|
CitizenKain posted:I still don't get how renting a car is something that needs a intern. You do some paperwork, hand someone a key and sometimes wash a car. Was it at an enterprise sales place specifically? Because I'm sure Enterprise has plenty of regular ol' office work at their actual headquarters or something like that.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The guy who got the job was also an enterprise intern, so it worked for him. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I want down payment requirements to be 50%. This plus really strict price controls on rentals and apartments plus confiscate AirBNB's assets and liquify them and use them to pay off underwater mortgages
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I want down payment requirements to be 50%. BUT THEN HOUSE PRICES WOULD GO DOWN 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Was it at an enterprise sales place specifically? Because I'm sure Enterprise has plenty of regular ol' office work at their actual headquarters or something like that. Yes. He's interning at an Enterprise building at a major airport.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Oh no the price of something that you'd be expected to live in for 30 years might go down, making it more practical to own as a material good than as a line on a spreadsheet Society will collapse
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:This plus really strict price controls on rentals and apartments plus confiscate AirBNB's assets and liquify them and use them to pay off underwater mortgages Serious question: how do rent controls not end up screwing over people moving into the city with rent control, and also hurting the poor because they get evicted once in a while, leading to a loss of a spot in a rent-controlled apartment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Serious question: how do rent controls not end up screwing over people moving into the city with rent control, and also hurting the poor because they get evicted once in a while, leading to a loss of a spot in a rent-controlled apartment? That's pretty much what rent control does. It is designed to be a benefit to current tenants. The faster and higher rents rise in a rent controlled area, the more current tenants benefit and worse off people moving into the city from outside are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Serious question: how do rent controls not end up screwing over people moving into the city with rent control, and also hurting the poor because they get evicted once in a while, leading to a loss of a spot in a rent-controlled apartment? How would not having it benefit people who are moving in or getting evicted?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:BUT THEN HOUSE PRICES WOULD GO DOWN Speaking as a homeowner, bring on the falling prices. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:people moving into the city "Immigrants", we might call them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:How would not having it benefit people who are moving in or getting evicted? 1) They're not screwed more than everyone else is screwed. 2) In a market with rent-controlled and non-rent-controlled units, people immigrating to the city have to compete over the non-rent-controlled units, which is going to be a smaller supply than all the units in the city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:How would not having it benefit people who are moving in or getting evicted? The theory is it would increase supply because people that are only able to live in an apartment bc it has an artificially low rent would be forced out. I'm not sure if I believe that, esp in broken markets like SF or Vancouver that seem completely separated from basic market fundamentals, but I'm also not an economist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:The theory is it would increase supply because people that are only able to live in an apartment bc it has an artificially low rent would be forced out. I'm not sure if I believe that, esp in broken markets like SF or Vancouver that seem completely separated from basic market fundamentals, but I'm also not an economist. SF is not completely separate from market fundamentals, it is a perfect example of those fundamentals. San Francisco has had an enormous increase in the number of people who want to live there, an enormous increase the average income, and a limited amount of space. The housing supply has not grown even 10% of the rate it should have to accommodate the new demand. Instead, prices have just shot up 100% and every surrounding suburb of SF is now getting more expensive as people go there. The sad/funny thing is that in SF, DC, and Vancouver the local residents who are mad about gentrification and housing prices are also the same people who complained and blocked the construction of huge apartment buildings to accommodate demand because they would "change the character" of the city. You have to either meet demand, increase prices, or assign people to mandatory housing. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:How would not having it benefit people who are moving in or getting evicted? More market rate housing, lower market rate rent. This works in every city in on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Housing prices are also spiking because of them being used as investment vehicles by both foreign investors and quasi-legal drug providers in CO as paying cash for a house is one of the only ways you can get drug money legally into the banking system
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:Housing prices are also spiking because of them being used as investment vehicles by both foreign investors and quasi-legal drug providers in CO as paying cash for a house is one of the only ways you can get drug money legally into the banking system Those are symptoms of the problem, rather than causes. There's a reason that they use SF and not Des Moines as investment vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:SF is not completely separate from market fundamentals, it is a perfect example of those fundamentals. Oh supply side economics how interesting. We need infinite supply to satiate the infinite demand for speculation in a low borrowing cost environment. Your post would make sense if census data didn't show that many neighborhoods are not filling with immigrants and are in fact emptying out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Oh supply side economics how interesting. We need infinite supply to satiate the infinite demand for speculation in a low borrowing cost environment. lol, that's not what supply-side economics is. Almost nobody on the pro-density and affordable housing side of the urban planning debate is a supply-side economist and the demand for housing in DC, SF, and most other major metro areas is not driven by speculation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Supply-side economics as referred to in politics is a macroeconomic concept. Housing prices and their response to changes in supply and demand are microeconomic concepts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Okay cool but more supply wont help control housing prices because that is a consequence of a speculative bubble. If you disagree you can consider how the massive number of condos being built has done nothing because they were all purchased by suburban speculators and sit empty. Alternatively you can examine the immigration and emigration rates for Vancouver and Seattle, compare them with housing costs and see that they are unrelated
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:SF is not completely separate from market fundamentals, it is a perfect example of those fundamentals. What I meant is SF's housing problems can't really be modeled or solved using basic market fundamentals in part because the demand is so far beyond what could feasibly be met by any increase in supply possible in even the medium to long term. Removing SF's (already super limited) rent control would have a very negligible effect on supply and housing prices. Theres also other factors at play that make "just build more" less than simple as a solution. For instance, SF really doesn't have much open land so any new buildings inherently require displacing some amount of existing residents or businesses, both of which have rights. This isn't to say SF doesn't need to build a ton more high rises, just that doing so isn't actually that simple or a complete panacea. Vancouver's market on the other hand DOES seem completely nonsensical as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Okay cool but more supply wont help control housing prices because that is a consequence of a speculative bubble. If you disagree you can consider how the massive number of condos being built has done nothing because they were all purchased by suburban speculators and sit empty. Alternatively you can examine the immigration and emigration rates for Vancouver and Seattle, compare them with housing costs and see that they are unrelated Except that housing costs didn't magically rise in those areas because of speculation. Speculation/investments came to the areas following the large increase in demand/prices in housing. The high-end condos didn't start getting built in 1999. They started getting built in the last 10 years. Immigration and emigration rates don't account for population growth and many of the people "emigrating" out of urban centers are going to suburbs or other cities in the metro area. Housing availability in the Bay Area Metro has grown at less than 10% of the population growth, immigration, and demand in the last 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
I want to be the kind of speculator who buys something expecting it to appreciate, but am so unconcerned about total return that I don't bother doing anything to collect current income from it. Speculative buying is a function of the difficulty in adding new supply. You aren't going to buy it as an investment if you know that thousands of newer units can get thrown up afterwards and instead will go find something else to invest in. Even if that is the case however, it would only apply to for sale housing, while rental apartment construction also adds supply and lets investors park money in something with cheap borrowing costs and be a lot easier to handle than buying a bunch of units individually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
crazypeltast52 posted:I want to be the kind of speculator who buys something expecting it to appreciate, but am so unconcerned about total return that I don't bother doing anything to collect current income from it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Capital appreciation over the last ten years has dwarfed potential rental incomes so many people don't bother. You don't need to rent a house when the land value has increased 400% in a decade. Land value, because when you can finally build on it, you aim to put up as many units as possible to spread out that cost. Also land is a lot cheaper to buy and hold if you aren't using it than buildings or condos that need some level of maintenance to keep viable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Except that housing costs didn't magically rise in those areas because of speculation. Speculation/investments came to the areas following the large increase in demand/prices in housing. The high-end condos didn't start getting built in 1999. They started getting built in the last 10 years. https://www.ratehub.ca/csv/boc.csv Rates bottomed out January 2002 at 2%. Now look at the historical average sales price for Vancouver. We can see that prices took off right when the cost of borrowing cratered. It's clearly a speculative bubble driven by cheap money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Any developer wants to be the only one to build in a market when they are the only additional supply. Investors want to buy things that can't see new supply added nearby to slow rent growth. They still buy and build housing when those aren't true if the numbers work. If you want it to not work as a speculative investment, let people build enough that prices stop appreciating so fast that returns have to look at income, whereby the unit enters the rental market. Let developers overbuild, they think they are the smartest people in the room and if they build too many units, housing prices or rents might even go down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:For instance, SF really doesn't have much open land so any new buildings inherently require displacing some amount of existing residents SF used to have this (just keep selling water plots that get filled in.......i.e. the financial district) until the state told them to stop it. I'm not saying this is sustainable, but really....how much bay do we need?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/63q66g/completely_conned_out_of_my_home_with_a_quitclaim/ posted:Completely conned out of my home with a quitclaim (self.legaladvice)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:SF is not completely separate from market fundamentals, it is a perfect example of those fundamentals. cowofwar posted:Okay cool but more supply wont help control housing prices because that is a consequence of a speculative bubble. If you disagree you can consider how the massive number of condos being built has done nothing because they were all purchased by suburban speculators and sit empty. Alternatively you can examine the immigration and emigration rates for Vancouver and Seattle, compare them with housing costs and see that they are unrelated I think you guys are kind of talking over each other here. Leon's post is a pretty reasonable summary of the SF housing market. It's a reasonably efficient market and pretty much what you would expect if you crammed tens of thousands of high wage earners into a tiny geographically constrained area and refused to increase supply. Except for price this market has very little in common with Vancouver, which is fueled both by cheap credit/speculation (lower interest rates than the US, no interest rate hikes in sight) and a huge exogenous inflow of capital from China into the upper end of the market over the past decade or so. Vancouver certainly has its share of huge apartment buildings (which, as cowofwar mentioned, now sit empty or are rented out at a loss, anticipating significant appreciation of the underlying asset).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Except for price this market has very little in common with Vancouver, which is fueled both by cheap credit/speculation (lower interest rates than the US, no interest rate hikes in sight) and a huge exogenous inflow of capital from China into the upper end of the market over the past decade or so. Shhh. You have to say 'overseas' or 'foreign'. If you say the money comes from China that's racist. That way lies head tax and railways, oh god.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I want down payment requirements to be 50%. this but unironically being overleveraged isn't like hell, they invented hell to explain the experience of being overleveraged the great religions of the world mostly came up in response to the first financialization of the world economy and the loving depraved things that led the first financiers to do edit: actually you may have meant it unironically? ?___? I mean it unironically tho finance is like salting food, but for economies, you need some, but you need the right amount and it's damned hard to take out having too much curufinor fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
Wtf is a quitclaim?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
curufinor posted:this but unironically Why do you hate poor people? cowofwar posted:Wtf is a quitclaim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitclaim_deed
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Check out the historical mortgage rates for Canada (5yr fixed) here: so since the SF real estate market is entirely fueled by low interest debt and the interest price of debt has now risen that means the SF real estate market is a bubble that will now burst or at least slow down significantly since easy money is now less available, right? When do you think the SF real estate market will exhibit lower prices to demonstrate this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:Why do you hate poor people? You think that getting 5% down or 0% down mortgages makes people less poor or is in any way a good decision? They used to disallow 4000% interest, too, they should go and do that again
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:so since the SF real estate market is entirely fueled by low interest debt and the interest price of debt has now risen that means the SF real estate market is a bubble that will now burst or at least slow down significantly since easy money is now less available, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Once initiated, bubbles are self propagating for so long as money is cheap and keep inflating until they are popped by a macroeconomic shock. Those shocks are unforeseen so their occurrence is unpredictable. Vancouver has been uncoupled from reality for over a decade. Serious question. As a liberal, are you seriously annoyed by those Conservatives who deny basic science, such as climate change and evolution? Why do you yourself engage in denial of basic economic concepts as supply and demand? Everyone should be united in believing mainstream settled science, whether it is agreeable with our personal beliefs or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Quitclaims are annoying because I could sell a quitclaim deed on any property, which then annoys the title companies because now there's this document that has a claim on the title and they have to go back to prove that I never had an interest to quitclaim away. Warranty deeds require the seller to defend the buyer's title, but quitclaims are usually just used to quiet title issues where you can't determine if someone else has a claim and just want it to be settled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
curufinor posted:You think that getting 5% down or 0% down mortgages makes people less poor or is in any way a good decision? How else are they going to get on the property ladder?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:11
|
|