nickles (u/nickles) - Readit News

nickles commented on How French was medieval England? historytoday.com/archive/... · Posted by u/drdee

canjobear · 2 years ago

The main difference is really that English writes compounds with a space in between whereas German doesn't. There's no way to express compounds like "pedestrian crossing" or "windshield wiper" with a space in German. When a compound gets frequent enough in English people will stop writing the space (like "windshield") whereas in German the space was never there to begin with.

nickles · 2 years ago

I would typically use “crosswalk” in preference to “pedestrian crossing”. The two terms are slightly different, but functionally equivalent. Is there something similar in German?

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

Baloo · 4 years ago

>The housing in UK is in crisis because there have not been enough homes built. >So is it a problem that they aren't building more or not? If we agree that more housing needs to be built, then the proper incentives must be in place. And a proper incentive may actually be as simple as eliminating a disincentive (e.g. 4 years of environmental review prior to the project's approval).

And this is a part of why it should be administered by governments and not just let loose to market forces. Homes can't just be built wherever, whenever. It should be meticulously planned and integrated with various public services. There's no real financial incentive to build 100,000 houses in the middle of nowhere, it needs to have schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc. A property developer would rather squash a bunch of apartments or buy some old stock, refit everything and charge a premium.

>It's great until it isn't. Interest rates are rising, and mortgages in the UK are much shorter term than in the US.

They actually suggested recently to offer multi-generational mortgages... That's how crazy the market is getting.

>These are risks that the landlord assumes for me.

Those are risks your landlord should have insurance for. In a world where property isn't such a commodity, those risks don't really have the same meaning or value.

We've largely left house building to the 'market forces' and it is failing us, that is the reality. What happened to the second largest construction firm in the UK? "The largest ever trading liquidation in the UK – which began in January 2018" - Carillion collapsed with £7 billion in liabilities.

"One of the UK's biggest landlords, owns over 1,000 properties, tried to ban 'coloured' people from renting because of the curry smell" - What happens to people that are 'undesirable' to landlords, they need a home too or should they simply be destitute or constantly bounced around the lowest standard of housing stock available?

Rent caps are probably not effective or radical enough to actually solve this crisis. I think if we really want to do something, it's going to hurt a lot of peoples 'net worth'.

nickles · 4 years ago

> And this is a part of why it should be administered by governments and not just let loose to market forces... There's no real financial incentive to build 100,000 houses in the middle of nowhere

That's exactly what the Chinese government did, only at a larger scale. It hasn't worked out well.

> They actually suggested recently to offer multi-generational mortgages... That's how crazy the market is getting.

I saw that, it's absolutely wild.

> Those are risks your landlord should have insurance for. In a world where property isn't such a commodity, those risks don't really have the same meaning or value.

There are risks that can't be insured against. Suppose my employer relocates to another region, and I have the choice of following or finding a new job. If I own a house, I now have to sell it (incurring a 3-6% transaction cost and lots of headache). I can only sell it if there's a willing buyer, and there's no guarantee there will be any.

My rent is covering the building's mortgage, taxes, and maintenance, which I would be paying if I owned the property. It may be marginally higher than the cost of ownership, but I have a strong preference for flexibility. That flexibility is worth the liquidity premium to me.

> What happens to people that are 'undesirable' to landlords

In the US, there’s legislation that prohibits discrimination across a variety of protected classes (race, religion, sex, etc.) Does the UK have similar legislation? Putting aside ethics for a moment — discrimination is inefficient. It’s in everyone’s best interest to eliminate such behavior, whether through market forces or legislation.

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

ehnto · 4 years ago

Sorry, of course that's correct. I was trying to articulate that the supply and demand, as a whole, is not currently a marketplace for people with housing to sell to those who want to be housed (in many places). It's a marketplace dominated by investors and landlords, and people who want to be housed are having to stretch their funds as far as they possibly can to keep up with the market currently being made by investors and landlords.

nickles · 4 years ago

> people who want to be housed are having to stretch their funds as far as they possibly can to keep up with the market currently being made by investors and landlords.

I'm sympathetic to the difficulties people are facing right now, and I've seen the stories about housing being purchased by investors. The issue is that the data doesn't seem to indicate a structural change in ownership [0]. Home ownership appears to have peaked at 69.4% in 2004 and now sits at 65.4%, the same level as in 1980.

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RSAHORUSQ156S

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

ponow · 4 years ago

It's obvious that in the absence of state funding there would be non-state funding. It won't be the same and it won't be zero. Why does the committee's judgement take precedent?

Also, some poorer people would pay to fund research in the absence of gov't funding. They actually already do, for disease research.

You can use utilitarian arguments to force people to do things that they otherwise would refuse. Isn't that a kissing cousin to indentured servitude?

Also, do you knot think I understand the riskiness of research? As if I haven't endured a few decades of poverty as a result?

nickles · 4 years ago

> It's obvious that in the absence of state funding there would be non-state funding. It won't be the same and it won't be zero.

From an economic perspective, it's likely the level of funding would be less than the optimal level of funding. If the goal is to maximize public welfare, government funding is necessary.

> Why does the committee's judgement take precedent?

Ultimately someone needs to make decisions on resource allocation. Is a committee necessarily the best way? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not qualified to tell NIH how to operate.

> You can use utilitarian arguments to force people to do things that they otherwise would refuse

Agreed entirely, it's a very difficult issue to grapple with.

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

giraffe_lady · 4 years ago

If we're going to dismiss every quality and strategy of a country because of its moral crimes then everything about the US is worthless through the same path.

I don't think this is a useful way to approach any of these problems, and I'm sure neither do you, so why try to score cheap points this way.

nickles · 4 years ago

> If we're going to dismiss every quality and strategy of a country because of its moral crimes

My primary intention wasn't to refer directly to the morality of the USSR. Economically speaking, the USSR was a disaster, so I'm skeptical that we should implement the policies that quite literally destroyed a nation.

But yes, the USSR was a murderous state led by men who were happy to kill tens of millions of people for personal gain. I find that morally reprehensible.

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

ponow · 4 years ago

As someone who once did basic research, I don't buy the government-funded basic research argument anymore. If we had negligible taxes, the hyper-rich would fund some basic research, and there would be some private research as well. It would not go away completely. People can cooperate without government. Why would anyone fund a church tithe voluntarily, since the market wouldn't predict such a thing? Yet people freely pay.

More importantly, try arguing that it is morally correct that a hard-working laborer ought to fund a Webb telescope by non-optional taxes, when he sees no direct value in it. Why even 1 penny? Because his betters in a grant agency know better what to do with the fruits of his labor than he does?

It was disgusting to witness Biden take a victory lap for the Webb telescope. It wasn't his money nor engineering and scientific effort, that's for certain.

Please, no utilitarian defenses of funding basic research by taxes. We need a moral defense. I don't see it at all. You can only defend it if you think people are too stupid to know their own interests.

nickles · 4 years ago

> More importantly, try arguing that it is morally correct that a hard-working laborer ought to fund a Webb telescope by non-optional taxes, when he sees no direct value in it. Why even 1 penny? Because his betters in a grant agency know better what to do with the fruits of his labor than he does?

There is an optimal level of spending on basic research for society, and it's not 0. Was it a bad idea to launch unproven satellites into space in the 1970s? Your laborer didn't see the immediate benefit, but now that worker has GPS, which almost certainly improved the worker's life. In fact, the technologies enabled by GPS were unimaginable at the onset of the project. Should the project have been scrapped entirely?

It's impossible to say whether research will produce valuable results a priori. But it's not true that your laborer doesn't see benefit. The price we pay to live in organized society is taxation. Should that same laborer argue that he shouldn't pay taxes for highways built 400 miles away? Is it possible that this laborer may not know what's best 100% of the time?

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

Ryder123 · 4 years ago

Those $500 homes are not inhabitable. As someone who was in Detroit less than 24 hours ago, I can tell you I was surprised at how expensive the housing was. Not that it was close to Bay Area prices, but I was expecting to see places I liked for 300-400k. The reality is more like 600k for less than 2,000 square feet.

nickles · 4 years ago

> The reality is more like 600k for less than 2,000 square feet.

"In June 2022, Detroit home prices were up 32.3% compared to last year, selling for a median price of $99K. On average, homes in Detroit sell after 27 days on the market compared to 23 days last year. There were 463 homes sold in June this year, down from 512 last year."

[0] https://www.redfin.com/city/5665/MI/Detroit/housing-market

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

ehnto · 4 years ago

We're all very aware of how the economics should play out, but look around you, it's not working that way in a bunch of places. That's because houses are being used as investment vehicles, with rentals being thoroughly flogged because they know people have no choice but to pay. No amount of building will help if the value of the property is not intrinsically linked to the supply and demand of places to live for people who want to live there, but is instead linked or at least heavily influenced by what investors with increased buying capacity are willing to pay.

nickles · 4 years ago

> No amount of building will help if the value of the property is not intrinsically linked to the supply and demand

Building new houses is intrinsically linked to supply. When you build a house, that increases the supply of housing. NIMBYs oppose new construction precisely to prevent the value of their properties from decreasing.

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

eatsyourtacos · 4 years ago

>When supply is less than demand, prices go up

Question though... why, exactly does that have to be the case? Especially with something like housing where say there is mostly a fixed supply at any point and you can't just turn a machine on/off to produce more.

The only reason the prices go up is because of greed basically- because people say "hey I can just charge more and people will pay more!". And there in lies the bullshit of the free market once again. It always benefits the people with money, who can afford to pay that amount more "just to get what they want".

The last few years in particular have made me so tired of hearing about people talk about supply & demand like it is some unarguable hard scientific fact. It's not even close to that. It just represents how much people like to price gouge because "they can"

>Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices). Capping prices prevents the price mechanism from working, leaving a shortage of housing.

And the following part of this is also just more bullshit. I'm not saying you are "wrong", but you say it as if that is how things have to work and there is no other alternative.

Every word of what you said is based on greed and squeezing the most you possibly can from people. Please realize that.

nickles · 4 years ago

> Question though... why, exactly does that have to be the case? Especially with something like housing where say there is mostly a fixed supply at any point and you can't just turn a machine on/off to produce more.

Supply/demand is a basic tenet of economics. You can visualize the model with supply/demand graphs [0], which help make the model more intuitive.

The issue of the fixed supply is known as 'stickiness'. Most things in the economy lag policy, and data that we use to observe the economy also tends to lag. This is why it's really bad to have poorly designed policy; course correction is difficult, and people are hurt in the meantime.

> Every word of what you said is based on greed and squeezing the most you possibly can from people. Please realize that.

It could be fun to channel Gordon Gecko, but I disagree that this is about greed. I care about well designed economic policy because I care about people's well-being.

[0] https://www.edrawmax.com/article/supply-and-demand-graph.htm...

nickles commented on Manhattan rents cross $5k threshold for first time axios.com/2022/07/14/manh... · Posted by u/rascul

Baloo · 4 years ago

>Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices).

This is not reality though. Here in the UK our housing is in major crisis because people simply cannot afford the insane price increases. Pretty much everyone I know shares their living situation, on their own they would not be able to afford basic amenities.

The guardian today published an article showing:

>Average monthly rental payments were now 40% higher than they were 10 years ago, while typical mortgage payments for the same properties were up 13%.

Landlords and property owners are hiking the prices way beyond reasonable value, in some parts of the country rent is up by over 20% in the last year alone. By your logic there should be an incentive for builders to increase the housing stock, but private enterprise aren't building anymore homes now than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

We do however have a situation where the average mortgage is about £900 per month, whereas the average rent has skyrocketed to £1600 per month (£1100 outside of London, £2200 in London). Available rental stock is down 25%, with demand up 5%. It's great for property speculators, buy-to-let landlords and property developers, people are offering above asking prices simply to secure a home.

>My landlord takes all the risk of owning the property (prices don’t always go up after all).

Sure there is risk, but when you charge 30% more than you repay for the mortgage, while at the same time property prices rise 75% in 10 years, it's safe to say that the cash cow is being thoroughly milked for every last drop and as a result many people are suffering.

Ultimately there shouldn't be 'risk', this mindset is a big problem. Homes are a fundamental, basic human need. Using them as an investment method, business model or means to hedge against inflation, is causing rampant speculation and quite honestly extorting people that have no other choice, exploiting vulnerable families that need a home. It should be an extremely tightly controlled market, with sufficient funding to ensure that quality & affordable housing is available for everyone.

nickles · 4 years ago

> Here in the UK our housing is in major crisis because people simply cannot afford the insane price increases. Pretty much everyone I know shares their living situation, on their own they would not be able to afford basic amenities.

The housing in UK is in crisis because there have not been enough homes built. My rent has gone up too, but it's not because my landlord is greedy. The cost of maintaining the building has gone up thanks to inflation (plumbers/electricians/superintendent/etc.) all have to be paid higher wages. Replacing broken fixtures is more expensive. If the landlord has a floating rate mortgage, the cost of paying the mortgage went up. For commercial apartment rentals, those companies have debt that now needs to be rolled over at higher rates.

> By your logic there should be an incentive for builders to increase the housing stock, but private enterprise aren't building anymore homes now than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

So is it a problem that they aren't building more or not? If we agree that more housing needs to be built, then the proper incentives must be in place. And a proper incentive may actually be as simple as eliminating a disincentive (e.g. 4 years of environmental review prior to the project's approval).

> Available rental stock is down 25%, with demand up 5%. It's great for property speculators, buy-to-let landlords and property developers, people are offering above asking prices simply to secure a home.

It's great until it isn't. Interest rates are rising, and mortgages in the UK are much shorter term than in the US. That means the impact of rate hikes is more immediate on housing prices. And if available stock being down is a problem (which it is), the obvious solution is to produce more. Alternatively, I have a modest proposal [0] that would also solve the problem.

> Ultimately there shouldn't be 'risk', this mindset is a big problem.

Risk is omnipresent. If I purchase property, I have all sorts of risk. My building may burn down. My neighborhood may become undesirable to live in. I might not be able to take a job in a new location. I tried to pick examples that aren't about investment. These are risks that the landlord assumes for me.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal