211–220 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have very little sympathy for the 40% or so of the population who could save for retirement but don't.
Citations for that number? Why don’t they save for retirement? Can someone on minimum wage with a family save for retirement? Does someone who makes bad choices deserve to be homeless and destitute later in life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this highlights how expensive living is and how little income is. If we're going to have a "free economy" without an end of life safety net (i.e. Social security) then it has to be possible to work a lifetime and retire on savings made. But most indicators show little to no saving for most people. It sure seems something is deeply wrong.
Maybe for SF. The article indicates that homes are quite affordable in much of the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone I know in my age group with a house got help with their down payment from parents. Either in the form of low/no interest casual loans or just substantial gifts. It's possible this money wouldn't have been available to them for speculation in the stock market.
Speculation or saving for retirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Does someone who makes bad choices deserve to be homeless and destitute later in life? The rest of us don't deserve to pay for their bad choices.
Suppose your odds of landing in that exact scenerio are .001%. If you are unlucky, should we pay for you? What about your kids? It seems valuable to society to not have old, homeless people causing trouble. But that's just me.
Personally, I think people should pay the price for their stupidity. Subsidizing stupidity never works out in the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reverse mortgages are an option too, especially around retirement. I didn't do too much research and I'm sure on paper it's a scam, but with no kids and no one to really give the house to beyond charity when my wife and I kick the bucket, I am considering making my place part of my retirement plan. Or just sell it to pay rent for the rest of your life. Either way it's a pretty big boon.
Not really. End of life care can drag on and is expensive. Even if you're really lucky and net $1 million from your house a single illness could wipe that out quickly. Retirement homes cost much more than comparable rent/mortgages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just the salary. It's also the opportunities to do things as in for the SF Bay Area we can go to wine country one weekend, go snow boarding another, sail, surf, hike; there's a lot of stuff to do here. I'm sure people can say the same for the NY metro and other similar places. I've lived in cheaper but boring places. The financial tradeoff is fair.
Vs NYC there's also Tahoe, the ocean is surfable, there are beaches, it doesn't smell like trash everywhere, the climate is less extreme (less hot humid in the summer no snow), more access to fresh local produce more of the year, etc etc. It's not like rent in Manhattan is cheap, and you'd likely make less in NYC vs SF unless you work in finance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm... I never said anything about "en masse". It was a reference to the Yelp/Eat24 call center employee controversy from last year. [1] In cases like these, I think it's very reasonable to question why those kinds of jobs should be the ones increasing demand in SF and, therefore, driving up prices for everyone else. If you think my framing is insensitive to call center employees, I think you may have misunderstood m…
> I think the property owners of SF are well within their rights to tell people who want to build affordable housing towers to get lost Technically correct, first amendment and all. But really you are pro-NIMBY?
Zoning is pretty important. A neighbor recently subdivided his large lot into 3, and having enough frontage on the street meant they could do it without zoning board approval. The houses they are building were designed precisely to push to the max against every possible zoning bylaw; setbacks 1 inch above the minimum, building height-above-grade 1 inch below the maximum, lot coverage ratio 1% below the maximum, etc.
Then their proposed septic failed perc testing at ground level, and since they didn't want an "unsightly mound" in their backyard, they brought in about 80,000 cu yards of dirt and raised the whole lot up by ~20 ft! Because the bylaw was written as building height calculated against finished grade, not natural grade there was nothing stopping them from creating their hill. Well, they did have to build a substantial drainage system around the perimeter because it's illegal to increase stormwater runoff from a lot in the natural vs. finished state, but we'll see how long that lasts...
Builders will cut every corner, push every limit, and develop to the absolute highest density to maximize profits. Of course building codes and zoning bylaws make housing more expensive to build. Getting a glimpse at what builders will do given the chance, to literally my back yard, I really, really wouldn't want to see what would happen if zoning boards could be overridden by outside developers wanting to "increase supply".
For example, most of the new construction in SF is rental units. You can't buy it, you can't own it. It's going to be mostly corporate housing, run by corporate property managers, with cookie-cutter units, probably poorly run and poorly maintained.
I've been on a condo board for ~10 years. Building a community is hard work! But as the rental ratio in the complex climbed from 0% to 32% over the last 10 years, there's a stark difference between renters and owners in how people treat the units and common areas, treat their neighbors, and the level of involvement and care they have for the complex itself. Certainly some owners create problems, but having a vested interest makes a big difference vs. certain renters who could give a shit. And, problematically, when the owners move away and decide to rent, they usually stop giving a shit too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends of course. Despite the high cost, many live here because their salary is multiple times higher than they could get elsewhere.
It's not just the salary. It's also the opportunities to do things as in for the SF Bay Area we can go to wine country one weekend, go snow boarding another, sail, surf, hike; there's a lot of stuff to do here. I'm sure people can say the same for the NY metro and other similar places. I've lived in cheaper but boring places. The financial tradeoff is fair.
You can do all of those same things just living an hour east of SF.
Homes go up in value, so in the long-run you tend to make money or at least break even. A lot of this depends on how into "keeping up with the Jones" you are. If you remodel your house a lot, need the latest and greatest garage door opener and bathroom sinks... yeah, you're sinking money into the property that you won't ever recover through sales. BUT... that's OK! Because it means you have the house you always wanted, and y'know... we only go around once.
Buying vs. renting. Guess what, you're going to spend money putting a roof over your head. That's life. Does it cost more to buy or rent? Over 5 years? 10 years? 30 years? In the long run it's almost always better to buy. But short term, if you know you're only in a city for 5 years... maybe just rent. That's fine. No harm no foul, you're advancing your career... or just living. Don't fret it too much. If you're happy, you're happy.
What do you need? Do you need a house with lots of bedrooms for your kids / family? Do you need a year for your dogs? Do you need quick walking access to the coffee shop near the train station? There's no right answer, buying vs. renting... for people who move every 2-5 years, pretty much works out even. (Having done both I can say from experience that buying just ties up a lot of your savings and keeps you from being able to spend it.)
Anyway a house is not "years of life" -- it's something you live in for years of your life. You can buy as an investment... and you'll make money. You can trade up ever 2 years... and it's probably better to just rent. Roots are great as long as the local economy is doing well, but if it's not... hey, you've gotta move to keep ahead. Plenty of ways to get ahead in life, a house can be one, or moving city to city as a consultant is one. There's no wrong answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the only way to drive down price is to either increase supply or decrease demand. So make cities shitier and denser. Is this a case where a small increase in supply would decrease the price significantly? I doubt it. So, is there some reason we (as a nation) need to double population density of our largest cities? With the huge advances we are likely to see in autonomous zero-emission delivery infrastructure and…
> Well the only way to drive down price is to either increase supply or decrease demand. So make cities shitier and denser. That's just, like, your opinion, man. I prefer living in denser environments.
But to your point, if denser is so much better, will increased density lead to lower prices, or just create more demand and keep prices the same?