Yeah this one or the bicycle meme
He’s not getting hurt like in the bicycle meme though, just hurting others.
Well he’ll be fine right up until he falls seventeen stories from a two storey building
A rent strike that bankrupts him (assuming he’s leveraged on these homes) would be better. Especially if it means the houses get auctioned at a discount, and he has to rent a place to live afterwords.
We really need a nation wide rent strike to battle the investor bullshit that’s making housing so fucked up.
You don’t fix a systemic problem by taking revenge on those who were lucky enough to benefit from that system, unless, maybe, if they are working to maintain or propagate it.
I can walk into a bank today with a mortgage cheaper than rent, and I’ll be denied cause I don’t make enough money, explain that logic to me.
Landlords don’t care if your rent is sustainable for you in the long term. They have nothing to lose if at one point you can’t afford it anymore, someone else will.
Banks on the other hand care very much if you’ll be able to pay your loan in full. Even with the house as collateral, it’s much better for them if you just paid your loan instead of them having to deal with all that.
“they get the house if you don’t pay” really isn’t so great after you’ve look at what they actually get for those houses.
Generally, people don’t get foreclosed on when their house looks super fancy and well maintained.
Also debt is an asset for banks. Having people in debt for 30 years is better than having people in debt for 10 years and then selling their house.
They only get to force the sale of the house to recoup their loan, you get to keep the extra from the sale. House sells for $300k, you owed $250k you walk away with $50k and the bank gets their money back.
But on auction, the bid is usually FAR below the normal asking price.
The counter-intuitive solution is probably to make it easier for banks to evict people for not paying their mortgage.
In most of the US, foreclosures are a legal process that requires a court order. The bank has to take the borrower to court, prove the loan is not paid, and then the court has to find in favour of the bank and then issue an order to have the sheriff auction off the property.
In many cases, these auctions will result in the property sold far below market value because the borrower will drag their feet and not co-operate. In many cases, buyers can’t do a thorough house inspection and thus the hammer price suffers because they have to account for that risk.
The bootlicker-sounding but actually smart solution, if you consider it beyond the initial knee jerk reaction, is to make it so that when the court enters a foreclosure order, the homeowner is immediately evicted and the house is now in the custody of the State until it is sold. The borrowers can have a reasonable time to leave, but when they do, the sheriff should then open the property to the public for inspection and hire or allow buyers to hire house inspectors, perform title searches, and all the other formalities associated with selling a house in the ordinary manner.
All buyers then submit written offers (bids) to the sheriff like they would for any other house purchase but these bids would be published to avoid accusations of impropriety; the highest bidder gets the house. As with any other auction, the bank bids the amount of the mortgage plus court costs as a baseline. After it is sold, the sheriff takes the traditional 6 per cent estate agent fee for their trouble and then pays off the bank and the remainder goes to the borrower.
As terrible as it sounds for the ordinary borrower, this actually results in a better outcome for them because it would result in a higher sale price for the house, meaning the mortgage is lower risk for the bank by reducing the likelihood that the bank bid is the highest, allowing them to extend those loans to more people, and a defaulted borrower gets more of their money back in the end.
When the underlying problem is insufficient supply in the locations people want to live, anything that gives average person more purchasing power (such as making banks comfortable with larger loans) just drives up the price even higher.
Densifying metro areas (the places people are moving to) is the only real solution. Otherwise the price has to be unaffordable for the average person, to drive them into finding a way to live in a more rural area or to put up with a multiple-roommate living arrangement.
While I agree with this principle generally, and I believe that if my solution were to be implemented it would need to be alongside other schemes like increased public housing projects, relaxing zoning laws to allow densification, and anti-scalping measures like a quadratic property tax.
But even if my suggestion were implemented alone, it wouldn’t result in increased prices. That’s got to do with the fact that ordinary people, right now in the US, largely do not bid in foreclosure auctions. All that housing supply is actually not going to end consumers at all. The type of people who would bid at foreclosure auctions are not those who want to live in the house but in many cases, those who want to resell it. Making the foreclosure process more similar to normal house-buying and thereby increasing the hammer prices drives out scalpers and flippers because it’s not profitable for them any more. Hell, if you’ve seen the videos these people post, they start pulling back even if the price is tens of thousands of dollars under market.
If something were to happen, and you couldn’t make rent, you might get evicted, which would be inconvenient.
If something were to happen, and you couldn’t make the mortgage, the bank might lose money, which is unconscionable.
But the bank can take the house as collateral, what are they even losing?
Probably much easier to have someone reliably pay than to have to go through all the processes of defaulting, repossessing, renovating/repairing, and reselling.
Not sure if you’re in America but credit scores are some rigged ass bs. What do you mean paying off a loan made my score lower?? I have more disposable income!
What do you mean paying off a loan made my score lower??
It doesn’t, you just don’t know how it works.
You’re probably seeing that on Credit Karma, which uses a score that stops counting closed loans immediately, whereas the actual credit reporting bureaus’ systems have them stay on your credit report for 10 years from the date of closure. While they remain, they do continue to count toward your average age of accounts (AAoA) in most scoring models (including FICO). That means even closed accounts can help keep your average age higher.
And given that your average account age doesn’t need to be anywhere close to 10 for you to have ‘perfect’ (750 and above puts you in the highest tier in the eyes of every lender) credit (hell, account age is only like 15% of the score), this is actually not an issue, at all. My average account age is less than 8 years and my score’s over 800. Just make your payments on time and you’re good. You don’t even need to accrue any interest—using a credit card and paying it completely off every month works just fine, that’s what I do.
I have more disposable income!
Having income isn’t proof you can be relied on to promptly pay back a loan, having a history of having promptly paid back loans is. A third of people making over $200,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck—just because you’re making money doesn’t mean you’re a responsible borrower.
You know, I don’t even get that. Banks make a decent amount of money on those mortgages, it used to be their bread and butter after all. What is the problem, it doesn’t make enough money fast enough? Why are there no other banks filling in the obvious financing hole?
You’re no longer proving continously that you can keep paying reliably (yes it’s dumbass logic)
It’s your credit age actually, it gets cumulatively lower because whatever loan it is isn’t adding to your credit age, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Ah, yes, “it’s taken this dude longer than this other dude to pay off his debt, surely we want to give him MORE credit”
It’s designed so that “sweet spot” customers have the best credit scores, those who have enough to reliably pay but not enough to pay it off any time soon.
Bullshit, my score’s in the 800s and all I do is use my credit card for everyday purchases, and pay it off every month. I never carry a balance or pay a cent of interest, nor do I have any installment loans (car loan, etc.) at all.
Tons of confident incorrectness in this thread.
Thats wild, is your credit scored fucked?
Income is a massive part of how they determine if you can repay the loan. I personally have an exceptionally high credit score and about double my home’s value in investments. Because of my low reported income, it was a total pain getting a loan.
income is not a massive part of how you can repay the loan. Income can fluctuate over a 10-20 year period. I’ve had the opposite, I have a good credit score, good spending habits and was able to show that although my income is average I can accommodate the mortgage payments. If you made 90k but had a bad credit score and spent wastefully you would get denied for someone on 55k who has a good credit sore and lives within their means, has savings etc.
Debt to income ratio. Saying income isn’t a massive part of loans is just wrong.
Saying it is a massive part of loans is wrong. If you had 150k a year income and your expenses were 150k a year you would never get approved. Income is one thing they look at but i wouldnt say its a massive part of the equation.
Have you tried lately? Just curious.
Haha number go up
A) This is a hoax account
B) You can still get cheaper housing if you don’t live in the whitest, red-lined-ass, suburban enclaves in your state
C) Even then, it doesn’t matter, because landlords primarily benefit from very low borrowing costs rather than low housing costs. A $300k house was still functionally unaffordable to anyone earning $45k/year, unless your credit score got you one of those sweet sub-3% ZIRP era loans. Renting was effectively paying a vig to a guy with a better interest rate than you.
D) ZIRP also flooded the market with the excess cash that made $300k basic bitch housing possible. And then turned those $300k homes into $600k homes 15 years later.
E) Build Public Housing
F) And municipal mass transit, so you don’t have to sit in traffic for a hour every day
This is a hoax account
I hope so. The dissonance and lack of self-awareness in the post was so profound, my head is still ringing.
I saw quite a few Chase Passive Income posts and all of them feel like satire
I agree with everything you said but
You can still get cheaper housing if you don’t live in the whitest, red-lined-ass, suburban enclaves in your state
That can be too far away from work, or if you move to an LCOL area, you’ll find the wages are also lower and you’re still poor.
Just pass a law taxing the shit out of single family homes used for income and a bigger tax on empty houses. Use the revenue to help people who go upside down on their mortgages due their primary residence due to the crash in housing prices.
Just pass a law taxing the shit out of single family homes used for income and a bigger tax on empty houses.
A simple reform in theory, but incredibly difficult to pass through a legislature that’s stuffed to the brim with real estate lobbyists and their clients.
This isn’t small timers, it’s corporations buying up all of the housing, building only “luxury” apartments and price fixing the fuck out of the rent.
Then they spout “Trickle Down Housing” where the “luxury” apartments will be available in 30 years.
The guy said “these houses, …each” so he could own the whole area and jack up the rents, not be a small timer. But yeah, it’s not the person renting out Grandma’s old place to help pay for her nursing home.
They’re all parasites.
I might be wrong but the % of homes owned by corporations is really tiny. low single digits if I remember correctly.
Yeah, I don’t think so, lol. You’re going to have to produce the source. This is from September of last year and doesn’t include rental apartment buildings.
GAO reported that there were 450,000 single-family rental homes owned by institutional investors as of 2022. However, in a report by the Urban Institute, they estimated that large institutional investors owned **574,000 **single-family homes as of June 2022 and their report was also based on 32 institutional investors. But, the Urban Institute actually aggregated data on all legal entities of the parent company because these institutional owners often use other names as the owner. They based their report on large investors owning a minimum of 100 single-family homes and they pulled data from a national property records database. The 574,000 figure is likely more accurate than GAO’s and the difference is most likely due to aggregating all of the legal entities under the parent companies.
https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/who-really-owns-the-u-s-housing-market-the-complete-roadmap/
This says the housing inventory is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUUS
institutional investors own 500,000 single family homes out of 80-100 million? That article you linked doesnt support your case. Even in (what I assume is) their strongest example institutional investors only own 10% of the rentals.
Where are you getting the 80-100 million homes? Are you including apartments?
Edit:
While institutional investors own roughly 2% of the single-family rental housing stock across the U.S., they own a much greater share of homes in certain markets, particularly in the southeast.
GAO estimates that institutional investors own 25% of Atlanta, GA’s single-family rental housing market, 21% of Jacksonville, FL’s, 18% of Charlotte, NC’s, and 15% of Tampa, FL’s single-family rental market. Areas that experienced the greatest influx of institutional investment after the 2007-2009 recession continue to have high rates of institutional investments in the single-family rental market.
no this is specifically single family homes
What is your source?
With all the profiteering by corporations since covid, the cost to build a house has gone up substantially. That narrows the consumer base and forces builders to reduce margins. Unless of course they build a “luxury” home or apt. Then you have large investors battling it out and snapping them up. So, it is more profitable to build luxury homes rather than homes for peasants. The investors can afford to set on the empty house and hold them if they can’t get the rent they want. In fact, many large investors don’t even bother to try to rent and just hold the property to have secure investments during market fluctuations. So they are building like crazy, but the homes they’re building can’t be afforded by the people that actually need them.
So, it doesn’t take a ton of housing being owned by big investors to fuck the market, they just have to be buying up all the new stock in what is already a limited market.Its not an issue of luxury home construction vs peasant home construction I doubt this even makes a dent. Investors are not buying up empty houses and sitting on them because they are to lazy to rent them out, thats absurd.
The issue is simply that housing development is to slow. The demand to build houses in higher density is there but local zoning laws and nimby residents block the developments. In cities where zoning laws were changed to allow development we see prices decrease.
Its not an issue of luxury home construction vs peasant home construction I doubt this even makes a dent. Investors are not buying up empty houses and sitting on them because they are to lazy to rent them out, thats absurd.
The issue is simply that housing development is to slow. The demand to build houses in higher density is there but local zoning laws and nimby residents block the developments. In cities where zoning laws were changed to allow development we see prices decrease.
If they built luxury apartments, rich people would stop renting regular apartments, and the prices would go down
Rich people like cheap apartments too, lol.
I know a millionaire who lived in a single wide trailer with two bedrooms for most of his life. Finally built a nice brick house in his 60s.
People like that are a rare breed. What did the guy do for a living?
Owned 7 gas stations.
He’s only recently started spending his money. He’ll be 70 in a couple months.
He spends it on vacations for his grandkids mostly.
The idea that creating more housing stock will lead to prices decreasing is still economically sound.
A lot of places in the us are experiencing a gluten in high end housing… https://archive.is/20250110182457/https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-has-more-fancy-apartments-than-it-is-able-to-fill-f7bca968
Is this satire?
Yes.
The fact that we have to ask this is the point I think… Hilarious post btw! 🤣
Lots of people seem to be missing this - Chase Passive Income is a satirical account.
I don’t know how they could miss that. It is very clearly a satirical post. No rich people are either that self aware or interested in outing themselves as greedy useless pieces of shit.
Its real like the goldmen Sachs elevator
Yeah, lots of people on Lemmy are so sanctimonious while simultaneously falling for the most obvious satire/ragebait imaginable, lol.
This is the, “If I don’t do it, someone else will,” argument. Which is true.
There is always all least one other ass hole out there.
Exactly why no social ism works. Capitalism, communism, Georgism, liberalism, Marxism, anarchism, socialism. They’re mostly all good on paper but awful when put into effect because they don’t factor human nature. So long as there is the same trait within that led to our wild success as species number 1, we can never have good ideas play out how they were thought to. Instead we have we have those always looking for advantage to be number 1 of the number 1s. Psychopaths love power and personal security.
Arthur C. Clarke said something along the lines of “communism could’ve worked if only they had microchips” meaning that communism had problems with humans. An algorithmic socialism that requires everything to be fair is the only way to do it.
Who designs the algorithm?
Extraterrestrial aliens.
Perfect
Elon Musk vibe coding with grok.
Presumably anyone can, and people democratically vote on which algorithm is used. Direct democracy like this has its problems, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the oligarchy/plutocracy that we’re currently dealing with.
Would still need to figure out a solution for tyranny of the majority, though. Left unchecked, a majority populace can easily vote their way towards being a strict ethnostate.
For sure, though the tyranny of the majority is still strictly better than the tyranny of the minority, which we currently are dealing with.
Someone with a provable, undeniable, zero stakes in the outcome of publishing said algorithm, while being of such moral fortitude as to be un-corruptable. IMO, if you find such a person, you’re probably better off just putting them in charge.
Best bet is to raise the bar on any coordinated attempt to sabotage things. Multiple algorithms must be made by distinct parties, and the submissions compared against one another, and somehow averaged out (e.g. multiple running algorithms that vote amongst themselves) so that the only way to game the system is a very large and unlikely conspiracy.
I will
I’ll only skim a little off the top, promise
Just fractions of a socialism on every socialism. It adds up. I saw it in a movie.
Wouldn’t surprise me if that is how future civilizations (assuming we live that long) handle their administration. Laws are written algorithmically, almost like computer code, and simply translated for laymen to interpret. Maybe with an integrated parser service available to everyone that is capable of answering queries based on the strict programmed definitions it references.
This still invites the very likely possibility of one’s interpretation of a law differing from the intent, but that is already the case today, with the bigger problem being that there are often major disagreements at an institutional level where there should ideally be no uncertainty.
the problem will be the implicit biases of the lawmakers
Yep, not sure there will ever be a way around that either. An algorithm could possibly facilitate a more unbiased demographic representation of lawmakers, but that would require an original algorithm to establish those conditions in the first place.
The other factor is changing priorities/needs over time. People in the future could discover more problems that we are oblivious to today, and any algorithmic structure of law would need to be able to be easily amended in order to adapt. How would they prevent opportunists from abusing the amendment process?
At best, we see a streamlining of the court. Laws that are rigidly defined cannot be open to interpretation by any particular judge. But the act of creating laws would still be just as problematic unless we let ChatGPT do it, which invites the possibility of adding cyanide to public drinking water supplies because it’s better for the environment.
Communism is the perfect form of government when you have essentially infinite resources to the point where personal wealth is meaningless and a society that functions as a perfect meritocracy.
what is “the same trait within that led to our wild success as species number 1”?
i think the thing that made the difference was helping the “less fit” so that they could keep and transfer knowledge, do thinking and make tools
And also killing off the less fit if they’re not our own. Especially if resources are at stake. Or general conquest or control over a valley, zone, region, or some other thing for your kin, clan, group, community, eventually country, etc. The same behaviours we still exercise now, whether for political tribe, sport tribe, oil, subculture, parts of Gaza, religion, property portfolio, etc. You see now the etc. is just a long-standing timeline cut short.
Basically if it’s backed by a flag, colours, or other such meaningless symbolism of a group, it’s the underlying human nature still going hard. It is the “this is good for me therefore it is good to commit to” behaviour and the strongest come out on top whether decidedly good or evil.
But we do tend to band together when there’s an immediate threat bigger than ourselves—not like climate change since that’s us and is a slow threat easy to ignore day to day. I think it’s more a self-preservation thing than an everyone else preservation thing though. People jump ship for a better ship all the time, but they’ll fight for the fleet so long as they’re part of it.
And in between that the naive have exoected social ideologies can have any chance of achieving the blueprint of Eutopia they all envisioned. Yet history has only ever constantly said “Nope”.
the first paragraph is exactly “the law of the jungle” aka how other animals behave - it couldn’t have been the difference, since it’s the same. and then this extended to less tangible things
so it seems you agree, but you don’t realise it: humans are unique because they don’t follow this rule.
i read a book back when i was religious about the “temptation for good”, which the author argued was the proof for the existence of god, but i think it’s what made us different
it might be just me, but i feel bad for not helping people (i mean like beggars and the like), but the world has conditioned me that it’s a bad idea - you’ll get screwed over, you won’t have stuff, etc.as to climate change - there are many people spending billions of dollars and countless hours to make sure the average person doesn’t get to or doesn’t feel motivated to do anything, i don’t think it’s “natural” behaviour
history seems to forget that cuba exists, despite the fact that most of the world (especially the cia) trying to destroy it for more than half of a century
not that i’m saying cuba is a utopia, but they managed to survive and keep their more equitable system, again, despite constant assassination attempts and decades long embargoes
Communism tends to work pretty well until the US shows up with their military, and stamp it out.
By working “pretty well” you mean mass starvation, mass murders of the civilian population and complete government authoritarianism. Communism’s death toll rivals ww2 and thats with no foreign intervention.
By working “pretty well” you mean mass starvation, mass murders of the civilian population and complete government authoritarianism.
Communimsm and authoritarianism are opposites. Cannot have authoritarianism with a stateless and classless society.
Communism’s death toll rivals ww2 and thats with no foreign intervention.
What’s that death toll? Because in the US alone, capitalism kills about 40k per year, due to gatekeeping things like healthcare.
If that’s your opinion then no matter what I say you are going to hit me with the “true communism has never been tried”
Oh, it has been tried! For example, the Free People Territory in what is now Ukraine. Killed off by authoritarians pretending to be communists in the the USSR. Also, Neozapatistas in the Chiapas region. Cuba is doing a pretty fair shake at it, as well, and a lot of suffering there happening because of the myriad invasions, assassination attempts, and now economic embargo on them by the US. Rojava is doing a system that borrows a lot from communism (Democratic Confederalism).
So, since we’re doing economic death tolls: What is the death toll from just the US capitalist system? Like, 1 million dead during COVID, 40k per year from gatekeeping health care, how many died in Iraq? Afghanistan? How many indigenous people in the US have died from capitalism? I think just the last one puts the holocaust to shame…
Where has capitalism been tried that hasn’t resulted in massive death tolls?
So you are going to ignore all the examples you dont like and point to a small example of a not very successful island. There is far more capitalist countries doing better than Cuba. I’d rather 40k deaths from old age people not getting healthcare than have my government slaughter 10million civilians but whatever.
Ironically, you completely fell into proving my point.
Somehow, I don’t think you’ll figure that out… Not today, maybe, but in the future, hopefully.
Yes, this is a satire account, but I’ve heard the exact same crap from so-called “small landlords” who think clearly the problem is someone else.
Every small contributor that makes up the bulk of the problem thinks the REAL problem is the one that’s bigger than them and they’re the small potatoes, or the good one.
This applies to EVERYTHING. Not just property.
Societal problems should be solved by the government, not by individual actions.
There should be nothing wrong with owning multiple houses. But your property tax should be adjusted on every house you own depending on the number of houses that own. It should be completely cost prohibitive at a certain point to own more than 2 or 3 homes. It should kick in after a year or two, so that it gives people more than enough time to purchase a new home, fix it up or renovate, and then time to sell the previous house. Owning houses shouldn’t be a profit-making venture.
It’s like… I try to think of what an “ethical landlord” might look like, and I just can’t picture it. Realistically the only “”“service”“” they provide is not having to save for a down payment and fixing things that break*(I know they don’t, but I’m trying to imagine what it would take for one to be ethical, so they actually would be in this hypothetical)*. The things a land lord will take care the ability of their tenants to build equity. That’s the benefit of owning. Pro-landlord people will say landlords take the risk of property values decreasing, but that’s pretty rare. Especially considering landlords inherently are taking up stock. So to be generous I’ll assume property value is static.
Even in this crazy optimistic, crazy generous hypothetical, land lords still rob tenants of equity because they aren’t able to get a down payment together. The only thing I can see making it fair is the landlord gives that equity back, either by charging exactly what the property’s mortgage is or transferring a portion of the ownership over every payment and… Now wait a second… This sounds like… BANKS. A MORTGAGE. Seriously. Every time I try to imagine what it would take to really really be an ethical landlord it just comes back to being a bank or mortgage.
Maybe there’s some place for folks to act as very very small banks and give a mortgage to someone like this, but like… It’s so convoluted.
TLDR: I view them as leeches even when I’m giving them every benefit of the doubt in a favorable hypothetical.
That’s very nice. Now please face the wall.
Landlords and private health insurance, middlemen that exist for no reason.
Guillotines could give them purpose. Or is it the other way around?
The problem tellimg the country to… remove him? Thats a first
Parody account
?
Chase Passive Income is a satirical Twitter account poking fun at finance influencers
It’s just satire
YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT!!!
Nothing?
So far. Very frustrating. It feels like a dam of sand filling up until catastrophe strikes and all the energy is released at once.
im just waiting on 3d printed houses to become cheaper (than it already is now) and mainstream.
Those can be an alternative, but aren’t great for longevity. They’re almost always essentially entirely concrete, which means if you want to get to, say, a pipe in the wall, be ready to smash through rock and then have to fill in a vertical hole in the wall with concrete again. This weakens structural integrity over time any time you’ve gotta do repairs, and makes them more expensive to do.
The more sane alternative for most people will be prefab housing, where either the entire house is sent in as either a single prefab unit, or a unit for each room that’s simply connected and stacked, or where just each wall is a pre-made unit that’s then assembled. The latter has become much more common in construction already, and the former is growing market share rapidly right now, to the point you can, right now, literally order a prefab house from Amazon.
As someone who lives in a prefab, I really have to disagree with them being the answer. Unless they stop using vinyl-on-gypsum and the cheapest materials possible…
Water damage is a major issue in these kinds of homes. They’re not made with actual wood or conventional building materials, and fall apart so easily. Replacement parts are not standard, making it extra costly and difficult to repair.
Adding, when I walk into an actual house, I can feel the difference as I walk through.
They’re not made with actual wood or conventional building materials, and fall apart so easily.
I’ve seen tons of prefabs being made now out of solid wood, just like a normal house. It’s just that they segment the usual house design into one that can be modularly attached/expanded, and position beams such that they can be directly attached to one another at the ends with little effort. If your prefab isn’t made of actual wood, then that’s not a good prefab, nor is it the kind of prefabs I’m talking about here. I agree those shouldn’t be the norm, of course.
You mean manufactured or mobile homes? They’re built like shit by companies that mostly just take advantage of people knowing it’s all they can afford. It’s pretty much impossible to return the house once it’s delivered, and getting HUD to enforce standards takes years of constant work.
Technically, but specifically I’m talking about the ones we’re seeing a pretty big expansion in the market for right now, which are built of the same materials as a regular house, with all the same wood, insulation, etc, just in a format that makes them more modular and easy to build and deploy.
It does technically fall under the same umbrella category of those other homes, but it’s becoming more common now since it’s a good middle ground between a shitty mobile home and an overly expensive full-size house, and it’s made of higher-quality materials. It’s more about deployment than it is about cost, it’s just that they tend to be much smaller, and quicker to deploy, thus saving on cost in the process.
while theyre typically worse for repair if you need an immediate one, theyre significantly better when it comes to insulation, thus leading to lower hvac costs, in particularly cold or hot regions.
the 3d printing process itself also doesnt dictate that the entire build has to be concrete. its just there to minimize the cost of production in the spots that needs it.
Oh I totally understand, it’s just that it’s relatively hard to work with multiple materials in the way these houses are printed, so you commonly only see them made of concrete, without much else in the way of materials, and the way they’re designing the manufacturing processes seems to be more focused on all-concrete production since that’s what’s cheapest.
Man Ive seen those videos online… just amazing.
Can’t wait.
3d printing a house doesnt seem to provide any benefits over current construction methods. Prefabbing is the most efficient way at the moment. You can basically drop in all the walls and roof with everything hooked up and ready to go.
Who rents that for 72’000 $ per year? At that point you are throwing away your money and most definitely have enough to actually buy a home.
have you seen how this works? i know this is a parody post but it’s real. Rent starts “ok” then the “market” (which is just this guy with 6 props) says rent can be higher. So it bumps. Then inflation. Then covid. Then “market” again.
While the owner know how his tenants salary is tracking, keeping sure to raise the rent by enough to keep him there but not so much he bails.
it’s not the renters fault they need a place, even if one says “yeah but they overspent.” Not initially, no. Maybe some. Tough nuts. But often it’s not initially overspending.
Then again capitalism itself relies on and markets for people thinking they “need” more than they do; the owner of the props is counting on it.
Landlords are scum and deserve nothing.
Who rents that for 72’000 $ per year?
Andrew Cuomo bragged about renting for $96k/year
At that point you are throwing away your money and most definitely have enough to actually buy a home.
You don’t need a 20% down payment to rent a home. That’s the big hurdle, as housing prices have ballooned
Trying to save up 20% was the biggest mistake of my home buying experience.
My whole fucking life my parents insisted that you had to have 20% down, so that’s what I aimed for. Both my siblings just YOLOed and bought houses between 5-10% down, but I had a better paying job, so continued to save. As I saved, the cost of housing out grew my rate of savings.
When I finally did get a mortgage I only put 15% down and it was at that point I realized that the only thing the 20% down would do for me was save me something like .75% for the first 5-8 years. That is still a lot of money, but compared to just buying a house at $175,000 10 years ago and selling it for double when I ended up moving anyway–it’s nothing.
The whole system is fucked. There’s no reason only those making 6 figures or more should be the only ones with the privilege of trying to own the place you live someday. There’s no reason a company should own a place to live. There’s no reason minimum wage shouldn’t cover a reasonable lifestyle for a family. There’s no reason housing in general shouldn’t be available to everyone.
I had to put 30% down for a condo. It just depends on the bank and what you’re buying
Pre covid, I was pre approved for a home. I had lied and told them I had $3K for a down payment.
I couldn’t save three grand. Rent was 40% my income, as was childcare. I made $20/hr in a “grown up” job, the type of work my uncles and aunts and parents bought houses with.
The gorgeous $167K dollar house (2016) who’s only down side was it was 45mins from work, … is now worth nearly $600K. I’m jealous of whoever ended up buying it that year.
Would have been nice to own, but a bitch to pay property tax on.
That’s the dagger in the back for gentrification. You live in an affordable area. Then someone builds a mega-plex next door and the municipal tax authority says your bungalow is the same value as a McMansion in the 'burbs.
Nobody will actually buy your house from you for $600k. They’ll buy it for maybe $250k if you’re lucky. Or they’ll wait… knowing the 3x tax price will put you into foreclosure with the next market downturn.
Yeah, my mortgage has increased nearly $200/m in the last 4 years from rising taxes on my house.
And that is after having already paid extra to help bring down the balance. The taxes ate the extra and then some.
You don’t need to put 20% down to buy a home, either.
Homebuyers can get a conventional mortgage for 5% down (technically as low as 3% down, but that would limit their options for lenders and require a much better credit score) or an FHA loan for as low as 3.5% down.
There are USDA loans that require 0% down, though they have income maximums and for homes in rural areas. I read that they also have square footage maximums (1800 square feet?), but the USDA property requirements doc I read didn’t list them.
For veterans, VA loans can also be 0% down.
Homebuyers can get a conventional mortgage for 5% down (technically as low as 3% down, but that would limit their options for lenders and require a much better credit score) or an FHA loan for as low as 3.5% down.
Only if they are eligible for that line of credit. Since the collapse of the Subprime Mortgage market in '08, it has been significantly more difficult for younger and lower income people to access these more expensive lines of credit.
There are USDA loans that require 0% down, though they have income maximums and for homes in rural areas.
Sure. But, again, a very limited resource with very particular regulatory restraints that won’t help a middle income family in most neighborhoods where people actually live.
For veterans, VA loans can also be 0% down.
Great news for all the serial killers down at Fort Bragg
That is more then my entire monthly pay check.i want to die.
Yeah about twice as much :(
That is more than my quarter year pay check
It’s easy guys, if nobody would rent, everyone could be a landlord, and we could let the rent rise to 10k a month or more even, and we all get rich on rent. How does nobody realize this? It’s irl infinite money glitch!
