That last thread was like a meeting of Workaholics Anonymous...
-
I don't subscribe to the theory that "hard work" got to me to where I am. Anybody can work hard, but what I had was a unique combination of skill, determination and ultimately luck. Put some other in the same situation and they'd have failed. Do you know why? It's because I'm fucking brilliant and they aren't. We need people to do the things we can't or wont. To disclaim everyone who can't afford somewhere decent to live as whingers is idiocy of the highest order. Did I work hard? Yes. Did I work harder than someone who stands knee-deep in shit down a sewer doing a far more necessary job for society than I ever did? I doubt it. And where does that leave us?
martin_hughes wrote:
Anybody can work hard, but what I had was a unique combination of skill, determination and ultimately luck
Yes, I would agree that luck plays a part. I failed high school b/c I never did the course work. I spent my time in class mentally undressing girls and thinking about code. I spent my home time coding and playing games. If my chosen hobby was soccer, or photography, or collecting stamps, I'd have no qualifications and probably a dead end job where no amount of hard work will get you far.
martin_hughes wrote:
To disclaim everyone who can't afford somewhere decent to live as whingers is idiocy of the highest order.
I don't think anyone said that. To say that people who have less in life and who think that's the fault of people who have more are whingers, is spot on. On the other hand, it's people who make a higher income who spend a lot on discretionary things like eating out, which creates jobs. They also pay more taxes, funding the welfare state. It's not a perfect system, but we're stuck with it. I respect anyone who works hard to better themselves. My issue is people who won't do anything, but feel bitter that others who do work hard, have some success.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Anybody can work hard, but what I had was a unique combination of skill, determination and ultimately luck
Yes, I would agree that luck plays a part. I failed high school b/c I never did the course work. I spent my time in class mentally undressing girls and thinking about code. I spent my home time coding and playing games. If my chosen hobby was soccer, or photography, or collecting stamps, I'd have no qualifications and probably a dead end job where no amount of hard work will get you far.
martin_hughes wrote:
To disclaim everyone who can't afford somewhere decent to live as whingers is idiocy of the highest order.
I don't think anyone said that. To say that people who have less in life and who think that's the fault of people who have more are whingers, is spot on. On the other hand, it's people who make a higher income who spend a lot on discretionary things like eating out, which creates jobs. They also pay more taxes, funding the welfare state. It's not a perfect system, but we're stuck with it. I respect anyone who works hard to better themselves. My issue is people who won't do anything, but feel bitter that others who do work hard, have some success.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
My issue is people who won't do anything, but feel bitter that others who do work hard, have some success.
This is a tiny, tiny, minority of people. In terms of national budgets, these people don't exist except at election time when a drum needs to be beaten. The reality is that "hard working", employed and otherwise "useful" members of society can't afford basic things like a roof over their heads, heating, electricity, food or a future for their kids without getting massively in debt. This may just be me, but I know that to be wrong. I don't expect everybody to have, freely, what I have, but I do expect that society affords those who are contributing to at least provide the basics. And it isn't.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
My issue is people who won't do anything, but feel bitter that others who do work hard, have some success.
This is a tiny, tiny, minority of people. In terms of national budgets, these people don't exist except at election time when a drum needs to be beaten. The reality is that "hard working", employed and otherwise "useful" members of society can't afford basic things like a roof over their heads, heating, electricity, food or a future for their kids without getting massively in debt. This may just be me, but I know that to be wrong. I don't expect everybody to have, freely, what I have, but I do expect that society affords those who are contributing to at least provide the basics. And it isn't.
martin_hughes wrote:
The reality is that "hard working", employed and otherwise "useful" members of society can't afford basic things like a roof over their heads, heating, electricity, food or a future for their kids without getting massively in debt.
The reason I started the housing prices thread below, was a news story locally. Hobart has always had cheap housing. As I said in that thread, the price of a cheap house here now is such that someone who makes $45k ( which is the AVERAGE wage, so a lot of people are making less ), can afford to buy an entry level house in Hobart IF they have a $50k deposit AND no other debts. Like I said below, I don't think that's reasonable, but I do also think that there's a bubble going on which is going to burst ( strangly, fat boy attacked me for saying that, too ). However, I think the bubble has been caused at least in part by government grants for first time buyers, which have just pushed prices up to absorb those grants. So, when you say :
martin_hughes wrote:
This may just be me, but I know that to be wrong. I don't expect everybody to have, freely, what I have, but I do expect that society affords those who are contributing to at least provide the basics. And it isn't.
I tend to agree. However, the question becomes, what do we do about it ? I believe that any sort of government intervention into the markets creates more issues than it solves, such as the bubble we're experiencing now. So, the only other solution I see, is public housing. If people with jobs cannot get somewhere decent to live, then I think our society has an issue. If people who work hard find they have to rent, and/or need their rent to be subsidised, I don't see that as so terrible. However, I do think that it makes more sense for government to own houses than for government subsidies to artificially infate rents paid to private individuals.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
The reality is that "hard working", employed and otherwise "useful" members of society can't afford basic things like a roof over their heads, heating, electricity, food or a future for their kids without getting massively in debt.
The reason I started the housing prices thread below, was a news story locally. Hobart has always had cheap housing. As I said in that thread, the price of a cheap house here now is such that someone who makes $45k ( which is the AVERAGE wage, so a lot of people are making less ), can afford to buy an entry level house in Hobart IF they have a $50k deposit AND no other debts. Like I said below, I don't think that's reasonable, but I do also think that there's a bubble going on which is going to burst ( strangly, fat boy attacked me for saying that, too ). However, I think the bubble has been caused at least in part by government grants for first time buyers, which have just pushed prices up to absorb those grants. So, when you say :
martin_hughes wrote:
This may just be me, but I know that to be wrong. I don't expect everybody to have, freely, what I have, but I do expect that society affords those who are contributing to at least provide the basics. And it isn't.
I tend to agree. However, the question becomes, what do we do about it ? I believe that any sort of government intervention into the markets creates more issues than it solves, such as the bubble we're experiencing now. So, the only other solution I see, is public housing. If people with jobs cannot get somewhere decent to live, then I think our society has an issue. If people who work hard find they have to rent, and/or need their rent to be subsidised, I don't see that as so terrible. However, I do think that it makes more sense for government to own houses than for government subsidies to artificially infate rents paid to private individuals.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the only other solution I see, is public housing
For some reason public housing does not work as well as we would like. IMO it is because the people do not have a vested interest in the home. There is a public housing area that I drive by that has been rebuild three times in the past 30 years. The "people" living in the homes seem to trash them quickly. My first place (~1985) was $45K my current place (2002) was $130K but may be worth $100K now. What people want as a home (including me) is a spacious dwelling, where as one of my grand parent's grow up in a three room home with I believe 12 siblings. (Out house not including in count :) ).
-
It was probably a flow on effect of fat boy not liking me complaining how much he bleats on about AGW and how irrational he tends to be on the topic. I went to a weight watchers meeting for the first time on the weekend ( Christian the unchristian thinks it's fair that he has more body weight than others ? ). I told my wife I wanted to say 'My name is Christian, and I am fat'. She forbade me, and still lectured me after on how she 'wishes we could go somewhere and have people think we are normal'. As for what you said, when we bought our first home, we were on a combined wage that was well below the average for where we live, let alone nationally. We saved hard, and bought a home that came on a low deposit scheme. Friends came over and talked all night about how lucky we were, how they would never get a break, how life is not fair. She is our tenant now, actually, that marriage split up. However, because she and Donna are good friends, she knew all the welfare they got, and even before other things like a health care card, they were making more money than us once my taxes had kicked in to give them handouts. They just spent it all on crap and we saved hard to get into a family home in time for the birth of our first child. Some people are just like that. Later on, she got a payout from a car accident where her shoulder was hurt, and they bought a house. They sold it when they split up and both of them spent the money like drunken sailors. They will both rent all of their lives now, I am sure of it. According to fat boy, that is my fault.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
According to fat boy, that is my fault.
DOnt make yourself look a dick. This is what you wrote: "the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, ..., can get their stuff ?" So why should hard working but low earners be excluded from owning a house fit for a small family because pure greed pushed them out of their reach?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Christian Graus wrote:
she 'wishes we could go somewhere and have people think we are normal'.
I will be charitable on that one! :) There is so much ammunition in one statement! Fat boy thinks the world owes every one a living, regardless of how much effort you put in. If people ask me what I have made with my life I say, "Friends, Enemies and Money". He resents that others earn more than him, but hey others earn more than me, so long as I am comfortable I don't care.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
Fat boy thinks the world owes every one a living, regardless of how much effort you put in.
Why dont you read what I wrote instead of making assumptions that give you the chance to parade how lucky you are to be born with enough intelligence and in a rich country.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
It was probably a flow on effect of fat boy not liking me complaining how much he bleats on about AGW and how irrational he tends to be on the topic. I went to a weight watchers meeting for the first time on the weekend ( Christian the unchristian thinks it's fair that he has more body weight than others ? ). I told my wife I wanted to say 'My name is Christian, and I am fat'. She forbade me, and still lectured me after on how she 'wishes we could go somewhere and have people think we are normal'. As for what you said, when we bought our first home, we were on a combined wage that was well below the average for where we live, let alone nationally. We saved hard, and bought a home that came on a low deposit scheme. Friends came over and talked all night about how lucky we were, how they would never get a break, how life is not fair. She is our tenant now, actually, that marriage split up. However, because she and Donna are good friends, she knew all the welfare they got, and even before other things like a health care card, they were making more money than us once my taxes had kicked in to give them handouts. They just spent it all on crap and we saved hard to get into a family home in time for the birth of our first child. Some people are just like that. Later on, she got a payout from a car accident where her shoulder was hurt, and they bought a house. They sold it when they split up and both of them spent the money like drunken sailors. They will both rent all of their lives now, I am sure of it. According to fat boy, that is my fault.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
My cousin has been renting from my parents for years now, over 10 I believe. Although it's provided a nice padding to their retirement income, I just can't imagine throwing that much money away.
062142174041062102
-
My cousin has been renting from my parents for years now, over 10 I believe. Although it's provided a nice padding to their retirement income, I just can't imagine throwing that much money away.
062142174041062102
After you watch your family lose a decade of mortgage payments because they can just about get the money to pay off the remainder of their loan if they sell the place, it's not such a bad option. Oh, and the down payment that was a pretty hefty figure. I did the calculations, I could live where I am for 25 years and not have to sell a house when I want to move out of it for the same amount of money.
-
I don't subscribe to the theory that "hard work" got to me to where I am. Anybody can work hard, but what I had was a unique combination of skill, determination and ultimately luck. Put some other in the same situation and they'd have failed. Do you know why? It's because I'm fucking brilliant and they aren't. We need people to do the things we can't or wont. To disclaim everyone who can't afford somewhere decent to live as whingers is idiocy of the highest order. Did I work hard? Yes. Did I work harder than someone who stands knee-deep in shit down a sewer doing a far more necessary job for society than I ever did? I doubt it. And where does that leave us?
There was I think a disconnect between the right of a citizen to a decent roof over their head, a basic tenet of civilization, and the ownership of land and properties. The two are related and yet distinct, but the degree of distinction varies depending on where you are. In, say, London the ownership of multiple properties and the use of them as investment vehicles can have an obvious effect on the ability of people to find decent dwellings. Simply put there are more people then land. This scarcity causes non-primary residential use to have an amplified effect which manifests itself in the price. In Australia, or even here, where there is generally more land then people the non-primary residential use of land has a much lower effect on it's price as there's simply plenty more to build on. That is not to say there isn't an effect, the effect however manifests itself in the relative utility of the land, predominatly it's proximity to work, crime levels etc. Here, an average Joe (which I cannot pretend to be) can still afford a nice new suburban house in a nice area, albeit 40-50 miles out of town.
062142174041062102
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the only other solution I see, is public housing
For some reason public housing does not work as well as we would like. IMO it is because the people do not have a vested interest in the home. There is a public housing area that I drive by that has been rebuild three times in the past 30 years. The "people" living in the homes seem to trash them quickly. My first place (~1985) was $45K my current place (2002) was $130K but may be worth $100K now. What people want as a home (including me) is a spacious dwelling, where as one of my grand parent's grow up in a three room home with I believe 12 siblings. (Out house not including in count :) ).
You are right, public housing tends to be run down because there is almost no respect for the place. Carter started that program where you get a 0% loan and have to help build your home. This had the lowest rate of default of any program for a long while. They were invested in their homes, they did care, and they made payments. Of course, these folks were also perfect to target with refinancing loans that would give them " the money they needed right now" (but failed to point out their payments would double since a 0% loan is the best thing you will ever get) and suddenly a lot of these folks lost their homes because they just didn't understand that.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Fat boy thinks the world owes every one a living, regardless of how much effort you put in.
Why dont you read what I wrote instead of making assumptions that give you the chance to parade how lucky you are to be born with enough intelligence and in a rich country.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Why dont you read what I wrote instead of making assumptions
Why would we respond to your posts with a higher level of integrity than you used to respond to mine ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
According to fat boy, that is my fault.
DOnt make yourself look a dick. This is what you wrote: "the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, ..., can get their stuff ?" So why should hard working but low earners be excluded from owning a house fit for a small family because pure greed pushed them out of their reach?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So why should hard working but low earners be excluded from owning a house fit for a small family because pure greed pushed them out of their reach?
In both cases, I'm not suggesting that it's a good thing for markets to be manipulated. I believe you suggested 'something must be done' to push house prices down. That, or I was analysing possible responses to the situation. In either case, my point was, some people, people who are not wealthy, have bought houses at higher prices, and will find themselves in serious trouble if the government moves to lower prices ( which it would do by pushing up interest rates, I expect ). Your definition of 'pure greed' is shallow and narrow minded. "Someone who has bought a house must be greedy, and the people who have not bought a house are innocent victims." Life is more complex than that, and my core point was, if you meddle with the markets, the outcome is bound to hurt people, and not just the super rich ( actually, not ever the super rich ). I am FAR from rich, but I am comfortable enough that if I had a mortgage and rates went up, I could absorb it. It's the very people you're trying to defend, the working poor, who would be hurt by a raise in rates to push down house prices.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the only other solution I see, is public housing
For some reason public housing does not work as well as we would like. IMO it is because the people do not have a vested interest in the home. There is a public housing area that I drive by that has been rebuild three times in the past 30 years. The "people" living in the homes seem to trash them quickly. My first place (~1985) was $45K my current place (2002) was $130K but may be worth $100K now. What people want as a home (including me) is a spacious dwelling, where as one of my grand parent's grow up in a three room home with I believe 12 siblings. (Out house not including in count :) ).
djj55 wrote:
The "people" living in the homes seem to trash them quickly.
Yes, that can happen here, too. The core issue there is, people get given a new house if they trash the old one. I think that needs to not happen. I think people need to be made responsible for the damage they do. However, certainly where I live, such damage is done by a minority. If whole areas need to be rebuilt, that's a major issue. I wonder if there are always visibly trashed houses, which makes people feel it's OK, and also that no-one cares.
djj55 wrote:
What people want as a home (including me) is a spacious dwelling, where as one of my grand parent's grow up in a three room home with I believe 12 siblings. (Out house not including in count ).
Yes, our expectations of a home have risen over time, which is another reason for costs to increase. We live in a 5 bedroom home, with a large living area, and a separate dining area, and additional games/music room. It's at least 75% bigger than our last home. It's just as cluttered. I wonder if we lived in a smaller house, if it would really matter that much, we've just got used to a bigger one.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You are right, public housing tends to be run down because there is almost no respect for the place. Carter started that program where you get a 0% loan and have to help build your home. This had the lowest rate of default of any program for a long while. They were invested in their homes, they did care, and they made payments. Of course, these folks were also perfect to target with refinancing loans that would give them " the money they needed right now" (but failed to point out their payments would double since a 0% loan is the best thing you will ever get) and suddenly a lot of these folks lost their homes because they just didn't understand that.
Yes, we have a public housing area where the homes never went up in value, and they were 'sold' to people on welfare for very low rates. They all promptly refinanced, and bought TVs and cars. Now they are all paying rent again.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
There was I think a disconnect between the right of a citizen to a decent roof over their head, a basic tenet of civilization, and the ownership of land and properties. The two are related and yet distinct, but the degree of distinction varies depending on where you are. In, say, London the ownership of multiple properties and the use of them as investment vehicles can have an obvious effect on the ability of people to find decent dwellings. Simply put there are more people then land. This scarcity causes non-primary residential use to have an amplified effect which manifests itself in the price. In Australia, or even here, where there is generally more land then people the non-primary residential use of land has a much lower effect on it's price as there's simply plenty more to build on. That is not to say there isn't an effect, the effect however manifests itself in the relative utility of the land, predominatly it's proximity to work, crime levels etc. Here, an average Joe (which I cannot pretend to be) can still afford a nice new suburban house in a nice area, albeit 40-50 miles out of town.
062142174041062102
Yes, this is a good point. There is ALWAYS land for sale here, even if it's out of town a bit. And yes, there is a fundamental difference between the right to a home, and the right to home ownership. If people have a 'right' to own a home, why don't they have a 'right' to own other material things, no matter if they can afford them ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yes, we have a public housing area where the homes never went up in value, and they were 'sold' to people on welfare for very low rates. They all promptly refinanced, and bought TVs and cars. Now they are all paying rent again.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
They all promptly refinanced, and bought TVs and cars. Now they are all paying rent again.
I always wondered why there was such a movement to push finance classes into school. I think I get it now, I'm trying not to bang my head off my desk at the stupidity behind that move.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
The reality is that "hard working", employed and otherwise "useful" members of society can't afford basic things like a roof over their heads, heating, electricity, food or a future for their kids without getting massively in debt.
The reason I started the housing prices thread below, was a news story locally. Hobart has always had cheap housing. As I said in that thread, the price of a cheap house here now is such that someone who makes $45k ( which is the AVERAGE wage, so a lot of people are making less ), can afford to buy an entry level house in Hobart IF they have a $50k deposit AND no other debts. Like I said below, I don't think that's reasonable, but I do also think that there's a bubble going on which is going to burst ( strangly, fat boy attacked me for saying that, too ). However, I think the bubble has been caused at least in part by government grants for first time buyers, which have just pushed prices up to absorb those grants. So, when you say :
martin_hughes wrote:
This may just be me, but I know that to be wrong. I don't expect everybody to have, freely, what I have, but I do expect that society affords those who are contributing to at least provide the basics. And it isn't.
I tend to agree. However, the question becomes, what do we do about it ? I believe that any sort of government intervention into the markets creates more issues than it solves, such as the bubble we're experiencing now. So, the only other solution I see, is public housing. If people with jobs cannot get somewhere decent to live, then I think our society has an issue. If people who work hard find they have to rent, and/or need their rent to be subsidised, I don't see that as so terrible. However, I do think that it makes more sense for government to own houses than for government subsidies to artificially infate rents paid to private individuals.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I tend to agree. However, the question becomes, what do we do about it ? I believe that any sort of government intervention into the markets creates more issues than it solves, such as the bubble we're experiencing now. So, the only other solution I see, is public housing. If people with jobs cannot get somewhere decent to live, then I think our society has an issue. If people who work hard find they have to rent, and/or need their rent to be subsidised, I don't see that as so terrible. However, I do think that it makes more sense for government to own houses than for government subsidies to artificially infate rents paid to private individuals.
I agree mostly with what you say. The problem is in large part due to the interference (or lack) of government policy. It's probably the case that more interference will be disastrous, as will the lack of it. Unpicking this time bomb is going to hurt and for a long time.
-
You are right, public housing tends to be run down because there is almost no respect for the place. Carter started that program where you get a 0% loan and have to help build your home. This had the lowest rate of default of any program for a long while. They were invested in their homes, they did care, and they made payments. Of course, these folks were also perfect to target with refinancing loans that would give them " the money they needed right now" (but failed to point out their payments would double since a 0% loan is the best thing you will ever get) and suddenly a lot of these folks lost their homes because they just didn't understand that.
-
If you're talking about Habitat for Humanity[^], Carter didn't found it but he has been a big supporter.
The wonderful thing about the Darwin Awards is that everyone wins, especially the members of the audience.
Yes, and thanks for the link. I knew he was heavily involved. That program has the best idea for assisting low income people. Make them help themselves, give them a sense of ownership. It doesn't go far enough though. Making it so they can't refinance the house and giving them classes as to why and how to manage the money you do have would push it into a great place.
-
It was probably a flow on effect of fat boy not liking me complaining how much he bleats on about AGW and how irrational he tends to be on the topic. I went to a weight watchers meeting for the first time on the weekend ( Christian the unchristian thinks it's fair that he has more body weight than others ? ). I told my wife I wanted to say 'My name is Christian, and I am fat'. She forbade me, and still lectured me after on how she 'wishes we could go somewhere and have people think we are normal'. As for what you said, when we bought our first home, we were on a combined wage that was well below the average for where we live, let alone nationally. We saved hard, and bought a home that came on a low deposit scheme. Friends came over and talked all night about how lucky we were, how they would never get a break, how life is not fair. She is our tenant now, actually, that marriage split up. However, because she and Donna are good friends, she knew all the welfare they got, and even before other things like a health care card, they were making more money than us once my taxes had kicked in to give them handouts. They just spent it all on crap and we saved hard to get into a family home in time for the birth of our first child. Some people are just like that. Later on, she got a payout from a car accident where her shoulder was hurt, and they bought a house. They sold it when they split up and both of them spent the money like drunken sailors. They will both rent all of their lives now, I am sure of it. According to fat boy, that is my fault.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
However, because she and Donna are good friends, she knew all the welfare they got, and even before other things like a health care card, they were making more money than us once my taxes had kicked in to give them handouts. They just spent it all on crap and we saved hard to get into a family home in time for the birth of our first child. Some people are just like that.
And you judge them. People that are contributing to your welfare by paying rent. And not only judge them, but air their wares on a public site. Maybe that isn't really your province. Maybe, you should really enjoy your success instead of being hung up on other's failures because they might limit the increase of the success that you already enjoy.
This statement is false