House and Senate overwhelmingly pass atrocious relief bill. Trump slams it and says he'll veto.

[tstorm823]

And it never occurred to you at any point someone in the city may not have enough money to move out of the city?

No. The cities are more expensive. I get that moving itself isn't free, but being too poor to live somewhere cheaper than where you currently live isn't a thing.

Or do you really think the families in the slums of New York just haven't chosen to save up enough to move into a $500,000 suburbs two-story?

Feel free to divide that number by 3.

If your cheap as chips rural community can provide 100 jobs, there's a problem if 200 workers try to fit into it. The thing is, ordinary people don't decide where jobs are, and most ordinary person's primary concern is to earn a living. Cities are the primary drivers of economic growth now and have been for the last 200 or so years for which there are a whole load of good reasons which aren't really important for this comment, suffice to say that moving to the countryside is not a realistic option for many people economically. And that's without even going into all the other reasons they may want to live in a city.

Traditional home ownership is perfectly feasible in cities. If we take the basic principle that any city provides sufficient housing stock for its population (which is basically true in developed countries), then in theory it definitely is possible for most everyone who lives there to own their own home. The reason they can't is simply that so much property is owned by landowners who make profit by extracting rent. Any government sufficiently interested could change this and boost home ownership. They just won't, chiefly for two reasons: laissez-faire ideology, and because landowners are rich and powerful people with a lot of influence over politicians.

Fun fact: you can buy a 3 bedroom house in the same town as the governor of Pennsylvania for around $150k. This town is about a 20 minute commute from 2 major enough cities to get a job in whatever normal work sector you like. It contains one major business in the town limits, that currently has a billboard on the highway advertising $18 an hour starting pay for regular old warehouse work. I don't live in a hamlet in rural Illinois, central PA isn't 200 person towns, and it still blows SilentPony's 500k house out of the water in affordability. And like, I'm still borderline to the east coast megacity. You can have a house in the city limits of somewhere like Kansas City for like a $500/mo mortgage payment. You're right, home ownership in cities is perfectly feasible. Just not New York or LA. These stupid mega cities that people flock to are overpacked. If you take the cities, clear out all the infrastructe and businesses, and divide the land evenly among households, each household would be on 0.1 acres or less. That's not gonna work, especially since people flock to these places for specifcally all the nonresidential stuff taking up space.

And all of this is basically irrelevant because industry is leaving the cities, remote work is increasingly common, warehouse districts are on suburban highways instead of in city ports. Economics is not what drives people to cities in the year 2020. The whole premise you're working under is wrong.

 

[SilentPony]

No. The cities are more expensive. I get that moving itself isn't free, but being too poor to live somewhere cheaper than where you currently live isn't a thing.

Feel free to divide that number by 3.

No, nice cities are more expensive. High rise apartments are more expensive, sure, but the shit ones, out in the slums? No, that's the cheap shit that locks generations into it because there are no good jobs.

Also divide by 3? Do you know how expensive houses really are? I live out in the sticks on St. Louis, a good 60 miles from the actual city, and they're building single story ranch homes in the middle of nowhere for $1.5 million. And not fancy ones, just 1000-2000 square feet.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I live in a very cheap apartment in a middle class part of town, it's quite affordable in the suburb. Out of town, in a small town about an hour away from the city I'm next to is a single apartment complex that is absurdly expensive, as in it's on par with the luxury highrises in downtown. But it's an hour away from anywhere.

That's the power of gentrification.

 

[tstorm823]

No, nice cities are more expensive. High rise apartments are more expensive, sure, but the shit ones, out in the slums? No, that's the cheap shit that locks generations into it because there are no good jobs.

Also divide by 3? Do you know how expensive houses really are? I live out in the sticks on St. Louis, a good 60 miles from the actual city, and they're building single story ranch homes in the middle of nowhere for $1.5 million. And not fancy ones, just 1000-2000 square feet.

Zillow, St. Louis MO, 3+ bedroom houses <200k.

 

[Cheetodust]

Zillow, St. Louis MO, 3+ bedroom houses <200k.

Dunno how mortgages work for you guys but here you need 10% deposit and can borrow about 3.5 times your earnings. If you were to borrow 150k you would need combined earnings of almost 43k, slightly below the median household income. Meaning the 150k is achievable for a little over half the population. If you're trying to deny wage stagnation and rising housing costs you're living in a fantasy.

 

[tstorm823]

Dunno how mortgages work for you guys but here you need 10% deposit and can borrow about 3.5 times your earnings. If you were to borrow 150k you would need combined earnings of almost 43k, slightly below the median household income. Meaning the 150k is achievable for a little over half the population. If you're trying to deny wage stagnation and rising housing costs you're living in a fantasy.

The median household income in St Louis is $66,417. In the whole US, it's $68,400. The 2019 median income for households with breadwinners ages 15-24 is $47,934. For people who make less than the necessary amount, there are both government programs and charitable groups dedicated to helping people buy their first home, that will make the math friendlier than just you and the bank.

Which way do you want to slice this?

 

[Cheetodust]

Which way do you want to slice this?

I'm gonna leave it to people who know how the US works. I don't know enough about the US to argue it. Unlike you I don't google a country for 3 minutes and think I'm an expert.

 

[Silvanus]

No. The cities are more expensive. I get that moving itself isn't free, but being too poor to live somewhere cheaper than where you currently live isn't a thing.

And buying a house is immensely more expensive in a one-off payment than continuing to rent.

 

[tstorm823]

And buying a house is immensely more expensive in a one-off payment than continuing to rent.

The average mortgage is less than city rent.

I'm gonna leave it to people who know how the US works. I don't know enough about the US to argue it. Unlike you I don't google a country for 3 minutes and think I'm an expert.

Wise decision.

Funny thing is, I live in the US to think I'm an expert, but if I didn't use google to make my argument, you'd dismiss my personal knowledge as worthless. There really is no winning strategy here.

 

[tippy2k2]

The average mortgage is less than city rent.

Curious, do you actually own a home?

Because as someone who does, a house is WAY more than just mortgage v rent. Shit breaks in your rental, it's the landlord's job. Shit breaks here, it's my job. I have owned my house for two years; the windows needed replacing ($5,000 and I went through a handyman who gave me a steep discount by paying him in cash), the roof needed replacing (I think that was $7,000? Something like that), and my water heater exploded so I had to replace it ($600) and buy the shop vac ($65), carpet shampooer ($100) to clean the new pool I got in my basement, and hire someone who knew how to install it (BIL does plumbing so that was free but should have been another couple hundred bucks).

This isn't even talking about all the little maintenance stuff you have to do constantly around your house like mow or shovel snow nor the things like electricity, garbage, property taxes, etc.

There are obviously drawbacks with renting too but I think you're grossly underestimating what it actually takes to own a home.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot about the big thing! If my thing above hasn't put the Fear of God into homeownership in some of you, maybe this will...


That was my basement a year and a half ago when it was discovered I had a hole in my foundation after a heavy rain. So that was a fun week trying to figure out how to clean a tiny ass waterfall constantly spewing water into my basement and then having to figure out how to actually fix the issue once the rain stopped (because you can't just plug up that hole from the inside, all you're going to do is make your cinderblock wall fill with water and completely wreck the shit out of your foundation).

 

[SupahEwok]

you'd dismiss my personal knowledge as worthless. There really is no winning strategy here.

Says the man who calls anybody whose personal experience breaks with his personal experience a liar.

 

[Agema]

And all of this is basically irrelevant because industry is leaving the cities, remote work is increasingly common, warehouse districts are on suburban highways instead of in city ports. Economics is not what drives people to cities in the year 2020. The whole premise you're working under is wrong.

No, e.g. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/july/looking-urban-rural-divide-economic-growth

You are predicting what might happen in the coming decades. But as it stands, cities are still the drivers of economc growth. Concentration of workers allows for concentration of skill bases. Companies set up where the workers are, and the workers for a whole lot of industries tend to be in and around cities. The social draw of cities (which many move for) is also economically linked: it's the population concentration and money to flash around that supports music gigs, museums and art galleries, upmarket cafes, and so on.

Warehousing along highways is neither here nor there. It's been a growth area, but mostly what it's done (in my country for instance) is partially offset the loss of old manufacturing jobs in peripheral towns. These towns along the motorways providing these centres with staff are still poor and depressed. 1000 low pay workers shifting packages simply doesn't come close to touching the big money from high skill professional jobs clustered around cities. Satellite towns of major cities tend to do better, because the prices go down enough but leave people close enough to enjoy the fruits of the city if desired. In terms of remote working, this is likewise most probable to benefit satellite towns of major cities, at least in the short term.

 

[Avnger]

Curious, do you actually own a home?

Because as someone who does, a house is WAY more than just mortgage v rent. Shit breaks in your rental, it's the landlord's job. Shit breaks here, it's my job. I have owned my house for two years; the windows needed replacing ($5,000 and I went through a handyman who gave me a steep discount by paying him in cash), the roof needed replacing (I think that was $7,000? Something like that), and my water heater exploded so I had to replace it ($600) and buy the shop vac ($65), carpet shampooer ($100) to clean the new pool I got in my basement, and hire someone who knew how to install it (BIL does plumbing so that was free but should have been another couple hundred bucks).

This isn't even talking about all the little maintenance stuff you have to do constantly around your house like mow or shovel snow nor the things like electricity, garbage, property taxes, etc.

There are obviously drawbacks with renting too but I think you're grossly underestimating what it actually takes to own a home.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot about the big thing! If my thing above hasn't put the Fear of God into homeownership in some of you, maybe this will...


That was my basement a year and a half ago when it was discovered I had a hole in my foundation after a heavy rain. So that was a fun week trying to figure out how to clean a tiny ass waterfall constantly spewing water into my basement and then having to figure out how to actually fix the issue once the rain stopped (because you can't just plug up that hole from the inside, all you're going to do is make your cinderblock wall fill with water and completely wreck the shit out of your foundation).

Just to add on to this: property taxes

A rental would have the landlord's property taxes figured into the rent charged. For a homeowner, the property taxes are an additional amount on top of the mortgage.

 

[SupahEwok]

Just to add on to this: Property taxes

Just quit spending $20 every day on avocado toast and you'll have a house in no time.

 

[Avnger]

Just quit spending $20 every day on avocado toast and you'll have a house in no time.

But what am I supposed to eat with my $10 Starbucks coffee?

 

[SupahEwok]

But what am I supposed to eat with my $10 Starbucks coffee?

Bootstraps and the spirit (but not fact) of fulfillment granted by austerity.

 

[tstorm823]

There are obviously drawbacks with renting too but I think you're grossly underestimating what it actually takes to own a home.

I am not underestimating, but you are correct that I'm only talking about the expense. That's sort of the topic at hand.

No, e.g. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/july/looking-urban-rural-divide-economic-growth

You are predicting what might happen in the coming decades. But as it stands, cities are still the drivers of economc growth. Concentration of workers allows for concentration of skill bases. Companies set up where the workers are, and the workers for a whole lot of industries tend to be in and around cities. The social draw of cities (which many move for) is also economically linked: it's the population concentration and money to flash around that supports music gigs, museums and art galleries, upmarket cafes, and so on.

Warehousing along highways is neither here nor there. It's been a growth area, but mostly what it's done (in my country for instance) is partially offset the loss of old manufacturing jobs in peripheral towns. These towns along the motorways providing these centres with staff are still poor and depressed. 1000 low pay workers shifting packages simply doesn't come close to touching the big money from high skill professional jobs clustered around cities. Satellite towns of major cities tend to do better, because the prices go down enough but leave people close enough to enjoy the fruits of the city if desired. In terms of remote working, this is likewise most probable to benefit satellite towns of major cities, at least in the short term.

I don't think it's a prediction of the future when the major cities on the coasts are mostly losing population right now.

And as far as enjoying the fruits of the city, I know people who rent in Philadelphia while doing remote work, so that's certainly a personal choice people have made.

Says the man who calls anybody whose personal experience breaks with his personal experience a liar.

Pretty sure that was just you. You continue to bring up your own shame as though it works against me, but you earned that response.

Just to add on to this: property taxes

A rental would have the landlord's property taxes figured into the rent charged. For a homeowner, the property taxes are an additional amount on top of the mortgage.

Mortgage + Property tax is still slightly less than monthly rent for an equivalent property where I am. And a good chunk of that becomes personal equity instead of getting sucked directly into a black hole.

I'd like to stop and appreciate that an entire board of people arguing home ownership is not feasible and landlords take advantage of their tenants has somehow done a complete 180 and are now arguing in favor of the economics of renting. Good times.

 

[Houseman]

Senate debates $2,000 checks

 

[tippy2k2]

I am not underestimating, but you are correct that I'm only talking about the expense. That's sort of the topic at hand.

I don't think it's a prediction of the future when the major cities on the coasts are mostly losing population right now.

And as far as enjoying the fruits of the city, I know people who rent in Philadelphia while doing remote work, so that's certainly a personal choice people have made.

Pretty sure that was just you. You continue to bring up your own shame as though it works against me, but you earned that response.

Mortgage + Property tax is still slightly less than monthly rent for an equivalent property where I am. And a good chunk of that becomes personal equity instead of getting sucked directly into a black hole.

I'd like to stop and appreciate that an entire board of people arguing home ownership is not feasible and landlords take advantage of their tenants has somehow done a complete 180 and are now arguing in favor of the economics of renting. Good times.

I can't speak for everyone else on the board at this particular time but I never stated one was better than the other (there are major benefits and drawbacks to renting just as there are major benefits and drawbacks to owning a home). All I'm saying is your "It's one house Michael, what could it cost, $10?" is insane as you seem to be under the weird impression that people can just go buy a house whenever they want because "it cost" less than renting (even though, you know, it doesn't).

Sure, if all you factor in is how much a mortgage cost versus how much renting cost, you're absolutely right, buying is cheaper than renting. But that's not what the real world cost actually is.

 

[SupahEwok]

Pretty sure that was just you. You continue to bring up your own shame as though it works against me, but you earned that response.

You could have just said "yes I do, get fucked." More succinct.