Anonymous wrote:Can we stop with the hustle culture crap? A lot of it is face time. Most people who say they work a ton of hours include food breaks and going to the gym.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized that American hustle + grind culture is inescapable.

I wouldn't call it inescapable. However, I did have an epiphany while selling my house recently. I actually have a large house in neighborhood full of small houses and a nominally above average school. The realtors seem to hate my house they want to sell it for the same price for all the other houses in the neighborhood. For a frame of reference in another neighborhood it would be maybe a 1.3 million dollar home. So basically an owner in these other neighborhoods, paid too much for their home so they can be next to a bunch of other people who also paid too much for their homes. Realtors seem to really like this idea. However, I got to thinking about it. Many of these "good neighborhoods", they lack decent amenities. Like no sidewalks, nothing to do really except drive a car. Well, I jumped on chatGPT and it explained it to me. The problem with large houses in neighborhoods of small houses or houses near amenities... entertainment like bowling alleys, is the Financial institutions can't model them. Their model's don't know how to value them, they can roll them into package that conforms to some criteria then put them in a mortgage portfolio.

So there it is. These financial movers that build these subdivisions, explicitly exclude many amenities, anything that might interfere with your paying your mortgage off why? So they can predictably model profits. Everything else follows from that. Long commutes etc. They're basically financial engines. The only way out is to get someone else to buy in.

I don’t understand this post. I want to, but I don’t. How does excluding amenities make profits more predictable?

Local amenities — like shops, restaurants, parks, bars, or entertainment — make life better for residents, but they also introduce variability in local housing markets and incomes. Lenders (banks, investors, insurers like Fannie Mae) care about predictability because mortgages are long-term contracts priced on risk. Here’s how amenities complicate that:

🧭 1. Amenities make local housing prices volatile

When a neighborhood gets new amenities (say, a trendy café strip), home values can rise rapidly — but if those amenities fail or trends change, they can fall just as fast.

That means the collateral (the house) is harder to value reliably over 15–30 years.

Mortgage models prefer stable, homogeneous areas where price movements track the broader region rather than idiosyncratic local economies.

Example:
A suburban tract of identical houses near a business park has predictable resale values.
A mixed-use block with boutiques, bars, and new condos might swing 20–30% up or down with small economic shifts.

🧱 2. Amenities signal mixed land use — which increases income and tenant variability

Lenders prefer neighborhoods where everyone has similar, steady incomes.
When local amenities attract transient populations (students, gig workers, tourists), you get:

More rental churn

More seasonal employment

Less predictable household stability

That makes defaults less statistically predictable, even if average incomes are higher.

🏪 3. Amenities rely on discretionary spending

Areas built around leisure — restaurants, casinos, entertainment — depend on residents having spare income.
If the economy slows, those sectors contract quickly, hitting both local employment and property values.
For lenders, that’s a correlated risk: many borrowers in one place might lose income simultaneously.

📉 4. Amenities distort standard risk models

Most U.S. mortgage risk models are based on tract-level historical data — like census data on income, employment, and housing turnover.
Mixed-use areas or amenity-driven “creative” neighborhoods don’t fit the historical mold, so their default probability and prepayment patterns are less predictable.

🧩 5. Amenities can change neighborhood composition too fast

When new amenities appear, they often accelerate gentrification. That makes long-term forecasting (and thus pricing) harder:

Today’s borrower profile may not match tomorrow’s neighborhood.

If low-income residents are displaced, lenders can’t rely on historical payment performance in that ZIP code.

In short:

Mortgage finance likes monotony.
The more a neighborhood looks like a controlled experiment — similar homes, incomes, jobs — the more confidently a lender can price risk.
Local amenities make a place livable, but also less predictable to model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized that American hustle + grind culture is inescapable.

I wouldn't call it inescapable. However, I did have an epiphany while selling my house recently. I actually have a large house in neighborhood full of small houses and a nominally above average school. The realtors seem to hate my house they want to sell it for the same price for all the other houses in the neighborhood. For a frame of reference in another neighborhood it would be maybe a 1.3 million dollar home. So basically an owner in these other neighborhoods, paid too much for their home so they can be next to a bunch of other people who also paid too much for their homes. Realtors seem to really like this idea. However, I got to thinking about it. Many of these "good neighborhoods", they lack decent amenities. Like no sidewalks, nothing to do really except drive a car. Well, I jumped on chatGPT and it explained it to me. The problem with large houses in neighborhoods of small houses or houses near amenities... entertainment like bowling alleys, is the Financial institutions can't model them. Their model's don't know how to value them, they can roll them into package that conforms to some criteria then put them in a mortgage portfolio.

So there it is. These financial movers that build these subdivisions, explicitly exclude many amenities, anything that might interfere with your paying your mortgage off why? So they can predictably model profits. Everything else follows from that. Long commutes etc. They're basically financial engines. The only way out is to get someone else to buy in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized that American hustle + grind culture is inescapable.

American (US) work culture that requires usually way beyond the 40 hour work week, often calling for nights and weekends and limited ACTUAL vacation time - as in you don't take calls, don't bring your work computer etc - for anyone who actually wants to have the trappings of the American middle class lifestyle: A house, a couple of cars, a couple of kids etc. No longer can a conventional 9 to 5 pay for that. 9 to 5 is more 8 to 6 anyways, even for the normal office grunt jobs. Nowadays, if you stay in a normal, non-managerial position, your wages/salary will stagnate, won't keep up with inflation, and you'll struggle to even afford the tiny apartment or shared housing with roommates and budget/Walmart groceries you had in your 20s. If you want to have a single family home and afford children, you have to work longer hours and sacrifice work life balance. That's the reality.

This lack of work life balance creates a very unhealthy society, where people are incentivized to cut corners on their health - not finding time to exercise, eating processed convenience foods, being exhausted while mostly sedentary. We are a very unhappy and unhealthy society.

But if we took the work/life balance approach of the repeatedly happiest, healthiest, best work-life balanced country - Denmark, our entire economy would collapse.

Denmark has a 37 hour work week that pretty much holds true. They have a mandatory year (sometimes two years) of family (maternity and paternity) leave, and five weeks paid vacation. But if we were to be more like Denmark, it would require us to have an overall more modest and quiet life with less consumption. Smaller homes, fewer cars, fewer gadgets, less consumerism overall. People would have to (gasp) ride the train or (horror) the bus! This wouldn't look like Soviet socialism, but would be a drastically less consumptive lifestyle than most of us are used to. And could you imagine what would happen to the economy if we all collectively consumed 20-40% less? An ungodly recession. Job losses every which-way, except the same oligarchs would still secure their profits just passing all their losses onto us.

The American economy as we know it is fueled by consumer debt, hyper consumption, and overwork culture. There's nothing we can do about it.

You’re overthinking this. You don’t have to solve for America or the world. If you really want to move to Denmark, spend five years working hard and smart. You should be able to do so.

Otherwise, spend 5 years getting closer to the life you want in America. Cut down your spending, find jobs with better work-life balance.

Anonymous wrote:The best hack over the last 30 years in the US is to partner up young with similar income, live within your means, save and invest excess income, allow compounding to take over, and you’ll be pretty comfortable with many options in middle age with kids. Many people I know did this, but you had to run against the current of American consumerism — which is trying to get you to not partner up early, take out massive loans for mid private colleges, fritter away your savings in your 20s on vacations for social media, endlessly reward yourself for another hard week with more consumption, etc. Agree the play is getting harder and harder given the low wage growth relative to the runaway inflation of colleges, healthcare, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are comparing apples to oranges. Denmark population is only about 6M total. (The size of South Carolina and smaller than TN). The population is 87% native danish. Leaves only 10-13%immigrants. Their tax system is extremely high and vary socialist society. No incentive to work hard when all goes to taxes. Hard pass!!!

What does immigration have to do with it?

DP but there is a LOT of research indicating that homogenous societies are happier in general. Progressive researchers often believe that expanding the social safety net of government can replace this effect such that different groups don't see themselves as competing or in conflict, but obviously that hasn't resolved the issue yet (they propose it will if government gets big enough). I guess we shall see, if they succeed. So far, data from major metropolitan areas which have more expansive safety nets doesn't look good but there are lots of factors that play into that.

Anonymous wrote:I realized that American hustle + grind culture is inescapable.

American (US) work culture that requires usually way beyond the 40 hour work week, often calling for nights and weekends and limited ACTUAL vacation time - as in you don't take calls, don't bring your work computer etc - for anyone who actually wants to have the trappings of the American middle class lifestyle: A house, a couple of cars, a couple of kids etc. No longer can a conventional 9 to 5 pay for that. 9 to 5 is more 8 to 6 anyways, even for the normal office grunt jobs. Nowadays, if you stay in a normal, non-managerial position, your wages/salary will stagnate, won't keep up with inflation, and you'll struggle to even afford the tiny apartment or shared housing with roommates and budget/Walmart groceries you had in your 20s. If you want to have a single family home and afford children, you have to work longer hours and sacrifice work life balance. That's the reality.

This lack of work life balance creates a very unhealthy society, where people are incentivized to cut corners on their health - not finding time to exercise, eating processed convenience foods, being exhausted while mostly sedentary. We are a very unhappy and unhealthy society.

But if we took the work/life balance approach of the repeatedly happiest, healthiest, best work-life balanced country - Denmark, our entire economy would collapse.

Denmark has a 37 hour work week that pretty much holds true. They have a mandatory year (sometimes two years) of family (maternity and paternity) leave, and five weeks paid vacation. But if we were to be more like Denmark, it would require us to have an overall more modest and quiet life with less consumption. Smaller homes, fewer cars, fewer gadgets, less consumerism overall. People would have to (gasp) ride the train or (horror) the bus! This wouldn't look like Soviet socialism, but would be a drastically less consumptive lifestyle than most of us are used to. And could you imagine what would happen to the economy if we all collectively consumed 20-40% less? An ungodly recession. Job losses every which-way, except the same oligarchs would still secure their profits just passing all their losses onto us.

The American economy as we know it is fueled by consumer debt, hyper consumption, and overwork culture. There's nothing we can do about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boo hoo.

If you want a smaller house, buy a smaller house.

You must not live around here.
Small houses start around 700k…. If you go out far enough. Truth is, no one is building the kind of small entry level housing that is needed.
There are townhouses, but the new ones being built are surrounded by concrete and are heat islands.

Remote work would do a lot towards decompressing housing demand, allowing for smaller scale development that is also in harmony with nature.

Oh no! You can’t find the specific type of housing in the exact ZIP code for the exact price you want to pay? Horrible! Look at the travesty late stage capitalism has wrought

Your claims about DC housing costs are a blatant lie.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3812-1st-St-SE-Washington-DC-20032/528671_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3700-Horner-Pl-SE-Washington-DC-20032/528574_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/828-21st-St-NE-2-Washington-DC-20002/456961252_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare

Please, go on and explain why these properties in DC for under 700K are unsuitable.

Can’t stand entitled brats like you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized that American hustle + grind culture is inescapable.

I wouldn't call it inescapable. However, I did have an epiphany while selling my house recently. I actually have a large house in neighborhood full of small houses and a nominally above average school. The realtors seem to hate my house they want to sell it for the same price for all the other houses in the neighborhood. For a frame of reference in another neighborhood it would be maybe a 1.3 million dollar home. So basically an owner in these other neighborhoods, paid too much for their home so they can be next to a bunch of other people who also paid too much for their homes. Realtors seem to really like this idea. However, I got to thinking about it. Many of these "good neighborhoods", they lack decent amenities. Like no sidewalks, nothing to do really except drive a car. Well, I jumped on chatGPT and it explained it to me. The problem with large houses in neighborhoods of small houses or houses near amenities... entertainment like bowling alleys, is the Financial institutions can't model them. Their model's don't know how to value them, they can roll them into package that conforms to some criteria then put them in a mortgage portfolio.

So there it is. These financial movers that build these subdivisions, explicitly exclude many amenities, anything that might interfere with your paying your mortgage off why? So they can predictably model profits. Everything else follows from that. Long commutes etc. They're basically financial engines. The only way out is to get someone else to buy in.

I don’t understand this post. I want to, but I don’t. How does excluding amenities make profits more predictable?

Local amenities — like shops, restaurants, parks, bars, or entertainment — make life better for residents, but they also introduce variability in local housing markets and incomes. Lenders (banks, investors, insurers like Fannie Mae) care about predictability because mortgages are long-term contracts priced on risk. Here’s how amenities complicate that:

🧭 1. Amenities make local housing prices volatile

When a neighborhood gets new amenities (say, a trendy café strip), home values can rise rapidly — but if those amenities fail or trends change, they can fall just as fast.

That means the collateral (the house) is harder to value reliably over 15–30 years.

Mortgage models prefer stable, homogeneous areas where price movements track the broader region rather than idiosyncratic local economies.

Example:
A suburban tract of identical houses near a business park has predictable resale values.
A mixed-use block with boutiques, bars, and new condos might swing 20–30% up or down with small economic shifts.

🧱 2. Amenities signal mixed land use — which increases income and tenant variability

Lenders prefer neighborhoods where everyone has similar, steady incomes.
When local amenities attract transient populations (students, gig workers, tourists), you get:

More rental churn

More seasonal employment

Less predictable household stability

That makes defaults less statistically predictable, even if average incomes are higher.

🏪 3. Amenities rely on discretionary spending

Areas built around leisure — restaurants, casinos, entertainment — depend on residents having spare income.
If the economy slows, those sectors contract quickly, hitting both local employment and property values.
For lenders, that’s a correlated risk: many borrowers in one place might lose income simultaneously.

📉 4. Amenities distort standard risk models

Most U.S. mortgage risk models are based on tract-level historical data — like census data on income, employment, and housing turnover.
Mixed-use areas or amenity-driven “creative” neighborhoods don’t fit the historical mold, so their default probability and prepayment patterns are less predictable.

🧩 5. Amenities can change neighborhood composition too fast

When new amenities appear, they often accelerate gentrification. That makes long-term forecasting (and thus pricing) harder:

Today’s borrower profile may not match tomorrow’s neighborhood.

If low-income residents are displaced, lenders can’t rely on historical payment performance in that ZIP code.

In short:

Mortgage finance likes monotony.
The more a neighborhood looks like a controlled experiment — similar homes, incomes, jobs — the more confidently a lender can price risk.
Local amenities make a place livable, but also less predictable to model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are comparing apples to oranges. Denmark population is only about 6M total. (The size of South Carolina and smaller than TN). The population is 87% native danish. Leaves only 10-13%immigrants. Their tax system is extremely high and vary socialist society. No incentive to work hard when all goes to taxes. Hard pass!!!

What does immigration have to do with it?

DP but there is a LOT of research indicating that homogenous societies are happier in general. Progressive researchers often believe that expanding the social safety net of government can replace this effect such that different groups don't see themselves as competing or in conflict, but obviously that hasn't resolved the issue yet (they propose it will if government gets big enough). I guess we shall see, if they succeed. So far, data from major metropolitan areas which have more expansive safety nets doesn't look good but there are lots of factors that play into that.

Very interesting. Can you point me to some of the research that makes this conclusion, that diversity results in an unhappier society? That seems really fascinating.

I didn't say that diversity results in an unhappier society, I said they are correlated. Not sure the studies go that far.

The most famous one is Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam’s paper “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐First Century” (2007).

He has since tried to explain it away in various ways, but the data is the data. Putnam is most famous for his book Bowling Alone, about the importance of community and the shift in our society away from community support and how bad that is for the US.

I am confused. Are these two factors, diversity and happiness, correlated or is there a causal relationship that has been established?

Correlation seems fairly simple to explain: a society that needs to overwork cheap immigrant labor will be less happy for reasons that may not have anything to do with immigration.

What data is professor Putnam “explaining away?”

Go read it. It’s way too complicated to say there is one clear reason/cause for complex societal issues. If it was that simple we would have solved the problem long ago.

Also, the data doesn’t have much to do with cheap immigrant labor so that conclusion is not correct.

I don’t really understand why you are telling me to “go read it” when you are offering diversity as a reason not to pursue a social safety net. Why? What is your reasoning? I want to read what YOU have to say. I am interested in your reasoning.

I am particularly interested in this statement that you made: Progressive researchers often believe that expanding the social safety net of government can replace this effect such that different groups don't see themselves as competing or in conflict, but obviously that hasn't resolved the issue yet (they propose it will if government gets big enough).

I am also offering a potential explanation for the correlation, not saying that is the reason. Our society has let in immigrants and increased our diversity for a core reason: cheap labor. Perhaps the exploitation is behind a less cohesive society.