[Stallion]

(05-17-2017 10:27 AM)Fortis Wrote:  

I don't know about the rest of Asia, but many Asian governments are notoriously xenophobic and draconian when it comes to property and foreigners. They are almost irrationally biased against you.

You often need a co-signer who is native (wife) and if she decides to fuck you over you have ZERO legal recourse. She could just tell you to leave, and the house is under her name so the courts will dismiss you and any claim you think you have to that property.

Thailand is infamous for this, a foreigner doesn't own neither the land nor whatever is built on top of it.

So the poor guy just marries the hooker he met in Pattaya (who miraculously turned into a good girl when she met him) and now she can sign to buy the house with his money.

Two days later of course she kicks him out. And there is nothing he can do about it, because his name isn't even mentioned in any paper.

I don't know how much of this is a urban legend and how often it actually happens, but I heard it enough times from all kinds of people to believe it is a real thing.

[TooFineAPoint]

(05-17-2017 06:04 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

If all young people move to another state for employment, the original state won't exist anymore.

If they all move to another country for education and employment, their mother country will be no more.

Solutions that work for individuals can be hugely detrimental to society and country.

Some societies and countries that passively encourage their individuals to leave may deserve to fade away.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-17-2017 12:33 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 06:04 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

If all young people move to another state for employment, the original state won't exist anymore.

If they all move to another country for education and employment, their mother country will be no more.

Solutions that work for individuals can be hugely detrimental to society and country.

Some societies and countries that passively encourage their individuals to leave may deserve to fade away.

That is the goal with White Western societies anyway. The leaders are so much opposed to their own nation-state and even ethnicity that even the worst enemy could not do as much damage - i.e. Merkel, Obama, Hollande, every ruling Swedish prime minister etc.

[Tigre]

(05-17-2017 12:15 PM)Stallion Wrote:  

Thailand is infamous for this, a foreigner doesn't own neither the land nor whatever is built on top of it.

So the poor guy just marries the hooker he met in Pattaya (who miraculously turned into a good girl when she met him) and now she can sign to buy the house with his money.

Two days later of course she kicks him out. And there is nothing he can do about it, because his name isn't even mentioned in any paper.

I don't know how much of this is a urban legend and how often it actually happens, but I heard it enough times from all kinds of people to believe it is a real thing.

Foreigners can own condos in Thailand. Up to a certain % of each building is acceptable for outright foreign ownership.

I have friends that have done this.

I personally moved abroad and then bought property abroad.

But never mind those facts, when it's easier to keep yourself in a circle jerk of excuses and hearsay. Carry on.

[Stallion]

(05-17-2017 01:18 PM)Tigre Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 12:15 PM)Stallion Wrote:  

Thailand is infamous for this, a foreigner doesn't own neither the land nor whatever is built on top of it.

So the poor guy just marries the hooker he met in Pattaya (who miraculously turned into a good girl when she met him) and now she can sign to buy the house with his money.

Two days later of course she kicks him out. And there is nothing he can do about it, because his name isn't even mentioned in any paper.

I don't know how much of this is a urban legend and how often it actually happens, but I heard it enough times from all kinds of people to believe it is a real thing.

Foreigners can own condos in Thailand. Up to a certain % of each building is acceptable for outright foreign ownership.

I have friends that have done this.

I personally moved abroad and then bought property abroad.

Yes, condos are fair game as long as 51% is owned by Thais. The problem are individual houses for two people, as a foreigner can only own up to 49% of the building, so the Thai partner has full legal power.

I was talking about buying land and building a house in the countryside, which is what most older guys looking to start a family do in Thailand.

Also even if you can own 49% of the building, the terrain must be 100% Thai (the only work around is to buy it through a company owned by the foreigner, then he can be totally safe).



I'm talking about cases like this guy
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34346620

Or this guy's wife trying to scam him out of ownership (although it seems he was smart to buy through a company so he was protected)
https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/277...blue-book/

or this other guy
http://www.amara.org/en/videos/D2439MZAT...and-scams/

Interesting insight from this commenter:

Quote:

I worked at an Embassy in BKK (I won't say which one) for 9 years and we'd deal with around 5 cases like this a WEEK!

But this is getting very off topic, I'll stop derailing this thread now.

(05-17-2017 01:18 PM)Tigre Wrote:  

But never mind those facts, when it's easier to keep yourself in a circle jerk of excuses and hearsay. Carry on.

???

[RatInTheWoods]

Australia in the 70s:

Cheap houses, plentiful jobs. Less traffic, more social cohesion and attractive feminine slim women.

I feel sorry for you millennials, but it wasn't the baby boomers that fucked it up, you guys embraced feminism, globalism and migration. Failed a lotta shit tests.

[Moreless]

(05-17-2017 04:50 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

Australia in the 70s:

Cheap houses, plentiful jobs. Less traffic, more social cohesion and attractive feminine slim women.

I feel sorry for you millennials, but it wasn't the baby boomers that fucked it up, you guys embraced feminism, globalism and migration. Failed a lotta shit tests.

Cute.

Too bad our parents let us watch the media that the boomers created. It's too bad boomers/parents gave millennials all those trophies for participation. All the millennial children should have known better than to listen and trust authority figures that were raising and teaching us.

[Travesty]

(05-17-2017 04:50 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

Australia in the 70s:

Cheap houses, plentiful jobs. Less traffic, more social cohesion and attractive feminine slim women.

I feel sorry for you millennials, but it wasn't the baby boomers that fucked it up, you guys embraced feminism, globalism and migration. Failed a lotta shit tests.

I like how you say that from Thailand, nice touch.

[Repo]

Millenials aren't the ones in power with globalist agendas, were just lazy do-nothings, remember?

Shit, millenials barely even vote. Its the older generations who voted these people in.

[Fortis]

So Stallion and I are circle jerking because we are suspicious of trying to own property in famously xenophobic locations?

Ok.

Please show me your Chinese land portfolio.

No need to get snide just becuase I'm not interested in owning 49% of something in Asia.

[Fortis]

(05-17-2017 05:42 PM)Travesty Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 04:50 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

Australia in the 70s:

Cheap houses, plentiful jobs. Less traffic, more social cohesion and attractive feminine slim women.

I feel sorry for you millennials, but it wasn't the baby boomers that fucked it up, you guys embraced feminism, globalism and migration. Failed a lotta shit tests.

I like how you say that from Thailand, nice touch.

I didn't know we could vote for things when we were 5. That's the real kicker.

[Leonard D Neubache]

In about ten years the articles are going to go from "Millionare: Millenials can't buy houses because they spend too much money on Avocados"

to...

Nursing Home Resident: Millenials aren't paying for the perpetual stream of adult diapers I need because they spend too much money on Avocados"

Invest in avocados...

...and Soylent Green

[Fortis]

(05-17-2017 07:04 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

In about ten years the articles are going to go from "Millionare: Millenials can't buy houses because they spend too much money on Avocados"

to...

Nursing Home Resident: Millenials aren't paying for the perpetual stream of adult diapers I need because they spend too much money on Avocados"

Invest in avocados...

...and Soylent Green

Like I said, this should be scaring the shit out of Boomers and Gen-X because if shit doesn't stabilize they will be living in tents and eating cat food or living with their children forever. Neither is a good.

[TigerMandingo]

Relevant:

"Whiny, narcissistic, self-indulgent people with a very simple philosophy: Give me it it's mine!!"

[Suits]

Useful training video on conductor job interviews with millennials:

[The Beast1]

There isn't an affordable home problem. There is a mostly a landlord/residential investor problem driving up property values with a smaller zoning problem exasperating the situation because the city enjoys being able to gorge itself on outrageous property taxes.

Take Los Angeles for example. The last census in 2015 showed that 54% of people in LA rented, of that 54% I believe three quarters of them are families. Yet there's still a decent amount of rentable/vacant units.

What does that tell me? It tells me that there's a parasitic class of investors driving up residential properties and condos for their own benefit, locking out the less savvy and forcing them into either renting or moving out to the sticks if they wish to own.

It'll probably be unpopular to say here, because a lot of guys are invested in real estate, It's a complete lie that landlords make housing affordable. Housing is affordable when families can afford to put down for lots and units themselves. Prices rise organically instead of being outbid by all cash buyers.

City governments are also to blame for the obvious tax reasons I mentioned before. With rental numbers that high a local candidate could easily come in on a populist platform making real estate investment painful for landlords. In a few years, there may in fact be someone who tries to pull it off. They could mention restricting HOAs too and make the whole message even more popular with home owners who stand to lose if property values drop.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(12-09-2017 08:49 AM)Suits Wrote:  

Useful training video on conductor job interviews with millennials:

Comments are gold:

Quote:

Left out the part where she sues him 10 years later for sexual harrasment

Quote:

I wish this was satire. I am an employer and have sadly heard these answers.

Quote:

Lol, I work in HR. I have to say this is so true. So sad.

Quote:

Her discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuits will be filed within the week and she may file for social security disability payments for her post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Sane employers will start avoiding hiring women altogether. Usually you can easily discern who is too steeped in the feminist social justice borg mindset.

[RexImperator]

The Beast1 Wrote:

What does that tell me? It tells me that there's a parasitic class of investors driving up residential properties and condos for their own benefit

Yes, this is true. It's not just individuals but actually huge institutional-sized money connected to Wall St.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(12-09-2017 10:47 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

There isn't an affordable home problem. There is a mostly a landlord/residential investor problem driving up property values with a smaller zoning problem exasperating the situation because the city enjoys being able to gorge itself on outrageous property taxes.

Take Los Angeles for example. The last census in 2015 showed that 54% of people in LA rented, of that 54% I believe three quarters of them are families. Yet there's still a decent amount of rentable/vacant units.

What does that tell me? It tells me that there's a parasitic class of investors driving up residential properties and condos for their own benefit, locking out the less savvy and forcing them into either renting or moving out to the sticks if they wish to own.

It'll probably be unpopular to say here, because a lot of guys are invested in real estate, It's a complete lie that landlords make housing affordable. Housing is affordable when families can afford to put down for lots and units themselves. Prices rise organically instead of being outbid by all cash buyers.

City governments are also to blame for the obvious tax reasons I mentioned before. With rental numbers that high a local candidate could easily come in on a populist platform making real estate investment painful for landlords. In a few years, there may in fact be someone who tries to pull it off. They could mention restricting HOAs too and make the whole message even more popular with home owners who stand to lose if property values drop.

Real estate is a racket. Not only are the 0,01% extremely over-represented among the buyers with large investment portfolios being built, but banks are buying huge chunks of real estate themselves with close to unlimited money. I once overlooked the ownership maps of large European cities. You would be surprised to find out that sometimes 30% of a central part of world-class city was owned just by one bank alone. Those banks either operate on their own or invest in large funds which they control.

Then you have the international real estate investors added to it. All the groups including realtors are interested that prices stay high, that zoning restrictions stay restrictive and they are also interested in pushing the Agenda 21/ Global Warming, because that restricts construction on a multitude of levels.

In some developed countries like Switzerland it has created a renter population - 70%+ of people are renting and this despite extremely high wages. The wealthy property owners have effectively restricted the ability of the entire class up until the upper-middle class to build or own property. For anyone with large sums of capital this is wonderful, because you may not get high ROI, but your real estate portfolio works like a stable bond.

And of course it is an utter misuse of the system.

A better way would be to simply have an ethical logical approach of independent city architects drawing up an intelligent livable city plan and then adhering to it. As Frank Lloyd Wright put it - the best cities would probably be Hilton-like 50 story high-rises each surrounded with parks. Add to it single family homes in the close suburbs and you can have millions living in green spaces with a minimum of transport and high quality of living. Also everyone should have access to a zero-interest rate Jak-bank style or Swiss WIR credit for ONE SELF-USED HOUSE OR APARTMENT DEPENDENT ON YOUR INCOME STREAM. That would take away the sail out of the predatory renter market.

But alas - who are we kidding - the ones who are in charge have different plans. The future lies in 90%+ of the population renting.

[Teep]

Actually, it's the government. The American property market is a global free for all. The second foreign ownership is banned (or even heavily restricted), the market would crash.

They have zero incentive to do that though because politicians win elections by keeping homeowners happy.

[The Beast1]

(12-09-2017 11:14 AM)Teep Wrote:  

Actually, it's the government. The American property market is a global free for all. The second foreign ownership is banned (or even heavily restricted), the market would crash.

They have zero incentive to do that though because politicians win elections by keeping homeowners happy.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Every major city I've rented in with the exception of 1 rental had local landlords who I met personally.

The problem is mostly two parts landlord/real estate investor, one part government.

[Teep]

^Even with local landlords, the government is still playing a role via artificially low interest rates. Again, the political class has a vested interested in keeping market going up and homeowners happy.

But yea, the foreign ownership issue is more of a problem in the coastal areas. Not sure where you lived.

[godfather dust]

I'm in MA. I know some homeowners who would love property prices to go down because they actually want to live in their home and weren't planning on already extortionate property taxes booming.

[Extinguished Light]

My wife and I both earn salaries that are well above average. Right now we're in a major metropolitan city and that affords a very ordinary middle class lifestyle if viewed through the lens of my parents' generation. In terms of homes, sure we could buy one, but it wouldn't be worth the money in any objective terms. It would be a small, old house that needed massive overhauling and involved a long commute to work.

We're working on moving to a smaller, more affordable city soon, but then you risk being left behind by the massive rises in property values in the major centers.

When I see how hard it is to buy a home and have it actually make financial sense even with a very comfortable income, it really frustrates me that the situation is exponentially more bleak and impossible for the average american.

Honestly the whole thing is a racket. No one really has the money to buy their homes at the numbers that they sell for. When I see nurses with 70k salaries buying a house for 400k, it becomes clear that something is very wrong. When I see a 90 year old shithole selling for 1.4m in LA, its even more clear. These numbers are possible for two reasons: foreign investment, and debt.

If debt wasn't handed out like candy, there would be no ability to bid up the prices of houses to stupid levels. If things could only be sold for what people could actually afford, houses would cost only a fraction of what they do today.

Our entire financial system is built on usury and really only benefits the usurers. However, there's no escaping it without a sweeping fundamental change to the world's economic structure.

[WalterBlack]

(12-09-2017 10:47 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

There isn't an affordable home problem. There is a mostly a landlord/residential investor problem driving up property values with a smaller zoning problem exasperating the situation because the city enjoys being able to gorge itself on outrageous property taxes.

Take Los Angeles for example. The last census in 2015 showed that 54% of people in LA rented, of that 54% I believe three quarters of them are families. Yet there's still a decent amount of rentable/vacant units.

What does that tell me? It tells me that there's a parasitic class of investors driving up residential properties and condos for their own benefit, locking out the less savvy and forcing them into either renting or moving out to the sticks if they wish to own.

It'll probably be unpopular to say here, because a lot of guys are invested in real estate, It's a complete lie that landlords make housing affordable. Housing is affordable when families can afford to put down for lots and units themselves. Prices rise organically instead of being outbid by all cash buyers.

City governments are also to blame for the obvious tax reasons I mentioned before. With rental numbers that high a local candidate could easily come in on a populist platform making real estate investment painful for landlords. In a few years, there may in fact be someone who tries to pull it off. They could mention restricting HOAs too and make the whole message even more popular with home owners who stand to lose if property values drop.

Los Angeles fucked itself due to boomers' stupid zoning laws denying developers the ability to build extra accommodation. I make well over average and I live in LA but as a single male still paying down student debt I can't afford to buy shit here. Apparently LA has a vacancy rate for renting of around 3%. LA is HUGE, it has an area of 500 sq miles.

Look at this graph from 2015 - the black line is housing capacity, and the red line is the population:

Quote:

As presently developed, Los Angeles is at 92 percent of its total capacity. Population has increased at a fairly steady clip since 1960; simultaneously, the maximum population allowed by the physical space has plummeted—LA had space for 10 million people in 1960 and for just 4.3 million in 2010.

NIMBYs and frustratingly archaic zoning codes have made it unnecessarily difficult to build densely in Los Angeles, and single family houses have meanwhile eaten up nearly all of the land there is to eat. What we're left with today is a city in which "single-family homes control 80 percent of L.A.'s residential land while representing a far smaller proportion of the population," as noted by Josh Stephens in his well-reasoned breakdown of the situation.

Who was around between 1960 to 1980, to remove 60% of capacity? It wasn't millennials. I'm sure there's a lot of similar shit going on in other US Markets.

Los Angeles is so fucked that they have been building next to freeways:

Quote:

For more than a decade, California air quality officials have warned against building homes within 500 feet of freeways.

And with good reason: People there suffer higher rates of asthma, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer and pre-term births. Recent research has added more health risks to the list, including childhood obesity, autism and dementia.

Yet Southern California civic officials have flouted those warnings, allowing a surge in home building near traffic pollution, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of U.S. Census data, building permits and other government records.

In Los Angeles alone officials have approved thousands of new homes within 1,000 feet of a freeway — even as they advised developers that this distance poses health concerns.

The city issued building permits for 4,300 homes near freeways in 2015 — more than in any year over the last decade — and signed off on an additional 3,000 units last year.

Public funds, including millions of dollars from California’s cap-and-trade program to cut greenhouse gas emissions, are going to developers to build new homes in freeway pollution hot spots.

The population near Los Angeles freeways is growing faster than elsewhere in the city as planners push developers to concentrate new housing near transportation hubs, convinced that increasing urban density will help meet state targets for greenhouse gas reductions.

More than 1.2 million people already live in high-pollution zones within 500 feet of a Southern California freeway, with more moving in every day. Between 2000 and 2010 — the most recent period available — the population within 500 feet of a Los Angeles freeway grew 3.9%, compared with a rate of 2.6% citywide.

Quote:

In an interview at a recent groundbreaking for a freeway-adjacent apartment project, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said that he grew up near the 101 and 405 freeways and that many in his family had cancer.

But he said he opposes any restrictions on how many homes can be built near freeways and thinks that improving air-filtration, building design and tailpipe emissions are a better way to reduce risks to residents.

“I take this stuff very seriously, but I also know that in looking for housing we have a very constricted city,” he said.

Garcetti spokesman Carl Marziali noted that a prohibition on building within 1,000 feet of freeways, for example, would cover more than 10% of land currently zoned for residential construction in the city, from Westwood to Boyle Heights and San Pedro to Sherman Oaks. But proponents of stricter planning, including supporters of Measure S, a proposal on the March 7 ballot that would place new restrictions on development, have criticized city officials for approving what they term “black lung lofts.”