81–90 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
7% is close to normal, historically. But not for the past couple of decades, so people forgot.
You're missing the median income to home price ratio is at an all-time high: https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco... So, while interest rates are at historical 'norms', affordability is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always hated how every startup sets up office in downtown San Francisco or similarly absurd cost of living area… Could pay people well but half as much and have nice office in Colorado mountains, Vermont, or somewhere else beautiful… Of course, startups rarely seem interested in saving money…
It's a little unfair to blame startups, they largely just set up shop where the capital is. Most VCs required startups to be headquartered near by for easier management/communication. The tech scene in SV had such exceptionalism that it quite literally viewed any startup not in SV as an inevitable failure. Even YC mandated startups be in SV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good luck. Reddit job hunting(?) sub has it pegged at ~400 applications, IIRC
I'd caution from reading too much into numbers like this. 400 applications is borderline spamming, putting quantity over quality, which employers would notice. It can be far fewer if you have a focus/specialty and specific industries that you target. No doubt though, it's a slog right now. My recent process was around 10 applications - which became 3 interviews - and the last 2 were offers, one that came via a recrui…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Build a town, not a subdivision. I would really love to see a billionaire tackle this. There's loads of empty, or nearly empty, space in this country. Heck, take over a town if you really want! Sink a few million dollars into kickstarting small-scale urbanism. I'm not usually much of a billionaire-hater, but today's lot for the most part seems to be uninspired, when it comes to projects like this.
I don’t think you’ll ever see a billionaire tackle this. To become a billionaire, you have to have a complete lack of empathy. This is why the only solution we see are maximized profit vehicles. The qualities that would make someone want to create a lovely place to live exclude them from making billions of dollars in the first place.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be nice if individuals decided at the start of their career how much money was "enough" for them, and made a pledge to retire once they hit that number. Then society can give them an "I won!" hat or gold card or something, and the next guy can take the role. In this way all enterprises become an engine pulling new hires off the street, and emitting independently wealthy people to go and enjoy their lives.…
You'd have to have some guarantee that the government would never alter the amount of inflation they create for that to be reasonable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Build a town, not a subdivision. I would really love to see a billionaire tackle this. There's loads of empty, or nearly empty, space in this country. Heck, take over a town if you really want! Sink a few million dollars into kickstarting small-scale urbanism. I'm not usually much of a billionaire-hater, but today's lot for the most part seems to be uninspired, when it comes to projects like this.
This is part of the housing supply mystery. It's not very profitable to build housing when you are punished for building upwards and making good use of the land
It is difficult to balance the competing priorities of "home ownership is widely affordable" and "home prices must always go up". When the balance is not broadly possible, our system seems to favor "home prices must always go up", at least in the short term.
You can first build more homes - prices go down and more people come into the city and prices start going back up because of increased economic activity.
It is difficult to balance the competing priorities of "home ownership is widely affordable" and "home prices must always go up". When the balance is not broadly possible, our system seems to favor "home prices must always go up", at least in the short term.
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.
https://www.propertyunder50k.com/list_view.php?show_set_aler...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> interview […] AI use Can you elaborate? People don’t do well in the interview and say they could do it if they had AI with them? Or…? Edit: Sorry, I missed “using AI during the interviews to cheat”.
Not the OP, but I interviewed a candidate for a remote position. He was kind of halting in his responses, until he suddenly wasn't. Borderline erudite, and I recognized some LLM speech patterns. I told my manager I thought he was using an LLM, but we hired him anyway. After a few months on the job, he hadn't done any meaningful work. His responses to support tickets were clearly written by an LLM and offered only the…
There is no substitute for an on-site round.
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.
And add to that an unsupportable tax burden to disincentivize large firms buying up hundreds or thousands of homes and then renting them.