The reason most renters are renters and not owners is not because there aren't any houses available to purchase.
This would just make countless people homeless as they lose the option to rent, because they can't afford to buy/maintain an entire house.
It would be a crisis for anyone who wants to rent, because they won't be able to anymore.
No one's going to rent out an apartment if they'd have to do it at a huge loss. So as soon as this went into effect, all rentals would vanish and everyone who can't afford to buy a house would be homeless.
There's literally nothing wrong with credit scores--they reward good borrowers, and for bad borrowers, a bad credit score is equivalent for them to there being no scores.
Without credit scores, all borrowers get treated like the ones who don't repay their debts, instead of only the ones who actually don't.
Credit scores are only not a positive thing for people who don't pay their debts. It's 100% upside for people who do, and in the US at least, it's trivially easy to have a top-tier credit score without paying a cent of interest, provided you actually do pay back what you borrow.
Yeah, pretty massive fundamental difference, lol.
It's more known as a right-wing thing these days because of Covid, but the OG antivaxxer stereotype was the hippy mom who didn't want to put "chemicals" in their children because 'big pharma' is evil, and don't you know vaccines cause autism?
Regardless of what's being defended, this is a "poisoning the well" fallacy, and should be avoided as a rhetorical tactic. This particular example serves no purpose than the stroke the ego and sense of moral superiority of those on one side, and alienate those on the other, and create a divisive binary where there isn't one, and shouldn't be one.
Suppose someone argues that the solution is making sure no historical figures are diminished due to their race, not just during a certain month, but always, and therefore doesn't believe that focusing on a single race for an arbitrary amount of time is productive. Well, OP would dump them squarely into the 'enslavers and segregationists' camp, where they obviously do not belong.
I'm reminded of my gay friends who hate many modern pride events because they feel they do the opposite of normalizing homosexuality in focusing on garish oversexualized public displays. They'd be called homophobes by the equivalent of the OP--isn't that a bit ridiculous?
Oh, exterminator, finally! Start over by the ficus.
If the weather is too shitty to bike, why would I want to put a delivery driver in those conditions.
I mean, I really don't want to bike in the rain, but that's no big deal for someone in a car, lol.
The fact that even with the fees charged to the restaurant and to the customer, the majority of these apps still aren't even profitable, lol.
Yes. Those people consider things like this part of the "cost of living", not the luxury that it is.
On average, people have more of an issue overspending than they do underearning. That's why even among people making six figures, 1 in 4 of them live "paycheck to paycheck", which people assume to mean 'barely make enough to make ends meet', but what more commonly means 'deliberately chooses not to save/spends every dollar earned'.
What do you think the cost of a house is, just with the cost of the materials and labor to build it, with zero markup?