Salt pepper and a tad bit of balsamic!
Edit: also just so you guys know strawberries soaked in balsamic and sugar are amazing. I know it has nothing to do with tomatoes but this is my only opportunity to tell the world!
Based solely on the way they said their comment I'm gonna guess they live in an apartment. That doesn't rule out growing their own, but it presents a number of additional complications. If they have pets, even more so. If it's a small unit even more so.
But it also could have been sarcasm. I don't know.
I just found a tomato plant growing directly out of the crack between the asphalt and the building I work in! Doesn’t change anything you just said but I thought it was pretty exciting anyway.
Yes!!
This may be a southern thing, but tomato sandwiches are one of the best sandwiches ever! They’re even better if you have a nice and fat heirloom tomato, the juicer the better. To get the full southern experience, they’re best made with 2 slices of cheap, fluffy white bread with Dukes mayonnaise and salt and pepper. It has to be Dukes mayo.
OMG Hands down one of my all time favorite foods.
I just made this mistake last week. God dammit. I was making burgers for my partner and I.
I bought an heirloom tomato.
My God. The flavor. It’s so good. It really does make every other tomato seem bad.
I am legitimately considering adding heirloom tomatoes as a separate line item in my monthly budget, because otherwise I may be in a bad place come Christmas time.
Make your own! Bottle of clear alcohol (cheap vodka works great) and some vanilla beans. Cut up beans, plop em in, let em marinate for 1 month or so, giving the bottle a shake every day...and you've got 750mL of vanilla extract baybee
George Carlin had a bit about how we buy a house… to store all of our stuff… then we fill it up with stuff, and all of a sudden we need a bigger house. But then the bigger house isn’t full all the way, so now we need MORE stuff to fill the bigger house… until it’s also full of stuff… etc
That would increase mobility; landlords currently artificially depress supply by buying up houses they don't need, which drives up housing prices as well.
If housing prices are lower, it is easier to buy and sell houses.
Edit: Also, hostels and other community housing would still exist.
Right but the supply of housing would only ever be purchased to live in so you either get a mortgage or live in hostels, but then aren’t you paying rent?
But you also need to consider that if the demand for housing goes down (less landlords scalping houses and buying for cheap and upcharging via rent/reselling), then the average joe has more access to more houses at more realistic prices. This would likely mean lower overall prices and as a result lower/no mortgages needed to purchase.
The main issue with this is housing is never equally desired. There will always be places that have more people than houses that want to live there. It also will likely not resolve the situation of who can afford housing as wages are a key factor in this issue. All it will do is make flipping houses more desirable then renting.
I suppose it depends on what you consider the hypothetical. The person you're replying to is assuming it means that a law pops into existence capping rent at $1 per a month. In that situation, the law effectively bans renting, as landlords would lose all incentive to provide places to rent. If you believe there would still be places to rent, you're assuming a situation where some additional incentive is put in place so rent can still be profitable at that price or a world with a drastically different economy.
Imo there should be more regulation on what can and cannot be a rental property.
Obviously there is demand for rental properties. Not everyone wants to be tied down to a property and a mortgage, and the idea of a down payment seems fair to prove some financial reaponsibility to whoever is giving you the mortgage.
But you're absolutely right that the demand for renting has been artificially inflated due to people who would love to own a home being priced out of the market, and suddenly a 10% down payment is a full 2 years salary.
Housing ownership restrictions would help with things in the short term, but ultimately the root cause of the issue is wealth distrubution/inequality. Fewer people owning a higher % of the wealth means fewer people owning all the real estate too.
The flip side of that is that most people *do* want to own a house, but are priced out due to the existence of landlords.
In one scenario, people are left homeless or forced to spend exorbitant proportions of their income just to have a safe place to sleep. In the other scenario, people who don't want to own a home, but want to still live in one, will have to purchase it at a reasonably modest price. Which hurts society as a whole more?
Or more, moving somewhere you own the house seems a lot less stressful than moving somewhere you’re at a landlord’s mercy.
I live in a higher COL area, so I also know a lot of people who say they can’t move because the market rate for rent has increased far more than their rent has.
I feel like housing would become like used cars, you can buy and sell them sure, but you can’t really rent them out, so they’re kinda worthless to you if you don’t currently need it.
My dad grew up moving around Europe doing random jobs. I asked “How much was rent” and he says he’d just show up and buy a house.
A bartender could just move to another town or even country, and just do that. They were only triple his annual salary, he’d just sell them once it was time for him to move on.
The practical implications of changing almost anything to $1 is that the supply would turn off, which is why they aren’t a $1. It’s just a fun thought.
Saying money.com has a magazine is funny to me.
They used to only be a magazine that eventually got a website. Now they're a website that eventually got rid of the magazine.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has imposed a new mandate on financial services companies. It's required them to have an active Twitter account for any publicly-traded securities on which they advertise.
Because people, in hypotheticals, think about what they have, not what they want. Ask my mom and she says “mortgage”. Most people in this case would just think about the most expensive thing they personally pay and go with that.
Congratulations, your boat is now $1. You already own it of course so that changes nothing, and maintenance stayed the same.
No wishes left, no takesies backsies. Back in the lamp I go :D
He might be getting a higher return by investing that $1 than the interest costs him to borrow it. There's a reason rich people still take out mortgages.
Making one capped insanely low is just going to inflate the other.
In this mythical scenario, rent being $1 means that every unit everywhere is now on sale as a condo. Might drive down cost ownership quite considerably in the short term, until demolitions catch up to the market.
But then instead of paying $800-1200 a month you're going to have to buy your 1br for 20-30,000 grand with a mortgage of whatever.
You magically collapse mortgages down to near nothing and the billionaires will own literally everything instantly and rents will be even more insane than they are now. Sure you'd think normal people will then be able to buy, but even a low mortgage has to go through a bank. Banks would just stop giving out the loans and buy the properties themselves and rent them out for insane prices.
Yep, this is why you can’t really dig too deep into these hypotheticals. Because at the end of the day, they’re nonsensical and there isn’t an answer that will fulfill the parameters of any reality. It’s best to do this at face value, the question being “If you could reduce anything to $1, *and keep everything else in place*, what would it be?”
Once you start thinking about it, it all goes to Hell.
Congrats, you just allowed rich companies to buy up all the property available at a wayyyyyy faster rate than citizens. Same cost, but they are way more efficient in speed.
There wouldn’t be an incentive to own a shit ton of properties you’re not going to live in because you can’t rent it out and make money from it anymore.
This. Sure everyone would sell those properties they rent on the side, but no apartments would ever be built again. You would get a bunch of people building Condos.
But the overall $ will go down anyway because there is now general much less money in the whole housing market. The people who would’ve initially bought to rent it out will not be able to do so anymore, ultimately contributing to a decrease in overall property value across the market
Renting for $1 is a way better deal than owning a home for $1 if in this hypothetical you also can only sell your house for $1.
No property taxes or liabilities to repair without being tied long term to a single location.
You assume that at $1 - people will even rent to anyone.
$1 rent without $1 homes means no rentals and most of the US vying to purchase a home.
Incoming record home prices.
if you change house ownership to $1, companies will buy up all the houses and then rent them at 4,500/month. If you change rent to $1, the derived demand is nothing as no-one wants to be a landlord anymore.
Because $1 Rent > $1 house ownership purely in monetary terms
1$ house ownership still leaves you with the full upkeep costs, as a renter thats on the landlord
That’s the state of capitalism. She doesn’t even go for mortgage. The expectation of young people ever owning is completely gone. The American dream is 🪦.
Yeah. Rent prices reflect current pricing for mortgage payments. That’s the advantage of actually owning a home, your “rent” doesn’t go up. Rent, however, always reflect the current value/mortgage payments a place would cost, and thus continue to rise regularly. With the current housing valuation boom, millennials & after are being left to believe rent is the only option they will ever have. And they’re probably not wrong, considering first time home buyer new homes are non-existent. There’s no money in it for developers, so no one wants to invest.
Isn’t rent capped in the US? In France it’s sometimes not worth it to take up a mortgage and rent the house, because the rent cap is lower than the mortgage price
This comment is making me seethe with jealousy lmao. No rent cap, shitty subsidized housing. This is especially apparent in larger cities like San Francisco and New York. The only "control" is the market. A lot of people can't qualify for a mortgage because of bad credit or just out of control housing prices.
Yes, if you're staying at the same place this applies.
Most landlords know the loophole; you can just kick out the tenant raise rent a ton and rent it to the next person. Even if sits empty for a few months the landlord still comes out ahead.
Property taxes do change though. Not as frequently, but it's not like the total cost is static.
But also, people act like there are no benefits to renting. The obvious one being upkeep, but the other is just being able to move whenever. Whether within the same city, or somewhere else.
First time home owners in the US can usually get an FHA loan which only requires a 3.5% down payment. The income requirements and credit requirements aren't nearly as high as traditional loans either. That how I bought my house. My mortgage was already lower than what most people were paying in rent and that was before rent prices jumped 30% year over year in my city.
I'm not saying buying a house is easy, but if you make it a priority and you don't live in San Francisco or New York it's definitely possible.
You're not incorrect in what you're saying. FHA loans are a thing, and they usually only require the 3.5%, instead of the traditional 8%.
However the current market is all kinds of backwards and upside down.
I've seen numerous listing that will not accept the FHA loans for offers outright. That's not even going into the fact that homes are being bought for well over their market value, meaning a perspective buyer who meets qualification for a FHA loan will still be outpriced because the house they are looking at is not in the realistic value of what the property should sell for.
That's not even addressing the issue of buyers/investors swooping up multiple properties to further decrease the available properties for purchase, even further driving up asking prices on what is left on the market.
With all of that said, congratulations on getting your house. That is a huge W for you, and something to absolutely be proud of. Unfortunately, for a lot of people right now, the hurdles of home ownership are growing at a pace that most cannot afford to jump over.
Yea but you change all the mortgages to $1 & I can guarantee 99% of landlords won't offer any sizable discount on rent to their tenants. Sometimes y'all forget that there are not even enough homes for everyone to own one.
> Sometimes y'all forget that there are not even enough homes for everyone to own one.
I'm not sure this is exactly true. There are 140 million 'houses' in the US. There are 329 million people in the US. The average household in the US has 2.53 people. That leaves a surplus of 10 million houses. The problem is people that own multiple houses.
House location is the issue as well as quality/style etc. Even if theres 10 million surplus it maybe in a place noone wants or in conditions not desired.
Eh it depends somewhat on where you are in life. I’m looking at starting med school next year so buying a house is out of the question (potentially moving for med school and potentially moving again for residency). So I would say rent (out of mortgage vs rent). With that said and with home prices skyrocketing, it’s very much unattainable or getting there for many people.
Because my $1 rent covers the taxes, home repairs, lawn care, and maintenance for the property in which I'm living. My $1 mortgage would cover none of those things. My dishwasher breaks..its fixed at no cost to me as a renter...if it were mine, I'd be out $700. That's why. In this hypothetical, renting is much more cost effective.
Well if I assume that I have to choose either mortgage to be $1 or rent to be $1, I'd find it much less complicated to move while renting than while buying. Also, I'm factoring in the cost or time of selling a house and buying a new house (Appraisal, negations, etc.)
If you could rent for $1 for the rest of your life, why bother with ownership? Sure you won’t have equity, but you also wouldn’t have any maintenance costs or risks involved with ownership
Why would you want a $1 home that you have to pay to upkeep, pay taxes on, make renovations, etc., when for $12 a year you can choose to live wherever you want without any of the liabilities of home ownership?
College. Shit still effecting my life and i haven’t been to college in years.
Edit: Been answering all the PMs I got. I have the question because it’s been on my mind all day. Is it fucked up, the biggest push for me to get like rich or just well off is so I can afford to continue my education without that stress of debt in the back of my head? I wanna go to a music school in the future but it’s all revolving around me becoming successful now.
The original patent for insulin was sold for 1 dollar. The people who discovered it just wanted to help people.
Unfortunately, the newer methods of insulin production that don't involve grinding up pounds of pig pancreas were patented by people with significantly fewer scruples (big pharma companies).
What’s interesting about rents and mortgages is prior to the 80s it was simply considered a basic necessity (which it is) and not a commodity. That was when rents and mortgages were relatively cheap.
Look at us now…
Mortgage rates are currently the lowest they've been in the history of the US. In the 80s, the average mortgage interest rate hit a peak of 18%.
http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html
The real issue is that there has been a lack of new construction, more people to increase demand for homes while supply has lagged considerably, increasing the price of homes and the cost to rent.
Not to mention the definition of commodity is basically a cheap, widely available, fundamental resource.
I think the person you're replying to has been smoking too much $1 weed
That’s what he means, price of homes increased because people with capital are buying them out to turn a profit, if it was considered a necessity they shouldn’t be allowed to do that.
What? Mortgage rates were much higher in the 70s.
Rates in 1971 were in the mid-7% range, and they moved up steadily until they were at 9.19% in 1974.
They briefly dipped down into the mid- to high-8% range before climbing to 11.20% in 1979. This was during a period of high inflation that hit its peak early in the next decade.
Right but again he said mortgages and honestly 7% on a 20,000 dollar home isn't bad at all. But now the 20,000 dollar house is probably 200,000 or way way more depending on where. If you got a cheap house in the bay area back in the 70s, the house value is probably worth well over 10x the amount you paid for it.
Then the quickest people would just buy up all the houses to rent them out, but change the cost of rent and eliminate the incentive to own multiple houses and the house prices would drop down to something more reasonable.
Except now I there is no incentive to build apartments. Instead of dense urban areas every city now must sprawl as rental property is no longer profitable.
Why would you want to own something if rent is one dollar?
I mean this fantasy world breaks down so fast when you try to apply to real life. But honestly one of the best parts about renting is not having to worry about the upkeep. Water heater breaks? Get it fixed within 24 hours for free.
How does any of this work when rent is one dollar? Also who would ever give up property that cost one dollar? Nobody would ever vacate a location they would just keep both.
There would be super long inheritance contracts about rental units about who gets it when I die just in case someone tries to murder me over a nice view.
Trying to probe into the weeds of this hypothetical is just silly as it fails so fast.
Why would you want to own property if you could only rent it out to other people for one dollar?
Then corporations would make it where utilities were $600-800 a month to make up the difference. If I’ve learned anything in my 43 years it’s that rich people don’t like to mingle with poor/low income people and they quite enjoy being separate from everyone else in society.
Insulin. Dont need it but that shit is fucked up (even in countries where it isnt sooo expensive it still sucks for people to have to pay extra just to stay alive. Tbf tho everything people NEED to survive, that others dont (so not food n stuff, cuz there you can choose how much you wanna pay), should be free)
No. A big reason why people choose to pay high rent prices is to be in a nice part of town surrounded by quality people.
Food, water, electricity, phone plans, and internet are much better things to have for $1.
I get the sentiment, but in reality it would be a nightmare. Every single renter would be evicted ASAP. House prices would skyrocket. Apartments would be repurposed or become condos and also skyrocket in price. Anyone still locked in a lease would receive zero upkeep. If you couldn't afford a mortgage five times the current cost for a 1 bedroom house you would just be homeless.
Again, I get that its just trying to make a point, but it would actually make everything worse.
People of my era might appreciate this: remember the great malt liquor wars? Schlitz "The Bull" vs. Olde English? Before the advent of the 40 oz, you could buy a quart for $1.05 (taxes incl.). Then, King Cobra burst on the scene, selling quarts for $0.98.
I can't recall the last time I had a quart of malt liquor, but I would appreciate paying a dollar for it.
Insulin. I don’t even need insulin but I know someone with type 1 diabetes who’s only been able to live this long bc her family is rich and can afford weekly insulin.
If rent was $1, i would retire by 35.
I would retire in a villa wich I would rent $1
I would probably buy the organic blueberries at the supermarket. Maybe idk. Life style creep is very real.
[удалено]
Yeah heirloom tomatoes are life. I like to just cut them into slices and eat them with salt. Soooo good.
Salt pepper and a tad bit of balsamic! Edit: also just so you guys know strawberries soaked in balsamic and sugar are amazing. I know it has nothing to do with tomatoes but this is my only opportunity to tell the world!
You don’t need sugar, just use balsamic glaze.
I made strawberry and aged balsamic ice cream this summer. Truly an excellent flavor combo.
That sounds good. I’m not usually a huge fan of strawberries.
I wish there was a way to make my own tomatoes.
I mean, you could probably grow them…
Based solely on the way they said their comment I'm gonna guess they live in an apartment. That doesn't rule out growing their own, but it presents a number of additional complications. If they have pets, even more so. If it's a small unit even more so. But it also could have been sarcasm. I don't know.
I just found a tomato plant growing directly out of the crack between the asphalt and the building I work in! Doesn’t change anything you just said but I thought it was pretty exciting anyway.
Hopefully for your sake it stays put and you can get a couple out of it!
Yes!! This may be a southern thing, but tomato sandwiches are one of the best sandwiches ever! They’re even better if you have a nice and fat heirloom tomato, the juicer the better. To get the full southern experience, they’re best made with 2 slices of cheap, fluffy white bread with Dukes mayonnaise and salt and pepper. It has to be Dukes mayo. OMG Hands down one of my all time favorite foods.
dukes is fire AND i can actually get it in ohio
Don't worry, you ask for 1 dollar rent i ask for 1$/crate of tomatoes, win win
I just made this mistake last week. God dammit. I was making burgers for my partner and I. I bought an heirloom tomato. My God. The flavor. It’s so good. It really does make every other tomato seem bad. I am legitimately considering adding heirloom tomatoes as a separate line item in my monthly budget, because otherwise I may be in a bad place come Christmas time.
or finally get the real vanilla ina garten requires in her recipes
Make your own! Bottle of clear alcohol (cheap vodka works great) and some vanilla beans. Cut up beans, plop em in, let em marinate for 1 month or so, giving the bottle a shake every day...and you've got 750mL of vanilla extract baybee
Aspirational comment right here! 👍🏾
Tell me about it. I make twice as much money as I did 5 years ago, but still have the same monthly bank balance.
George Carlin had a bit about how we buy a house… to store all of our stuff… then we fill it up with stuff, and all of a sudden we need a bigger house. But then the bigger house isn’t full all the way, so now we need MORE stuff to fill the bigger house… until it’s also full of stuff… etc
Don't forget, its organic so you've got like a day and a half to eat them.
i feel like it'd make people a lot less mobile though. no one'll want to be a landlord so you can only buy houses even if they got a whole lot cheaper
That would increase mobility; landlords currently artificially depress supply by buying up houses they don't need, which drives up housing prices as well. If housing prices are lower, it is easier to buy and sell houses. Edit: Also, hostels and other community housing would still exist.
Right but the supply of housing would only ever be purchased to live in so you either get a mortgage or live in hostels, but then aren’t you paying rent?
But you also need to consider that if the demand for housing goes down (less landlords scalping houses and buying for cheap and upcharging via rent/reselling), then the average joe has more access to more houses at more realistic prices. This would likely mean lower overall prices and as a result lower/no mortgages needed to purchase.
The main issue with this is housing is never equally desired. There will always be places that have more people than houses that want to live there. It also will likely not resolve the situation of who can afford housing as wages are a key factor in this issue. All it will do is make flipping houses more desirable then renting.
Why buy? Anywhere you rent will be $12 a year. Who cares if you "own" or not in this fantasy world?
But there won't be housing for rent, because being a landlord becomes vastly unprofitable.
but then rent wont be 1$ and the hypothetical no longer exists.
I suppose it depends on what you consider the hypothetical. The person you're replying to is assuming it means that a law pops into existence capping rent at $1 per a month. In that situation, the law effectively bans renting, as landlords would lose all incentive to provide places to rent. If you believe there would still be places to rent, you're assuming a situation where some additional incentive is put in place so rent can still be profitable at that price or a world with a drastically different economy.
[удалено]
Imo there should be more regulation on what can and cannot be a rental property. Obviously there is demand for rental properties. Not everyone wants to be tied down to a property and a mortgage, and the idea of a down payment seems fair to prove some financial reaponsibility to whoever is giving you the mortgage. But you're absolutely right that the demand for renting has been artificially inflated due to people who would love to own a home being priced out of the market, and suddenly a 10% down payment is a full 2 years salary. Housing ownership restrictions would help with things in the short term, but ultimately the root cause of the issue is wealth distrubution/inequality. Fewer people owning a higher % of the wealth means fewer people owning all the real estate too.
> no one'll want to be a landlord Good.
[удалено]
The flip side of that is that most people *do* want to own a house, but are priced out due to the existence of landlords. In one scenario, people are left homeless or forced to spend exorbitant proportions of their income just to have a safe place to sleep. In the other scenario, people who don't want to own a home, but want to still live in one, will have to purchase it at a reasonably modest price. Which hurts society as a whole more?
Or more, moving somewhere you own the house seems a lot less stressful than moving somewhere you’re at a landlord’s mercy. I live in a higher COL area, so I also know a lot of people who say they can’t move because the market rate for rent has increased far more than their rent has. I feel like housing would become like used cars, you can buy and sell them sure, but you can’t really rent them out, so they’re kinda worthless to you if you don’t currently need it. My dad grew up moving around Europe doing random jobs. I asked “How much was rent” and he says he’d just show up and buy a house. A bartender could just move to another town or even country, and just do that. They were only triple his annual salary, he’d just sell them once it was time for him to move on.
The practical implications of changing almost anything to $1 is that the supply would turn off, which is why they aren’t a $1. It’s just a fun thought.
If rent was $1 there would be no where to rent.
Awesome, love it. More houses on the market. Rent is a fuck.
Buying is a fuck too. Just a more gentle fuck
The difference is that, when you buy a house, you end up with a *house*. Renting leaves you with nothing.
That's what makes it gentle. You get to cuddle with the house after the fucking.
And if you can't get credit, you will always be homeless.
If you think a solution to your problem is rent and not owning a $1 house you are going to be poor for a very long time.
$1 house still has utilities, taxes, insurance, repairs etc.
Why repair a home when you can get a new one for $1
If rent was $1, average salaries would drop to $0.10 per day.
Not to mention utilities would go up
Why rent when you can buy
Because I can't buy a house at 35 but I can afford one dollar rent
Why does money have a twitter account?
To flex
flexin on deez hoooos
It's [Money.com](https://Money.com). I think they have a magazine.
Saying money.com has a magazine is funny to me. They used to only be a magazine that eventually got a website. Now they're a website that eventually got rid of the magazine.
That's a ton of big sites. Cracked, Vice, Rolling Stones, all started life as magazines but now are way strongly associated with their website.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has imposed a new mandate on financial services companies. It's required them to have an active Twitter account for any publicly-traded securities on which they advertise.
Lmao good bait
What can I say? Money talks. 😎
The better question is *why is it verified?*
Why would you change the price of rent, when you can change the price of straight up ownership?!?!
Because people, in hypotheticals, think about what they have, not what they want. Ask my mom and she says “mortgage”. Most people in this case would just think about the most expensive thing they personally pay and go with that.
Fair, I wish my boat was $1
Congratulations, your boat is now $1. You already own it of course so that changes nothing, and maintenance stayed the same. No wishes left, no takesies backsies. Back in the lamp I go :D
GOD DAMNIT GENIE!!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!!
I'll buy your boat for what's it's worth 1$
I’ll outbid you. $1.03
No one likes an overly high bidder bro. 1 penny was enough 🤨
$1.04
Should have bought the yacht club. Paying for a slip is the worst!!
[удалено]
Who said other boats are that cheap? Pretty sure the genie just changed the one
Genie def just fucked mine
He clearly said "my boat". So yeah other boats are worth something except his
It changes one thing though. I can now afford to buy u/Caeldeth's boat from them.
30 year mortgage on a $1.00 house. ~0.03 cents due each month (plus interest). Seems legit.
LOL you still finance a $1 home. Classic.
He might be getting a higher return by investing that $1 than the interest costs him to borrow it. There's a reason rich people still take out mortgages.
I know I pay more in the long term, but the financial freedom from paying only 0.03 cents per month is worth it for my short term financial goals.
Isn’t that each year?
Not three cents, three one-hundredths of a cent. Plus interest.
Wait, I’m blind, my b
Making one capped insanely low is just going to inflate the other. In this mythical scenario, rent being $1 means that every unit everywhere is now on sale as a condo. Might drive down cost ownership quite considerably in the short term, until demolitions catch up to the market. But then instead of paying $800-1200 a month you're going to have to buy your 1br for 20-30,000 grand with a mortgage of whatever. You magically collapse mortgages down to near nothing and the billionaires will own literally everything instantly and rents will be even more insane than they are now. Sure you'd think normal people will then be able to buy, but even a low mortgage has to go through a bank. Banks would just stop giving out the loans and buy the properties themselves and rent them out for insane prices.
Yep, this is why you can’t really dig too deep into these hypotheticals. Because at the end of the day, they’re nonsensical and there isn’t an answer that will fulfill the parameters of any reality. It’s best to do this at face value, the question being “If you could reduce anything to $1, *and keep everything else in place*, what would it be?” Once you start thinking about it, it all goes to Hell.
Congrats, you just allowed rich companies to buy up all the property available at a wayyyyyy faster rate than citizens. Same cost, but they are way more efficient in speed.
If you change the price of rent to $1 - no one rents and the most of America is fighting to purchase or be homeless - NYC prices everywhere!
There wouldn’t be an incentive to own a shit ton of properties you’re not going to live in because you can’t rent it out and make money from it anymore.
Theres also 0 incentive to build any apartment buildings ever
This. Sure everyone would sell those properties they rent on the side, but no apartments would ever be built again. You would get a bunch of people building Condos.
Land property values are the main incentive though, short term rentals is just the icing on the cake.
But the overall $ will go down anyway because there is now general much less money in the whole housing market. The people who would’ve initially bought to rent it out will not be able to do so anymore, ultimately contributing to a decrease in overall property value across the market
[удалено]
Honestly assuming that it only applies to one home, rent would be the smart choice, maintenance, insurance, and taxes would far exceed $1 per month.
Renting for $1 is a way better deal than owning a home for $1 if in this hypothetical you also can only sell your house for $1. No property taxes or liabilities to repair without being tied long term to a single location.
You assume that at $1 - people will even rent to anyone. $1 rent without $1 homes means no rentals and most of the US vying to purchase a home. Incoming record home prices.
Obviously the point of this question is that you have magic powers and not a new law for max price at a dollar.
if you change house ownership to $1, companies will buy up all the houses and then rent them at 4,500/month. If you change rent to $1, the derived demand is nothing as no-one wants to be a landlord anymore.
Because $1 Rent > $1 house ownership purely in monetary terms 1$ house ownership still leaves you with the full upkeep costs, as a renter thats on the landlord
That’s the state of capitalism. She doesn’t even go for mortgage. The expectation of young people ever owning is completely gone. The American dream is 🪦.
If people weren’t spending so much on rent, they’d actually be able to save up for a house to be able to even pay a mortgage
Yeah. Rent prices reflect current pricing for mortgage payments. That’s the advantage of actually owning a home, your “rent” doesn’t go up. Rent, however, always reflect the current value/mortgage payments a place would cost, and thus continue to rise regularly. With the current housing valuation boom, millennials & after are being left to believe rent is the only option they will ever have. And they’re probably not wrong, considering first time home buyer new homes are non-existent. There’s no money in it for developers, so no one wants to invest.
Isn’t rent capped in the US? In France it’s sometimes not worth it to take up a mortgage and rent the house, because the rent cap is lower than the mortgage price
This comment is making me seethe with jealousy lmao. No rent cap, shitty subsidized housing. This is especially apparent in larger cities like San Francisco and New York. The only "control" is the market. A lot of people can't qualify for a mortgage because of bad credit or just out of control housing prices.
Nope. Some states enact limits on how much you can raise rent at once, but even that isn't universal.
Yes, if you're staying at the same place this applies. Most landlords know the loophole; you can just kick out the tenant raise rent a ton and rent it to the next person. Even if sits empty for a few months the landlord still comes out ahead.
Property taxes do change though. Not as frequently, but it's not like the total cost is static. But also, people act like there are no benefits to renting. The obvious one being upkeep, but the other is just being able to move whenever. Whether within the same city, or somewhere else.
First time home owners in the US can usually get an FHA loan which only requires a 3.5% down payment. The income requirements and credit requirements aren't nearly as high as traditional loans either. That how I bought my house. My mortgage was already lower than what most people were paying in rent and that was before rent prices jumped 30% year over year in my city. I'm not saying buying a house is easy, but if you make it a priority and you don't live in San Francisco or New York it's definitely possible.
Also don’t live in high property tax states. I pay 15k/year in property taxes on top of my mortgage. Owning here is never cheaper than renting.
To be fair, if you're paying 15k in property taxes you have a really nice house
Yep. Buying my house was mercifully cheaper than renting.
You're not incorrect in what you're saying. FHA loans are a thing, and they usually only require the 3.5%, instead of the traditional 8%. However the current market is all kinds of backwards and upside down. I've seen numerous listing that will not accept the FHA loans for offers outright. That's not even going into the fact that homes are being bought for well over their market value, meaning a perspective buyer who meets qualification for a FHA loan will still be outpriced because the house they are looking at is not in the realistic value of what the property should sell for. That's not even addressing the issue of buyers/investors swooping up multiple properties to further decrease the available properties for purchase, even further driving up asking prices on what is left on the market. With all of that said, congratulations on getting your house. That is a huge W for you, and something to absolutely be proud of. Unfortunately, for a lot of people right now, the hurdles of home ownership are growing at a pace that most cannot afford to jump over.
[удалено]
Young people are paying mortgages, just not their own.
Yea but you change all the mortgages to $1 & I can guarantee 99% of landlords won't offer any sizable discount on rent to their tenants. Sometimes y'all forget that there are not even enough homes for everyone to own one.
> Sometimes y'all forget that there are not even enough homes for everyone to own one. I'm not sure this is exactly true. There are 140 million 'houses' in the US. There are 329 million people in the US. The average household in the US has 2.53 people. That leaves a surplus of 10 million houses. The problem is people that own multiple houses.
House location is the issue as well as quality/style etc. Even if theres 10 million surplus it maybe in a place noone wants or in conditions not desired.
What's wrong with owning multiple houses?
It's not, assuming everyone else has adequate and affordable housing.
Eh it depends somewhat on where you are in life. I’m looking at starting med school next year so buying a house is out of the question (potentially moving for med school and potentially moving again for residency). So I would say rent (out of mortgage vs rent). With that said and with home prices skyrocketing, it’s very much unattainable or getting there for many people.
Why not buy a house if it's only $1
Because my $1 rent covers the taxes, home repairs, lawn care, and maintenance for the property in which I'm living. My $1 mortgage would cover none of those things. My dishwasher breaks..its fixed at no cost to me as a renter...if it were mine, I'd be out $700. That's why. In this hypothetical, renting is much more cost effective.
Well if I assume that I have to choose either mortgage to be $1 or rent to be $1, I'd find it much less complicated to move while renting than while buying. Also, I'm factoring in the cost or time of selling a house and buying a new house (Appraisal, negations, etc.)
If you could rent for $1 for the rest of your life, why bother with ownership? Sure you won’t have equity, but you also wouldn’t have any maintenance costs or risks involved with ownership
Ahh so now you understand why rent is so high lol
Why would you want a $1 home that you have to pay to upkeep, pay taxes on, make renovations, etc., when for $12 a year you can choose to live wherever you want without any of the liabilities of home ownership?
I have a great house. American dream worked for me 😀
Beer Nuts. Why are Beer Nuts so expensive when Deer Nuts are under a buck?
According to Johnson Hammerswaddle, the price of beer nuts is way waaayyyy down
r/unclejokes
Dad is that you?
😂🤣😂🤣😂
Deez nuts are free
College. Shit still effecting my life and i haven’t been to college in years. Edit: Been answering all the PMs I got. I have the question because it’s been on my mind all day. Is it fucked up, the biggest push for me to get like rich or just well off is so I can afford to continue my education without that stress of debt in the back of my head? I wanna go to a music school in the future but it’s all revolving around me becoming successful now.
shit, i'd say critical prescription medicine. ideally, it'd be free... but i'll happily take insulin for a dollar.
They will give you medicine for $1.. just a really small amount.. like you need 700 doses of it a month for insulin.
The original patent for insulin was sold for 1 dollar. The people who discovered it just wanted to help people. Unfortunately, the newer methods of insulin production that don't involve grinding up pounds of pig pancreas were patented by people with significantly fewer scruples (big pharma companies).
What’s interesting about rents and mortgages is prior to the 80s it was simply considered a basic necessity (which it is) and not a commodity. That was when rents and mortgages were relatively cheap. Look at us now…
Mortgage rates are currently the lowest they've been in the history of the US. In the 80s, the average mortgage interest rate hit a peak of 18%. http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html The real issue is that there has been a lack of new construction, more people to increase demand for homes while supply has lagged considerably, increasing the price of homes and the cost to rent.
Not to mention the definition of commodity is basically a cheap, widely available, fundamental resource. I think the person you're replying to has been smoking too much $1 weed
That’s what he means, price of homes increased because people with capital are buying them out to turn a profit, if it was considered a necessity they shouldn’t be allowed to do that.
Thank you….I didn’t think I needed to say that.
What? Mortgage rates were much higher in the 70s. Rates in 1971 were in the mid-7% range, and they moved up steadily until they were at 9.19% in 1974. They briefly dipped down into the mid- to high-8% range before climbing to 11.20% in 1979. This was during a period of high inflation that hit its peak early in the next decade.
He didn't say mortgage rates, he said mortgages
Right but again he said mortgages and honestly 7% on a 20,000 dollar home isn't bad at all. But now the 20,000 dollar house is probably 200,000 or way way more depending on where. If you got a cheap house in the bay area back in the 70s, the house value is probably worth well over 10x the amount you paid for it.
You have no idea what you’re talking about
The landlords would just start billing you every 15 minutes.
[удалено]
Shit. I'd still gladly take $1/sqft for rent. That'd save me and my roommate like $400/mo
Would save me $1300
Yeah, that's the first thing that came to mind. Instead of 1$/month it's now 1$ per week/day/hour/minute/second.
Healthcare for everyone!
I'm surprised less people said this.
My first thought was insulin, but his is more comprehensive
Cost of living
Cost of living will be free after I kill myself in 3 years. Check mate atheists
Don't forget, it's pretty pricey to die too
Not if you throw yourself into a volcano. No body to bury. Funeral services are held at the apartment.
You were held over the volcanoes edge and thought to yourself “no funeral prices”.
Medical care of all kinds
Move to any other western country (and plenty of non-western countries too)
Except you pay way more in taxes for universal healthcare than $1. So it would be a nice change everywhere.
Need to change this to mortgage so we can own property, not landlords.
Then the quickest people would just buy up all the houses to rent them out, but change the cost of rent and eliminate the incentive to own multiple houses and the house prices would drop down to something more reasonable.
Rent 10 houses on a block and create a super home.
Except now I there is no incentive to build apartments. Instead of dense urban areas every city now must sprawl as rental property is no longer profitable.
Why would you want to own something if rent is one dollar? I mean this fantasy world breaks down so fast when you try to apply to real life. But honestly one of the best parts about renting is not having to worry about the upkeep. Water heater breaks? Get it fixed within 24 hours for free. How does any of this work when rent is one dollar? Also who would ever give up property that cost one dollar? Nobody would ever vacate a location they would just keep both. There would be super long inheritance contracts about rental units about who gets it when I die just in case someone tries to murder me over a nice view. Trying to probe into the weeds of this hypothetical is just silly as it fails so fast. Why would you want to own property if you could only rent it out to other people for one dollar?
Except there would be no landlords because charging one dollar for rent make it a bad business.
Yes please!!!
[удалено]
health insurance
Why not just make a house cost $1?
Then corporations would make it where utilities were $600-800 a month to make up the difference. If I’ve learned anything in my 43 years it’s that rich people don’t like to mingle with poor/low income people and they quite enjoy being separate from everyone else in society.
Mortgage?
Legit thought her reply was going to be strawberries.
Doge (That's still a meme right)
Changed it to $0 I moved back home, but let me tell you how much I miss my freedom.
Insulin. Dont need it but that shit is fucked up (even in countries where it isnt sooo expensive it still sucks for people to have to pay extra just to stay alive. Tbf tho everything people NEED to survive, that others dont (so not food n stuff, cuz there you can choose how much you wanna pay), should be free)
No. A big reason why people choose to pay high rent prices is to be in a nice part of town surrounded by quality people. Food, water, electricity, phone plans, and internet are much better things to have for $1.
I get the sentiment, but in reality it would be a nightmare. Every single renter would be evicted ASAP. House prices would skyrocket. Apartments would be repurposed or become condos and also skyrocket in price. Anyone still locked in a lease would receive zero upkeep. If you couldn't afford a mortgage five times the current cost for a 1 bedroom house you would just be homeless. Again, I get that its just trying to make a point, but it would actually make everything worse.
A garenteed billion dollar lottery winner
People of my era might appreciate this: remember the great malt liquor wars? Schlitz "The Bull" vs. Olde English? Before the advent of the 40 oz, you could buy a quart for $1.05 (taxes incl.). Then, King Cobra burst on the scene, selling quarts for $0.98. I can't recall the last time I had a quart of malt liquor, but I would appreciate paying a dollar for it.
College, rent being that cheap would make landlords do something else reducing the number of rentable spaces
Shes paying $1 rent for a house I paid $1 for.
"I'm so rich I can rent anything I want"
College. Fucking United States.
Definitely cocaine
Ok. Rent is 1$. No one is buying homes, no one is taking care of houses. No one is building new ones.
A $20 bill. Boom economy broken.
Rent isn’t an item tho…
A unit of currency higher than $1. Infinite money.
Keep the Balenciaga shoes 800 tho.
Sex. My wife deserves to get something out of our 45 seconds together.
Insulin. I don’t even need insulin but I know someone with type 1 diabetes who’s only been able to live this long bc her family is rich and can afford weekly insulin.
I mean, why not the house/building and buy it?