SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the who's-gonna-drive-miss-daisy? dept.
The race to bring driverless cars to the masses is only just beginning, but already it is a fight for the ages. The competition is fierce, secretive, and elite. It pits Apple against Google against Tesla against Uber: all titans of Silicon Valley, in many ways as enigmatic as they are revered.
As these technology giants zero in on the car industry, global automakers are being forced to dramatically rethink what it means to build a vehicle for the first time in a century. Aspects of this race evoke several pivotal moments in technological history: the construction of railroads, the dawn of electric light, the birth of the automobile, the beginning of aviation. There's no precedent for what engineers are trying to build now, and no single blueprint for how to build it.
Self-driving cars promise to create a new kind of leisure, offering passengers additional time for reading books, writing email, knitting, practicing an instrument, cracking open a beer, taking a catnap, and any number of other diversions. Peope who are unable to drive themselves could experience a new kind of independence. And self-driving cars could re-contextualize land-use on massive scales. In this imagined mobility utopia, drone trucks would haul packages across the country and no human would have to circle a city block in search of a parking spot.
If self-driving vehicles deliver on their promises, they will save millions of lives over the course of a few decades, destroy and create entire industries, and fundamentally change the human relationship with space and time. All of which is why some of the planet's most valuable companies are pouring billions of dollars into the effort to build driverless cars.
After automation puts everyone out of work, will anyone need to drive anywhere anymore?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @03:27PM
Short term rental is where it's at now
I love suckers like you!
You make it easy for me to have 'all the money' and 'all the goods'. You dont care and you rent.
Lets say you rent a house for 500 a month (which is low in many areas). You do that for 10 years. At the end of the time your landlord has 40-50k in assets. You have -60k.
Ownership rocks. I have not paid rent or mortgage in 10 years. I *OWN* my house. I have literally an extra 150k in my pocket. I put it into mutual funds and stocks (30% increase btw over that time). If this job I currently have was not ending I would be taking all of that and buying at least 2 more houses for rental. For suckers just like you.
There are very few things in life that will 'get you rich quick'. Ignore those. There is however 'get rich slow' and they all work.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday December 16 2015, @03:47PM
I love suckers like you!
There's always someone who has to mentally turn a straightforward exchange of service into an imaginary con game.
Lets say you rent a house for 500 a month (which is low in many areas). You do that for 10 years. At the end of the time your landlord has 40-50k in assets. You have -60k.
So? Renters routinely don't have to do a bit of upkeep, depending on the terms of the rental contract. So at the end of that time, the renter also has several hundred hours of free time that they wouldn't have had, if they owned the house and less stress. $60k buys a hassle-free roof over your head for ten years? That's worth it.
Finally, there is the important matter of the illiquidity of many real estate markets. In your home ownership model, you still have to buy and sell the house. That's not a trivial risk since you might be forced to sell into a bad market year.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday December 16 2015, @05:30PM
Purely anecdotal, but I was a renter for a dozen or so years before purchasing, and I would certainly never refer to any of the apartments or townhouses I rented as "hassle-free." There was always something. And no landlord was perfect.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday December 16 2015, @07:37PM
As someone else who rented for a number of years before buying a house, I'd agree with you.
It's not hassle free, but the responsibility still falls on the landlord for repairs. In the last seven years I've had to replace my roof, back door, driveway, rewired the house, and replaced the stove. I suspect next year I'll have to replace the oil tank and the furnace likely will be replaced in the next 2-5 years. So on top of mortgage, taxes, utilities and home owners insurance I've likely spent $25K for maintenance and repairs with another $10K expected in the next few years.
When I rented I paid rent, utilities (not including sewer/water) and renters insurance, which was quite a bit less than I pay for a mortgage and other costs now. Never had to buy or replace a fridge, stove, washer/dryer or rewire the apartment. I was living in a basement apartment once and had a pipes freeze and break while the owners were vacationing. It took over a week to get the pipes fixed, but I didn't have pay for it directly.
I still prefer owning my own house though. I couldn't have a wood shop in an apartment.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:07PM
Some people don't want to deal with hassles of ownership (it's not all peachy). Plus renting gives you flexibility that ownership does not. Due to costs associated with transfer of property, it is really a non-liquid asset, over which value you have very little control over. Pour money into it then the neighborhood goes to shit and your money vanishes overnight.
Others don't want to deal with hassles of renting things out (being a landlord is probably the worst thing stress-wise. Simply tons of risk for marginal gains).
You think all the money the landlord collects is pure profit? He pays Taxes on the property (ridiculous in some states), taxes on the income, insurance, covers repairs and upkeep of property, and on top of that he still has to factor in deterioration of the property. There is reason why most real estate companies only go for "luxury" rentals and there is a real shortage of median income housing, it's just not worth the damn hassle. One bad tenant can wipe out the profit from that property, and put you in a hole if you financed it.
Everything related to real estate only looks easy on a late-night infomercial.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 16 2015, @06:01PM
The idea of getting rich with residential real estate renting is a lot like the idea of getting rich by joining Amway.
Actually, I think Amway is a safer bet. Being a landlord is a complete pain in the ass and has a huge amount of risk: one bad tenant can completely wipe out your profit by wrecking the place, not paying for months on end, and requiring you to take them to court to be evicted. You're also liable for all the repairs, which frequently need to be done on an emergency basis (= $$$): plumbing, HVAC, etc. Tenants don't take care of the property so stuff wears out faster. It just isn't worth the time and effort any more; during the boom it made sense because property values were rising so quickly, but not any more.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:16PM
Lets say you rent a house for 500 a month
And around here, you pay $500/month in property taxes..... and if you don't pay that, the government takes your house.