It gives you both, but at what cost? If you have a spouse or child, that’s probably not going to happen again in round two. You’re going to make different decisions that take you on a different life path. Even if you made the same decisions, is your significant other actually going to fall in love with you when you’re going on the first date with 10 years of history already? You’re not going to bring that new relationship energy with you and you’re going to seem weird since you already know them so well. Even if you win them over, you won’t have the same kid. The odds of the same sperm finding the same egg are millions to one, possibly even higher since you probably won’t do it on that exact day. What about all your lifelong friends? Are you actually going to form meaningful relationships at 6 or 10 years old when you have the mind of a 30 year old, or whatever you are by that time? Probably not. I think the cost to go back would be very high.
Except it doesn’t specify that you go back in time to when you were 6 years old, but that you “restart your life at 6 years of age” so a fairly reasonable interpretation would be that you’ll be a 6 year old in 2024. Monkeys paw and all that.
Now, I personally think it’s more interesting if it did mean that you went back in time.
Thats actually even better than just restarting. I already want to make it to 120 to see what 3 different centuries looks so this would make that unrealistic goal so much more accomplishable. Also i will have an idea of what medical things im going to look into and see what options i would have as a kid today vs 40+ years ago
Totally agree. 10 million dollars will never buy me those years back. With remote work I could probably make enough of a living to get by until I age back into adulthood. At the age of 6 I’d have a higher brain plasticity, so I literally could get smarter faster only this time I could direct all of my potential into something a little more useful then just learning how the world works. With modest investing I could easily get to 10 mil by the time I’m at my current age just due to compound interest.
And lastly I could easily reach 120, and with medical advancement who knows!
The more I think about it, being six years old again really wouldn’t be that bad at all.
Edit: Assuming I’m still me but only younger, it’s not like I’d have to go back to school again as I already have diplomas proving I’ve done that before. So I could probably just tell any potential employees that I have dwarfism until I age back up. With the right clothes, hair, and possibly a little makeup (to make me look older than 6), the second I open my mouth no one would believe I’m six and would assume I have some kind of congenital disease.
If I choose red, I wouldn’t be able to guarantee my daughter would be born even if I met my wife because of, well, biology, but if choose the blue pill I can make sure she’ll have a huge head start on life from this point out, so blue pill it is.
Exactly! In the past, I would have chosen the red pill to change decisions that I made in the past. But today there are some things in my life that are not directly the result of conscious decisions, but that I would not want to miss.
Yeah same. I would love to avoid so much pain and suffering I went through, so much wasted time and bad decisions, but I would not risk it if I didn’t end up with my spouse and child. So, blue pill all the way. Also, 10 mil would actually solve 95% of all our problems to be honest.
Did you guys know most rental properties are made of wood?
Unrelated but apparently worker termite colonies will molt into reproductive adults in the absence of a queen and many hobby sources supply worker termites to most US states! It can be a fun and fulfilling hobby for those of all walks of life.
Lemmings continue to vastly underestimate who landlords are.
In fact, fewer than one-fifth of rental properties are owned by for-profit businesses of any kind. Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data. And landlords have complained about being unable to meet their obligations, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and repair bills, because of a falloff in rent payments.
Individual investors owned nearly 14.3 million of those properties (71.6%), comprising almost 19.9 million units (41.2%). For-profit businesses of various sorts owned 3.7 million properties, or 18.8%, but their holdings totaled 21.7 million units, or 45% of the total. Entities such as housing cooperative organizations and nonprofits owned smaller shares of the total.
only about half of individual landlords reported net income in 2018, with the rest losing money on their properties. Such losses can, under certain conditions, be used to offset other taxable income.
I’m glad to see some actual numbers. I am curious how quickly that is changing. I was a social worker for ten years until the last few months, and I would help people find housing all the time. It feels like there used to be more “mom and pop” landlords when I first started compared to now. Now I see this corporate players for the majority of rental listings.
I think the high price of housing will eventually prevent most individuals from buying a rental property, and like every other industry, the immensely wealthy corporations will take over. My last landlord paid $800 per month for her mortgage on the place. If someone wanted to buy a comparative property to rent out today, their mortgage would be closer to $5400 per month. There aren’t a lot of people who could commit to that. The ladders are being pulled up.
Ok, now what conclusions do you want people to take away from this information?
Possible takeaway: There are worse people / entities that could own the apartments and houses that are being rented out.
If that’s the only takeaway, it’s still not going to make me feel sad for landlords.
If they created an LLC, then whatever happens to their business, they can always just get a different job and their own housing situation will remain stable.
If they didn’t, maybe because they couldn’t get a large enough loan to buy property without putting up their own collateral, that was presumably their choice.
I don’t want anyone to lose access to housing (or food, or healthcare), but I’m much more worried about renters ending up unhoused than landlords.
I don’t want anyone to lose access to housing (or food, or healthcare), but I’m much more worried about renters ending up unhoused than landlords.As it stated, most are charging reasonable prices at or below market price. Meaning they are one tiny dam blocking hundreds of thousands of people who can’t afford to live in that city from being homeless. It’s one of the biggest takeaways when you read the article.
Most landlords, the large majority, are essentially people who decided to put their savings into equity rather than tossing their money into a big giant pile for the rich to make themselves richer, aka, the stock market. Sometimes you toss it somewhere and just lose it.
Their price to pay for that equity are taxes and upkeep. Their payoff is selling it when they retire or giving it to their children or grandchildren. I don’t think I’ve ever rented from any suburban or rural landlord that wasn’t in one of these two positions.
These people aren’t megacorporations buying up land from potential homeowners. They’re people in their 60s and 70s now realizing that their investment more often than not was a poor one. They subsidize their tenants allowing them to live in cities and areas they normally wouldn’t. And when they die, the homes are going to children to either sell for a quick buck to fund their own kids college or moving into them when they’re house is now too big since the kids just moved.
As always, the gamut of possibilities is way too wide for such anti-human extremist propaganda that gets pushed then eaten up by people who should know better.
So far the worst outcome for landlords that you have posed is that they “realize that their investment was a poor one”.
And yes, I want that landlord’s grandchildren to be able to afford college (which I think should be free for all, paid for by tax increases on the rich).
But you have to admit that we’re talking about vastly different worlds here, right?
What percentage of renters live paycheck to paycheck and are at risk of living on the street?
What percentage of landlords are at risk of living on the street?
What percentage of renters expect to be able to leave enough in money and assets to their children, so that those children can afford to pay college tuition for the renter’s grandchildren?
I agree with you that dehumanizing people is wrong. I agree that landlords can struggle too.
I agree that there are worse people / entities that could own apartment complexes and houses.
But you haven’t really convinced me that I should worry about the general well-being of the landlord class, or that it’s worth my time and energy to chide renters who say mean things about them online.
You know the usual memories of doing weird shit in pre school, being traumatized, also losing people and stuff like that. The usual memories that totally regular people have from that age and stay with your for the rest of your life
I saw a tall man in a leather jacket in a supermarket and ran up and hugged him because all tall men in leather jackets are my dad. 5 year old me forgot that he was passed out at home from some drug/alcohol concoction so how could he be in the shop?
Red pill easy. Make note of all the stock stuff that comes over the next couple decades, gain more than 10 mill and have more life experience in the tougher times.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.