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.
You really have no clue what you are talking about. Getting your info of "back then" from millennial blogs doesn't give you the true picture, like living during both times does. The one thing you keep ignoring is the fact that families moved where the work was, and bought starter homes.
But you keep thinking that the good old days were so much better economically. It'll help ease your angst about living in your parent's basement and working at a crappy job in spite of a college degree, I guess.
You really have no clue what you are talking about. Getting your info of "back then" from millennial blogs doesn't give you the true picture, like living during both times does. The one thing you keep ignoring is the fact that families moved where the work was, and bought starter homes.
But you keep thinking that the good old days were so much better economically. It'll help ease your angst about living in your parent's basement and working at a crappy job in spite of a college degree, I guess.
Crappy job? I make more than the median household income but okay.
By best Area you mean the only place with a climate which won't kill you? Okay. You sure have a narrow definition.
You need to learn to cope with things. You've posted on numerous city and state boards about places where you could rent out half a duplex and live in the other half for about $200k. That's doable in most of the country. People live in all sorts of climates. Some are more pleasant than others.
You need to learn to cope with things. You've posted on numerous city and state boards about places where you could rent out half a duplex and live in the other half for about $200k. That's doable in most of the country. People live in all sorts of climates. Some are more pleasant than others.
No, I'd rent them out and live at home still since my money goes farther in third world countries
All US housing shortages are local. If you can't afford rent where you are, move. Rents are astronomical in San Francisco because SF doesn't want more people, and wants to drive out low income current residents. So move to Houston, where there are just as many jobs and housing will cost less than half as much.
High rents are a personal problem, not a societal problem.
There is a vast difference between a property owner CHOOSING to trade more parking spaces for fewer apartments (and therefore higher rents) and government mandating that developers include more parking spaces and therefore (necessarily) fewer apartments (and therefore higher rents).
Where property owners decide how much (if any) on-site parking to provide, I am free to choose to rent an apartment where no parking is offered (and therefore lower rents). Where government dictates how much on-site parking must be offered, I must pay the inflated rent caused by the parking requirement, and do not have the option of lower rent without parking.
Do you understand the difference?
If you want to live where there is no parking, buy a place with no parking. Otherwise, you are just a transient and your opinion means nothing. You could always rent out your parking space and defray your housing costs, but of course that would require effort on your part.
Minimum wage workers - unless they are Subsidy Kids living free or cheap with mommy and/or daddy - have never lived in spiffy homes.
There long existed a bottom tier of barely habitable (by American standards) housing which became a media pariah in the years after World War II, and was pretty much regulated out of existence (urban renewal, slum clearance, interstate highway construction (initiated under Eisenhower), redevelopment) over the next (roughly) 25 years. This housing was regularly showcased and excoriated in major magazines (Time, Newsweek, Life, Saturday Evening Post, etc) and newspapers, as well as on television. IOW, the bottom-end housing stock traditionally occupied by the poor literally disappeared over a couple decades, without ever being replaced. I do personally recall some of this housing in the 1960s; it was rather bleak, but it was affordable to minimum wage workers.
Two things happened:
1. The owner-occupants of marginal housing upgrade the house to modern standards. I have done that myself. My 1972 ranch style house would be pretty marginal without major investments in repair and upgrading.
2. Buildings built before building codes had inadequate foundations, plumbing, wiring, ventilation and insulation. Rents did not justify maintenance and upgrading, so they fell down or were torn down because they were unsafe. Rebuilding was cheaper than fixing.
Shortages only depend on how many people want to live there. A high school buddy of mine bought a 6,000 sf. 6 br. 4 bath house in Bismarck for $60,000. This was before the oil boom. Now it's worth $600,000. Trust me, there was no conspiracy in ND to create a housing shortage or to increase rents 100% a year.
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.
