gets you 8-20%+ increases in rental price per year, while the house value appreciates on the low end of that range over the same amount of time (and also that you can raise the rent for your lodgers accordingly), you really start to see why houses in the Bay Area are attracting foreign investors and starting bidding wars above asking price for nothing-special properties.

Edit: lastly, the point I feel everyone neglects: unlike other investments, your first property has the additional advantage and value that you can live in it, so comparisons to other investments become quite different. Sure, you could take your down payment and put it into ETFs, and on paper the yearly average gains might look similar, but if you suddenly lose your job, the ETFs won't provide a place to sleep at night.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please reconsider expressing your views in this offensive way. It's quite reasonable to discuss the current situation with immigration into Europe, but it's quite another thing to make unfounded accusations about"criminality, antisocial behavior, and otherwise degeneracy" when I'm sure you would accept that such behaviour is not engaged in by the majority. Rhetoric like this does nothing but inflame reflexive, unthin…

I wonder if you think that pro-immigration movements can be inflamed, reflexive, unthinking and possibly offensive? Actually they do not need to be because there's been a fait accompli in that at least one million immigrants have entered Germany on the basis of what appears to be the say-so of one woman. Discussion is over! This isn't the context for a rebuttal of your suggestion that unfounded accusations abound reg…

I wonder if you think that pro-immigration movements can be inflamed, reflexive, unthinking and possibly offensive?

Obviously so. We see that all the time in the UK – there's a persistent anti-immigration sentiment among some parts of the population, but instead of seeking to understand, their views are immediately discounted as racist ramblings. In reality, such groups often really have genuine concerns about immigration, typically because it results in a displacement from work for some part of the population. Shouting at people about how they are racist isn't really constructive.

Actually they do not need to be because there's been a fait accompli in that at least one million immigrants have entered Germany on the basis of what appears to be the say-so of one woman.

I'm sure you appreciate that this isn't true, and that Merkel isn't personally in charge of deciding who's allowed into Germany, so we probably don't have to discuss it further.

Probably some are but you'd have to believe in a massive conspiracy to disregard all reports of let us say, rape and sexual offences committed by some of those immigrants

There are absolutely legitimate reports of crimes among immigrant populations. That does not mean that immigrant populations are all criminals, nor does it mean that allowing immigration into the country is wrong. The problem is where we move from the question "how do we deal with issues caused by immigrant populations" to "send the unwashed deviants back to where they came from". I just don't see the latter view helping anybody.

Post reply on HN