pyoung

They provide free data-only sim cards. And you used to be able to sync all of your texts and calls in the hangout app, but they got rid of that. The last time I tried syncing the Messages app to a data o my device, it didn't work too well. That was a while ago though so not sure if that is still the case.

Swapping sim cards is probably too much of a hassle. You could just make the epaper phone your primary, and drag along the second phone as needed. Also, there is no reason an epaper phone can't take photos. Plenty of camera gear out there where the viewfinder/preview screen is a very poor preview of the final image and regardless, most folks just snap away with their phones and look at the images later. Modern smartphones do most of the work regarding camera settings.

I think they just load up on debt, so they aren't really buying it with their money. But what I don't understand is how they get people to loan them money when they know that they are just going to strip mine the company for all valuable assets and leave a shell of a company for the lenders to fight over.

As a "forever renter" here are some of my thoughts on where things are headed (at least in the bay area, although some of this applies nationally).

  1. The housing market is very thinly traded, illiquid market. Additionally there are some mechanisms in place that slow down price discovery on the way up (appraisal contingences based on comps), which slows down price discovery. This means it can take a few years to reach an equilibrium, which in a competitive market is roughly equal to the average mortgage that a pool of buyers can qualify for. This effect can result in a steady stream of year-over-year price gains, which often gets interpreted as "housing only goes up", when in reality, it is just the market adjusting to a small pool of buyers.
  2. The bay area has a large contingency of high earning tech employees, large enough to entirely drive the housing market on their own, at least in the short term. This pool of buyers emerged about a decade ago, and have been increasing in numbers since then, at least until recently.
  3. Incomes are not normally distributed, there is a bimodal distribution with the tech employees occupying one of the modals, and the rest of the population occupying the other[1]. Stats on this are difficult because the census tops out at $250k, but very roughly the top 5% average ~$560k, the top 20% average $315k, and the 80th percentile HH income is $176k. Medians would be preferred here, but I think you get the picture. By the time you get down to the 80th percentile, those folks are largely priced out of the market unless they go for a cheap condo or combine households. It is the top 5-10% of HH income earners that are driving the Bay Area market.
  4. Baby boomers own about 40% of houses and have been the largest cohort of home buyers as of late. Boomers have been hanging onto, and even acquiring more homes abnormally late into their lives. I suspect this is most likely due to the booming housing and stock markets keeping a certain segment of boomers very flush with cash. But father time is going to start reversing this trend soon, and I wouldn't be surprised if a market crash forced a number of boomers to start selling sooner rather than later to keep retirement accounts whole, or even if "higher-for-longer" interest rates entice boomers to start moving assets into safer investments. But the point is, boomers are the largest participants in the market, and they are going to be moving from net buyers to net sellers very soon.
  5. It seems like the tech wave has peaked and we have now entered the era of cost cutting. High salary FAANG jobs are harder to come by, and those same companies seem to be looking to move jobs elsewhere to save money. There will still be plenty of highly paid engineers in the Bay, but I suspect those numbers will slowly decline relative to the rest of the bay area.
  6. Prop 13 has distorted the rental market considerably. A lot of landlords purchased their properties in 70's, 80's and 90's. These properties are have miniscule mortgages (if any) and pay barely any property tax. If you bought in the last ten years or so, you are mostly likely going to negative cash flow if you try to rent your property. Hardly worth it, especially when you can sell and put that money in T-Bills and make ~5%.
  7. Despite the above distortions, median rents are roughly in line with median incomes for an HCOL area. i.e. The median rent is approximately equivalent to 30% AGI of the 60-70th percentile household income. That is not to say that rents are cheap or affordable, or that they can't go higher. It is just that they seem to be inline with what the market can bear. If the median landlord renting the median rental tries to price higher, they will push up against the glut of luxury rentals on the market, and if they price lower, they will probably find a large number of lower income folks living with roommates willing to make the jump to their own place. Barring any sudden major population changes, the rental market will probably track inflation for the near term.
  8. And a bit of curveball here, but a law was recently passed that changes Prop 13 so that the property tax basis is no longer allowed to be passed down to heirs. This is likely going to result in a much larger share of homes getting sold (rather than stay as rentals) in the near future.
  9. At least in the short term, population increases seem to be in the 5k range. Meanwhile ~20k new housing units were created. The +/- population numbers can change pretty quickly, but at least in the short term, we are adding more housing units than we are people. And keep in mind, the population changes are in terms of number of people, not number of households. So if an average household has three people, adding 20k housing units would support a population growth of 60k people.

[1] https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/California/San-Franc...

I know plenty of millennial homeowners that would not be able to afford todays prices at current interest rates. They bought before the covid bump (or earlier) and could barely afford it then. Had they rented instead they would probably be locked out of the housing market, at least until they got a significant pay increase or some sort of windfall.

The house-price-to-income ratio has been historically high these last 1-2 decades, which will result in interest rates playing a bigger role in prices than they have in the past. Especially in the hotter coastal markets where affordability is a major issue. Part of this is structural as well, as most banks have strict debt-to-income ratios for their mortgages, so if interest rates go up, either incomes need to rise or prices need to come down to maintain the same level of demand.

I get what you are saying, but I think interest rates have a broader impact beyond just monthly payments. Real estate investors will start getting squeezed for example, so demand will dry up there. Also, I think downward prices impact the psychology of the market. Even if those price drops are entirely due to the rate increases (such that the monthly payment is the same), I imagine people will start getting nervous about jumping into a highly leveraged investment with falling prices, I know I would.

I agree with the others on this thread.

You can't cash out unless you move out of the area or you downsize. And I may be wrong on this, but unlike CA (prop 13), your property taxes are going up.

And regarding timing, 5 years ago was probably one of the best times to buy a house on the west coast in the last few decades. That moment has passed. The reason I bring up the rent calculator, is because in most markets, at most times, that calculator will tell you to buy. Its the reason that I started considering buying ~2 years ago. But things have changed. Rents have been flat for about 3 years (at least in the Bay Area), while prices kept creeping up. So the way I see it, right now may qualify as 'exceptionally bad timing'. If the price-to-rent ratio is this out of whack, at the very least rental investors are going to head for the exits. My hunch is others (myself included) will exit as well. And the nice thing about renting, is I am only in a 1 year lease, so if I am wrong, and if the fundamentals change, I can jump back it the market.

Anecdote, but my wife and I dropped out of the market recently and rented instead. The rent was 30-40% cheaper than a mortgage would have been on a similar place (including taxes, insurance, etc...). So we figured we would just put the after-tax difference into a 401k (because 401k is pre-tax, for every dollar we 'saved' in housing cost, we are putting ~1.4 dollars into 401k). I figure that building equity in a house has similar investment timeline to the 401k, so it doesn't really bother me whether my net worth comes from one or the other, and unlike a house I can diversify the 401k via different index funds. In terms of ROI, the buy vs rent calculators are all starting to lean towards renting[1], so unless we are going to be in the same house for 12-15 years (unlikely) renting seems to win (and this assumes fairly good/neutral economic outlook, if you turn some of the knobs on the calculator to assume negative growth, oh boy...) .

Add to the fact that most folks don't really know how the new tax laws will impact them until they do the calculations early next year, and the fact the rising interests rates should put downward pressure on the market, and the rather volatile political situation (who really knows where this tariff thing is going to go, and how it will impact the economy), and it just made more sense to wait it out.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-cal...

Most CA utilities have low income programs[1]. On top of that, most rate plans are 'progressive' in that they charge more the more you use[2].

[1]https://www.pge.com/care [2] https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-o...

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by rolling stop. The behavior I see is probably better described as a yield. The car will slow down, to 5-10 mph at the stop sign before accelerating back up to 25-35. I regularly walk through this neighborhood, and its outright dangerous. I feel much safer walking in downtown SF. My hunch is these drivers are mostly just looking for other cars and cops, as I have had a ton of close encounters as pedestrian. And to make matters worse, the streets are not very well lit at night.

Anecdote, but if you hang out in the central/outer sunset neighborhood in SF, you will see this behavior. Tons of stop signs with limited access to thoroughfares in a quiet low-traffic neighborhood. I would say well over 25% of cars do rolling stops, and every now and then you will see a driver that doesn't even bother stopping.

You should look into an e-bike conversion. I do 14 miles a day, and just added a kit to my bike for about ~$500. For an extra 100-200 you can probably get a kit that covers 30 miles fairly easy. And the power/battery will probably be similar to what you get on those lower end scooters. I know UK has speed limits on e-bikes, so that is a consideration, but if you are in a unrban-ish area like me, your commute is probably more limited by traffic and stop lights than it is by top speed.

Most debt is fixed-rate

While technically true, the term of the loan matters. The government (and most companies that issue bonds) have revolving debt. I.e. they are continuously issuing new debt as existing debt expires. So while inflation theoretically makes your existing debt cheaper, it might not matter that much if you still need to rely on the debt markets in order to fund operations.

As an example (real-world) a seller turned down a few early under-list-price cash offers, and eventually got an at-list offer from a mortgage buyer. But the buyer ended up having trouble finalizing the loan and as a result it took almost two months to close. The home had already been sitting on the market for over a month, so had the deal fallen through, the seller may have had to put it back on the market, which could have added a few more weeks at best, and a few more months at worst to the process. So had they gone with the cash buyer right away, they would have sold the home in a few weeks after listing it. But instead it took a few months, and there was a non-insignificant chance that it would have taken a few more. And during this time, the seller was not living in the home, so presumably they were paying rent/mortgage on two homes. For some people that could be tough to swing, and not worth an extra 5-10% on sales price.

A few other things to consider. 1: The above example was in a relatively hot market. But in a more 'normal' market, homes can sit on the market for months at a time before attracting a good offer. So in a lot of markets, waiting for the next offer could mean months at a time. 2: There is a bit of a 'stigmatization' around properties that fall out of contract, because a common contingency is an inspection contingency, so the theory is that buyers start to shy away if a home falls out of contract because they are worried it is a lemon. I have personally seen a few listings where the realtor will explain the contract failure in the top of the post (i.e. buyer couldn't get a loan or something like that) as a clear attempt to ward off the 'lemon' concerns. And because mortgage buyers usually require a long list of contingencies, the risk of a failed contract is a lot higher than cash buyers. So cash buyers are 'safer' in that sense. 3: Sellers are often rolling over the proceeds of a sale into their next house, so any extra money on their home sale will most likely show up as a slightly lower monthly payment on the next house. So for every extra $10k you will only see about $50 lower on your next monthly mortgage payment (assuming 30 year).

I mentioned this elsewhere, but 'closing certainty' is a real concern in the real estate market, to the point where many sellers will take a lower offer price in favor of a cash buyer.

Right, but if the point is to increase liquidity, the low hanging fruit is mortgage backed purchases. Homeowners will often take a smaller offer price in favor of cash because the closing process is easier/more certain. So Zillow might be trying to arbitrage that price difference between cash and mortgage purchases. And if they can find a way to scoop up part of the loan origination fees and the broker fees in the process, than I guess there could be some compelling revenues there.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted, as this is the best solution that I have seen so far. Even in the Bay Area, 500k salary is an outlier, and the op can easily afford to hire a part time local developer or full time in a lower cost of living area.

Another similar option would be to look for a co-founder, and 'self-finance' the company initially. I am sure there are some folks out there who would happily take a lower % of equity in exchange for a small salary. And the added advantage is you essentially have unlimited runway.

The OP is saying 'there are icebergs ahead', and you are saying 'lol, nothing to worry about, we are moving at record speed!'.

The recent market volatility has more to do with the debt markets than near term quarterly earnings. No one really knows how the messy combination of tax cut fueled growth, trade wars, inflation (or lack of), fed rate schedule, record US deficits, and unwinding QE will impact markets, but the general consensus is that interest rates are going to rise. The question of the day is 'how fast?'. Too fast, and it will hit the brakes on the economy. Too slow, and we may overheat (if we haven't already).

Think tanks are basically lobbyist/pr firms in disguise. While I am not necessarily disagreeing with your main point, I don't think this particular incident is all that controversial. When companies hire lobbyists, they expect them to represent their interests. Same goes for think tanks.

If you plan for a 20 year retirement, but live an extra 10-20 years and run out of money, that is a pretty significant downside.

Another advantage of retirement policies that can take advantage of actuarial risk, is that they can also adjust their market risk to match the actuarial distribution. The common advice is to have most of your 401k in bonds and other safe assets by the time you retire to protect against market volatility. But if you live another 40 years, you will have missed out on a lot of potential investment return if you were all in on bonds. Pooled retirement solutions can balance those risks better.

Just a random guess, but they may have been hunting for a self-incriminating admission of drunk driving. I got pulled over for speeding once, and the first thing the cop asked was "Why do you think I pulled you over?". I shrugged, and said I had no idea. He claimed I was speeding, but let me off with a warning. In another instance where I got pulled over for speeding[1], the cop told me as much, but then asked how fast I thought I was going. I told him 65 (which was 10 over the limit of 55). He claimed that I was going 70 (15 over 55), but wrote me a ticket for 65 in a 60 zone (5 over, notice that he went with the speed that I claimed, but changed the speed limit in my favor). Apparently the fine varies based on the amount over the speed limit, so he basically gave me a lower fine. My hunch, is in both cases, they were just looking for admission of guilt.

[1] Just so people don't get the wrong idea, I am generally a very cautious driver, there were the only two speeding related encounters in 15+ years.

if the NFP comes out about X we sell, if it comes out below X we buy

The stock market works on supply and demand. For every seller, there needs to be a buyer. Let's assume that TSLA stock changes hands at a rate of 10k shares per day on average. The NFP report could cause a number of potential buyers to decide to hold off on buying. Assuming the sell interest is constant, this would likely result in a price drop. So no one has to actively buy/sell on the data in the NFP report (although some people might do that). If the NFP report causes buyers to stay home, prices will go down, and if it causes sellers to sit on their stock, prices can go up.

And of course this greatly oversimplifies reality. In any given day there are probably a number of different factors influencing sellers and buyers. Some people might be selling/buying to rebalance a portfolio. Some might be buying for their 401k. Some might be selling to cash out employee stock options. Some might be daytrading on the NFP report. And the movement in price is largely just a result of any aggregate imbalance between supply and demand. For me personally, I have stopped buying stock because I think the market is too overvalued right now. I know a few others how have stopped as well. As more people do this, the 'buy side' gets thinner increasing the odds of a drop.

Not 100% on this, but I don't think you can use a cc to buy lotto tickets.

Yeah, the author didn't quite connect the dots, but the general point was there.

'Craft Brewery economics' are really interesting. The margin on beer sold out of the brewery taproom is insane, 400-600%, largely because they are selling the beer at 'normal' bar prices but don't have to split the profits with middlemen or worry about transportation costs as the beer is made on site. However, if they go through the normal distribution channels in order to sell at grocery stores and other bars, apparently the margins are much closer to 5%-10%. According to some of the industry publications, there has been a bit of a retrenchment going on as a bunch of breweries overextend themselves to try and grab market share through distribution and got stuck selling low margin beer in a really competitive market.

So if I understand this right, they are creating a fake account on some other site (aliexpress, etc...) with his address attached. And then they ship the 'gift' from the Amazon tracking number, so that he is more likely to accept that package, and then ship the multimeter from the fake account tracking number, allowing them to leave themselves a positive review on that site.

I always suspected something was going on with the aliexpress ratings. If you look at the reviews it is a lot of one liners like 'i got the item as described!' with a 5 star rating.

Ha, yeah that is weird. Random thought: Maybe to help prevent package theft? It usually takes about a month for shipping, so I imagine a lot of people forget about their order. By sending the throw away package first, the recipient is 'primed' and is more likely to be on the lookout for the real thing, as opposed to letting it sit on their doorstep for a day or two where it can be stolen.

One of the main arguments in favor of a negative income tax is that it would require less bureaucracy, not more. With the tax, you could just let the IRS handle it, whereas with UBI you would probably set up another agency, similar to social security, to handle it.

For what it is worth, from an economic perspective, the two ideas are basically identical. In a very hypothetically scenario: If someone gets a UBI of $500 a month, and then makes $500 in income with a 20% tax, than they would net $900 for the month. With an NIT, you would design it so that they get a tax credit of $500 per month, and then every $500 in income reduces their tax credit by 20%. So that same person would get $900 of the month.

I have been looking at houses as well, and I do this too. My main reasoning though is that there is generally a lot less value left to capture in these houses because as the house trades hands, most of the 'low hanging' remodels/improvements get picked. And of course the other risk, is that there is some 'hidden' issue that is driving the turnover (noisy neighbors, under a common airplane flight path, or something like that).

There is nothing hypocritical about opposing a tax 'reform' plan that adds $1.5 TRILLION to the deficit, doubly so if this bill raises my taxes. If my tax burden goes up to pay for government programs, than I am generally (but not unconditionally) okay with that. But if my tax burden goes up so that billionaires and corporations can get a tax cut while also negatively impacting the financial health of our country, than it would be absurd not to strongly oppose the reform bill.

Instead of supporting this irresponsible piece of legislation, how about getting in touch with your local representatives and let them know that you believe that the tax burden on small businesses needs to be addressed, but that this particular piece of legislation is not the way to do it.

Your worries about the economy are purely hypothetical, and most likely wrong. Infrastructure spending generally stimulates economies and there is no reason to suspect that building clean energy infrastructure will be any different. Additionally, clean energy prices will most likely be cheaper and more stable in the long term due to decreased maintenance costs and lack of dependency on energy inputs from politically volatile regions.

And even if energy prices rise slightly, the reduction of externalities will more than make up for those increased costs. It is well known that pollution from fossil fuels causes a variety of health issues. I would gladly pay a few more cents per kwh if it reduces my chances of getting cancer or heart disease.