Am I missing something, or is it not possible to criticize the media’s obsession with attractive white girls without calling a person in a hospital after being beaten and probably gang raped stupid for no reason? You fucking piece of shit. See how I had a reason there?
For the sake of anyone in the future that might be subjected to the inane bullshit that issues from your deficient mind, I really hope you do feel that way. Sometimes valuable lessons are hard to hear. Good luck applying them, I’m sure everyone in your life would appreciate it.
I’m not trying to win by insulting you, I’m doing that because you deserve it. You should feel bad about what you are. If you feel shame for it maybe you’ll keep your mouth shut like a good little halfwit instead of vomiting out bullshit that might influence others to make a bad decision.
You can’t win so you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said mortgages are a risk and I absolutely didn’t say they were a loss in value. I’d say I didn’t know where you’re getting that, but it’s probably right out of your ass like everything else. I not saying now that there aren’t risks involved in buying a house but I never said there were, because that’s not what I’ve been talking about. I’ve just been refuting your nonsense about home equity as it applies to net worth and the rate you gain equity after buying.
In case you forgot, once again:
You said you have to pay off 50% of a house before it’s positive to your net worth. That’s not just wrong, it’s dumb as fuck.
You said it takes years or decades to break even selling a house. That’s not just wrong, it’s dumb as fuck.
Are you mentally impaired? Like diagnosed? I don’t want to make fun of you if you are, that would be mean.
Stop putting words in my mouth and stop moving the goalposts.
You said you have to pay 50% of your mortgage before a house adds to your net worth. That isn’t just wrong, it’s dumb as fuck.
You said it takes years or decades to be able to break even selling a house. That’s not just wrong, it’s dumb as fuck.
Whether or not is a smart idea for a particular person to buy a particular house or if it’s a good idea to invest in real estate vs something else are different discussions. I would bet it’s a bad idea for you because you seem unable to grasp even the most basic concepts.
But if you want to pretend you’re arguing with someone who says buy a bunch of houses and leave them empty to make money and ignore all the braindead shit you said so you can tell yourself you’re right, go for it. I hope that attitude takes you far in life.
Bro, you need to take the L here.
I’ll ignore you obviously having no idea what net worth means and trying to move the goalposts from your dip shit 50% comment again and just say this:
Even in a buyer’s market where the seller pays their realtor fees, the buyer’s realtor fees, and closing costs, you’re talking 7-8% tops, and I’m being generous here. If your home hasn’t decreased in value and it takes you decades, or even just years, to have 7-8% in equity, you are a class-A fuckup.
I wasn’t taking about that guy, he said he’s underwater.
I was responding to your bullshit about needing to pay off 50%+ for your home to be a positive to your net worth.
“New mortgage” doesn’t matter, as soon as you make the down payment, before you make a single mortgage payment, as long as the house hasn’t decreased in value you have equity and that adds to your net worth.
As long as you can sell and have $1 left over after leins and expenses, it adds to your net worth. It’s the value of the home less any leins, not your equity less any leins when determining what it means to your net worth.
TF you talking about? You use the whole price of the asset for net worth. If your mortgage is $1 less than what you would get from selling it that’s +$1 to your net worth.
If your house sells for 500k after expenses and you owe 300k you don’t just get the 200k and still owe 300k. The lein holder gets their 300k and you get 200k.
My house is worth ~1.8mm and I owe ~140k, that’s +1.66mm to my net worth. Even if I owed 1mm, I’d have +800k.
Unless the house is worth less than you owe, having a house with a mortgage isn’t a negative to your net worth.
There is almost no gold in it. 18k gold is 75% gold by weight, not volume. Apple created an alloy that, in addition to the normal metals, is mostly lightweight ceramic.
At the time I was surprised there wasn’t a class action suit. They were charging an amount that was in line with real gold watches and yeah the “gold” part was 75% gold by weight but it was such a departure from anything else ever called 18k gold it just seemed like a straight up scam to me.
No it’s not. It’s very easy. I used to do it all the time, when necessary. It’s just not for me anymore because it’s no longer necessary.
Nonsense. I decide what I want to watch, I search for it, 99% of the time it’s available on something I have.
Apples and oranges. The person that has all the streaming services, like me, would want all the premium channels. HBO, Cinemax, showtime, the movie channel are all 10 each. So now you’re at $133 and that is before all the add-on charges, taxes, and any other packages.
I don’t know what the pricing is now, but I moved around a bit in college and after and in the late 90s and early aughts I had service from the each of big 3 and DirecTV at one point or another and paid 90-120 not inflation adjusted and that is just TV, this is pre-broadband.
You’re also not taking into account streaming discounts.
With tmobile the highest tier of Netflix is $7.
Annually and with a $25 statement credit from Amex HBO is $125/year, $10.42/month. (Legacy ad free so 4k)
Amazon I don’t count, I have prime for shipping, TV is a bonus, even if you don’t buy that putting the entire amount to video streaming is pretty disingenuous with everything else you get. Maybe call it $5/month.
My Disney trio gets me a $7/month AMEX statement credit so $18.
Paramount+with showtime is $120/year so $10/month. I also get a statement credit from AMEX for that but I can’t be bothered to look it up.
Starz is $70/year so $5.83/month. And it’s another one with an Amex statement credit I can’t be bothered to look up.
Additionally, all my streaming services get a 6% cash back from Amex on top of the statement credits.
So the ones you listed (I have more, I just did the ones you mentioned, Apple TV+ is free with tmobile for example) would be $65.52-the statement credits I can’t be bothered to look up.(6% off doesn’t apply to Netflix because it’s paid through T-Mobile)
So about 50% cheaper with all the benefits of streaming over appointment commercial TV. (Although, to be faaaaaiir, once you add in my others, peacock, britbox, crunchyroll, Viki, maybe something I’m forgetting, it’s back to the ~1/3 I mentioned before.)(But to be fair the other way, a lot of that stuff isn’t available on cable/satellite at any price period.)
Those arguments are exactly what I’m disputing. The prices are lower and value proposition is higher.
It seems like prices are going up because services are coming out a bit at a time and each of them are taking a little while to mature. Cheap initial offerings followed by price increases when they get their shit together.
Imagine if you could go back 15-20 years and flip a switch and have all the streaming services as they exist today all at once. You could tell those same struggling Americans “I can reduce your tv bill 40-60%, increase available content, and you can access that content anytime and anywhere you want commercial free, also unlike cable/satellite you can pick and choose or rotate services to save even more and if your cool with some (still less than cable) ads you can save even more.”
Streaming is a massive value increase over cable/satellite, and a major price cut with options to tailor the price and content to work best for you.
I just subscribe to everything. Even a few niche services like britbox.
After taking into account credit card kickbacks, discounts from T-Mobile, and discounts from annual plans, I pay about 1/3 less than I did for cable with all the movie stations and DVR service back in the early aughts. And I’m even counting adding basic cable to my Internet (I use an app to stream that so no extra box). And I’m not even accounting for 20 years of inflation, with that it’s about a 60% reduction.
So I pay 60% less after inflation for almost every movie and TV show ever made commercial free on demand on any device I own anywhere in the world (some programming changes apply) and live news and sports with the cable app (I don’t think I’ve tried the cable app overseas though).
It used to be appointment TV with non-premium stations having 30-35% commercial time. Even when TiVo came out you had to buy it and pay a sub, and when cable started offering DVR you paid for a more expensive box rental on top of paying monthly for the ability to DVR, double-dipping fuckers.
I really don’t understand complaints about streaming. Compared to what it’s replacing it’s an amazing upgrade in price, quality, and convenience. When do you ever get that? How hard is it to figure out what service something is on? Most boxes have a universial search and if your using a mobile device Google is right there. Yeah prices get higher on occasion, but inflation is a thing and now that content producers see the profit in streaming they’re putting money into new content, which makes me think of another thing: content produced for streaming is vastly superior, even on streaming services from the old major networks. Stuff that wouldn’t have gotten by the advertisers, let alone the censors for commercial broadcast, and no editing for time. A particular episode needs an extra couple/several minutes to be told correctly, no big deal.
As someone who loves the silver screen, and the small screen, for art and entertainment that can’t be called art with a straight face, I love streaming. I can’t understand how anyone who paid for cable/satellite in the past couldn’t.
Sorry for the ramble, can’t be bothered to edit for clarity or readability.
Both can be true.
He probably puts ketchup on hotdogs.
Nominated, won, and gave one of the best acceptance speeches of all time.
That’s the thing, 45 years later you only ever hear the bangers, not the other 99.9%.
Is there a term for that? It’s not survivorship bias exactly, although I guess you could stretch the definition.