The hate of realty

[gmakhs]

I am.Not from the US but I prefer to keep the property and rent it out or use a property manager than selling it all .
And I would never sell property to get the capital for a boat I had better cast off on s.sller cheaper boat

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes the newer the house the shoddier the quality

I worked in the former Eastern Bloc in the early 90s but more recently returned to the US after spending several years abroad. What's ironic after returning to the US is seeing the same Soviet-esque apartment buildings all over the US. This while the public narrative is that the economy is strong while certain elements are worried that certain other elements are trying to turn the place into the next Venezuela or something (Freudian projection plain to see). You can't make this stuff up.

Why Do New Apartment Buildings Look So Similar?

Have you noticed that new apartment buildings across the country pretty much all look alike? Our guest discusses what's behind those boxy, bland designs and why he says they may become more widely accepted over time.
https://www.wpr.org/why-do-new-apart...ook-so-similar

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes the newer the house the shoddier the quality

The exception is some truly custom homes built to a buyer supplied spec. and they are as rare as hens teeth

I was house shopping when we came back from Germany in late 90’s.
The thing that astonished me was how poorly the houses were constructed, hollow core doors, built on slabs that were ground level, and all had what I call mobile home windows, that is cheap aluminum formed windows that screw in on the outside of the house and have no casements etc.
The plumbing and especially the electric was very poor, barely met spec etc. HVAC systems undersized, economy shingles etc.

However what really astonished me was the 5,000 square ft, 5+ bedroom, 5+ bathroom “Estate”homes on larger lots, they were well over seven figures, but built to the same spec the smaller spec built houses were, they were flashier, all had granite counter tops and a few other expected items, but were not built any better, just larger.

I see similar things in a lot of newer boats, people want big and flashy, for the least they can pay for it, and no longer want quality construction.
I think the opinion is who cares what happens in the future, I’ll worry about it then?

I did OK, bought the house the Wife loved, knowing that it wasn’t built very well, but also knew I was going to sell in five years too.
However by now I know that house has to have had some serious problems.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Singularity

[can't edit previous post...should have read "people who are not familiar with all the academic theory aspect otherwise do NOT consider it legitimate to take from the community..."]


It must be recognized that if a government has a problem with poor people having affordable housing, it has options on a continuum bounded by 2 extremes:
1) develop an government infrastructure to help poor people...one by one...with their housing problems
2) develop an infrastructure where private industry takes care of the poor people housing problem

In EITHER instance, the government is going to pay out money to take care of the issue.
The supermajority (99%?) of current rentier capitalists (including commercial realty) became the same only by means of government backed loans, tax breaks, policy exceptionalism, etc. Many people genuinely don't understand or simply don't like to admit/accept this.

So when the government takes the role, this takes a lot more government employees. Bigger headache for legislators starting from day 1. Where the private industry takes the role the government gives tax breaks, economic incentives, policy exceptionalism, etc. On day 1 it's a load off the legislator's mind. Which model is easier to sell in which countries?

When the government takes the role, you don't get a rentier capitalist class. All the money spent on rent either earns the poor person some resemblance of capital...and/or at least stays in the community/locale that the poor folks are living. There is otherwise at least soft incentive for the poor folks to maintain their community (i.e. instead of "driving it like it's a rental").

When private industry takes the role...ordinarily a rentier capitalist class is created, the poor person never earns capital, and there is typically no obligation for the rentier capitalist to physically remain in the poor community/local. In fact there ordinarily are tax incentives, breaks, etc, that results in the rentier class wealth people doing things like buying expensive property far away from the poor community/local...not further supporting the primary infrastructure to the degree that "keeping money local" provides.

Reading about the concept of the universal basic income may be of interest. Why the top 0.1% thinks it's a good idea. If/when it comes about...it should dispense with much of the realty rentier phenomenon.

Twisted.

There’s nothing wrong with buying a house or commercial property, fixing it up then renting it to someone to house a business or put a roof over their head. Doing so can create long term income to be spent on cruising and/or retirement.

[Singularity]

I agree it's twisted. My whole life I heard the narrative of the 'welfare queen who lives off the government treasury' while the numbers demonstrate that other industries guzzle from the public treasury (by means of government backed loans, tax breaks, incentives, etc, etc) while people on welfare at most get a sip. Farmers are literally killing themselves for relief while otherwise comprising a small enough fraction of the economy so as to make relief tenable. I think most people have a problem with this, particularly when they see the numbers.

When the public treasury's money goes off-shore it simply isn't left back in the system to pay off the debt created by the guzzling in the first place. If/when the country buys a fleet of aircraft costing $90m a copy to guard the property held by the guy off-shore...who disproportionately doesn't have to pay for the defense of the property...I think most people have a problem with that as well. I'm a huge fan of capitalism, but this isn't capitalism.

I'm recounting basic macroeconomics and history, no smoke and mirrors. The numbers speak for themselves.

https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-02/gdpind318.pdf
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com...ending_40.html
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

[Kenomac]

This thread is supposed to be about real estate intended to help support a cruising lifestyle. So far I think Phil the Boatman has it about right when he stated that most people probably just want to rid themselves of land-based stuff prior to heading out.

That said, I have to ask....why are all the Marxist political tirades by Singularity allowed on this forum? Does he (or she) have any real interest in cruising or boat stuff, or is this just another outlet for political views on income inequality?

[TheRailRoader]

Sorry, I was more curious as to underlying cultural beliefs held by cruisers as far as I understood it.

But seeing that other thread, my original premise for my question or beliefs was incorrect. So it is a moot point.

I thought it was him just supplying an opinion on why he felt that it could be the case. Let's face it psuedo Marxism is envogue with today's kids, who have absolutely zero understanding of it (not claiming I have any great knowledge).

[Cheechako]

People sail away to get rid of all those worries.

[Singularity]

I'm no Marxist. In addition to my primary profession I own a company completely capitalized by my own personal funds in fact earned outside the US. I have no government support, nor do I want it.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I'm no Marxist. In addition to my primary profession I own a company completely capitalized by my own personal funds in fact earned outside the US. I have no government support, nor do I want it.

I'm perfectly OK with that. Now let's get back to cruising stuff.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

However what really astonished me was the 5,000 square ft, 5+ bedroom, 5+ bathroom “Estate”homes on larger lots, they were well over seven figures, but built to the same spec the smaller spec built houses were, they were flashier, all had granite counter tops and a few other expected items, but were not built any better, just larger.

Funny site
http://mcmansionhell.com/

I imagine Germans and most northern europeans pay a bit more attention to quality details, that market likely doesn't let builders be quite so shoddy.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

why are all the Marxist political tirades by Singularity allowed on this forum?

The topic is the various reasons there is "hating" of real estate investment.

A significant proportion comes from the realization that passive income past a certain amount is inherently immoral and allowing such is a huge contributor to evil in the world.

More "philosophical ethics" discussion than practical "political" discussion fodder at this point in the spiritual evolution of our species.

Saying there is nothing wrong with allowing extreme inequality and the accumulation of unlimited wealth, is of just as "political", just closer to today's value system in the U.S.

“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
— Martin Luther King Jr

[markbarendt]

Originally Posted by TheRailRoader

Okay, I need to ask. Why do so many sailors hate on owning real estate?

The feel I get is a lot of cruisers are stable financially. But they decide to "sell it all" and head of into the sunset.. which is all fine and dandy, it just leaves me horribly curious as to why. I understand propert tax, insurance, maintenance etc and that is all a draw on on your purse strings. Yet, that excuse does not always hold water.

If you do not have a significant emotional attachment to your house and are "okay" to sell it and sail.. why not rent it out? Now I am assuming you have decent equity in the house, that selling helps financially keep going longer or indefinitely. But with that equity in the house a renter could help provide that cash flow (yes damages, vacancy rate issues etc all exist, but let's normalize and assume the average case wont be a nightmare). So if your house is paid off all that goes in your pocket, if your place isnt you are still making equity and less into your pocket.. but still.. it confuses me.

Now the argument of cash now vs later doesnt make sense either.. cause you can pull out 80% of the equity in your house.. buy whatever you need to get outfitted and go. Or if you want that money in investments (this is more specific to canada as I do not know taxation in other countries), you can pull out the money from your house and put it into an rrsp and the interest becomes a write off. So you have some money from the renter in your pocket, the rest paying your mortgage and you have an investment account to boot...

Is it property managers vs lack thereof? Is it simply just a cultural thing amongst sailors? Or is there something more?

Full disclaimer big part of my retirement plan is renting houses out. Father does it, friends do it as well, it just seems simple and straightforward to me.. yes nightmares do happen occasionally but you plan and budget for it.. I feel like being a cruiser and a landlord would be a perfect match if you have a property manager, when a place goes vacant you can plan to visit that location meet with old friends for a bit then go back to the boat and continue on.

Any rate, what am I missing? Yes I am a curious cat I find it interesting how people fund this lifestyle.

RR

My mom had a saying, “every key you have is a worry”.

Real estate can be a good thing to own, but owning does carry real risk and does require paying attention.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by TheRailRoader

Sorry, I did not mean to demean, insult or belittle the decision. I do and truly believe that everyone has their own truths. What works for me, may not or will not work for someone else. Due to personalities, experiences and where a person is in life or geographically even.

That about sums it up.
I must admit when first looking at Thread Title I read it as

'The Hate of Reality' and got really excited [emoji1]

[dannc]

We started thinking about getting a boat and cruising 20ish years ago...

This stopped when I pointed out to the wife, she is/was really big on going so I am VERY lucky, that we had just bought land to build our dream house and we were about to start a family.

15ish years later the boat idea resurfaced and we have been seriously plotting and planning ever since.

One issue is the house. We built our dream house and it is a great house that we would hate to sell. Having said that, we almost certainly will sell the house if the boat idea pans out.

There are many reasons but one big one is that the kids almost certainly will not be living in the area, and when we had to move off the boat, we would want/need to be near at least one of the kids.

Taking care of home while traveling is too much of a hassle. We will not rent. It is possible to find a good renter but it is not easy. I have heard too many horror stories and seen them happen to others. While our neighborhood is not likely to go downhill I have seen that happen with my first house. We got out ok but I would not buy in that neighborhood today. We got really lucky because just before we had to put our house on the market, the drug dealer next door moved out. The house was a rental, and while it was not destroyed, there was a fair amount of damage and lots of problems.

Our current neighborhood has been great for decades. However, we have one guy who is a drug addict, with multiple arrests, that lives in the neighborhood. He has allowed people to camp out at his place and one "renter" was breaking into other people's homes and attacked a woman jogging by. It just takes one person to bring a place down.

Later,
Dan