have friends who are mad that paying $1300/mth rent on an apartment for literal YEARS does not qualify them for a (for instance) $750/mth mortgage, even though it should bc.. $1300 is more than $750???
Needfuldoer
But renting doesn’t contribute to their cReDiT sCoRe!
The Oracle
You wouldn’t happen to be criticising the hyperpredatory credit system that helps keep the little guy down in the dirt, would you?
Up side, mortgage on a 3 bedroom house ~$1000/month
Down side, the worst air pollution in America and water is scarce and likely to get worse. (also home turf of Kevin McCarthy)
Nope. As soon as the bubble bursts, Blackrock and co will continue buying up even more properties, to make the rent situation worse, not better. The amount of “It’s not blackrock’s fault” financial propaganda should be eye raising. Of course it’s not **only** their fault, but they are
definitely contributing, as are other firms doing the same thing.
Librain
Isn’t that basically exactly what happened during the depression? People who couldn’t afford their mortgage had to sell their house at fire sale prices, and those who could afford to buy a second property could suddenly afford 3?
Becky also doesn’t want to be living in a land of terrorist fundamentalist supporters who are probably blaming her for “killing” her father. Mind you, I might have looked into renting the place but it seems that ToeDad was in heavy debt like most of America.
I feel like we need to keep pretending Blue States are magical lands of freedom and progressiveness run by Anarchist Hippie Christ, Optimus Prime, and Captain Picard.
Reltzik
Pretend all you want, but I’m staying sour. They’re run by Democrats, who are in turn run by corporations and the rich. But so long as the only two viable choices are center-right and extreme-right, I’ll take them over the alternative, I guess.
ktbear
Why? Socialists are great. Why do you think the happiest countries in the world are all in Scandinavian.
The Oracle
Yeah, it’d rock if that were an option in America. But it’s not. It just plain isn’t an option because the system is rigged to keep it from being one.
Even just UBI would be a huge step in the right direction. Too bad we can’t discuss that rationally with everyone in America either, go frickin figure. ?
Wizard
None of the countries in Scandinavia are socialist. They’re very much free-market capitalist with generous welfare states, which is not remotely the same thing. When they briefly flirted with actual socialism, they quickly realized that a robust free market is the only form of economic organization productive enough to support those welfare states.
I cannot for the life of me understand why many American leftists have taken to calling themselves socialists in recent years. When I hear their proposed policies, it’s clear that what they’re actually calling for is Euro style social democracy, not socialism. Given the toxic legacy of actual socialism, why on earth would anyway label themselves that way?
AFriskyJacket
Because socialist has more zip to it than “free-market capitalist with generous welfare states”. Also, communism is different from socialism. Also, also, most young people weren’t around for for those times when large Communist powers were still in existence, and as such don’t have those cultural preconceptions.
Wizard
So what’s wrong with “social democrat”, an existing term that actually describes what they’re aiming for?
As for communism, that’s another case of mislabeling, although in that case the dishonesty was intentional. The very term “communist government” is an oxymoron, since an ideal communist society would phase out the coercive state altogether.
Nicoleandmaggie
Economist here: Medicare is socialist. Having a functioning social welfare system is kind of the definition of socialism. Capitalism works best with government intervention to fix market failures. Meaning: capitalism works best with some socialism. They’re not opposites. You can have both.
Heck, even Milton Freedman, the emperor of libertarian economists, actually said himself that UBI would work superbly well in capitalism.
Nicoleandmaggie
Ron Paul said we need to feed kids. And he’s right—taking care of children is way cheaper for government than cleaning up after adults.
Rand Paul otoh is a social conservative and not an actual libertarian.
Wizard
Um, no. The definition of socialism is common ownership of the means of production. In practice, this usually works out to government control of most or all economic activity. This can actually work, but only in small groups, no more than about 150 adults. Any attempt to scale it up to something the size of even a small modern nation state inevitably results in disaster.
Government intervention doesn’t fix market failures, it causes them. (Just look at the recent baby formula crisis.) When people claim that the market has “failed”, it usually turns out that the only thing the market has failed to do is produce the outcomes they wanted.
As for Rand Paul, he seems to have steadily drifted away from any libertarian impulses he had. The best thing I can say about him at this point is that he’s definitely the better Senator from Kentucky. Granted, that’s a very low bar to clear.
Reltzik
Yeah, but it’s not a VIABLE option here in the states. 2-party system, first-past-the-post, winner-take-all. If a bunch of us lefty types switch our votes from the Democrats to a socialist party, then the Democrats get fewer votes than the Republicans and the Republicans get control. Voting for socialists thus gets transmuted into voting for the fascists. Irony.
And the Democrats understand this perfectly, which is why they oppose reforms and KEEP it a 2-party system. That way the rest of us lefty types have to keep voting for them instead of the candidates we actually like, or else we’ll end up getting stuck with worse.
thejeff
Such reforms aren’t really viable, without gutting the system entirely. “first-past-the-post, winner-take-all” is built into the Constitution. Democrats couldn’t change that if they wanted to and don’t have to put effort into preventing such reforms. Even things like IRV wouldn’t really change the calculation.
Beyond that though, the bigger problem for lefty types is that you (or we, to an extent) are a minority. A lot of people sort of generally support social welfare policies (though not really actual “workers control the means of production” socialism), but they rarely vote those ideas, being easily distracted by the culture war or other distractions or just distrust of those proposing them. There’s an idea on the left that they really have massive support and if Democrats would just stop blocking them, they’d see it. There’s no real evidence for this.
You want to improve things? Do what Tea Party Republicans did. Take over the Democratic Party through primaries. It’ll be harder, since the Tea Party had big money behind it, but should be easier if the ideas are as popular as you think. Democrats are also far less anti-democratic than the GOP is, so they should be less willing to go to extremes to stop you than the establishment GOP was.
Wizard
The Tea Party hardly “took over” the GOP. After kicking up a little bit of a stir, they were quickly assimilated. What’s left of the TP has largely abandoned the principles they originally proclaimed, degenerating into Trump cultists more interested in culture war bullshit and powning teh libz than actually doing anything to reduce the size and power of government.
I believe third parties can actually play a useful role, and I support reforms such as ranked choice voting and expanded ballot access. Even with those in place, it’s unlikely that third parties would get a significant number of candidates elected. But, if they attracted a significant amount of support, even if far short of an actual majority, then one or both major parties just might feel pressured to try and co-opt that support. Granted, this would likely produce more of a nudge than a shove, but I think even baby steps in the right direction are better than nothing.
Another way I think third parties could be more effective is to stop wasting time and resources on national races that are effectively hopeless. Instead, they should focus on state and local elections. Go after seats on city councils and education boards. The cost is much lower, and just showing up can turn an effective one-party race into something more competitive. And once again, just getting noticeable support can nudge things in a positive direction, even if you don’t actually win. Plus, if third-party candidates do actually get elected and the sky doesn’t fall, this could potentially give them more credibility that might eventually make them viable candidates for higher profile offices. This kind of bottom up strategy would be a long, hard slog, but I think it could actually work.
C.T. Phipps
The Democrats are the conservative party.
The Enemy is the fascist party.
Jamie
It’s always cute when people label the Democrats as some kind of unified ideology.
The Oracle
I thought they were united in their dream to collectively piss their pants at the first sign of opposition and blame everyone else for it, especially the people they demand votes from.
thejeff
They’re what we’ve got to work with to stop an actual fascist takeover, so maybe tearing them down at every opportunity isn’t the best strategy.
The Oracle
Look, I vote blue because I understand what you’re saying to be true. Is till think they’re weak and incompetent excuse-makers who hate their voters and have the charisma of a mashed durian on the sidewalk.
deliverything
Given the options, I’d prefer a party that’s terrible at being effective than one that’s effective at being terrible.
Reltzik
They’re not, but they do average out somewhere on the border of centrist and conservative.
Lumino
This is precisely why I stay in New York.
New York is crazy, but it’s a level of crazy I can live with.
That’s a good point actually. Even if Becky manages to keep the house throughout her college career, would the out lesbian really want to live in the neighborhood with the church that helped bail out her father? A portion of them probably blame her for his death.
She wouldn’t be living there for about four years if she’s attending college anyway. In the meantime, the mortgage and property tax still needs to be paid, the yard still needs maintenance, it’s still going to rack up utility bills…
Either she would have to get a full-time job to pay for all that, or she’d have to rent it out. Sounds like she has no interest in becoming a landlord, and she’s not all that attached to it anyway, so on the market it goes.
I think the one thing that surprised me was you could sell the house back to the bank rather than selling it through a realtor, but I guess if it’s still on a mortgage, that makes sense (we went through a lender, which got sold to another lender, so I’m not aware of any bank being involved)
Nicoleandmaggie
Re: renting: if her small town is like DH’s the rental market is completely broken with high rents and lots of people being unable to pay regularly. Super risky market for a landlord and a terrible one for a renter. (Much cheaper to buy if you can afford to, so everyone who can afford to buys and only those who have money problems end up renting, driving up rental prices because of the risk.)
Needfuldoer
Never mind all the dark money investment funds and mystery companies buying up housing stock and either flipping it or renting it out.
As long as we’re not drawing that too many degrees outward, I agree. By “too many degrees”, of course, I mean sentiments like “Paying taxes pits your money into the conveyor belt that leads to terrorist activities,” which I don’t think you’re saying but I have seen said.
Not sure how much the house was worth, but between that, her tuition being on Robin and a very unlikely life insurance policy that Ross most plausibly doesn’t have, Becky is very moderately rolling in it!
She mentions selling it “back to the bank” which suggest the house was mortgaged. Depending on how much is still owed on the mortgage, that can mean she gets anything from almost the sales price to actually having to pay to get rid of it.
I owned a mortgaged house for 5 years and had to pay almost 10% of the initial price to get rid of it.
Yaay closing costs. *Unenthusiastic party horn and confetti*
If Bonnie and Toedead bought in the few years before Becky was born, and they took out a traditional 30-year, they should have significant equity built up in the house. Hopefully, the estate should still be in the black when all’s said and done.
The Oracle
A depressing though I just had – if Ross heard it described as “in the black”, it’s not impossible that he’d take offense because it made him sound like he supports minorities in any way, so he might deliberately tank the value of the house to put it “in the red”, AKA the color of the party he votes for. Not saying it’s likely, but we’ve seen the kind of person he was.
Reltzik
He was definitely a despicable bigot, but his bigotry was more anti-lgbt and pro-(his-type-of)-Christian. I don’t recall any point where he indicated any sort of racial bigotry.
…. then again, the church was uniformly white and both Becky and Joyce were initially… far from acclimated to racial diversity, so it wouldn’t surprise me all that much if he were that type of bigot on top of everything else.
thejeff
Wasn’t there something pretty ugly about Dina somewhere? Probably in the first kidnapping sequence?
156 thoughts on “Childhood home”
Ana Chronistic
at the rate of inflation of college costs, between the time this strip uploaded and its appearance today, the cost is now two houses per textbook
ThunderNight
or maybe one textbook subscription
Jamie
Be patient. They’ll make it microtransactions somehow.
thejeff
NFT textbooks.
The Oracle
Non-fungible education
(My textbooks, Jerry! They’re gettin’ funged!)
Nono
I’m so glad that my courses didn’t require any textbooks. We have the internet and printed out notes.
drs
Depends where you live. In coastal cities, housing prices outstrip college costs. How’s $3600/month for a studio sound?
drs
*housing inflation outstrips college inflation, I meant.
Masumi
That sounds like I would live in a hammock on campus. Or, like, the library.
(the security guard making morning rounds in our library had *lots* of fun scaring sleeping students awake though XD)
Needfuldoer
That’s… more than triple my monthly mortgage payment.
The fuck?!
Ana Chronistic
have friends who are mad that paying $1300/mth rent on an apartment for literal YEARS does not qualify them for a (for instance) $750/mth mortgage, even though it should bc.. $1300 is more than $750???
Needfuldoer
But renting doesn’t contribute to their cReDiT sCoRe!
The Oracle
You wouldn’t happen to be criticising the hyperpredatory credit system that helps keep the little guy down in the dirt, would you?
Skeptible
Up side, mortgage on a 3 bedroom house ~$1000/month
Down side, the worst air pollution in America and water is scarce and likely to get worse. (also home turf of Kevin McCarthy)
Reltzik
Eh, housing costs are skyrocketing too.
… but all we need is another housing bubble to burst, and then we’re good!
Decidedly Orthogonal
Nope. As soon as the bubble bursts, Blackrock and co will continue buying up even more properties, to make the rent situation worse, not better. The amount of “It’s not blackrock’s fault” financial propaganda should be eye raising. Of course it’s not **only** their fault, but they are
definitely contributing, as are other firms doing the same thing.
Librain
Isn’t that basically exactly what happened during the depression? People who couldn’t afford their mortgage had to sell their house at fire sale prices, and those who could afford to buy a second property could suddenly afford 3?
woobie
Prices are dropping some, but it is because interest rates are rising- which means the payment is the same.
thejeff
True, but it’s still better to buy with low prices and high rates than vice versa. You can refinance if it switches back.
Dina's Smile
Or one housebook per text
Hinoron
I find it more useful to just count by decades of living in debt after graduation.
Many people are still paying 30 years later.
The Wellerman
There’s a peculiar energy to this strip — Gaurdian DemonI.
Yeah. That’s what I think I’ll call it….
*plays “Crumbling Dreams” by Leon Riskin on hacked muzak*
C.T. Phipps
Becky also doesn’t want to be living in a land of terrorist fundamentalist supporters who are probably blaming her for “killing” her father. Mind you, I might have looked into renting the place but it seems that ToeDad was in heavy debt like most of America.
Thag Simmons
For a second I thought you were talking about like, America writ large rather than just her hometown.
C.T. Phipps
I live in Kentucky and this is set in Indiana.
I feel like we need to keep pretending Blue States are magical lands of freedom and progressiveness run by Anarchist Hippie Christ, Optimus Prime, and Captain Picard.
Reltzik
Pretend all you want, but I’m staying sour. They’re run by Democrats, who are in turn run by corporations and the rich. But so long as the only two viable choices are center-right and extreme-right, I’ll take them over the alternative, I guess.
ktbear
Why? Socialists are great. Why do you think the happiest countries in the world are all in Scandinavian.
The Oracle
Yeah, it’d rock if that were an option in America. But it’s not. It just plain isn’t an option because the system is rigged to keep it from being one.
The Wellerman
Even just UBI would be a huge step in the right direction. Too bad we can’t discuss that rationally with everyone in America either, go frickin figure. ?
Wizard
None of the countries in Scandinavia are socialist. They’re very much free-market capitalist with generous welfare states, which is not remotely the same thing. When they briefly flirted with actual socialism, they quickly realized that a robust free market is the only form of economic organization productive enough to support those welfare states.
I cannot for the life of me understand why many American leftists have taken to calling themselves socialists in recent years. When I hear their proposed policies, it’s clear that what they’re actually calling for is Euro style social democracy, not socialism. Given the toxic legacy of actual socialism, why on earth would anyway label themselves that way?
AFriskyJacket
Because socialist has more zip to it than “free-market capitalist with generous welfare states”. Also, communism is different from socialism. Also, also, most young people weren’t around for for those times when large Communist powers were still in existence, and as such don’t have those cultural preconceptions.
Wizard
So what’s wrong with “social democrat”, an existing term that actually describes what they’re aiming for?
As for communism, that’s another case of mislabeling, although in that case the dishonesty was intentional. The very term “communist government” is an oxymoron, since an ideal communist society would phase out the coercive state altogether.
Nicoleandmaggie
Economist here: Medicare is socialist. Having a functioning social welfare system is kind of the definition of socialism. Capitalism works best with government intervention to fix market failures. Meaning: capitalism works best with some socialism. They’re not opposites. You can have both.
The Wellerman
Try telling that to members of Congress. ?
Heck, even Milton Freedman, the emperor of libertarian economists, actually said himself that UBI would work superbly well in capitalism.
Nicoleandmaggie
Ron Paul said we need to feed kids. And he’s right—taking care of children is way cheaper for government than cleaning up after adults.
Rand Paul otoh is a social conservative and not an actual libertarian.
Wizard
Um, no. The definition of socialism is common ownership of the means of production. In practice, this usually works out to government control of most or all economic activity. This can actually work, but only in small groups, no more than about 150 adults. Any attempt to scale it up to something the size of even a small modern nation state inevitably results in disaster.
Government intervention doesn’t fix market failures, it causes them. (Just look at the recent baby formula crisis.) When people claim that the market has “failed”, it usually turns out that the only thing the market has failed to do is produce the outcomes they wanted.
As for Rand Paul, he seems to have steadily drifted away from any libertarian impulses he had. The best thing I can say about him at this point is that he’s definitely the better Senator from Kentucky. Granted, that’s a very low bar to clear.
Reltzik
Yeah, but it’s not a VIABLE option here in the states. 2-party system, first-past-the-post, winner-take-all. If a bunch of us lefty types switch our votes from the Democrats to a socialist party, then the Democrats get fewer votes than the Republicans and the Republicans get control. Voting for socialists thus gets transmuted into voting for the fascists. Irony.
And the Democrats understand this perfectly, which is why they oppose reforms and KEEP it a 2-party system. That way the rest of us lefty types have to keep voting for them instead of the candidates we actually like, or else we’ll end up getting stuck with worse.
thejeff
Such reforms aren’t really viable, without gutting the system entirely. “first-past-the-post, winner-take-all” is built into the Constitution. Democrats couldn’t change that if they wanted to and don’t have to put effort into preventing such reforms. Even things like IRV wouldn’t really change the calculation.
Beyond that though, the bigger problem for lefty types is that you (or we, to an extent) are a minority. A lot of people sort of generally support social welfare policies (though not really actual “workers control the means of production” socialism), but they rarely vote those ideas, being easily distracted by the culture war or other distractions or just distrust of those proposing them. There’s an idea on the left that they really have massive support and if Democrats would just stop blocking them, they’d see it. There’s no real evidence for this.
You want to improve things? Do what Tea Party Republicans did. Take over the Democratic Party through primaries. It’ll be harder, since the Tea Party had big money behind it, but should be easier if the ideas are as popular as you think. Democrats are also far less anti-democratic than the GOP is, so they should be less willing to go to extremes to stop you than the establishment GOP was.
Wizard
The Tea Party hardly “took over” the GOP. After kicking up a little bit of a stir, they were quickly assimilated. What’s left of the TP has largely abandoned the principles they originally proclaimed, degenerating into Trump cultists more interested in culture war bullshit and powning teh libz than actually doing anything to reduce the size and power of government.
I believe third parties can actually play a useful role, and I support reforms such as ranked choice voting and expanded ballot access. Even with those in place, it’s unlikely that third parties would get a significant number of candidates elected. But, if they attracted a significant amount of support, even if far short of an actual majority, then one or both major parties just might feel pressured to try and co-opt that support. Granted, this would likely produce more of a nudge than a shove, but I think even baby steps in the right direction are better than nothing.
Another way I think third parties could be more effective is to stop wasting time and resources on national races that are effectively hopeless. Instead, they should focus on state and local elections. Go after seats on city councils and education boards. The cost is much lower, and just showing up can turn an effective one-party race into something more competitive. And once again, just getting noticeable support can nudge things in a positive direction, even if you don’t actually win. Plus, if third-party candidates do actually get elected and the sky doesn’t fall, this could potentially give them more credibility that might eventually make them viable candidates for higher profile offices. This kind of bottom up strategy would be a long, hard slog, but I think it could actually work.
C.T. Phipps
The Democrats are the conservative party.
The Enemy is the fascist party.
Jamie
It’s always cute when people label the Democrats as some kind of unified ideology.
The Oracle
I thought they were united in their dream to collectively piss their pants at the first sign of opposition and blame everyone else for it, especially the people they demand votes from.
thejeff
They’re what we’ve got to work with to stop an actual fascist takeover, so maybe tearing them down at every opportunity isn’t the best strategy.
The Oracle
Look, I vote blue because I understand what you’re saying to be true. Is till think they’re weak and incompetent excuse-makers who hate their voters and have the charisma of a mashed durian on the sidewalk.
deliverything
Given the options, I’d prefer a party that’s terrible at being effective than one that’s effective at being terrible.
Reltzik
They’re not, but they do average out somewhere on the border of centrist and conservative.
Lumino
This is precisely why I stay in New York.
New York is crazy, but it’s a level of crazy I can live with.
Sirksome
That’s a good point actually. Even if Becky manages to keep the house throughout her college career, would the out lesbian really want to live in the neighborhood with the church that helped bail out her father? A portion of them probably blame her for his death.
Needfuldoer
She wouldn’t be living there for about four years if she’s attending college anyway. In the meantime, the mortgage and property tax still needs to be paid, the yard still needs maintenance, it’s still going to rack up utility bills…
Either she would have to get a full-time job to pay for all that, or she’d have to rent it out. Sounds like she has no interest in becoming a landlord, and she’s not all that attached to it anyway, so on the market it goes.
Ana Chronistic
I think the one thing that surprised me was you could sell the house back to the bank rather than selling it through a realtor, but I guess if it’s still on a mortgage, that makes sense (we went through a lender, which got sold to another lender, so I’m not aware of any bank being involved)
Nicoleandmaggie
Re: renting: if her small town is like DH’s the rental market is completely broken with high rents and lots of people being unable to pay regularly. Super risky market for a landlord and a terrible one for a renter. (Much cheaper to buy if you can afford to, so everyone who can afford to buys and only those who have money problems end up renting, driving up rental prices because of the risk.)
Needfuldoer
Never mind all the dark money investment funds and mystery companies buying up housing stock and either flipping it or renting it out.
The Oracle
I do appreciate the labeling of their former community as “terrorists”.
C.T. Phipps
Financing terrorism makes you a terrorist.
The Oracle
As long as we’re not drawing that too many degrees outward, I agree. By “too many degrees”, of course, I mean sentiments like “Paying taxes pits your money into the conveyor belt that leads to terrorist activities,” which I don’t think you’re saying but I have seen said.
Sirksome
Not sure how much the house was worth, but between that, her tuition being on Robin and a very unlikely life insurance policy that Ross most plausibly doesn’t have, Becky is very moderately rolling in it!
C.T. Phipps
Becky will be a political scientist!
Becky: *HISS*
The Wellerman
Eh, Dina seems more likely to hiss actually, ’cause real dinosaurs would hiss and growl. They probably wouldn’t roar, however.
Slartibeast Button, BIA
She mentions selling it “back to the bank” which suggest the house was mortgaged. Depending on how much is still owed on the mortgage, that can mean she gets anything from almost the sales price to actually having to pay to get rid of it.
I owned a mortgaged house for 5 years and had to pay almost 10% of the initial price to get rid of it.
Needfuldoer
Yaay closing costs. *Unenthusiastic party horn and confetti*
If Bonnie and Toedead bought in the few years before Becky was born, and they took out a traditional 30-year, they should have significant equity built up in the house. Hopefully, the estate should still be in the black when all’s said and done.
The Oracle
A depressing though I just had – if Ross heard it described as “in the black”, it’s not impossible that he’d take offense because it made him sound like he supports minorities in any way, so he might deliberately tank the value of the house to put it “in the red”, AKA the color of the party he votes for. Not saying it’s likely, but we’ve seen the kind of person he was.
Reltzik
He was definitely a despicable bigot, but his bigotry was more anti-lgbt and pro-(his-type-of)-Christian. I don’t recall any point where he indicated any sort of racial bigotry.
…. then again, the church was uniformly white and both Becky and Joyce were initially… far from acclimated to racial diversity, so it wouldn’t surprise me all that much if he were that type of bigot on top of everything else.
thejeff
Wasn’t there something pretty ugly about Dina somewhere? Probably in the first kidnapping sequence?
Needfuldoer
I think this was it:
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2015/comic/book-6/01-to-those-whod-ground-me/deceptress/
Reltzik
Yeah, okay. That’s not a good look. Not proof-positive, I think, but definitely a red flag.
Sirksome
I can’t imagine someone being so racist they would detest a widely used financial saying and actively choose not to make money because of it.
alongcameaspider
Is there a word for foreshadowing put in a flashback that happens after the thing it’s foreshadowing already happened?
Thag Simmons
It’s some sort of Dramatic Irony.
RassilonTDavros
…must… not… link to TVTropes…
(The timesink from hell refers to those as a “Call-Forward,” in case you want to risk entering the abyss. Don’t say I didn’t warn ya.)
Reltzik
Flashception.
…. or what Rassilon says, but I win, because of Rule of Cool. (Look the rule up on tvtropes if you don’t believe me. I dare you.)
StClair
Get thee behind me, Satan.
Schpoonman
Cowards! I popped in for just a minute and–wait, shit.
RassilonTDavros