|
I know I'm not peeing in my stairwell when I'm drunk now that I own my house unlike some of my neighbors at my old "luxury" rental place Also is "luxury apartment" just code word for "not for black people" or something?
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
etalian posted:Ha ha, love this classic realtor line about home ownership being good since people will take care of the area better, while renters will destroy a neighborhood like a mongol horde because they don't have a mortgage to keep them responsible for the property. You have to be utterly out of touch with reality to think that people treat things they rent as well as they treat things they own. The house I purchased was a former rental. It was pretty drat obvious neither the tenant or the landlord gave a poo poo about the property.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
If rent keeps going up at the rate is has been here(a minimum of 10% per year, which has been huge relative to COLA increases), it makes sense to buy something since at least your housing costs will mostly stabilize. Everything is priced at what it would rent for + some and bought in cash though, so really if you buy and everything doesn't keep going up up up, you're hosed. I don't see how it can either, we're already at the point where you will not be buying a house or condo on average household income(income sure as poo poo hasn't paced the housing component of COL) in the area, almost nobody who lives here could afford to buy into living here and rents are insane. I'm hoping the housing market collapses when cash-poor boomers flood the market with sales via death/retirement in like 5-10 years. They'll then take their cash and probably invade the south(where I can flat out buy a house for a 20% downpayment on one here).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Inasmuch as they can both provide capital appreciation, sure! However, houses can provide returns in other ways - you can get income from them by renting them out, or live in them yourself and receive an imputed rent. AFAIK the baseball card rental market isn't so hot and they're kind of hard to live in. I also suspect that the likelihood of getting real terms capital appreciation from a house is rather greater than for a baseball card. Let's be clear: you are not getting capital appreciation on your house, you are getting it on the property as a whole. Unless you were lucky enough to buy a rare antique that became trendy again when you decided to sell, the actual physical building is nothing but depreciation and maintenance costs. And to further be clear: when adjusted for inflation and costs, the average return on investment for homes historically has been 0% (according to Shiller, who made the housing price index; video linked above). Encouraging everyone to go into debt so we can pour more and more national wealth into 0% ROI projects is not a way to revive the economy. quote:More generally, home ownership is widely considered to provide a range of social benefits, primarily because it makes people more likely to care about the upkeep of the area they live in. That's one of the main justifications for its heavy subsidization in various countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Xae posted:You have to be utterly out of touch with reality to think that people treat things they rent as well as they treat things they own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:And to further be clear: when adjusted for inflation and costs, the average return on investment for homes historically has been 0% (according to Shiller, who made the housing price index; video linked above). Encouraging everyone to go into debt so we can pour more and more national wealth into 0% ROI projects is not a way to revive the economy. Yeah despite Shiller's study on real ROI, housing is constantly harped in economic news articles as being some sort of stable bedrock of the country that should be subsidized since it creates jobs and wealth. Also anecdotal evidence about people making big money on their real estate investment is not useful since as shown by the recession even more people went underwater. quote:Housing is traditionally is not viewed as a great investment. It takes maintenance, it depreciates, it goes out of style. All of those are problems. And there’s technical progress in housing. So, the new ones are better….So, why was it considered an investment? That was a fad. That was an idea that took hold in the early 2000′s. And I don’t expect it to come back. Not with the same force. So people might just decide, ‘yeah, I’ll diversify my portfolio. I’ll live in a rental.’ That is a very sensible thing for many people to do. etalian fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Buffer posted:If rent keeps going up at the rate is has been here(a minimum of 10% per year, which has been huge relative to COLA increases), it makes sense to buy something since at least your housing costs will mostly stabilize. Everything is priced at what it would rent for + some and bought in cash though, so really if you buy and everything doesn't keep going up up up, you're hosed. I'm assuming you're living in a tech heavy area, in which case you probably don't have to worry about this going on for too much longer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The property is one thing, the neighborhood is another. I don't have hard data, but I would wager that apartment and condo complexes with shared amenities are much more likely to result in communities where people know their neighbors. Depends, I lived in an apartment with plenty of shared amenities. No one interacted with each other. The concern about a house or two in the neighborhood being rented is pretty overblown. Most cities have ordinances that only allow so many houses per block to be rented. All things being equal people take better care of things they own than things they rent. As with anything if you have a good landlord and tenant it doesn't change a thing. If you have an absentee landlord and a lovely tenant then it can cause problems. What people don't want is a lovely landlord buying up half the houses then filling them with bad tenants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
What if you have an absentee landlord and tenants who do care about their homes? Who would you say is at fault then if the place falls apart?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Cross-post from the politics thread:Defenestration posted:According to Corbis's "2014 June Creative Research" the creative class is "townsizing" by leaving cities full of soulless luxury apartments and movie to "hipstubia" (small progressive towns) instead of equally soulless strip-mall suburbs quote:As mass-urbanization sweeps the globe, a counter-trend is brewing among city dwellers looking for an alternative to the ubiquitous luxury high-rises and corporate branding overtaking so many large cities today. Seeking a mix of big-city sophistication and small-town community, an increasing number of urbanites – led by Gen X and Y – are “townsizing” and relocating to smaller, culturally progressive towns and cities that offer a more unique and creative way of life. Essentially the people who made up the first wave of gentrification are being driven out of the cities by high prices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:What if you have an absentee landlord and tenants who do care about their homes? Who would you say is at fault then if the place falls apart? Clearly if those tenants owned that property like the landlord does they would take better care of it than the landlord who does own it and does not take care of i-ergh, wait a second.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
No strip malls? Does such a place still exist? How do you find a town that's that small yet is progressive (instead of being run by right wing shitheads like most towns).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Clearly if those tenants owned that property like the landlord does they would take better care of it than the landlord who does own it and does not take care of i-ergh, wait a second. The landlord doesn't care because he doesn't live there. If the paint is peeling and the windows are cracked why should he care? Sure, long term it will cost him money, but Capitalism has never really been big on "long term". That assumed that the cosmetic issues would cause structural problems. They certainly can if you have moisture problems, but it isn't certain. A large part of having a nice house is cosmetic upkeep. It is keeping the landscaping up, cleaning, etc. Shifty Pony posted:Cross-post from the politics thread: Don't read too much into articles like that. Sure, some people are switching how they live. Just change what ever phrase they use to "Hippie Commune" and pretend the article was written in the 60s. If the fad keeps up for a decade or two it might make an appreciable impact but housing fads seem to come and go every 5 years these days. Xae fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
effectual posted:No strip malls? Does such a place still exist? How do you find a town that's that small yet is progressive (instead of being run by right wing shitheads like most towns). You take a small town that was built with a main street and then you mob it until you have control of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
The more amusing trend is how the poors are moving to the suburbs due to the recession while rich people move back to the city.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Student loans have certainly affected me. The $500 dollars in loans I pay a month prevent me from saving for a home on my current salary. It will probably be 10 years before I have a down payment for a home and by then who knows what the rental or housing market will look like. I can look for a higher salaried job. Student loans certainly have a way of dictating most of your behavior 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
etalian posted:The more amusing trend is how the poors are moving to the suburbs due to the recession while rich people move back to the city. I've not played much Othello, but if what I remember of it is right, Gentrification is like one expensive, extensive, and everlasting game of Othello, just alternating back and forth, gradually working outwards, and no one wins except the ones who paid to put the game board there in the first place. I may just be thinking of some other obscure board game I can't remember the name of though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Xae posted:You have to be utterly out of touch with reality to think that people treat things they rent as well as they treat things they own. Most of the maintenance is the landlord's job, and they'll do it to a minimum standard if that. Surprise, petite bourgeois landowners love to blame others for their own sloth and indifference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Yes, there are houses that are investment properties. You can rent them out, to more than one person. But if renting them to others is why housing is good, then why on earth should policy spend so much money favoring the landlords and not the tenants? quote:Home ownership is one of the single greatest contributors to long-term unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
effectual posted:No strip malls? Does such a place still exist? How do you find a town that's that small yet is progressive (instead of being run by right wing shitheads like most towns). College towns I'd imagine. Or places small enough to be mobbed and taken over on the cheap as mentioned previously. Say you find a rural Oregon town, 2 hours from Portland (this is hypothetical) and mob it. For a more concrete example, Olympia, WA was pretty hipster for a sleepy town when I visited there with the downtown area almost completely made up of 20-somethings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
effectual posted:No strip malls? Does such a place still exist? How do you find a town that's that small yet is progressive (instead of being run by right wing shitheads like most towns). A New England tourist town I work in one, it is very nice but let's not kid ourselves, that's not a starving artist living in that "craftsman bungalow"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
effectual posted:No strip malls? Does such a place still exist? How do you find a town that's that small yet is progressive (instead of being run by right wing shitheads like most towns). St Louis city's whiteguy mayor benefitted enormously from the sudden influx of coastal arts and tech types pouring in due to cheap rent (1 br apartments for $400 in south city) and hitched his wagon to sustainable, progressive development policies (bike lanes) instead of the traditional democratic inner city red meat bases of poor blacks and unionized, working-class whites. The gentrification here has gone mostly unopposed because there is such a huge stock of uninhabited housing in both good and bad parts of the city that nobody's really being forced out to make room for the gentrifiers. edit: meant to say working-class instead of working whites, as opposed to non-working unionized whites. CAPS LOCK BROKEN fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:My comment about (imputed) rents was in response to your comparison of houses to baseball cards and the discussion about whether property constitutes an investment, not a justification for current housing policy. With that said, I don't think it's terribly meaningful to draw lines between the house and "the property as a whole" when you're talking about investment in housing unless the two are sold separately. If you buy a plot of land with a house on it and the house drops in value but the land appreciates such that you see an overall real terms gain, your investment has delivered capital appreciation. quote:What are you basing this on? Blanchflower and Oswald? It's fairly reasonable to say that people working at actual jobs are more likely to be "the engine of growth" in the economy. Policy that can "trap" people into situations where taking those jobs is more difficult would interfere. ShadowHawk fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:St Louis city's whiteguy mayor benefitted enormously from the sudden influx of coastal arts and tech types pouring in due to cheap rent (1 br apartments for $400 in south city) and hitched his wagon to sustainable, progressive development policies (bike lanes) instead of the traditional democratic inner city red meat bases of poor blacks and unionized, working whites. The gentrification here has gone mostly unopposed because there is such a huge stock of uninhabited housing in both good and bad parts of the city that nobody's really being forced out to make room for the gentrifiers. I guess it's a good development seeing how many tech centers such as Boston or the Bay Area are already prohibitively expensive for basic housing unless you have one the big income white collar jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Most of the maintenance is the landlord's job, and they'll do it to a minimum standard if that. Surprise, petite bourgeois landowners love to blame others for their own sloth and indifference. Yep. Most of what people attribute to the evils of renters is due to landlords not putting in the effort. Generally speaking if you are a landlord and you want something done you drat well better arrange for it to be done yourself. Want the yard to look nice? Hire landscaping, install auto sprinklers, and pay part of the water bill. Want your carpet to get cleaned occasionally? Pay for yearly steam cleaning. I have scrubbed 1" of dust the consistency of velvet off of air conditioning coils because "must change filters monthly" in a lease means absolutely jack poo poo. Now here's the fun thing: who here thinks the hedge funds buying up property will do one iota more than the bare minimum or give any consideration to the neighbors as long as rent comes in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
If experience is any guide, what they will do is lobby to get the bare minimum they are required to do legally changed to "nothing"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Chiming in here as someone who has lived in each of the three circles of renter hell (DC, NYC, Bay Area). For New York City, the rent is insane pretty much because of uncontrolled demand in general. The housing stock is huge but the rush of people from all stripes is still intense and the city is headed in the direction of London. Massive capital investments on the order of billions to build or update low income housing and making Bronx/Queens/Staten Island areas more livable for lower income people while making them less prone to circles of crime and violence is the only way this will be stemmed at all. The problem is the incentives to build places for the rich only are almost too expensive to directly control via minimum numbers of affordable apartments, it will probably have to come from investments in the less sexy outer boroughs. Not to mention many older people who own single family homes in NYC are using their capital to basically pay for the ludicrous costs of retirement up here (if they don't go down South that is). My grandparents burned through their pension+their house's value+savings+social security just on hospitalization costs and assisted living. We sold the house for cash to immigrants from China, which are the periphery of the external money buying NYC property problem. DC is just unfettered capitalism in housing from my experiences. Developers going hog wild to bilk money, rental cartels controlling hundreds of thousands of units in the DC area and not giving a poo poo, and rich communities using their uniform resistance to change to keep out undesirables. The transit system has big enough gaps that the poor get shoved in unwalkable strip mall wastelands and the rich take all the places where you can live without a car. The Bay Area is perhaps a hodgepodge of all that plus the tech boom inflating the bubble just a bit farther. On top of that seismically unsafe housing is where most poor people or less savvy people end up so given an earthquake they'll be first to lose their homes. I'd love to own a house if nothing else than to prevent having to do as much corrective maintenance as I've done over the years. I want some security that I have a place to come home to, to practice my hobbies in, and in an emergency I'll have a chunk of capital at the end of the day instead of nothing. I think it's hard to say whether owning or renting is intrinsically better or worse, it's very situational. Edit: Gotta get my US.... threads in order. Blindeye fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Your point is appreciated. This is in the broader context of a policy and economic discussion. I think it's worth noting just how wrong the popular narrative is. Housing investments can only be "the engine of growth" in so much as they raise our productivity. If the reason we think they're such good investments is solely due to the land price, then we're not actually producing any sort of sustainable growth. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Yep. Most of what people attribute to the evils of renters is due to landlords not putting in the effort. Yep. The apartment complex I've lived in for the past six years has good managers, hires people to do landscaping, keeps everything looking nice, steam cleans the carpets yearly, responds to maintenance requests usually within 10 minutes, frequently renovate, and as a result, a lot of people don't believe me when I say this complex has been here for 25 years - they just don't look like 25-year-old rentals. Meanwhile, the complex that was built across the street five years ago is already starting to fall apart. (Suburban Ohio, though, so rent hasn't been crazy - I'm paying $750 for a 1/1 760 sq. ft., and the rent increase has pretty consistently been about $10 each year for the last five years.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Here is a quote that is literally on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's website about affordable housing: Rents in Houston have skyrocketed. I moved here in 2011 and paid $950 for a large apartment in a good area. I just moved again and looked at my old place and the same floorplan is like $1300. It's a decent place, but nowhere near nice enough to justify that. Not to mention that they're building dozens of new apartment complexes but they are virtually all "luxury" apartments that cost upwards of $2400 a month. I don't understand how there can possibly be enough people able/willing to afford that to justify all the new development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Xae posted:The landlord doesn't care because he doesn't live there. If the paint is peeling and the windows are cracked why should he care? NNick posted:Student loans have certainly affected me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Rents in Houston have skyrocketed. I moved here in 2011 and paid $950 for a large apartment in a good area. I just moved again and looked at my old place and the same floorplan is like $1300. It's a decent place, but nowhere near nice enough to justify that. Kind of amazing that Houston is getting that too, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Rents in Houston have skyrocketed. I moved here in 2011 and paid $950 for a large apartment in a good area. I just moved again and looked at my old place and the same floorplan is like $1300. It's a decent place, but nowhere near nice enough to justify that. Well most of it is the whole millennial buzz and how even people in their 30s who lots of experience in their career are moving towards renting. Just about every major urban area is having lots of new construction for those luxury apartments that have a dog bath, pools and movie theaters to attract higher income renters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Wondering what this thread thinks of leasing cars vs. buying cars, since I'm happy leasing and the business forum regularly says I'm a retard and should buy a clunker instead. It entirely depends on the terms of the lease. They can be ok deals if you're the sort of person that would buy a new car in 3-5 years anyways, as long as the terms don't include things like excessive mileage charges. The best deal is a paid off car. If you can't afford to pay cash for a new car then buy a used, well hopefully not clunker, but something in reasonable condition - a grandma-mobile for instance. Then drive that for a few years while you save the cash for a new car. Then try to get 10+ years out of that before buying another. Basically you want the magic of compounding interest working for you rather than against you. Similar logic would apply to housing in theory if the analog of the used clunker - i.e. starter homes - hadn't gotten so out of whack. Peven Stan posted:St Louis city's whiteguy mayor benefitted enormously from the sudden influx of coastal arts and tech types pouring in due to cheap rent (1 br apartments for $400 in south city) and hitched his wagon to sustainable, progressive development policies (bike lanes) instead of the traditional democratic inner city red meat bases of poor blacks and unionized, working-class whites. The gentrification here has gone mostly unopposed because there is such a huge stock of uninhabited housing in both good and bad parts of the city that nobody's really being forced out to make room for the gentrifiers. I grew up in St. Louis in the 70s and moved away in the 80s in a family of those union, working-class whites (McDonnell Douglas, Chrysler, etc. factory workers) that fled the city to the inner ring suburbs, and I never thought I'd live to see gentrification make its way to St. Louis. Where are these arts and tech people working?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
etalian posted:Well most of it is the whole millennial buzz and how even people in their 30s who lots of experience in their career are moving towards renting. Snippets of an interesting Austin story posted on (ugh) reddit to that effect: quote:
Ok part of that is that the older pop in Austin was so low that of course it will be more prone to showing large percentage increases. But I think the point about the bifurcation of the rental market also has to do with the nature of multifamily housing funding: You can either get government funding/assistance for affordable units or get market funding for luxury units. Why would you make middle income units when you can add some marketing-approved features for 5-10% more per unit and then charge 40% higher rent? It isn't like the luxury units are actually high end construction most of the time: the walls will still be as thin as they can get away with, there will be a gym but it will have maybe $1k of equipment, the flooring might be called hardwood but probably will be an engineered hardwood veneer or laminate, the appliances will be the lowest-end stainless steel available, the theater is a room with a projector from Best Buy and a bluray player, etc. Worst case you can offer various deals to fill up the units and then you probably have some percentage of your residents paying inflated rents. Pivoting a bit, has anyone else run across any information about how large multi-property apartment management companies have changed up how they deal with lease renewals? It used to be possible to negotiate with the on-site manager regarding rent increases but increasingly I've been hearing that renewal rates are being set by computer programs mandated by the corporation and there is no option to get a different rate. The program is supposedly optimized to thread the needle between pissing off residents enough to move and raising rents enough that the few that do move are more than covered by the additional revenue from those that stay. Perhaps this is just an Austin thing where managers are lying to try and avoid conflict with pissed off residents? Much easier to blame some faceless computer program, even if it doesn't really exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Snippets of an interesting Austin story posted on (ugh) reddit to that effect: No, this is big with management companies with big housing stocks. One of my friends lives in a suburb of DC (Silver Spring, MD). It's a decent place, 1Br with a den he shares with his girlfriend walking distance to a metro. I think he pays 1750 or something? They jacked his rent up 15-20% or something like that and he is mulling leaving because he likes it and moving elsewhere probably won't save him cash. Visiting the website he says he can look up his apartment layout on the same floor and the price varies by as much as 400 dollars a month depending on the time of year or even the week of the month. He can't reapply for the same place, he just gets a flat rate increase equal to the lowest price they offer on the website at a given time or some poo poo like that. But the company owns like 150,000 units of housing in the DC area so his experience I'm sure isn't unique.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Blindeye posted:No, this is big with management companies with big housing stocks. One of my friends lives in a suburb of DC (Silver Spring, MD). It's a decent place, 1Br with a den he shares with his girlfriend walking distance to a metro. I think he pays 1750 or something? They jacked his rent up 15-20% or something like that and he is mulling leaving because he likes it and moving elsewhere probably won't save him cash. Visiting the website he says he can look up his apartment layout on the same floor and the price varies by as much as 400 dollars a month depending on the time of year or even the week of the month. He can't reapply for the same place, he just gets a flat rate increase equal to the lowest price they offer on the website at a given time or some poo poo like that. Somewhat off topic but rents are pretty seasonal with winter having lower rates than summer in which there's movement for jobs or school. Also management companies in general focus on getting big bucks, while a private owner is more inclined to keep a good reliable tenant. I used to own a single family home but sold it, so learning all the ins and outs of renting has been quite the learning curve.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
I realize the discussion has moved on a bit from home ownership, but I couldn't help responding. I may be a little obtuse here, but even though I see everyone here insisting that purchasing a home is a bad idea, I just don't see why that's the case. I am living in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, so maybe many of the things plaguing the American market don't quite make their way up here. For me, purchasing a home made way more sense than renting for a couple of reasons: interest rates are historically low and are actually lower than when I bought, market rents in the area are substantially higher than a mortgage would be on the same property and building equity in your home allows you to take advantage of that equity in the future. As an example, my mortgage payment is approximately $700/month (950 with our taxes added in) on a 140,000 mortgage at %4.30 with an amortization of about 30 years. My neighbour's rent their house next door and pay 1650 a month for a house that is more or less the same in size and amenities. To be fair, my situation may be somewhat unique as both my wife and I came out of school with no debt and a substantial down payment from my summer work at a steel mill while I was in school. However, the standard of living I enjoy now couldn't be replicated if we were to rent. There's probably not an apartment in North American that's 3 beds 2 baths and over 1,000 sq feet that's rentable for around $1,000 a month. It may be the case that we wont experience growth permanently in the housing market. Yes there is certainly risk in home ownership. poo poo definitely goes wrong (I had a leak in my roof in the second year I lived here that required we replaced our roof). However, if things ever were to go bad, we always have the option of utilizing the equity in our home through financing or in simply selling it. It is understandable that some people don't want to be burdened with a home as it can certainly become an anchor that will weigh you down. Yet in many cases owning a home is cheaper on a monthly basis than rent and you get much more. To me, what represents a far larger problem is the amount of debt people carry in general. I'm lucky in that I don't carry any debt from school or otherwise aside from my mortgage. It's been touched on a little bit in the thread earlier, but I think the overall trend is getting our students indebted on the same level as home owners without any tangible asset let alone decent job prospect to pay down that debt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
It's more because the new economy is more focused on moving around to seek new employment opportunities, not to mention for many higher priced markets home ownership just isn't feasible. So due to lots of external factors such as manufacturing getting outsourced overseas it's much harder to go with the old story of getting out of school, getting first job, getting married and then getting a single family house. Also thanks to US for profit education model most grads have around $30,000 in education loans and have problems finding a matching job for their degree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
etalian posted:It's more because the new economy is more focused on moving around to seek new employment opportunities, not to mention for many higher priced markets home ownership just isn't feasible. Manufacturing was never for people who went to school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:22
|
|