|
Alarbus posted:Other than the fact that Vermont is a very expensive place to live, is very cold, and has no real job market in case you lose your work remote job. (And the pay sucks because in state employers have a captive audience.) From that KFF link up thread, Vermont is at $8,905, California is at $6,392. Dik Hz fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jun 5, 2018 |
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Vermont is horrible and will only work for you if you are already rich. Do not move here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
I grew up in the Bay Area so I know what it's like and also what it used to be like, which is why my fiancé and I just bought a house in Pittsburgh (the real one), where a high quality of life is highly affordable. I wouldn't want to move back anytime soon because it's overly crowded, culturally diminished, and absurdly expensive. Moving back would mean a substantial downgrade in quality of life, even with huge COL pay raises.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Short version: Should we buy a house? We can afford a house. We are close to being priced out of an increasingly expensive city. But we're not especially enamored with being homeowners. Our current situation: My wife and I live in a city with a hot real estate market (as I understand many are). Real estate prices have been rising quickly for years now. Rent prices have been rising along with them. Tech companies keep opening satellite offices here, and I'm concerned we're headed the way of San Francisco--a place we definitely cannot afford. If the current rate continues (who knows maybe it won't), we'll be priced out of the city within 5 years or less. If at all possible we'd like to continue living in the city. We don't want to move to the suburbs, we like walking places, we both work downtown, etc. We have family in the area and our jobs are stable, so we are unlikely to move cities. We currently rent. In the near future we may consider children, so our studio/1-bedroom thing wouldn't do regardless. Finances: We have saved a 20% down-payment for a purchase price that is
We are essentially debt free. We intentionally left one small education loan due to the very low interest. We could pay it off today and still have our down-payment. The twist: Neither of us are really into the idea of being homeowners. We aren't handy or into projects. We don't feel like fixing our own poo poo. We aren't especially keen on yard work. We don't hate the idea (some aspects even appeal), but we would be perfectly happy renting into the foreseeable future. We have toyed with the idea of a condo (no yard work, many homeowner tasks avoided, lots in the city), but condo associations and their fees sound unpleasant. Plus the specter of rising COA fees removes the whole cost stability reason for buying in the first place. I've heard enough horror stories about condos to make me leery. I'm torn. Buying because we feel pushed into it is wrong, as is trying to time the market (even if not for "investment" purposes). But at the same time we're worried we'll be unable to afford our home city in 5 years and be forced out. I suspect this is ultimately a personal decision we need to wrestle with ourselves, but any advice is welcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
incogneato posted:Short version: Should we buy a house? We can afford a house. We are close to being priced out of an increasingly expensive city. But we're not especially enamored with being homeowners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Vermont is substantially less expensive than the Bay area, though. And some people prefer cold whether. aendarasi and their partner appear to have some very marketable and in-demand skills. I bet they're both smart enough to weigh anonymous internet suggestions proportionately. I grew up there and moved to Philly, and came out massively ahead even without a paid move. There's a reason Vermont has their lowest birth rate since 1857, and is desperately trying to get people there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:If your house isn't selling it is priced too high 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Sorry to double post, but my offer was accepted by the presumably over-extended baby boomers. I told them to go gently caress themselves on rent-back but allowed the closing to be pushed back 20 days (Aug 20th, what the gently caress) and they get to keep the fridge in the garage (I had no idea there was one.......) and the 300 lb a day commercial ice maker in the laundry room. It seems they placed value on these things, as well as other appliances that were included and I simply didn't let on that I cared or not (I do not). I am trying to buy a home, not used appliances. So if anyone wants yet another fridge fromt the kitchen (which is serviceable but not what we really want), a kegorator which I already have one of, a washer and dryer which I already have nice new ones that I will keep to one of several mini fridges at the two bars in the house most of those will be up for goon grabs. As well at least one of the bars if not both. loving boomers. And now I'm in coordination hell for inspection and mortgage as I'm leaving for work travel next week for 2 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Alarbus posted:I grew up there and moved to Philly, and came out massively ahead even without a paid move. There's a reason Vermont has their lowest birth rate since 1857, and is desperately trying to get people there. What’s wrong with it? My partner and I are sick of LA and I really want to homestead somewhere with a couple acres. I also have a high paying tech job that could be remote. land in VT seems really cheap. I’m from Appalachia originally and wouldn’t mind living in the hills again. And we’re looking to migrate north for future proofing against long term climate change. The air is getting really hot in LA A MIRACLE fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:What’s wrong with it? My partner and I are sick of LA and I really want to homestead somewhere with a couple acres. I also have a high paying tech job that could be remote. land in VT seems really cheap. The taxes (income AND property) are high. Gas is expensive. Food is expensive. The weather is bad. There's a lot of ice. And usually, lots of snow. The salt and rocks will eat your car. You have to have a car, and it's a lot easier if you each have a car. The growing season is short. The services are okay if you're close, and terrible if you're not. The infrastructure is mediocre. The local job market is bad, and the jobs that are there pay poorly. The people are kind of standoffish - I was born there, but being from "the big city" made me an outsider for at least a year. (This describes a lot of New England, honestly.) The key things going for it are: It's pretty, and there's beer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:The bay area is my personal version of hell. I recommend C. Vermont seems nice. I'm also over the bay area. Most of the fun stuff becomes a non-factor once you have a kid, but you still have to deal with the various unpleasantness, and also hear realtors say "well you don't have $1mm in cash so I doubt you can really compete in this market". skipdogg posted:Option D: Take high paying bay area jobs and move somewhere with a lower cost of living and fantastic schools and live like f'in kings and retire in your mid 50's. Seriously though, you'd be foolish to not consider it. Texas isn't bad, no state income tax would mean a huge take home increase for you. I live in a San Antonio suburb and we're happy. Houston is a great town, plenty of flights and cultural stuff to do. Many folks are leaving the Bay Area and going to the Midwest as well. Lots of cool places out there. I am very much considering it since we can both work remotely. Though I'd rather be in a cooler climate than Texas; San Antonio is at 100F and it's only early June. Nooooope. Plus global warming is gonna get worse before it gets better. I'm thinking Vancouver, WA, I do like the no state income tax angle (which I hadn't considered; so, thanks!). It looks to have normal people prices, is not super cold and rainy, and close to Portland for ~wild and wacky~ hijinks (and an international airport so our parents can come visit). But
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Also, keep in mind that the inspector and realtor both have an incentive in you buying the house.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:How does the inspector have an incentive in you buying the house? He gets paid whatever happens, and I imagine that if he gives you a report that reveals failures in the house and walk away, you'll probably have him back for the next place you're trying to buy as well. I'd imagine he also get more recommendations by warning people of problems than glossing over them and having them rear up later. An inspector who gets his business mostly from recommendations from realtors would have an incentive to help houses get sold, but that's why we always recommend not using the inspector that your realtor suggests. Otherwise, yeah you're completely right there's no particular incentive and people are generally really grateful for their inspector saving them from buying a crumbling shitshack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:An inspector who gets his business mostly from recommendations from realtors would have an incentive to help houses get sold, but that's why we always recommend not using the inspector that your realtor suggests. Otherwise, yeah you're completely right there's no particular incentive and people are generally really grateful for their inspector saving them from buying a crumbling shitshack. Even that should only be a minor incentive. The average homebuyer who doesn't follow through on a home purchase based on results of an inspection isn't likely to fire his agent. I get that there are lovely agents who really just want to get poo poo done quickly and profitably but I guess I have a little bit of faith in humanity left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Slappy Pappy posted:Even that should only be a minor incentive. The average homebuyer who doesn't follow through on a home purchase based on results of an inspection isn't likely to fire his agent. I get that there are lovely agents who really just want to get poo poo done quickly and profitably but I guess I have a little bit of faith in humanity left. it isn't the homebuyer firing the inspector, it's the realtor not recommending that inspector I'm the realtor and I have two home inspectors I know of, and Gallant does a great job and always finds the problems, but Goofus just drives up to the house, checks off that it isn't actively on fire, and says 'lol its good', which one do I recommend? Hint: I am interested in selling the house as soon as possible, for as high a price as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:it isn't the homebuyer firing the inspector, it's the realtor not recommending that inspector Yep I get the scenario. But does the average realtor really care if homebuyer purchases house B with a cleaner inspection vs house A where the inspector found problems? Especially in this age where contrived Yelp reviews drive business? You guys are probably right I'm being idealistic but I've also just had good luck with agents I've found to be trustworthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Slappy Pappy posted:Yep I get the scenario. But does the average realtor really care if homebuyer purchases house B with a cleaner inspection vs house A where the inspector found problems? Especially in this age where contrived Yelp reviews drive business? Would you care if you had the chance to make the same amount of money for half as much work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Would you care if you had the chance to make the same amount of money for half as much work? If it meant knowingly have someone who trusts me put their life savings into an investment that might turn very sour for them - and that I could prevent it, yes. I'm not naive enough to project my own morality onto every agent but I'd like to think agents who would not act in their client's best interest are the exception and not the norm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Slappy Pappy posted:I'm not naive enough to project my own morality onto every agent but I'd like to think agents who would not act in their client's best interest are the exception and not the norm. That is, in fact, very naive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Treat all business like the other person is working solely in their own limited self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:That is, in fact, very naive. Maybe. But if I suspected my agent wasn't acting in my best interest I'd fire him/her on the spot. That's literally their only purpose. There are two sides to the coin and I'd guess most agents know that without trust they have no business. I'm not saying we don't need common sense controls but I do think it's in an agent's best interest to bring trustworthy inspectors to the table - just like it's in the buyer's best interest to solicit his own inspector.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Slappy Pappy posted:Maybe. But if I suspected my agent wasn't acting in my best interest I'd fire him/her on the spot. That's literally their only purpose. There are two sides to the coin and I'd guess most agents know that without trust they have no business. I'm not saying we don't need common sense controls but I do think it's in an agent's best interest to bring trustworthy inspectors to the table - just like it's in the buyer's best interest to solicit his own inspector.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Slappy Pappy posted:Maybe. But if I suspected my agent wasn't acting in my best interest I'd fire him/her on the spot. That's literally their only purpose. There are two sides to the coin and I'd guess most agents know that without trust they have no business. I'm not saying we don't need common sense controls but I do think it's in an agent's best interest to bring trustworthy inspectors to the table - just like it's in the buyer's best interest to solicit his own inspector. it's a moral hazard, man. Even if the person isn't consciously deciding to gently caress you over the incentive there is sufficient to skew decision making it's not like the realtor is a beep boop robot who runs the numbers of expected values or whatever, he goes with his gut and whoever he likes the best
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Realtors are likely to minimize any issues a home has, unless it's something major like an ongoing leak or an active foundation problem. To a degree they are right - all homes have issues, and people regularly go years without addressing issues that an inspector could raise a fuss about. There are things in my home that I know I'll have to discount the price on or get repaired that don't bother me in the least. A good inspector will point out all sorts of poo poo and also tell you how vital the repairs are. In the case of my current home it was well maintained but my inspector still found 20 things that were worth noting. My realtor wasn't really on board with using any of them to negotiate a discount but I persisted in asking for $1500 and we got it *shrug*.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Slappy Pappy posted:That's literally their only purpose. See, this is where you're incorrect. A lawyer is paid a fee to act in your best interest. A financial planner is paid a flat fee to act in your financial best interest. On the other hand, your buying agent doesn't get paid until you buy a house and only receives a percentage and thus has an incentive for you to buy the most expensive house they can convince you to. While doing this they need to also convince you they are acting in your best interest, but they, in fact, never are. If you've had a really good experience with a buying agent it means they either did a really good job of pretending, or they were incredibly open about what their incentives were and everyone was a pragmatic actor in the transaction. You seem to believe that realtors are looking for a reputation, but for the most part they only give a poo poo about getting recommendations for acting as selling agents. Buyer agents are a dime a dozen and the real gravy is being a selling agent on high quality homes. If you've had a good experience with a seller agent then you are likely to tell other people about how great they were at selling your place, but it's unlikely you even know if you had a good experience with a buying agent because if everything goes right you'll be happy with them, and if everything goes wrong you'll likely blame the sleazy realtor who sold a place to you or former owners and not the buyer agent who is just as culpable as everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:See, this is where you're incorrect. A lawyer is paid a fee to act in your best interest. A financial planner is paid a flat fee to act in your financial best interest. On the other hand, your buying agent doesn't get paid until you buy a house and only receives a percentage and thus has an incentive for you to buy the most expensive house they can convince you to. Speed is way more important to realtors than price. Their #1 incentive is to get a house sold ASAP and move on to the next.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Realtors are commission based sales not fiduciaries. Learn the difference. It's an expensive lesson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Speed is way more important to realtors than price. Their #1 incentive is to get a house sold ASAP and move on to the next. Oh, absolutely. Quantity is definitely better than quality as either a buying or selling agent. I was just trying to explain the difference between the pay structure of people whose jobs are to look out for you, versus the pay structure that realtors use. Anonymous Zebra fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Is the difference then that real estate agents are not legally required to adhere to the same code of ethics that realtors are or that generally everyone just ignores NAR and its code of ethics? Realtors ARE required to "protect and promote the interests of their client" regardless of their pay structure. Your statements about realtors seem to be true mainly of those who are operating unethically. Maybe that's the majority of agents. I'm not naive to that - I've worked for independent broker/dealers and understand totally that agents often don't understand or care about law or ethics - even after regulatory findings. I'm not intending to be argumentative - I'm a consumer who has dealt with agents on multiple purchases/sales and feel like I've been able to easily identify the ones who are and are not operating in my best interest. And both my buying and selling agents have provided guidance or information that served my best interest, not their short-term interest. Maybe I was just really fortunate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
I personally don't find the argument to be that the agents are necessarily corrupt or heinous, only that when you're in a position where somebody else is open to fault and you are yourself capable of mitigating that fault by handling it yourself, it makes sense to do that instead of placing hope in trust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Yes. It should be understood that in the grand scheme of things you and your realtor do have areas where your purposes are aligned, otherwise no one would use them. And there are plenty of agents who do a good job in making clients happy. That doesn't mean you should trust them, or that you should take their recommendations without understanding where their motivations lie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
Or they could just not know any better and make a mistake. There's nothing inherently authoritative about their ability to select an inspector.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
So, how long does it take to get a real estate license? With Real Estate Express, you could be licensed in a matter of weeks! I am going with most real estate agents don't know a whole lot about anything but being nice to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Slappy Pappy posted:Is the difference then that real estate agents are not legally required to adhere to the same code of ethics that realtors are or that generally everyone just ignores NAR and its code of ethics? Realtors ARE required to "protect and promote the interests of their client" regardless of their pay structure. Your statements about realtors seem to be true mainly of those who are operating unethically. Maybe that's the majority of agents. I'm not naive to that - I've worked for independent broker/dealers and understand totally that agents often don't understand or care about law or ethics - even after regulatory findings. You think an agent is going to hand you the evidence you need to prove the ethical violation? Only the really, really stupid ones. There's a world of grey for them to plausibly claim they are acting in your best interests. Elephanthead posted:So, how long does it take to get a real estate license? With Real Estate Express, you could be licensed in a matter of weeks! It's not that simple, the license only gives you the ability to join the cartel. You then have to join the cartel by "hanging" your license on a made man (managing broker). Once you've been jumped in to the cartel, you need to serve it for a couple of years before you can move onto more independent action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
baquerd posted:You think an agent is going to hand you the evidence you need to prove the ethical violation? Only the really, really stupid ones. There's a world of grey for them to plausibly claim they are acting in your best interests. No - that's just dumb. I just think an honest agent will generally choose an honest inspector. And lovely dishonest agents might not. Maybe lovely agents are the norm but other than my short experience with Redfin I've felt really good about my agents and the inspectors they recommended.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Flappy Pappy, people are not saying that honest realtors don't exist, or that there aren't some long-term advantages to being honest in that profession. What we're saying is that it's very hard to tell the difference in the moment. A buyer puts immense amount of trust into their inspector with very little way to confirm what they say without being an adept handyman themselves. It is always better to have 100% assurance of them being independent rather than a gut feeling that these people are being straight with you. Because, the fact is, IF THEY gently caress YOU, YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW FOR YEARS! Let me repeat my story about the nicely upgraded 1920 SoCal house I almost bought. It was very nice, had some minor obvious issues old homes might have, and also had 75k worth of foundation damage that was hidden really far underneath the home. The seller agent tried to gently caress me, as expected, by hiring a termite inspector who "forgot" to include the foundation on his report, but luckily I hired an independent inspector (who my realtor hated because his report was nearly 40 pages long) who took detailed photos and insisted I hire a foundation expert to look at it. The inspector my realtor wanted me to hire I know does only 10 page checklist reports, and I know this because she used the same guy for our friend who bought a place a block away. There isn't even a section for foundation on his checklist... The point is, even the foundation expert said that the damage might not cause any concerns for a decade or more. It could have stayed hidden for years, but I protected myself by making sure the people that looked at my house didn't know the people trying to get me to buy it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
A good definition of naivete is failure to understand either the fundamental concept that humans respond predictably to incentives, or what the incentives are in a particular case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
I’m not sure we are arguing the same point but I appreciate the educated perspectives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Also: it’s slappy pappy. Show some respect for one of Original Kings Of Catchphrase Comedy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Slappy Pappy posted:I’m not sure we are arguing the same point but I appreciate the educated perspectives. Slappy Pappy posted:No - that's just dumb. I just think an honest agent will generally choose an honest inspector. And lovely dishonest agents might not. Maybe lovely agents are the norm but other than my short experience with Redfin I've felt really good about my agents and the inspectors they recommended.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 18:02
|
|