[HN Gopher] What happens when investment firms acquire trailer p...
___________________________________________________________________
What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks
Author : fortran77
Score : 81 points
Date : 2021-03-09 20:33 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| phkahler wrote:
| Housing can not be both affordable AND an investment.
|
| Interest rates need to rise, and soon.
| dd36 wrote:
| It can. We just need to remove institutional investors. Limit
| it to small investors.
| FooHentai wrote:
| I'm not sure you're entirely correct. A lot of people plan on
| downsizing their housing when they reach retirement age - Move
| somewhere smaller because you don't need to accommodate the
| kids any more, and further out of an urban center because you
| don't need to commute any more.
|
| This is a net positive - It frees up more valuable real estate
| in urban centers for working-age citizens to utilize, and
| extracts capital from the property for retirement-age citizens
| to finance their retirement.
|
| In this way, housing has been a stable and reliable investment
| for many for some time, and in a way that's beneficial to
| society as a whole. Quite different to what we're seeing here,
| an evolving dynamic which also threatens this model and puts
| people's retirement prospects in peril.
| clairity wrote:
| that's a false dichotomy. you can support freeing up urban
| real estate and retirees downsizing without assuming a house
| is an investment. for instance, if the economic system acted
| to stabilize home values neutrally rather than explicitly
| promoting increasing valuations (through interest rates, and
| other mechanisms), you could still have those positive
| dynamics without the negative externalities.
| FooHentai wrote:
| You're right. Ops position was that housing should not be
| seen as any kind of investment. My point was that, for
| retirees, housing is a valid investment vehicle and that
| dynamic is valuable to society as a whole. But on
| reflection, I'm thinking in the wrong terms here. I could
| better view this as housing being an important _store of
| value_ for retirees, rather than an investment generating
| financial return for them.
| clairity wrote:
| exactly. i'm actually ok with a primary home being a
| modest investment (like 0-1%/year appreciation over
| inflation, but not 2+%), i'm unabashedly against naked
| wealth extraction via the corporatized investment
| mentality, leaving people homeless, or at the very least
| broadly overleveraged (a profoundly negative
| externality).
|
| there's also the oft-mentioned japanese view that homes
| are a depreciating asset, though land values remain quite
| high, so the asset class is still modestly investible,
| iirc.
| smabie wrote:
| Property and housing has _always_ been an investment. However,
| I do agree that the terrible yield on risk free assets have
| significantly inflated housing prices.
|
| I also agree that interest rates need to rise, but there
| unfortunately doesn't seem to be any political or monetary will
| for that to happen.
| mike_d wrote:
| Many countries have solved this problem by providing near zero
| interest loans to individuals purchasing a primary residence,
| while maintaining higher interest rates for investment
| properties and corporate purchases.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| That's how it works in the USA as well. Mortgage interest for
| a home you live in will be lower than for investment
| property. Insurance is cheaper also.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Ready Player One and the dystopian future of trailers that are
| packed on top of each other reaching up like sky scrapers.
| chad_strategic wrote:
| I didn't read the article because I already saw the movie by John
| Oliver.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCC8fPQOaxU
| kfarr wrote:
| I'm going to guess on the record before reading article: debt
| based financing of the sale, PE firm steadily increases rent and
| lowers investment into facilities, bankruptcy and evictions ensue
| mywittyname wrote:
| You should read the article, it's very well done.
|
| I mean, yeah, family-owned trailer parks have been "under-
| utilized" for decades, and you're pretty spot on in what is
| involved in properly "utilizing" them. However, there's a human
| side to it as well.
|
| Plus, there's a plot twist where _Republicans_ introduce bills
| in a state to enhance tenants ' rights.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| It's the standard PE playbook, and you're correct. In this
| case, they wait for the tenant to default on the ground rent,
| then seize the mobile home and resell/re-rent it. Repeat ad
| infinitum.
|
| The manufactured home itself depreciates in value like a car or
| RV, so even if you don't get fucked by your landlord, you get
| fucked on depreciation. At least in an apartment you don't pay
| for maintenance or depreciation!
| jjoonathan wrote:
| And remember, kids, this creates value, because the market
| weights value according to wealth.
| dayofthedaleks wrote:
| New Yorker paywall kicks in after a few views:
| https://archive.is/NJbuh
| mywittyname wrote:
| I spent my early years living in a trailer park, and to be
| honest, it wasn't bad at all (at least back then). We knew most
| of our neighbors and most people looked out for each other (like
| helping out people suffering from food insecurity). That place
| had some of the most generous people I'd ever met.
|
| I have pretty fond memories of living there.
|
| I got my first bike from a really, really nice single mom who
| noticed that I didn't have one. I mean, it was a crappy garage
| sale find that was rusted and had weird 1970s-stylee handle bars,
| but she got it specifically _for me_.
| celticninja wrote:
| Would you live there by choice?
| mywittyname wrote:
| The neighborhood? Yeah, probably. In a trailer? No, they
| aren't very well built.
|
| I actually live in a relatively low-income area now. I just
| like the general "realness" of working class people and don't
| much care if people look down at me when I tell them where I
| live.
| dtwest wrote:
| Having spent a decent amount of time in one of these myself, I
| much prefer the term "trailer park" to "mobile-home community".
| The article uses the term interchangeably, but they explain this
| important detail themselves:
|
| "The homes in the park are not as portable as its name implies;
| they've been placed on foundations, and their hitches have been
| removed."
|
| In my experience, in older parks especially, there is no way to
| economically move the trailer. Which means you don't really own a
| "mobile home", you own a slot in the park with a worthless
| trailer on it. This allows the park to have the negotiating
| power. I just wanted to point out this key detail to people who
| may not be aware of the situation.
| [deleted]
| mc32 wrote:
| What people tell me is that it stops being mobile after you
| "park" it. So basically mobile from the dealer lot to the park
| and not so much after that.
| evancox100 wrote:
| Fascinating. In searching on the difference between an RV and a
| mobile home, I came across this gem from Frank Rolfe, who's
| profiled in the New Yorker article:
|
| "If it has to be pulled by an actual truck (which is what costs
| the $3,000 or so in the move) then it's a mobile home. But also
| remember that there is a component that can only be pulled by a
| truck in most RV parks, which is called the "park model". These
| are like mobile homes, but do not have wheels or axles on them
| - they arrive on a flatbed truck - and also cost $2,000 or so
| to move. Since we don't want our customers to ever leave, we
| only consider the type of mobile home or park model that
| requires expensive transport to be worthy of our investment
| dollars. RVs can be moved for next to nothing, so there's no
| barrier and that's too risky for us."
|
| http://forum.mobilehomeuniversity.com/t/official-difference-...
|
| And a long article on Rolfe from the NYT in 2014:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/the-cold-hard-le...
| pram wrote:
| The term I always heard is "manufactured home" which makes more
| sense. I grew up in a double wide. Once it's set up you quite
| obviously can't move it again without wrecking everything lol
| milkytron wrote:
| I've heard that term as well, and I suppose it's useful to
| have a different term for that type of home vs one that is
| built on its foundation from the start.
|
| But the term manufactured home seems odd to me, aren't nearly
| all new homes nowadays "manufactured"?
| bityard wrote:
| "Manufactured" means built in a factory and can be
| transported on a semi. As opposed to most buildings (in the
| U.S. at least) which are built on-site by a contractor.
| akvadrako wrote:
| It seems a bit confusing compared to prefab homes though,
| which are mostly made in a factory and assembled on site.
| diggernet wrote:
| Yes, it is confusing. My brother in law works in that
| industry, and explained the differences to me this way:
|
| Mobile home: Factory built before a certain date in the
| 1970's (which I've forgotten), with no particular quality
| standards in place.
|
| Manufactured home: The new name for mobile homes,
| indicating that they have been factory built to clearly
| defined standards. Considered depreciating personal
| property by insurance companies and lenders.
|
| Modular home: Also factory built, but to the same
| standards as homes built on-site. (These are the prefabs
| you mention.) Considered real estate, the same as site-
| built homes, by insurance companies and lenders.
| ctdonath wrote:
| Table Mound Mobile Home Park
| https://goo.gl/maps/8h7fxu7WjWsYzTSj9
|
| The Park is about 90 acres. Article claims about 400 homes on
| site. Much laments the living conditions and abusive corporate
| ownership.
|
| Why do the concerned not facilitate affordable ownership, instead
| leaving it up to investment firms to provide the service (badly)?
|
| Under 2 miles away is a >150 acre parcel available for
| $6,000,000. Divided by 600, that's $10,000 per quarter-acre; paid
| $100/mo, rent-to-own style, it's bought outright in 10 years (or
| earlier as cash flow allows).
|
| Seems a very solvable problem for a budding social-minded
| entrepreneur.
| peter_d_sherman wrote:
| >"The Mobile Home University Web site states,
|
| " _Mobile home parks are the hottest sector of real estate right
| now, due to the endless decline in the U.S. economy_."
|
| The site points out that thousands of baby boomers are retiring
| each day, and that they will receive around fourteen thousand
| dollars a year in Social Security income:
|
| " _Mobile home parks are the only segment of real estate that
| grows stronger as the economy weakens_." "
|
| PDS: A potential (or actual):
|
| _inverse-correlation_...
|
| How interesting!
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| "In the past decade, as income inequality has risen,
| sophisticated investors have turned to mobile-home parks as a
| growing market. They see the parks as reliable sources of passive
| income--assets that generate steady returns and require little
| effort to maintain."
|
| Man, this is just... gross. I realize mortgage bond trading has
| been a ~$100 trillion dollar windfall since the mighty 80's under
| Volker (and Liars Poker), but the "little effort to maintain"
| just cries foul.
| senkora wrote:
| For those who like John Oliver's presentation style, he has also
| covered this topic in video form: https://youtu.be/jCC8fPQOaxU
| dhbradshaw wrote:
| After a cold snap recently I went out to visit an older couple in
| a trailer who had had their plumbing burst due to freezing.
|
| The trailer was in really rough shape. They were huddling under
| blankets because heating and insulation were inadequate. And now
| they had no water.
|
| Two things make me angry about the trailer park situation.
|
| 1. people living there who only get poorer from it. They own the
| portion of the home that decreases in value and rent the part
| that appreciates. If you're rich, sure. You can afford to own a
| depreciating asset and forgo the appreciation. But they're poor.
|
| 2. By having the lot renter own the trailer, they avoid many of
| the laws that protect renters with basic livability requirements.
| And yet those people are still paying rent alongside having to
| pay maintenance costs for their homes.
|
| In the end at least in my area of the country it's much less
| expensive to buy a modest home.
| bityard wrote:
| Where I live, there are many levels of quality when it comes to
| "trailer parks". I know of a few that are essentially slums:
| very low-income residents, crowded, dirty, noisy, and packed
| with trailers from the 50s and 60s. I don't know who would
| _choose_ to live in these places. Maybe it's a case of poor
| people being poor because they make poor choices. Or simply
| aren't aware that there are better options.
|
| On the other end of the spectrum, there are communities with
| HOA rules, well-kept common areas, a clubhouse, etc. My mom
| lives in one of these. Honestly, it's not a bad place to live.
| I could totally live there if needed to. I tried to talk her
| out of buying it based on the economics alone ($400/mo lot rent
| plus around $60k for the house) but she went ahead with it
| anyway. It doesn't make financial sense to me, but maybe she
| sees something about the situation that I don't.
| dfsegoat wrote:
| And then when you have a natural disaster strike, you aren't
| necessarily guaranteed access to your home, even after disaster
| declarations are lifted:
|
| https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/fire-survivors-fr...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| 8fGTBjZxBcHq wrote:
| I'm not done and it's a pretty grim read but I definitely got a
| smile from this about halfway through.
|
| 'A video of the speech went viral, prompting an Australian
| writer, Chloe Angyal, to publish a piece for the Web site
| Feministing titled "Marry Me, Zach Wahls." In 2013, Angyal and
| Wahls met in New York; they are now engaged.'
| black_puppydog wrote:
| > The financial industry[...] is undermining one of the country's
| largest sources of affordable housing.
|
| 1. Yeah, I made an opinionated omission there. Sue me :D
|
| 2. That last part (the country's largest sources of affordable
| housing) is even more damning than the rest. :( In a country that
| big, and that rich, with a frontier ethos like that, how the f*k
| does anyone think this is acceptable?
| FooHentai wrote:
| Acceptable that trailer parks are the country's most affordable
| housing, or that it's being allowed to be squeezed for profit?
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Fair question IMO.
|
| Of course trailer parks are (hopefully) always among the most
| affordable housing options.
|
| However, living in one should be a choice of the individual,
| and the fact that there is a notable population in these
| places tells me that these are not exactly free choices a la
| "I shall live frugally" but rather a systemic problem.
|
| So: "acceptable that trailer parks are more than a mere
| curiosity of vanishing proportion in the story of housing in
| the US in 2021."
| CalRobert wrote:
| Building a basic house is pretty simple. Larry Haun put out a
| great book with Habitat for Humanity to do it for about
| $40,000, and irishvernacular.com/ outlines how to do it for
| EUR25,000. But we induce scarcity in the housing market because
| if everyone had a comfortable, decent home, they might not work
| so hard, would they? Imagine how much less value would be
| created for assetholders, how much less stuff we would make, if
| families felt free to survive on one income.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > Building a basic house is pretty simple. Larry Haun put out
| a great book with Habitat for Humanity to do it for about
| $40,000
|
| Sure, if you have free labor. I'd guess 99%+ of houses were
| built by a paid crew, so uh, it does _not_ cost just 40k for
| a house. It costs $200 /sq ft to build a house (in a midsize
| metro area of 3 million), without buying land.
| dylan604 wrote:
| There are certain aspects of building a house that I would
| have no problem doing myself. Besides the steps that would
| require more than 2 hands, there are also other tasks that
| I would rather have someone else do. Proper grading of the
| area the house is to be situated would be one. Digging the
| trenchs for the foundation or drilling the holes for the
| pier & beam posts would be another. After that, I have
| performed all of the other steps in various stages.
| fiftyfifty wrote:
| Well there's the cost of the land the house is sitting on, in
| many places with a high cost of living the land is the scarce
| part.
| Afton wrote:
| Is this really how you view it? Like, you think that people
| are plotting how to induce scarcity in the market so that
| they will work harder?
|
| That doesn't seem like a useful framing of the problem.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| > Like, you think that people are plotting how to induce
| scarcity in the market so that they will work harder?
|
| Yes. Believe it or not, there are lot of people (especially
| people in positions of authority/power) that believe this
| type of scarcity drives labor, ambition, society, etc..
| forward. I mean just look at the current discussion about
| minimum wage and/or stimulus checks.
|
| But with real estate, I kind of agree with you, It can be a
| little far fetched to extend that mentality to housing
| scarcity. Housing scarcity is just because current owners
| want to have the value kept in real estate increasing. Hard
| to do when there's no scarcity. Only wannabe owners
| complain about housing prices.
| hinkley wrote:
| Of I don't look down while I'm walking, am I guiltless for
| what I step on?
| CalRobert wrote:
| I think it's a a convenient accident more than an
| intentional outcome, but one that established homeowners
| and assetholders benefit from so it's encouraged.
|
| If nothing else, can you actually imagine a politician
| celebrating houses going down in price? Picture yourself
| walking up to a podium and announcing that the average 3
| bed 2 bath in San Jose is now only $200,000, and what a
| fantastic achievement this is and how it will help people
| who have struggled to afford a home. What reaction do you
| get?
|
| Homeowners would be crying for blood because, whether they
| care to admit it or not, when it comes time to sell they
| want 2+ other people working their asses off and saving
| every penny they can to just _barely_ be able to put in a
| bid.
|
| I _am_ a homeowner, albeit of a cheap house, but I'd love
| to see prices fall because I wouldn't mind a second one. A
| spot on a couple acres near Portland might be nice, and
| some of them don't look too bad...
| blackrock wrote:
| The fox is guarding the henhouse.
|
| The politicians themselves are benefitting from the situation.
| So why would they change it?
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Who exactly is benefiting? I'd love to have this card in my
| back pocket for debates. Are there specific politicians we
| can draw-and-quarter over this? Or was your statement just a
| generic "all politicians bad" rant with no real citations?
| uihududhmd wrote:
| US Political donation data
| https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F10
|
| Article from the guardian about US Senators investments
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/19/us-
| senators-...
|
| Investment portfolios of some Indian politicians. I'm not
| familiar with the politics of India.
| https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/plan/what-do-
| pol...
|
| In general, wealthy of all stripes are invested in real
| estate to some degree. "Land - they're not making any more
| of it"
| stormqloud wrote:
| Who knew "own nothing and be happy" involved crushing rental fees
| to wall street.
| zionic wrote:
| They said _you_ will own nothing, not them.
|
| They also said "and _you_ will be happy ", which was an order.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| At some point revolution will probably become inevitable.
| alacombe wrote:
| Don't worry, the same rulers with ensure the People remains
| unarmed.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| Predition: Nothing good.
|
| Resident-Owned Communities seem by far to be the best answer
| here, and I encourage folks to read up on it and see what you can
| do to help if you're so inclined: https://rocusa.org/ is one such
| nonprofit, but there are several.
| CivBase wrote:
| I recently bought my first home in Iowa. I was only a couple
| years into my career and wanted to start with something small
| which would allow me to build up equity so I could eventually
| trade up for something I'd want to keep long term.
|
| At first, I considered a few mobile homes, but I soon learned to
| ignore them. The houses themselves were cheap, but the
| association fees were outrageous. I ended up getting a town home
| instead, which was valued much higher but the monthly payments
| ended up being comparable thanks to the _much_ lower association
| fees. I have more property rights, more of that money goes into
| equity, I get a much bigger and nicer home, and I don 't have to
| worry as much about tornadoes, derechos, and other nasty Iowan
| weather so much.
|
| With the prevalence of town homes and cheap housing here, I don't
| know how trailer parks keep their residents.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| How can individuals compete against institutional money?
|
| Housing prices are skyrocketing in my area and there are stories
| on the news about investment firms buying up homes and putting
| them up for rent. What's to stop these well financed institutions
| from buying up more and more real estate and forcing more people
| into renting?
| CalRobert wrote:
| The removal of rules making it impossible to create more
| housing would be a start.
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| Localities can fight back by reforming zoning laws & applying
| land value taxes instead of property taxes.
|
| In many areas of the country it is illegal to build anything
| but a single-family home. To people familiar with supply &
| demand this should be an obvious problem.
| mike_d wrote:
| In almost every part of the US anything except a single
| family home should be illegal to build.
|
| Land is in extreme abundance and multi-tenant properties are
| almost always built and owned by corporations.
| goda90 wrote:
| Third alternative. Multi-family homes owned by co-ops of
| all the residents.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| They can't.
|
| Nothing and they are already are doing it.
|
| Blackrock raised billions during COVID on the idea that once
| the evictions kick off, lots of homeowners will lose their
| homes and those tenants with black marks will have to pay more
| and more to rent.
|
| Every person abusing the COVID moratorium just to screw over
| the "landlord" who owns one property is just one more nail in
| the US clusterfuck coffin.
|
| Edit: it's Blackstone.
| evancox100 wrote:
| You must be talking about Black _stone_ , the private
| equity/LBO group, not BlackRock, the ETF provider. I don't
| think there is a Mobile Home Index ETF, not yet at least.
|
| I think there is a lot of hate directed to BlackRock, which
| is really meant to be directed at Blackstone. BlackRock is an
| absolutely huge financial company, to be sure, but is soley
| in the business of ETFs and asset management, which aren't
| exactly abusive or extractive.
|
| And no it doesn't help that the names are so ridiculously
| similar.
|
| Edit: just learned that BlackRock started as an asset
| management arm within Blackstone, and the similarity was
| intentional. I think the operations have diverged enough
| since then that there's a worthwhile distinction between the
| two.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| You're right, it is Blackstone.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Not just in the US.
|
| Here in Norway, businesses are entitled to financial aid if
| their income has been affected by COVID.
|
| Meanwhile, the real-estate market is white hot at he moment,
| while the rental market is slow/stagnating. People with money
| want to purchase, while poor people can't afford to rent.
|
| Turns out, rental companies and investors have speculated
| that if they just keep their rental units vacant, instead of
| lowering rent and attracting new tenants, they can apply for
| financial aid. win/win for them - they can sit on
| appreciating assets, without having to deal with wear/tear,
| administration, etc. on their units. All while getting bailed
| out by the gov.
|
| And once small landlords/owners can't cover their costs due
| to broke tenants going for months/years without being able to
| pay their rent, no doubt there are investors and REPE firms
| lined up to buy those units.
|
| Just another transformation of wealth.
| Shacklz wrote:
| The US are such a weird country... on one hand, Silicon valley et
| al, producing the coolest tech & the shiniest toys, and on the
| other hand... people who can only afford to live in trailer
| parks, even with a full time job.
|
| It never ceases to amaze & depress me simultaneously.
| markbnj wrote:
| For what it's worth my in-laws specifically chose to buy a
| second home in a mobile home park. I don't know all their
| reasons but the low cost of the land was part of it. I've seen
| their "trailer" and it's quite nice, so I wouldn't necessarily
| assume everyone who lives in one of these places does so out of
| desperation or lack of choices. People have different needs and
| wants.
| starpilot wrote:
| A lot of the California ones are pretty decent. I dated a
| girl who lived in one. I also stayed in an _Airbnb_ that was
| in one. The owner, who lived there, was a woman with a
| Stanford degree. They 're cheap and reasonable places to live
| with a lot of stigma. The ones I saw around me growing up in
| Virginia were... shitty.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization. Any
| jobs that could be exported overseas for cheaper were, and
| management was rewarded for saving investors so much money by
| outsourcing those jobs. If we had a stronger collective
| identity (as with many European countries) we might've felt a
| kinship or patriotic duty to protect those jobs or otherwise
| redistribute the wealth garnered by outsourcing. And I'm not
| optimistic that this will get better given how much Americans
| are being primed to reject any collective national or even
| human identity and instead identify with their race and party.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| > I suspect we gutted our middle class with globalization.
|
| It's not about middle class. In other rich countries,
| everyone, incl. the lower class, can afford to live in
| apartments, and doesn't have to resort to living in trailers.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Globalization and other factors didn't help, but the
| continued refusal to pay people a reasonable wage for full or
| part time work is a huge part of why the middle class is
| struggling and the class below is failing to move up into the
| middle class over time. The minimum wage hasn't budged in
| decades, and in general wages have not remotely kept up with
| increases in productivity and revenues. If the minimum wage
| had been going up middle class wages would have had to
| increase to stay ahead and likely everyone would be doing a
| lot better. There's a lot of paranoia about possible negative
| impacts of wage increases, but it's been tested in many
| municipalities at this point with no major issues, and
| virtually every other western country has a much higher
| minimum than us.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > The minimum wage hasn't budged in decades
|
| That doesn't appear to be true:
| https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-
| wage/history/chart. Additionally many states have their own
| higher minimum wages.
|
| > in general wages have not remotely kept up with increases
| in productivity and revenues.
|
| Isn't this _because of_ globalization?
|
| > There's a lot of paranoia about possible negative impacts
| of wage increases, but it's been tested in many
| municipalities at this point with no major issues, and
| virtually every other western country has a much higher
| minimum than us.
|
| I don't think this is true? I'm pretty sure when we raise
| wages, jobs move overseas except for those jobs that are
| fundamentally local (fast-food employees, agricultural
| workers, construction, sanitation, etc). I'm not opposed to
| raising wages, but I think we also need to keep jobs from
| flowing overseas.
| pm90 wrote:
| Where to start? Lol.
|
| The US is a vast country with a vast population and its economy
| has been geared towards high end services. Those with the
| relevant education are able to thrive while those without
| education or wealth get cast aside. Urban centers thrive in
| this economy while rural ones fade away and decay; most people
| don't want/ can't move to where the opportunities are.
|
| There's also a multitude of socio political issues. From the
| relative independence of States to set social benefits
| policies, to the phenomenon of convincing people to vote
| against their own interests when race or culture war is
| involved.
| keiferski wrote:
| The oddest part about it is how much of a mess the Bay Area is.
| Typically you'd expect centers of wealth to be excessively
| clean, filled with expensive architecture and monuments, etc.
| to the point of being boring. Dubai, for instance.
|
| Somehow SV just decided to not bother with that at all.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| This may literally be the first time in history someone
| recommended San Francisco be more like Dubai.
|
| Genuine question - when you're in the bay, do you spend time
| in any of the following: Pac Heights / Presidio Heights /
| Seacliff / Woodside / St. Helena / West Palo Alto /
| Stanford's Campus / Saratoga?
|
| I think the reason you have the perception that you do is
| that the bay area is one of the least tourist-friendly
| locations in the world, frankly because the class you talk
| about loathes outsiders.
|
| EDIT: A great microcosm of this is Sand Hill Road. Looks like
| less than nothing from the street, but it's home to some of
| the most expensive and nicest office real estate in the
| world. Apple HW stands out as another great example.
| m463 wrote:
| I have a theory about that. I think it's weather.
|
| California has such a mild climate, that you can build a
| house out of ticky-tacky, skip the insulation, and people
| won't care because they have a lemon tree growing in their
| yard.
|
| Nowadays code won't allow you to skip insulation (or solar),
| but with earthquakes and high land prices you still aren't
| getting stone or brick homes.
| fossuser wrote:
| Prop13, NIMBYs, local political control and anti-housing
| politics.
|
| With RHNA (and state law attempts like SB50) this may be
| starting to change, but the people responsible for the
| economic success are not the ones with the political power to
| fix housing policy.
|
| Most of these issues stem from bad housing policy and
| incumbents restraining supply.
| smabie wrote:
| I visited my friend a couple years ago who lived in a shipping
| container in a trailer park. tbqh it was super nice and
| everyone was super friendly. Seemed like a really solid place
| to live. My friend loved it to: he made a good salary as a
| software engineer but just really loved the trailer park vibe.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > people who can only afford to live in trailer parks, even
| with a full time job.
|
| Given that the rent in many trailer parks comparable with an
| NYC apartment, it stands to reason that most people are there
| by choice.
| exolymph wrote:
| The United States is the land of high variance. We let people
| crash and burn, but we also let people soar. A society that
| permits the former is unremarkable -- letting people suffer is
| the default in poverty, and most countries are relatively quite
| poor. But the latter, letting the tall poppies stand proud with
| not much more than heckling for their height, is something
| special, and it's a big part of how we've become such an
| outlier nation in terms of success.
| Tarsul wrote:
| maybe a and b are connected? You can't have the ultra rich or
| at least such a discrepancy between the top 10% and the
| bottom xx% without built-in systemic inequality. Nonetheless,
| it wouldn't hurt the US at all if the poorest had more
| support.
| ctdonath wrote:
| The poorest have tremendous support. US poverty line is at
| 80th percentile of world incomes, and welfare options
| ensure nobody has to live under that line. The ultra rich
| do a great deal (and got there) by making much affordable
| for lower incomes (Walmart, Amazon for high profile
| examples).
|
| For that matter, world abject poverty has been largely
| eradicated. Increasing customer productivity (both
| individual and aggregate) increases customer buying power -
| favorable to capitalism.
| 1996 wrote:
| So true. This is why the US is so much better than Asia.
|
| What worries me however is how there are more and more laws
| and regulation to not let people crash and burn - like
| forcing people to have health insurance. Stupid code for
| building houses - etc
|
| EDIT: and I'm not being sarcastic. I admire how by taking the
| correct decision to apparently sacrifice the poor, we have
| made the pie bigger for everyone including the poor
| (unfortunately, as noted by a comment below about Des Moines,
| building code is quickly changing that)
| lucasmullens wrote:
| Wait, what? You're against building codes? A lack of
| building codes is in no way why the US has been successful.
| They prevent people from literally burning.
| lowercase1 wrote:
| GP frames it wrong but building codes make make
| affordable housing very hard to create in ways unrelated
| to safety.
|
| >most homes built in Des Moines will be required to have
| a full basement, a single-car garage, and a driveway.
| Minimum lot sizes for single-family houses will range
| from 7,500 to 10,000 square feet. Building codes meant to
| guarantee residents' safety will now decree their comfort
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-02/with-
| zoni...
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| /s? Not sure if /s
| omegaworks wrote:
| This is blatant capitalist propaganda. Basic access to things
| like housing and education make for a tangibly wealthier
| society. Every dollar we invest in preschool education, for
| example, nets out $6 in terms of return throughout the course
| of the child's life.[1]
|
| The nation continues on its "high variance" trajectory
| because it is structurally incapable of acting
| democratically. Two of the four major deliberative bodies are
| anti-democratic. The Senate is elected in extreme
| disproportion and the Supreme Court is ridiculous 9 unelected
| seniors deciding outcomes for an entire country.
|
| It was set up this way intentionally, to entrench and
| structurally favor wealthy Southern slaveholders and
| established Northern merchants that traded on their
| commodities.
|
| 1. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/12/12/504867570/how-
| inv...
| exolymph wrote:
| > This is blatant capitalist propaganda.
|
| Oh indeed, and you're salty about it because you know that
| you're losing because you simply cannot deliver equivalent
| results.
|
| dang, if you're reading this, I'll take my smack on the
| nose with a rolled-up newspaper now.
| omegaworks wrote:
| Delivering results for whom exactly? Look outside and
| you'll see homelessness rising and storefronts closing.
|
| The entire failed national pandemic response is due to
| the perverse incentives of our system.
|
| Five hundred thousand Americans (and counting) are dead
| because we couldn't close the economy for a couple months
| and pay people to stay home.
| dghughes wrote:
| I'm in Canada not in the US but I know of a medical doctor that
| lives in a trailer park near me. It's not a dump but it is a
| trailer park.
| starpilot wrote:
| I read that the world needs both types of economies. The US is
| a dynamic, freewheeling sort with the most extremes. You can
| get incredibly rich, but the bottom has no floor. It's easy to
| amass capital and to pay workers. Or have western Europe, which
| is a relatively painful climate for businesses. Taxation for
| extensive social services is stifling, but at least most of the
| middle people are OK.
| nicolas_t wrote:
| With the problem of western Europe having massive braindrain.
| A doctor in France who decides to work in China will easily
| quadruple his salary. likewise in pretty much any country. An
| engineer in France, working in the US will also triple his
| salary.
|
| Of course, there's less safety nets, less benefits but for
| educated people who are part of the upper middle class
| (doctors, teachers, engineers, etc...), the increase in
| salary is such that it really makes no sense from an economic
| standpoint to stay in France.
|
| I'd say it's better only for working class to lower middle
| class.
| hardtke wrote:
| And when you combine Silicon Valley and a mobile home park you
| have a $40M property. With 117 units, that's $342000 per unit +
| a the cost of renovations.
| https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/05/18/404m-deal-sav...
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| It's the same reason those same Silicon Valley companies hire
| security guard companies at $15/hr and have the security guards
| take the food to the dumpster, and lock it.
|
| That security guy probably could use that food more than the
| dumpster.
| dylan604 wrote:
| At $15/hour, that security guard is probably close to double
| the income people living in trailer parks earn.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Adjusted for cost of living, that security guard is poorer
| than the person living in a trailer park or very close to
| it.
|
| There's been a large rise in people living in campers in
| California due to high rents.
| dylan604 wrote:
| As we all know, how things are in CA does not evenly
| apply to the other 49.
| DaedPsyker wrote:
| But the security guard lives in SF, which increases his
| living costs.
| amelius wrote:
| Does anything good ever happen when investment firms acquire
| anything?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-09 23:01 UTC)