I never contradicted myself in the context of whom I was replying to. You claim "selling is part of renting", nowhere did the original poster mention that.
You added that variable, you started talking about selling real estate. I know you can make money in real estate even with not too high investments (depending on your definition of "high", of course). It does however not involve buying a house and indefinitely renting it. This was a reply to a person that claimed that building a house and renting it off was enough to have an stream of money coming in. When is this going to get into your obtuse head?
Yes, you can make money with real estate, I know that, you know that, people got rich doing exatcly that.
So, the day you learn about reading a reply in CONTEXT, I will take time to reply to you again.
Well, true, but you're not going to be living from it. (Unless you have a couple dozen houses) That's why I posted the reply to the original poster. Not that you cannot make money with real estate. You clearly can, I never disputed that. However not in the way the original poster suggested.
Okay, let's be clear here.... I replied to someone that said "Build house, collect rent". I replied to that premise, and you are talking about buying houses and selling them off later on.
So, yes, what you tell works because I've been there myself (in an indirect way, but I don't have to explain everything.). However, building (and buying a house) to simply live of the rent is next to impossible if you did not inherit said house.
So, did I waste your time? Yes, I did, but only because your reading comprehension lacks severely.
Oh, and another small thing: don't mix up ares and acres. Very different things: 5 are is 0.123552691 acres . So your 1/20 acre property actually is about 2 are. Puts things into perspective, doesn't it?
Of course, you have the house, but now you need to invest for the restoration. You still haven't "made" any money either. It's all in the real estate. It's not as if you could sit there for 30 years on your lazy ass and collect money from your real estate.
It's not as if that rent magically appeared on your account every month and you could use it as you wanted. No, it went directly into paying your mortgage. Sure, in the end somebody else paid your house, and it is yours, but only after 30 years you can even think of making money from the house in the sense that you can live of the rent somebody else pays you for having the right to live in your real estate.
Who the hell builds 5 acre properties and then rents them for 2000 a month?
You build 1/20th acre properties and rent them for 2000 a month.
Nobody does... All new constructions here seem to be apartment buildings where an old house was torn down. Much better return of investment. I just did a quick look on what a 150 square metre house would cost. Those are all old houses, that I assume were inherited and the person that owns it has no interest in selling. That's my guess.
You usually use the rent to offset the mortgage payments (zero cost, as long as there are people who need to rent), giving you an entire property you own in 30 years time (equity) with an income
True that's a way you can do it, but still, unless that same rent covers the repairs and maintenance of the building over those 30 years, you end up with a 30 year old completely obsoleted old building that is ripe for being torn down. (Okay, at least requires significant restoration) You sill haven't made a cent in all those years, but yes, you now have a crap building.
You do understand that it isn't as simple as the parent posted suggested, eh? "Build house, collect rent" is not as simple as it seems.
The wiki article says nothing about making profits. It's all about what "real estate" is and how it is around the world.
So, now please, explain in clear text how you can make a profit by collecting rent? Sure, I know that the terrain can enhance in value, but a crap house on a good terrain still requires an investment of the owner.
What you *can* do is buy a house, renovate cheaply, and sell with a high margin especially if said house is in a popular/good neighborhood. That way you can recoup the costs of buying the crap house, the costs of renovating and making a profit. You still need a lot of money to start of with. This means high barrier of entry. The original poster, explicitly said "build house, collect rent", so that scenario is out by definition.
That assumes that you can rent it in 50 years without doing any work for it. A 50 year old house without maintenance in its lifetime is only worth the terrain it's build on. Which brings us to the next point: unless you have a terrain, you have to buy one, which means you need to have money in order to do this. Don't say "mortage", because you'll be working to pay the mortgage off. It also assumes that you can build a house on your own from architecture to building the roof. I doubt you can do that, so it means you are going to pay to build that house.
Where I live, you need to count about 750000€ to build a smallish house (~150 square metre) on a smallish terrain (5 are). Even assume you have that kind of money, and you manage to rent it at 2000€/month (which seems to be the asking rent for such a house), you will need more than 30 years to get break-even! At that point your house will need significant repairs...
I know that one of these is a four-seater. I happen to own one, and those seats are pretty much decoration. They are usable at best to put a child safety seat there.
It would likely run... but fine? I doubt it, because that class of machine is usually memory-starved. If you're lucky with a P-II you'll get 128Meg RAM, with a P-III you'll get 256Meg or 512Meg is you are really, really, really lucky. I tried installing Ubuntu 6.06 on a ThinkPad with a P-II 3xxMhz and 128Meg RAM. Didn't install. It did install when I replaced the RAM with 2x256Meg. After the installation process, I put back the original 128Meg (since the other RAM was mine, and I wasn't going to give it away) and Unbuntu booted and was "okay", but, I sure hope that the person using that machine isn't going to load more than Firefox and Thunderbird at the same time.
Damn Small Linux would have been a better choice, which I installed on a P-I 166MHz with 128Meg RAM and that thing works perfectly fine. It is not thought for novice end-users though...
Look at the people who paid $500 for a 15" LCD screen with crap specs, when you can now buy a 20" for $150.00.
500$? More like a good 1200€ yes... I was one of those suckers, *but* I never regretted it. Why? Because I don't have a large home-office. On the same space, I could never have put a 15" CRT. For me that was the dealbraker, and I had the money to spare, so why not. Of course, you do realise that I have exactly that monitor still in use. It's now about 7 years old, I think, it still works fine, has only one damaged pixel and the image quality is still very good. Hey, I played games on it and there was no ghosting whatsoever. Sure, 1024x768 isn't all that stellar, but my work laptop is only 1280x800 which isn't exactly much more....
It's an "observational law", a.k.a. "empirical observation". This means, Mister Moore saw a correlation between some factors that seemed to be true all the time. Simply put: it's not a "law" in any senses of the word, it's just an "observation". It should never have been called a law, but then Murphy's Law is also called a law.
To me this has the flavor of an urban legend. The only PCs I've seen at curbside in this upper middle-class suburb have been the Packard Bells of the mid-90s.
It's not Urban legend. I'm a "dumpster diver" myself. Now, I agree that you seldom see computers on the curb side, but that's mainly because in my country you can't trash them. I do however have to go to the recycling centre on a regular base, and I have literally found gems in the electronics bin. The top I found (over a year ago) was a P-IV 1.9GHz, Intel motherboard, 512Meg RAM (RIMM, alas), 40Gig harddisk, CD-Rom burner, a dual head Matrox AGP card, a 3Com NIC and a really nice case. Yes, I have to admit, I was baffled when I found it. On a regular base, I find P-III's with RAM between 64Meg and 128Meg. I don't even bother with those anymore because I don't have the storage space. I've also found several AMD Athlon machines in the +1GHz range.
Keep in mind that I don't even actively search. When I bring my paper/glass/plastics to my local recycling centre, I just take a look at the electronics bin. That's all...
What I don't get is that they have a "recycling shop", where you can put stuff that is still good and people that want it can take it. You will find Inkjet printers there, but full computers aren't even considered. I find that strange, but I guess it's because they don't have people that can identify if a computer is still good or not.
Europe? You must be kidding! Our armies aren't worth a damned shit. We couldn't provide military training and good weapons if we wanted to. Besides, it would be quite suicidal to outsource our food production and give the other party the means to walk completely over us.
Nowhere have I claimed that the EU only did good stuff. It's clear that bad decisions have been made. However, I was talking about the 1950ies EU, (which would be the ECSC: European Coal and Steel Community), with great people like Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet.
I don't say that the EU is all rosy and doesn't make mistakes. I just say that the original philosophy has proven to be very successful.
The "never war" part of the declaration is only enforceable on the EU, not on some aggressive, sovereign state.
Oh, come on! Please to look at this in a *historical* context, as I clearly did by the way. When the (predecessor of the) EU was founded, we came out of the second most bloody war on our soil in not even 30 years! So, sure, this was not about protecting us from an outside invading force. It was about stopping to kill ourself mutually within the known historical context.
One of the better ways to prevent war is for nations to be mutually dependent.
What exactly did you think was done? Exactly this! The EU countries are mutually dependent on each other economically now, which was not the case in pre-WWI times. So, from that point of view the EU was extremely successful.
Those African countries have expressed all sorts of eagerness to supply the EU with inexpensive produce in exchange for lots of shiny, new euros.
Yes, but it would mean outsourcing our food production entirely to other nations. Might I point out how well that works for another valuable good named "oil"? No, I'd better not... If you outsource the food production of a nation entirely to a third party, you give absolute power to that outside country. They just need to threaten to stop selling grain and we have to bend over and take it from behind or we starve.
This is about balances of power. You might think that foreign trade with African countries will work, but it has to go both ways: if we are dependent on their food, they need to be dependent on something we produce... Otherwise the "peace producing foreign trade" doesn't work.
Finally: Actually, both ideas are stupid and self-serving
I admit they are self-serving. That's not a problem though... I don't think they are stupid though, you might but I couldn't care less about your opinion.
My cow-orkers, for instance, are particularly enthralled with a site called LinkedIn. I have yet to see how useful it is,
Not very... As far as I have seen it's better to be at the parties where the decision makes are. That said, I did get contacted by Google once because I was on LinkedIn. Came past the recruiter, survived first interview, flunked the second one. Quite flattering though;-)
Apart from that, never got anything through it. May of course be that my profile sucks, but I'm also not US based.
Not saying that it isn't true, but the (predecessor of the) EU was founded on a "never war and never hunger again" idea. So this means we need to keep our food production locally. Dependence for food on other nations is a big no-no. That said, I don't agree that they export the heavily subsidized stuff. They should just produce less, and that's often what happens: farmers are paid not to plant stuff. Overproduction is just as bad as underproduction...
Alas, many people have forgotten the original idea of the EU.
Just calm down a tad... Just like we saw the CPU speed become irrelevant, we are seeing now the RAM amount becoming irrelevant. Let me illustrate: my wifes computer had 512Meg RAM when she bought it. I upgraded it to 2Gig when I found some RAM on sale. Performance difference: close to nil. What really is the case is that we rarely use over 512Meg RAM.
Another case: I have a AMD Athlon MP 2x2400+ with 4Gig RAM. Sure, as you say, I only get 3.5Gig out of it. I tried one night for fun to fill her all up. I launched every program, every renderer, every game I had on the machine... and that was quite a lot. It still was not enough to fill up the 3.5Gigs available to me, nor even peg down both of my CPUs.
So, I won't say that 2Gig of RAM isn't enough for you... It may well be that for the average person, 1Gig is enough...2Gig for the hardcore "average" people
I cannot say for Windows... However, my old desktop, bought in 1999 is now serving my parents quite well. Sure it's a firewall/webserver/mailserver, but it's 32-bit running OpenBSD and the machine is about 7 years old: P-III 800MHz/768Meg RAM. Yes, in 3 years, 32-bit machines will still be used. If they will be running Windows, I cannot say, but a 7 year old machine is not old by any means....
Slashdot Mirror
Also, can you stop contradicting yourself?
I never contradicted myself in the context of whom I was replying to. You claim "selling is part of renting", nowhere did the original poster mention that.
You added that variable, you started talking about selling real estate. I know you can make money in real estate even with not too high investments (depending on your definition of "high", of course). It does however not involve buying a house and indefinitely renting it. This was a reply to a person that claimed that building a house and renting it off was enough to have an stream of money coming in. When is this going to get into your obtuse head?
Yes, you can make money with real estate, I know that, you know that, people got rich doing exatcly that.
So, the day you learn about reading a reply in CONTEXT , I will take time to reply to you again.
Well, true, but you're not going to be living from it. (Unless you have a couple dozen houses) That's why I posted the reply to the original poster. Not that you cannot make money with real estate. You clearly can, I never disputed that. However not in the way the original poster suggested.
Okay, let's be clear here.... I replied to someone that said "Build house, collect rent". I replied to that premise, and you are talking about buying houses and selling them off later on.
So, yes, what you tell works because I've been there myself (in an indirect way, but I don't have to explain everything.). However, building (and buying a house) to simply live of the rent is next to impossible if you did not inherit said house.
So, did I waste your time? Yes, I did, but only because your reading comprehension lacks severely.
Oh, and another small thing: don't mix up ares and acres. Very different things: 5 are is 0.123552691 acres . So your 1/20 acre property actually is about 2 are. Puts things into perspective, doesn't it?
This is exactly why I hate Imperial units.
Of course, you have the house, but now you need to invest for the restoration. You still haven't "made" any money either. It's all in the real estate. It's not as if you could sit there for 30 years on your lazy ass and collect money from your real estate.
It's not as if that rent magically appeared on your account every month and you could use it as you wanted. No, it went directly into paying your mortgage. Sure, in the end somebody else paid your house, and it is yours, but only after 30 years you can even think of making money from the house in the sense that you can live of the rent somebody else pays you for having the right to live in your real estate.
Who the hell builds 5 acre properties and then rents them for 2000 a month?
You build 1/20th acre properties and rent them for 2000 a month.
Nobody does... All new constructions here seem to be apartment buildings where an old house was torn down. Much better return of investment. I just did a quick look on what a 150 square metre house would cost. Those are all old houses, that I assume were inherited and the person that owns it has no interest in selling. That's my guess.
You usually use the rent to offset the mortgage payments (zero cost, as long as there are people who need to rent), giving you an entire property you own in 30 years time (equity) with an income
True that's a way you can do it, but still, unless that same rent covers the repairs and maintenance of the building over those 30 years, you end up with a 30 year old completely obsoleted old building that is ripe for being torn down. (Okay, at least requires significant restoration) You sill haven't made a cent in all those years, but yes, you now have a crap building.
You do understand that it isn't as simple as the parent posted suggested, eh? "Build house, collect rent" is not as simple as it seems.
The wiki article says nothing about making profits. It's all about what "real estate" is and how it is around the world.
So, now please, explain in clear text how you can make a profit by collecting rent? Sure, I know that the terrain can enhance in value, but a crap house on a good terrain still requires an investment of the owner.
What you *can* do is buy a house, renovate cheaply, and sell with a high margin especially if said house is in a popular/good neighborhood. That way you can recoup the costs of buying the crap house, the costs of renovating and making a profit. You still need a lot of money to start of with. This means high barrier of entry. The original poster, explicitly said "build house, collect rent", so that scenario is out by definition.
That assumes that you can rent it in 50 years without doing any work for it. A 50 year old house without maintenance in its lifetime is only worth the terrain it's build on. Which brings us to the next point: unless you have a terrain, you have to buy one, which means you need to have money in order to do this. Don't say "mortage", because you'll be working to pay the mortgage off. It also assumes that you can build a house on your own from architecture to building the roof. I doubt you can do that, so it means you are going to pay to build that house.
Where I live, you need to count about 750000€ to build a smallish house (~150 square metre) on a smallish terrain (5 are). Even assume you have that kind of money, and you manage to rent it at 2000€/month (which seems to be the asking rent for such a house), you will need more than 30 years to get break-even! At that point your house will need significant repairs...
I don't think your house example works out....
Yes, it does.... If you've got, like 95 years after the autor dies or so... (Don't know the exact values)
Weather you keep the original 2 years
What does the weather have to do with computers? I hate that "spelling" mistake: it is "whether", damnit!
Sorry, I picked you, but I keep on seeing that mistake and it maddens me. Double excuse if you're a non-native english speaker, but so am I.
Give me tiny european two seaters over an SUV any day....
I know that one of these is a four-seater. I happen to own one, and those seats are pretty much decoration. They are usable at best to put a child safety seat there.
So, you're 30? Like me? *sigh*
It would likely run... but fine? I doubt it, because that class of machine is usually memory-starved. If you're lucky with a P-II you'll get 128Meg RAM, with a P-III you'll get 256Meg or 512Meg is you are really, really, really lucky. I tried installing Ubuntu 6.06 on a ThinkPad with a P-II 3xxMhz and 128Meg RAM. Didn't install. It did install when I replaced the RAM with 2x256Meg. After the installation process, I put back the original 128Meg (since the other RAM was mine, and I wasn't going to give it away) and Unbuntu booted and was "okay", but, I sure hope that the person using that machine isn't going to load more than Firefox and Thunderbird at the same time.
Damn Small Linux would have been a better choice, which I installed on a P-I 166MHz with 128Meg RAM and that thing works perfectly fine. It is not thought for novice end-users though...
Look at the people who paid $500 for a 15" LCD screen with crap specs, when you can now buy a 20" for $150.00.
500$? More like a good 1200€ yes... I was one of those suckers, *but* I never regretted it. Why? Because I don't have a large home-office. On the same space, I could never have put a 15" CRT. For me that was the dealbraker, and I had the money to spare, so why not. Of course, you do realise that I have exactly that monitor still in use. It's now about 7 years old, I think, it still works fine, has only one damaged pixel and the image quality is still very good. Hey, I played games on it and there was no ghosting whatsoever. Sure, 1024x768 isn't all that stellar, but my work laptop is only 1280x800 which isn't exactly much more....
It's an "observational law", a.k.a. "empirical observation". This means, Mister Moore saw a correlation between some factors that seemed to be true all the time. Simply put: it's not a "law" in any senses of the word, it's just an "observation". It should never have been called a law, but then Murphy's Law is also called a law.
Yes, yes, I know you're being sarcastic.
That explains why I still use my 75€ cellphone after 2 years.... but yeah, most sheeple replace their cellphone every year, if not every 6 months.
To me this has the flavor of an urban legend. The only PCs I've seen at curbside in this upper middle-class suburb have been the Packard Bells of the mid-90s.
It's not Urban legend. I'm a "dumpster diver" myself. Now, I agree that you seldom see computers on the curb side, but that's mainly because in my country you can't trash them. I do however have to go to the recycling centre on a regular base, and I have literally found gems in the electronics bin. The top I found (over a year ago) was a P-IV 1.9GHz, Intel motherboard, 512Meg RAM (RIMM, alas), 40Gig harddisk, CD-Rom burner, a dual head Matrox AGP card, a 3Com NIC and a really nice case. Yes, I have to admit, I was baffled when I found it. On a regular base, I find P-III's with RAM between 64Meg and 128Meg. I don't even bother with those anymore because I don't have the storage space. I've also found several AMD Athlon machines in the +1GHz range.
Keep in mind that I don't even actively search. When I bring my paper/glass/plastics to my local recycling centre, I just take a look at the electronics bin. That's all...
What I don't get is that they have a "recycling shop", where you can put stuff that is still good and people that want it can take it. You will find Inkjet printers there, but full computers aren't even considered. I find that strange, but I guess it's because they don't have people that can identify if a computer is still good or not.
Europe? You must be kidding! Our armies aren't worth a damned shit. We couldn't provide military training and good weapons if we wanted to. Besides, it would be quite suicidal to outsource our food production and give the other party the means to walk completely over us.
Nowhere have I claimed that the EU only did good stuff. It's clear that bad decisions have been made. However, I was talking about the 1950ies EU, (which would be the ECSC: European Coal and Steel Community), with great people like Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet.
I don't say that the EU is all rosy and doesn't make mistakes. I just say that the original philosophy has proven to be very successful.
The "never war" part of the declaration is only enforceable on the EU, not on some aggressive, sovereign state.
Oh, come on! Please to look at this in a *historical* context, as I clearly did by the way. When the (predecessor of the) EU was founded, we came out of the second most bloody war on our soil in not even 30 years! So, sure, this was not about protecting us from an outside invading force. It was about stopping to kill ourself mutually within the known historical context.
One of the better ways to prevent war is for nations to be mutually dependent.
What exactly did you think was done? Exactly this! The EU countries are mutually dependent on each other economically now, which was not the case in pre-WWI times. So, from that point of view the EU was extremely successful.
Those African countries have expressed all sorts of eagerness to supply the EU with inexpensive produce in exchange for lots of shiny, new euros.
Yes, but it would mean outsourcing our food production entirely to other nations. Might I point out how well that works for another valuable good named "oil"? No, I'd better not... If you outsource the food production of a nation entirely to a third party, you give absolute power to that outside country. They just need to threaten to stop selling grain and we have to bend over and take it from behind or we starve.
This is about balances of power. You might think that foreign trade with African countries will work, but it has to go both ways: if we are dependent on their food, they need to be dependent on something we produce... Otherwise the "peace producing foreign trade" doesn't work.
Finally: Actually, both ideas are stupid and self-serving
I admit they are self-serving. That's not a problem though... I don't think they are stupid though, you might but I couldn't care less about your opinion.
My cow-orkers, for instance, are particularly enthralled with a site called LinkedIn. I have yet to see how useful it is,
Not very... As far as I have seen it's better to be at the parties where the decision makes are. That said, I did get contacted by Google once because I was on LinkedIn. Came past the recruiter, survived first interview, flunked the second one. Quite flattering though;-)
Apart from that, never got anything through it. May of course be that my profile sucks, but I'm also not US based.
Not saying that it isn't true, but the (predecessor of the) EU was founded on a "never war and never hunger again" idea. So this means we need to keep our food production locally. Dependence for food on other nations is a big no-no. That said, I don't agree that they export the heavily subsidized stuff. They should just produce less, and that's often what happens: farmers are paid not to plant stuff. Overproduction is just as bad as underproduction...
Alas, many people have forgotten the original idea of the EU.
Just calm down a tad... Just like we saw the CPU speed become irrelevant, we are seeing now the RAM amount becoming irrelevant. Let me illustrate: my wifes computer had 512Meg RAM when she bought it. I upgraded it to 2Gig when I found some RAM on sale. Performance difference: close to nil. What really is the case is that we rarely use over 512Meg RAM.
Another case: I have a AMD Athlon MP 2x2400+ with 4Gig RAM. Sure, as you say, I only get 3.5Gig out of it. I tried one night for fun to fill her all up. I launched every program, every renderer, every game I had on the machine... and that was quite a lot. It still was not enough to fill up the 3.5Gigs available to me, nor even peg down both of my CPUs.
So, I won't say that 2Gig of RAM isn't enough for you... It may well be that for the average person, 1Gig is enough...2Gig for the hardcore "average" people
I cannot say for Windows... However, my old desktop, bought in 1999 is now serving my parents quite well. Sure it's a firewall/webserver/mailserver, but it's 32-bit running OpenBSD and the machine is about 7 years old: P-III 800MHz/768Meg RAM. Yes, in 3 years, 32-bit machines will still be used. If they will be running Windows, I cannot say, but a 7 year old machine is not old by any means....
Ehm, a PS/2 was a 386 class machine. I ran it on a PS/2 model 50, which means it was 1Meg of RAM with a 10MHz 286....