161–170 of 176 posts
I've been casually job hunting for a couple months since rounds of layoffs started at my company. I've applied to umpteen places and haven't had a single callback. In my twenty+ years working as a dev, this is the worst I've seen it since about 2005.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd have to have some guarantee that the government would never alter the amount of inflation they create for that to be reasonable
No one can guarantee that but if you place your dollars into assets, those assets will inflate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And do they a) qualify for normal mortgage products b) need another $50-100k dumped into them immediately to be habitable.
Yes they do, there are many normal houses which can be bought for very cheap just spend some time on Zillow looking at areas outside of major metro areas. You could very easily live in a big city and work a job to save up 50k or a down payment for a 50k mortgage and then buy one of these cheap houses to live in. But most people don’t want to do that. They want nice weather and fun things to do, access to a good job m…
Also these areas have poor education systems for kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if you sell your house for a million dollar where will You move to? Literally anywhere in the "bottom" 99% of the country by real estate costs?
And what would you do there? Are there enough jobs in those areas?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you've all treated housing as a financial instrument, instead of what it should be: safety for your family.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, and in a world where every home is priced this way it’s not like you could go to an alternative housing market.
It's basically illegal to build dense homes in most cities. And despite what people say, the vacancy rate is at historic lows so its not just "people are keeping them empty" Its a disgrace that people deny the supply crunch we are in
Devil's advocate, I don't think we should keep building more housing insofar as it encourages population growth (which it does). Like highways, there will always be barely enough, no matter how many lanes/houses we build. But population growth is the overwhelming factor in all of our sustainability issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mobility is not just about assisting the those in need, its also about having opportunities for advancement. If you're trapped in a job because of its health coverage, that's restricting mobility. People can' take the risk on changing jobs/locations or even something like starting their own businesses because of the would lose coverage and don't have the wealth to self-pay. If you're working so many hours just to cov…
> Mobility is not just about assisting the those in need, its also about having opportunities for advancement. I think it's really hard to do one without improving the other. They're inextricably linked. I only like to focus on the first one because it's easier and the ROI is higher.
In a way this is the ultimate goal of conservatism in its literal sense to conserve. The rich want have their place in society safely entrenched at the top, with no risk of people rising from below to displace them. Those at the bottom should stay locked in there and work and toil because that is the natural order of things.
Oh cool you've nominally gone after the rich and then pointed at the middle class again. I'm sure this will make you and your ideas popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many places in the US where you can buy a house for less than 50k. If you want prices to drop in popular areas then we have to make it easy for people to actually build houses and increase supply in popular areas. Of course giving homeowners a say about whether housing is allowed to be built near them, of course they are going to vote against it because they have an incentive to keep prices high.
I think it’s natural for homeowners to be resistant to new builds in the same way office workers hated the move to cubicles. I was in the Midwest recently and it was wild to see a block of high density houses in the middle of farmland. Houses that look exactly the same, shoved onto tiny lots with little gap between them, and surrounded by miles of corn. These are obviously attractive to developers as they are maximiz…
I don't think people quite wrap their head around the fact that the US population love their cars and their huge subdivisions. A massive percentage of the US have no desire for walkable cities.
It is a bizarre alien thought to me, too, but it has become very clear to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many places in the US where you can buy a house for less than 50k. If you want prices to drop in popular areas then we have to make it easy for people to actually build houses and increase supply in popular areas. Of course giving homeowners a say about whether housing is allowed to be built near them, of course they are going to vote against it because they have an incentive to keep prices high.
I think it’s natural for homeowners to be resistant to new builds in the same way office workers hated the move to cubicles. I was in the Midwest recently and it was wild to see a block of high density houses in the middle of farmland. Houses that look exactly the same, shoved onto tiny lots with little gap between them, and surrounded by miles of corn. These are obviously attractive to developers as they are maximiz…
Or the people living in them might be retired, or work from home, or work on local farms. Whatever the case, they're not driving a long way for work.