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.
Free market does not mean free handouts. If someone makes $50K a year they can afford a roof over their head. You should expect to pay 30% to 40% for rent normally. To me it is greedy to make a good living and expect someone else to provide free housing and to pay all your bills for you.
You can buy a motorhome and park it on the street. No rent to pay. Lots of people do that. I have personally purchased working motorhomes for less than $1,000 with a working generator. Never parked it on the street and lived in it but it could have been done.
There are always solutions if you are proactive instead of feeling sorry for yourself and being envious of others.
??? ??? Who said anything about free handouts? People pay money to live in tiny houses. Why shouldn't a free market allow someone to pay to pitch a tent in a back yard?
Homeowners typically don't pay 30% to 40% of their income to own a home. Why should renters pay a higher proportion of their income for housing than homeowners?
In my area. many people live in motorhomes - parked on streets, and on private property (those ridiculously high hedges are sometimes concealing a motorhome on the property). The ones parked on streets have to be moved every 48 hours (technically; actual enforcement tends to run between 2-7 days before a warning is issued and the owner moves it to a different location.)
??? ??? Who said anything about free handouts? People pay money to live in tiny houses. Why shouldn't a free market allow someone to pay to pitch a tent in a back yard?
You said tent cities not someone living in a tent on private property. You can probably pitch a tent if the yard is private enough and the neighbors don't know about it. Or rent a room. Has to cost less than your own place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
Homeowners typically don't pay 30% to 40% of their income to own a home. Why should renters pay a higher proportion of their income for housing than homeowners?
First of all a homeowner has to pay a lot more in down payment than a renter does in renting the same place. Much more of a commitment. They have to pay property taxes and repairs and insurance. I know someone who bought a house and there was a huge water leak under the house. It cost $20K to fix and happened after only living in the house for a year. Insurance would not cover it. Roofs need to be replaced, AC and heating systems stop working, houses need to be painted and all sorts of things that renters do not have to deal with. Plus possible negative equity. There are still areas that have not gotten back to pre 2008 housing prices. No guarantees either way on prices.
But every area of the country is different. Some areas its about the same to rent as to buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
In my area. many people live in motorhomes - parked on streets, and on private property (those ridiculously high hedges are sometimes concealing a motorhome on the property). The ones parked on streets have to be moved every 48 hours (technically; actual enforcement tends to run between 2-7 days before a warning is issued and the owner moves it to a different location.)
Its called boondocking. Google it. Lots of youtube videos of people living this lifestyle and loving it. There is a huge network of people who do this throughout the country. You can park at some casinos for up to two weeks free, Walmart and other places depending where you live. Also BLM land is free to camp at. When your cost of shelter is near zero it opens up all sorts of different options as to where you live and what you need to do to make a living. Perhaps you should consider it.
Its called boondocking. Google it. Lots of youtube videos of people living this lifestyle and loving it. There is a huge network of people who do this throughout the country. You can park at some casinos for up to two weeks free, Walmart and other places depending where you live. Also BLM land is free to camp at. When your cost of shelter is near zero it opens up all sorts of different options as to where you live and what you need to do to make a living. Perhaps you should consider it.
As I recall freemarket lives somewhere in the Bay area, is that right? I've lived there in my pickup. There are places to park and not get hassled if you ask around. I met a couple guys who built a thatch hut in the redwoods and hitchhiked to their high paying tech jobs.
I lived in that truck for 13 years, various places. Usually on BLM land.
I've got no sympathy for anyone whining about the high cost of rent while they are in the most expensive place in the country. But it is also good to remember that things really are getting tougher everywhere in the US for the working poor. The solution however isn't more government freebies, but doing something about the massive increase in income and wealth disparity we've experienced the last 40 years.
As I recall freemarket lives somewhere in the Bay area, is that right? I've lived there in my pickup. There are places to park and not get hassled if you ask around. I met a couple guys who built a thatch hut in the redwoods and hitchhiked to their high paying tech jobs.
I lived in that truck for 13 years, various places. Usually on BLM land.
I've got no sympathy for anyone whining about the high cost of rent while they are in the most expensive place in the country. But it is also good to remember that things really are getting tougher everywhere in the US for the working poor. The solution however isn't more government freebies, but doing something about the massive increase in income and wealth disparity we've experienced the last 40 years.
For me a big issue is the feds near zero interest rates that have been the norm since 08. It is asset inflation and most do not benefit from it. It pushes up home prices and eventually rental prices because people can pay more for a home with interest rates on it are less than 4%. Also pushes up stock prices artificially. Problem is people who cannot afford to buy lots of real estate or invest a fortune in the stock market are left on the sidelines. Interest rates on credit cards are still high as are the interest rates for people who use payday or title loans or use pawn shops. It also discourages people from saving and instead they spend more and when the economy gets bad the next time they are more dependent on the government to survive.
I know there is more to the wealth disparity than just interest rates but start by bringing them back to 10%. Not going to happen anytime soon I know. Housing prices and stocks would plummet but wealth disparity would decrease.
A lot more. Higher rates would just tank a weak economy. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
A slow increase with the goal getting back to say 10% over 5 to 10 years would not tank the economy. It would slow down stock market and real estate appreciation.
The fact that some perceive we need very low interest rates just to keep a slow economy moving proves we have serious issues in our economy. We are surviving because people using credit. There was a time when people paid cash for most things except for homes. And at that time the middle class was prosperous.
Where I live there are furniture store TV ads. Get what you deserve. No credit, no job, no payments for two years.
To say lets just keep things as they are hold on is not good enough for me.
To say lets just keep things as they are hold on is not good enough for me.
I didn't say to keep things as they are, but higher rates won't help, rather they'd make it worse. Our economy is in bad shape because of 40 years of trade deficits, weak wages, and debt escalation. The income disparity is the direct result of policies changed to cause it. The first step would be to stop boosting the US$ value to cause a trade deficit. Increase marginal tax rates to what they were prior to Reagan. Jobs and wages would both improve, domestic investment increase. It would start to get us back on a sustainable track.
A rising tide lifts all RENTS, a growing pie extracts more rent. In the 1980s, as my neighbors became more affluent and rents necessarily skyrocketed (TM), I faced five rent increases in five years, was priced out and had to move three times, and ultimately spent four months living in my employer's offsite storage.
It's entirely natural that burger flipper incomes don't keep up with that growing pie.
That you haven't progressed in earning power since the '80's is the reason for you being in the situation that you are in, not rent increases.
You have an income problem, and continually complaining about being a rent serf will do nothing to solve your income problem.
A slow increase with the goal getting back to say 10% over 5 to 10 years would not tank the economy. It would slow down stock market and real estate appreciation.
Good grief. Ten percent would crater everything, including stocks, bonds, real estate, and employment. The federal deficit would skyrocket because much of the debt is short maturity.
I do expect Fed Funds to be increased slowly, maybe another 100-200 basis points. Ten percent only happens when something extremely bad is happening, like runaway inflation.
Some supporting evidence that a charity event left me no time to post yesterday...
But it is undoubtedly true that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed. As said by Mr. Justice Miller in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 110 U. S. 658: "The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument, often heard, often repeated, and in this Court never assented to, that when a question of the power of Congress arises, the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. The brief of counsel before us, though directed to the authority of that body to pass criminal laws, uses the same language. Because there is no express power to provide for preventing violence exercised on the voter as a means of controlling his vote, no such law can be enacted. It destroys at one blow, in construing the Constitution of the United States, the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed."
-- Justice David Brewer, Opinion of the Court, South Carolina v US (1905)
The cited opinion in Ex Parte Yarbrough is from 1884, and the same sentiment carries back through the Commentaries of Justice Story in the 1830's, to such seminal cases as McCulloch v Maryland (1819) and Marbury v Madison (1803), and on into the Federalist Papers of the 1780's. All part of our American heritage that the right-wing is earnestly trying to obliterate.
Are you purposefully being disingenuous by leaving out the remainder of the above quoted paragraph?
Here it is, and it makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that you are wrong, as you were the first time you trotted out this nonsense:
Quote:
This principle, in its application to the Constitution of the United States, more than to almost any other writing, is a necessity by reason of the inherent inability to put into words all derivative powers -- a difficulty which the instrument itself recognizes by conferring on Congress the authority to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers expressly granted, and all other powers vested in the government or any branch of it by the Constitution. Article I, sec. 8, clause 18.
Implied powers ONLY exist to allow for the accomplishment of the enumerated powers.
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.
