It’s legal in Finland. It’s pretty damn rare. I wouldn’t consider it a hugely shocking thing though, cousins usually aren’t very close here. Would make for weird family relations though.
New and used car prices are definitely up, so cost of replacement could affect insurance costs. Like everything else the reason is probably, “because we can”
I don’t really have a strong opinion as to the right way to go on this, but from a purely legal-technical standpoint, is there a good reason for having the rule made at the state level rather than the local?
I mean, ordinarily I’d think that it tends to make sense to let things be legislated at a low level unless there’s a reason not to.
If a locality over-protects workers against heat then, okay, they suffer economically and maybe people and business head to the next town over. I’d think that that’d self-resolve without the state getting involved.
And if a municipality underprotects against heat? What happens?
People die of heat stroke, that’s what happens. And the municipality maybe changes the law, but only after someone dies.
Protections in this situation are at the federal and state level because the consequences of doing them wrong are much more than just “suffering economically.”
And because worker deaths aren’t always a strong enough motivator at the local level. Frankly, not every town cares about their migrant workers and other working class folks, especially if labor is divided along racial and/or class lines.
Government pay is garbage. If you’re lucky enough to find a job that gets you to GS-13 you might crack $100 grand. And in most cities, that isn’t enough anymore.
Won’t this potentially contribute to an increasing population of people supportive of, or otherwise apathetic about, abortion restrictions, supposing those taking this course are largely against abortion restrictions?
Support for abortion is not a genetic trait, and seeing firsthand the effects of criminalizing abortion is a quick road to being militantly supportive of it.
Support for abortion isn’t a genetic trait, but religious parents tend to raise religious kids due to environmental factors.
I don’t think it with be a big enough difference to matter given how much more liberal people get over time, but it is possible this will happen a bit.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, as I wasn’t aiming to suggest it was a genetic trait. As another commenter indicated below, as well as another in this thread, I was asking in relation to the upbringing perspective.
Although I’m well aware upbringing isn’t brainwashing, and so even those anti-abortion parents couldn’t prevent their children from being for bodily autonomy, but I thought it worth asking about to see what others might think. If you read through some conservative leaning texts, some of them unambiguously talk about having children for the express purpose of perpetuating their beliefs, so at least some will view this trend as in their favor.
Also to be completely clear here: I’m pro-choice, and for bodily autonomy.
Yeah, coming from a deeply conservative community in the rural south I’m very familiar with the way parents there believe their children exist to be extensions of themselves.
Anyone under 60 who is anti-abortion only knows what it’s like to live in a post-Roe society, their stance is essentially theoretical and untested until now. When their friends and relatives start getting sick and dying from back alley abortions, miscarriages left untreated, or ectopic pregnancies there are going to be a lot of people singing a different tune.
No. This will lead to population collapse. It does not matter what policies/laws you have if you literally run out of people that can sustain the society with their… wait for it… work!
Allegedly rates are set to go back down later this year and people with shit rates should be able to refinance. Prices are absolutely sickening all around whether you rent or are paying off a mortgage.
Rate cuts are alleged by people addicted to cheap debt, wanting to pump up asset prices. They alleged that there would be six rate cuts and have since revised that to three, but seem like they’re going to revise that down to one. Eventually they’ll understand that there will likely be zero rate cuts this year since the federal reserve that actually sets the rate hasn’t indicated that they will cut rates because inflation hasn’t settled down yet (and would likely shoot back up the second rates are cut).
Your anecdote doesn’t disprove the fact that homebuying is more unaffordable than ever. I made a comment about this earlier today, but I’ve got enough cash for a 20% down-payment on a modest house in my area but still can’t get a loan because ~55% of my monthly income is obligated towards rent. You’ve escaped the rat race, congratulations, but quite a bit has changed between 2021 and 2024, even if it doesn’t feel like it was that long ago.
Jesus fucking Christ dude your situation is exceptional because you make a fuck-ton more money than most people, it’s not a difficult reality to accept.
In 2000 we did a zero down, 8% first on 80% and 9.5% second on 20%, at 2.5x our combined salary. Terrible loans and it was really really hard, but it was what we had to do to buy - network tv, one picked-up pizza per week, vacations were driving the kids to see their grandparents, constantly scrambled to pay taxes and insurance, and we just prayed that nothing broke. We know that we were really lucky.
Then include rent in the income-to-expenses measurements for home loans? Getting rid of that portion is the whole point! Hell, someone paying stupid high rent is the best evidence they could have that you’ll be able to pay back their loan since you have 55% of your income already dedicated to housing that will be freed up and available without changing your lifestyle. They should worry more the smaller that percentage is.
Sure, no problem. Zero down at 7.125% on a home that now costs $350k, but only cost $150k about 5 years ago. I’m sure that’s affordable for a family right now.
How much is the same family throwing away to rent that same home? How much will their rent be in 10 years? Locking into a mortgage ($2650/mo in your example) is the best way to go, even if the home prices are disgusting compared to 5 years ago.
I had zero savings when I bought my house. My parents backed the loan which was good enough for the bank. Also I set the budget first and then looked what I could get with that. Well it turns out not much but not nothing either. My house is old and ridiculously small on modern standards but it’s a house nevertheless and comes with a nice yard too. I paid 105k€ for it. It’s 10km from the city centre on a quiet suburban area within 50 meters from a bus stop and it’s a 20min trip to the city with a bus or 12minutes with a car.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.