451–460 of 600 posts
> Amy, a white thirty-year-old mother of three, ages six, five, and three, had a boyfriend who worked steadily but insisted on spending on selfish pursuits. This is what eventually broke the young couple up. ‘He wouldn’t spend money for the kids’ food. I had to send my kids across the street to my mom’s to feed them and stuff. That’s what I got fed up with. I shouldn’t have to live like that…I said it’s time for him…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but this is the nature of all employed work: "submissive attitude toward the boss." Even if you're the CEO of a major corporation, you still have a submissive attitude towards shareholders.
Subordination does not equate to submission, it's not really the same thing
Something that intend to write on someday that I'll excerpt here: the phenomenon of "young men with nothing to do" is driven by a society-wide misallocation of capital that is itself driven by wealth inequality - specifically, old people and elites who command too large a proportion of wealth. This concentration of wealth in the hands of a cohort that is less diverse, and has less diverse interests, than the general…
Also a lot more was expected of grandparents. They did a lot more childcare.
> Amy, a white thirty-year-old mother of three, ages six, five, and three, had a boyfriend who worked steadily but insisted on spending on selfish pursuits. This is what eventually broke the young couple up. ‘He wouldn’t spend money for the kids’ food. I had to send my kids across the street to my mom’s to feed them and stuff. That’s what I got fed up with. I shouldn’t have to live like that…I said it’s time for him…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My landlord is excellent IMO. They always fix any issues I have usually by the next day. I can't say I have had a ton of issues though. But I mean stuff like mowing the lawn, shoveling the snow, cleaning out the gutters, and various other repairs and such that happen over time. That is what I mean by I value my time, and those things can take a considerable amount of time. Also my rent is only ~$1000 per month for a…
Sure, but is it worth $1000 per month to have the lawn mowed and snow shoveled? Repairs and improvements are not a service he does for the renter, it is something that he does to keep or increase the value of his real estate investment. Your $1000 per month rent can only be compared with the interest part of a mortgage you'd get for the exact same housing you are paying rent for. If the rent is less than the interest…
"Your $1000 per month rent can only be compared with the interest part of a mortgage you'd get for the exact same housing you are paying rent for. If the rent is less than the interest would be, then yes, you are better off renting."
Why just the mortgage interest? Why not the property taxes, the utilities, the repair costs, the time to perform the upkeep and maintenance (which for me has a monetary value).
I have been renting where I am at for 14 years now and there have been no crazy rent hikes.
It was ~800/mo 14 years ago and has climbed slowly to ~1000/mo currently.
I have looked many times at buying a home in my area, but there is nothing in a similar area, and a nice house that I would actually want to own for less than about 2000/mo for a mortgage (probably more like 2500/mo now). That doesn't even count property taxes which would be like another 500/mo.
Then, if I value my time, I would need to pay someone to do the mowing and shoveling and other maintenance beyond that...
It's way more expensive than renting.
With renting I'm paying about $12,000 a year and that's it. That includes water and heat too and me not having to spend any time or money on upkeep or maintenance.
With all the money I save, I do multi-family real-estate investing and development. That generates me a passive income plus huge deductions from asset and property depreciation. And when the property is improved and sold after several years nets a large gain which I move into a new property thus not having to pay taxes on that transaction either. The return on this is far greater than the average rate of a home appreciation minus mortgage interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That should be open to a tort, but the mere fact that someone wants to live next to you should be considered "fundamentally fine".
You didn’t say “someone wants to live next to you”. You said “build a house”. Presumably, this includes a “house” that can hold 1000 people at low rent. If it doesn’t (since that would undeniably destroy your property value), then you’re willing to impose regulations on the pretty deregulated picture you’ve painted. If it does, then you’re not going to find that many people who own property agree with you.
Presumptuous indeed. There wouldn't be a housing shortage if vast parts of the U.S. weren't restricted to single family homes. The choice isn't a single family home or a housing complex that can hold a 1,000 people, but more efficient usage of space and infrastructure, one that isn't totally centered around everyone having a vehicle. That can also mean low rise multi-family homes seen in cities worldwide, and yes, also big complexes where viable.
>If it does, then you’re not going to find that many people who own property agree with you.
Well if things don't change, lots of people won't be able to own property, and the rules will change anyway. We're seeing this in California.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not wrong the 80/20 rule applies to the dating apps in a real way, a small minority of males on them sweep the majority of matches and anyone not it the upper quartile may as well not even apply. When your part of the 80% of males in compilation against eachother for the lower 20% of matches it can be daunting. You can choose free porn, play games, drink, and hang with friends or fight the constant rejection, and…
Oh gtfo. No woman is desperate enough for food to put up with shitty dates. They have shelters for those cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not adopt? There are plenty of kids already who need a parent or two.
the reality is, most kids you can adopt are severely messed up, due to drug use of parents or poor eating/nutrition of parents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
perhaps some guys have kids because their wives/girlfriends required them to do so.
No woman can "require" a man to have a child.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A society that doesn't support having children won't lead anywhere worth going. I'm pretty sure that given the support they needed, and a society that didn't program them all the way to want other things in life more; the numbers would look very different. And that IS the long term problem. Which is not at all an excuse for not solving other problems, I don't feel it has to be one or the other. Society very much has,…
Indeed, society can fix the system if it so chooses. Otherwise, it must make peace with rational actors making rational decisions in an irrational and dysfunctional system. In my small acts, I am gifting agency and freedom. Society is free to make a better offer (I wish it would), but we know it won't. Prof Scott Galloway asks, "Do we love our children? [1]" I can prove that we don't, beyond a shadow of a doubt. It i…
Is it that or something else?