Poll of the Day > The Cost of Living Keeps Rising

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yeah well I'm not gonna keep arguing back and forth with people who think (a lack of) $5 coffee is the key to avoiding financial stress from $1600 rent

ultra_magnus13 posted...

Correct, food is another big one, but that drop in the bucket mentality is what gets a lot of them in trouble.

"Its just going to the movies, I deserve to go out and have fun." And then proceeds to inflate the $8 cost of the ticket to $50 because they buy the novelty pop corn, a drink, and other snacks.

"Ugh boomers telling me to stop buying coffee and I could afford a house." Proceeds to spend $60 a week on coffee

"Im too exhausted from work to make dinner" proceeds to spend 4-8x as much money on food vs buying reasonable groceries.

Enough drops and the bucket fills up.

"Only buy ramen"

bachewychomp posted...

Why do you settle for low effort mediocrity in trolling? At least OhhhJa is putting some effort into pretending he's poor when he's objectively better off than about 70% of the country.

You guys are avocado toasting in here and I'm the one trolling? I mean it's possible that you are just that out of touch you would think that

ultra_magnus13 posted...

Plenty I know people in there 50s and 60s that are still struggling because they continue to make poor career and financial decisions.

I know people in there early 20s that are doing great, because they make responsible career and financial decisions.

The reason you almost never see people struggling take responsibility, is that once people do that, they usually stop struggling.

Check out "bootstraps" over here.

ultra_magnus13 posted...

Plenty I know people in there 50s and 60s that are still struggling because they continue to make poor career and financial decisions.

I know people in there early 20s that are doing great, because they make responsible career and financial decisions.

The reason you almost never see people struggling take responsibility, is that once people do that, they usually stop struggling.

Sounds more like you know people in their early twenties who have significant levels of privilege. There was no amount of good decisions that could have led me to being financially secure at that age.

Revelation34 posted...

"Only buy ramen"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFJ_jmTaZ3Q

Glob posted...

Sounds more like you know people in their early twenties who have significant levels of privilege. There was no amount of good decisions that could have led me to being financially secure at that age.

For most of them the extent of privilege amounts to being able to live with a parent or parents for a few years after high school to continue saving money.

ultra_magnus13 posted...

For most of them the extent of privilege amounts to being able to live with a parent or parents for a few years after high school to continue saving money.

That is a lot of privilege, bucko.

ultra_magnus13 posted...

For most of them the extent of privilege amounts to being able to live with a parent or parents for a few years after high school to continue saving money.

As somebody who had to fend for himself from the age of 16, I can tell you that being able to live with your parents is a huge amount of privilege.

bachewychomp posted...

You guys are avocado toasting in here and I'm the one trolling?

Yes, no question about it.

bachewychomp posted...

I'm sure some people are trying to give genuine advice, but "move somewhere cheaper" or "live within your means" are misguided at best. As I've already stated, there can be lots of reasons why someone can't or wouldn't want to uproot their life. And I try to give people the benefit of the doubt on their lifestyle choices because I know they aren't buying rolexes and taking multiple vacations per year. The simple fact is many wages just don't line up with the cost of living, why would I make negative assumptions about spending habits instead?

I'm sure the ruling class loves knowing that working people bicker over stuff like this instead of noticing how badly the wealth gap that's the actual problem has gotten

I agree with this, despite my previous comment about people earning 6 figures struggling. Yes, some people are bad with money and need to be more financially responsible, but there is currently a global housing and inflation crisis. A growing amount of people aren't struggling because all these people suddenly got bad with money.

If there is a global housing crisis why not just build more housing...

Damn_Underscore posted...

If there is a global housing crisis why not just build more housing...

Red tape.
NIMBYs.
The commodification of housing.

Take your pick.

Damn_Underscore posted...

If there is a global housing crisis why not just build more housing...

"If people need more money, why not just print more money?"

ooger posted...

"If people need more money, why not just print more money?"

This is not the same thing. Any house could theoretically be an apartment complex that holds hundreds more people than any one house

Blue_Thunder posted...

NIMBYs.

Really, though, why build apartment blocks in suburbs, where the busses don't go?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Really, though, why build apartment blocks in suburbs, where the busses don't go?

Because the bus should go there.

Revelation34 posted...

Because the bus should go there.

And, in turn, it's easier to justify the investment of adding bus routes to a neighbourhood if it's on track to become dense enough to support them.

adjl posted...

And, in turn, it's easier to justify the investment of adding bus routes to a neighbourhood if it's on track to become dense enough to support them.

...and then all the NIMBYs move out even farther, or go total ham on gentrification downtown, and all we've gained is sprawl.

The thing about NIMBYs is that they rarely actually care that much once the thing they're upset about happens. They'll cry on and on about how the city couldn't possibly replace the parking on one side of a one-way street with bike lanes when the street parking is never more than 50% full, but once it's actually in there it pretty quickly becomes apparent that there's no real issue and they lose interest. You generally have to really make things worse for them to actually consider moving, not just "change the character of the neighbourhood" by letting one dude paint his house orange.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Really, though, why build apartment blocks in suburbs, where the busses don't go?

The answer is that there shouldn't be as much suburban zone as there is.

If we actually charged people the real and fair cost of supporting suburban development (e.g. increasing their property taxes 2-3 fold), fewer people would want to live in the suburbs anyway.

Clench281 posted...

If we actually charged people the real and fair cost of supporting suburban development (e.g. increasing their property taxes 2-3 fold), fewer people would want to live in the suburbs anyway.

That seems like a way to instantly resurrect exurbs and semi-rural small towns.

Questionmarktarius posted...

That seems like a way to instantly resurrect exurbs and semi-rural small towns.

Oh, those would be subject to even greater tax due to how inefficient they are.

Or they can go without services/utilities.

Or they can fund services/utilities themselves.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Really, though, why build apartment blocks in suburbs, where the busses don't go?

Why allow single family houses to exist where buses do actually go? Draw a 500 yard circle around all existing bus stops and the next time any house inside the circle is sold, it gets knocked down for some sort of mid density housing. Maybe offer buyouts for some so developers can put larger structures on multiple adjoining lots. Maybe mix in light commercial as well.

Then add more bus stops and watch the NIMBYs explode.

The one thing that absolutely must be included is a reasonable percentage of new apartments have to be 3 and 4 bedroom units. People wanting to have kids shouldn't be automatically dumped into suburban single family homes solely for lack of housing suitable to raising kids.

Ever since I became a homeowner myself, I understand the dilemma of affordable housing development vs. declining property values. I don't wanna be a NIMBY but I don't think it's fair that I could get a negative investment on this house that cost me a lot of money that I had basically no say in. I don't really see how it could work unless there are buyouts like you said (or tax incentives or subsidies or whatever)

bachewychomp posted...

I don't really see how it could work unless there are buyouts like you said (or tax incentives or subsidies or whatever)

probably good ol' blockbusting again.

bachewychomp posted...

Ever since I became a homeowner myself, I understand the dilemma of affordable housing development vs. declining property values. I don't wanna be a NIMBY but I don't think it's fair that I could get a negative investment on this house that cost me a lot of money that I had basically no say in. I don't really see how it could work unless there are buyouts like you said (or tax incentives or subsidies or whatever)

Why should investments be protected? When you invest, theres always an element of risk.

Glob posted...

Why should investments be protected? When you invest, theres always an element of risk.

the bigger flaw is in thinking of a house as an investment, instead of just a very large box to keep your stuff in, and maybe some grass in back to go touch every now and then.

Questionmarktarius posted...

the bigger flaw is in thinking of a house as an investment, instead of just a very large box to keep your stuff in, and maybe some grass in back to go touch every now and then.

A house can serve multiple purposes. I dont live in the one I own. I plan to when I retire though, so in some ways it is an investment for my future, but Im not planning on selling it.

I'm just saying it's an "investment" more in the sense that it's something you put a lot of money into over a long time. I'm not actively buying homes to flip them or rent out like a conventional "investor". It's just the sad reality of home ownership that it works like an investment. I don't like that they are commodified but I don't really get a choice in the matter. It's either buy a house or rent forever, which I actually wouldn't mind in theory if there were actually protections that made it so being eventually priced out of rent isn't a possibility.

bachewychomp posted...

I'm just saying it's an "investment" more in the sense that it's something you put a lot of money into over a long time. I'm not actively buying homes to flip them or rent out like a conventional "investor". It's just the sad reality of home ownership that it works like an investment. I don't like that they are commodified but I don't really get a choice in the matter. It's either buy a house or rent forever, which I actually wouldn't mind in theory if there were actually protections that made it so being eventually priced out of rent isn't a possibility.

I know what you mean, but if the value of the property youre living in goes down, it doesnt really impact its utility as a home.

It impacts my ability to get a different home if I want though. Actually I'm kind of facing that now, since I got in at such a good interest rate that I'd probably be worse off selling this and buying a new place, in spite of how much better of a down payment I'd be able to afford on the next house compared to this one

bachewychomp posted...

It impacts my ability to get a different home if I want though. Actually I'm kind of facing that now, since I got in at such a good interest rate that I'd probably be worse off selling this and buying a new place, in spite of how much better of a down payment I'd be able to afford on the next house compared to this one

Thats a fair and valid point, but then were firmly into viewing it as investment again.

Its a complex issue.

Idk I just want a place to live that is not giving money to a landlord but I would also like to be able to get out of that place without getting fucked over financially

willythemailboy posted...

Why allow single family houses to exist where buses do actually go? Draw a 500 yard circle around all existing bus stops and the next time any house inside the circle is sold, it gets knocked down for some sort of mid density housing. Maybe offer buyouts for some so developers can put larger structures on multiple adjoining lots. Maybe mix in light commercial as well.

Then add more bus stops and watch the NIMBYs explode.

The one thing that absolutely must be included is a reasonable percentage of new apartments have to be 3 and 4 bedroom units. People wanting to have kids shouldn't be automatically dumped into suburban single family homes solely for lack of housing suitable to raising kids.

I support the idea of stealing property from people who just bought it.

bachewychomp posted...

Idk I just want a place to live that is not giving money to a landlord but I would also like to be able to get out of that place without getting fucked over financially

I get it.

And as Ive said, Ive bought a house that I dont even live in so Im not looking to demonise people for seeing property as an investment. I was, like you, just trying not to get shafted. If my motives were more nefarious, I would have bought several houses, had the tenants pay the mortgage for me and then retire on that, but I dont feel thats ethical, so I didnt do it.

And I totally agree that renting is much more appealing in places with rental controls and protections for tenants.

My rent has gone up every year, the services provided and property haven't changed though...

Revelation34 posted...

I support the idea of stealing property from people who just bought it.

Unless... you think maybe "the people who just bought it" would be the developers and/or city implementing the policy? That's the obvious goal for the policy, so it would take a very specific sort of person to make the assumption you did when making your post.

bachewychomp posted...

Ever since I became a homeowner myself, I understand the dilemma of affordable housing development vs. declining property values. I don't wanna be a NIMBY but I don't think it's fair that I could get a negative investment on this house that cost me a lot of money that I had basically no say in. I don't really see how it could work unless there are buyouts like you said (or tax incentives or subsidies or whatever)

Think of it as eminent domain but on the homeowner's timeline. The city/developer has to buy it for market price, but the homeowner must sell it to the city/developer and not anyone else. You'd lose the possibility of getting a price well over market but also not have the risk of the house not selling for market or taking 6 months to sell.

Managed to buy a condo in the Netherlands at what turned out to be "the right time" in 2007. Didn't look that way at first, first the subprime mortgage crisis and a follow-up European debt crisis tanked housing costs for the first time in living memory and ended many Dutch homeowners with a mortgage now higher than the property value, a situation then called your mortgage being "under water". Amusing because most of the country is under sea level, but I digress.

In subsequent years housing costs were on the rise again and my condo is now worth well more than when I bought it, and the mortgage in fact paid off. Seeing the often hopeless struggle to buy or rent at all for starters nowadays, I am glad I was lucky or blessed (I prefer the latter) to get a flat when I did.

It was intended to be temporary, but now that it doesn't look like I'll be able to marry the woman I love and get her over here, this place is plenty big for me and my cat, and I have no plans to move.

I am lucky enough to have found a very affordable Condo near downtown Minneapolis. Managed to negotiate it down to $130,000. With housing being unaffordable to many of our generation and younger, I would recommend people consider Condos or Townhouses. They are a more affordable and while the HOA fees can be a bummer, in the case of the Condo, it covers those never-ending expenses that can come with home ownership.

bachewychomp posted...

The math just... doesn't add up. If wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living then people are no longer being paid enough. No amount of cutting out coffee will make a $30k annual income more than $30k.

While cutting back on luxuries is a cute talking point, the focus really needs to be on the big stuff. The largest area most people can cut back on is housing and if you can get your housing costs under control, you can usually make ends meet. So while $30k is $30k is $30k, sharing costs on housing will help that $30k go a lot further. And usually the easiest way to split costs is by getting roommates since the rent gets split, the aggregate utility use gets split (since you'll pay roughly the same amount to heat/cool a home regardless, meaning it's an added efficiency), etc.

Alternative living options are also a choice (micro apartments, tiny homes, etc), although you tend to give up more than you would with roommates. The other impact is the fact more people are single today instead of co-habbing, which puts additional pressure on the housing market (although in general the housing market hasn't kept up with demand and prices on homes have been wacky for a while thanks to lending policies)

As for wages not keeping up with COL, wages are also a driver of COL (as well as a driver for unemployment), so just paying people more isn't necessarily a solution. Realistically, the big issue is actually just housing, and a lot of that comes down to local policy (permits, zoning, misplaced incentives, etc).

Zeus posted...

While cutting back on luxuries is a cute talking point, the focus really needs to be on the big stuff. The largest area most people can cut back on is housing and if you can get your housing costs under control, you can usually make ends meet. So while $30k is $30k is $30k, sharing costs on housing will help that $30k go a lot further. And usually the easiest way to split costs is by getting roommates since the rent gets split, the aggregate utility use gets split (since you'll pay roughly the same amount to heat/cool a home regardless, meaning it's an added efficiency), etc.

Alternative living options are also a choice (micro apartments, tiny homes, etc), although you tend to give up more than you would with roommates. The other impact is the fact more people are single today instead of co-habbing, which puts additional pressure on the housing market (although in general the housing market hasn't kept up with demand and prices on homes have been wacky for a while thanks to lending policies)

As for wages not keeping up with COL, wages are also a driver of COL (as well as a driver for unemployment), so just paying people more isn't necessarily a solution. Realistically, the big issue is actually just housing, and a lot of that comes down to local policy (permits, zoning, misplaced incentives, etc).

Telling middle-aged people that they need to have room mates or live in capsules is fucked up.

Glob posted...

Telling middle-aged people that they need to have room mates or live in capsules is fucked up.

Pretty sure a person's income and other circumstances tell them what they need to do. I can only point out options.

Lots of middle-aged people have roommates. Lots of middle-aged people live in alternative accommodations. These aren't controversial ideas. While everybody would love to live in a mansion on a beach (or a preferred locale), that's never been the world we live in.

Zeus posted...

Pretty sure a person's income and other circumstances tell them what they need to do. I can only point out options.

Lots of middle-aged people have roommates. Lots of middle-aged people live in alternative accommodations. These aren't controversial ideas. While everybody would love to live in a mansion on a beach (or a preferred locale), that's never been the world we live in.

Im not suggesting that everybody should have a mansion, or that everybody should be able to afford to live in their most desired areas.

However, if you have to have room mates in order to survive, youre being paid poverty wages, and your employer is a shit one. When we have qualified professionals being laid poverty wages in large numbers, the system is broken.

And please, understand, this is not coming from a place of bitterness on my part. Im doing just fine. But theres a whole lot of other people who should be and arent.

Clearly I can't speak for the States, but the rise of housing costs in the Netherlands is a significant problem for people who aren't *in* the market yet, be it by rental or purchase, and the problem is multi-faceted but in large part comes down to there not being enough housing available. Something that hasn't improved in the last decade or so. Since I've been a homeowner for 18 years now, that problem is passing me by completely. Of course it's a flat, not a house, but without a family there is no need for a house. If suddenly I did need one I'd face the same problem everybody does, I'd have starting money from selling the condo, but it would not necessarily be enough.

Glob posted...

However, if you have to have room mates in order to survive, youre being paid poverty wages, and your employer is a shit one. When we have qualified professionals being laid poverty wages in large numbers, the system is broken.

This. We can admit that Single family homes may need to be a thing of the past or a luxury while admitting the market is broken.

Sashanan posted...

Clearly I can't speak for the States, but the rise of housing costs in the Netherlands is a significant problem for people who aren't *in* the market yet, be it by rental or purchase, and the problem is multi-faceted but in large part comes down to there not being enough housing available.

To add to my previous point, it' s a global issue. So no, it's not just "personal responsibility."

Zora_Prince posted...

To add to my previous point, it' s a global issue. So no, it's not just "personal responsibility."

The last forty or fifty years or so invented a "speculator class", and that's why shit's fucked.

I've fallen into it myself, now that the house I bought in 2012 is allegedly worth 300-500% as much on Zillow at any given moment.

Weren't grocery prices supposed to magically come down?

ooger posted...

Weren't grocery prices supposed to magically come down?

Yep. Even when the whole supply chain issue was resolved, the prices didn't go down.

I wonder if this is the case for the Switch 1 going up in price. I don't doubt the tariffs are a factor but still wonder if it's also a convenient excuse for greedflation.