- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Without a mortgage,most Americans can’t buy a home.Hahaha!
Whats the median home cost now?
Apparently its $420k.
https://www.fool.com/money/research/average-house-price-state/
And whats the median household income in the US?
About $75k.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1f6wy#0
So, without a mortgage, thats uh, you know, just be homeless, eat nothing, drive nothing, just work for 5.6 yrs and save it all, then you can buy a house without a mortgage!
Or ok, fine, put 20% of your money away each month… then you can buy a house in uh… 28 years!
Don’t worry black rock has the money to snap up all your uninsurable hovels and will gladly rent them back to you…
What’s the long term plan there?
Buy for cash, rent until the next natural disaster destroys the building and… then what?
Doesn’t the landbastard have to pay for the tenants to be in alternate accommodation until the original one is returned to a liveable state?
I can’t see how that’s profitable either…
They also have the money to lobby state governments to get rid of protections in the states where they have a large presence.
Besides then they can turn around and sell some of that land that’s not underwater yet back to the government for “temporary” refugee resettlement tent cities
They don’t think that far all they really care about is maximizing short term profits
What’s the long term plan there?
It’s Chicago School economics; there is no long-term plan.
I’d say the long term plan is a bailout.
Buy for cash, rent until the next natural disaster destroys the building and… then what?
If we’re talking about Blackrock/large REITs, the answer is “get bailed out by the government (despite it abandoning the little people to the wolves) because you’re
in the big club‘too big to fail.’”
this might be a dumb question, but aren’t landlords required to insure homes they rent out?
This will certainly depend on where you live but my impression is that generally you only need to have it when you have a mortgage specifically because the banks require it as a way to protect themselves. If you pay cash nobody cares.
“Last fall, the Senate Budget Committee demanded the country’s largest insurance companies provide the number of nonrenewals by county and year. The result is a map that tracks the climate crisis in a new way.”
…and then? That was a year ago.
Actually passing a law or spending money to change the situation would mean getting the House of Representatives on board, and Republicans have a majority there.
It’s all just performative outrage. Nothing will be done. There was never a plan for anything to be done, nor will there be.
Well, some of the locations involved have simply become uninsurable. What do you expect that the insurance companies do? Pay for a brand new home every other year, just because it was burned down or blown away in a storm again? No commercial insurance ever could afford this.
Just like US health insurance, where the private companies don’t take people with prior issues or handicaps. If you want them to be insured, you need a nationwide, mandatory insurance to spread the risk among many.
And even with a nationalized insurance coverage, some people might be forced to pay more than others, for unsuitable home locations with home insurances or unhealthy behavior (alcohol, tobacco, or drug use) with health insurance.
I have a lot more sympathy for the individual working class people who live in those places that have now lost their homes and livelihoods because capitalism and corporate oligarchy have dictated that profit is more important than the environment than I do for insurance companies.
That depends. A lot of those houses were built in places where no house should ever been built. Not for reasons of insurance, but also for environmental reasons, too. Not everything is the fault of greed. Some home owners are simply too stupid. You cannot force the costs of those people on the other insurance customers who did not build a wooden house in the middle of a forest known to burn down regularly.
While thats a gut reaction that many have but the issue is the "working class people " are the vast najoirty and are the enablers of these actions.
If you live in a democracy you are vicariously liable for the action of the people who represent you. Democracy is a lot of work and I posit that it is, needing many hours a week. This isnt an easily soluble problem as its taken many decades to get here. People are so unwilling to step outside the orthodoxy so politcans are as well. As Michel Barnier said abiit climate change , we know what to do, we just haven’t figured out how to be re-eleted if we do.
On this, I side with insurers as they literaly can’t insure then uninsurable under the current system but step outside of that, the insurance industry itself is a ponzi scheme, it’s one mega disaster away from complete bankruptcy, perhaps Geico aside.
Like everything else we do, we’ll tweak at the edges and never solve this. Solutions are untenable, for example you really need mass abandonment of places like Miami to “solve” it and that would take decades even if you undertook such a task seriously and we arent even at the level of discussing what needs doing let alone doing it.
We literally know Mimai etal will be unlivable in decades to come and yet… Its like having a tea party on a train track with no access to a train timetable, it can only end one way but exactly when is unknowable.
some of the locations involved have simply become uninsurable. What do you expect that the insurance companies do
In an ideal world, I’d like to see them use their power, influence and bankroll to push forward greater action to combat climate change.
Surely there is an “enlightnend self-interest” arguement to be made for them funding action that will reduce future claims payouts?
Similar to insurers funding fire prevention activities, improvements in building codes, additional safety features in road design, etc.
That does not help as long as idiots build wooden sheds as “houses” right on the middle of woods that are known to burn down every few years. Common sense is rather rare with some people, and you cannot expect other people to pay for it via their insurance.
i think the idea is to transfer all real estate to people who can afford to pay cash, so everyone else can rent from them
I’ve been working my way toward Minnesota for a while now, and this confirms my goal.
Lots of fresh water, waaaay lower housing/rental costs than (every?) other blue state, its a blue state so I qualify for SNAP and other kinds of assistance (I don’t in red states as they set their income thresholds waaay lower)…
Oh, and the place isn’t burning down/flooding.
I probably can’t afford Minneapolis/St. Paul, but Rochester looks decent.
I live in the Rochester area. It is nice. However, it is a city run by mayo, and it has its issues, but the Mayo Clinic won’t let them become headlines.
I noticed that quite quickly just from the city’s wiki page, that it’s dominated by the Mayo Clinic…
But I don’t know too much about MN other than very top down, broad metrics kinda stuff.
(Also I’m from Seattle originally and am entirely used to the local media being basically, if not literally, just on the payroll for Boeing, Starbucks, Amazon, MSFT…)
Are there any other comparably sized towns/cities, where one could rent a studio or one bed at or under $750?
So far the other option I’ve considered is Duluth, but it seems to have a far smaller rental market at $750 or below.
…
Also just in general, more comparative benefits I’ve noticed for living in Minnesota:
Rental property tax rebate.
Basically, you, as a renter, get a rebate each year based on a portion of an estimate of how much of your rent goes toward paying your landlord’s property taxes.
If my understanding is correct, this is actual cash given back to you, not just a tax credit. Though that may only work that way for someone like me, on SSDI… probably I should double check that.
Also, it seems like most of MN uses a 2.5x income to rent ratio requirement, as opposed to basically every blue state which uses a 3x ratio.
Shit like that makes a considerable difference when you’re on disability.
In Rochester proper, you’re going to have a hard time finding studios at those prices. The new apartments are (sometimes) well over $1000/month for a studio. Not that you cannot find cheaper, but they tend to be rented out and people aren’t in a hurry to move. Due to the mayo constantly bringing in the desperate(for medical care) and the care providers, there’s no shortage of renters so prices very rarely have a reason to drop.
If you go outside of Rochester, to a suburb or more rural city, you may have an easier time with that price, however, buildings tend to be older and along with it comes borderline rural living, which suits me perfectly, but certainly isn’t for everyone.
In general, Minnesota is an awesome place to live, especially the Rochester area, just don’t come here thinking you’re not going to have a lot of the same problems. Compared to a lot of places though, I’m really glad to be here.
Edit: to add, Duluth is one of my favorite cities, however, it’s basically the definition of a college town and drugs have impacted a lot of the locals quite a bit. It’s gorgeous up there, but, personally, it feels like the city’s best days are unfortunately behind it, with the decline of shipping through the Great Lakes, it just doesn’t have the money it used to and I would be shocked if it was able to get back to its full glory. 10/10 will vacation, maybe not live there full time. For me anyway.
