So basically they want somebody to pay for the privilege of keeping their house spotless, showing the house to potential buyers, and refreshing the flyers. In return they can stay in the house for some unknown amount of time after which they will be suddenly kicked out.
Not a bad idea, if I was in the process of moving anyways and had my stuff in storage then living somewhere very cheaply would be nice (as I look for another place to rent). It is a 4 br house, thus $900/mo is probably half price from what it would cost to live there. Usually it takes ~30 days for a house to close, thus giving them several weeks to find a new place.
First, there are no 4 bedrooms anywhere near that intersection. It's probably the reno-flip, bought a year ago, where they broke out the basement.
So the deal is live in Renton for a variable amount of time in a 1500 sq. ft. flip a block from I-405, and babysit a house, cleaning it everyday/hour to make it ready to show.
I wouldn't do it for free. If they paid me $900/mo, I might begin to consider it.
it is a 4 br house, thus $900/mo is probably half price from what it would cost to live there
Finance, if you would pay $1800/month to live a few blocks from I-405 in the gang-infested Renton Highlands, I have a few more proposals I would like to run by you. One involving beachfront property, and another involving a bridge.
HA! I laugh in the general direction of your book. Why? Because my book reference is ranked more highly by the brilliant book reading people of Amazon.com.
However, I can do better than name calling.
We like to think of a human as being smart, and as some humans as being smarter than others, but it's really difficult to explain why, or even how smartness is to be quantified. But there is one thing that is provable and absolute...all intelligence arises via the coordinated effort of many less intelligent parts. This is what makes hive insects appear to be coordinated by a central command. It is why your brain is smart even though each neuron is not. It even explains why the stock market is better at evaluating the proper value of companies than any investment guru in the world (although Warren Buffet has beat the annual return, the problem he is solving is one of making profit, whereas the stock market is setup to solve the problem of what a company is worth).
There are effects which can make the masses dumb, but these cascades of insanity (BUBBLES for one) come about because occasionally dissenting opinions are squashed before they can be processed.
On the other hand, the book about bubbles being good is obviously foolish. A bubble is by definition a misallocation of resources. Just because the telecom infrastructure that was mistakenly put up was used by someone else later, does not mean the bubble was good. What it means is that people as a group can be smart enough to profit from their previous mistakes. This is obvious from the author's own examples. What we can't do is go back in time and see if a different allocation of resources would have been more beneficial. Maybe fewer telecom lines would have meant more telecom would be newer and thus faster at the same cost of the older lines. Worst yet, misallocation may force us down a less beneficial path. If we misallocate hundreds of sq miles of King County to McMansions and Condos, we may not see a better solution when it comes around.
Not a bad idea, if I was in the process of moving anyways and had my stuff in storage then living somewhere very cheaply would be nice (as I look for another place to rent). It is a 4 br house, thus $900/mo is probably half price from what it would cost to live there. Usually it takes ~30 days for a house to close, thus giving them several weeks to find a new place.
Since when is $900 half of $1520? And why would a single person want to rent a 4 bedroom house even if it is the same cost as an apartment? A couple or family is more likely, but families are less likely to want to rent for an unknown amount of time. I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation that would make this a good deal.
Nice Cheeky comments above. Certainly a reversal of the traditional HOUSESITTING model, eh?
Even most HOTELS don't charge a different room rate for two people vs. one. That is a very distrubing and newly noticed "trend" to charge based upon the number of occupants. It's BS gouging. Set a damn price and stick to it without games....
I think it's equally in line with PT Barnum's "sucker born every minute" approach.
I'm not saying I disagree with you on this one, but if the landlord is paying for utilities, there is some justification for setting price based upon the number of occupants. In this case, however, I can't see a $300/mo. difference between two people and one.
I can see your point, although I would rather KNOW what the utilites actually cost, vs. trusting it to a fixed amount that high. Does ONE extra adult (regardless of gender or age), really cost an extra $200 per MONTH over what is already factored in? This is City Light power, right, Not PSE?
It seems doubtful, unless this is a really energy-INefficient house. Why make such a huge cost assumption up front? I know utilities costs are rising, but I would think there would be more incentive to conserve and save $$ if the actual costs were billed in this case.
Comments
:roll:
H. L. Mencken
So the deal is live in Renton for a variable amount of time in a 1500 sq. ft. flip a block from I-405, and babysit a house, cleaning it everyday/hour to make it ready to show.
I wouldn't do it for free. If they paid me $900/mo, I might begin to consider it.
Finance, if you would pay $1800/month to live a few blocks from I-405 in the gang-infested Renton Highlands, I have a few more proposals I would like to run by you. One involving beachfront property, and another involving a bridge.
counterpoint
I guess that explains this one!
HA! I laugh in the general direction of your book. Why? Because my book reference is ranked more highly by the brilliant book reading people of Amazon.com.
However, I can do better than name calling.
We like to think of a human as being smart, and as some humans as being smarter than others, but it's really difficult to explain why, or even how smartness is to be quantified. But there is one thing that is provable and absolute...all intelligence arises via the coordinated effort of many less intelligent parts. This is what makes hive insects appear to be coordinated by a central command. It is why your brain is smart even though each neuron is not. It even explains why the stock market is better at evaluating the proper value of companies than any investment guru in the world (although Warren Buffet has beat the annual return, the problem he is solving is one of making profit, whereas the stock market is setup to solve the problem of what a company is worth).
There are effects which can make the masses dumb, but these cascades of insanity (BUBBLES for one) come about because occasionally dissenting opinions are squashed before they can be processed.
On the other hand, the book about bubbles being good is obviously foolish. A bubble is by definition a misallocation of resources. Just because the telecom infrastructure that was mistakenly put up was used by someone else later, does not mean the bubble was good. What it means is that people as a group can be smart enough to profit from their previous mistakes. This is obvious from the author's own examples. What we can't do is go back in time and see if a different allocation of resources would have been more beneficial. Maybe fewer telecom lines would have meant more telecom would be newer and thus faster at the same cost of the older lines. Worst yet, misallocation may force us down a less beneficial path. If we misallocate hundreds of sq miles of King County to McMansions and Condos, we may not see a better solution when it comes around.
Aight Dejaoh, counterpoint?
Buy over-priced ticky-tacky houses in Redmond or die.
Did I call someone a name? I musta missed it.
Since when is $900 half of $1520? And why would a single person want to rent a 4 bedroom house even if it is the same cost as an apartment? A couple or family is more likely, but families are less likely to want to rent for an unknown amount of time. I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation that would make this a good deal.
No you didn't. I was jesting that my first line (my book is better than yours) was akin to name calling.
not a problem. I fully admit that I haven't even so much as picked up either book to look at the cover. I was just joking around.
but I still wouldn't rent that house. not even with your money.
I would rent it with David Lereah's money though.
cheers!
Even most HOTELS don't charge a different room rate for two people vs. one. That is a very distrubing and newly noticed "trend" to charge based upon the number of occupants. It's BS gouging. Set a damn price and stick to it without games....
I think it's equally in line with PT Barnum's "sucker born every minute" approach.
I'm not saying I disagree with you on this one, but if the landlord is paying for utilities, there is some justification for setting price based upon the number of occupants. In this case, however, I can't see a $300/mo. difference between two people and one.
It seems doubtful, unless this is a really energy-INefficient house. Why make such a huge cost assumption up front? I know utilities costs are rising, but I would think there would be more incentive to conserve and save $$ if the actual costs were billed in this case.