HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
64% Positive
Analyzed from 3990 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#more#store#don#real#where#single#still#better#neighborhoods#local
Discussion (79 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles all own or have owned 7-Eleven stores and have since the 80's. I've worked there, been to their conferences, and still get to hear about them at all family gatherings :)
Last I knew (this was the 1990s) there were still a few single-store franchisees but most franchisees owned at least half a dozen stores in a market. I also think the investment required to buy a franchise is vastly larger than it was in the beginning. It's really only affordable to owners who can leverage the income they are making from the stores they already own.
AFAIK they do still require owners to be operators. You can't own a McDonalds franchise passively. But I'm not sure that's still the case.
The US has devolved to the point where only someone with a large amount of wealth can start and run a business. You can't open up a small hardware shop anymore because no bank will give that loan and no supplier will give you the same wholesale prices they give to the likes of Home Depot or Lowes or heck even Walmart.
At every level in the supply distribution system we've seen consolidation and ultimately locking out of competition.
For example, here's why independent pharmacists have been going out of business [1]. We need new Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt anti-trust breakups to make capitalism work again. Capitalism can't work without a diverse competitive market.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmZtBW54GNI
Too bad the oligarchs slowly whittled away the government immune system until it was weak enough to infect last election cycle and is busy destroying what little is left. America seems to be headed into a feudal dark age. Once the government is toothless only the people can fix it with mass protest and/or violence.
Things seem bleak, but we've been here before and came out of it better.
But the real issue here a that people stop at a 7-Eleven where if the same building in same condition said Bobs Convenience Store, they would not. We learned that decades ago.
This was the mid-1970s.
There was a larger "convenience store" at the other end of the next subdivision, you could bike to it but it was a few miles so we went there less often. They had a lot more snack choices though, and you could get a glimpse of the covers of the Playboy magazines that were on the shelf behind the counter.
You can easily go to NYC and find entire neighborhoods owned by large absentee landlords and yet are still walkable and desirable to live in. Yes perhaps regulations and tax laws favor large firms, but in the end zoning laws can easily require those large firms to build desirable neighborhoods.
Sure, because they were largely built a hundred years ago, and parceled into lots a hundred more before that, and because NYC remains uniquely friendly to continued mixed-use development today.
Workspace safety didn’t improve by blaming the workers, even though they bore the risk.
That's pretty much the job of test pilots even today. They are usually dual trained pilots and engineers/technicians, and their job is basically to QA new planes. In military aviation especially test pilots are often feeders into the astronaut program (a different but similar type of daredevil).
That's basically the job description of a Test Pilot.
The wood paneling and nice front lights actually seem like an improvement over local 7-11s if anything.
Is there anything that makes real-estate significantly different, beyond how the pathos can be more-easily photographed?
In other words, I expect the (legitimate) issues raised in the article have close analogues in legal/financial/incentive problems for other forms of investment.
> The shortcoming of such analyses is that they make it difficult to capture the value that would accrue to a project that created a neighborhood.
Sounds like an opportunity for experts in the field to develop and sell a good kind of analysis!
Though point-taken: It'd still be hard to attract cautious investors until something is perceived as "proven".
[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_the_ghastly_...
A local government has options like creating a historical district if they really want to control aesthetics. A home owner’s association can control aesthetics in a residential area. They are just people and you might disagree with their decisions.
Real estate is expensive. Large commercial properties usually require rich owners. the local gentry that owns farms and car dealerships and shopping malls and fast-food franchises isn’t necessarily any more interested in aethetics than an REIT.
It seems like land-use governance is always going to be messy no matter how it’s structured?
Of course the root cause of this is wealth concentration, and that's not something you can fix with a couple new laws.
I agree with you about planning. Councils keep wanting to control how their neighborhoods look - because people who live there don't want their own stupid neighbors making their own decisions and "ruining" it. So they impose rules that lead to uniformity. Where I live, most new houses look indistinguishable from each other, but they all have the same multi colored offset walls with two different cladding types and alternating angles of their roofs. A style guideline made by the council to force them to look interesting.
It means you’re a landlord!
Congratulations!!
Give yourself a round of applause. By not maintaining it, you are electing to keep cash flow high and profits secured. The overall commercial market has negative numbers so even if said REIT is down 2.65% it’s hedged together with numerous properties in a nice geographic arbitrage opportunity to minimize losses.
Is that really… So bad?
As a friend once noted, the great thing about living in America instead of Europe is that we make enough money living here instead of there that we’re able to take vacations in Europe.
While I agree with you make money when you buy/biggerpockets quotes, you want cash flow to minimize holding costs.
Also, other than flippers, the vast majority of real estate investors I'm familiar with are very focused on buying cashflow, and prefer never to sell. It might be different for REITs focused on CRE, I'm not as familiar with that space, but my impression has always been that the biggest and most successful investors are buying and holding, not trading.
There are some historic districts in my hometown and it's because they have rows of posh but nearly identical houses. That uniformity seems to be part of what makes now gives them "character".
It’s possible to build new buildings that are interesting and unique, it’s just very expensive under current zoning, building codes, and local planning restrictions, so it usually only happens with very large structures.
-----
edit: Financial literacy is not alchemy. It will not turn nothing into something. The price of consumption has risen insanely (which is why investors have done well), and consumption when you're poor is not optional or luxurious.
There may not be a lump of labor, but there's certainly a lump of profit. 10-20% are getting it because 80-90% aren't. We've created a society (again) where the people who are most rewarded are the people who work the least (and whine about school lunches and shoplifting.) Owning things is the most lucrative job you can have; if you exclusively own and don't work, you've probably doubled or tripled your worth since covid. If you worked, at the lowest end you've barely kept your head above water, and at the middle end you've lost major ground. If you're either lower or middle, and you've accidentally reproduced (bad morlock!), you could be homeless after a single bad year.
With the high end worker is where you need financial literacy; but if you don't spend enough, how are you going to meet the people who will employ you or find you employment? Assuming they'll come to your small, somewhat comfortable apartment far from your workplace, attracted by your home haircuts and your cheap but comfortable clothes to have conversations about your used books, houseplants, and how hard your bicycle commute is, over one of your three board games - you've now moved the meter to 15-25% being able to retire one day. Congratulations, you're European.
Objection 1: Are you arguing that it's not 50%, but more like 40%? Because I wasn't attempting an exact figure. You gave me a median number that is under a Bronze plan's deductible. One concussion will bankrupt them. A childbirth will throw them into $10Ks of debt.
Objection 2: 50% report owning stock in a Gallup poll. Which I'm sure includes at least 60% saying "you mean some money in a 401K?" Temp services have 401Ks that some people have contributed hundreds of dollars to.
OK then say that! The made up $500 emergency number is not true and thus not an effective argument. The precariousness and contingency of healthy and self-sufficient life as regards $5-10,000 emergencies absolutely is an effective argument! You take my statement of fact as a statement of opinion counter to yours when we are probably closer than you'd think.
Funny enough it was getting my wages garnished to pay for the MRI that my insurance didn't cover after I got a concussion when I was hit by a car on my bike commute that got me really into politics that demand we apply material analysis to material conditions, if you catch my meaning.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/chart...
The majority of people do have a safety net in social security. While it may not be enough, it is something…
Should be a huge part of the K-12 curriculum in a putative capitalist country, but we barely touch on it.
Kids graduate high school and don't really understand time value of money or how a credit card, a 401k, a car loan, or a mortgage work.
Small touches such as landscaping can really make a difference. For example, 7-11s at the beach often seem to put in a little more effort, although I don’t know if that’s the store or the landlord.
The decline of the classic US fast food restaurants (McD's, Wendy's, BK) has been matched by gas station food getting better and better. The 7-11 breakfast sandwiches are pretty good these days and sometimes the hamburgers even taste like real meat :) .
My guess is the author lives in a densely populated urban area, and doesn't understand how "soul-crushing suburban districts" really work.
I've been walking to my 7-11 for over 30 years, and have gotten to know many attendants over the years.
It's certainly walkable from the hotels, and the houses/apartments to the north, but not the ones to the south as there's a stream in the way (see OpenStreetMap) but no footbridges.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/37.282725/-76.711704
I can also walk to a convenience store, in fact I’m fairly lucky with the amenities available in my neighborhood, but many places I’ve been (and previously lived) are disorganized and lack the livability of communities where the buildings have primarily local owners.
It's just a 7-11. The charm is the walk and the experience.
So, even if this is a problem, fixing it doesn't immediately make neighborhoods beautiful.
I _love_ the pictured 7-Elevens, especially the one in Austin, TX. They are perfectly functional: you drop in, get whatever items you need, and get out in seconds. Everything is designed to help you with that.
The parking lot is a necessity for convenience stores because you likely won't invest 30-40 minutes of your time to _walk_ to a convenience store. You might as well just walk to a full-blown store. The exceptions are, of course, "food deserts" where the density death spiral has hit the bottom and made the city unliveable (see: Manhattan, Tokyo).
The places like "Captains Row" are beautiful to look at but hellish to actually _live_ in. Ask me how I know. They are the equivalent of the restored classic cars: beautiful to look at, but unsafe and uncomfortable for actual use compared to modern cars.
The mass US real estate fraud that ended in 2008 was entirely built around loaning money to people who weren't creditworthy for overvalued property that they had no expertise to judge, then immediately selling that loan to somebody who would hide it in a complex product and immediately sell it again. Eventually, these was sold to municipalities and pension funds in complex gambling vehicles whose value would fall to zero if anything went wrong in this structure, after being branded "AAA" by institutions 1) paid by the people selling the products, and 2) literally written into legislation by name and into the rules governing the pension funds.
That's what distance between an investor and in investment gets you. Tax every single hop. Make them break themselves up.
edit: Yes it does. Tax them. These transactions cost the public more than direct transactions. I know that people feel like they're far beyond having to justify a tax other than "I like it, so don't tax it," but this distance in and of itself imposes costs to the public. If you dump money into Vanguard, and Vanguard then invests in an index, Vanguard gets taxed and you get taxed, too. Poof, no more Vanguard. The horrible outcome of that is that people understand the stocks they're investing in, and that the stock market becomes a repository of intelligence - which is what I thought was supposed to justify it.
Nobody cares about justice, though. They're libertarians when they're rich and revolutionaries when they're poor. Government to protect my stuff when I have stuff, government that gives me stuff when I don't have stuff.