>>4 I'm tired of the fact I live alone in a fully detached shack but I can smell cooking smells coming from my kitchen despite not cooking in there today.
Name:
Anonymous2018-08-27 10:02
>>6 You live in a shack? Like, in the siberian mountains or a south American slum?
Name:
Anonymous2018-08-27 11:26
>>7 Don't ask questions that your dick won't stand for asshole.
Name:
Anonymous2018-08-27 19:58
>>8 Apologies if it comes across rude, it's just that most places in the western world today for living in are called "houses" and "apartments", living in a shack sounds very harsh and unpleasant.
Name:
Anonymous2018-08-27 20:17
>>9 shacks cost $5k/mo in silicon valley and they're called microhomes™
280 square feet like 280 characters in a tweet 140 square feet for retro twitter 140 characters
$1k application fee, $4k safety deposit and 3 months' rent up-front, also you need to make at least 3.5x rent
housing crisis? it's never been better to be a land lord!
in SF it takes 1 whole year to kick someone out if they dont pay. then you have to pay to fix the damage the niggers did to your property, while still paying mortgage payments without generating any income
Name:
Anonymous2018-08-28 1:57
>>11 bruh, people who bought houses a long time ago there paid next to nothing, and now they're worth millions, or they can make a living just by renting out properties
poor landlords, having to pay a small amount of money to fix up properties
they still make a killing
Name:
Anonymous2018-08-28 2:54
>>12 it was only "cheap" before the 1970s or so. the equivalent money put in an index fund at that time would be today an order of magnitude more than the value of the houses now.
you have to compare what they're making to what they could sell the property for, not what they bought it at 50 years ago. it's not any better than other investments (in fact it's worse)
Name:
Anonymous2018-08-28 3:05
boomers could buy houses with a shitty job and only a high school education
now? a degree doesn't even guarantee being able to pay bills