Toggle Dark Theme
logo
235,172 posts archived

126
127

[–]FiveRows 116 points117 points  (6 children)

Today's American Dream:

  • Settling down with a girl that has been around the block more times than the ice cream truck.
  • House, mortgage, cars, and kids you can't even begin to afford.
  • 60-hour work weeks with little time for sleep. Perpetually tired.
  • Under so much financial and marital pressure that you become the ultimate grovelling yes-man at the workplace. This, of course, causes problems for your colleagues.
  • Completely under the thumb of both your employer and wife. Your options appear non-existent.
  • Heart problems beginning in your 40's, since you are always stressed and don't have time to sleep, exercise, or eat well.
  • Your wife divorces you and leaves you for another man, taking (at least) half your assets.
  • You find yourself an amorphous blob of a man, alone, in large debt, and in poor health. Years, or even decades, appear to have been flushed down the toilet.

What the ever-loving fuck has happened to our gender? All of this for duty sex every one or two weeks, if you're lucky? WTF indeed.

[–]Robdogx9001 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Men are always the ones held responsible when something goes wrong. "Why aren't there enough women working in X? Because Men..." Every new movement is just more ways to blame straight men for something.

[–]Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I suspect that the reason why America's economy was thriving in the Don Draper era had much to do with the fact that working men were treated with much more respect. By women, by fellow men, by society at large. We'd just come off the one-two punch of the Great Depression and WW2, so suffice to say, Americans had seen true poverty in their lifetimes and properly understood how much a good working man was worth. So, being a working man living out this "American dream" was actually more of a legitimate dream.

Now we're in the era where everyone in the Western world is relatively happy and comfortable, so women are working their asses off making sure that society realigns men as being disposable grunts who exist purely to fuel womens' happiness.

And as we can see by declining marriage and childbirths rates, men are responding to this incentive structure accordingly by dropping out of the game.

[–]Senior ContributorRedPope 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Don't blame women for society thinking men are disposable. That concept is prehistoric. It doesn't take 100 men to impregnate 100 women. Never has. The tribe can risk losing 25 men on a dangerous hunt or raid. It might even prove beneficial. Among primates, deliberately disposing of "excess" males is standard practice.

You note that your idolized working men were the survivors of WW2 and the Great Depression. Throw WW1 in the mix too, and what do you have? Three generations in a row where a significant number of men were killed, crippled, or otherwise disposed.

Supply and demand used to favor the men. Women had to prove their loyalty, homemaking skills, and moral character to secure a quality mate from the pool of survivors. Those days are gone.

We are living in the greatest and longest era of peace and prosperity our species has ever known. The supply of good men is at its peak. Simple economics. Wives and employers alike are offering less and demanding more.

[–]MakeMoneyNotWar 45 points46 points  (8 children)

That $1,400 per month mortgage payment is too low. Property tax and homeowners insurance adds $300-$500 to that monthly payment.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Exactly what I was thinking. Didn't include mechanical/plumbing system repair as that pops up as well.

[–]rorrr 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Correct. According to Zillow, your total monthly payment will be around $1,850 - 1,900 (NY, NJ) and $1,500 - $1,600 (CA), depending on the area.

And that's assuming you have a good credit score. US average FICO is 689.

Though if you're 25-34, the average FICO is 655. So yeah, instantly add half a percent to your mortgage rate.

[–]Glenbert -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

I can't get past that title. This sounds like trust-fund-baby horseshit.

You realize 99.55% of humanity never even had a hope of applying for a mortgage?

Ingratitude is for feminists. Fuck that.

[–]iseeyou1312 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Because financial lenders of the past would rarely/never fund consumption, and land was cheap/free?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

rent free land was ample this drove labor prices up esp after the black death and around the same time in china too.

average men were living rather close to 20th century affluence for a time.

[–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah, rent free if you were a nobleman or clergy. The rest of us, like 99% of us, were veritable slaves.

I assume you use average to imply the arithmetic mean of men at the time, and not the typical man at the time. The latter was not even close to true.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thats the point, there was a time in history where this was not the case, besides the modern times.

[–]MakeMoneyNotWar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well 99.55% of humanity couldn't afford toilet paper, so forgive us for aiming a little higher.

[–]maximumutility 43 points44 points  (5 children)

Seeing this while growing up caused me to want a future of no kids or wife, making money for myself and having meaningless sex with women who are used to that and pursuing an altogether selfish existence.

I want this because it seems to be my best option, even though I realize how destructive this mindset could be if widely adopted. But what else am I to do other than to make the best with what I expect the real world to offer?

[–]sushisection 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Right? Except somewhere deep down in me, I want to raise a child someday. Fuck.

[–]mithridates1 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I know, right? This is the biggest struggle. I would have no problem letting women go if the prospect of children weren't involved, but oneitis creeps up when I start to think that this woman is the best one available to have children with.

[–]sushisection 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I'm seriously thinking about grabbing a pakistani chick and wifing her. (I'm pakistani btw, keeping it in the tribe). Arranged marriages don't sound too bad when western girls aren't fit for the job

[–]mithridates1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Grab me one while you're at it.

[–]1Mikesapien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same.

My Dad is a grade-A, certified, beta-male chump. After 20 years of marriage, my mother divorced him and kept the house, the car, my sister, and I. He lives on Social Security checks in a shanty on the other side of town. He's also disabled, diabetic, and totally out of shape.

I watched this drama unfold slowly over the last couple decades and realized "This is me. This is what happens to me if I do what society tells me."

[–]2Overkillengine 29 points30 points  (11 children)

Your mantra becomes that of Boxer the horse, in Orwell’s Animal Farm—“I will work harder.”

And then she leaves you/trades up after you overwork yourself into poor health trying to pay for it all.

[–]bringer_of_fight 16 points17 points  (6 children)

Yea, the author neglected to mention that even if you are successful with all this, the chance of divorce destroying it all is too great to ignore.

[–]ButterMyBiscuit 23 points24 points  (3 children)

Boxer worked himself to death for the "greater good", and then was double crossed and slaughtered so the pigs could get whiskey. That's perfect allegory.

[–]lord_of_vader 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My heart aches for Boxer every time I read that book. I loved him the most out of all the characters; Orwell really hit the nail on the fucking head with that allegory.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Boxer worked himself to death for the "greater good", and then was double crossed and slaughtered so the pigs could get whiskey. That's perfect allegory.

Well, Boxer was loved and respected by the other animals. To be perfect, he'd have to be blamed and despised.

[–]2Overkillengine 13 points14 points  (0 children)

He was valued as long as he could work (provide) and disposed of the moment he could not.

[–]FaithfulJinn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Even if you win the rat race you're still a rat.

[–]2johnnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The harder you work, the larger the assets to loot.

[–]busior 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yup while it's her who gets older and older every year. It's all because of marriage. Don't get married and don't work harder than you want to. Getting a pussy doesn't require working full time and giving up half your assets

[–]cooledcannon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

At least you didnt become glue though

[–]1Mikesapien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In this metaphor, that's what divorce is - the Glue Factory.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (4 children)

I am going to send this to all my married friends.

Over the years, I’ve noticed that this dream is not important to American men. Most guys are content to get the most bang for their buck, whether that means living in an apartment complex, renting a room from a friend, or buying a cheap piece of land in the country. In over forty years, I never met a man that actually dreamed of owning a home in the suburbs.

Actually I live in suburbia, it's a long story how I got and remain here, and I can attest that there are many Blue Pill married guys who believe that this is indeed their dream: their wives say so, their mothers say so, their sisters say so, and they say so to each other.

[–]surgeon_general 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I've lived in the New York City suburbs basically my whole life, and I stay here by choice. I own a home here and I love it. I'm 37 and never married. I don't even know what the author is implying that I'm missing out on.

Actually, I think he's completely bugging by saying "in over forty years, I never met a man that actually dreamed of owning a home in the suburbs." That sounds like a pretty common dream to me.

[–]Glenbert 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In over forty years, I never met a man that actually dreamed of owning a home in the suburbs.

Seriously, has this guy lived his entire life in some beatnik coffee house? You talk to just about anyone from any non-gentrified part of any city in America and they all want out.

Like I said, this is an article for trust fund babies.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I concur. The only problem I see with that is that the way to work (or passtime activities) tends to be longer, but otherwise living in an area with lots of greens and fewer (but not too few) persons per square mile is a lot more appealing than living in the city.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 15 points16 points  (17 children)

The cost of an average American home is $337,300

So how will you afford this?

HAH. Homes in my city are double that, single detached house triple. I'd sell my left testicle to get a home that cheap.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (13 children)

Get out of the city. 1300 SF at 54k. Mortgage is cheaper than my old car payment.

[–]rorrr 2 points3 points  (12 children)

SF and San Jose are actually the most expensive areas in the country at the moment. Santa Cruz is #3.

http://i.imgur.com/0709UFL.png

Source.

[–]averagecycle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think he meant square foot

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children)

Yes, I followed the advice of "Get out of the city" with advice to move to San Francisco. What is the general unit of measure when discussing a house?

[–]iseeyou1312 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I thought 1300 SF was some suburb in Francisco. However I'm not American so I use the metric system like the rest of the world.

[–]cooledcannon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I know it was hyperbole, but thats a negative mentality. Part of your body is worth far more than a few hundred thousand dollars. Red Pill thinking and a bit of hustling will get you enough money you need. Abundance and a positive mindset is much better than a broke one.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Preaching to the converted. I've got 6 figures in the bank, but homes are stupidly overpriced here. Where there's a will though, there's a way.

[–]1AreYouAware_ 12 points13 points  (0 children)

There are some real advantages and opportunities to owning property, but if the only thing you're doing with it is using it for shelter and hoping it appreciates enough to flip, then your in for a really bad time.

One other thing to keep in mind is that once you add up all the interest on the loan, you may end up paying double the sticker price at the end of 30 years.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Industry and unions built the middle class. due to globalist trade policies and technological advancements neither exist anymore. I would like kids and a nice house in a cool neighborhood, but i don't think i will ever be financially capable of doing so. having the standard of living that my parents and grandparents seems like a pipe dream.

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1whatsazipper 10 points11 points  (0 children)

We're meant to move, but now we mostly sit down (cars, computers, suburban life). Even if you factor in regular gym time, we're still mostly sitting too much. It has a negative impact on our lives.

[–]lemonparty 6 points7 points  (0 children)

apartments in big cities can be every bit as expensive as a house in the burbs, where I'm at a one room loft in hipsterville downtown runs double what a modest 3b house way out on the fringe does

the cities also have higher taxes and more social services (to pay for single mom and school lunches for her litter) -- you can't really escape paying for our cultural rot, it's pervasive

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Or you can not live in the city and have the outdoors to exercise. You know, forest trails, lakes, rivers.

[–]vaker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The worst thing about the house in the suburbs is the tendency to sit around getting fat

That's not necessarily true. You mow the lawn, trim the hedges, walk the dog, all good cardio if you push it a bit. It's a question of attitude.

[–]TheD_ 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Not to mention the real return on real estate is 1% per year, whereas, the US stock market over the last 100 is ~7% (going back 100 years is arbitrary demarcation fully intent to bias whomever reads this). I'm far better off working my 9-5, living like a scumbag, and dumping the majority of my disposable income into S&P 500 companies.

[–]iopq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's also 7% going back to 1950s

but realize that your return may be negative for a whole decade until another decade gives you amazing returns

2000s have been SHIT for investing, although 2010 decade might be amazing

[–]TangoAlphaBravo 3 points4 points  (1 child)

"This desire—to own a suburban home—is a female one. In short, it’s her American dream. While there are some exceptions to this rule (like 1%), this is by and large the case. American women dream of a future life in an affluent suburb. This raises some questions that all American men, particularly younger ones, should consider. "

[–]fuckforce5 3 points4 points  (19 children)

Even if you leave the woman out of this, I still think its a joke to get sucked into buying a house as a primary residence.

I could certainly pay a 1400/mo mortgage on my own, but around here that would put me out in the sticks. I would much rather split 3000/mo for my two bedroom high rise with a roommate that I never see, and walk to all the bars.

On top of that, I'm not pressured to trade in the 2 seat sports car for a fucking suv, or getting nagged on about my bike.

The fact of the matter is, I think for some guys my age its becoming more of a selfish lifestyle, which I completely support.

The only thing that some people women give me shit about is having a roommate. "Oh fuckforce5, roommates are for kids in college." That's fine. I'll take the stigma of having a roommate and keep the high rise, and my set costs, along with every penny after that being disposable.

[–]Glenbert -3 points-2 points  (18 children)

Cool.

I'm your landlord.

Since your typical bar-dwelling denizen is a Lib-Dem, that's who now runs city hall. And, since Lib-Dem's gonna Lib-Dem, tax assessments on rental properties just went up 15% (versus 7% on home-owners). So I'm going to bump up your rent by 30%, because I'm nicer than the guy down the street who bumped his up by 50%.

So, you now have 4 hours to resign your lease indefinitely, or I will start showing your apartment to someone will pay 2x your rent, because he wants to walk to the bars.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I think you might need a lesson in supply and demand. And a lesson in how front-loaded (all) mortgages work. Look at your bill, you paid $1600, but how much went to principle? Oh, $20. Wow, you're really putting equity away instead of "throwing it away on rent". Oh that's right, the interest is front-loaded, you pay 30 years of interest first, then you pay back the loan. After 10 years, you still owe almost the whole original loan. You've paid a couple hundred thousand dollars and yet...you still owe 300,000 dollars. At least you aren't throwing your money away on rent!

As has been mentioned a few times in this thread, equivalent properties, it's always a better investment mathematically to rent and invest than to buy real estate. With equivalent properties (sq.ft, location, fixtures, etc), renting costs ~18% less. If you rent and invest that difference between renting and mortgage in a mutual fund for 30 years (even if you picked the worst 30 year time period historically), you'll be miles ahead of the guy that bought the equivalent house, by the time he pays it off. If the guy sells the property before it's paid off, especially if it's after only 10 or less years...forget about it, he basically just wrote a check to the bank ceo bonus account for a quarter million.

[–]Glenbert 1 point2 points  (3 children)

So, this doesn't really address my underlying point. But when anyone states that anything is always a better investment than anything else, I have to address it.

You and the author of the original piece seem to buy into the idea that the owner gets no additional value from owning their living space rather than. It’s not just "piece of mind," many owners get hard tangible benefits from leaving the rental market. Especially at time when interest rates are stupid low and rental demand is stupid high and so the non-owner's premium is also stupid high.

Here's how that reality played out for me:

My last apartment is currently renting for $1650 for 705 sq. ft. (I was paying $1450 2 years ago). It had a space where a dishwasher used to be, enough hot water to shave most of my face, a hole in the bedroom door and a family of 6 Brazilians upstairs. Today, my mortgage is $1400 and I have 1485 sq. ft. of space and then 400 sq. ft. of storage in the cellar and it’s only 4 blocks away from my old building.

Already I’m saving money, so the textbook next-best-alternative/mutual fund scenario doesn't apply. And because my monthly nut gets me 2.5x more space, there's more to this story.

In my first year of owning the place I rented out my spare room to two friends who moved back into town for 2 months each at $700. Another co-worker is paying me $100/month to store stuff at my place. I have a cousin who stays with me while he attends networking events and my Mom is up here about a week a year. So I've saved my family about $4,000 in hotel costs.

My girlfriend can also stay over 2, 3 nights at a time, cook us food without much trouble or getting in my space.

The increased living space alone should be enough to make my point, but let’s look at the economics here: I reduced my housing costs by 35% in the first year after ownership (all of which went into my 401(k)). That jumps to 55% if you include the costs that family members were paying to visit me. As an added bonus, I paid off 1% of my principle. Ate well too.

This all may sound anecdotal, like I've got some crazy arbitrage going on, but it’s not. This is what happens in areas where the rental market is completely insane. If you have the resources for a down-payment on a vanilla mortgage and rates are low, it’s just stupid rational to own here. You convince enough people that the American Dream is a conspiracy against them, like this author, and this is what the rest of America will soon look like.

Best part is, I could always YOLO off to Spain and rent my spot for $2500. That, right there, is enough of a lesson in supply and demand for me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

  1. I talked about this like 3 different places last night, but I'm pretty positive I didn't say ALWAYS.
  2. Yes, it's literally anecdotal
  3. No offense, but I'm a little suspect about "only 4 blocks"
  4. Either way, in your market, there appears to be something very radically different between where your apartment is and where you moved to, otherwise, you could just buy a 1485sqft condo 0 blocks from where you lived. I have a feeling it's more than 4 blocks (or not doesn't matter) and this is exactly what I described as why this idea persists: you are comparing renting in neighborhood A to buying in neighborhood B...because you can't afford to buy in neighborhood A, yet you still think this is evidence that buying is cheaper than renting.
  5. There ARE exceptions, both in terms of time and housing markets, but they are rare. You could truly be an exception. But, I'm talking about the general case.

As an aside, I think it's very important to live in one of the cities with the highest wages to cost of living ratio.

[–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You can be suspect all you want, but look at these random Zillow listings in 4 cites in the Northeast. Look at the premium you pay to rent over a vanilla mortgage for the same property.

You stated that "it's always a better investment mathematically to rent and invest than to buy real estate." When 25% of the US lives in an area where owning shaves off, say, even 25% of their housing costs, that can't possibly be true.

Without the American Dream, the rest of the country will start to look like the Northeast Corridor. And it's the places with higher owner-to-renter ratios that have the higher wage-to-cost-of-living ratio you seek.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, all of those figures include a 20% down payment. Take the house in Boston. Just the downpayment, a measly $86,000, over 30 years in a very average mutual fund, would be worth 1.1 million, which of course is far more than the house worth, even if inflation continues at a 3% clip.

Secondly, the (Zwillo) estimated tax and insurance of $800/month is not included in the "refi" price. Which, no shit, is a bait and switch ADVERTISEMENT hook for a bank to contact you about refinancing.

Third, this does not include replacing appliances every 10 years, replacing carpet every 7 years, replacing heating and air conditioning every 15 years, reroofing the house, replacing the siding, painting the exterior every 4 years, spraying for termites, replacing teh back fence, resodding the lawn, mowing the lawn, replacing the lawn mower, etc, etc, etc.

Fourth...ly, if you just compare apples to apples with that Boston one, without even considering the upkeep, but not using the phony ADVERTISEMENT numbers with 86k down and magical interest rate (using current BEST rates), this is what you get: rent - 2631/month, buy - 3200/month, for a difference offffffffffffffff 369/month or 14%!!!! Amazing. Even in the example you gave, it's not close. If you add in maintenance, the cost of buying and selling a house, not getting the very best rates, etc etc etc, you're going to get assfucked.

Lastly, I can see why what I said was unclear, but keep in mind I'd mentioned this numerous times in different places.

EDIT: Just for shits and giggles, I checked all that you posted. If you drop the downpayment to 0% and include taxes and insurance, all of them are more expensive to own (30 year fixed) than to rent...EVEN with the bait and switch ADVERTISEMENT phantom interest rate. If you used an actual interest with a real credit score, it would be even cheaper to rent than own. If you did put 20% down, you'd still be a loser, the rate of return on investing that, for 30 years would FAR exceed any property value increase.

[–]iopq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd rather just buy a house with cash. I'd be paying 5% of the value of the house in rent every year (to rent a whole house). This is probably lower than the return on investment in stocks (and you may have to pay property taxes), but at least you get to do whatever you want since you own it.

[–]fuckforce5 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yeah, because that's exactly how it works. In the ten years I've been renting in various locations my rent has never gone up.

Also, whats the deal with assuming that because someone likes to be within walking distance to the night life that they're a liberal? This isn't fucking SF. People actually do business here.

[–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If your rent hasn't gone up, it's because the demand for rent in your area hasn't gone up. I'll bet the home ownership rates in your area are much, much much higher than in mine. That suggests that the reality I am describing is a much better indicator of what a "rental-ship society" would look like than yours.

The deal with assuming that is based on the facts that more bars = more population density = more liberal = local government who loves to raise taxes.

[–]fuckforce5 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm not quite sure your logic is spot on there. I don't really want to get into details except to say that home ownership benefits some, and not others. Yes, I understand that I'm building 0 equity by renting, but I'm also taking 0 risk.

Some people, like those who are extremely mobile, are better off putting their money in other investment vehicles than one that is tied to a geographic location.

The bottom line is that owning a home isn't practical for everyone, and there are different roads to wealth.

[–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely agree that ownership isn't for everyone. 2008 was a hellish nightmare that I don't want to revisit.

But without enough people owning, the demand for rental properties skyrockets and so do rents.

[–]iopq 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Except there are laws protecting renters. You can't show the apartment to anyone until I move out. I have 30 days if I'm a short-time renter and 60 days if I'm a long-time renter. You can't come into MY apartment with MY personal belongings even if you have the key or I call the cops on you.

[–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (6 children)

May be, but there's no law saying I have to re-sign a lease with you. If you won't play the game and give me notice 6 months in advance, I can find 20 other potential tenants to replace you (who will also pay $200 more than you are currently paying me).

If you can somehow manage to convince the city that I am doing anything wrong here, I'll just pay the fine and be done with you.

[–]iopq 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Actually, in San Francisco, there is. You may get raped by various fines and actually having to pay for someone to relocate if you kick them out. AND if it's more expensive for them to live at their new place you pay the difference.

[–]Glenbert 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That's insanity. No wonder rents there are so asinine. Landlords are pre-raping you with a premium to build up a reserve against later getting raped by the state.

No place on the east coast, aside from NYC, is that far gone.

[–]iopq 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No, you're getting raped because the landlords actually lobby against new construction in the city to keep the availability of living places down. Everyone wants to live there, but only people who have been renting for 40 years can afford it because there are rent controls (you can only raise rent by a few percent a year)

[–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Little bit of both. I know a couple of people who own rental properties out there and they will die younger from the stress of it all. No thanks.

Whatever the case, that place is a massive outlier among the real estate markets in major US cities. That bubble will burst within the next 30 years and it will be like NYC in the 70s and 80s for a while. Totally unsustainable.

[–]fuckforce5 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I get the feeling you don't really know how hard it is to kick a tenant out; even if they haven't paid.

Even in the deep south where the laws heavily favored the landlord, it took damn near an act of god to get a tenant to leave even after not paying for 2 months.

Yes, nothing requires you to "let" me sign a new lease. This also depends on the demand. If there is a ton of demand, then yeah, you can raise my rent. If not, then I could always pack my shit and move someplace cheaper. It all comes down to whats more convenient for both parties.

You seem to be under the impression that the landlord is doing the tenant a favor by letting them live there. The way I see it I'm doing you a favor by paying your fucking loan and not fucking up your shit. You want to take a chance on someone else? Be my guest.

[–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, a landlord up north will gladly next their tenant, because there's 40 applications behind you with better credit, a higher willingness to pay and no hassle. I was once turned down for an apartment because I told the guy I was thinking of going to law school. I once saw an actual bidding war on a shitty little unit.

In a land where rental demand is through-the-roof, landlords are like HB 10s in a sea of omega males. Granted, you can't evict someone to save your life up here, but you screen for the people who aren't willing to spend two years in a courtroom with you via credit checks.

This is life in a "rentalship society"

[–]drallcom3 4 points5 points  (1 child)

You can earn so much more money if you're not tied down by a house.

[–]watersign 3 points4 points  (0 children)

so true. wonder what the radfem cunts have to say about this . as someone who is on his way to making enough to live the america dream ..i can say i prety much have no interest in it anymore. the women who are worthy of child bearing all shack up with dudes who make alot more than i ever will and quite frankly..todays 'basic bitch' isnt good for anything other then dumping a load into.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would honestly like a fully paid off smaller house in a quiet neighborhood with a basement or garage big enough to hold my personal gym equipment (power rack, bench press, mirrors, mats for deadlifts).

Having room for my hobbies, a backyard for BBQs, nice big TV with surround sound for movies and games, yet small enough not to be a slave in keeping it up.

The idea of having a wife in there with me kinda fucks all that up as "we need more space for my crap so why don't you get rid of all this stuff, honey"

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

If I ever get a house, every room will be a 'man cave'. Except it won't be called a 'man cave'. It will be called 'a room'.

The garage will be an auto repair and maintenence station. The living room will be filled with video games. The home office will have the state of the art computer for running simulations, torrents, side projects, and a server for other projects. There will be a clean room in the basement as well as a lab. There will also be another sound proof room for my music. The basement will also host a shooting range. The bedroom will be a spare storage for my firearms and other equipment. The walls will be decorated with maps, scheduals, and relevent reference information. And in the backyard there will be a forest to practice survival skills.

Everything in my house will have a purpose. I will not stand to have redundant doilies and fluffy pillows and useless crap I don't need and only bought for the sake of buying.

But I'm not even at that stage yet. I'm still renting.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's pretty awesome owning a home by yourself. I own an old farmhouse with a few acres of land. The Appalachian Trail is a 20 minute walk through forest in the national park behind me.

If I could do it over again, I'd buy more land and build a smaller, more functional house out of cob. Though I do have enough land as it is to be totally self sufficient if I chose to do so.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

This article seems hyper focused on the math of providing a house, home, and cars for a family.

If you don't want any of those things, why would you buy them? Seriously?!?

Why is it that return of kings constantly tells men that they have the power in the relationships, but then bitches about "having" to buy a home for a woman?

You don't have to buy anything you don't want!

You want to justify it by saying you want to make her happy, or it's better for you both in the long run. Fuck that.

If it's your money, it's your decision.

Just for the other side though, if you are both working and both contributing, then you might actually have to compromise. At that point, look at it as a business partnership.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

It's a commentary on modern American families, a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual. You seem to have missed the entire point.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

A cautionary tale about what exactly? The fact that you have convinced yourself that providing for your women, and giving her what she wants, should always lead to a satisfying relationship?

You could give a woman everything, house, car, money, and she might still cheat on you with the hot gardener.

I might have missed the point because I don't think my entire life should lead to someone else's happiness. I believe it should be a split, and she should help me as much as I help her.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You make zero sense and sound like a caricature of what people think trpers sound like. You have so completely and oppositely misread what I said, and the author of the blog in question, I have to assume you're incapable of having a conversation with.

[–] points points

[permanently deleted]

[–]iopq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but as you can see from San Francisco rent rates this is not sustainable. Everyone wants to get the high salaries in the city, but not everyone can afford $3000 rents. Then again, this is because the government doesn't allow you to just endlessly build skyscrapers to fit all the residents.

[–]TangoAlphaBravo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for that article, excellent.

http://homefreeamerica.us/

That guy writes a lot about the American Dream, I reckon you will like it.

[–]8n0n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The cost of an 'average'

Could we have ROK re do the article with median figures, the average is skewed by the million dollar plus mansions and apartments which throws out the calculated figures in this article.

As linked on that article: https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/uspricemon.pdf

Period Median Average Jan 2014 $269,800 $337,300

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/

In before grammar nazi (or similar terms); I agree with the article but think we should try and present such as factually as possible to ensure we are not discredited with such views in future.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm living the American Dream, and it's pretty great. It's only a nightmare if you're poor, because it's expensive as fuck. But if you earn a solid 6 figures (and aren't in SF/NYC), it's fun.

I have a big garage to weld and saw shit in. I have a home gym, a library, a music studio, a gun room, and a theater. Having a guest room is awesome. I grow veggies in my back yard. I throw cookouts on my deck. I love stocking my larder and prepping for the apocalypse. My kids enjoy their swingset and running amok. My wife handles the cleaning and landscaping, so there is literally no downside for me.

Now, if I were single, would I have all this shit? Fuck no. I'd spend the money on trips, reinvest more into my business, and piss more away on dumb shit that is just as meaningless.

Calling it a nightmare is fucking stupid, though.

[–]Cyrusk4 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Like a lot of RoK posts this one is too heavy on the blame women angle. It's a man's choice to make these terrible decisions. So, take some fucking responsibility. Even a wife who you're not into is not your wife's fault, it's your fault for picking her.

It's also fine to want a house and a family. This was called the "American dream" only when it works. Make a shit ton of money and then dump it all into a house that's fully paid off. Find a woman who's not materialistic and have a great life with your family.

But don't sabotage your existence because of pressure to conform to society.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

This article reads like a child not wanting to grow up. There are plenty of reasons not to buy a house or have kids. Wanting to rent a buddies room or sit on your college couch arent reasons but distractions. Whats gonna happen when you're 30? 40? 60? Same couch same room? Are you still gonna drive that beater with 500k miles? There are upkeep costs to life and while I applaud the critique of consumerism lets be realistic in our calculations. And that mortgage cost isnt so much more, and can be less, than renting so its not a wasted 1400 a month but a gain or loss of a few hundred a month over the short term alternative and a large gain in the long term (note. This assumes money saved by renting over buying is not reinvested in the market but spent. Renting beats buying every time when you reinvest the difference)

As an aside, there is no reason most americans should ever reach the dream. Thats why its a dream. Spending 75k post tax when the average is 50 pretax isnt that bad for a dream.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This assumes money saved by renting over buying is not reinvested in the market but spent. Renting beats buying every time when you reinvest the difference

This should be the top comment. Purchasing real estate (assuming you don't get hamstrung into an inequitable deal) is really nothing more than a low yield savings plan that is usually a step or two above just hoarding cash under your mattress. People trotting out all this bullshit about "equity" and what not. Just use the money to invest or start up a bus iness. Then, buy the house for cash later when the cost only represents a fraction of your net worth.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you're focusing on the specifics instead of the concept. I agree with everything you've said, especially on renting AND investing versus buying, but the point of the author, or at least what should have been his point, is that the pressure to "grow up", as you put it, usually boils down to doing shit that is neither responsible nor beneficial to you, but simply being a revenue stream for a woman. The goal is to take control of your financial destiny to ends that you desire. That may be wealth accumulation or comfort or isolation or ridiculous toys. The details of the end desire is immaterial, taking charge and bringing it about is the key though.

As an aside: not enough people seem willing to accept the fact that renting and investing is nearly always superior to buying. Buying is not a good investment mathematically. I think the reason the perception persists is because people typically rent in the city, where property value is very high, but then look to buy in the 'burbs where property value is comparatively dirt cheap. They compare different markets. Two houses (or condos) in the same area will be cheaper to rent than buy and over any 30 years in history, that difference invested in a mutual fund will be greater than the equity of the paid off house. But most people are super irresponsible, so buying a house might be the best investment, psychologically. Most people don't have the self-discipline to put that 18% of rent into an investment account every month, but they do have the self-discipline to pay their mortgage, because, well, otherwise they'll get kicked out and lose everything they've put in. It's a forced savings account, which is probably best for a lot of people.

[–]Glenbert -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Exactly. This is a bunch of YOLO bullshit.

[–]SquattingOats 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is where RP loses power. Lots of wowisme in here. If you aren't making 6 figures that's a problem you need to fix.

Frankly I DO want a nice house with a yard. It's a much better experience than an apartment.

[–]MrMagwitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sure as hell don't want that currently at 25 years old, as I want to be open for moving or taking whatever great opportunities that I can. I don't want to be tied down right now in my life. But I know I'll want a house, a yard and a dog ten years down the road.

I didn't grow up in the burbs or a rural area, but I'm totally leaning towards moving to the latter later in life.

[–]beginner_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK I get the point but is this 4.3% interest rate for mortgage in US real or pure fiction? Here you pay maybe 2% for a 10 year mortgage and if you want to go risky you can get below 1% (adjusted every 3 month).

Meaning the price for a house per month would be half or less of $1400. Not to mention I pay more than that for rent now (but not US).

[–]NillaThunda 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I get what he is saying, but I make a lot more than "the average american." Granted, the home I want is only $350k in Narnia, the points made here only work if one is not successful.

The cost of kids is also a joke. Any man who does not want his bloodline to continue should not have kids anyway. I did not put the time and effort into creating respect for my name to not have an heir.

Having a family, owning a home, having my own car, having a boat, and living "the American Dream" are all things I want. Are they free? No. the real issue is people think they are entitled to "the American Dream," which is a whole other issue.

Edit: I get the divorce thing and cannot join this argument because I know nothing about it seeing as I have never been married.

[–]TangoAlphaBravo 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Read the article again, you did not grap the esence of it.

[–]Glenbert -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Well, I read it twice.

You take your typical self-centered rad fem rant, add some math to it and you have this piece.