In other words, like @therajraj did a few days ago, you are essentially making a utilitarian argument in favor of absolute rights. Can you see the inconsistency (to say nothing of the irony) of your position?
As a practical matter, I can live with that.
Buying a house instantly tanks your net worth (except in the case I mentioned where you are buying far below your means). You donât own equity in your house until the non interest aspect of the loan starts to get paid off.
Buying a house is an immediate increase of debt and lowering of assets (via downpayment, closing costs, etc). Best case scenario you trade your downpayment of X dollars for X equity in the house but youâre still stuck with increased debt via the loan.
Ya, I think we basically agree. I believe this is inevitable for two reasons:
Technology; automation, artificial intelligence, etc⊠are making a lot of jobs obsolete.
Capitalism is too good at what it does. This is a concept I picked up from Joseph Schumpeterâs âCapitalism, Socialism, and Democracyâ.
Now, number 1 could lead to different; yet, enough jobs to keep people employed. The industrial revolution led to more jobs not less. Computers have led to more jobs not less. What specifically concerns me now is that so many jobs have or will be automated. Even things as complex as investing are being automated using algorithms. Now, that isnât to say there isnât still a necessary human element, but I think it leads to a reduction in the number of people needed to perform a certain function.
Number 2 can also be mitigated if what Schumpeter calls âcreative destructionâ is allowed to occur. My concern her is that so many special interests, lobbyists, bureaucrats, etc⊠make this very difficult. To some degree; however, it is inevitable and is what leads us back to number 1.
I donât have an alternative proposal. Automation, AI, etc⊠is inevitable. Perhaps this will free people up to do more creative things and thus be employed that way. Maybe the fortunate, but the unintended consequence will be entire industries we havenât thought of and thus be where people are employed. That is why, on principle I do not like UBI, but more and more do I think itâs inevitable. Maybe not in my lifetime, but 100 years from now it wouldnât surprise me.
You can buy a house without taking on debtâŠ
@DoubleDuce @EyeDentist
You canât have any absolute rights, not even to life. Natural law negative rights or not. Government sovereignty and individual sovereignty are on a sliding scale, more of one means less of the other.
If you are in a state with no death penalty you must have absolute right to life right? Wrong. Go on a shooting spree, if the police get there in time they will use lethal force to stop you. You violated the âsocial contractâ by not abiding by the law. Therefore your right to life was forfeit.
The same goes for absolute property rights. The âsocial contractâ is ever changing. So if the state says 35% of your income belongs to the government then it does. If tomorrow they want 50% then thatâs what theyâll take.
The state existed before you and will be here after youâre gone. So nobody asked you if you wanted to be bound by the social contract, you just are. If you donât like it well you can leave⊠and go somewhere else where you wonât have absolute rights either. Oh and you canât leave the US without handing over 35% of your total wealth, they own you.
My apologies, when I said âbuying a house instantly tanks your net worthâ what I meant was âthe conventional way to buy a house instantly tanks your net worthâ
You can buy a house without debt, but since the vast majority of people donât, it seems unfair to lump anyone that takes out a home loan into the category of âbad with money.â
Yeah, this sub (and most on the internet, Iâm sure) are most active during working hours. Itâs dead in the evenings and on the weekends. Tells you something about how busy people are in their full time jobs. 
If we go with option A do you expect employers to continue to pay their current employee the same amount?
I want to make sure Iâm understanding you. If you currently make $50,000 you earn $25/h ($50,000/2,000). Under your scenario, employers would pay $50/h ($50,000/1,000) to the first employee and hire a second person for $50/h. Is that right?
Unless closing costs are insane, this is just not true. Buying something of value does not decrease your net worth, it is a neutral change (cash to property).
The debt you acquire accounts for the equity of the house you donât own and your assets do not go down, they transfer from cash to property. The only loss is fees related to the transaction (closing costs), but a downpayment (equity gained on the property) is counted as an asset.
Donât make @anon50325502 start pulling out the Assets = Liabilities + Shareholders Equity logic
lol, the ol principles of accounting⊠Please, donât make me do it.
The Ohmâs Law of the accounting universe, right @SkyzykS?
Why do I feel like Iâm gonna be Rick Rolled any secondâŠ
Straight up Bro.
No deception needed.
Putting my Accounting 101 class to good use. 
Well, first I have to say I think itâs unfair for yall to start lumping us together. Especially since I was against him in the whole tax argument and only sided with him on terminology.
In this discussion Iâve left the utilitarian door open, but no it is not the argument I make. My argument is that natural rights are granted by God and I assert them on his authority. This is a distinct argument because I assert them to be true regardless of utility including when they are damned inconvenient. I at least attempt to assert them in my life and politics even when I donât like the outcomes. This is one of the primary things wrong with most modern moral systems including religion and on both sides of all the debates. People start from the wrong place. If you start with a goal and build moral rules to fulfill the endgame, you are building justifications, not moral truth. If you seek moral truth then build a system of rules you should end up contradicting your own wishes and feelings. If your morality doesnât make you alter your natural behavior, then you donât really have a morality, you are operating on animal reflex and only using your brain to think of excuses.
For example, people seek out churches that tell them what they already want to hear and already believe is true. If you do this, you arenât a practicing Christian. Practice insinuates change and working to get better. If your church doesnât tell you something you donât want to hear in a way that makes you uncomfortable doing your normal things in your daily life, it literally isnât doing anything for you. You arenât looking for truth, you are looking for confirmation.
This strikes me as more particularly true of your arguments. You look at the ends you want and contrive overly complicated arguments to justify yourself. It would be simpler to just clearly state, you donât really care about the moral/ethical truth of an action as long as it gets the desired results. It would bypass a lot of unnecessary back and forth. Donât tell me you have a solid argument that there are no intrinsic property rights but still somehow own yourself. Just start with âI reject natural rights, and here is how we get to a good endpoint for society.â Donât disguise your argument as something other than utilitarianism.
See and now it is clear and simple. Done. All is communicated. I can admit that there I have no argument against you.
Yup, itâs tricky. CS Lewis has some good stuff on natural law vs natural rights for the record.
Buying a house generally doesnât decrease your net worth. As long as the house still has value.
But I just guess we disagree. If you buy a house you canât afford in a way that puts you at decent risk of entering actual poverty, you probably arenât so hot with money. And even then if you arenât really bad with money, it will be temporary. Yes, there are a lot of normal people out there who are bad with money, including many who are middle class.
I think most of the issue here is with the definition of poor. I was using it colloquially. I do not think of students as poor even without money. They are growing their net worth. I also donât think of people who had a bunch of bad stuff happen and dipped below poverty for a short time as being poor.
Oh yeah! Its all fun and games when one is writing it out in that âgotchaâ moment.
Now lets apply it to the real world problem and see who winsâŠ
My money is on the accountant.
I like you Aero, I truly do, but you live in economic fantasy land. There is no freakin way the vast majority of companies could double their labor costs and remain in business.