In the case of concrete there’s also a time component. Once you mix the cement and aggregate you have a few hours before it begins to set. The cement itself is already typically trucked in (a relatively small amount of dry, easily transportable powder).
You're invested as much as you are in tesla already, palantir or any other unsavoury S&P500 company, you can't really pick political sides in a "all the top companies"
Real estate is generally a "good" investment as it's considered a relatively safe way to get significant leverage. 5x leverage in the case of a 20% deposit, or even up to 20x leverage with countries that allow for 5% deposits (New Zealand).
In addition, the interest payments almost always end up being near the rent the owner would have paid, so mortgage payments are higher, but that increase is generally (and quickly becomes) principal while being able to counteract inflation of rent.
> Real estate is generally a "good" investment as it's considered a relatively safe way to get significant leverage
Leverage? People don't normally invest in property (normally involves taking out a loan) for the purpose of taking out another loan. That so called "leverage" is being used to buy the house...ie you don't have any leverage
The leverage is the loan taken for the mortgage. If you have a $1M property, $900k loan. If the property's value increases by 5%, that's $1.05M, so you've made 50% returns on your $100k capital invested. That's leverage, the leveraging of $100k to get the returns of $1M asset.
We can estimate this. US median home price right before the crash in 2007 was $240,000. Today, it is about $400,000. Median rent in 2007 was $810. Today, it is $1,698. There's some simplifying assumptions we have no choice but to make. Let's say renter's insurance is negligible enough to ignore. Meanwhile, we'll just let an online mortgage calculator assume a median $50,000 home insurance coverage payment and bake it in. We'll assume 1.1% of assessed value for property insurance, which is currently the US national average (it varies a lot state to state in reality). We'll assume an FHA loan with 4% down.
This gives us a $1,995 a month payment when we purchased and a $2,142 a month payment today, due to higher assessed value for the tax.
We can see upsides and downsides in both cases. Rent would have been quite a bit cheaper in 2007, but it has very nearly caught up by now. Meanwhile, you're probably talking about renting maybe a 2 bed/1 bath apartment, whereas the median single-family house is more like 4 beds/2 baths, with a yard. Whether or not that extra space and privacy matters to you likely depends a lot on whether you're single or have or ever plan to have a family. You could have invested into something like the S&P 500, which has historically returned about 10.5% since 1957 annually in nominal returns. Let's just kind of naively split the difference here and assume you can invest $1,000 saved on rent versus mortage a month for the first 10 years and $200 a month for the next 9. That would have gotten you somewhere around $240,000 by now. Meanwhile, you're looking at about $248,000 in home equity by now for the purchase case.
Choose different parameters if you please, but I'm not really seeing the case for renting here over the long term, and that's in spite of choosing the single worst time in the last century you could have made the purchase.
Oh I don't disagree, I hate real estate as an investment, it's a terrible asset only made "viable" by tax benefits, rent-replacement and excessive amounts of risk via leverage.
It's my shortcut for describing the idea that you'd spend $X a month on either interest lost to a bank or rent lost to a landlord, and therefore you can mostly consider that a constant expense when considering rent versus mortgage.
People relying on this software can absolutely choose to stay on current/recent versions until this becomes more mature. My assumption is that the current state allows for public testing, but anyone needing a stable version wouldn't be affected and can choose to not be affected by it.
That analogy might work if this situation is 'reckless behaviour risking children's safety' but in this case it's much closer to 'We made an large, potentially risky change that you can choose to avoid until it's more mature'
They never denied they'd switch, just that they'd need solid improvements confirmed before they switched. Clearly internally they've decided they've seen the gains necessary to carry on with the switch
> This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely
I know words are hard, but if you find it hard to believe any humans here, then feed it into your favorite LLM.
> I’m curious to see what a working version of this looks, what it feels like, how it performs and if/how hard it’d be to get it to pass Bun’s test suite and be maintainable. I’d like to be able to compare a viable Rust version and a Zig version side by side.
I know reading the second line of your quote is hard...
I'm not arguing what defines inefficient in these situations, just that "if we group together we'll be okay" for tech workers will go about as well as 1960's longshoreman unionization
reply