T1B

Diego, I started this thread because at least one of these topics has legs and I don't want it to get muddied by the overall DOOM theme in the aptly named DOOM thread. I hope you'll join me here for these topics.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:26 pm

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:18 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 5:36 pm
It was November. Six months ago.

So we agree it was 10%. I had February in my brain for some reason and I was wrong. This isn't something we need to argue over. I recant. Let's talk about November.
At that time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated inflation at 3.1% using the modern method.

Today the BLS claims inflation is 3.4%, per your WaPo article. If the ratio between the BLS statistics and REAL inflation are consistent between November and today we're at...oh snap look at that... 11%.

HPG, I'd like to take insert a question here as well as add a question from the Trump/GOP thread....

1) What do you think drove that inflation?

2) You said in the other thread that housing costs have skyrocketed from investment firms buying houses. This is a rare instance where we agree 100%. And I haven't seen a solution from either the D's or the R's. Can you hook me up with a link to where a solution has been proposed for this by the R's?

Answer 1) Inflation has one definition, and only one definition. Inflation means: too much money chasing too few goods. That's all it means. That's the only thing it has ever meant. I will be annoyingly clear about this point because there's an abundance of finger pointing making the word mean everything and nothing at the same time. Inflation is a natural consequence of a free market as banks and individuals lend money and earn interest. More money comes out of a paid loan than the investment that went into it. Money gets "created" in the process, and it should. Inflation should never be zero. The Federal Reserve's job is primarily the management of interest rates to regulate inflation. So what happened?

Too much money started chasing too few goods. Hard. Printing money has consequences; shutting down industries during Covid had -as still has- consequences. Scarcity drives price, or it did for a while. For the most part, manufacturing has returned and to my knowledge there isn't a shortage of goods sufficient to apply inflation pressures. Labor force participation is still low but not enough to cause inflationary pressure. At this point in time we are dealing with too much money in the system rather than scarcity of goods. It will take a long time to balance that out. First step should be simple: stop printing money. We are fast approaching an event horizon where the Fed will be printing money to pay the interest on the money they printed. We're in free fall at that point, using one credit card to make the payment on another credit card. poptart starts to look like a prophet pretty soon after that.

Answer 2) I'm going to ignore your childish attempt to play team sport politics. This problem transcends political parties. Both parties, most industries, and some entire fucking countries, have been captured by massive investment firms whose power is sufficient to guarantee its own profitability. That's the problem. Money is power and the money has consolidated into too few hands. It's pretty obvious the hands pulling the levers at Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, JP Morgan, etc. are creating their own ecosystem. You think Larry Fink and Mortimer Buckley give two shits about Environment, Society, and Governance? No fucking way. But if I wanted to play team sport politics I'd point and say, "See! They're Leftists!" But I'm smarter than that. I hope you are too.

Even while investment groups are forcing their debtors to meet ESG requirements, they barely care about those principles. They care about returns on investment. That's their god. Why bother with ESG then? Because ESG allows them to create an ecosystem with gatekeepers. So my point is this: even though the largest investment firms in the world lean heavily to the Left in every word, deed, and policy, calling them Democrats or Liberals completely misses the point. Similarly, implying the R's have no solution completely misses the point. This isn't about parties, it's about systems.

So...what can be done? Nothing on a large scale, I'm afraid. Systems are resilient.
On a small scale I have a few ideas. I have adult kids and employees with adult kids and I'm active in my church to a point where I think I have a basic understanding of the despair these kids feel. It's real and it's terrifying. I feel compelled to do something to help them. My circumstances are kind of unique so my plan isn't something that could be scaled up to help the whole country but in my little corner of the world, I'm looking at doing something more than scream at the TV.

This idea is less than a month old and still in the theoretical phase so forgive me if it's a little rough but here ya go.
In my little armpit of the country we have cheap land and lots of it. Jobs are plentiful but housing is not. We don't have much local lumber but we have aggregate and fly ash for free or close to it. In other words, if a guy had a brick press, that guy could make bricks for the cost of diesel plus wear and tear on the brick press. I can get land all day long for $5000/acre without mineral rights. Water well permits are easy to obtain and energy is generally close by. If I can get 20 kids whom want to own a home badly enough to work one day a week constructing their own home, I think every one of them could build a 24'x24' ranch style with basement for $50,000 in materials. There's permitting, certificates of occupancy and such that'll play into it as well but I think this is doable if they build it themselves. A person has a right to construct their own dwelling but if they want to sell it in the future they'll have to pass inspections. If these kids hire anyone, they must hire licensed and bonded contractors and that's expensive. The key is to do it yourself or with volunteer labor as friends help each other.

Last weekend I was talking with a couple 20-somethings about building one of these as a prototype and making video clips on how to run an excavator, how to level a wall, how to mix mortar, plumb a bathroom, how to tie back a wall, etc. The goal is to use as much local material at low cost as possible. If problems or questions arise, they could reference videos for direction. These kids watch a video to learn everyfukkenthing so why not teach them how to build a foundation, provide them the raw materials, and maybe restore some hope in the future. They'd have to turn off their video games for a while and part of me says they won't do that but I'm willing to try and offer these kids some hope if I can use my resources to do so.

I'd make back my investment by renting them equipment and they'd pay me for the materials plus interest over a 10 year term. I don't need to get rich off this deal but I don't want to dump money into a failing project either.

Your thoughts?

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 12:13 am Diego, I started this thread because at least one of these topics has legs and I don't want it to get muddied by the overall DOOM theme in the aptly named DOOM thread. I hope you'll join me here for these topics.

Good move. I don't think these subjects fit the intent of SB's thread.

Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:26 pm

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:18 pm
So we agree it was 10%. I had February in my brain for some reason and I was wrong. This isn't something we need to argue over. I recant. Let's talk about November.
At that time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated inflation at 3.1% using the modern method.

Today the BLS claims inflation is 3.4%, per your WaPo article. If the ratio between the BLS statistics and REAL inflation are consistent between November and today we're at...oh snap look at that... 11%.

HPG, I'd like to take insert a question here as well as add a question from the Trump/GOP thread....

1) What do you think drove that inflation?

2) You said in the other thread that housing costs have skyrocketed from investment firms buying houses. This is a rare instance where we agree 100%. And I haven't seen a solution from either the D's or the R's. Can you hook me up with a link to where a solution has been proposed for this by the R's?

Answer 1) Inflation has one definition, and only one definition. Inflation means: too much money chasing too few goods. That's all it means. That's the only thing it has ever meant. I will be annoyingly clear about this point because there's an abundance of finger pointing making the word mean everything and nothing at the same time. Inflation is a natural consequence of a free market as banks and individuals lend money and earn interest. More money comes out of a paid loan than the investment that went into it. Money gets "created" in the process, and it should. Inflation should never be zero. The Federal Reserve's job is primarily the management of interest rates to regulate inflation. So what happened?

Too much money started chasing too few goods. Hard. Printing money has consequences; shutting down industries during Covid had -as still has- consequences. Scarcity drives price, or it did for a while. For the most part, manufacturing has returned and to my knowledge there isn't a shortage of goods sufficient to apply inflation pressures. Labor force participation is still low but not enough to cause inflationary pressure. At this point in time we are dealing with too much money in the system rather than scarcity of goods. It will take a long time to balance that out. First step should be simple: stop printing money. We are fast approaching an event horizon where the Fed will be printing money to pay the interest on the money they printed. We're in free fall at that point, using one credit card to make the payment on another credit card. poptart starts to look like a prophet pretty soon after that.

There's a reason for this question, and I'd like to put it in the form of another question. Does the price of diesel & gas play a part of inflation?

Answer 2) I'm going to ignore your childish attempt to play team sport politics. This problem transcends political parties. Both parties, most industries, and some entire fucking countries, have been captured by massive investment firms whose power is sufficient to guarantee its own profitability. That's the problem. Money is power and the money has consolidated into too few hands. It's pretty obvious the hands pulling the levers at Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, JP Morgan, etc. are creating their own ecosystem. You think Larry Fink and Mortimer Buckley give two shits about Environment, Society, and Governance? No fucking way. But if I wanted to play team sport politics I'd point and say, "See! They're Leftists!" But I'm smarter than that. I hope you are too.

This wasn't a question borne out of political sport. I won't pretend to know all the GOP viewpoints, and some simply are non-existent or not all that publicly discussed. I hadn't heard anything from the GOP side & wanted to see if you heard anything related to this.

Even while investment groups are forcing their debtors to meet ESG requirements, they barely care about those principles. They care about returns on investment. That's their god. Why bother with ESG then? Because ESG allows them to create an ecosystem with gatekeepers. So my point is this: even though the largest investment firms in the world lean heavily to the Left in every word, deed, and policy, calling them Democrats or Liberals completely misses the point. Similarly, implying the R's have no solution completely misses the point. This isn't about parties, it's about systems.

So...what can be done? Nothing on a large scale, I'm afraid. Systems are resilient.

My first reaction is to ban corporate ownership of private homes, but I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

On a small scale I have a few ideas. I have adult kids and employees with adult kids and I'm active in my church to a point where I think I have a basic understanding of the despair these kids feel. It's real and it's terrifying. I feel compelled to do something to help them. My circumstances are kind of unique so my plan isn't something that could be scaled up to help the whole country but in my little corner of the world, I'm looking at doing something more than scream at the TV.

This idea is less than a month old and still in the theoretical phase so forgive me if it's a little rough but here ya go.
In my little armpit of the country we have cheap land and lots of it. Jobs are plentiful but housing is not. We don't have much local lumber but we have aggregate and fly ash for free or close to it. In other words, if a guy had a brick press, that guy could make bricks for the cost of diesel plus wear and tear on the brick press. I can get land all day long for $5000/acre without mineral rights. Water well permits are easy to obtain and energy is generally close by. If I can get 20 kids whom want to own a home badly enough to work one day a week constructing their own home, I think every one of them could build a 24'x24' ranch style with basement for $50,000 in materials. There's permitting, certificates of occupancy and such that'll play into it as well but I think this is doable if they build it themselves. A person has a right to construct their own dwelling but if they want to sell it in the future they'll have to pass inspections. If these kids hire anyone, they must hire licensed and bonded contractors and that's expensive. The key is to do it yourself or with volunteer labor as friends help each other.

Last weekend I was talking with a couple 20-somethings about building one of these as a prototype and making video clips on how to run an excavator, how to level a wall, how to mix mortar, plumb a bathroom, how to tie back a wall, etc. The goal is to use as much local material at low cost as possible. If problems or questions arise, they could reference videos for direction. These kids watch a video to learn everyfukkenthing so why not teach them how to build a foundation, provide them the raw materials, and maybe restore some hope in the future. They'd have to turn off their video games for a while and part of me says they won't do that but I'm willing to try and offer these kids some hope if I can use my resources to do so.

I'd make back my investment by renting them equipment and they'd pay me for the materials plus interest over a 10 year term. I don't need to get rich off this deal but I don't want to dump money into a failing project either.

Your thoughts?

I like your thinking here. It seems that you've taken a page from the Habitat For Humanity Handbook in requiring sweat equity. The question is what that requirement would look like. I'm betting that a lot of the candidates for such homes don't have a background in construction. So what would be required of them to meet that obligation?

Similarly, watching videos about everyfukkenthing sounds good, but watching videos isn't professional training. If there is a defect in the wiring that causes a fire who would be liable? Same with a house that collapses in an earthquake or tornado that might be survivable for a structure constructed by professional contractors.

And again, how do you block out the speculators who would want to buy these homes while they're dirt cheap? Think Tejas & it's neighborhoods that were once affordable but now aren't.

Same with a house that collapses in an earthquake or tornado that might be survivable for a structure constructed by professional contractors.

Strangely enough, I read a study in a trade mag about structural integrity: post Hurricane Katrina impact. Habitat For Humanity was outstanding, for the very strange reason of an excess of fasteners in all aspects of construction.
When apprentices or volunteers are put to work, they're given a repetitive task. They don't know why they're doing it and are hesitant to move on to the next aspect. If a stud requires two spikes per end, they'll put four.

I'm confident HPG's ranch will withstand floods or hurricanes or whatever nonsense they get up to out there.

^Far less efficient than the essential union employee whose sole job is to hold up his own nametag all day (for $78.35 per hour).

Seems like a noble endeavor.

The problem here in California (yes I admit that we have some problems and it's not a perfect nirvana) is that everyone agrees that we need to build more affordable housing, but nobody wants it in their neighborhood. A couple of cities here in north San Diego County are building a lot of new (relatively) affordable apartments near the transit stations on a new-ish light rail line (the Sprinter). From there you can get to downtown San Diego or even LA without getting in a car.

We have two grown kids, one living in DT San Diego and one in Anaheim. I don't know how they'll ever afford to buy a house unless my wife and I both die and leave this place as a down payment. Our mortgage payment on a 25 year old loan is about half of what either of them pays for their apartments. Supposedly, based on 1/3 of one's salary going to housing, you need to make at least $200,000 per year to buy an average home in San Diego. That's just insane.

A few comments/questions on your idea.

It's a stretch to call a 24' x 24' home "ranch style." That adds up to 576 sq ft, not including the basement. That's the size of a studio or small one bedroom apartment. A ranch style home is generally at least 1500 sq ft, and longer than it is deep (or L or U shaped). Yes, the basement will give you some extra room. I have no experience with basements, but isn't it somewhat problematic to install plumbing in a basement (you need a sump pump to get your shit up to the sewer lines)? So the basement would mostly be useful for needed storage and maybe a "man cave."

24' x 24' is also about the average size of a two-car garage. Obviously not everyone needs a two-car garage, but don't you need some kind of covered parking space in your neck of the woods?

Once these young people decide to get married and start having kids, they will want something larger than what you're proposing. This could be a good starter, but you want to make sure that it's code compliant so that they eventually can sell it.

Building their own home, with experienced guidance, would be great experience for these kids. I was an electrician working in commercial construction for six years (after several other dead-end jobs) before I went back and finished school. That experience proved immensely valuable in my eventual career. It seems, though, like most young people now are not at all interested in getting involved in the trades. Maybe it's different where you live. If you can find 20 people to take this on, I would be amazed.

You just need to build as many units as possible. 90% of America is zoned to single family housing, even in the most in demand and dense locations in the country. It's a wasteful and inefficient use to public resources. All in the name of racism and traffic.

Allow property owners to build three or four levels on whatever residentially zoned property they own. Period. That will take care of this problem sooner rather than later.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 1:58 am You just need to build as many units as possible. 90% of America is zoned to single family housing, even in the most in demand and dense locations in the country. It's a wasteful and inefficient use to public resources. All in the name of racism and traffic.

What public resources are zoned single family? Do you even take the time to read the incoherent shit you post?

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 1:58 am Allow property owners to build three or four levels on whatever residentially zoned property they own. Period. That will take care of this problem sooner rather than later.

For sure. Property owners are clearly stifled from building what the market demands. I read every day about some poor developer that wanted to build a four story apartment complex in Chappaqua, but was fucked over by the Zoning Man. You are a loon.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 1:58 am You just need to build as many units as possible. 90% of America is zoned to single family housing, even in the most in demand and dense locations in the country. It's a wasteful and inefficient use to public resources. All in the name of racism and traffic.

Allow property owners to build three or four levels on whatever residentially zoned property they own. Period. That will take care of this problem sooner rather than later.

While this sounds great in concept it’s not nearly that simple and, taken to this extreme, it would result in almost immediate disaster. You need infrastructure to support whatever is built. This includes transportation, utilities (electricity, gas, water, sewer, etc), proximity to available services, etc. These things don’t just appear out of nowhere.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 4:18 am For sure. Property owners are clearly stifled from building what the market demands. I read every day about some poor developer that wanted to build a four story apartment complex in Chappaqua, but was fucked over by the Zoning Man. You are a loon.

My take is exactly 100% accurate. Plenty of developers get rejected by zoning boards and authorities from building 4 or 6 pack apartment complexes because zoning boards insist on racist single family zoning. Why don't you crack a news source for once that isn't T1B, Babylon Bee or your circle of far right Ted Kaczynski-like cranks? Fucking idiot.

Mikey wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 4:57 am While this sounds great in concept it’s not nearly that simple and, taken to this extreme, it would result in almost immediate disaster. You need infrastructure to support whatever is built. This includes transportation, utilities (electricity, gas, water, sewer, etc), proximity to available services, etc. These things don’t just appear out of nowhere.

You don't say?

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 12:47 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 4:57 am While this sounds great in concept it’s not nearly that simple and, taken to this extreme, it would result in almost immediate disaster. You need infrastructure to support whatever is built. This includes transportation, utilities (electricity, gas, water, sewer, etc), proximity to available services, etc. These things don’t just appear out of nowhere.

You don't say?

Your point?

At least, as usual, you continue to excel at mischaracterizing other people’s posts. For some reason I was under the impression that you were looking for a rational discussion but, when presented with some realistic challenges, you just get all defensive and completely exaggerate what I posted. OK sorry, my bad. Never mind. Your plan is 100% genius. Go for it.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 12:47 pm

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 4:18 am For sure. Property owners are clearly stifled from building what the market demands. I read every day about some poor developer that wanted to build a four story apartment complex in Chappaqua, but was fucked over by the Zoning Man. You are a loon.

My take is exactly 100% accurate. Plenty of developers get rejected by zoning boards and authorities from building 4 or 6 pack apartment complexes because zoning boards insist on racist single family zoning. Why don't you crack a news source for once that isn't T1B, Babylon Bee or your circle of far right Ted Kaczynski-like cranks? Fucking idiot.

Ted Kaczynski was a leftist.
Fucking idiot.

Mikey wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 7:28 pm At least, as usual, you continue to excel at mischaracterizing other people’s posts. For some reason I was under the impression that you were looking for a rational discussion but, when presented with some realistic challenges, you just get all defensive and completely exaggerate what I posted. OK sorry, my bad. Never mind. Your plan is 100% genius. Go for it.

I was poking a stick at Screwy's apartment lifestyle but you're right. I wanted a serious discussion and I'll edit the post. Thanks for the correction. I'll hammer out some long-winded responses to your questions soon.

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 12:22 am I'll hammer out some long-winded responses to your questions soon.

I never doubted you...

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 12:47 pm

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 4:18 am For sure. Property owners are clearly stifled from building what the market demands. I read every day about some poor developer that wanted to build a four story apartment complex in Chappaqua, but was fucked over by the Zoning Man. You are a loon.

My take is exactly 100% accurate. Plenty of developers get rejected by zoning boards and authorities from building 4 or 6 pack apartment complexes because zoning boards insist on racist single family zoning. Why don't you crack a news source for once that isn't T1B, Babylon Bee or your circle of far right Ted Kaczynski-like cranks? Fucking idiot.

Link me up, Diego Jr.