Post: #26

(01-12-2016 12:19 AM)tanner Wrote:  Many are now paying over 50% of their incomes on rent alone. The healthy rate should be about 25 -30%. With most of one's income going on rent, many have little money to spend or save. This slows down the economy - no has money to buy things. This also causes loss of jobs. People become frustrated, angry and depressed.

The real estate market has been heavily speculated with. It seems it is ready for another crash.

How is this being managed with some. With little money one cannot travel -- one is just stuck.

I used to live in California until about 2012 - in my two decades there I saw rents increase by about 500%. Meaning whereas you could rent a very decent 500 sqft apartment in a safe/hip neighborhood for about $700 in the early nineties you are now probably paying over $3k for the same.

When I moved to Spain I was shocked how low rents were over here. Currently I'm paying under $2k per month for a furnished 1300 sqft luxury apartment in the city center. I've got 14 feet ceilings and five balconies with an amazing view - the furniture mostly consists of real antiques - some of them several hundred years old. In NYC, S.F., or L.A. I would probably pay over $15k per month for anything equivalent. So it's a complete non-brainer for me.

Post: #27

(01-12-2016 11:25 AM)Uncircumcised Coke Can Wrote:  -A better website
-SEO
-PPC advertising
-Graphic design
-etc...

Even if you aren't a writer, write us a datasheet anyway. Especially if you're saying that anyone who couldn't figure out how to make $1000 online are "morons" (which is more people than you think, and you seem to be above this simple task).

Now there's a chance for you to contribute to this forum.

Post: #28

"There's little merit to making 6 figures - or having a high-profile career - if your income is being eaten a way on rent and high COL."

Exactly. An old friend of mine just moved to San Francisco. He's 55 years old and has been writing software since he was in his early twenties - over a quarter century of experience. He snagged a job at Google but they didn't even give him a senior software engineer title - he's only a software engineer. Makes about $200k if you include his stock options but he also pays almost $4000 for a 400sqft shoebox in Mountain View. I know that city and it's a cultural wasteland - NO WOMEN! (well, he's an old nerd so he doesn't really care).

Thing is this - I really feel sorry for this guy. He's extremely talented but chances are he's going to finish his life in this POS joke of a city and pays through the nose for the privilege. If you add healthcare, transportation, food, etc. just the basic stuff - how much is there really left for him at the end of the day? Google probably has a great healthcare plan, granted - but you get my point.

I do miss the U.S. to some extent but the cost of living over there has simply become ridiculous. You wind up working your ass off just to afford a basic quality of life. Having to pay 50% of your income on a fucking place to live is simply not a fair contract with society that supports long term growth and wealth creation. How are you supposed to save up anything? Hint: you are not supposed to - you're supposed to be a debt slave.

The whole house of cards is going to come crashing down, and probably sooner than later.

Post: #29

(01-12-2016 08:43 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  I could swear the majority here has been pro rent don't buy since I came here. My mortgage is half of what my rent here would be now.

I think the G started this hype along with not having a car.

Yes. Well said, Mechulus...

The whole "sell all your possessions and live out of your duffel bag" crowd now finds that it's not as good of a deal as they imagined it was.

People are waking up to the fact that owning a reasonable, modest house may in some cases be a good thing.

The other crowd that's going to need a reality check sooner or later is the "don't go to college, just sell supplements and weightlifting books online" crowd.

There's some merit to this, of course, but people take this shit way too far.

Education matters. If you think it's too expensive, try ignorance.

We don't want to have a generation of men who are ignorant, uneducated, and who have abandoned the playing field to the women.

Fat, dumb, and stupid is no way to go through life.

Post: #30

(01-12-2016 11:59 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Education matters. If you think it's too expensive, try ignorance.

We don't want to have a generation of men who are ignorant, uneducated, and who have abandoned the playing field to the women.

Fat, dumb, and stupid is no way to go through life.

I never regret my education. The classes I took for my profession are worthless. The ones I took for education have been far more valuable.

College is wasted on young people

WIA

Post: #31

(01-12-2016 11:59 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:43 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  I could swear the majority here has been pro rent don't buy since I came here. My mortgage is half of what my rent here would be now.

I think the G started this hype along with not having a car.

Yes. Well said, Mechulus...

The whole "sell all your possessions and live out of your duffel bag" crowd now finds that it's not as good of a deal as they imagined it was.

People are waking up to the fact that owning a reasonable, modest house may in some cases be a good thing.

The other crowd that's going to need a reality check sooner or later is the "don't go to college, just sell supplements and weightlifting books online" crowd.

There's some merit to this, of course, but people take this shit way too far.

Education matters. If you think it's too expensive, try ignorance.

We don't want to have a generation of men who are ignorant, uneducated, and who have abandoned the playing field to the women.

Fat, dumb, and stupid is no way to go through life.

Most guys living the digital nomad lifestyle do so out of need not choice. Maybe not direct need, but because society marginalizes young entrepreneural men, first through the increasingly passive learning university system, second through crowding out meaningful private employment through outsourcing and government meddling.

In reality, what is being a digital nomad, if not a gold digger in Yucon or an oil-man in Alberta.

Most digital nomads hopefully realize that they are indeed in the same situation and would be better off leveraging their skills and experiences into more traditional fields eventually.

All in all, going digital nomad, is still not in any way different than what men have done at all times, leave home to try their luck abroad.

The biggest realization we have to come to is that the post-war boom economy was a historical anomaly in a history where the 1% rule the 99%.

Post: #32

Housing prices (and by proxy, rental prices, as they're affected by the same consumers) have been beyond affordable for a while now. 2000-2005 was the last gasp of the housing market, giving adjustable rate mortgages to buyers with subprime credit to keep the mortgage backed security machine going. Many of the mortgages would never have been originated in the first place in a free market, but were government backed due to the community reinvestment act.

2005 saw housing prices tanking, which would have meant massive losses for the banks. It was not allowed to happen, and the bailouts, quantitative easing, and zero interest rate policy have prevented affordable housing. I talked about this in another thread:

Quote:- Rise in cost of rent: Government interference in the financial markets (TARP, central bank MBS buying programs) has prevented price discovery in the housing market. Financial giants have been prevented from taking big losses on their mortgage properties. Artificially low interest rates have inflated the asset values, reducing the benefit of down payments and interest tax write offs.

Instead of housing prices returning to a price where most people can afford them, mortgage companies have taken properties off the market, into a shadow inventory that artificially lowers the housing supply. As they can't afford inflated housing prices, more people are forced to rent, and real estate companies have been buying up large rental inventory in order to help drive prices upward.

This is also evident in the 40+ year record low homeownership rate:


And also reflected in the huge increase in rental costs over the past few years:


We're in for a major crash in asset values, and by proxy, rental costs. Wage inflation has stagnated and many people are without jobs entirely. Look at the massive increase in those not in the labor force for prime working age (25-54) people. And recent college grads won't have the capital to invest in housing.

Quote:Children of middle class families cannot, and have no hope of being able to save income for the foreseeable future. Even if they inherit their parent's estate, a big chunk will go to estate taxes, and another large chunk to the remaining student loan and credit card principal. With inflated real estate prices, what's left over may not even be enough to cover the down payment of a house in a safe neighborhood with decent schools. All of the inheritance built up over generations in many middle class families will be destroyed.

There just isn't enough demand for housing at these prices, which is why it must fall. Though for that to happen, it would have huge implications on the banking sector given how interconnected and over-leveraged it is. Which is why it may not happen for quite some time.

Post: #33

(01-12-2016 07:51 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  One of the reasons I wanted to move to Texas so badly (at least until oil crashed) was that it consistently had the best ratio of housing prices to median hourly income.

Texas is a big state, and rents are all over the place.

Austin is the most expensive place in the state now, but I hear the DFW area isn't much better. The Houston area is still somewhat cheaper. San Antonio definitely is cheaper, and I'm seriously considering going there.

Post: #34

^ Yes, exactly. The 2008 bailouts were to prop up housing prices, and they haven't crashed since. I'd say the average house in America is overvalued by at least 50%, with major price differences according to location.

Honestly there is no way housing prices can be sustained at their current prices, new housing starts continue to drop each year. Either the banks will go under again and require a new bailout, or the banks accept their losses and drop housing prices. I doubt the public can stomach another bailout, so the crash must come within the next 4-5 years, probably within 2 years (given how shitty the world economy is - it will catch up to America soon).

It also depends on who is elected; if Trump is elected I doubt there will be bailouts, but if anyone else is elected they will repay their donor classes with generous bailouts.

Post: #35

(01-12-2016 01:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Yes, exactly. The 2008 bailouts were to prop up housing prices, and they haven't crashed since. I'd say the average house in America is overvalued by at least 50%, with major price differences according to location.

Honestly there is no way housing prices can be sustained at their current prices, new housing starts continue to drop each year. Either the banks will go under again and require a new bailout, or the banks accept their losses and drop housing prices. I doubt the public can stomach another bailout, so the crash must come within the next 4-5 years, probably within 2 years (given how shitty the world economy is - it will catch up to America soon).

It also depends on who is elected; if Trump is elected I doubt there will be bailouts, but if anyone else is elected they will repay their donor classes with generous bailouts.

The boomers are the main property owners everywhere (Europe/US). They mortgaged their homes when property prices rose before the chrash.

If the market was allowed to regulate A LOT of these people would become technically insolvent.

Once the boomers die off the housing market will plummet.

Post: #36

(01-12-2016 01:54 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Yes, exactly. The 2008 bailouts were to prop up housing prices, and they haven't crashed since. I'd say the average house in America is overvalued by at least 50%, with major price differences according to location.

Honestly there is no way housing prices can be sustained at their current prices, new housing starts continue to drop each year. Either the banks will go under again and require a new bailout, or the banks accept their losses and drop housing prices. I doubt the public can stomach another bailout, so the crash must come within the next 4-5 years, probably within 2 years (given how shitty the world economy is - it will catch up to America soon).

It also depends on who is elected; if Trump is elected I doubt there will be bailouts, but if anyone else is elected they will repay their donor classes with generous bailouts.

The boomers are the main property owners everywhere (Europe/US). They mortgaged their homes when property prices rose before the chrash.

If the market was allowed to regulate A LOT of these people would become technically insolvent.

Once the boomers die off the housing market will plummet.

No it was George W Bush's fault. He wanted everyone to own a home and made the banks loosen up everyone pulled equity out at low interest to buy cars and boats then the crash came when it was time to pay.

Post: #37

(01-12-2016 01:58 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:54 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Yes, exactly. The 2008 bailouts were to prop up housing prices, and they haven't crashed since. I'd say the average house in America is overvalued by at least 50%, with major price differences according to location.

Honestly there is no way housing prices can be sustained at their current prices, new housing starts continue to drop each year. Either the banks will go under again and require a new bailout, or the banks accept their losses and drop housing prices. I doubt the public can stomach another bailout, so the crash must come within the next 4-5 years, probably within 2 years (given how shitty the world economy is - it will catch up to America soon).

It also depends on who is elected; if Trump is elected I doubt there will be bailouts, but if anyone else is elected they will repay their donor classes with generous bailouts.

The boomers are the main property owners everywhere (Europe/US). They mortgaged their homes when property prices rose before the chrash.

If the market was allowed to regulate A LOT of these people would become technically insolvent.

Once the boomers die off the housing market will plummet.

No it was George W Bush's fault. He wanted everyone to own a home and made the banks loosen up everyone pulled equity out at low interest to buy cars and boats then the crash came when it was time to pay.

cough.. Clinton... cough...

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/h...drive.html

Post: #38

(01-12-2016 02:01 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:58 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:54 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Yes, exactly. The 2008 bailouts were to prop up housing prices, and they haven't crashed since. I'd say the average house in America is overvalued by at least 50%, with major price differences according to location.

Honestly there is no way housing prices can be sustained at their current prices, new housing starts continue to drop each year. Either the banks will go under again and require a new bailout, or the banks accept their losses and drop housing prices. I doubt the public can stomach another bailout, so the crash must come within the next 4-5 years, probably within 2 years (given how shitty the world economy is - it will catch up to America soon).

It also depends on who is elected; if Trump is elected I doubt there will be bailouts, but if anyone else is elected they will repay their donor classes with generous bailouts.

The boomers are the main property owners everywhere (Europe/US). They mortgaged their homes when property prices rose before the chrash.

If the market was allowed to regulate A LOT of these people would become technically insolvent.

Once the boomers die off the housing market will plummet.

No it was George W Bush's fault. He wanted everyone to own a home and made the banks loosen up everyone pulled equity out at low interest to buy cars and boats then the crash came when it was time to pay.

cough.. Clinton... cough...

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/h...drive.html

Nope Bush.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06...d-economy/

Clinton was done in 2001 and you blame him for something that happened 7 years later?

Post: #39

(01-12-2016 12:59 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:51 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  One of the reasons I wanted to move to Texas so badly (at least until oil crashed) was that it consistently had the best ratio of housing prices to median hourly income.

Texas is a big state, and rents are all over the place.

Austin is the most expensive place in the state now, but I hear the DFW area isn't much better. The Houston area is still somewhat cheaper. San Antonio definitely is cheaper, and I'm seriously considering going there.

Houston is getting more expensive, unfortunately. It was obscenely cheap 5-7 years ago, and the only reason the media hadn't called the 2011-2014 housing market a bubble was because oil & gas was booming over the same period. You can still buy or rent cheap housing, but you'd be living 30 miles away from downtown in these cookie cutter suburbs, and it's slim pickings even in those areas.

Post: #40

Bush, Clinton, or really the whole political class in general? Lax lending standards started with the community reinvestment act which was created in 1977 under Carter. It was modified over the years under different presidents and congresses into the mess we have today.

Yes, it was accelerated under Clinton, but keep in mind that the republicans controlled congress at those times, so it was a bipartisan endeavor. Like most issues, the political class want us pointing the fingers at each other while they screw us over.

Post: #41

(01-12-2016 02:11 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  Nope Bush.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06...d-economy/

Clinton was done in 2001 and you blame him for something that happened 7 years later?

Bush has some of the blame as does Congress. Yes, Clinton is partly to blame. He pushed home ownership to those that couldn't afford houses. Read the article I posted.

Quote: A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place

I don't know how anyone could deny this was part of the problem.

These types of programs don't blow up overnight and, yes, sometimes it takes many years before the ramifications are felt.

Post: #42

(01-12-2016 02:11 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:01 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:58 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:54 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Yes, exactly. The 2008 bailouts were to prop up housing prices, and they haven't crashed since. I'd say the average house in America is overvalued by at least 50%, with major price differences according to location.

Honestly there is no way housing prices can be sustained at their current prices, new housing starts continue to drop each year. Either the banks will go under again and require a new bailout, or the banks accept their losses and drop housing prices. I doubt the public can stomach another bailout, so the crash must come within the next 4-5 years, probably within 2 years (given how shitty the world economy is - it will catch up to America soon).

It also depends on who is elected; if Trump is elected I doubt there will be bailouts, but if anyone else is elected they will repay their donor classes with generous bailouts.

The boomers are the main property owners everywhere (Europe/US). They mortgaged their homes when property prices rose before the chrash.

If the market was allowed to regulate A LOT of these people would become technically insolvent.

Once the boomers die off the housing market will plummet.

No it was George W Bush's fault. He wanted everyone to own a home and made the banks loosen up everyone pulled equity out at low interest to buy cars and boats then the crash came when it was time to pay.

cough.. Clinton... cough...

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/h...drive.html

Nope Bush.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06...d-economy/

Clinton was done in 2001 and you blame him for something that happened 7 years later?

Some issues take a while to play out, especially in the realm of economics. Obama is still blaming the anemic recovery on Bush's policies, 8 years after Bush left office. Totally normal for politicians to kick the can down the road and let the next guy deal with the mess.

As an example, it's been clear to anyone that student loans have been in a bubble for years. If SHTF and the non performing loan rate started skyrocketing tomorrow, the first place to look would be those who instigated the bubble, not necessarily the current seat warmers.

Post: #43

(01-12-2016 12:19 AM)tanner Wrote:  Many are now paying over 50% of their incomes on rent alone. The healthy rate should be about 25 -30%. With most of one's income going on rent, many have little money to spend or save. This slows down the economy - no has money to buy things. This also causes loss of jobs. People become frustrated, angry and depressed.

The real estate market has been heavily speculated with. It seems it is ready for another crash.

How is this being managed with some. With little money one cannot travel -- one is just stuck.

Get the hell out of the city then.

I would love to see major cities greenlight a shitload of new, high density, mixed use development, but unfortunately that's not happening. California is in development gridlock, so as much as I love the place I've had to write it off as a viable option, unless you're willing to live out in some rural area and work from home and if I could live from home then I'd be overseas.

So people get fed up with skyrocketing rents/real estate and they move to Nevada or Texas, move out to the 'burbs where your dollar goes 100x further. As I wrote in the Trump thread, shit is dirt cheap in Vegas. Tesla is about to open here and bring in 6500 employees as well as Resort World which will also employ a few thousand. Right now you can buy a sick condo in a highrise right on the strip for $200-$250k, something that would go for well over a million in LA or NYC. Any real estate sharks should look into buying up here imo. Tons of people are moving here every year, everyone I meet has the same damn story as mine; LA was too expensive, wanted to upgrade quality of life etc. All the locals around here I drove when I was doing Uber was either from LA, SF, or NYC.

Post: #44

Veloce,

How is Vegas for living?

I've always pictured it as a place you party your ass off for a few days, but living there would take it's toll.

Be curious to get your breakdown...

Post: #45

(01-12-2016 02:11 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:01 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:58 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:54 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Yes, exactly. The 2008 bailouts were to prop up housing prices, and they haven't crashed since. I'd say the average house in America is overvalued by at least 50%, with major price differences according to location.

Honestly there is no way housing prices can be sustained at their current prices, new housing starts continue to drop each year. Either the banks will go under again and require a new bailout, or the banks accept their losses and drop housing prices. I doubt the public can stomach another bailout, so the crash must come within the next 4-5 years, probably within 2 years (given how shitty the world economy is - it will catch up to America soon).

It also depends on who is elected; if Trump is elected I doubt there will be bailouts, but if anyone else is elected they will repay their donor classes with generous bailouts.

The boomers are the main property owners everywhere (Europe/US). They mortgaged their homes when property prices rose before the chrash.

If the market was allowed to regulate A LOT of these people would become technically insolvent.

Once the boomers die off the housing market will plummet.

No it was George W Bush's fault. He wanted everyone to own a home and made the banks loosen up everyone pulled equity out at low interest to buy cars and boats then the crash came when it was time to pay.

cough.. Clinton... cough...

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/h...drive.html

Nope Bush.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06...d-economy/

Clinton was done in 2001 and you blame him for something that happened 7 years later?

Barney Frank started it, Clinton (and Janet Reno) escalated it, Bush didn't do much to try to fix it, congress tried a few hearings but Barney Frank shut them down again, then everything fell apart.

Repealing Glass-Steagall (under Clinton) had an effect - banks were now able to repackage and sell their bad debt as an investment product, but the effect on the actual loan defaults was minimal.

In the end, the crash was the result of loaning money to people who couldn't pay it back. Who can't pay it back? Poor people - a LOT of them being minorities.

Enter affirmative action. Barney Frank forced Fannie/Freddie to start loaning to people who couldn't repay. Then Clinton made any private bank that wouldn't cooperate subject to Janet Reno's discrimination lawsuits. The banks had to play along or face massive fines or criminal prosecution.

Bush's blame is that he ignored a problem that was created by liberals.

And, yes, I'm pretty sure "thinkprogress.org" isn't going to tell you the truth about this.

Post: #46

I'm still getting the feel for it. My new notches have pretty much dropped off but that's what I get for living in the 'burbs. However my lease is up and I'm exploring buying options.

You can party as much as you want here but partying on the strip is expensive. Most locals avoid the strip and stick to downtown or just off the strip.

It's not a great city compared to NYC or LA, but I get a very strong feeling that this place is up-and-coming. When you read about tycoons that got their foot in the door, bought the right property or started the right business, it was almost always a risk in some one-horse town. Vegas still has that feeling about it. Obviously the strip is hyper developed but there's so much surrounding it that's being built up too. It's still relatively small for a major city, just north of 600k and I feel like there's a long way to go.

Post: #47

Whatever government allowed for greedy bankers ran with it like a dog and ribeye. The bulls have always had louder voices than the bears. Risk management is never cool.

The mortgage brokers were happy as hell to get no income no asset loans and then sell them to Wall street, who sold the packages and derivatives of to a bunch buy side idiots because it was backed by shaky math. Furthermore the general tendency for smart money to
1) leverage and insure their "investments"
2) diversify

Meant when the SHTF they were going to have to sell good stuff to pay off bad bets. Fear spreads quickly.

Pull back on spending for those who had funds, and people who were financially thin were ass out.

And when consumers stop consuming, jobs are lost. Spiral continues.

If the President had that kind of power over jobs and the economy, there would never be recessions.

Capital does what it wants, sometimes legal, sometimes ethical, but always beyond control.

WIA

Post: #48

(01-12-2016 02:35 PM)Veloce Wrote:  I would love to see major cities greenlight a shitload of new, high density, mixed use development, but unfortunately that's not happening. California is in development gridlock, so as much as I love the place I've had to write it off as a viable option, unless you're willing to live out in some rural area and work from home and if I could live from home then I'd be overseas.

I'd be interested to see how that would play out. High density housing would mean more people could live closer to work, so people would spend less time on the road. It would also create more available housing units, which should make things cheaper. Something DC really needs, but won't do because of its building height restrictions.

But it might not work. Lower cost housing would attract more people into the downtown area, and eventually the surrounding suburbs. There'd be a higher total number of people on the road, and higher volume might cancel out the benefits of a shorter distance commute. NYC is an example of an area with availability of dense housing, but high rental prices and horrendous traffic.

(01-12-2016 02:35 PM)Veloce Wrote:  As I wrote in the Trump thread, shit is dirt cheap in Vegas. Tons of people are moving here every year, everyone I meet has the same damn story as mine; LA was too expensive, wanted to upgrade quality of life etc. All the locals around here I drove when I was doing Uber was either from LA, SF, or NYC.

I've read that Vegas is running out of their fresh water source rapidly (source). Hope I'm wrong.

Post: #49

(01-12-2016 03:03 PM)Veloce Wrote:  I'm still getting the feel for it. My new notches have pretty much dropped off but that's what I get for living in the 'burbs. However my lease is up and I'm exploring buying options.

You can party as much as you want here but partying on the strip is expensive. Most locals avoid the strip and stick to downtown or just off the strip.

It's not a great city compared to NYC or LA, but I get a very strong feeling that this place is up-and-coming. When you read about tycoons that got their foot in the door, bought the right property or started the right business, it was almost always a risk in some one-horse town. Vegas still has that feeling about it. Obviously the strip is hyper developed but there's so much surrounding it that's being built up too. It's still relatively small for a major city, just north of 600k and I feel like there's a long way to go.

I LOVED Vegas. By far the easiest town to get laid for me.

Girls coming in every weekend are coming there to party! They weren't just going to the bar with some friends on a Friday, they had that "spring break" mentality where they wanted a crazy time.

And if you made a fool of yourself (which happened frequently) who cares? There's new crop of girls next weekend. No better situation to work on game.

Post: #50

(01-12-2016 03:03 PM)Veloce Wrote:  I'm still getting the feel for it. My new notches have pretty much dropped off but that's what I get for living in the 'burbs. However my lease is up and I'm exploring buying options.

You can party as much as you want here but partying on the strip is expensive. Most locals avoid the strip and stick to downtown or just off the strip.

It's not a great city compared to NYC or LA, but I get a very strong feeling that this place is up-and-coming. When you read about tycoons that got their foot in the door, bought the right property or started the right business, it was almost always a risk in some one-horse town. Vegas still has that feeling about it. Obviously the strip is hyper developed but there's so much surrounding it that's being built up too. It's still relatively small for a major city, just north of 600k and I feel like there's a long way to go.

Interesting.

I feel like that "up-and-coming" vibe is notably absent in most of the States. (Perhaps that's why I find Asia so intoxicating).

But if Vegas has that, it's worth checking out.

How's the business climate there for a self-employed guy? And of course - I'd be remiss if I didn't ask about the women. Easy on the eyes?