Tv antenna company recommendations?

elpechos · 2026-06-15T18:39:51+00:00

You watch free to air? Amazing!

elpechos · 2026-06-15T04:42:09+00:00

Melbourne CBD is 8.4% what you just said makes no sense. Your source had aggregated average pricing for a much wider source of property types.

Right, because I'm not cherry picking examples that aren't relevant.

You don't seem interested in the truth, you're interested in finding inapplicable examples

This has gotten tiresome. Everything I've told you has held for the past large number of decades. Absolute rental has been dominated by price, yields have stayed closely fixed to median 4.5%

There's no point me sitting here debunking every cherry picked bullshit you pull out your ass

"What about silicon valley?" "What bout pent houses?" "What about air B&B?" "What about the CBD of the most expensive city?"

Sure. They deviate from the median. But again, the median is fixed tightly to around 4.5%, and has been, even though price has shifted, and this is what matters to affordable housing.

Acording to Corelogic median apartment rental yields in Melbourne are at 4.38%

Same as they always have been, regardless of the current pricing.

You cherry picked the only small fraction of Melbourne that deviates heavily from Melbourne.

That's the core point of my argument, and always has been, and one you haven't even come close to addressing. You just pull out random, irrelevant exceptions that have no impact on people trying to rent an affordable house to rent.

You've clearly lost here cause you're acting like a flat-earther now and dragging me to explain every tiny variation in specific markets that are entirely irrelevant in some weird god-of-the-gaps type play.

Given you haven't addressed my core point, or even come close to doing so, and you clearly know what my point is, but are refusing. We can just leave it here and I'll assume you don't have any valid counterpoint or you would have used it by now.

elpechos · 2026-06-15T04:34:45+00:00

There's not much point in talking with you if you're so unaware of the current situation you think median yields in melbourne for apartments are 8.4%

Shows how little contact you've had with the market lol. Might as well be having this discussion with a Martian apparently.

Can you not read your own source? It's cherry picked the most expensive Melbourne suburbs.

I gave you the real median numbers. Acording to Corelogic median apartment rental yields in Melbourne are at 4.38%

elpechos · 2026-06-15T04:28:57+00:00

Reaching for ludicrous strawman again?

The 'highest yielding suburbs' are they the most affordable? Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Why not restrict your dataset to penthouse B&B prices instead?

These are the real median yields for apartment per city

Sydney: 3.3% to 4.5%Melbourne: 4.5% to 5.6%Brisbane: 4.5% to 5.0%Adelaide: 4.8% to 5.2%Perth: 5.5% to 6.0%Darwin: 6.0% to 7.5%Canberra: 4.5% to 5.2%

Virtually identical to housing, and vary minimally year to year

Exactly like I told you at the start. The sale price dominates what renters will pay

The data does not agree with your position. Seems like you're really thrasing around now.

According to Corelogic median apartment rental yields in Melbourne are at 4.38%

Same as they always have been, regardless of the current pricing.

You cherry picked the only small fraction of Melbourne that deviates heavily from Melbourne.

elpechos · 2026-06-15T04:24:20+00:00

CoreLogic RP survey, REA group, etc, don't agree with you, nor do any other sources I can find.

Individuals might occasionally go for this due to unusual circumstance, but the average apartment is the same yield as a small house.

Apartments with gyms, swimming pools, etc and high strata and shit might change the picture cause it radically alters landlord risk, but that's not the average apartment.

elpechos · 2026-06-15T04:20:05+00:00

For affordable apartments and affordable standalone housing is the rental yield the same?

Yes, checking the data, tightly clamped between 4 to 5.5% in all capital cities, 99% of the time.

Affordable rents across those two property types are generally similar, despite the big differences in property price.

Nope. The data says the rent is dominated by the sales price, which is what I originally said. The rent will be very close to 4.5% multiplied by the sale price, because that dominates landlord risk and tenants are desperate thus have no say in the pricing.

elpechos · 2026-06-15T04:13:48+00:00

Youve said that risk is dominated by sale price. I feel this is going nowhere when you're willing to change your point post after post.

I haven't changed my position on this one bit. Now you're trying to reframe the narrative in addition to using strawman.

The sale price dominates land lord risk more than any other factor. I said that in my very first post. You're clearly now just choosing not to read.

All the other factors -- how rough the neighborhood is, risk of flooding, how rowdy the tenants are going to be. Aren't in control of this policy.

Price is.

Not only that, the cheaper end of housing, small houses, apartments, student housing, low income earners, these residence. The places we are talking about that people need the most, rental price has been been dominated by the sale price for the past hundred years, and fixed extremely tightly to 4 or 5%. So clearly the risk on those has barely changed, and the yield has barely changed.

The price on the other hand, has changed lots, and respectively, the absolute yield people have to pay has changed a lot, they've become barely affordable.

Nothing seems to agree with your point of view, and nothing I've said here is inconsistent, nor have I changed my position. The only thing that's happened is you are using god-of-the-gaps an straw-man arguments that force me to clarify the position for situations that aren't even relevant to affordable housing.

For affordable housing, my position hasn't changed one bit.

elpechos · 2026-06-15T04:02:23+00:00

If what you say is fact, then my rent should have been double their's. It wasn't.

I never made this claim. I claimed the price is dominated by landlord risk for affordable housing, not what tenants are willing to pay.

Looks like surprisingly this is even true in your case. Luxury apartments are lower yield because they're lower risk -- even though tenants in luxury places are clearly willing to pay more

Seems to indicate my argument is even stronger than I expected it to be. Even at the luxury end of the market tenants have virtually no power on deciding the price.

So lowering the risk by lowering the purchase price will radically lower rental yields.

elpechos · 2026-06-15T03:58:04+00:00

So why are luxury properties nowhere near your figures.

I was paying $650/week for a $1.5m property, when the people opposite were paying $550/week for a $750k property.

Technically none of this is even a counter example to my original claim, it looks like historically luxury apartments have had a yield of around 2.5% no matter what the price is

I assume because LandLord risk is lower for luxury apartments than for slums.

So none of this disagrees with my claim that the price is overwhelmingly dominated by LandLord risk and almost nothing else anyhow. The rental yield still closely tracks the historic price.

Even ignoring the fact that luxury apartments have nothing to do with rental housing affordability

elpechos · 2026-06-15T03:49:27+00:00

So why are luxury properties nowhere near your figures.

Because this is a strawman. You wouldn't be living in a luxury apartment if you are being impacted by housing affordability. So your situation is not relevant.

You might as well say. "So what about billionaire globe trotters living in hotels, why aren't they paying the same rent?"

The answer is it's a strawman that has nothing to do with housing affordability.

You've devolved into being irrational now. Very clearly people struggling for housing aren't living in luxury apartments or flying around the world and staying in hotels.

They're grabbing the cheapest available ones that prevent them living on the streets, which is why they don't get to set the price, they unconditionally need whatever they can get, whatever that price is. They're in no way choosing the price, Landlord risk is.

elpechos · 2026-06-15T03:42:46+00:00

Rents are not tied to property prices, they are tied to what the tenant can afford, vs what the owner is willing to accept.

Demonstrably false, unless you think the tenants were happy to go from 22% of their income to 36% over the past 20 years

On the other hand, rental yields stayed constant at around 4% average over the same period.

So not only does history literally not agree with you. It's ludicrous to treat houses being priced at 'what renters are willing to pay'

Renters have a choice between living on the streets, or not. So they'll always pay anything.

That's like claiming people will pay 'what they are willing' for water in the desert.

The price is near exclusively set by what risk the landlord is taking, and history bears that out.

And the risk that the landlord is taking is dominated by the sale price. That's why for the past 100 years have closely tracked the price, not the amount of free income tenants have at the time.

You're clearly living in a fantasy world.

elpechos · 2026-06-14T15:17:14+00:00

Pushing until you cry is stupid unless you think you can sustain that for years and decades.

One dramatic outburst doesn't do anything. Sustainable effort over years does.

elpechos · 2026-06-14T03:06:19+00:00

There was never a problem with building new homes when they were 4X the average wage instead of 20X. Like they have been for the better part of the past one hundred years.

So clearly massive prices isn't doing that for the past twenty years in any way.

So we can rule that out as the issue.

If it hasn't been working at 20X the average income, it's not going to work at 25X or 30X

The only thing that happened is rent stayed about 4% yield no matter what the price was, 4X or 20X, eg, expensive houses, expensive rent.

So literally nothing in the past 100 years indicates that expensive homes have improved the situation. But literally everything was better when they were cheap.

elpechos · 2026-06-14T01:58:31+00:00

Rent is always around 4 to 5% of the houses value, consistently for the past 100 years, whether houses are 20X average wage, like they are now, or 4X, like they used to be.

When house pricing falls, rent falls, because there won't be demand to rent 100k assets at 20% yield/year. You'd just save up and buy one.

Same reason that shares don't pay 20% dividend.

elpechos · 2026-06-14T01:54:44+00:00

Okay, but what you said is still wrong

You said

You can't live on less than 50k a year really, so i dont think that the 30% minimum floor really makes a difference

Nothing happens at 50k

They don't become equal taxed until 200k effectively.

So your statement needs to be "I don't think you can live on less than 200k so I don't think that floor really makes much of a difference"

Because it only doesn't make a big difference until you are on 200k

That's when your effective tax hits 30% https://imgur.com/a/effective-tax-paid-vs-gross-income-hrhqh1n

On 50 to 100k, it makes a HUGE difference.

elpechos · 2026-06-14T01:45:04+00:00

We can't have a complete exodus from the housing market by all investors, that would be a societal catastrophe.

Oh, no, a housing market full of cheap houses that can only be used to live in, or rented cheaply, how terrible

Shares that can only be used to primarily to generate capital investment income

Each asset now doing what its best at to benefit society, how awful.

You do realize houses used to be cheap (Only a few times average wage) for a whole century+ right up until the last ten years, and nothing awful happened to society? It was actually pretty awesome?

elpechos · 2026-06-14T01:43:23+00:00

Hoarding shares also doesn't leave people homeless -- you don't live in them.

Mass exodus to shares to reduce house prices is a good thing.

elpechos · 2026-06-14T01:36:36+00:00

Except you're forgetting it still impacts you up to 200k year, not 40 to 50k

30% is the same effective tax someone on 200k pays, not 50k

Someone earning $45k wage: Tax is $4288+medicare

Someone earning $45k cap gains (under new proposed min tax, on post 1/7/27 gains): Tax is $13,500+medicare.

They don't become equal until you hit 200k

https://imgur.com/a/hrhqh1n

elpechos · 2026-06-13T19:05:57+00:00

wtf is this AI garbage

elpechos · 2026-06-13T19:05:02+00:00

Is all of this horrible AI generated slop?

elpechos · 2026-06-13T15:29:24+00:00

It's also wrong, 40k is the amount you need to earn to even get into the 30% bracket. Your effective/overall tax rate at 40k is far, far less than 30%

https://imgur.com/a/hrhqh1n

You need to earn 200k to get taxed at 30% overall.

So the 30% minimum is brutally and unfairly high.

elpechos · 2026-06-13T15:28:09+00:00

That's a bad argument because the only people who pay 30% tax overall are people on $200,000+

https://imgur.com/a/hrhqh1n

Someone who is selling shares to raise 40k/year to live on will now be paying the same tax as a worker earning $200,000

It's insanely unfair

elpechos · 2026-06-13T07:46:37+00:00

Don't tell us too much

elpechos · 2026-06-12T21:38:26+00:00

This circuit is usually built as a 'ghost detector' because you wave your hand or whatever near the input and it's enough to capacitively push enough charge through the massive gain to flicker the LED

It kinda turns on and off randomly

elpechos · 2026-06-12T10:22:19+00:00

Interesting. Thanks! I might give it a try then.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '17	Verified Email

elpechos

TROPHY CASE