|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28634 Posts
On June 25 2025 16:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 16:18 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper. GDP is a dick measuring contest of the top 0.1% unless the lower classes have access to that extra cash. In the US, they don't even get a glimpse of it. Likewise property value and tax revenue, it all doesn't mean anything without such context. I assume high property value is really nice for those people who own that property. Sadly not really something that is possible for most people of our generation unless we inherit it.
Tbh high property values aren't really something to cheer for even if you own your own house, it's mostly just good if you own multiple properties. * Most people are looking to move somewhere nicer, not somewhere less nice, and if your own property is increasing is value, the nicer places you'd want to move to are probably increasing more.
*I mean there are exceptions to this, like people moving from an urban to a rural area or retired people looking for a smaller, more managable place, or if, say, you want to move to some development country and live like a king. But like, for me, my wife and I bought a place for 1.9 million norwegian crowns (divide by 10 for dollar) like 16 years ago, sold that for twice that amount 3 years ago, and then we moved into a house which had increased by more than 2 million crowns during that same period, so the property value increase of both houses meant we ended up losing somewhere in the 200000 crowns+ range. Now, the fact that we bought rather than rented 16 years ago meant that we didn't get shafted by the increase in property values, but we still didn't make any money from it. We're also in a position where we may or may not end up moving to a new, bigger place somewhere down the road (say, in 6-10 years), but if that happens, the new place is also likely to have increased more in value than the house we're currently living in.
My parents on the other hand have lived in the same house for 36 years and I'm guessing it's worth like 7-8 times more now than it was back then (in Norway, salaries have multiplied by 6 in the past 40, so it's not even that far off anyway), and if they're going to move, it'll be from their big home with a garden to a smaller apartment, so they'd be likely to pocket quite a bit. Which they won't really need at that point, considering that they're financially secure and will be 80 anyway.
|
On June 25 2025 17:52 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 16:36 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2025 16:18 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper. GDP is a dick measuring contest of the top 0.1% unless the lower classes have access to that extra cash. In the US, they don't even get a glimpse of it. Likewise property value and tax revenue, it all doesn't mean anything without such context. I assume high property value is really nice for those people who own that property. Sadly not really something that is possible for most people of our generation unless we inherit it. Exactly right. It results in misused or underutilized property, where it would benefit the working class a ton if they had access to it (i.e. for rent/ownership, as a workplace, etc.) A lot of assets are just sitting there. Second/third/fourth homes/mansions. Empty office space. It's wild how much money is dusting away. Nobody benefits - oh but GDP go brrrr, so it's fine I guess.
So you think if there was a net migration out of a city there would be less vacant homes and office space?
San Francisco has had a negative net migration and then our mall closed down with our movie theater, and so many countless other businesses that the mayor floated the idea of building a giant football/soccer stadium in the middle of downtown by tearing down all the vacant buildings.
Of course all those businesses going belly up means the jobs go with them. Which is reflected in GDP. Which is why it's not just some meaningless number that the rich use for dick measuring contests.
But hey, rents in San Francisco are going down so I guess this is great.
|
On June 25 2025 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 10:55 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani winning would be the perfect birthday present for me and I don't even live in NY. Seems like it comes down to the people that ranked Lander first which should break Mamdani's way. Hearing a lot about how Cuomo could still run in the general, which would really put the "vote blue no matter who" centrists in a tough spot. Really wouldn't surprise me for them to encourage Cuomo to run as a spoiler, but I'm hoping I'm just being overly pessimistic. Show nested quote +Zohran Mamdani
410,914
43.6
Andrew Cuomo
341,653
36.2
Brad Lander
107,665
11.4
~90% of votes counted.
I'm very happy for Mamdani 
https://apnews.com/article/andrew-cuomo-zohran-mamdani-new-york-mayor-0d39764944e7e55a7e26a988d4136a86
Cuomo voters (and Cuomo himself) better line up behind their Democratic nominee for the general election. I've encouraged that every time an establishment / moderate candidate won the primary, and now that the shoe is finally on the other (better) foot, it still needs to happen when progressive / democratic socialist candidates win the primary too.
|
On June 25 2025 18:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 17:52 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:36 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2025 16:18 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper. GDP is a dick measuring contest of the top 0.1% unless the lower classes have access to that extra cash. In the US, they don't even get a glimpse of it. Likewise property value and tax revenue, it all doesn't mean anything without such context. I assume high property value is really nice for those people who own that property. Sadly not really something that is possible for most people of our generation unless we inherit it. Exactly right. It results in misused or underutilized property, where it would benefit the working class a ton if they had access to it (i.e. for rent/ownership, as a workplace, etc.) A lot of assets are just sitting there. Second/third/fourth homes/mansions. Empty office space. It's wild how much money is dusting away. Nobody benefits - oh but GDP go brrrr, so it's fine I guess. So you think if there was a net migration out of a city there would be less vacant homes and office space?San Francisco has had a negative net migration and then our mall closed down with our movie theater, and so many countless other businesses that the mayor floated the idea of building a giant football/soccer stadium in the middle of downtown by tearing down all the vacant buildings. Of course all those businesses going belly up means the jobs go with them. Which is reflected in GDP. Which is why it's not just some meaningless number that the rich use for dick measuring contests. But hey, rents in San Francisco are going down so I guess this is great.
No, I wouldn't think that. Why would I?
I was merely contesting the idea that GDP etc. are particularly useful metrics for anything other than dick measuring. The US has all the highest GDP numbers, but quality of life for workers is better in the EU. The US has a lot of concentrated wealth, which means absolutely nothing for workers.
GDP is meaningless in and of itself without context. Context such as what portion of that GDP goes to workers. Guess what - the EU massively outperforms the US in that regard.
Oh right, I forgot. You always want a link to support my very easily provable claims because you can't use Google yourself. Here you go. Although this is about quality of life, it should be obvious why that's the most important metric.
https://www.peopleandmedia.com/why-is-europe-better-than-the-usa-a-comparative-analysis-of-quality-of-life-and-culture/
|
GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
|
On June 25 2025 18:44 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 18:31 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 17:52 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:36 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2025 16:18 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper. GDP is a dick measuring contest of the top 0.1% unless the lower classes have access to that extra cash. In the US, they don't even get a glimpse of it. Likewise property value and tax revenue, it all doesn't mean anything without such context. I assume high property value is really nice for those people who own that property. Sadly not really something that is possible for most people of our generation unless we inherit it. Exactly right. It results in misused or underutilized property, where it would benefit the working class a ton if they had access to it (i.e. for rent/ownership, as a workplace, etc.) A lot of assets are just sitting there. Second/third/fourth homes/mansions. Empty office space. It's wild how much money is dusting away. Nobody benefits - oh but GDP go brrrr, so it's fine I guess. So you think if there was a net migration out of a city there would be less vacant homes and office space?San Francisco has had a negative net migration and then our mall closed down with our movie theater, and so many countless other businesses that the mayor floated the idea of building a giant football/soccer stadium in the middle of downtown by tearing down all the vacant buildings. Of course all those businesses going belly up means the jobs go with them. Which is reflected in GDP. Which is why it's not just some meaningless number that the rich use for dick measuring contests. But hey, rents in San Francisco are going down so I guess this is great. No, I wouldn't think that. Why would I? I was merely contesting the idea that GDP etc. are particularly useful metrics for anything other than dick measuring. The US has all the highest GDP numbers, but quality of life for workers is better in the EU. The US has a lot of concentrated wealth, which means absolutely nothing for workers. GDP is meaningless in and of itself without context. Context such as what portion of that GDP goes to workers. Guess what - the EU massively outperforms the US in that regard. Oh right, I forgot. You always want a link to support my very easily provable claims because you can't use Google yourself. Here you go. Although this is about quality of life, it should be obvious why that's the most important metric. https://www.peopleandmedia.com/why-is-europe-better-than-the-usa-a-comparative-analysis-of-quality-of-life-and-culture/
basically full agreement - GDP used the way it is nowadays is a shit metric. I would just change "worker" to average person.
what the people lamenting "house prices decreasing" and who is benefiting from that versus who is losing from this development are simply not seeing is that wealth concentration is reaching absurd levels.
that in turn kills social mobility and fosters political extremism. on a macro level that is considered pretty damn bad and you better catch that snowball which currently is turning into a fascist avalanche potentially burying us all sooner or later.
killing the belief that the market self regulates just fine seems to be the hardest part - it does not. history does not support this thesis and the present does not support it either.
when you are paying out of the nose and still are simply priced out of health care or having a roof over your head( as you work out of your car because there are tiers of homelessness)... things have gone spectacularly wrong.
Trump in 2015 declared rightly so that the "American Dream is dead". what he did not say is that he was just riding the wave of anger in this very unique environment when the economy still picked up the pieces and slowly recovered from the GFC.
he is the extremism, and we shifted so far right that in a binary world of zeroes and ones one is automatically a leftist if one opposes a god damn criminal grifter in the White House.
poppycock times we are living in.
|
On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote:
GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol
Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere.
It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other. Now what are those things? Lets take a look:
"Europe might win some folks over with its laid-back lifestyle, rich history, and emphasis on leisure."
- Chill life
- Rich history
- Chill life
"Meanwhile, the USA’s fast-paced environment, economic opportunities, and cultural diversity appeal to others."
- Stressful life
- You can get richer in the US than in the EU (if you're already rich)
- Diversity of culture
|
On June 25 2025 19:29 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote:
GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other.
…
|
On June 25 2025 19:28 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 18:44 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 18:31 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 17:52 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:36 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2025 16:18 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper. GDP is a dick measuring contest of the top 0.1% unless the lower classes have access to that extra cash. In the US, they don't even get a glimpse of it. Likewise property value and tax revenue, it all doesn't mean anything without such context. I assume high property value is really nice for those people who own that property. Sadly not really something that is possible for most people of our generation unless we inherit it. Exactly right. It results in misused or underutilized property, where it would benefit the working class a ton if they had access to it (i.e. for rent/ownership, as a workplace, etc.) A lot of assets are just sitting there. Second/third/fourth homes/mansions. Empty office space. It's wild how much money is dusting away. Nobody benefits - oh but GDP go brrrr, so it's fine I guess. So you think if there was a net migration out of a city there would be less vacant homes and office space?San Francisco has had a negative net migration and then our mall closed down with our movie theater, and so many countless other businesses that the mayor floated the idea of building a giant football/soccer stadium in the middle of downtown by tearing down all the vacant buildings. Of course all those businesses going belly up means the jobs go with them. Which is reflected in GDP. Which is why it's not just some meaningless number that the rich use for dick measuring contests. But hey, rents in San Francisco are going down so I guess this is great. No, I wouldn't think that. Why would I? I was merely contesting the idea that GDP etc. are particularly useful metrics for anything other than dick measuring. The US has all the highest GDP numbers, but quality of life for workers is better in the EU. The US has a lot of concentrated wealth, which means absolutely nothing for workers. GDP is meaningless in and of itself without context. Context such as what portion of that GDP goes to workers. Guess what - the EU massively outperforms the US in that regard. Oh right, I forgot. You always want a link to support my very easily provable claims because you can't use Google yourself. Here you go. Although this is about quality of life, it should be obvious why that's the most important metric. https://www.peopleandmedia.com/why-is-europe-better-than-the-usa-a-comparative-analysis-of-quality-of-life-and-culture/ basically full agreement - GDP used the way it is nowadays is a shit metric. I would just change "worker" to average person. what the people lamenting "house prices decreasing" and who is benefiting from that versus who is losing from this development are simply not seeing is that wealth concentration is reaching absurd levels. that in turn kills social mobility and fosters political extremism. on a macro level that is considered pretty damn bad and you better catch that snowball which currently is turning into a fascist avalanche potentially burying us all sooner or later. killing the belief that the market self regulates just fine seems to be the hardest part - it does not. history does not support this thesis and the present does not support it either. when you are paying out of the nose and still are simply priced out of health care or having a roof over your head( as you work out of your car because there are tiers of homelessness)... things have gone spectacularly wrong. Trump in 2015 declared rightly so that the "American Dream is dead". what he did not say is that he was just riding the wave of anger in this very unique environment when the economy still picked up the pieces and slowly recovered from the GFC. he is the extremism, and we shifted so far right that in a binary world of zeroes and ones one is automatically a leftist if one opposes a god damn criminal grifter in the White House. poppycock times we are living in.
Great comment. Social mobility is also quite a useful metric. It measures both upward and downward mobility.
In the US, upward mobility is worse than in most EU countries.
Finland secures the third spot in global social mobility, largely attributed to its relatively high income mobility. This means that being born into a wealthy family in Finland provides some advantage, but the impact on a child's future earnings is fairly low. For example, a doubling of parental income in Finland leads to a 15% increase in future salary, in stark contrast to 50% for the United States and 60% for China.
https://www.catalystplanet.com/travel-and-social-action-stories/the-global-social-ladder-the-best-and-worst-countries-for-social-mobility
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/social-mobility-by-country
All that sweet sweet GDP - that almost no one in the US benefits from.
|
On June 25 2025 19:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 19:29 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote:
GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other. …
Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
|
Northern Ireland24977 Posts
On June 25 2025 12:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. What does "succeed" mean to you in this context? It means making people's lives better as they understand it. Controlling crime, implementing policies that make life cheaper to live, improved public services, the things people normally want out of mayors. If he's serious about absurd things like city run grocery stores then he's in for a hard time. Or if he tries to follow De Blasio and change school admission policies to artificially lower the number of Asians in the best schools. I don't know how power is shared in NYC but I wonder how the city council will interact with him. And i wonder if Eric Adams is liking what he sees.
On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper.
Whatever his platform is selling, it does appear to somewhat resonate, but yes, he does also have to deliver on some of it at least. Proof, pudding and all that
|
On June 25 2025 19:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 12:49 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2025 12:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. What does "succeed" mean to you in this context? It means making people's lives better as they understand it. Controlling crime, implementing policies that make life cheaper to live, improved public services, the things people normally want out of mayors. If he's serious about absurd things like city run grocery stores then he's in for a hard time. Or if he tries to follow De Blasio and change school admission policies to artificially lower the number of Asians in the best schools. I don't know how power is shared in NYC but I wonder how the city council will interact with him. And i wonder if Eric Adams is liking what he sees. Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper. Whatever his platform is selling, it does appear to somewhat resonate, but yes, he does also have to deliver on some of it at least. Proof, pudding and all that
first he needs to get elected, that was just the Dem primary. one step at a time
people demanded better, hopefully they will get it.
|
United States1341 Posts
On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper.
Imagine not thinking that. Is the GDP going to put food on the table?
|
GDP is a great measurement, people just love to use it to measure stuff it doesn't measure and are usually too lazy to couple it with other measurements that would create a number that sais what they think GDP should say... Probably because it's hard (well, actually not but it's math). The hard part is getting good enough Data.
A rising/sinking GDP is pretty much allways good/bad economically speaking, but that doesn't mean that a rising/sinking GDP helps/hurts everyone equally.
|
United States1341 Posts
It's also bad faith garbage, since Republicans were saying GDP doesn't matter when it was surging under Biden, or when it crashed under Trump's pandemic mismanagement. Their argument is "it only matters when it's bad for Democrats", essentially.
|
On June 25 2025 19:42 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 19:39 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 19:29 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 19:12 BlackJack wrote:
GDP is a better metric than anything offered in obscure articles written by chatgpt after googling "show me why i'm right." You didn't even bother to read your own bullshit article that you googled because if you did you would have read the conclusion that says it's inconclusive and a matter of preference whether Europe or USA has a better quality of life lol Where does it say it's inconclusive? Nowhere. It says if you value one thing over the other, you may prefer one place over the other. … Elaborate. I don't think you know what "inconclusive" means. I'm talking about quality of life. Is a stressful life a greater quality life in your mind?
the article didnt say stressful life. it said "fast-paced", which you equated to meaning stressful life on your own. youve therefore drawn a conclusion from the article that the author didnt make. you may as well have cited your own word document as a source rather than that article.
the author is quite unambiguous in his conclusion; whether europe or USA has better quality of life is up to the individual. ergo, inconclusive.
|
Nice job, NYC, now bring it home. I recently decided to get barred in NY, so hopefully my family and I can join in the socialist dystopia soon.
|
United States42512 Posts
On June 25 2025 18:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2025 16:36 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2025 16:18 Magic Powers wrote:On June 25 2025 16:14 BlackJack wrote:On June 25 2025 12:39 LightSpectra wrote:On June 25 2025 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Big city Democrats apparently haven't learned the lesson of De Blasio, Brandon Johnson, or anyone else. Wonder who they'll blame when he doesn't succeed, either. Oh well, feel bad for NY but I guess the rest of the country will get yet another reminder of why they are moving out of blue areas. Please, leave faster. The rent goes down AND our political spectrum moves to the left? What's not to like? Imagine thinking declining property values, declining GDP, and declining tax revenue would be a win because hey, rent will be cheaper. GDP is a dick measuring contest of the top 0.1% unless the lower classes have access to that extra cash. In the US, they don't even get a glimpse of it. Likewise property value and tax revenue, it all doesn't mean anything without such context. I assume high property value is really nice for those people who own that property. Sadly not really something that is possible for most people of our generation unless we inherit it. Tbh high property values aren't really something to cheer for even if you own your own house, it's mostly just good if you own multiple properties. * Most people are looking to move somewhere nicer, not somewhere less nice, and if your own property is increasing is value, the nicer places you'd want to move to are probably increasing more. *I mean there are exceptions to this, like people moving from an urban to a rural area or retired people looking for a smaller, more managable place, or if, say, you want to move to some development country and live like a king. But like, for me, my wife and I bought a place for 1.9 million norwegian crowns (divide by 10 for dollar) like 16 years ago, sold that for twice that amount 3 years ago, and then we moved into a house which had increased by more than 2 million crowns during that same period, so the property value increase of both houses meant we ended up losing somewhere in the 200000 crowns+ range. Now, the fact that we bought rather than rented 16 years ago meant that we didn't get shafted by the increase in property values, but we still didn't make any money from it. We're also in a position where we may or may not end up moving to a new, bigger place somewhere down the road (say, in 6-10 years), but if that happens, the new place is also likely to have increased more in value than the house we're currently living in. My parents on the other hand have lived in the same house for 36 years and I'm guessing it's worth like 7-8 times more now than it was back then (in Norway, salaries have multiplied by 6 in the past 40, so it's not even that far off anyway), and if they're going to move, it'll be from their big home with a garden to a smaller apartment, so they'd be likely to pocket quite a bit. Which they won't really need at that point, considering that they're financially secure and will be 80 anyway.
You've failed to account for leverage on mortgages.
This is a highly simplified version of your premise.
Let's say a starter house costs 100 and a later in life house costs 200. House prices double in 10 years. You start with 100 cash.
You buy a starter house so you're -100 cash +100 house. That puts you on 0 cash 100 house.
After 10 years you want to move to a bigger house.
You sell the starter house for 200 so you're now +200 cash 0 house.
You buy the larger house which is now 400. Now you're -200 cash 400 house.
You started with net worth 100 (cash) and 0 house so net 100, now you're -200 cash 400 house so net 200.
Still technically up 100 in net worth but you're -300 cash out of pocket whereas you'd have been -200 if house prices hadn't increased. Your 100 cash investment has yielded 100 increase in net worth but you're down in cash. 100% return on investment.
Now let's say you start with just 10 cash and buy a starter house with a 10% cash mortgage. We'll set interest at 0% for the purpose of an extremely simplified example but interest doesn't materially change the outcome unless it's absurdly high.
Starting: 10 cash 0 house (net worth 10)
After initial purchase: 0 cash -90 mortgage +100 house (net worth 10)
After sale: 0 mortgage 0 house +110 cash (net worth 110)
After purchase of new house: +70 cash -360 mortgage +400 house (net worth 110)
You're up the exact same 100 in net worth but your cash in hand has increased from 10 to 70 (+60) and your net worth return is +1000% (started with net worth 10, now net worth 110).
Leverage makes returns become extremely silly and within real estate leverage is the rule.
Incidentally this is a big part of how African Americans got fucked in the US. By denying them access to credit they were barred from ownership of yield bearing assets. The price of the yield bearing assets inflated because the white community who were buying them could afford to buy them with borrowed money to be repaid by the yields of the asset being purchased (so essentially for free provided you had access to credit) which simultaneously raised the barrier for entry for anyone lacking access to credit. Then after a hundred years the descendants of people with access to credit own everything and the people who were barred have fallen even further behind. Then people moralize about the lack of a black middle class as some kind of racial failing while jacking up the rent on the duplex they're renting to a black family.
|
Norway28634 Posts
yeah but what's the point with net worth if it's tied to something you're not going to sell? Again - if housing is an investment, sure, but I wager most people aren't going to sell their house without buying a new house, and I think most people want a better house, not a worse one, and on average, you can assume that the better house increases more than the worse one.
For me, now, if all houses in trondheim were to drop 50% in value, that would make me a lot closer to realizing my dream home, and I am a home owner.
|
United States42512 Posts
On June 25 2025 22:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yeah but what's the point with net worth if it's tied to something you're not going to sell? Again - if housing is an investment, sure, but I wager most people aren't going to sell their house without buying a new house, and I think most people want a better house, not a worse one, and on average, you can assume that the better house increases more than the worse one.
For me, now, if all houses in trondheim were to drop 50% in value, that would make me a lot closer to realizing my dream home, and I am a home owner.
Okay but the net worth isn't locked up in the house. They started with 10 cash and no house and they ended with 70 cash and a 400k house. That's the specific point I was illustrating. Your cash isn't locked up in the silly overvaluation of the house, the bank's cash is.
It doesn't matter that the worse house went up 100 in value and the better one went up 200 and it doesn't matter that they sold their starter home and bought the better one, they still ended up with more cash. Highly leveraged investments are just very silly.
Let's consider the same for your proposed 50% drop in value.
Start with 10, starter house is 100, good house is 200.
Buy a house with a mortgage: 0 cash -90 mortgage +100 house.
50% drop happens.
Sell the house for 50: 0 cash -40 mortgage deficit 0 house
Borrow 40 from your parents or someone because you're gigafucked selling the house with a mortgage of 90 for 50.
Borrow another 10 from your parents.
Buy the better house which has dropped from 200 to 100: 0 cash -50 to parents -90 mortgage 100 house.
This is very much not a better scenario.
The 50% drop absolutely wrecks you, even though it feels like having the target 200 house available for 100 is somehow better than having the target 200 house increasing to 400.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
