8 ms·

I don't mean to marginalize your frustration, but I feel like you may have unrealistic expectations. First, you have a tech industry salary, which is probably

I don't mean to marginalize your frustration, but I feel like you may have unrealistic expectations. First, you have a tech industry salary, which is probably at least twice as much as the median wage, if not more. Not only is it white-collar work with practically no risk to your physical safety (assuming you exercise, eat right, etc), but monetarily this puts you _way_ ahead of most people right out of the gate. If you literally can't find a home to buy (assuming you want to buy one), then either you live in an HCOL area (in which case, owning property was _always_ a fantasy even among the highly-paid), or you aren't looking hard enough. As a landlord, I can assure you that landlords have never gotten 2% mortgages on their properties, unless landlord==bank or some ridiculously well-connected billionaire. Except for 2008, the housing market has _always_ been at a peak. Prices may flatline if we head into a (worse) recession but they are not going down to where they were again. You only options are to accept that and adjust your budget/income/location appropriately, or opt to rent forever, which is not at all a bad thing since owning a primary residence is never an investment. (Although there is room for nuance here that I won't get into.) In the US, the vast majority of people _never_ pay off their mortgage until late in life, if all at. This is because the "normal" thing to do is to buy a house and "upgrade" two or three times until retirement. When interest rates were low, it didn't even make financial sense to pay off a mortgage because the money could be put to better use buying investments. Even with my high-paying jobs, I didn't manage to get above $0 in net worth until I was about 40. I think that's pretty good in a society where an increasing number of people have to work their whole lives for a number of factors, not all of which have to do with wall street and a broken government. I don't know your age, but it sounds like you're still closer to the beginning of your career. Either way, life has "started" for you already, it's happening right now, and it will be even better if you make a concerted effort to understand the world and your place in it right now, and figure out which decisions you need to make that will benefit you the most in the future. Since you asked for it, my advise is to live well under your means, save aggressively, set goals, and never stop learning. If you want to challenge yourself, look into a concept called "early retirement." Good luck.

dvt 4y ago
> Since you asked for it, my advise is to live well under your means, save aggressively, set goals, and never stop learning. If you want to challenge yourself, look into a concept called "early retirement." Good luck. Ah yes, glamorizing the hustle. You'll surely make it if you just "work hard enough," wink wink. Working a 9-5 career is (and has been) a net negative ROI for at least 2 decades, if not more. To be completely honest, this is why I'm on HN: doing your own startup is one of the few relatively low risk gambles one can take. Thinking that it's okay for an entire generation (millennials), scratch that, two generations, (also gen-Z now)—that literally can't afford housing where they work is beyond societally harmful. Birth rates will continue plummeting, among other things. This is all happening because Obama didn't have the balls to just let the shoddy banks crash and burn, and we continued QE for around a decade to alleviate blowback from 2008. This, combined with other factors (a lax policy w.r.t. foreign investments in real estate), will screw us in the long run.
- Merad 4y ago
  > [...] doing your own startup is one of the few relatively low risk gambles one can take. I was under the impression that around 90% of startups failed. Was I mistaken, have the numbers changed, or do we just have very different thresholds for "low risk"?
  - dvt 4y ago
    High failure rate ≠ high risk. Everything with a high upside will have a high failure rate, but working 10 hours on your own startup a week is definitely lower risk than gambling with options (which is what /r/wallstreetbets is doing) or gambling with crypto (even higher risk). I know people that made low 7 figures last year flipping NFTs, but the risk profile (to me, at least) was untenable. At least in Vegas you get free drinks.
    - saagarjha 4y ago
      Ok, but the comparison was to a 9-to-5 job, not gambling.
bill_joy_fanboy 4y ago
> First, you have a tech industry salary, which is probably at least twice as much as the median wage, if not more. This is exactly his point. If he can't make it with what he has going for him, who can? > You only options are to accept that and adjust your budget/income/location appropriately, or opt to rent forever, which is not at all a bad thing since owning a primary residence is never an investment. (Although there is room for nuance here that I won't get into.) You only list two options: (1) budget better, (2) give in to renting forever. I agree that, if the above poster wants a better shot, he should do his best to budget well. However, he should also help support policies that tax the dickens out of people who own more than their primary residence and maybe 1-2 other properties. There is more at stake here than just his own situation.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  what about people that dont pay taxes i.e. every other chinese, saudi, indian, russian, EU and LATAM millionaire that owns several properties in miami, orlando, nyc, LA, dallas, houston, phoenix, etc. What about banks and REITs that are passthru entities for the same folk above ? What about SV out-of-staters that don't pay state taxes but work remote at places like LV, Salt Lake, or Boise ? You want to fleece your own... but others you let just... walk in ?
  - sizzle 4y ago
    Wow this is news to me, thanks for sharing the examples I’ve never knew about that are gaming the system. Very eye opening.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > You want to fleece your own... but others you let just... walk in ? I don't recall the person you replied to mentioning that. Why is it impossible to levy property taxes on real estate in your own state from people who live somewhere else?
    - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
      Its not impossible. That's not the point What i mean is real estate taxes as they are today are not a factor to seriously dent foreign or corporate wealth from vacuuming all properties available. 10k year in property tax is a pittance to a Sheik, a shenzen factory owner, an indian tech entrepreneur, your average venezuelan govt bureaucrat, or a REIT. 10k is not peanuts to the average wage earner in the US. The former all buy in USA to keep their wealth safe from confiscation and leverage the US justice system and FDIC. Because back in their home countries they are 1 election away from communism or a bank collapse. We have no adequate means to raise the cost of entry for them, and mentioning change to favor local purchases, is almost taboo. Meanwhile, we say "tax the rich" here. Yet foreigners keep loading up on real estate and US citizens end up renting forever..
moneycantbuy 4y ago
- btmiller 4y ago
  Approximately zero people participating in HN need to see this type of reply to a comment. I suggest you assume good intent in GP’s message and respond in a constructive manner.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    Wrong; vastly more people need to see that type of reply to a comment. If landlords don't like the idea that they're actively robbing working-class Americans to the extent that said working-class Americans are decreasingly hesitant to respond to that violence in kind, then said landlords are kindly encouraged to, you know, stop robbing working-class Americans. Nothing stopping them from working an honest living like the rest of us instead of existing on our teat against our will.
TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
Where I live, I was fortunate to be able to borrow to purchase a very modest, poorly maintained house for $X, about 63% the price of a comparable reasonably well maintained house on the same street. Five years later everything on the street is now $2.75X while my wage has increased by about 6% in that same time. Rents have also been going yo quite dramatically. This is in a regional city of about 100,000 in Australia. The idea that all you need to do is realign your expectations, and work harder, is embarassing.
- sizzle 4y ago
  Congrats and I agree, their sentiment is “I got mine, try harder”
sizzle 4y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I mentioned 2% interest rates meaning in the <3% range. I know family who invested in real estate that trivially refinance to 2.85% on 30 year fixed mortgages with all the equity they had gained in their homes during the run-up in housing prices, 15 year loans were being redo’s to 2.25% all day as well. I’m sure you know this was a steal in the past few years if you are a homeowner in the past decade and gained major equity on your property. I doubt we’ll ever see those low interest rates again in the next decade.
yieldcrv 4y ago
Obviously they are in a HCOL area, but you know whats worse than being underwater on a mortgage where you want to live? Being underwater on a mortgage in the middle of nowhere, where nobody else wants to live. I know plenty that got stuck in small towns in 2008-onwards servicing the debt on their home. Places that only were beneficiaries of broad speculative demand have the steepest price drops there is no real demand. These are frightening prospects for people that want to play this game.
sweezyjeezy 4y ago
(I live in London) You didn't save til 40, now own multiple properties? Yeah our generation can't do that. While having a high paying job is great, it usually comes hand-in-hand with HCOL and obscene local property prices, meaning you have to either a) move to and live somewhere else (work remotely?), b) have to settle for living somewhere basic for a few years, c) rent forever. That decision really sucks. Previous generations didn't face this. Yes of course, we have to set our expectations accordingly. But some acknowledgement from people like yourself who got started in easier times, and didn't actually go through this, would be appreciated. https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-income-ratio/ https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...
- xyzelement 4y ago
  Is it really true that previous generations didn't have to sacrifice to buy homes? That seems patently false to me. First, previous generations were significantly more thrifty which meant more cash on hand. Don't believe me? Let's say you save 30 bucks a day starting at 20 (most of us can easily do that by controlling how much we eat out) - that means you have 110k in your bank for a down payment on your 30th birthday (ignoring interest). How much of the current generation thinks that way and cares about saving 30 bucks a day? Second and perhaps more obviously - our parents generation and their parents traded off affordable housing for long commutes. They weren't buying 3 bedroom apartments on park avenue, they bought 3 bedroom houses in the burbs and commuted an hour+ each way every day. Compare to that, your options of working remote or living somewhere basic for a bit sound obviously better. If you aren't willing to trade off what you want long term for something you can give up now, you won't have anything. And neither would anyone in a previous generation.
  - sweezyjeezy 4y ago
    $30 a day is almost $1000 per month, that's completely unrealistic for 90+% of under 25s, most people don't hit that kind of saving power til they are 30. And I don't see any evidence in your post that previous generations did that? My parents certainly didn't, they started saving at 30 on teacher's salaries and bought a house three years later. That house (in Cambridge, UK) is now worth £800k, I can't afford that, despite earning far more than their salaries at retirement put together.
jacobjjacob 4y ago
Landlords can (could) get in the 2-3% range for sure. Maybe not on a new purchase, but a refi like the commenter said.
atkailash 4y ago
yellowapple 4y ago
> As a landlord [...] > [...] opt to rent forever, which is not at all a bad thing since owning a primary residence is never an investment. (Although there is room for nuance here that I won't get into.) I suspect you "won't get into" it because you know full well that you're the one who stands to benefit from that advice, at the expense of the vast majority of everyone else. I mean this as kindly and respectfully as possible: landlords - you included - are a large part of the reason why there is a housing crisis here in the US (and, from what I gather, other "developed" countries). Y'all buy up housing as investments, acting in a literal-rentseeking capacity and offering no value beyond maybe maintenance that tenants themselves could be performing (whether directly or by hiring the same professionals you'd be hiring). People like you are the ones who exploited my father until the day he died, who continue to exploit the surviving members of his household, who continue to exploit myself, my friends, my coworkers, my neighbors, all for that nice cushy "passive income". People earning "at least twice as much as the median wage" are unable to escape the rent treadmill because of people like you keeping them on that treadmill in the first place - not to mention having the gall to suggest that being stuck on said treadmill is "not at all a bad thing". Out of respect for Hanlon's razor, I'm going to assume that you genuinely lack the self-awareness to understand how your income derives from economic parasitism; the alternative interpretation - that you are indeed aware of the externalities you impose on the rest of us, and yet choose anyway to peddle advice that's patently to your benefit and to the recipient's detriment - is far less charitable. You're welcome for all that rental income. You can properly thank me and every other American stuck subsidizing you and your fellow landlords by selling your rental properties to your tenants - at the prices you paid, minus what they've already paid back to you in rents.

dvt 4y ago

> Since you asked for it, my advise is to live well under your means, save aggressively, set goals, and never stop learning. If you want to challenge yourself, look into a concept called "early retirement." Good luck. Ah yes, glamorizing the hustle. You'll surely make it if you just "work hard enough," wink wink. Working a 9-5 career is (and has been) a net negative ROI for at least 2 decades, if not more. To be completely honest, this is why I'm on HN: doing your own startup is one of the few relatively low risk gambles one can take. Thinking that it's okay for an entire generation (millennials), scratch that, two generations, (also gen-Z now)—that literally can't afford housing where they work is beyond societally harmful. Birth rates will continue plummeting, among other things. This is all happening because Obama didn't have the balls to just let the shoddy banks crash and burn, and we continued QE for around a decade to alleviate blowback from 2008. This, combined with other factors (a lax policy w.r.t. foreign investments in real estate), will screw us in the long run.

Merad 4y ago
> [...] doing your own startup is one of the few relatively low risk gambles one can take. I was under the impression that around 90% of startups failed. Was I mistaken, have the numbers changed, or do we just have very different thresholds for "low risk"?
- dvt 4y ago
  High failure rate ≠ high risk. Everything with a high upside will have a high failure rate, but working 10 hours on your own startup a week is definitely lower risk than gambling with options (which is what /r/wallstreetbets is doing) or gambling with crypto (even higher risk). I know people that made low 7 figures last year flipping NFTs, but the risk profile (to me, at least) was untenable. At least in Vegas you get free drinks.
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Ok, but the comparison was to a 9-to-5 job, not gambling.

bill_joy_fanboy 4y ago

> First, you have a tech industry salary, which is probably at least twice as much as the median wage, if not more. This is exactly his point. If he can't make it with what he has going for him, who can? > You only options are to accept that and adjust your budget/income/location appropriately, or opt to rent forever, which is not at all a bad thing since owning a primary residence is never an investment. (Although there is room for nuance here that I won't get into.) You only list two options: (1) budget better, (2) give in to renting forever. I agree that, if the above poster wants a better shot, he should do his best to budget well. However, he should also help support policies that tax the dickens out of people who own more than their primary residence and maybe 1-2 other properties. There is more at stake here than just his own situation.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
what about people that dont pay taxes i.e. every other chinese, saudi, indian, russian, EU and LATAM millionaire that owns several properties in miami, orlando, nyc, LA, dallas, houston, phoenix, etc. What about banks and REITs that are passthru entities for the same folk above ? What about SV out-of-staters that don't pay state taxes but work remote at places like LV, Salt Lake, or Boise ? You want to fleece your own... but others you let just... walk in ?
- sizzle 4y ago
  Wow this is news to me, thanks for sharing the examples I’ve never knew about that are gaming the system. Very eye opening.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > You want to fleece your own... but others you let just... walk in ? I don't recall the person you replied to mentioning that. Why is it impossible to levy property taxes on real estate in your own state from people who live somewhere else?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    Its not impossible. That's not the point What i mean is real estate taxes as they are today are not a factor to seriously dent foreign or corporate wealth from vacuuming all properties available. 10k year in property tax is a pittance to a Sheik, a shenzen factory owner, an indian tech entrepreneur, your average venezuelan govt bureaucrat, or a REIT. 10k is not peanuts to the average wage earner in the US. The former all buy in USA to keep their wealth safe from confiscation and leverage the US justice system and FDIC. Because back in their home countries they are 1 election away from communism or a bank collapse. We have no adequate means to raise the cost of entry for them, and mentioning change to favor local purchases, is almost taboo. Meanwhile, we say "tax the rich" here. Yet foreigners keep loading up on real estate and US citizens end up renting forever..

moneycantbuy 4y ago

btmiller 4y ago
Approximately zero people participating in HN need to see this type of reply to a comment. I suggest you assume good intent in GP’s message and respond in a constructive manner.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  Wrong; vastly more people need to see that type of reply to a comment. If landlords don't like the idea that they're actively robbing working-class Americans to the extent that said working-class Americans are decreasingly hesitant to respond to that violence in kind, then said landlords are kindly encouraged to, you know, stop robbing working-class Americans. Nothing stopping them from working an honest living like the rest of us instead of existing on our teat against our will.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago

Where I live, I was fortunate to be able to borrow to purchase a very modest, poorly maintained house for $X, about 63% the price of a comparable reasonably well maintained house on the same street. Five years later everything on the street is now $2.75X while my wage has increased by about 6% in that same time. Rents have also been going yo quite dramatically. This is in a regional city of about 100,000 in Australia. The idea that all you need to do is realign your expectations, and work harder, is embarassing.

sizzle 4y ago
Congrats and I agree, their sentiment is “I got mine, try harder”

sizzle 4y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I mentioned 2% interest rates meaning in the <3% range. I know family who invested in real estate that trivially refinance to 2.85% on 30 year fixed mortgages with all the equity they had gained in their homes during the run-up in housing prices, 15 year loans were being redo’s to 2.25% all day as well. I’m sure you know this was a steal in the past few years if you are a homeowner in the past decade and gained major equity on your property. I doubt we’ll ever see those low interest rates again in the next decade.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Obviously they are in a HCOL area, but you know whats worse than being underwater on a mortgage where you want to live? Being underwater on a mortgage in the middle of nowhere, where nobody else wants to live. I know plenty that got stuck in small towns in 2008-onwards servicing the debt on their home. Places that only were beneficiaries of broad speculative demand have the steepest price drops there is no real demand. These are frightening prospects for people that want to play this game.

sweezyjeezy 4y ago

(I live in London) You didn't save til 40, now own multiple properties? Yeah our generation can't do that. While having a high paying job is great, it usually comes hand-in-hand with HCOL and obscene local property prices, meaning you have to either a) move to and live somewhere else (work remotely?), b) have to settle for living somewhere basic for a few years, c) rent forever. That decision really sucks. Previous generations didn't face this. Yes of course, we have to set our expectations accordingly. But some acknowledgement from people like yourself who got started in easier times, and didn't actually go through this, would be appreciated. https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-income-ratio/ https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...

xyzelement 4y ago
Is it really true that previous generations didn't have to sacrifice to buy homes? That seems patently false to me. First, previous generations were significantly more thrifty which meant more cash on hand. Don't believe me? Let's say you save 30 bucks a day starting at 20 (most of us can easily do that by controlling how much we eat out) - that means you have 110k in your bank for a down payment on your 30th birthday (ignoring interest). How much of the current generation thinks that way and cares about saving 30 bucks a day? Second and perhaps more obviously - our parents generation and their parents traded off affordable housing for long commutes. They weren't buying 3 bedroom apartments on park avenue, they bought 3 bedroom houses in the burbs and commuted an hour+ each way every day. Compare to that, your options of working remote or living somewhere basic for a bit sound obviously better. If you aren't willing to trade off what you want long term for something you can give up now, you won't have anything. And neither would anyone in a previous generation.
- sweezyjeezy 4y ago
  $30 a day is almost $1000 per month, that's completely unrealistic for 90+% of under 25s, most people don't hit that kind of saving power til they are 30. And I don't see any evidence in your post that previous generations did that? My parents certainly didn't, they started saving at 30 on teacher's salaries and bought a house three years later. That house (in Cambridge, UK) is now worth £800k, I can't afford that, despite earning far more than their salaries at retirement put together.

jacobjjacob 4y ago

Landlords can (could) get in the 2-3% range for sure. Maybe not on a new purchase, but a refi like the commenter said.

atkailash 4y ago

yellowapple 4y ago

> As a landlord [...] > [...] opt to rent forever, which is not at all a bad thing since owning a primary residence is never an investment. (Although there is room for nuance here that I won't get into.) I suspect you "won't get into" it because you know full well that you're the one who stands to benefit from that advice, at the expense of the vast majority of everyone else. I mean this as kindly and respectfully as possible: landlords - you included - are a large part of the reason why there is a housing crisis here in the US (and, from what I gather, other "developed" countries). Y'all buy up housing as investments, acting in a literal-rentseeking capacity and offering no value beyond maybe maintenance that tenants themselves could be performing (whether directly or by hiring the same professionals you'd be hiring). People like you are the ones who exploited my father until the day he died, who continue to exploit the surviving members of his household, who continue to exploit myself, my friends, my coworkers, my neighbors, all for that nice cushy "passive income". People earning "at least twice as much as the median wage" are unable to escape the rent treadmill because of people like you keeping them on that treadmill in the first place - not to mention having the gall to suggest that being stuck on said treadmill is "not at all a bad thing". Out of respect for Hanlon's razor, I'm going to assume that you genuinely lack the self-awareness to understand how your income derives from economic parasitism; the alternative interpretation - that you are indeed aware of the externalities you impose on the rest of us, and yet choose anyway to peddle advice that's patently to your benefit and to the recipient's detriment - is far less charitable. You're welcome for all that rental income. You can properly thank me and every other American stuck subsidizing you and your fellow landlords by selling your rental properties to your tenants - at the prices you paid, minus what they've already paid back to you in rents.