That's exactly what's happening, people are spending more and more on their rent, to unaffordable levels.
Last edited by Larssen (2021-01-12 02:35:33)
perhaps your average single-occupancy is not in a desirable city-centre apartment?
Did you read the part of it not even being exorbitantly expensive? The requirements are just very steep to shut out most people.
Elsewhere prices do not go down by much. Yet people's incomes are lower. There's a lot of people living very expensively, perhaps not out of choice unless yes you do want that 2hr commute.
Elsewhere prices do not go down by much. Yet people's incomes are lower. There's a lot of people living very expensively, perhaps not out of choice unless yes you do want that 2hr commute.
Last edited by Larssen (2021-01-12 02:38:51)
that basically describes the picture here for most millenials and younger. spending 60-70% of your income on overheads and rent/bills is more common than hitting that 30% sweetspot.
people don't live alone though. i'm not sure single-occupancy rates are majorly on the rise in the younger age brackets. most everyone i know house or flatshares.
people don't live alone though. i'm not sure single-occupancy rates are majorly on the rise in the younger age brackets. most everyone i know house or flatshares.
Uh yes and that's a problem. Flatsharing is still fairly normal in your 20s but less common in the 30s. Now add the divorce rate.uziq wrote:
that basically describes the picture here for most millenials and younger. spending 60-70% of your income on overheads and rent/bills is more common than hitting that 30% sweetspot.
people don't live alone though. i'm not sure single-occupancy rates are majorly on the rise in the younger age brackets. most everyone i know house or flatshares.
it's not really a problem for you, though. you could live somewhere cheaper and commute, like the vast majority of people do.
slightly confused why the city-centre single-occupancy is acting like life is terrible. it's a great way to live. even better if you can save 70% of your income while doing it. you're renting in a situation that is better than 99.99% of people.
you could eat the crap of commuting distance for a few years and save enough to get off the rental ladder forever? this seems to be the prudent mentality of many, many people who take the short-term hit to living quality.
slightly confused why the city-centre single-occupancy is acting like life is terrible. it's a great way to live. even better if you can save 70% of your income while doing it. you're renting in a situation that is better than 99.99% of people.
you could eat the crap of commuting distance for a few years and save enough to get off the rental ladder forever? this seems to be the prudent mentality of many, many people who take the short-term hit to living quality.
Last edited by uziq (2021-01-12 02:51:38)
Yes and unfortunately I think you might be right. Selling prices right now are at records high, despite the pandemic. They've been skyrocketing the last 10 years esp.Dilbert_X wrote:
At that rate if you're serious about buying a house you're probably going backwards unfortunately.Larssen wrote:
I don't think I did say that? I am spending 30% on rent here and maybe 35% on that + utilities. I keep an excel sheet with all my expenditures. If I want to I can comfortably set aside 1k a month with that spending pattern.
So 35% includes utilities? I'm guessing you're one of those people who turns the heating on.
I could but move around too much. As I said, 2 years. Once again, I'm not primarily concerned or outraged on behalf of myself. I'm lucky. I know I'm lucky. I just feel pissed about a: the power position of rental agents and landlords, b: the market at large and the chances of average incomes to live comfortably, esp. if compared to previous generations.uziq wrote:
it's not really a problem for you, though. you could live somewhere cheaper and commute, like the vast majority of people do.
slightly confused why the city-centre single-occupancy is acting like life is terrible. it's a great way to live. even better if you can save 70% of your income while doing it. you're renting in a situation that is better than 99.99% of people.
you could eat the crap of commuting distance for a few years and save enough to get off the rental ladder forever? this seems to be the prudent mentality of many, many people who take the short-term hit to living quality
Last edited by Larssen (2021-01-12 02:54:28)
well, the good news is the centre-right nowhere in europe wants to build affordable housing.
It's not just about building housing but capping real estate to certain objective norms. Housing is a right.uziq wrote:
well, the good news is the centre-right nowhere in europe wants to build affordable housing.
isn't the majority of domestic banks' investment wings in property, land and real estate? good luck capping it.
Homes and properties in and around my area are constantly snapped up and flipped into expensive, low quality rentals. One of the office buildings I was at for awhile tested like 80% bad on the outlets, so I had to keep figuratively slapping wrists when people were trying to relocate expensive computer equipment to faulty sockets. Buying price was like 3.5x what I'd seen it at before some out-of-state toad snapped it up. Property prospecting can be such a cancer sometimes.uziq wrote:
i am really not in support of landlordism or the rentier class, especially the type that snapped up public housing stock with cheap loans/buy offs in the 80s and have contributed nothing since ... but basic precautions in a renting agreement do make sense. in return, you should expect to be able to ask equally as much of them.
rental agents can get fucked, no question. a law was recently introduced here that stopped them introducing exorbitant fees as the middle-man. £300 or £750 or whatever for photocopying a few sheets and making a phone call on a renters’ behalf to confirm the lease. fuck offfff.
I'd have to relocate to the sticks to find a new place "nearby" for a reasonable amount. On the plus side, probably couldn't get much worse internet ('Murica).
You'll find no end to sob stories from landlords, excusing their perpetually prickish behavior with something like "I tried being nice but one of my tenants took advantage of me!"
I know a lot of properties that have been vacant for years if not decades, not because they're condemned but because the price is too damn high.
TL;DR homes that were like 60-80k in the 80s are now 300-400k+, even in far greater disrepair. Not always in very ideal areas or distances either.
If you want to be in property the thing to do may be buy somewhere, rent it out, continue renting wherever you are as you move around.Larssen wrote:
Yes and unfortunately I think you might be right. Selling prices right now are at records high, despite the pandemic. They've been skyrocketing the last 10 years esp.Dilbert_X wrote:
At that rate if you're serious about buying a house you're probably going backwards unfortunately.Larssen wrote:
I don't think I did say that? I am spending 30% on rent here and maybe 35% on that + utilities. I keep an excel sheet with all my expenditures. If I want to I can comfortably set aside 1k a month with that spending pattern.
So 35% includes utilities? I'm guessing you're one of those people who turns the heating on.
Property markets do crash but over 50-100 years they don't. Of course it doesn't help to buy at a high point.
From watching the market here I think I'd never buy an apartment as a long term investment, at least not a modern one.
My advice may be terrible, it usually is.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3715
What role does immigration have in housing inflation? I know it isn't their fault for the financialization of housing but it also can't help that migration within the E.U. is easy and also 15% of people in the U.S..are foreign born..
immigrants generally aren't buying up highly desirable city-centre apartments.
the people who have hollowed out the market in highly financialized cities like london or paris are non-doms: arabs, chinese, russians. the properties mostly sit empty as investments only or to wash dirty money.
the people who have hollowed out the market in highly financialized cities like london or paris are non-doms: arabs, chinese, russians. the properties mostly sit empty as investments only or to wash dirty money.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +635|3715
The housing crisis in the U.S. isn't just a big city problem. If people are going to put on their economist hat and complain about financialization then we also need to look at the supply and demand side of things. I am obviously against scapegoating immigrants but in regards to housing and a lot of other stuff, mass migration isn't helping.
who is blaming immigrants?
wow, countries with growing populations probably need to increase their housing stock. thanks, wharton!
wow, countries with growing populations probably need to increase their housing stock. thanks, wharton!
The govt has to rent the lowest value housing to put migrants in, thus locking out locals and bumping up their rents, and making social housing less available to them.SuperJail Warden wrote:
What role does immigration have in housing inflation? I know it isn't their fault for the financialization of housing but it also can't help that migration within the E.U. is easy and also 15% of people in the U.S..are foreign born..
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
the migrants that are doing jobs in the local economy that the natives don’t want, you mean?
yes, maybe they should accept living in tents by a roadside whilst servicing the native’s economy. invisible, preferably, working the graveyard shifts.
maybe govts should take responsibility for growing populations and economies and, you know, regard housing as a social need and INCREASE it, rather than viewing it primarily as an investment bubble for the banks, and squatting on it?
working-class whites and working-class immigrants fighting one another over housing whilst the landlords sit and collect their rent payments, handsomely subsidised by taxpayer money, too. but OMG, b r o w n people!
yes, maybe they should accept living in tents by a roadside whilst servicing the native’s economy. invisible, preferably, working the graveyard shifts.
maybe govts should take responsibility for growing populations and economies and, you know, regard housing as a social need and INCREASE it, rather than viewing it primarily as an investment bubble for the banks, and squatting on it?
working-class whites and working-class immigrants fighting one another over housing whilst the landlords sit and collect their rent payments, handsomely subsidised by taxpayer money, too. but OMG, b r o w n people!
If we didn't let in below subsistence migrants there'd be more accommodation and the price of food would rise until it became worthwhile to work harvesting it.
Also people shouldn't get dole - that would fix many problems.
Also people shouldn't get dole - that would fix many problems.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
ah, yes, classic tabloid-level simple solution to everything.
stop giving the indolent poor their benefits, they only spend them on crisps and fags. that way, they'd go to work in the fields or as janitors and we wouldn't need to see brown people.
two birds with one stone!
also LOL i'm sure it's immigrant labour who are driving down the price of food and not, er, supermarkets.
stop giving the indolent poor their benefits, they only spend them on crisps and fags. that way, they'd go to work in the fields or as janitors and we wouldn't need to see brown people.
two birds with one stone!
also LOL i'm sure it's immigrant labour who are driving down the price of food and not, er, supermarkets.
Last edited by uziq (2021-01-13 01:30:13)
Supermarkets rape the farmers and reap the profits - if any swamp should drained its that one.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
immigrants fresh off the boat aren't dictating the price of food commodities.
food isn't cheap because immigrants 'undercut' farm labour. food is cheap because trillion-dollar supermarkets have immense economies of scale and near-monopsony. that's who is dictating to farmers their prices, not a bunch of brown wage-slaves who aren't even allowed to unionize. you fucking idiot.
and if australia's economy is anything like the UK's, the last thing 70% of working people need is for food prices to 'increase' just so that white people start looking at farm work as 'desirable' again. food banks are already depressingly common here after a decade of austerity.
food isn't cheap because immigrants 'undercut' farm labour. food is cheap because trillion-dollar supermarkets have immense economies of scale and near-monopsony. that's who is dictating to farmers their prices, not a bunch of brown wage-slaves who aren't even allowed to unionize. you fucking idiot.
and if australia's economy is anything like the UK's, the last thing 70% of working people need is for food prices to 'increase' just so that white people start looking at farm work as 'desirable' again. food banks are already depressingly common here after a decade of austerity.
Last edited by uziq (2021-01-13 01:44:10)
Yes, what we need is cheap food and higher taxes to support the people who don't want to do farm work thus keeping supermarkets costs down.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i think you might need to go and read a book.
discussion: there is no housing stock available for working-class people, they are trapped looking for low-level rental properties in a market of ever-increasing scarcity.
dilbert: we need to make food much more expensive.
discussion: there is no housing stock available for working-class people, they are trapped looking for low-level rental properties in a market of ever-increasing scarcity.
dilbert: we need to make food much more expensive.
Last edited by uziq (2021-01-13 01:46:09)
What we need is for people to have jobs and not be using the tax system to enrich plutocrats at the expense of the average citizen while flooding the country with migrants.
Its Economics 101
Its Economics 101
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!