Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buy payphones and retire

computer.rip

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 365 posts

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#101

Post by SirMaster »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #97
SirMaster wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rental income doesn't need any work if you are just an investor though. I don't do a single thing. The people who are managing the deal are the ones who do the work and hire the workers to work on site and such. They of course get an even better return during the sale, but I am happy with what I get for doing nothing. My rental properties are paying me a decent passive income of about 6%, and additionally the total i…

> and additionally the total investment about doubles in roughly 5 years That is a big assumption. What happens during the next real estate bust and your real estate value goes down to 1/4 of its prior worth? You are now set back 10 years. I think residential real estate is a bad bet long term. As real estate gets more expensive and more and more young people cannot afford to buy there is going to be more political c…

They have insurances for downturns built into the cost of the deal.

Even if the value of the property doesn't increase as much as expected, you are still making a decent amount in income from the rent being paid. 6% maybe doesn't sound like much, but it's tax free income due to being able to deduct from that income the depreciation from the property and appliances and such which in my experience always is more than enough. It makes it pretty competitive with alternatives such as index funds long term IMO and again in my experience so far over the last 11 years.

The worst case scenario is basically you hold onto that property longer and make about nothing on the sale which is more than can be said about the stock market in my experience. At least you still have what you made passively in the meantime.

Sure, I can't predict the farther future, but I still make decisions to continue this or change my holdings based on policy changes like that.

I'm not claiming this is some magic get rich quick scheme, but so far it has been working out well and definitely has given me income without me doing anything, which fits the definition of passive income here, so I just thought I'd share it.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#102

Post by khuey »

hifromwork wrote: post #78
notatoad wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"passive income", in it's original iteration, wasn't the idea that you could make money by doing nothing. The idea was that you made something or did something that you were uniquely able to make or do, and then the result of your labour would make money for you while you put in minimal continued effort. the version of passive income where you don't do anything productive at all, ever, and just put up some initial ca…

>just put up some initial capital in exchange for even more money back, is always a scam. some people might come out ahead sometimes, but more people will lose than win. How so? My all-world index funds are doing pretty well. For more risk averse, almost every buyer of USA governmental bonds gets "even more money back" in exchange for the initial capital. I don't think that's a scam either.

> For more risk averse, almost every buyer of USA governmental bonds gets "even more money back" in exchange for the initial capital.

In nominal terms, sure. In real terms, ask the banks that bought 30 year treasuries in Spring 2020 how that's going for them.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#103

Post by tomcar288 »

andrewla wrote: post #57

The concept of "passive income" is almost a scissor concept. Or maybe only if you couple it with the categorical imperitive. On the one hand, it's so obviously true that it would be great to have passive income. Draw the salary you're drawing now, with some growth, and not have to work. On the other hand, if everyone had access to this capability then society and civilization would grind to a halt. People make things…

that might be true for completely passive income.

but, how about growing a fruit tree. An apple tree for example can produce 200 lbs of apples per year about 500$ a year and all you have to do is pick them off the tree and water them if you don't get enough rain.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#104

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

bbarn wrote: post #91
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also heard that vending machine locations are highly contested. You can buy the machine, but you are not going to have the pull to deploy it at the airport. Those contracts were signed long ago.

I have a non-technical friend that runs a vending machine business. He targets exclusively small locations like gas stations, bodegas, etc. He makes a great living, but he's also started farming out filling and collection to employees now because it's a lot of driving and work to do it.

That makes no sense to me. Why would a gas station or bodega invite an automated competitor onto their property? Unless the vending machines offer some merchandise the store is unable/unwilling to carry?

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#105

Post by bbarn »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #104
bbarn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a non-technical friend that runs a vending machine business. He targets exclusively small locations like gas stations, bodegas, etc. He makes a great living, but he's also started farming out filling and collection to employees now because it's a lot of driving and work to do it.

That makes no sense to me. Why would a gas station or bodega invite an automated competitor onto their property? Unless the vending machines offer some merchandise the store is unable/unwilling to carry?

Because they make money on low price candy, like gumball machines and other quarter operated stuff that kids impulse buy with their parents money.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#106

Post by ElFitz »

andai wrote: post #74
andrewla wrote: post #57

The concept of "passive income" is almost a scissor concept. Or maybe only if you couple it with the categorical imperitive. On the one hand, it's so obviously true that it would be great to have passive income. Draw the salary you're drawing now, with some growth, and not have to work. On the other hand, if everyone had access to this capability then society and civilization would grind to a halt. People make things…

>If the goal is to have a system where everyone can have passive income, then achieving that goal is the end of the world. If AI and robotics continue to be developed, then eventually most human labor becomes uneconomical by comparison. At that point, the system provides passive income on a mass scale (UBI) to prevent its own violent destruction. At least, that's the good ending.

To me, a major obstacle on the path to UBI is that it seems to conflict with the interests of those who benefit from the current status quo.

If everyone receives a sufficient basic income, who will fix their toilets or clean their yachts?

If the answer is ’no one’, then I’m afraid we’ll need significant advances in automation and robotics—or pitchforks—before we see UBI implemented.

But my point of view may be simplistic, and wrong.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#107

Post by nerdponx »

notatoad wrote: post #65
andrewla wrote: post #57

The concept of "passive income" is almost a scissor concept. Or maybe only if you couple it with the categorical imperitive. On the one hand, it's so obviously true that it would be great to have passive income. Draw the salary you're drawing now, with some growth, and not have to work. On the other hand, if everyone had access to this capability then society and civilization would grind to a halt. People make things…

"passive income", in it's original iteration, wasn't the idea that you could make money by doing nothing. The idea was that you made something or did something that you were uniquely able to make or do, and then the result of your labour would make money for you while you put in minimal continued effort. the version of passive income where you don't do anything productive at all, ever, and just put up some initial ca…

> put up some initial capital in exchange for even more money back

The "even more money back" part is, in principle, compensation for you gathering the capital together and taking on the risk of losing. Not that it works out that way in practice.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#108

Post by pge »

seizethecheese wrote: post #89
andrewla wrote: post #57

The concept of "passive income" is almost a scissor concept. Or maybe only if you couple it with the categorical imperitive. On the one hand, it's so obviously true that it would be great to have passive income. Draw the salary you're drawing now, with some growth, and not have to work. On the other hand, if everyone had access to this capability then society and civilization would grind to a halt. People make things…

> The categorical imperative roughly says that something is moral only if its universal adoption would benefit society. Really? I actually don’t think that’s right at all. For example: nobody should be a philosopher, because if I everyone were, society would collapse. Surely, Kant did not believe that. My understanding is that the categorical imperative is more like: it’s only moral if you would accept a random roll…

Your definition is much closer to Rawls’s vision of a just society and the “veil of ignorance.” While heavily influenced by Kant, Rawls comes much later. Kant’s Categorical Imperative was an attempt to define moral laws (without resorting to a deity). The article has it right, though I might change the wording slightly to say that a “rule” or “law” that I use to guide my behavior is only moral if its universal adoption would make the world better. Choosing to be a philosopher is not a rule. Something like, “I should never lie” is a rule which one could evaluate with Kant’s approach, by asking whether if everyone followed that rule, society be better off or not.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#109

Post by miki123211 »

notatoad wrote: post #65
andrewla wrote: post #57

The concept of "passive income" is almost a scissor concept. Or maybe only if you couple it with the categorical imperitive. On the one hand, it's so obviously true that it would be great to have passive income. Draw the salary you're drawing now, with some growth, and not have to work. On the other hand, if everyone had access to this capability then society and civilization would grind to a halt. People make things…

"passive income", in it's original iteration, wasn't the idea that you could make money by doing nothing. The idea was that you made something or did something that you were uniquely able to make or do, and then the result of your labour would make money for you while you put in minimal continued effort. the version of passive income where you don't do anything productive at all, ever, and just put up some initial ca…

> the version of passive income where you don't do anything productive at all, ever, and just put up some initial capital in exchange for even more money back, is always a scam

No, that's just investing.

This is how savings accounts work, this is how CDs work, this is how treasury bonds work, this is how passive investing (e.g. via ETFs on index funds) works, and there are many, many more examples.

If you're keeping your retirement savings in an IRA / other local equivalent, whether owned privately or by your government, the same processes happen behind the scenes.

You put in capital, you lock that capital away for a while, you get back more capital later.

The differences here are in terms of possible returns. Bonds have (relatively) low returns but almost 0 risk, index funds have significantly higher returns but are also higher risk, though it's still pretty low if your time horizon is multiple decades, and there are crazy investments (think Bitcoin) with possibly eye-watering returns, but also an enormous amount of risk.

Now investments with "guaranteed" eye-watering returns (think >10% per year) and apparently 0 risk? Yeah, definitely a scam.

Re: Buy payphones and retire

#110

Post by bluGill »

hyperhopper wrote: post #38
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also heard that vending machine locations are highly contested. You can buy the machine, but you are not going to have the pull to deploy it at the airport. Those contracts were signed long ago.

Then why are there so few? And containing such a small variety of goods? In Japan anywhere from a busy subway to a remote park, there will be rows of vending machines everywhere, with more varieties of sodas, coffees, soups, ice creams, candies, hell even clothes or meat! And those are just the common types. You're never far from what you want in an automated fashion. Why are we so behind in America when there seemin…

Because they sign an exclusive contract with either coke or pepsi and take what you get. the owns of the venue don't care about customers just that contract.
Post reply on HN