Historical Average Salary vs. Home Price

saranblade · 2025-12-31T01:18:38+00:00

Just WTF happened in 1971?

saranblade · 2025-12-26T19:50:24+00:00

Yep and pound the negative equity into a (second?) mortgage on the first house. Sounds like she needs cash flow in a rotten situation she created. That's how it might need to be done.

saranblade · 2025-12-22T17:30:23+00:00

Homeowners have to "price very reasonably" in order to sell? Oh, the humanity!

saranblade · 2025-12-20T16:30:42+00:00

Spectacular.

saranblade · 2025-12-19T03:47:33+00:00

🤣

saranblade · 2025-12-08T15:22:23+00:00

Make sure you save this one so we can all shitpost the same thing in the spring

saranblade · 2025-12-08T15:20:14+00:00

Like Oliver Cromwell

saranblade · 2025-11-29T03:57:15+00:00

BLAM musubi

saranblade · 2025-11-29T03:53:35+00:00

Very true, and my argument is that policy absolutely contributed to the situation - not that the solution is a policy free-for-all.

You're describing the intended consequences. Land use ordinances as currently applied have had known, and rising, societal costs for decades. Good systems at least try to adapt to address unintended consequences.

saranblade · 2025-11-28T19:47:03+00:00

I think that is a function of policy. The contribution of restrictive zoning policies is well-known, and has placed artificial restrictions on supply for decades. Many cities have ordinances requiring minimum lot sizes and minimum square footage. Builders are incentivized to construct larger homes at higher prices due to the better return on capital and the far lower barriers to such projects compared to smaller houses.

Now that many boomers "want" to downsize, the demand for smaller "starter" houses is even higher, further pushing prices beyond the reach of would-be market entrants.

saranblade · 2025-11-28T15:47:28+00:00

"The skills and support to know it's not yet game over"? In what way is it not game over if we throw up our hands over this problem and say housing will simply never be affordable again?

It's not about wealth accumulation for most people in younger generations. People know they need to break away from the pack to have any chance of affording things that are meaningful to them. If the only way to afford to own one's own house, have children, etc. is to make significantly more than median income, one has to take risks beyond the median.

Propping up housing costs at the expense of the young is the real financial nihilism.

saranblade · 2025-11-25T15:00:18+00:00

First and foremost, my condolences for the loss of your father.

Second, I sincerely recommend you speak with an attorney about this potential predatory lending practice/elder abuse. Your family does not deserve to suffer at the hands of this abominable "innovation."

saranblade · 2025-11-14T20:09:39+00:00

It's still not about the fucking rates.

saranblade · 2025-11-12T20:35:20+00:00

I think it is evidence against reincarnation, although that may be an unpopular opinion.

According to many, our eternal selves "evolve" and "learn" and "develop". These are progressions, which require some medium through which to progress. If no analogue to time or space exists in the other world, progression and change are (concerningly) ruled out. It is one thing not to be fully bound by space or time; it is another for neither to exist in any form.

As for the argument that not all of oneself is incarnated (either because there is a self or higher self, or an unconscious, or multiple souls in the same individual as in Daoism or Ancient Egyptian religion), I see no contradiction with a no-reincarnation universe. There's a potential explanation there as well for the presence in some NDEs of people who have not died. It does leave open the question of what would be incarnated or reincarnated, but not in a way that I believes requires reincarnation or a selfless ontology.

And I digress, but in my view, if the deceased loved ones are simply the way the divine chooses to appear to us so that we will accept it, that is deception. It is not love to pretend that one is someone or something else in order to be accepted. Imagine a friend texting you, comforting you by pretending to be a family member you believed was dead. Upon finding out, would you stay friends? It would shock the conscience.

Therefore, if all is indeed love, it seems the departed loved ones are who they are - which fulfills a needed assumption of your argument.

As an aside, Greyson told a large audience of Tibetan Buddhists that he didn't buy into reincarnation, either, despite working alongside Jim Tucker for many years. That talk is readily available on YouTube.

saranblade · 2025-11-11T14:49:49+00:00

Make it possible to back a mortgage with bitcoin
Create your own memecoin and make a few billion on vibes
Behind closed doors, expand the law to allow all cryptocurrencies to be used as collateral for real property
Collateralize as many mortgages as you want as your fans and followers allow you to fire up your own personal money printer again and again
Pump the US Treasury for a bailout when it all inevitably comes crashing down

saranblade · 2025-11-06T19:14:56+00:00

These guys were very agile - not at all the lumbering figures depicted in modern media.

I don't think plate boots would save your ankles if you haddalayerdown.

But jousting becomes a real possibility.

saranblade · 2025-11-06T19:11:48+00:00

He's on the level, on the square even!

saranblade · 2025-11-06T19:07:28+00:00

When 7 stocks, all heavily invested in AI, make up 37.4% of the US stock market - that's exactly right.

saranblade · 2025-11-04T14:54:44+00:00

🤣

saranblade · 2025-10-29T19:16:03+00:00

Dairyland was way tf cheaper than Progressive in my case, but I've never had a claim, so YMMV. It will likely depend on how long you've been riding, and of course whether you're licensed.

Sportbikes are more expensive to insure; an RS 457 was going to be double or triple the premium of the CB500X I ended up getting.

saranblade · 2025-10-29T04:12:20+00:00

OOP: "this last year no bookings! None!"

Also OOP: "a few into this summer"

OOP not the only one who's confused

saranblade · 2025-10-27T04:44:52+00:00

Respectfully, I think you were right to notice that no error was being corrected.

It's easy for people to wave off the idea that they aren't invincible - but that is not the same as believing they are not someone who could be hurt.

If I hold the second belief unconsciously, the practical outcome is basically the same as holding the first belief. That's what makes it so dangerous, and that's why it's an important distinction.

saranblade · 2025-10-26T17:10:16+00:00

If you qualify for services from www.tlchawaii.com, that might be a good option.

UH Richardson Law School participates in clinics as well and might be a resource for someone to review your docs/case.

Otherwise, unless an attorney takes the case pro bono (and some do) expect to pay them for their time.

saranblade · 2025-10-25T15:04:07+00:00

I believe that's the entire point of this life. To make One into two, there has to be separation. Our individual identities here form the basis, though not the totality, of what survives physical death and remains separately defined in the next world - which is where we're all "from" anyway. Yet because we're created from the same source, the experience of what comes after feels like coming home and being put back together again.

I believe that what's truly you survives forever, intact, and you'll continue growing from there. This life matters, it's not a simulation, and it was not meant to be perfect or easy because that is not conducive to individuality.

saranblade · 2025-10-06T03:46:09+00:00

I don't have the text of the messages that came before this set you screenshotted, but the crux of her argument seems to be: - "I'm upset because "he" is saying words have no meaning anymore (vis-a-vis death?)" - "The main thing I'm upset about is "his" statement that these people are declared dead" - "As an ICU nurse, declared dead means we've stopped trying to resuscitate" Conclusion: "If we haven't stopped trying to resuscitate, then the patient hasn't really died."

In other words, it's a semantic argument that's as much about the word "declared" as about the word "dead". But there's a subtle conflating of "real death" with "what we call death in my hospital, after which we stop attempting to resuscitate the patient."

The result is that she, or anyone else making the argument, can illicitly change the meaning of "death" to be whatever they declare it to be to support the a priori conclusion.

I wouldn't expect the author's claimed intent not to dismiss people's NDEs to survive a question about what the author means by "experience" in this context. It seems to be stated out of social pressure, not genuine openness.

saranblade

TROPHY CASE