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.
This kind of thread is why I duck out of casual maths discussions as a maths PhD.
The two sets have the same value, that is the value of both sets is unbounded. The set of 100s approaches that value 100 times quicker than the set of singles. Completely intuitive to someone who’s taken first year undergraduate logic and calculus courses. Completely unintuitive to the lay person, and 100 lay people can come up with 100 different wrong conclusions based on incorrect rationalisations of the statement.
I’ve made an effort to just not participate since back when people were arguing Rick and Morty infinite universe bollocks. “Infinite universes means there are an infinite number of identical universes” really boils my blood.
It’s why I just say “algebra” when asked what I do. Even explaining my research (representation theory) to a tangentially related person, like a mathematical physicist, just ends in tedious non-discussion based on an incorrect framing of my work through their lens of understanding.
I don’t know why you see it as an error. It’s the format of the meme. The guy in the middle is right, the guy on the left is wrong. That’s just how this meme works. But the punchline in this meme format is the the guy on the right agrees with the wrong guy in an unexpected way. I’m with the guy on the right and no appeals to Schröder–Bernstein theorem is going to change my mind.
There’s no problem at all with not understanding something, and I’d go so far as to say it’s virtuous to seek understanding. I’m talking about a certain phenomenon that is overrepresented in STEM discussions, of untrained people (who’ve probably took some internet IQ test) thinking they can hash out the subject as a function of raw brainpower. The ceiling for “natural talent” alone is actually incredibly low in any technical subject.
There’s nothing wrong with meming on a subject you’re not familiar with, in fact it’s often really funny. It’s the armchair experts in the thread trying to “umm actually…” the memer when their “experience” is a YouTube video at best.
Yeah I sell cabinets and sometimes people are like “How much would a 24 inch cabinet cost?”
It could cost anything!
Then there are customers like “It’s the same if I just order them online right?” and I say “I wouldn’t recommend it. There’s a lot of little details to figure out and our systems can be error probe anyway…” then a month later I’m dealing with an angry customer who ordered their stuff online and is now mad at me for stuff going wrong.
The two sets have the same value, that is the value of both sets is unbounded. The set of 100s approaches that value 100 times quicker than the set of singles.
Hey. Sorry, I’m not at all a mathematician, so this is fascinating to me. Doesn’t this mean that, once the two sets have reached their value, the set of 100 dolar bills will weigh 100 times less (since both bills weigh the same, and there are 100 times fewer of one set than the other)?
If so, how does it reconcile with the fact that there should be the same number bills in the sets, therefore the same weight?
How would you even weigh an infinite number of dollar bills? You’d need an infinite number of assistants to load the dollar bills onto the scale for you, and months to actually do it!
I like this comment. It reads like a mathematician making a fun troll based on comparing rates of convergence (well, divergence considering the sets are unbounded). If you’re not a mathematician, it’s actually a really insightful comment.
So the value of the two sets isn’t some inherent characteristic of the two sets. It is a function which we apply to the sets. Both sets are a collection of bills. To the set of singles we assign one value function: “let the value of this set be $1 times the number of bills in this set.” To the set of hundreds we assign a second value function: “let the value of this set be $100 times the number of bills in this set.”
Now, if we compare the value restricted to two finite subsets (set within a set) of the same size, the subset of hundreds is valued at 100 times the subset of singles.
Comparing the infinite set of bills with the infinite set of 100s, there is no such difference in values. Since the two sets have unbounded size (i.e. if we pick any number N no matter how large, the size of these sets is larger) then naturally, any positive value function applied to these sets yields an unbounded number, no mater how large the value function is on the hundreds “I decide by fiat that a hundred dollar bill is worth $1million” and how small the value function is on the singles “I decide by fiat that a single is worth one millionth of a cent.”
In overly simplified (and only slightly wrong) terms, it’s because the sizes of the sets are so incalculably large compared to any positive value function, that these numbers just get absorbed by the larger number without perceivably changing anything.
The weight question is actually really good. You’ve essentially stumbled upon a comparison tool which is comparing the rates of convergence. As I said previously, comparing the value of two finite subsets of bills of the same size, we see that the value of the subset of hundreds is 100 times that of the subset of singles. This is a repeatable phenomenon no matter what size of finite set we choose. By making a long list of set sizes and values “one single is worth $1, 2 singles are worth $2,…” we can define a series which we can actually use for comparison reasons. Note that the next term in the series of hundreds always increases at a rate of 100 times that of the series of singles. Using analysis techniques, we conclude that the set of hundreds is approaching its (unbounded) limit at 100 times the rate of the singles.
The reason we cannot make such comparisons for the unbounded sets is that they’re unbounded. What is the weight of an unbounded number of hundreds? What is the weight of an unbounded number of collections of 100x singles?
Yes, there are infinities of larger magnitude. It’s not a simple intuitive comparison though. One might think “well there are twice as many whole numbers as even whole numbers, so the set of whole numbers is larger.” In fact they are the same size.
Two most commonly used in mathematics are countably infinite and uncountably infinite. A set is countably infinite if we can establish a one to one correspondence between the set of natural numbers (counting numbers) and that set. Examples are all whole numbers (divide by 2 if the natural number is even, add 1, divide by 2, and multiply by -1 if it’s odd) and rational numbers (this is more involved, basically you can get 2 copies of the natural numbers, associate each pair (a,b) to a rational number a/b then draw a snaking line through all the numbers to establish a correspondence with the natural numbers).
Uncountably infinite sets are just that, uncountable. It’s impossible to devise a logical and consistent way of saying “this is the first number in the set, this is the second,…) and somehow counting every single number in the set. The main example that someone would know is the real numbers, which contain all rational numbers and all irrational numbers including numbers such as e, π, Φ etc. which are not rational numbers but can either be described as solutions to rational algebraic equations (“what are the solutions to “x^2 - 2 = 0”) or as the limits of rational sequences.
Interestingly, the rational numbers are a dense subset within the real numbers. There’s some mathsy mumbo jumbo behind this statement, but a simplistic (and insufficient) argument is: pick 2 real numbers, then there exists a rational number between those two numbers. Still, despite the fact that the rationals are infinite, and dense within the reals, if it was possible to somehow place all the real numbers on a huge dartboard where every molecule of the dartboard is a number, then throwing a dart there is a 0% chance to hit a rational number and a 100% chance to hit an irrational number. This relies on more sophisticated maths techniques for measuring sets, but essentially the rationals are like a layer of inconsequential dust covering the real line.
If we only consider the monetary value, both “briefs” have the same value. Otherwise if we incorporate utility theory with a concave bounded utility curve over the monetary value and factor in other terms such as ease of payments, or weight (of the drawn money) then the “worth” of the 100 dollar bills brief could be greater for some people. For me, the 1 dollar bills brief has more value since I’m considering a potential tax evasion prosecution. It would be very suspicious if I go around paying everything with 100 dollar bills, whereas there’s a limit on my daily spending with the other brief (how many dollars I can count out of the brief and then handle to the other person).
I admit the only time I’ve encountered the word utility as an algebraist is when I had to TA Linear Optimisation & Game Theory; it was in the sections of notes for the M level course that wasn’t examinable for the Bachelors students so I didn’t bother reading it. My knowledge caps out at equilibria of mixed strategies. It’s interesting to see that there’s some rigorous way of codifying user preference. I’ll have to read about it at some point.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it that a simple statement(this is more worth than the other) can’t be done, since it isn’t stated how big the infinities are(as example if the 1$ infinity is 100 times bigger they are worth the same).
Sorry if you’ve seen this already, as your comment has just come through. The two sets are the same size, this is clear. This is because they’re both countably infinite. There isn’t such a thing as different sizes of countably infinite sets. Logic that works for finite sets (“For any finite a and b, there are twice as many integers between a and b as there are even integers between a and b, thus the set of integers is twice the set of even integers”) simply does not work for infinite sets (“The set of all integers has the same size as the set of all even integers”).
So no, it isn’t due to lack of knowledge, as we know logically that the two sets have the exact same size.
Just commented, nah, women do not like the kilt look, not any I’ve dated. I’m not so hot on them myself. One of those things that sounds like a good idea, doesn’t really work out. OTOH, very nice with leggings and combat boots. Warm!
Guys, if you want to try one, get a knock-off Utilikilt. Loads of pockets, manly looking (I think) without the formal pleated look. I never have a chance to wear the pleated one. :(
I wore a Utilikilt for a while. They’re surprisingly uncomfortable. Sitting in a kilt requires effort. The material is a heavy denim, which is hot and doesn’t fall nicely. I expected the breeze to be enjoyable. It’s not.
The women I’ve dated that are into men love guys in kilts, but I’m a woman so it may be that bi women are more likely to like it than straight women. That said I’ve heard complaints that some guys don’t bother with ensuring it’s a good kilt for them and picking a good outfit with it
Having lived in Japan for 3 years and experiencing a lot of their culture, I’ve learned that the reason anime characters yell their attacks is because it promotes a fair, honest fight. Japanese people love friendly rivalries, and the only way to truly prove yourself better than your opponent is to give them every advantage and still come out victorious. Only a truly bad person would try to sneak in for an attack and catch their opponent unprepared. And that won’t settle any rivalry, even if they won the fight.
He just matches whatever he’s facing. Usually he has the decency to say he’s gonna finish them off with Consecutive Normal Punches, or pretend like he’s also going for a finishing move like Serious Series: Serious Punch.
Many times he doesn’t even try and end a challenge with a punch, it’s more of a “move out of my way” smack because his mind is elsewhere.
It’s not even that is it? He’s constantly pulling punches because he doesn’t want to destroy everything in a general direction, something that even Tatsumaki didn’t think about.
Ninjas are typically silent assassins, not badass anime protagonists. (I’m looking at you, Naruto!) Their deeds are not generally honorable in nature. Historically, they’re seen as more of an unfortunate necessity to preserve dynasties. The honorable warriors are the samurai. Although history has shown that the whole “way of the samurai” thing was actually made up for Japanese theater and they weren’t historically honorable either.
Regardless, when it comes to modern-day Japan, they love the concept of an honorable protagonist who wins by sheer willpower, even if the odds are stacked against them. Giving their opponent the advantage and then still winning in the end is seen as a clean and respectful victory.
So, like, I can throw a party balloon filled with 1.7 liters of urine at someone and it will be acceptable, as long as I remember to shout: DANGEROUSLY OVERFILLED PISS BALLOON as I toss it?
Alternate names for consideration: pissengan, urinitron, bakapeepee
EDIT: before you even tell me that I can’t go around hucking piss balloons, remember that these people might literally poke me in my actual anus, as a prank. If someone does that shit, I’m definitely piss-ballooning them, at the earliest opportunity.
So, like, I can throw a party balloon filled with 1.7 liters of urine at someone and it will be acceptable, as long as I remember to shout: DANGEROUSLY OVERFILLED PISS BALLOON as I toss it?
I think that’s just called Jarate and the only difference is the container. Personally I’d go for the jar, might cut them and then you’re pissing in their wounds.
Forget this gimmick, the real yuropean superiority is in proper blinds that are actually designed to block most light. For some reason they are extremely uncommon in north America
Xommon in central and southern Europe, not sure about northern. They are mostly there to limit sunlight in the summer where the house would be baked otherwise.
I’m going to go absolutely bonkers if I have to deal with one more set of cordless blinds that refuse to lift back up after you pull them down. The unshielded street light that exists only to ensure that I can see my car from my window at night, and shines not only through the cheap pvc but between the slats directly into my retinas, lighting my entire room at least 10 lumens brighter when there’s a layer of snow on the ground, is already wearing my sanity quite thin on its own, and I’m not even on the floor that catches the most light from it.
Oh, for their sanity…and it sounds like they’re in an environment with cold temps that have snow…blackout curtains will also help with keeping out the cold, keeping heat in. Save on utilities.
I don’t want blackout curtains. I like to let some light in the morning and during the day without sacrificing privacy in the early evening if I forget to close them. I also don’t like the thick unwieldy material of blackout curtains. Whoever put the stupid street lights out should have to be more considerate of the light pollution they create 😂
Fair point about the light pollution. In my town they’ve been replacing the street lights with LED versions and it seems the beams are now more concentrated and lighting the street instead of everything in the proximity.
I hope a change like this may happen to your street in the future.
Have you thought about installing a blackout cellular shade instead? I bought a shade for this room I’m sitting in that’s basically two shades in one: it has a shade that lets in light and one that blacks everything out. If you want daylight, you pull the one shade down, if you want darkness you put that shade fully up, and if you want access to the window you put them both up.
It was IMO pretty affordable. I think the one I bought was around $300, and I have pretty large windows.
I actually always wanted those since I saw them in my aunt’s home but my mom never wanted to pay for them. Then I went to university and lived in various student accommodations. And now that school is done, my next move is in June and I’m actually going to Germany lol.
I’m mostly just lamenting that the american standard is such hot garbage that barely accomplishes what it is designed to do.
Ah gotcha, every apartment I’ve ever been in and my condo up until I installed these shades had crappy, plastic Venetian blinds that were basically pointless for blocking light…so I agree 100%.
My dad is a light sleeper and when he has to attend a conference in the US he literally has to bring a sleeping mask to ensure he will be able to sleep properly
This is why I always end up re-reading work emails over and over again before sending, and also use the outlook delay-sending to allow for “unsending” lol
Hell, it doesn’t even have to be UBI, just some assistance during Covid would’ve been nice. That one random $1500 check was treated like it was a king’s random and it was probably less than one month’s rent for alot of people.
Others will argue that corporate greed was the cause of inflation, and they’d point to plenty of companies making record profits while raising their prices.
Wow, just wow. It is OK to disagree, but what’s wrong with you to just start doing personal attacks out of blue? Do you consider yourself a good human being? If yes, look at your post again.
As for the topic of discussion, you have to learn the meaning of the word “trigger”. Also, your analogy does not stand at all, because I was not claiming that corporate greed is good, just that it is not the trigger.
No need for ad hominem attacks. Profiteering has always been a part of inflation but it’s never the cause or the underlying reason that inflation occurs. There are a host of things that go into what drives inflation but during Covid it was the Fed dumping tons of money into the system and post Covid it was wage inflation and low unemployment. Do corporations still use predatory pricing? You bet. The only thing that will really work now is either very deep recession or a depression.
Those people are wilfully ignoring the 3 trillion pumped into the market to prop it up when it crashed in 2020, which absolutely dwarfs the pittance handed out as stimulus.
That’s different. That money is the federal reserve printing, well, money and exchanging it for existing securities. They can always get money back in exchange for those securities if there is money oversupply. It is reversible.
When federal government spends more money than it has, there is no reverse mechanism, because the government does not get securities in exchange of new money it introduced to economy.
Yes, that's what the high fed rate means - they are taking it back, but because it was combination of the what Federal Reserve printed and the USGov "printed", there is disbalance, and the rates end up too high, thus inflation.
Don’t forget Money Center banks like BofA went from 10% fractional reserve (they needed to theoretically have 10% of the amount they were lending) to 0%. That’s just a fancy way of saying they can print money by fiat just like the Fed does. The Fed is weird though because it may as well be owned by the banks as well, but the head of the Fed is appointed by the president.
There are arguments though that given our somewhat teetering system that they did some “goodish” things to prevent all out collapse. Their actions have not changed anything systemic though, and the system it’s arguably the problem.
I am not quite sure how big the impact of it is on inflation. I thought even before, banks could just go and take cash from federal reserve (borrow), essentially unlimited amount and that counted as reserve. So, from practical point of view, if they saw that they can lend the money with foot risk/benefit profile, they could always do that. And they would not have to pay rate for the money which is in reserve. So, not quite sure if inflation depends on this much.
I think this is a reasonable argument. A lot of it seems to just have been companies using inflation as an excuse to raise prices causing more inflation.
I feel like your generation really got poisoned by the boomer lies…“trust the system, put in your time, and you’ll get your turn on top if you work hard”
Most of your cohorts just seem to be wandering around confused, struggling to reconcile their worldview with the reality that everything sucks (and is rapidly getting worse)
Not to dump on gen Xers but lets not give them too much woe(Note this is going to be more a US perspective). Yeah they grew up during(and were) the crime boom of the mid century that plagued American cities. Yeah they had the oil crisis and the dot com bubble. Yeah they were old enough to buy houses during the housing bubble bursting.
Lets not also forget they were born 1965-1980. They were the tail end of being able to work up a company, they were a gen that still came into an office to still turn in applications in person and all that dated cliche stuff an older family member tells you to do if your unemployed. Theyre the ones who got alright enough paying jobs doing things like data entry while complaining about it. Theyre the ones who were the right age during emerging tech industry to do things like take a quick community college network certification course and now are making six figures as head of IT department. Theyre the ones who picked up those high paying independent reporter jobs before print media started dying off when the getting was still good. They were the ones who were at prime earning and home buying age before the market became nationwide screwed. Yes the interest rate was higher, but that meant it wasnt as attractive of an investment or business opportunity which meant prices were lower.
But again it all depends who you are. The US went through some insane times in the mid century with urban decline thanks to sprawl and white flight, factories shutting down and de-industrialization, consolidation of banks and regional franchises and other businesses(leading to layoffs and in some cases the death of said merged company all together), and multiple collapses, the crack epidemic, aids and etc. And of course its not like gen xers or even boomers died once the elder millennials turned 18, they also experience covid, and the housing bubble crashing.
Generations cutoffs are a messy thing and the cutoffs are vague(like its already been a few years and the cutoff for gen z is still ambiguous) but generally yeah the cutoff is generally around 1980 or 1979.
Yeah I’m ‘84 - I’m either young gen x or old millennial. I dunno, does it really matter?
I’ve heard the best way to split it is if the person remembers the Berlin Wall coming down. I only remember it as being a semi-recent historical event when I was a kid, which would make me a millennial.
However, my brother is ‘80 and he says he remembers it coming down so that would make him Gen X using this method.
Either way, I like this method better than trying to draw a line at a specific date.
I think the split between boomers and gen x is watergate.
The split between millennials and gen Z would be if a person remembers 9/11.
Covid is probably where I’d put the split between Zoomers and whatever.
Perhaps some gen-x’s, much like any other generation, got lucky, but the majority of us are still trudging through the shit trying to make ends meet as well. It all falls to greed. Specifically corporate greed that has created this huge gulf of disparity. It’s the same thing the farther you look back into history as well. Limited wealth and scarcity of resources will ensure that this sort of thing continues well past we are dead and gone. Cheers lol
Well that explains it. She obviously also plays his lover in another commercial, as well as his nemesis, and also the Folgers QA rep, so he was confused.
Yeah my C9 just passed 6000hours of use and still looks amazing, tbh wish plasma was more popular in the day, still use my pioneer 50" plasma from 2008 in the living room. All the lcds I bought have weird backlight or pixel issues after 3 years
I have been hearing this for years now and all OLEDs still burn in like crazy from normal use on phones. They are probably great for people who like to needlessly upgrade every few years, but I’m not sold on them anymore.
I’ve had OLED phones since the Nexus 5 and have only had burn-in once, which was on the Nexus 5. It was due to me enabling the dev option to never turn the screen off. After 2 weeks of the screen being on 24/7 there was burn-in from the top bar.
Nor did the Nexus 5x that followed it. I’m not sure about the first Pixel, but the Pixel 2 had AMOLED and mines still going strong, no burn in or screen issues of any kind, even despite me prying it off a couple of times to replace both the battery and usb port.
I still use my Pixel 3a, bought in summer 2019. Maybe there’s some burn in, but I really don’t notice it in day to day use. If I don’t go looking for it, it’s all right…
Been using amoled for few yrs now, on my previous and current phone. Have never experienced any burn in or heard any burn in complaints on mobile before. Don’t know what was your experience but its definitely exaggerated.
Garmin has transflective screens for their watches that are not only better on the battery life, but become MORE visible in sunlight. Resolution is not nearly as good but I think for an exercise/health device that’s acceptable. For some reason though, probably because the amoled screens look nicer in the store, those are considered “premium”.
I think eink for any significant reading instead of OLED. Boox has an android tablet with a color screen, even though the colors are washed out looking. Eink is easier on my eyes for reading books and I’m hoping to get that tablet for reading Lemmy too since I end up looking at the screen so long.
OLED for pretty much everything else. Though the black smearing was slightly annoying in VR, the switch to LCD lost a lot with the blacks not looking black, more like gray. I hope they switch back to OLED.
This is the reason I’m still using my old Pebble Time Steel. Garmin is the only one producing quality watches with transflective displays, and I don’t like their OS :(
Yeah if you are a regular consumer the software in their watches is a bit disappointing, but you get used to it. For example, they JUST added pictures to notifications, and you still can’t type a response to texts, just a few premade responses.
If you’re a programmer, it’s even more frustrating. I struggled to write a weight lifting app on Samsung’s Tizen, but I was eventually successful. Not so much with Garmin. Garmin does not allow for SQL databases (just key value pair), and worse, they give such a small amount of space to save data it’s almost worthless. I think with mine, one of their top end watches, they give like enough space for me to save a few hundred sets. Sounds like a lot but it’s basically like ten visits to the gym and then it would have to delete stuff. They do have another method, but I was unable to figure out how to work with their fit files.
So yeah they make great watches but I wish they would put some time in to make the user and programmer experience a bit better.
I’m confused, and I suspect it’s from limited understanding here, but smartwatches are typically paired with a phone, so wouldn’t it make more sense to offload dataset handling like you’re describing to the smartphone than any onboard storage/memory in the watch?
Or is that part of the odd jank of some smartwatch systems atm that they don’t interoperate like that?
Yes it’s true I could probably do it that way, but what I want in a fitness watch is a phone replacement while working out. For example, I don’t carry my phone on a run. For weight lifting, with my old Samsung, I just left my phone in my locker and used my app to record the weight lifting I was doing. I could switch back to a workout I hadn’t done in a year and see what I was lifting then. I never even thought about my phone, accidentally leaving it at the bench, or worrying about damaging it. It’s really freeing to just get away from the phone for a while.
My point was just agreeing with the previous comment that, while Garmin makes a great watch, their software could be improved. The limitations they put in are also somewhat arbitrary. I have plenty of storage for songs and podcasts, so a couple MB of data storage should totally be fine.
Ooh, I see now. It wasn’t clear from the previous comments that you were wanting to use it apart from your phone, which is why I asked. I’ve helped someone with a Garmin watch before and I definitely agree that their software could be improved from the little I experienced of it.
I miss my Pebble Time Steel, but then I found the Amazfit Bip.
That same lovely transflective screen, and overall smaller and lighter than any of the Pebbles - and a 45 day battery life. (Yep. About 6 weeks between charges.)
And the latest versions switched to OLED for god knows what reason. Like there aren’t enough oled smartwatches.
There does seem to be a significant German contingent on Lemmy, as there was on Reddit. I have a very in-my-head Reddit moment I need to share.
Remember when “The Nations of the World brought to you by Yakko Warner” was a meme and people were making all kinds of permutations of it? I saw one that was like “the nations of the world if Germany won WWII” which was basically “Germany Germany Germany Germany Portugal Spain, Spain, Germany, Germany…”
On the most recent r/place I remember, the Germans had a habit of taking their tricolor flag all the way across the canvas, which made me think “Germany Germany Germany Germany” in Yakko Warner’s voice.
c/coolstorybro@sh.itjust.works or however Lemmy links work I still don’t know.
I’ve had a scottish-texan accent for half a year once, and now I have an american accent sometimes while speaking german, my mother language, shit’s wild
Scottish-Texan? I can’t even comprehend what that would sound like. Congratulations, you’ve been speaking an eldritch tongue. Try not to summon Cthulhu.
I heard that in cases of severing injuries, non smokers are far more likely to be able to have it reattached versus smokers. Something to do with the lividity of the tissues
Is there any chance you remember where you learned it? This was the only source I was able to find (there may be more out there, and it’s from 2015… which was nine years ago, holy fuck that’s weird) and it doesn’t seem to confirm. Still, there were a bunch of other articles that came up about how smoking causes impaired wound healing (which would make me think it’d make it harder to reattach a finger, so I have no fucking clue lol), and obviously smoking is bad for plenty of other reasons too. TIL about the wound healing though, I didn’t realize how much smoking affects the whole body. Yikes.
To be clear, I heard this from a friend at an RV factory I work at. I didn’t take it as gospel but it did seem to make sense. I then went on to surmise a possible cause based on that assumption, but it’s probably not the most ethical thing to make it seem like I was speaking from authority.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.