I always thought it was kinda fun when I worked retail honestly lmao. People rarely paid with checks so I rarely got to use the machine that you stick it in and it goes KA-CHUNK.
That’s normal. The idea is you buy the house with a mortgage to then lease (let) out to tenants. The tenants then pay you rent equal to the mortgage plus a bit extra on top, which you use to pay the mortgage and make a profit.
The rent is rent. It doesn’t have to cover the mortgage all the time. It’s not like someone rent is locked in for 30 years. And some bigger businesses will take the hit knowing the appreciation of the house will catch up or know they will buy a majority of the houses in the area and then raise rent that way to eventually be higher than the mortgage.
Around here, it’s not really linked. The heat of the apartment market is directly tied to the projected ROI, based on the demand of rental properties and the demand of rent itself. Like Bitcoin mining, sometimes the ROI gets really low or even negative in the short- or medium-term. The friction between the two factors tend to warm or cool one of the markets, but it takes times.
Consider/remember this. Many landlords aren’t paying a mortgage, and don’t need to tie rent to “a house’s value at the time of purchase”. They still profit when rent is below the average mortgage, or if rent is well above it. The only thing they care about is maximizing profits regardless of how full/empty their units are. Similarly on the renting side is lifestyle renters. They don’t rent “because I can’t afford a mortgage”. They rent because they don’t want to be tied down. They aren’t ready to settle and might or might not move 1000 miles next year.
Those two categories are fairly numerous, and both present forces that influence the rental market independently from the purchase market. It means that places with less long-term demand like Detroit, Philly, or Houston have ownership TCO far lower than rent rates. Flip-side, there are just as many cities on the other side of the spectrum. The average rent in Austin is $2000/mo cheaper than mortgage payments on a starter home. In San Francisco, that difference is almost $3000/mo.
A common landlord technique is putting a minimum down payment on a house and having their renters pay off the morgage. I think the above commenter is saying that it should not be allowed to get a massive loan on a house that you aren’t going to live in.
People (talking mom & pop) should not be able to purchase a home simply for the purpose of renting it out.
I agree with that.
The problem is the reason people do that is because of a few things.
The ROI is absolutely retarded. My last house (I live in don’t rent) I made 800k in 10 years. That’s insane. Find me an index that turns 500k into 1.3mil in 10 years
Passive income if you don’t do shit that landlords should be doing like regular maintenance.
S&P 500 did better than that in the last 10 years. I really hate that housing has gone the way it has, because on average it’s not as insanely profitable comparable to other asset classes as people make it out to be, it’s pretty comparable.
I wish it wasn’t comparable though, because we’re just parking a ton of cash to do nothing with it.
True except it’s a little different than equity investments because of the ease of leverage. No one is going to loan me a half million dollars to invest in the S&P500 but they’ll have no problem giving me a house to rent out (if I can prove income).
The bourgeoisie loves this one neat trick: just let a few of the poors own a little something, and they’ll fight off the rest of the poors without even needing to be told.
Seriously though, anyone want to sell out a generation for a bit of land and monies? I mean, you’ll never be able to pay for unnecessary things with just values and integrity
I will go to my grave that society writ large is broken. It’s not just the rich. Everyone has become a selfish turd out to get a buck on the backs of everyone else. The difference is that some of us are self-aware enough to see it in ourselves.
It’s depressing if you don’t step back and laugh at it all.
I was literally just thinking about this on my way home yesterday. Society is completely broken, there is no us only ME. this is especially terrible in the United States where we fetishize “rugged individualism.” You don’t care for anyone but yourself. Look out for #1…
So when the choice is “money for me” or “consider my impact on my surroundings” the result is “lmfao consider others? It would be stupid for me to not make this money at the expense of others.”
Every shitty self serving decision made for ones own profit is the “smart thing” to do, even if it was literally destroying the entire town around you. I hate it.
Yes and I charge well under market value (like $500 under what I could get) and my tenant does not have to live on the street. Would you rather I kick her out or let her live in my house for free?
You are trying to pass the idea that society is already broken so everybody should just do what the fuck they want. Your are part of the side of society that is actually broken, so all your tirade sounds pretty hypocritical.
I don’t think the mom and pops are really the problem (in fact, this is I think one of the few viable ways for regular people to actually get ahead) but all of the things surrounding housing. One can get place renting for $2k, but can’t get approved for that mortgage amount even with tons of history showing it’s paid. Corporations owning massive amounts of property are also a much bigger problem. Appealing to an individual (mom and pop) is generally a lot easier than to try to appeal to a corp in which you’re just Lessee #4949857 who’s spreadsheet tells them to squeeze you for more money because.
Past that, I’d also argue renters need much more support when it comes to their rights because quite a lot of the things that people are posting here as anecdotes to why their landlords are shitty are already illegal, it’s just extremely difficult to get anything done about it. I’d suggest also that there was some regulatory body (if one doesn’t exist already) responsible for certifying housing/landlords because then at least shit would get fixed once a year.
My only half-decent experience renting was a blue-collar mom and pop who leveraged their own home to buy a second home to rent, that they rented significantly under market value. If anything, we should be trying to setup more systems that allow this outcome (they fucked me on the deposit though, but that’s the part about renter’s rights.)
One can get place renting for $2k, but can’t get approved for that mortgage amount even with tons of history showing it’s paid
I think the issue there is that there’s more risk to mortgage companies than “tons of history showing it’s paid”. There’s a reason they use complicated equations instead of interviews to make decisions related to risk. Questions that don’t directly relate to someone being unable to pay mortgage:
Will they take action that reduces the property value enough to put them underwater
If they choose to walk away for some reason, what percent of our investment do we get back?
And with the rest of the equation, home ownership is higher risk than renting because a tenant isn’t responsible for damage and repairs. If, for example, peeling asbestos gets discovered and you have to move out to fix it to the tune of $10,000 or more, will that homeowner be able to afford it? Will they just walk out and start renting somewhere? There’s a lot of things not covered by homeowners insurance that can financially devastate a homeowner, and the mortgagee (bank) might notice an income disruption that a renter would not.
And #3 - redundancy so a family member doesn’t end up homeless. I have family that does fairly well for itself. When their first kid turned 18, they bought a rental house in case she needed it someday. When their second kid turned 18, they bought a rental house in case he needed it someday.
So they own two buildings “for the purpose of renting it out”. Building number 2 is now perma-“rented” to kid number 2 because he needed it.
Also, bullet point #1. The NDQ typical long-term return is approximately 11%. Due to recent bubble bursts, it’s down to 10.4%. Importantly, that’s almost exactly 1.3mil in 10 years from 500k. Everything I’ve ever read and learned from investing or investors repeats that rental real-estate is a stable investment, not an aggressive one.
Good points and I don’t feel like counterpointing a lot of it because I’m tired.
I will say though on the returns. I used the 10 years in my house as an example but recall that was not a steady increase. Normally housing should be well below an index. What happened say the last 4 years was that the price of my house went from about 700k to 1.3mil. the 10 year example masks what I was saying. Houses had to 100% be returning more than an index the last 5 years otherwise how do you explain the rampant greed? Corporations AND individuals have been drunk on overleveraging on the residential market. They’re not doing that for index rate returns otherwise they’d be in an RRSP.
I never understood this sentiment. For single family homes the market sets the price. It’s not like when you buy a house and use it for a rental all of sudden it’s cheaper or more expensive in some way. You could make a price/demand argument but then again the underlying demand is housing not money hungry landlords. If there was not an underlying housing demand, no one would rent and it would fail as an investment.
How does the community serve those who want to rent? Apartments? Now that is where we can agree. Apartment valuation is calculated on operations not on the market. The only way to raise value of an apartment is to raise rent (or reduce expenses in some way but at some point you can only do so much). At least with SFH you have appreciation that landlords can factor in for return.
Lastly, 2 of my rentals were foreclosures. If anything I’m performing the city a service by buying these properties and adding value. If you had to choose, would you rather live next to a vacant house or a rental?
To answer your question, it’s fair for a renter to not build equity because they don’t pay for upkeep or have the risk associated with the loan. You have to put skin in the game at some point.
Edit: there are some good points for the other side of the argument if you keep reading. I don’t know what the answer is but I’m not convinced that restrictions or to disincentivize rental operations is the answer.
Apartment valuation is calculated on operations not on the market
Apartment valuation in my area spiked until the ROI crossed 10+ years. People stopped buying apartment buildings for a while except as owner-occupied with renters to assist. But in my area, none of those reach anywhere near a net-zero mortgage. The market absolutely still has an effect on valuation in most areas.
But two towns over, people are selling apartment buildings with 2-3 year ROIs, and they’re being swept up by one of a small handful of investors. Building maintenance is terrible, and there’s very little interest in the legal risk of being slumlords except those who are already slumlords over 40-50 buildings or more.
never understood this sentiment. For single family homes the market sets the price. It’s not like when you buy a house and use it for a rental all of sudden it’s cheaper or more expensive in some way. You could make a price/demand argument but then again the underlying demand is housing not money hungry landlords. If there was not an underlying housing demand, no one would rent and it would fail as an investment.
Close. You’re right there’s no profit without demand. Now, consider what happens when certain entities with way more money than most of us comes along and decides they want to induce artificial scarcity by buying up and leaving empty a ton of houses.
Lastly, 2 of my rentals were foreclosures. If anything I’m performing the city a service by buying these properties and adding value. If you had to choose, would you rather live next to a vacant house or a rental?
They both kinda suck. I’d rather live next to someone who is invested in the property.
To answer your question, it’s fair for a renter to not build equity because they don’t pay for upkeep or have the risk associated with the loan. You have to put skin in the game at some point.
I could agree with this if rent was pegged to a percentage of the mortgage value. The issue is that the landlord makes a purchase and now owes, let’s say, 1k/mo for everything. Rent, taxes, fees, etc.
They want to rent that place out, great. Maximum rent should be LESS THAN that 1k, because the landlord is already getting theirs, they’re getting equity, and the only thing they have to do is upkeep they’d have to do regardless.
I beleive housing should be a privately owned venture, at least for suburb housing where the entire plot is included. Outside of that social schemes should purchase/build properties for rental purposes.
Like you said, the housing market is in demand. But how much of that demand is manufactured by landlords purchasing more property to rent versus real buyers looking to buy-to-occupy?
Your argument for cost of maintenance is part of the equation, however the rent costs should be the cost of maintenance and upkeep with a modest margin for investment. However that’s not the case. Landlords want to take their cake and eat it. Rent is now the cost of the mortgage, AND maintenance/upkeep AND profit. Its a win for landlords and a lose for renters. If the renter is capable of paying the inflated rental costs on a regular, then they should be owning their own home. The current status-quo is unfair.
Just FYI, I am a home owner. I know the costs of mortgages, the risks that are involved and the maintenance costs of keeping a home running.
What you said is true but what’s also true is that millennials are so crushed under grind culture and financial burdens that they don’t have the time to parent that used to be the norm, so where overworked boomers let the TV raise their kids, parents today are letting the iPad do it, which is turning out to be exponentially worse for development.
Because a kid will eventually get bored of the TV and want to hang out with a friend or play with their parents. But a tablet can provide all the stimulation and pseudo-social contact you could possibly want and you can sit there for days on one.
I don’t disagree that red states cutting education funding is intended to do just that, but I think this trend is a reflection of the 2020 lockdowns stunting a year of development and kids getting hooked on social media in general since it’s all across the world. Scary stats regardless, though.
Anecdotal hope: All of my friends with kids read to them nightly, even when both parents are working. My three year old nephew’s obsessed with books.
As a teacher (not a reading teacher, not being defensive), I feel like this is the right track more than anything going on in education.
Not only is it a kids wanting their immediate gratification from social media, but parents are all addicted as well. And being stressed and all dystopiad-out. When I was a kid, I could go home and stop worrying about what was going on in the social spheres, but there is no escape anymore.
There seems to be a trend of parents spending way less time reading to their kids and needinh more alone time, and the kids aren’t demanding it as much because they are getting attention from devices.
The absolute best readers I get had parents reading to them, with them, and encouraging reading in early years to foster an interest for later.
You have every right to feel defensive, parents, school districts, and politicians will throw you under the bus with these issues at the drop of a test score. Otherwise, same book same page. It’ll be a huge win for society when these cortisol/dopamine shufflers in our pockets get restricted for young people.
Thanks for all the sacrifices you’ve made to be a teacher. You’re awesome, and hundreds of kids will remember your effort.
My landlord keeps getting violations from the HOA, and the HOA is straight up making rules up. I can’t sue the HOA for this (which is 100% what needs to happen to get them to stop), because there’s a legal layer between the owner and the tenant…
So yes, shit is broken. He refuses to call them out or take legal action against their harassment of my family. This is really obvious stuff, too. The latest violation involves them accusing me of having open flame torches on my patio. I own solar powered LED lanterns. They want to fine my landlord $100 for this.
I told him I won’t pay it. They are charging HIM, not me, and there’s nothing in my lease or the HOA’s CC&R’s saying I can’t own solar lanterns.
This guy has violated state, federal, and city laws over the last half a decade. He’s also a slumlord that never fixes anything. He once made me wait a year to get my front door handle repaired (sure, I could have fought that, but then he’d have just raised my rent.)
I hope he gets fined, and I hope he fucks around, because I’ve got an attorney ready.
I’m not saying to never take shit from your landlords, everyone… But at some point you have to stand up and tell them to fuck off. Rent is out of control in many cities right now, but that’s not an excuse for the often abusive landlord-tenant systems. Landlords should NOT exist.
since some people are not in a position to buy land and need to borrow it.
Some people have no desire to buy land, and want to borrow it. More than half the people I know (and I’m in my 40s now) have no desire to hold the liability of needing to sell a property to be able to move halfway across the country or world. They don’t “own” their, so they see having to literally own it as a problem. And they are willing to pay more in rent than a mortgage (which happens regularly in some areas around me).
There are shit landlords, and there are decent landlords. I think half the problem is that while some areas have great protection for poor renters, they often don’t have great holistic renter protections. In my state, for example, government-subsidized rentals have the most apartment quality regulations. But after that, you’re expected to leverage your rent to force action… without actually withholding it in any way somehow. And small business rentals? Even worse. I have a buddy who runs a breakfast joint. The heating system in the building died, so the landlord said “well if you want to stay open in the winter you should fix that”. So he installed a minisplit and the other business in the building had to close for the winter. Ultimately, both businesses started withholding rent (against lawyer’s advice) and he finally caved and called his renters “cheap bastards” as he got heating installed (and it was like a comedy that the heating company walked out on him twice for his after-contract renegotiations).
I’m ok with someone owning and renting out a building. But it should be somewhere near the level of quality the renter would maintain the place if they owned it.
If there’s more need to sell land then land prices will inevitably go down. Then everything gets better. At that point, we can afford to have multiple properties while trying to sell.
I just bought a house from a guy who had been renting it out for thirty years and I’m now in the process of fixing all the shit he neglected during that time. I can’t believe that anyone was willing to rent this place for any amount of money, let alone the $1300/mo he had been getting for it. The kitchen ceiling was sagging down a foot in two places and held up literally only by the paint and caulk, thanks to mice - I got showered with mouse poop and urine-soaked ceiling tile material when I demo’ed it. The electrical outlets were all partially blocked by the baseboard radiators, which was probably a good thing because they were all ungrounded 1940s-era receptacles with the hot and neutral wires hooked up in reverse. One light switch caused the circuit breaker to trip as soon as I flipped it. Not a single door in the house could actually be closed (not even the front door) so I had to reset the hinges; one door looked like he had tried to fix the problem using a beaver with dental problems.
He sold the house as “rental ready” and I’m five months into the renovation now. I like to think the house appreciates my being here.
I think now a days it’s only a thing with older people. I was at Meijer the other day walking toward the self checkout and I walked past an elderly woman writing a check as she was waiting in a cashiered line.
Yeah but that lady would have been told “Nope, come back with cash, credit or debit” over here. Heck, I had cashier jobs in the early 2000s and we didn’t accept checks!
A large part of these developmental delays are due to the social isolation from the Covid shutdown. Many children missed out of vital childhood experiences. Literacy isn’t the only thing they’re behind in. Their social skills are emaciated. They don’t know how to interact with people because they were deprived of the opportunity.
That’s some of it, but there are high school kids who come in to my office and literally write like 5 year olds. I mean holding the pen like little kids do, handwriting that’s a dead ringer for my kindergarten work books, all of it. Those kids were struggling way before COVID.
In their defense, in the modern workforce there is little need for handwriting so there’s little need to teach it. You need to sign your name occasionally but other than that, handwriting is rare due to prevalence of typing.
This is true in office work but less automated professions may be closer to 50/50 still. It is true though that non-office work environments are also less likely to care about writing than reading comprehension though.
There is an effect there but this has been a problem before COVID. Anecdotal but a teacher friend has been complaining about this for years. I know all parents don’t have the time but we read a ton to our kids and helped them learn to read when they were just getting started.
It's not just America. I heard on Public Radio that practically every country in the world has scored worse on reading tests since 2020. I think Japan was the one excpetion.
It’s fucking terrifying. Imagine high schoolers struggling with writing their own name. The schools I worked with had very few “book kids” - maybe some read manga (any reading is great!)
School districts have cracked down on teacher autonomy and often force them to use poorly supported curriculum and instructional strategies. With reading, it’s been a movement away from phonics towards guess what words mean based on context clues. Teaching effectively takes time and small class sizes, which there is no money for, so the solution is buying a $500k+ program of scripted curriculum for teacher to read in front of their class of 35. Students aren’t allowed to be held back or failed, so they’ll keep getting promoted whether they can add single digit numbers or not - and there’s no indication to anyone that anything is wrong. When standardized test scores come back and it didn’t work, it’s because the teachers didn’t implement it with fidelity, and in a couple years there’ll be a new program that promises to fix everything.
And if you think illiteracy and innumeracy are scary, wait till you hear them talk about history and science…
I’m curious, I often see it discussed now that slang and alternative interpretation must be accepted. In general, this is true, as languages change over time naturally.
But based on what you say, it seems like all pretense of language “standards” are deprioritized or discarded…
Imagine it is Friday night, and you are sitting down to grade a class of high school freshman’s essays. About half of them are less than two paragraphs long. Maybe a quarter of them are consistently capitalizing the first letter of a sentence. When you do see what resembles a normal English sentence, it is clearly AI generated or copied straight from the first google search result for the assigned essay topic. Lots of Wikipedia, with obvious artifacts [3]. Also, you have 100 of them to grade.
Seeing correctly spelled slang is a breath of fresh air.
Not just slang, but chosing to ignore (or not being aware of) grammar rules. Is it possible some are being discarded due to more purposeful disregard? Like, “no one cares to write that way any more”
When I went into college I thought everyone had just finished precalc and was going into Calc 1. Nope. Literally half the freshman went into algebra as their first college math class. I know it’s only gotten worse. A huge portion of high-school graduates not going to college can’t do trig, they can’t do long division, they can’t even multiply two 2 digit numbers. I just saw a tik tok about people trying to do 51*51 and the majority couldn’t.
Not gonna lie, as someone in their 30’s that just returned to higher education this kicked me right in the dick. I was a great student, and loved school until I was enrolled in a Christian middle school where my education tanked (especially math & science). Then in ended up in a good quality high school where my first science teacher had no consideration for the missed concepts that I had no way of knowing about, and so I barely passed his class. The same thing happened to me in math where I ended up in Algebra II, but had missed many of the ways the curriculum was taught in their school system so I struggled. This, along with the fact that I had serious life turmoil from 11-21 caused me to give up on education. (everyone in my family died, including two suicides, except my mom who was checked out at the time dealing with estate shit)
Anyway, feels really bad to be so far behind the curve on mathematics especially, but I have been soaking up the course work through Khan Academy like a sponge. I feel like I have learned more concepts more thoroughly through that free resource in the last 6 months that I did in the entire 12 years of school. I started at Algebra I, and am now moving on to Geometry. My goal is to make it through at least pre-calculus as my desired career field is technology. If you have any insight or resources on math education I am all ears.
I am very sorry for your losses. Nothing can bring people back.
Math especially requires learning from the bottom up. Most concepts require an understanding of one or more basic concepts, and as you say, just keeps building.
Khan academy is probably the best and least monetized site I know of. MIT Open Course Ware is also good.
First, thanks for sharing. That’s a bummer you got behind, but you’ll be able to learn anything you put yourself to.
I think the most valuable thing is to use the resources that help you the most. If that’s online videos, do that, if that’s in person tutoring do that. Obviously they teach how to do math a certain way but the doesn’t mean it’s the best for everyone. I think it’s so awesome that places like YouTube and khan academy are there so people can get what they need.
Get as much as you can with online resources. Try and learn as much as you can. When you come across problems you can’t do, put them some where to come back to. Move on and keep learning. Then come back to those. You might have just figured it out without realizing. And if you still can’t figure it out then that’s a great thing to take to a tutor to ask questions about. You’ll get your money’s worth from a tutor if you already have questions and problems you need help with.
It’s fucking terrifying. Imagine high schoolers struggling with writing their own name.
This made me skip everything that came after. Even illiterate kids can probably memorize their names, even if they can’t sound out words. Back up your claim and I’ll reconsider.
Elsewhere, in this thread, you’ll see me champion reading and learning. I’m horribly saddened that kids don’t learn to read well. But this statement seems hyperbolic.
If you don’t believe me, please volunteer in your nearest inner city school. There are lots of children who cannot form the shapes of letters. Fourteen, fifteen year olds writing backwards “R”’s and the like. I’m not going to share screenshots of students names with you, but I saw what I saw over multiple years of teaching. It predates COVID, but COVID has accelerated it.
So I’ve been accused of sabotaging relationships, and maybe this is that, but i feel justified.
I’d been dating a dude for about 3 months when we decided to go for a drive through this really scenic area near where we live. There’s a mill, and a pretty stream. About 30 minutes in, he finishes his gatorade, rolls down the passenger window, and hucks the bottle into the stream.
I made him get out and get it. Told him he could get the bottle or walk home. He got the bottle, and there were no more dates after that. I feel like I did the right thing.
I absolutely hate people who litter. There’s simply no excuse for it. If you can bring the item when it’s full, it’s certainly just as easy to carry it with you when it’s empty.
“But there’s no trash can here” So? Carry it with you and go look for one, you lazy bum.
And throwing trash into nature / scenic spots is not just bad for nature, it also shows a complete disregard for others who might want to enjoy that area too.
Yes! Especially considering we were in a car! Like, for real, you didnt even have to carry it! Just throw it in the floorboard for all i care, but dont you dare throw it in a stream!
I really, really liked him, but after that, that’s all i could think about. Just instant turn off.
I am totally with you. I used to make my passengers pick up ten cigarette butts if they threw one out. It happen several times and unfortunately they didn’t have trouble finding ten. Also…hmu in the dm’s if you’re still single.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.