It's also okay to do exactly what you're hired to and nothing more. Going above and beyond doesn't guarantee promotion.
It's also okay to do exactly what you're hired to and nothing more. Going above and beyond doesn't guarantee promotion.
This is kind of getting away from the topic.
SV reX said:One factor is the employees. I'm not blaming employees, but there truly is an attitude right now among a large percentage of people who truly don't want to work. Getting people back to work after COVID is proving to be a monumental task, and money can't fix it.
Culture- we have culturally driven expectations (how we should live, what we should drive, what technology we should have) which define the price points employees are willing to work which are much too high.
So you are saying that people not wanting to work isn't criticizing them. And that post COVID hiring isn't COVID related... Ok, seems confusing what you are trying to say, then.
Hiring problems post COVID seem to mostly be poeople questioning what's the point. That's my point.
In reply to alfadriver :
You seem to be saying that people shouldn't have to work their asses off, and when I agree and point out that that appears to be the case (people are choosing to not be as hogtied to their work), somehow I'm criticizing?
You read way too much into E36 M3 sometimes.
In reply to SV reX :
I do what I'm paid to do. That's it. I'm looking for a different job. I'm not getting recognized or rewarded. So no reason to go above and beyond except for my own satisfaction, but I get a hell of a lot more satisfaction spending time with my daughter and my wife than I do at my job.
Giving up time - the one thing I cannot get more of - with my family to help out a manager/department/company without being monetarily rewarded is not a concept I will ever understand.
Don't mistake that for a poor work ethic. It's knowing the value of my time, and realizing that when the margin of return of my work has diminished to less than the value of my time, I have no reason to continue at it.
I've seen a lot of assumptions in this thread that home ownership is becoming less attainable, and out of reach for a large number of Americans. So I looked up the numbers. The home ownership rate is currently at 65%. It was at it's low during the Great Depression, jumped post WWII to the 60% range by the 60's, and stayed within the 61-69% range for the last 70 years. There has been no big drop. The peak, 69%, was in the early 2000's when lots of people were buying homes that they couldn't afford. Here is a link to the data for the last 120+ years...
https://dqydj.com/historical-homeownership-rate-united-states/
Now, this is the percent of homes which are owned Vs. rented. I do not believe it counts apartments. But it shows that the number of homes being bought as investment properties and rented out has not changed significantly in 70 years. Much of this time period was when property values appreciated much more slowly, and the property itself wasn't seen as much of an investment, but rather as revenue by rental. Housing price booms don't appear to have as much of an impact as presumed. Likely because investors and buyers are competing for the same houses for the same money, so the percentages stay consistent. If anything, the opposite is true. The ownership percentage climbs when the market is appreciating the fastest, and drops during the declines. Which makes sense, because the best time to invest is during a down market, when more home owners are selling rather than buying.
So while there are still plenty of "they don't build enough houses" arguments to be made, the premise that investors are buying up all of the houses has been debunked.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Redfin has some interesting data about the purchase habits of real estate investors
They say that the percentage of homes purchased by investors has basically tripled since 2000:
The raw number of homes purchased by investors is about 4.5 times what it was in 2000:
Median selling price over the same time frame:
Total housing stock:
Mortgage interest rates during that time:
It seems like there is at least some evidence pointing toward investors contributing to price increases by buying homes in times of high demand. The whole strategy seems a little odd to me as they seem to increase buying at the same time as regular home buyers which just ensures they're buying these assets near peak value instead of buying them when they're on sale. Maybe the recent spike in investor purchases was really just driven by low interest rates? But even then affordability metrics have all gotten worse since 2000.
Oooh, maybe larger investors went into SFHs as cap rates in multifamily declined?
Toyman! said:In reply to STM317 :
What are their profit margins? When the fed has dumped trillions of dollars in the market and driven inflation through the roof, it's easy to say the corporations are making money hand over fist, but what are their margins? As their gross goes up, their nets should track by about the same percentage.
I'm up over 30% for the year. My margins haven't changed but my dollars of profit have gone up. While some of that has passed on down the line, a lot of it is going into savings. I am stacking up cash to tide me over the E36 M3 storm I think is on the horizon though. My employees aren't going to give me the money so I have to make sure I have enough to keep all of us paid through the thin times. Just like I did through 2008 and COVID.
I applaud your approach. You are looking ahead and planning for the coming changes. Because change is always going to happen.
Your Loyalty to your employees is something I wish they taught at Harvard business school. Because it is returned by employee loyalty to you and eventually a steady growth.
Well done!
SV reX said:One more thing...
Don't assume every empty building or seemingly unused piece of land is being underutilized. Most are not. There are factors you are unaware of that dictate the vast majority of those situations.
While your statement is correct. It's not always true. Just because someone owns something does not mean they know how to take care of it properly.
My Son in law started as a Janitor at a National historic registry building. He noticed more and more tenancy's leaving without being replaced. So he asked if he could market the building.
Inside of 2 years it went from nearly empty to nearly full with better and better quality of renters.
He got a significant pay raise, 10% of the rents paid, and his own office.
But not all stories end that way. In fact I suspect he's an exception.
STM317 said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Redfin has some interesting data about the purchase habits of real estate investors
They say that the percentage of homes purchased by investors has basically tripled since 2000:
The raw number of homes purchased by investors is about 4.5 times what it was in 2000:
Median selling price over the same time frame:
Total housing stock:
Mortgage interest rates during that time:
It seems like there is at least some evidence pointing toward investors contributing to price increases by buying homes in times of high demand. The whole strategy seems a little odd to me as they seem to increase buying at the same time as regular home buyers which just ensures they're buying these assets near peak value instead of buying them when they're on sale. Maybe the recent spike in investor purchases was really just driven by low interest rates? But even then affordability metrics have all gotten worse since 2000.
It's probably the herd mentality. One guy does it successfully. Is. Opined by others and more and more jump on the band wagon.
What's not to like? Buy something for its market value, have others pay for it. While you take your profit off the top. Then as time inflated property value either cash in or leverage those properties to acquire more.
Please edit your posts so the same graphics don't keep popping up
frenchyd said:SV reX said:One more thing...
Don't assume every empty building or seemingly unused piece of land is being underutilized. Most are not. There are factors you are unaware of that dictate the vast majority of those situations.
While your statement is correct. It's not always true. Just because someone owns something does not mean they know how to take care of it properly.
My Son in law started as a Janitor at a National historic registry building. He noticed more and more tenancy's leaving without being replaced. So he asked if he could market the building.
Inside of 2 years it went from nearly empty to nearly full with better and better quality of renters.
He got a significant pay raise, 10% of the rents paid, and his own office.But not all stories end that way. In fact I suspect he's an exception.
Same SIL that has no money as posted in your other threads or different guy?
I'd be interested to know how many new housing units were bought up by investors or, if instead, primary owners bought new houses, and investors bought their old ones?
frenchyd said:SV reX said:One more thing...
Don't assume every empty building or seemingly unused piece of land is being underutilized. Most are not. There are factors you are unaware of that dictate the vast majority of those situations.
While your statement is correct. It's not always true. Just because someone owns something does not mean they know how to take care of it properly.
My Son in law started as a Janitor at a National historic registry building. He noticed more and more tenancy's leaving without being replaced. So he asked if he could market the building.
Inside of 2 years it went from nearly empty to nearly full with better and better quality of renters.
He got a significant pay raise, 10% of the rents paid, and his own office.But not all stories end that way. In fact I suspect he's an exception.
I didn't say anything about taking care of property. I said don't assume empty buildings are underutilized.
If I buy a commercial property at a loss intentionally for the sole purpose of claiming the tax loss, it is fully utilized for exactly what purpose I intended.
If I buy a neighboring worthless property with intent to expand my business into it in the future but leave it vacant for 10 years, it is fully utilized for exactly what I bought it for.
If I buy a property that needs rezoning before I can proceed with my development plans, and the rezoning process takes several year, then keeping it empty is full utilization.
If I buy a property so the adjacent junk yard can't encroach any closer to me and choose to leave it vacant as a buffer, then it is fully utilized.
I could go on. There are literally hundreds of reasons a vacant property could be fully utilized that have nothing to do with maintaining the property.
- Landlords who own rent stabilized units are keeping those units vacant
- Landlords claim that the cost of turnover and rent-readiness is higher than what they can make on the units
- Surveys seem to disagree, claiming that most units are perfectly habitable
One of the ideas (which is a combination of ideas) is to raise the maximum rent that can be charged, allowing that rate to increase with inflation, but also charge a vacancy tax.
It is suspected they were making money purely on equity increases, and using that equity to purchase properties that were not rent stabilized. It will be interesting to see what happens as their equity falls with increasing interest rates.
In reply to STM317 :
It seems like there is at least some evidence pointing toward investors contributing to price increases by buying homes in times of high demand. The whole strategy seems a little odd to me as they seem to increase buying at the same time as regular home buyers which just ensures they're buying these assets near peak value instead of buying them when they're on sale. Maybe the recent spike in investor purchases was really just driven by low interest rates? But even then affordability metrics have all gotten worse since 2000.
I think there are a couple things going on. Home ownership percentage and home sales are two different things. A home can be sold multiple times in the same year, but it can only be owned by one person- a homeowner or investor- at a time. So while the percentage of homes owned by the homeowner has remained fairly constant over the last 70 years or so, the 30-40 percent owned by investors appear to be changing hands more often. Short term investments vs. long term. Which makes sense. I'd expect investors buying during times when values are down to be more long term, with investors buying in hot markets to be more short term- flippers. More flippers would mean more sales, even if the percentage of ownership is the same.
pheller said:- Landlords who own rent stabilized units are keeping those units vacant
- Landlords claim that the cost of turnover and rent-readiness is higher than what they can make on the units
- Surveys seem to disagree, claiming that most units are perfectly habitable
Hmmmm. Apparently it's harder to make money when rent controls are in effect.
Who ever would have guessed that.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Interesting point!
In semi related news, today's GDP report had something included that I hadn't seen or heard about before. Apparently, the government tracks the money spent on privately owned investment properties each quarter.
I'm not sure it tells us anything specific without knowing how many properties were purchased, but I figured it might be of interest here:
As made obvious by this thread, I'm progressive/liberal.
Long term rent control doesn't appear to work - and we've got lots of data on that. Short-Term rent control in the form of various types of affordable housing initiatives might be successful, but only if its allowed to expire, be renegotiated, or increase with inflation and/or rising costs.
Vacancy Taxes appear to be working in cities where they have been implemented but our data only goes back a few years.
San Francisco also has a vacancy tax, but on commercial properties - and it too appears to be working as intended.
https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BLA.Residential%20Vacancies.013122_final.pdf
The goal - as intended - isn't to control prices - it's increased competitiveness. This is only the first part of the solution - the other is opening up zoning to allow more building.
In reply to pheller :
"Opening up zoning"...
Do you mean opening up zoning to allow commercial buildings in commercial districts to be converted to residential?
Duke said:pheller said:- Landlords who own rent stabilized units are keeping those units vacant
- Landlords claim that the cost of turnover and rent-readiness is higher than what they can make on the units
- Surveys seem to disagree, claiming that most units are perfectly habitable
Hmmmm. Apparently it's harder to make money when rent controls are in effect.
Who ever would have guessed that.
So, I'm supposed to work my a$$ off for decades while living way below my means to finally, one day, have scraped enough money together to buy an income property only to have some entity dictate to me how much I can charge for my product.
All the euphemisms (stabilization) and schemes (you can increase rent at the rate of inflation) are like saying "don't worry, we won't kill you too quickly".
Berkenly berk, berk Noooooooooo
In reply to RX Reven' :
Wait until you find out about tenant relocation fees. As a landlord, you are not allowed to terminate someone's tenancy without paying them fees. Meaning, even at the *end* of a lease, when all agreements are expired, you can not make them move out. You are required to renew their lease. Permanently, until they decide to move out or you pay them a termination fee which in some places can reach well into the 5 digits.
https://www.alamedarentprogram.org/News-articles/Updated-relocation-payments-2022-2023
It's astonishing what some people come up with. I can tell you I'll never be a landlord in Alameda!
In reply to SV reX :
Honestly, as a former planner, I think there are a lot of situations in which land-use zoning is an outdated form of land use planning.
One of my criticisms of traditional zoning is that in most cases, it can be changed with enough money, or enough time. So many times I've seen low-density residential properties easily converted to high-density multi-family residential because that property - although it had been a farm for generations, is now surrounded by intensive use. All the zoning did was prevent that property from being developed by its original owners decades ago when the zoning district had been established. If a community wants a park or open space, it should urge its local leaders to acquire such property for deed restrictions or whatever, and let the surrounding areas evolve naturally. Instead, communities tend to urge that a nearby parcel be reserved for low density housing in the hopes that their neighborhood stays quaint and quiet - only for years later that property gets developed into the very opposite of what they wanted. A park might have done more preserve the character of the older community than merely limited neighboring proprieties development.
You could argue that we'd be better to have "disturbance based zoning" ie - you can do whatever you want on a property as long as your neighbors don't care. Some cities have incorporated (in addition to traditional Euclidean Zoning) "Form Based Zoning" which basically says "as long as your building looks a certain way, it can be a manufacturing facility, an apartment building, a night club, etc."
And that's just it - modern manufacturing takes many shapes and sizes - there are lots of examples of "clean" manufacturing, and plenty of examples of "dirty commercial" - I'm sure we can all think of a few restaurants that produce more localized pollutants than some automotive garages.
I also think we need a by-right phased zoning - if a neighboring property gets approved to turn into an apartment, I should get that same ability "by right". Therefore it allows communities to piggyback the money and attorney's fees of larger developers, and keeps neighboring properties who might want to upzone from going through the same discussions with local officials as a developer did the year before.
I'm significantly less concerned with using land that has infrastructure for more efficient uses than I am inefficient uses of land or property (vacancy and speculation).
In reply to pheller :
We agree on most things But I am against opening zoning in some areas to allow more building.
Too often we trade lovely, sometimes ornate old property to be replaced with simple glass boxes of buildings lacking any sort of character and yes pride.
It's a delicate balance. Controlled building. Look at the lovely Chrysler building in New York. The absolute peak of Art Deco. To me places like that are like America's version of the Eiffel Tower in Paris or Big Ben in London.
Yeh, if it's just another building, sure tear it down, build bigger, hopefully better.
And maybe, just maybe, some places should be removed and replaced with a park. A version of New York's Central Park. Big enough to enjoy birds singing and lounging on grass.
You'll need to log in to post.
