This basement I live in costs 69% of my income
This basement I live in costs 69% of my income
This basement I live in costs 69% of my income
Fyi Pork bbq is good stuff
I am starting to plan my suicide.
I hope you procrastinate as much as possible
Do it to a landlord instead, get free room and board for the rest of your life.
And all the love you'll never want
If you are serious and then you have nothing to lose: Look up adversarial occupation.
Squat in a rich dudes house long enough and its yours. Might be fun to try.
A solid retirement plan.
I don't even have a career to retire from, I'm squarely in the precariat despite my MSc, apparently I'm not an economically valuable individual.
Upvote because it's a good meme or downvote because discussion on the instance will be heavily censored?
Did they base the pig on Kevin O'Leary?
That must be one incredible basement!
Or in NYC, a mold-infested roach hotel where someone probably drowned during the flooding a few years back.
Homes get dramatically cheaper as you move away from cities. Particularly if you have a remote work job, it is something to heavily consider.
As the home prices go down, the probability that you'll be able to find decent healthcare, education, and basically any businesses that consistently stay open outside of 9-5 weekdays goes with them
Anyway, point is, it's going to depend on the person and what you most desire. It is important to not dismiss alternatives off-hand when they can solve the largest monetary issue in your life.
Particularly if you have a remote work
jobentire rest of your career
If you move out of the city to work remote, then you'll have to keep working remotely for as long as you own the house.
haha my sister lives so far out in the sticks that you can see the milky way clearly and the rent around her is still 1.3k+ for a ROOM
Not anymore. You have to go into the deep rural area where Internet access and such are a problem. NYT went to Kalamazoo to illustrate this.
Yimby: "We should build more houses to address the housing crisis."
Leftist: "So people can live in them at-cost, right?"
Yimby: putting on his landlord hat
Leftist: "... Right?"
Didn't know what a Yimby was, this link explained it very well for me!
Unfortunately I think its unrealistic to hope for something that doesn't take profits into consideration as things stand now. Also, while I agree rents have gone FAAARRRRRR beyond any practical purposes, some people do forget "at cost" includes extra to cover maintenance and taxes.
Taxes are a function of property value. One of the more ugly moral hazards of the last few decades has been municipal governments hungrily consuming the enormous tax windfalls of exploding property prices while residents are forced to pick up the tab for more and more privatized municipal services.
The same house jumping from $150k to $600k doesn't translate into roads that are 4x nicer or drainage 4x better managed or schools 4x more well-funded. It just floods into the pockets of municipal cronies and private contractors, for mayoral vanity projects. Selling property "at-cost" would keep the tax rates down. But high ranking city officials don't want cheap land in their city. That cuts into their slush funds.
So we see city officials tacitly encourage these exploding housing costs, while residents are priced out of homes they could have easily afforded even during the 2008 housing peak.