Millions of Americans forced to live in their cars
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
AI compiled. This has been going on since 2000's but more after 2008's and 2019.
I seen it here in ...
Aalot of empty houses in the city they should take over them.
I seen it here in ...
Aalot of empty houses in the city they should take over them.
I was homeless once as I needed to save money.
Sold car and bought a van, joined a gym so I could shower but often just went to ashbridge bay to jump in lake as water had blue flag but at least once a week get clean shower
Food was no issue. Had a propane stove I used on occasion.
Portable power station that I could recharge with car, so I could use electric blanket, power laptop, etc.
Cost was no more than living in a home but now no rent so I was saving 30K.
Still had decent job that paid $50 K after taxes with benefits..
Could have rented a place, but i wanted to save.
Made some interesting homeless friends as you need each other so walls break down. Not all homeless people are losers.
One was training for the Olympics. One was teaching writing. She taught me how to write well. Use active voice, avoid abstract words.
I got a short story published in a journal. Most interesting was learning proper use of psychedelics. We would pay money and gather at the facilitator's house, have a ceremony play spiritual then have a medicine journey. Fascinating.
Put over 40K a year into index funds as I had lots of overtime. Actually liked the job so overtime was no problem.
After three years I had over $200 K as the market goes up 10% per year on average.
I got lucky as it was a bull market.
I did not plan to do it for so long. I had just got evicted, so I thought live in van till I find a place. Saving all that money was huge incentive.
Another positive, besides saving a small fortune which grows as that is my savings, is learning to break the ice with people and make friends.
Parked on public property where cops did not care.
This could all be done cheaper with a tent. Minimum wage was available even in covid. With the overtime that comes with it, stores paid above minimum to stock shelves as they were short-staffed , one could have saved a small fortune.
Sold car and bought a van, joined a gym so I could shower but often just went to ashbridge bay to jump in lake as water had blue flag but at least once a week get clean shower
Food was no issue. Had a propane stove I used on occasion.
Portable power station that I could recharge with car, so I could use electric blanket, power laptop, etc.
Cost was no more than living in a home but now no rent so I was saving 30K.
Still had decent job that paid $50 K after taxes with benefits..
Could have rented a place, but i wanted to save.
Made some interesting homeless friends as you need each other so walls break down. Not all homeless people are losers.
One was training for the Olympics. One was teaching writing. She taught me how to write well. Use active voice, avoid abstract words.
I got a short story published in a journal. Most interesting was learning proper use of psychedelics. We would pay money and gather at the facilitator's house, have a ceremony play spiritual then have a medicine journey. Fascinating.
Put over 40K a year into index funds as I had lots of overtime. Actually liked the job so overtime was no problem.
After three years I had over $200 K as the market goes up 10% per year on average.
I got lucky as it was a bull market.
I did not plan to do it for so long. I had just got evicted, so I thought live in van till I find a place. Saving all that money was huge incentive.
Another positive, besides saving a small fortune which grows as that is my savings, is learning to break the ice with people and make friends.
Parked on public property where cops did not care.
This could all be done cheaper with a tent. Minimum wage was available even in covid. With the overtime that comes with it, stores paid above minimum to stock shelves as they were short-staffed , one could have saved a small fortune.
Last edited:
Houses are empty because the homeless have no money. So more homeless people means more empty houses.
One day you are just another working stiff who gets evicted. You immediately become the wealthy man everyone envies. You got a car, a job with benefits and savings among the homeless.
Very few working class save any money, indeed they are in debt, and you save 40K a year. You got on the gravy train of free money where your money
makes money where other get on traim to no where where their money loses money.
Your two years homeless were not wasted at all. You have a nice financial cushion that will continue to grow that you would not of had.
Not all homeless people are losers. After Star Trek was cancelled, William Shatner lived in his van. The movie sequels made him rich.
Last edited:
I would suggest the vacant home tax gets upped to the point renting at a lower price point is better.
The mom and pops want to rent. The major issue is corporations owning several properties and leaving some empty because they can afford to. I personally would, with the exception of purpose built apartments, disallow corporations from owning private residences beyond a very low number.
I own a home. It it fact benefits me to see these high prices for when I sell to downsize. But I can also see the societal cost.
Someone is to update like me. I agree with your statement, in the US The big banks own house and are trying to destroy farms in many places.
You want people to rent out their investment properties? Get rid of automatic rent extension and make sure it is easy to evict non-paying tenants or tenants who overstay their fixed-term lease for under a month. People with investment properties want to rent, but the existing laws put the landlord at the mercy of tenants.
Over 50% of the population voted for a convicted felon who has made billions, pardoned sex offenders, and other criminals - kind of hard to have any sympathy.
Have zero interest in being the 51st state.
Have zero interest in being the 51st state.
As I said, small ones yes. But larger private equity firms have been known to destroy neighborhoods by buying homes and allowing them to rot, to lower adjacent property values. To allowing homes to get shitty while renting for the same reason.
Quite simply large private equity firms, along with dirty money from overseas criminals, rich people looking to park secret cash, like Chinese entrepreneurs, are a leading cause of housing shortages and inflationary pricing. Along with builders only building luxury standard and not starter home priced properties.
Remove them from rental ownership, and yes, we can discuss reform for bad tenant removal.
You do the reform first, and all these Chinese money-parkers would be happy to rent out their apartments. Also, wealthy people are rarely bad tenants, so you make sure it is easy to get rid of bad tenants, and cheaper, simpler apartments will be built. You cannot have an economically sustainable solution based on bad laws. You fix the laws to provide incentives for landlords to offer low-cost rental units, and the economy will adjust. You get rid of rent control, and there will be incentives to invest in unit upkeep. Currently, renting cheap accommodation is a high-risk business.
Dude, developers will not build cheaper housing. It's that simple. It needs govt intervention.
And wealthy people don't rent. They buy.
The world is turning into a Mad Max dystopian society. Soon the cacklers will be roaming the streets at night, the only consolation is that they will be eating all the U-men.
Last edited:
Maybe to government intervention, but only if it is government-owned housing, not at the expense of the existing landlords. Major problem - bureaucratic costs and inefficient management. In other words, bad tenants will milk all of us (taxpayers) and not just landlords, and the government will help them to do this (imagine a bad publicity of evicting someone from government-owned apartments for non-payment of rent). There are lots of show-box apartments in Toronto, as well as run-down houses that people are afraid to rent out, which would be an affordable rent if rules were not so against the landlords. The fact that, in the case of "utility included" lease, the landlord must continue to pay for electricity and gas even if the tenants do not pay rent alone means that the existing laws are crazy. When the tenants can stay beyond the specified lease period and the landlord needs a "cause" to get them out of his own property - this is just wrong. And when it takes almost a year to evict non-payers - this is where many potential landlords decide the return is not worth the risk and it is better for the unit to stay empty.
And for wealthy people not renting, it depends on the desired lifestyle and required mobility. Some prefer to live in hotels
.Houses are empty because the cost of living has gone through the roof over the past 10 years under a certain federal government.
