They don’t provide refunds Even for this. I hear so many nightmares of people trying to deal with customer service. For me I want them to fail because they are causing a housing crisis.
Fucking landlords and scum buy up all the housing and then rent it out through this service and keep average person from finding affordable housing. So fuck Airbnb.
They are 1 of dozens of problems causing housing crisis’s in cities around the world, and far from the top. Probably the easiest problem to solve, though.
I’m totally wearing a tinfoil hat, but I’m guessing it’s to continue bankrupting Airbnb. Airbnb really fucked with hotels for over a decade. And only recently got bad publicity.
I can see competitors now going on the assault, creating fake listings to continue showing the world how inferior Airbnb is and continue to erode public trust.
A few other rental-startups have crashed/merged during the pandemic. And Airbnb is still surviving. Big hotel is trying to stop that.
creditnews.com Record-low housing affordability is setting off a vicious cycle | Creditnews 4 - 5 minutes
Housing affordability has reached an all-time low in the U.S., according to data from the National Association of Realtors (NAR).
The NAR’s latest Quarterly Housing Affordability Index shows that affordability plummeted to 92.7 in the second quarter of the year, down from 101.8 in Q1 and 169.9 as recently as 2020.
A score of 100 indicates that a household with the median U.S. income has 100% of the funds necessary to qualify for a mortgage on a median-price house. Anything below that, and most households can’t really afford to buy a home.
The situation is even worse for first-time buyers, with NAR’s index showing that affordability for this group has slumped to 61.4, down from 67.4 in Q1 2023 and from 111.9 in 2020.
In other words, first-time buyers with a median income today have roughly 61% of the income to qualify for a mortgage (assuming a 20% down payment).
High interest rates and stagnant or falling real incomes are the main causes of this drop in affordability. If these indicators worsen, Americans will have a lot more to worry about than mass foreclosures.
Housing is not only the bedrock of the economy; it has knock-on effects that could reach all the way up to the Oval Office. Big cities hit the hardest
The situation may look even grimmer depending on where in America you live, with some metropolitan areas scoring much lower on the affordability index than others.
In the New York-Jersey City-White Plains (NY-NJ) area, for example, affordability has declined from 121.1 in 2019 to 72.4 in 2022, the last available year with complete data.
In Salt Lake City, the same measure plummeted from 134.5 to 82.5 over the same period, while in Boston-Cambridge-Newton it has fallen from 123.9 to 87.6.
These are only a few examples of the unaffordability of homes in populous American urban areas, with every metropolitan area witnessing declines in affordability since 2019.
The cost of mortgages isn’t only a problem for anyone who’s ever dreamed of owning their own slice of America, since it also has serious consequences for the wider U.S. economy.
Living costs, which include mortgages and rents, tend to impact consumer spending, with surveys this year showing that as many as 92% of Americans have cut back on their spending due to rising prices.
That Americans have less money to spend because of housing unaffordability is also indicated by the rising rate of foreclosures, which rose by 7% in August compared to the previous month.
The problem with declining spending is that it has knock-on effects on businesses, which experience lower revenues and profits as a result. In turn, a decline in their revenues and profits may ultimately hurt U.S. stocks, which by extension can hurt investment portfolios and pensions, creating a vicious circle.
Investment strategists are warning of a “meaningful earnings recession” for stocks. According to Morgan Stanley, the earnings of S&P 500 companies are expected to fall 16% this year. Affordability gets political ahead of election year
Frustration in the housing market could make its way to the White House as more disgruntled voters seek solutions to the affordability crisis.
President Joe Biden has launched several attempts at mitigating the current crisis, with his administration introducing a Housing Supply Action Plan in 2022 and also including measures to help households in his latest budget.
Yet the NAR’s data makes it clear that such measures haven’t had much effect. According to CBS, Biden’s approval rating has declined due to a “lack of home affordability,” among other factors related to the economy.
The apparent failure of housing policy means that many Americans will continue to struggle to make ends meet, which in turn could lead to more political disaffection.
And the problem could get worse in the pivotal election year. Home prices—as high as they are—will likely rise in 2024, according to the NAR.
The feds tax 10% according to the blurb posted with the article. So I fail to see how a state doing it infringes on 2A unless the tax is unreasonably high.
Literally read the first half of the first sentence. “California will ban people from carrying firearms in most public places”
SCOTUS point blank ruled this unconstitutional in the Bruen decision, specifically pointing out banning carry in most public places is unconstitutional.
FFS even he acknowledges what hes doing is unconstitutional “But he acknowledged many of these laws might not survive legal challenges”.
My bad on that. I was just having a debate in another thread with someone on the tax aspect of this new laws so that’s where my mind went when I read your comment.
Their magazine ban just got tossed out (again) and will likely be appealed but is pretty much destined to be tossed out on Bruen grounds. Their carry bill will probably also get tossed but it may take a while. The tax might stick. If I were prognosticating I’d say they’ll eventually try something like “1000% tax on every gun except single shot .22 rifles” and that would presumably be tossed out for its chilling effect, but who knows.
In a way I’m rooting for California. The more gun laws they get appealed all the way to SCOTUS, the more national precedent gets set that these laws are illegal in the whole country.
It’s what happens when someone hates capitalism so much and hasn’t touched grass in so long that they cheer on the brutal murder of small business owners. Prime example of your brain on extreme black-and-white thinking.
It’s one thing that’s super frustrating about a lot of online left-wing populism — so much focus on villainizing and punishing individuals and not nearly enough on fixing the systemic issues via good policy. Hate landlords? Talk about eliminating the housing crisis to eliminate their power over you. Hate your boss? Talk about improving safety nets and overall prosperity to reduce their power over you. Hate corporations? Talk about eliminating monopolism, reducing barriers to entry, and increasing competition so they have less power over you. Villainizing and punishing individuals feels good, but it does nothing to eliminate the underlying economic power dynamics.
“California will ban people from carrying firearms in most public places” and then it goes on about the tax.
I feel like the carry ban is a far larger story then the tax. Not just because its blatantly unconstitutional but it directly opposes very recent rulings from the highest court in America
How is it “blatantly unconstitutional”? The right to bear arms seem to be only in conjunction with a well regulated militia. Something that yet has to be found in the USA. And a well regulated militia would not run about their daily business with a gun ready to murder the next cop passing by, because he eyed them weirdly.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Arms are a “right of the people” not the militia. A militia is a result of, not a prerequisite for, the right to bear arms. “well regulated” doesn’t mean government regulation it means well armed, supplied, and trained
It is an attack on LGBT+ people in general. But it also has a second purpose, in that it forms a part of the framework to criminalise transgender, non-binary, and gender-non-conforming people specifically.
Conservatives tend to place stock in traditional gender roles, and also tend not to recognise trans and non-binary people as legitimate. This makes it simple to lump trans and enby people existing in public, and drag performances, together. After all to a conservative, both are just a person of one gender expressing themselves as another gender. This can also be done in law, by simply making the legal definition of drag loose enough that trans people dressing as they like in public could be argued into the definition.
Then they go ahead and criminalise drag in public, by arguing that it is inherently sexual, and that in public a child might see it. This conveniently makes trans people think twice about being visible in public.
Some states then go on to classify sex crimes that involve minors as capital offenses. Completing the framework where being trans in public could, if the courts allow, get you murdered by the state.
My grandfather used to wear a wig and a dress for parades in Texas. Absolutely nothing to do with being gay or a sexy show… he was just a clown, essentially. Certainly wasn’t anywhere close to controversial.
That depends. If they bypassed the Windows logon in any way to get to the data, that can be construed as hacking per the CFAA. Since that data is normally protected by a Windows logon in all legitimate cases, it can be construed as hacking.
Not to mention to purchase of a stolen hard hard drive.
The lawsuit against Giuliani and Costello claims they used Hunter Biden’s username to gain access to his data,
Depends on what you mean by “hacking,” but generally speaking it just means bypassing digital security. Like how it’s still breaking and entering even if you use a key, or even if the door is unlocked. Legally speaking, “hacking” includes accessing something without permission, regardless of how easy it was to access.
Correct, even violating TOS can count under the CFAA, meaning you could log into your spouse’s social media with their permission, but if that platform says it’s against TOS, it’s a crime, since you’re accessing their equipment in violation of those agreements.
This was more of a valid argument when Republicans were winning elections. I think we should keep the electoral college as long as there’s a republican candidate that wants to overturn our democracy.
Having watched a lot of Louis rossmann videos on NY, you need those displayed at your business to be allowed to operate it. If you do not have them, they will shut you down and fine you.
Whether or not they will enforce it here is another question, but NY seems to not fuck around with that, since corporate taxes and fines are a large contributor to their state income.
It’s not just an issue for the government. Banks will not open accounts for you if you aren’t registered with the state you do business in. If you already have accounts and they find out you are no longer registered, they close your accounts.
No, you can’t use an old registration. They check an online database with the secretary of state. It updates daily.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.