A thread about Bill Maher: The Good, The Bad, and The UGLY!

Halifax2TheMax · October 2

Lerxst1992 said:

The minimum wage in nyc went up 430% during that time frame. The math is fine. Minimum wage was used because that’s the anecdote I replied to. Their story used minimum wage as an example.

edit, and the “nice apartment” was also taken directly from the other commenters anecdotal story. Good grief, read the entire content thread before performing theatrics trying to disprove facts. And I literally said that couldn’t be done here in nyc.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

My point is that no one, then and now, in NYC or NYS was living in a nice apartment working for minimum wage only. And I know Hugh is Canadian and was the source of "nice apartment."

And you used a minimum wage of $16.50, which applies to NYC, SI and Westchester, while minimum wage for the rest of NYS is a dollar lower. Fuzzy math, comparing apples and oranges to make something up.

Hey boys and girls, stop buying a Starbucks a day and cancel all those subscription/streaming services, or 7 Happy Meals a week and invest that money in the stock market and you'll buy a house someday, particularly if you work for minimum wage. Bunk.

brianlux · October 2

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Well the ultimate goal of a progressive society is to make life easier for those that come after us. Will some take advantage? Of course. I just can’t get on board with this shitting on entire generations stuff. It’s too easy to do without delving into the differences in circumstances between generations and social and technological and economic change.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
The fourteenth-century Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun puts the proposition as simply as it can be put: The first generation retains the “desert qualities” of toughness and savagery, its members “brave and rapacious,” fierce in their religious belief, accustomed to privation and to “sharing their glory with one another.” The second generation, softened by prosperity and luxury, allows its conquering energies to atrophy. Wealth accumulates, men decay, and the will to act gives way to the wish to be cared for. The third generation sinks into narcissism, cynicism, and stagnation, its moral ideal a distant and sentimental memory, its politics increasingly corrupt, the administration of its laws increasingly unjust, and an ever-expanding distance between the have-nots and the haves. Worship of celebrity replaces reverence for divinity. What is moral is what makes a profit; what makes a profit is moral.

That is amazing. It seems to sum up the history of the U.S. from the mid 20th century to the present.

When does it start over again? (If I had to guess, I'd say sometime after collapse. The old Boy Scout motto comes to mind: "Be prepared")

Halifax2TheMax · October 2

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Well the ultimate goal of a progressive society is to make life easier for those that come after us. Will some take advantage? Of course. I just can’t get on board with this shitting on entire generations stuff. It’s too easy to do without delving into the differences in circumstances between generations and social and technological and economic change.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
The fourteenth-century Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun puts the proposition as simply as it can be put: The first generation retains the “desert qualities” of toughness and savagery, its members “brave and rapacious,” fierce in their religious belief, accustomed to privation and to “sharing their glory with one another.” The second generation, softened by prosperity and luxury, allows its conquering energies to atrophy. Wealth accumulates, men decay, and the will to act gives way to the wish to be cared for. The third generation sinks into narcissism, cynicism, and stagnation, its moral ideal a distant and sentimental memory, its politics increasingly corrupt, the administration of its laws increasingly unjust, and an ever-expanding distance between the have-nots and the haves. Worship of celebrity replaces reverence for divinity. What is moral is what makes a profit; what makes a profit is moral.

That is amazing. It seems to sum up the history of the U.S. from the mid 20th century to the present.
When does it start over again? (If I had to guess, I'd say sometime after collapse. The old Boy Scout motto comes to mind: "Be prepared")

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

That was but a snippet from the link below.

Power Outage | Lapham’s Quarterly

brianlux · October 2

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Well the ultimate goal of a progressive society is to make life easier for those that come after us. Will some take advantage? Of course. I just can’t get on board with this shitting on entire generations stuff. It’s too easy to do without delving into the differences in circumstances between generations and social and technological and economic change.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
The fourteenth-century Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun puts the proposition as simply as it can be put: The first generation retains the “desert qualities” of toughness and savagery, its members “brave and rapacious,” fierce in their religious belief, accustomed to privation and to “sharing their glory with one another.” The second generation, softened by prosperity and luxury, allows its conquering energies to atrophy. Wealth accumulates, men decay, and the will to act gives way to the wish to be cared for. The third generation sinks into narcissism, cynicism, and stagnation, its moral ideal a distant and sentimental memory, its politics increasingly corrupt, the administration of its laws increasingly unjust, and an ever-expanding distance between the have-nots and the haves. Worship of celebrity replaces reverence for divinity. What is moral is what makes a profit; what makes a profit is moral.

That is amazing. It seems to sum up the history of the U.S. from the mid 20th century to the present.
When does it start over again? (If I had to guess, I'd say sometime after collapse. The old Boy Scout motto comes to mind: "Be prepared")

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

That was but a snippet from the link below.

Power Outage | Lapham’s Quarterly

Excellent article, thanks! Much of what Lapham says there reminds me of this excellent book:

Amazoncom ENTROPY INTO THE GREENHOUSE WORLD New Age Book 9780553347173 Rifkin Jeremy

Lerxst1992 · October 3

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The minimum wage in nyc went up 430% during that time frame. The math is fine. Minimum wage was used because that’s the anecdote I replied to. Their story used minimum wage as an example.

edit, and the “nice apartment” was also taken directly from the other commenters anecdotal story. Good grief, read the entire content thread before performing theatrics trying to disprove facts. And I literally said that couldn’t be done here in nyc.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

My point is that no one, then and now, in NYC or NYS was living in a nice apartment working for minimum wage only. And I know Hugh is Canadian and was the source of "nice apartment."

And you used a minimum wage of $16.50, which applies to NYC, SI and Westchester, while minimum wage for the rest of NYS is a dollar lower. Fuzzy math, comparing apples and oranges to make something up.

Hey boys and girls, stop buying a Starbucks a day and cancel all those subscription/streaming services, or 7 Happy Meals a week and invest that money in the stock market and you'll buy a house someday, particularly if you work for minimum wage. Bunk.

The rate of minimum wage inflation based on their anecdotal story over around 30 years was 430% in nyc…and it was not my claim that anyone can afford the nice apartment on that wage, it was the claim of someone else. I was simply comparing the wage inflation to that of average rents.

And the math on the two million dollars from Starbucks and a handful of takeaway meals each month remains undisputed and based on actual annuity calculations. Not some fairy tale that the radical left wants to believe.

HughFreakingDillon · October 3

And here’s Bill excusing genocide by criticizing the religious beliefs of those being slaughtered. This is disgusting.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Gvd4cUmbJ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

HughFreakingDillon · October 3

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The minimum wage in nyc went up 430% during that time frame. The math is fine. Minimum wage was used because that’s the anecdote I replied to. Their story used minimum wage as an example.

edit, and the “nice apartment” was also taken directly from the other commenters anecdotal story. Good grief, read the entire content thread before performing theatrics trying to disprove facts. And I literally said that couldn’t be done here in nyc.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

My point is that no one, then and now, in NYC or NYS was living in a nice apartment working for minimum wage only. And I know Hugh is Canadian and was the source of "nice apartment."

And you used a minimum wage of $16.50, which applies to NYC, SI and Westchester, while minimum wage for the rest of NYS is a dollar lower. Fuzzy math, comparing apples and oranges to make something up.

Hey boys and girls, stop buying a Starbucks a day and cancel all those subscription/streaming services, or 7 Happy Meals a week and invest that money in the stock market and you'll buy a house someday, particularly if you work for minimum wage. Bunk.

The rate of minimum wage inflation based on their anecdotal story over around 30 years was 430% in nyc…and it was not my claim that anyone can afford the nice apartment on that wage, it was the claim of someone else. I was simply comparing the wage inflation to that of average rents.

And the math on the two million dollars from Starbucks and a handful of takeaway meals each month remains undisputed and based on actual annuity calculations. Not some fairy tale that the radical left wants to believe.

1. My anecdote won’t be the same as yours. That’s what anecdotes are.

2. Can we stop arguing 2 different things (retirement savings at 65 and buying a house at 35)? It’s absurd at this point. Income/housing market disparity skyrocketing also remains undisputed.

Lerxst1992 · October 3

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The minimum wage in nyc went up 430% during that time frame. The math is fine. Minimum wage was used because that’s the anecdote I replied to. Their story used minimum wage as an example.

edit, and the “nice apartment” was also taken directly from the other commenters anecdotal story. Good grief, read the entire content thread before performing theatrics trying to disprove facts. And I literally said that couldn’t be done here in nyc.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

My point is that no one, then and now, in NYC or NYS was living in a nice apartment working for minimum wage only. And I know Hugh is Canadian and was the source of "nice apartment."

And you used a minimum wage of $16.50, which applies to NYC, SI and Westchester, while minimum wage for the rest of NYS is a dollar lower. Fuzzy math, comparing apples and oranges to make something up.

Hey boys and girls, stop buying a Starbucks a day and cancel all those subscription/streaming services, or 7 Happy Meals a week and invest that money in the stock market and you'll buy a house someday, particularly if you work for minimum wage. Bunk.

The rate of minimum wage inflation based on their anecdotal story over around 30 years was 430% in nyc…and it was not my claim that anyone can afford the nice apartment on that wage, it was the claim of someone else. I was simply comparing the wage inflation to that of average rents.

And the math on the two million dollars from Starbucks and a handful of takeaway meals each month remains undisputed and based on actual annuity calculations. Not some fairy tale that the radical left wants to believe.

1. My anecdote won’t be the same as yours. That’s what anecdotes are.
2. Can we stop arguing 2 different things (retirement savings at 65 and buying a house at 35)? It’s absurd at this point. Income/housing market disparity skyrocketing also remains undisputed.

Not sure if you saw this, but the tax and loan advantages of retirement accounts, how stock markets beat real estate on average by six percent per year, are the way to solve this problem, have a home by early thirties and two million US dollars net worth per working adult for a slightly early retirement . And the math shows how this is possible mostly by keeping a careful eye on treats in the early years. And just think how much easier this becomes for executives who get bonuses by learning how to identify candidates for corporate jobs based on how their name sounds on their resumes.

Halifax2TheMax · October 3

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Bill trying to stay relevant by firing up the evangelicals. Even he knows they’re easy marks. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of another media anecdote, eh?

No, Bill Maher, there is no ‘Christian genocide’ in Nigeria

From Boko Haram to herder–farmer clashes, Nigeria’s crises are complex. Simplistic genocide claims fuel propaganda.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/10/2/no-bill-maher-there-is-no-christian-genocide-in-nigeria

cincybearcat · October 3

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The minimum wage in nyc went up 430% during that time frame. The math is fine. Minimum wage was used because that’s the anecdote I replied to. Their story used minimum wage as an example.

edit, and the “nice apartment” was also taken directly from the other commenters anecdotal story. Good grief, read the entire content thread before performing theatrics trying to disprove facts. And I literally said that couldn’t be done here in nyc.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

My point is that no one, then and now, in NYC or NYS was living in a nice apartment working for minimum wage only. And I know Hugh is Canadian and was the source of "nice apartment."

And you used a minimum wage of $16.50, which applies to NYC, SI and Westchester, while minimum wage for the rest of NYS is a dollar lower. Fuzzy math, comparing apples and oranges to make something up.

Hey boys and girls, stop buying a Starbucks a day and cancel all those subscription/streaming services, or 7 Happy Meals a week and invest that money in the stock market and you'll buy a house someday, particularly if you work for minimum wage. Bunk.

The rate of minimum wage inflation based on their anecdotal story over around 30 years was 430% in nyc…and it was not my claim that anyone can afford the nice apartment on that wage, it was the claim of someone else. I was simply comparing the wage inflation to that of average rents.

And the math on the two million dollars from Starbucks and a handful of takeaway meals each month remains undisputed and based on actual annuity calculations. Not some fairy tale that the radical left wants to believe.

1. My anecdote won’t be the same as yours. That’s what anecdotes are.
2. Can we stop arguing 2 different things (retirement savings at 65 and buying a house at 35)? It’s absurd at this point. Income/housing market disparity skyrocketing also remains undisputed.

So, just another anecdote. A condo on the same street that my wife and I purchased one back in 2000 just sold for 67% higher than our purchased price. The starting salary for my field at the company I would for is up 87.5%.

I was a bit surprised tbh. A couple like my wife and I with our degrees and jobs can buy the condo we did for less. Oh, and the interest rate is actually less.

HughFreakingDillon · October 3

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The minimum wage in nyc went up 430% during that time frame. The math is fine. Minimum wage was used because that’s the anecdote I replied to. Their story used minimum wage as an example.

edit, and the “nice apartment” was also taken directly from the other commenters anecdotal story. Good grief, read the entire content thread before performing theatrics trying to disprove facts. And I literally said that couldn’t be done here in nyc.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

My point is that no one, then and now, in NYC or NYS was living in a nice apartment working for minimum wage only. And I know Hugh is Canadian and was the source of "nice apartment."

And you used a minimum wage of $16.50, which applies to NYC, SI and Westchester, while minimum wage for the rest of NYS is a dollar lower. Fuzzy math, comparing apples and oranges to make something up.

Hey boys and girls, stop buying a Starbucks a day and cancel all those subscription/streaming services, or 7 Happy Meals a week and invest that money in the stock market and you'll buy a house someday, particularly if you work for minimum wage. Bunk.

The rate of minimum wage inflation based on their anecdotal story over around 30 years was 430% in nyc…and it was not my claim that anyone can afford the nice apartment on that wage, it was the claim of someone else. I was simply comparing the wage inflation to that of average rents.

And the math on the two million dollars from Starbucks and a handful of takeaway meals each month remains undisputed and based on actual annuity calculations. Not some fairy tale that the radical left wants to believe.

1. My anecdote won’t be the same as yours. That’s what anecdotes are.
2. Can we stop arguing 2 different things (retirement savings at 65 and buying a house at 35)? It’s absurd at this point. Income/housing market disparity skyrocketing also remains undisputed.

So, just another anecdote. A condo on the same street that my wife and I purchased one back in 2000 just sold for 67% higher than our purchased price. The starting salary for my field at the company I would for is up 87.5%.

I was a bit surprised tbh. A couple like my wife and I with our degrees and jobs can buy the condo we did for less. Oh, and the interest rate is actually less.

that's great for you. But as I pointed out several times, that's not the norm. I posted the stats on a previous page. I'll post more:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-home-prices-1985-2025/

Lerxst1992 · October 3

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The minimum wage in nyc went up 430% during that time frame. The math is fine. Minimum wage was used because that’s the anecdote I replied to. Their story used minimum wage as an example.

edit, and the “nice apartment” was also taken directly from the other commenters anecdotal story. Good grief, read the entire content thread before performing theatrics trying to disprove facts. And I literally said that couldn’t be done here in nyc.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

My point is that no one, then and now, in NYC or NYS was living in a nice apartment working for minimum wage only. And I know Hugh is Canadian and was the source of "nice apartment."

And you used a minimum wage of $16.50, which applies to NYC, SI and Westchester, while minimum wage for the rest of NYS is a dollar lower. Fuzzy math, comparing apples and oranges to make something up.

Hey boys and girls, stop buying a Starbucks a day and cancel all those subscription/streaming services, or 7 Happy Meals a week and invest that money in the stock market and you'll buy a house someday, particularly if you work for minimum wage. Bunk.

The rate of minimum wage inflation based on their anecdotal story over around 30 years was 430% in nyc…and it was not my claim that anyone can afford the nice apartment on that wage, it was the claim of someone else. I was simply comparing the wage inflation to that of average rents.

And the math on the two million dollars from Starbucks and a handful of takeaway meals each month remains undisputed and based on actual annuity calculations. Not some fairy tale that the radical left wants to believe.

1. My anecdote won’t be the same as yours. That’s what anecdotes are.
2. Can we stop arguing 2 different things (retirement savings at 65 and buying a house at 35)? It’s absurd at this point. Income/housing market disparity skyrocketing also remains undisputed.

So, just another anecdote. A condo on the same street that my wife and I purchased one back in 2000 just sold for 67% higher than our purchased price. The starting salary for my field at the company I would for is up 87.5%.

I was a bit surprised tbh. A couple like my wife and I with our degrees and jobs can buy the condo we did for less. Oh, and the interest rate is actually less.

that's great for you. But as I pointed out several times, that's not the norm. I posted the stats on a previous page. I'll post more:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-home-prices-1985-2025/

Interesting article, but they didn’t finish doing the math.

That articles provides a huge caveat to home price inflation, the article is actually admitting cost is not as great today as it seems:
“ As of 2025, the median American home costs $416,900, five times the median annual household income of $83,150.

Meanwhile, the 30-year fixed mortgage rates have nearly halved from 12.4% to 6.8% between 1985 and 2025. While home prices have outpaced incomes, the lower cost of borrowing in 2025 does have a significant effect on a home’s affordability.”

With the computing power available today, it takes seconds to calculate total cost on 30 year mortgage on a $416k house at the two interest rates, from 1985 and 2025, respectively. Shame the author didn’t do the work

The cost savings from reduced interest rates in 2025 is $610,000. With that logic we can calculate whether housing is actually LESS EXPENSIVE TODAY than 40 years ago, according to the stats provided in that article.

The total cost savings on a 30-year mortgage for a \bm{\$416,000} home, when the interest rate is lowered from \bm{12.4\%} to \bm{6.8\%}, is approximately \bm{\$610,390.25}.

Lerxst1992 · October 3

The next step would be to compute the present value of the $610,000 mortgage cost savings. It is phenomenal what you can do with a phone or tablet these days. More computing power than having a massive home computer ten years ago.

The present value of the cost savings is $260,000. So dollars to dollars, that $416,000 house actually costs $156,000 when accounting for decline in interest rates presented by that article. outsmarting millennial generation is not that difficult

I’d say find some ai stocks, be prepared to weather the volatility storm and watch them grow. The computing power available on a phone is phenomenal. Just need to know the questions and how to check answers for reasonability.

$156,000 to buy an average house as compared to 1985 interest rates presented, wow!

..

“ The present value (PV) of the stream of mortgage cost savings is approximately \bm{\$260,080.22}.

This value represents the lump sum you would need today, earning a return equal to the new mortgage rate of \bm{6.8\%}, to generate a stream of income that exactly matches your monthly savings for the next 30 years.

Calculation Details

The total cost savings of \bm{\$610,390.25} you calculated previously is the nominal (undiscounted) total over 30 years. The present value calculation brings those future savings back to today's dollars.

1. Monthly Savings (Annuity Payment)

The difference between the old and new monthly payments is \bm{\$1,695.53}.

• Old Monthly Payment (\bm{12.4\%}): \bm{\$4,407.54}

• New Monthly Payment (\bm{6.8\%}): \bm{\$2,712.01}

2. Present Value (PV)

The present value is calculated by treating the monthly savings of \bm{\$1,695.53} as a 30-year annuity, discounted at the new, lower interest rate of \bm{6.8\%} (which represents the current cost of money for the borrower).

2. This calculation results in a present value of \bm{\$260,080.22}.

static111 · October 3

Please tell me how to buy a 400,000 house for 168,000.

Also with all your fuzzy math. I think you are missing the big picture that 410,000 is a hell of an entry point for starter homes.

I'm also confused if you are saying a 410,000 starter house today is cheaper than a 75-90k starter home from 1985? Or are you comparing a 410,000 2025 starter home to a 410,000 1985 mansion?

Lerxst1992 · October 3

HughFreakingDillon said:

Yay. Now I can buy a house today with my savings 40 years from now. Solid economics.

The point has been made many times. Are you just pretending here? Companies offer matching contributions. The Government offers substantial tax savings on retirement contributions . The retirement accounts offer ways to borrow appreciated returns at much lower loan rates to buy a home. Your stocks earn 11%. Your 401k loan rate is much lower. It’s not just the $3700 saved per year watching your treats. The benefits of investing via a retirement account are just as valuable.

You start saving when you start working. After ten years or so a retirement account can be leveraged for a down payment , as any additional broker account investment returns. As long as stocks do better than housing inflation, you come out ahead.

And I just proved within the last thirty minutes, based on stats from an article you posted, that housing is actually cheaper today than forty years ago when accounting for interesting rates.

Lerxst1992 · October 3

static111 said:

Please tell me how to buy a 400,000 house for 168,000.

Also with all your fuzzy math. I think you are missing the big picture that 410,000 is a hell of an entry point for starter homes.

I'm also confused if you are saying a 410,000 starter house today is cheaper than a 75-90k starter home from 1985? Or are you comparing a 410,000 2025 starter home to a 410,000 1985 mansion?

Interest rates are double 40 years ago than they are today, based on that article they posted. After accounting for interest, today’s 420k home actually costs $156k when calculating the mortgage savings present value on the lower rates today. The next step is to discount $156k for inflation, which I’ll hold off on for now.

…

” If the interest rate is halved, it becomes significantly cheaper to buy a house with a mortgage because the total amount of interest you pay over the life of the loan is drastically reduced…

Over a long period, like a 30-year mortgage, even a small difference in the interest rate compounds into hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings.

• The Power of Compounding: Interest is calculated on the remaining principal (the money you still owe). At a high interest rate, you pay more interest, which keeps your principal balance higher for longer, which in turn means the next month's interest is also high. This effect is powerful. When the rate is halved, this cycle is broken, and you pay off the principal much faster relative to the interest.

• Total Cost Comparison (from your previous calculation):

• High Rate (\bm{12.4\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$1,586,713.41}

• Lower Rate (\bm{6.8\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$976,323.16}

• The difference in the total amount you pay is over \bm{\$610,000}—more than the original loan amount!

3. Lower Effective Cost of the Home

While the actual selling price of the home remains the same (the principal of \bm{\$416,000}), the total cost to you as a borrower is what truly defines the expense. A lower interest rate means you spend less money overall to own the asset.

• It's an Equity Shift: With a lower rate, more of each initial payment goes toward building equity (paying down the principal), and less goes to the lender as interest (the cost of borrowing). This means you own more of the house sooner.

HughFreakingDillon · 12:26AM

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

Please tell me how to buy a 400,000 house for 168,000.

Also with all your fuzzy math. I think you are missing the big picture that 410,000 is a hell of an entry point for starter homes.

I'm also confused if you are saying a 410,000 starter house today is cheaper than a 75-90k starter home from 1985? Or are you comparing a 410,000 2025 starter home to a 410,000 1985 mansion?

Interest rates are double 40 years ago than they are today, based on that article they posted. After accounting for interest, today’s 420k home actually costs $156k when calculating the mortgage savings present value on the lower rates today. The next step is to discount $156k for inflation, which I’ll hold off on for now.

…

” If the interest rate is halved, it becomes significantly cheaper to buy a house with a mortgage because the total amount of interest you pay over the life of the loan is drastically reduced…

Over a long period, like a 30-year mortgage, even a small difference in the interest rate compounds into hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings.

• The Power of Compounding: Interest is calculated on the remaining principal (the money you still owe). At a high interest rate, you pay more interest, which keeps your principal balance higher for longer, which in turn means the next month's interest is also high. This effect is powerful. When the rate is halved, this cycle is broken, and you pay off the principal much faster relative to the interest.

• Total Cost Comparison (from your previous calculation):

• High Rate (\bm{12.4\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$1,586,713.41}

• Lower Rate (\bm{6.8\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$976,323.16}

• The difference in the total amount you pay is over \bm{\$610,000}—more than the original loan amount!

3. Lower Effective Cost of the Home

While the actual selling price of the home remains the same (the principal of \bm{\$416,000}), the total cost to you as a borrower is what truly defines the expense. A lower interest rate means you spend less money overall to own the asset.

• It's an Equity Shift: With a lower rate, more of each initial payment goes toward building equity (paying down the principal), and less goes to the lender as interest (the cost of borrowing). This means you own more of the house sooner.

again, you are doing the same thing in your position as you did with the "invest and you'll have x in 40 years". interest rates do little to help someone with START UP COSTS. Down payments are a percentage of the cost of the home NOW, not later. 5% of the cost of a home now is a lot more when considering disparity in income to cost of home. No one is saying equity isn't better or interest rates aren't better.

YOUR ADULTS WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD A ONE TIME PAYMENT OF 5% OF 400,000 (AT MINIMUM) BY CANCELLING NETFLIX AND COFFEES FOR A FEW YEARS. <------THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT YOU DISPUTED BEFORE YOU MOVED IT TO HOW MUCH PEOPLE SAVE OVER 40 YEARS.

static111 · 1:06AM

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

Please tell me how to buy a 400,000 house for 168,000.

Also with all your fuzzy math. I think you are missing the big picture that 410,000 is a hell of an entry point for starter homes.

I'm also confused if you are saying a 410,000 starter house today is cheaper than a 75-90k starter home from 1985? Or are you comparing a 410,000 2025 starter home to a 410,000 1985 mansion?

Interest rates are double 40 years ago than they are today, based on that article they posted. After accounting for interest, today’s 420k home actually costs $156k when calculating the mortgage savings present value on the lower rates today. The next step is to discount $156k for inflation, which I’ll hold off on for now.

…

” If the interest rate is halved, it becomes significantly cheaper to buy a house with a mortgage because the total amount of interest you pay over the life of the loan is drastically reduced…

Over a long period, like a 30-year mortgage, even a small difference in the interest rate compounds into hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings.

• The Power of Compounding: Interest is calculated on the remaining principal (the money you still owe). At a high interest rate, you pay more interest, which keeps your principal balance higher for longer, which in turn means the next month's interest is also high. This effect is powerful. When the rate is halved, this cycle is broken, and you pay off the principal much faster relative to the interest.

• Total Cost Comparison (from your previous calculation):

• High Rate (\bm{12.4\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$1,586,713.41}

• Lower Rate (\bm{6.8\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$976,323.16}

• The difference in the total amount you pay is over \bm{\$610,000}—more than the original loan amount!

3. Lower Effective Cost of the Home

While the actual selling price of the home remains the same (the principal of \bm{\$416,000}), the total cost to you as a borrower is what truly defines the expense. A lower interest rate means you spend less money overall to own the asset.

• It's an Equity Shift: With a lower rate, more of each initial payment goes toward building equity (paying down the principal), and less goes to the lender as interest (the cost of borrowing). This means you own more of the house sooner.

again, you are doing the same thing in your position as you did with the "invest and you'll have x in 40 years". interest rates do little to help someone with START UP COSTS. Down payments are a percentage of the cost of the home NOW, not later. 5% of the cost of a home now is a lot more when considering disparity in income to cost of home. No one is saying equity isn't better or interest rates aren't better.

YOUR ADULTS WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD A ONE TIME PAYMENT OF 5% OF 400,000 (AT MINIMUM) BY CANCELLING NETFLIX AND COFFEES FOR A FEW YEARS. <------THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT YOU DISPUTED BEFORE YOU MOVED IT TO HOW MUCH PEOPLE SAVE OVER 40 YEARS.

This math is crazy. Sorry but I am paying at least 410,000 for a 410,000 house. Interest rates from 40 years ago have nothing to do with anything. Not to mention what 410,000 buys you in 1985 vs today. If I tried to give someone 168k for a house they are trying to sell for 410k no one is letting that sale go through.

Imagine if Dems tried to win elections by saying a 410k house only costs 168k and the housing market isnt as bad as you think, your eyes and your bank account are lying to you. Oh and while you are at it, disregard that 410k today gets you less than your dead beat parents bought for 65k. Hey millennials you've just been owned. If that won't bring some dem votes I don't know what will.

cincybearcat · 1:17AM

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The minimum wage in nyc went up 430% during that time frame. The math is fine. Minimum wage was used because that’s the anecdote I replied to. Their story used minimum wage as an example.

edit, and the “nice apartment” was also taken directly from the other commenters anecdotal story. Good grief, read the entire content thread before performing theatrics trying to disprove facts. And I literally said that couldn’t be done here in nyc.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

My point is that no one, then and now, in NYC or NYS was living in a nice apartment working for minimum wage only. And I know Hugh is Canadian and was the source of "nice apartment."

And you used a minimum wage of $16.50, which applies to NYC, SI and Westchester, while minimum wage for the rest of NYS is a dollar lower. Fuzzy math, comparing apples and oranges to make something up.

Hey boys and girls, stop buying a Starbucks a day and cancel all those subscription/streaming services, or 7 Happy Meals a week and invest that money in the stock market and you'll buy a house someday, particularly if you work for minimum wage. Bunk.

The rate of minimum wage inflation based on their anecdotal story over around 30 years was 430% in nyc…and it was not my claim that anyone can afford the nice apartment on that wage, it was the claim of someone else. I was simply comparing the wage inflation to that of average rents.

And the math on the two million dollars from Starbucks and a handful of takeaway meals each month remains undisputed and based on actual annuity calculations. Not some fairy tale that the radical left wants to believe.

1. My anecdote won’t be the same as yours. That’s what anecdotes are.
2. Can we stop arguing 2 different things (retirement savings at 65 and buying a house at 35)? It’s absurd at this point. Income/housing market disparity skyrocketing also remains undisputed.

So, just another anecdote. A condo on the same street that my wife and I purchased one back in 2000 just sold for 67% higher than our purchased price. The starting salary for my field at the company I would for is up 87.5%.

I was a bit surprised tbh. A couple like my wife and I with our degrees and jobs can buy the condo we did for less. Oh, and the interest rate is actually less.

that's great for you. But as I pointed out several times, that's not the norm. I posted the stats on a previous page. I'll post more:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-american-income-vs-home-prices-1985-2025/

I said it was just an anecdote… just decided to look it up. I didn’t expect it to de the data I found.

A thread about Bill Maher: The Good, The Bad, and The UGLY!

Comments

No, Bill Maher, there is no ‘Christian genocide’ in Nigeria

Categories