Edd
Well-known member
Amen brother.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Anyone want to move to VT?
- Thread starter Smellytele
- Start date
Amen brother.
AdironRider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,571
- Points
- 83
And yet, try and rebuild a similar place to any real estate listing, and I guarantee you it would be more expensive to build new.
There are a few areas where it wouldn't, like Jackson, Aspen and the like, but in most markets, I find it hard to say real estate is overvalued for this reason alone.
You can buy a farmhouse on 10 acres in most areas of VT for sub 200k. Try and build that. The barn alone with run you probably more than that unless you are Amish.
People just like to complain that housing is to expensive because you have to pay for it no matter what, whether it is renting or owning. You have to have it. VT is expensive for pretty much every reason a place is desirable other than jobs. Kinda like every other resort town in existence.
Of course, take that all with a grain of salt as I've oriented my life around putting up with shitty pay to live in paradise, so it doesn't really grind my gears.
Last edited:
raisingarizona
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,109
- Points
- 113
That humid, bitterly cold winter air isn't so nice on retirement aged bones and joints.
Last edited:
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
That shouldn't surprise you, with few exceptions it's far more expensive to contract and build a new home than it is to buy an existing home. This is well-known; in economics "new home sales" and "existing home sales" are separate data rather than simply calling it home sales, partially for this reason (and others).
AdironRider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,571
- Points
- 83
I never said I was surprised. I'm just saying its hard to say something is overvalued when to recreate it would be substantially more expensive.
x10003q
Active member
Not for skiers and riders :-D
machski
Well-known member
Well, California may be get a chance to find out. Or make that California and Southern California. Northern California should be fine based on BG's assertion.
USA TODAY: Voters to decide if California should be 3 states
https://usat.ly/2t40hqo
Sent from my XT1650 using AlpineZone mobile app
It's not just Silicon Valley anymore. San Diego is loaded with tech companies.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
When I first visited in 2014 I heard from a lot of folks there that indeed the tech business makes or breaks the California state budget. In good years the state rakes in the cash and has surpluses. In the bad years the state is beyond broke.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Never gonna' happen, even if voters vote "YES" on that proposal, State of California is run top to bottom by Democrats who would not allow that to pass due to presidential elections. Right now Democrats get 55 e.c. votes for California to 0 for Republicans because they swamp the Republican north, but if you carved out the 3 states their advantage would probably be something like 39 to 16. That's a netted loss of 32 e.c. votes for Democrats, so they'll never let that become law.
Hawk
Well-known member
Just looking at the presidential elections over the past century, it appears that the Republicans have done pretty well in the elections in spite of California's Democratic leanings. I have no issues with the democrats in California.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
You cant look at state politics over a century, way too long a timeframe.
The last time a Republican POTUS candidate won in California was 30 years ago (Bush), and the math was much more favorable to Republicans then. It would be almost impossible for a Republican presidential candidate to win California today, it would basically take a negative black swan event against the Democratic candidate.
Hawk
Well-known member
My point was that the country has elected republican Presidents even with California voting Democrat. So I do not see the point of splitting up the state just so the republicans can get more electoral votes.
benski
Active member
It could swing a close election though like 2000.
Jully
Active member
It is unfortunate that a state's future is at all tied to its implications for elections. If CA thinks that it is best for the state to split it, then it should split. Election trends are likely to look way different 30 years from now, so in the long run it really doesn't matter.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
But all politicians care about is the "here and now" and the "what directly affects me" though.
Jully
Active member
Exactly
speden
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 913
- Points
- 28
States like California and Texas probably should be split up since they are crazy big in terms of population and economic output. And maybe small states like Vermont and New Hampshire should be merged.
I agree that politicians have a very short term outlook of winning the next election, and don't think about the long term, so fat chance any state lines are going to be redrawn.
You can see the short term outlook with the rampant gerrymandering (sadly invented in Boston) that they use to guarantee certain seats in congress will be one party or the other. But when you're just competing with your own party during an election for a seat, then naturally the more extreme person for that party will tend to win. So the short term gain of gerrymandering has the long term effect of promoting really extreme views in each party and the polarization of everything.
I couldn't help but laugh at the media reaction after Trump's Singapore summit. Fox news was touting it as a massive success and the end of the nuclear threat from North Korea, while MSNBC was saying OMG he promised to stop the super important war games with South Korea and got nothing in return. The truth is somewhere in the middle that it was just a positive first step, and things could go either way from here.
I agree that politicians have a very short term outlook of winning the next election, and don't think about the long term, so fat chance any state lines are going to be redrawn.
You can see the short term outlook with the rampant gerrymandering (sadly invented in Boston) that they use to guarantee certain seats in congress will be one party or the other. But when you're just competing with your own party during an election for a seat, then naturally the more extreme person for that party will tend to win. So the short term gain of gerrymandering has the long term effect of promoting really extreme views in each party and the polarization of everything.
I couldn't help but laugh at the media reaction after Trump's Singapore summit. Fox news was touting it as a massive success and the end of the nuclear threat from North Korea, while MSNBC was saying OMG he promised to stop the super important war games with South Korea and got nothing in return. The truth is somewhere in the middle that it was just a positive first step, and things could go either way from here.
Hawk
Well-known member
I almost didn't even vote this last election because I didn't like any of the options. It amazes me that the parties can not come up with new blood that has new and interesting ideas.
The candidates that advance and do well are propped up by lobbying interests. Until campaign finance laws change, I see it always being much of the same from both sides. Though Trump is probably the best modern example of an outsider breaking that mold.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
Similar threads
