For us, it's because work required that we temporarily relocate. But we plan to move back in a couple years and we really like our house.
For others it usually has to do with the fact that selling a home costs 10% of the home's value after all fees are accounted for.
Then there is the other set of people who genuinely think the equity in a property is more lucrative than money in the stock market (depending on the market and timing, it could be, but it's ultimately a bet).
But I could ask the same question of every single person bemoaning the existence of landlords. If it's oh so easy to be a landlord, why don't they just become a landlord?
Oh yes, it costs me $7k a year for the pleasure of managing a property, responding to all the tenants needs, the risk of paying for major future repairs, trusting the tenant to pay on time and in full (collections is practically impossible to enforce), dealing with vacancies while I still pay the mortgage, paying real estate agent fees which amounts to a month's rent every time I get a new tenant. And that's all for a house that I am not able to live in, and that I have locked up 20% of the house's value for a down payment. It's much more profitable just to let that money sit in the stock market instead.
But please tell me more about how you know better and that's it's all sunshine and rainbows for a non-corporate landlord.
Surely you must ignorant of the economic realities and risk of owning a home and how renting can actually be more lucrative depending on your circumstances.
I agree, there are people who try to exploit the system, and those people deserve 100% of the hate. And I appreciate the nuance you bring to the discussion.
There are those that will villify small-time landlords for the gall to try to make an extra cent. Ultimately, small-time landlords provide a very valuable service, with extremely tight margins. Frankly, it is just barely worth it for us to keep that home. Because additional risks that go into it includes a tenant trashing the place, skipping out on rent, the property being vacant between renters, rental listing fees (which amounts to a month's rent typically), and so on.
In return a tenant is able to enjoy a home that would otherwise be unaffordable to them, zero risk, and the flexibility to move without being stuck in one location. If someone is only going to live somewhere for less than 3 years, it will always be better to rent than to buy, and take the money saved renting and invest that into the market. The renter is this case will always make more money in return. Some markets around the country would require someone to live in that home for over 10 years before they break even over the advantage of renting.
Everyone here loves to complain about landlords without realizing that the majority of single family home landlords (not corporate landlords) are barely making it by too.
Banks are really the ones making criminal amounts of money. 1/3 of rent is typically interest payments. 1/3 of rent then goes to taxes.
For instance, I make $2,900/mo. from rent, but pay $2,800/mo. for the mortgage. I've spent over $8k this year alone on repairs and maintenance. But please continue to complain how landlords are constantly raking in cash. It's typical for a homeowner to pay 1% of the cost of the property per year to maintain it. I will never see a positive cash flow until the mortgage is paid off in 25 years. The only benefit I get by continuing to own the property is the appreciation in equity and principle payments to the mortgage. At the end of the year we will have a -$7k cash flow and $5k equity appreciation. In a HCOL area, that $5k on paper is less than 3% of the area's median yearly salary.
I feel for anyone out there who has a landlord that didn't consider the hidden costs and the fact they should expect to runa negative cash flow, because it's those landlords that also can't afford to fix the house you might be renting.
It's literally an area chart. There's no way to "skew" it in this format. $800B of $6,300B in spending is always going to be 12.6% no matter how you slice it.
You are looking at two different tax systems. The effective US tax rate (the rate you actually pay is much much less). Our household makes $300k per year, and we have a $650k net worth. Our income taxes every year? Less than 7% of that, which is absurdly low. The ultra wealthy are taxed even less than that. The US is propped up by taxes from the middle-class because the more you makes, the easier it becomes to optimize and lower your effective tax rate. We need to tax the rich more.
The actual study claims that top 10% is $41k and accounts for 50% of carbon emissions. No where does it normalize incomes for those from Kenya as the article claims. So these incomes are viewed globally. If you are in the US and make more than $20/hr hours a week, you are top 10%.
$67/hr makes you top 1%.
Others are calling to eat the rich without realizing that the global rich includes low wage earners flipping burgers at McDonald's (I'm in Boston and minimum wage is $15/hr and an assistant manager can be hired for $22/hr).
I’m an AI researcher at one of the world’s top universities on the topic. While you are correct that no AI has demonstrated self-agency, it doesn’t mean that it won’t imitate such actions.
These days, when people think AI, they mostly are referring to Language Models as these are what most people will interact with. A language model is trained on a corpus of documents. In the event of Large Language Models like ChatGPT, they are trained on just about any written document in existence. This includes Hollywood scripts and short stories concerning sentient AI.
If put in the right starting conditions by a user, any language model will start to behave as if it were sentient, imitating the training data from its corpus. This could have serious consequences if not protected against.
This is done by combining a Diffusion model with ControlNet interface. As long as you have a decently modern Nvidia GPU and familiarity with Python and Pytorch it's relatively simple to create your own model.
I implemented this paper back in March. It's as simple as it is brilliant. By using methods originally intended to adapt large pre-trained language models to a specific application, the author's created a new model architecture that can better control the output of a diffusion model.
I am a satellite software engineer turned program manager. This is not unexpected in this current environment, however the conditions that created the environment are abnormal.
This solar cycle is much stronger than past cycles. I'm on mobile, so I can't get a good screenshot, but you can go here to see this cycle and the last cycle, as well as an overlay of a normal cycle https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
As solar flux increases, the atmosphere expands considerably, causing more drag than predicted. During periods of solar minimum, satellites can remain in a very low orbit with minimal station keeping. However, at normal levels of solar maximum, 5 year orbits can easily degrade to 1 year orbits. Forecasters says we are still a year away from solar maximum, and flux is already higher than last cycle's all time high (which was also an anomalously strong cycle). So it will get worse before it gets better.
TLDR: Satellites are falling out of the sky because the sun is angy
The aircraft hold their value, and actually appreciate. The actual cost is about $10k a year. Lots of people spend far more than that on other hobbies.
Over half of all pilots in the US (200k) hold a commercial pilot certificate and use flying as their sole source of income or as a way to supplement their income. Commercial pilots makes $50k a year until they can become airline pilots which have salaries starting at $100k.
Small aircraft have a carbon equivalent to large cars. My plane is from 1961 and has a fuel economy of 15mpg as the crow flies (arguably closer to 25mpg because of straight line measurements versus winding roads that can almost double the distance), seats 4 people comfortably, and flies at 160 mph.
For us, it's because work required that we temporarily relocate. But we plan to move back in a couple years and we really like our house.
For others it usually has to do with the fact that selling a home costs 10% of the home's value after all fees are accounted for.
Then there is the other set of people who genuinely think the equity in a property is more lucrative than money in the stock market (depending on the market and timing, it could be, but it's ultimately a bet).
But I could ask the same question of every single person bemoaning the existence of landlords. If it's oh so easy to be a landlord, why don't they just become a landlord?