Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you say that? Immunity to rent inflation, plus capturing all appreciation, plus equity through principal reduction are three obvious relevant factors.
Yeah Freemkt! You got it. I'm glad you see it. Yes, those matter a lot. They're really huge.
As to why they don't build smaller homes, the reality is that the land is generally where the money is, and lot can't really be subdivided. Homes need street frontage, utility hookups, access. Density becomes an issue. Here in San Jose, there are blocks where most garages are rented out. That does a couple of things. There's more people, living in smaller quarters. There's more kids going to the same sized schools. There's more cars vying for street parking that were once in garages, and more cars from the people now living in the garages, and all of those people are using the same roads to get to work.
Lots of things have been tried. Believe it or not, I've heard first-hand accounts that when Cabrini Green in Chicago first opened, it was actually a decent place to live. Not fancy of course, but it was stable and place to get yourself going. Of course, that started to go downhill in time. By the time I got there, nobody was dumb enough to go to the buildings. Eventually they were torn down.
There's been scatter site attempts. There's been section 8 properties. They tried making loans available to low income groups....most probably would have done fine, but once again, if you're neighborhood is mostly good but just too many bad ones....things go downhill. Where I grew up, there was government buildings for the Reservations, but that didn't mean the buildings were adequate or immune from copper thieves or the elements.
So I don't know that there's a government answer out there. I'm not trying to be pigheaded or anything. I'm just really happy that you've realized the power that comes from home ownership. I'd skip the government help stuff and jump right into....how am I going to get my home next. It's like oxygen masks in an airplane. Get yours on first, then worry about assisting others.
So if people with the same income decide to buy a house or not, then it may affect their kids' success in life. Sounds like its not needing to lower the cost of entry of the house purchase as they have the income. They just don't have the mindset to be a homeowner even though it makes economic sense and they can afford it. That mindset might also affect how they raise their kids and how well they do in school.
It makes sense to buy the house if you can afford it and it makes you money. Those that don't do it probably raise their kids to have flaws in being successful.
??? ??? ??? ??? Not everyone can afford it - just because someone can afford to own a home does not mean they were able to afford to buy it. e.g. some inherit their homes or get inside deals from family...some are veterans who were able to get VA loans they would never have been able to get if they were not veterans.
Those people would be interesting to study and we could learn a lot from them.
It's not the fact they are renting, it's their mindset and priorities.
I rented and managed to build my net worth by investing what I saved by not buying a house.
The difference is I saw how renting was cheaper and I could invest the money I saved by renting.
You on the other hand have a tunnel vision and only see renting as a way to keep people like yourself down. I've said it before, if you picked up another job instead of posting as much as you do complaining how unfair everything is you's be in a lot better shape.
It's really up to you. Work instead of post and complain and make extra money or post here and not get paid anything.
I have everything I need to make $100K a year except adequate space.
Yeah Freemkt! You got it. I'm glad you see it. Yes, those matter a lot. They're really huge.
As to why they don't build smaller homes, the reality is that the land is generally where the money is, and lot can't really be subdivided. Homes need street frontage, utility hookups, access. Density becomes an issue. Here in San Jose, there are blocks where most garages are rented out. That does a couple of things. There's more people, living in smaller quarters. There's more kids going to the same sized schools. There's more cars vying for street parking that were once in garages, and more cars from the people now living in the garages, and all of those people are using the same roads to get to work.
Lots of things have been tried. Believe it or not, I've heard first-hand accounts that when Cabrini Green in Chicago first opened, it was actually a decent place to live. Not fancy of course, but it was stable and place to get yourself going. Of course, that started to go downhill in time. By the time I got there, nobody was dumb enough to go to the buildings. Eventually they were torn down.
There's been scatter site attempts. There's been section 8 properties. They tried making loans available to low income groups....most probably would have done fine, but once again, if you're neighborhood is mostly good but just too many bad ones....things go downhill. Where I grew up, there was government buildings for the Reservations, but that didn't mean the buildings were adequate or immune from copper thieves or the elements.
So I don't know that there's a government answer out there. I'm not trying to be pigheaded or anything. I'm just really happy that you've realized the power that comes from home ownership. I'd skip the government help stuff and jump right into....how am I going to get my home next. It's like oxygen masks in an airplane. Get yours on first, then worry about assisting others.
I would say that because government mandates large lots (zoning), profit-maximizing developers build larger homes. So I would say that our large-house culture is driven initially and primarily by government, and that small houses are either prohibited outright or rendered unprofitable by zoning.
Public housing originally WAS a decent place to live - the Kramdens would have been a good fit in the 1950s if they had had kids. Public housing originally had MINIMUM income requirements which kept out the welfare class. In the 1960s, a "welfare rights" movement emerged, triggered by various rules they didn't like. The public housing exclusion was one of their pet peeves, and in 1969, Congress eliminated minimum income requirements for public housing, opening the floodgates to the underclass who quickly trashed Cabrini-Green.
Educational outcome of children correlates very highly with the socioeconomic class of their parents. The children of white collar professionals tend to have a far better outcome than children of low income single parents. Home ownership has nothing to do with it. It’s the parents.
How does the socioeconomic status (SES) of homeowners differ from that of renters of the same age, race, and income?
I have everything I need to make $100K a year except adequate space.
What do you mean by this?
100k in revenue? When you say a year, you mean ongoing?
If what you’re saying is true, the opportunity cost you have by doing nothing is huge. Why not seek a business partner? Even if they took 50% or more in exchange for providing you space (renting it to you at a market rate...lol), you would still be better off.
What kind of space do you need? An office? A warehouse? A farmers feild?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
