If you’re building a brand new house you’re already outside the realm of affordability. In general, rural areas have an excess of housing stock due to the strong trend of urbanization over the past century.
Also, the fact that building in remote areas is expensive doesn’t contradict the fact that ski resorts drive massive real estate inflation in the surrounding areas.
It’s mainly because of the ski resorts afaik. But yes, that’s fair.
Absolutely. That’s true for mountainous regions in general. Lack of navigable rivers, difficulty of transportation, lack of farmable land, harsh climate, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_people
In the modern world we have developed technology to mitigate these issues so you have some exceptions, like the Alps and the Rockies to some extent. But historically, wealth was always concentrated in the coastal and agriculturally productive regions.
Bodies of water? Sure, that land can be pricy, although not in every case.
Mountains? Nah those areas are usually pretty inexpensive, at least in the US. Appalachia being a prime example.
Indeed, sorry to hear that
I think they were joking but they might just be old. Smacking the shit out of your kids used to be normal not so long ago.
I feel you homie. But honestly 50-100 years is plenty, that’s a long time to be alive. Based on what you said, you understand that this shit gets exhausting after a while. But then again, sometimes memories can be more enjoyable than the actual experiences. It’s very common that we experience things in life and don’t fully appreciate them until we look back in hindsight.
Mainly if you are physically healthy and able to live comfortably in society, you should enjoy it as much as you can, because most other people don’t have it as good and they still find a way to make the most of it.
To answer your question, never. I just wanted to do my own thing and read or play video games, it seemed better to avoid my parents’ attention rather than seek it out.
There’s always Cannabis. I’ve heard the local wildlife loves that plant
Damn, I should have gone with this one. I can’t think of many things I associate more with the 2000s than Basshunter. The lyrics of the original Swedish songs are so infinitely better than the English remakes too.
Can’t forget this one either. OG DOTA and IRC chatrooms, what a time to be alive
Numa numa song aka Dragostea din tei
Whether tis nobler to risk the splashback, or to live with your poop perpetually ending up on a shelf? In many ways, this is a microcosm of the human condition.
Logically it’s pretty easy to demonstrate that you can. You could simply let someone experience a work of art, and never reveal any information about the creator. Boom, that person can experience the art completely independently of who the creator is, because they simply don’t have any information about the creator. In fact, that’s more or less how most people have experienced art for the majority of human history up until the past few generations.
The article you linked mentions a litany of active lawsuits against UHC, many of which were already initiated prior to the murder of Brian Thompson. UHC was already on the legal chopping block prior to Luigi’s actions; in fact it seems fairly obvious that the preexisting lawsuits and bad publicity were the reason he chose to target Thompson specifically.
Let’s dig a bit deeper into the article. Right off the bat, I’d like to point out this tidbit, which perfectly supports the argument I was already making in this thread, namely that nothing has been changed by the murder.
Still, Potter warned that UnitedHealth Group’s own claims about reforms to its denials process should be treated with skepticism. “In my view, I think this is mostly for show,” he said. “It’s mostly for PR.”
As for the lawsuit in question, it was filed by some random shareholder from NY, who has no more access to the hard data than we do. He was concerned that
the company’s new projections for 2025, released in April, forecasted a significant cut in earnings.
And in an attempt to explain said concern, this talking head speculated
Wilkes, in an April media appearance, attributed the stock value drop to “probably United, and maybe the industry, pulling back on prior authorizations” — i.e., denying care to patients less often.
That’s not any kind of proof or data, it’s just speculation. Furthermore,
Shortly after the new investor case was filed, attorneys for CalPERS intervened in the new investor lawsuit, and last week, the plaintiff agreed to drop the suit and consolidate it with the larger case.
The lawsuit in question was promptly rolled into the comprehensive legal action which had already been initiated prior to the murder. And in case you didn’t read the whole article, they also mention that
On Monday, shareholders greenlit a $60 million pay package for the company’s CEO and shot down a proposal that would have increased investor scrutiny of executive payouts.
Bottom line is, your characterization of the legal action as “UHC investors suing to increase the denial rate” is reductive and inaccurate, although to be fair to you, it simply mimics the editorialized perspective of the journalist who wrote the article. The parts of the article which emphasize that interpretation of the lawsuit are basically just the journalist pandering to the lowest common denominator which comprises the majority of their audience. In other words, the writer of the article intentionally sensationalized the nature of the lawsuit, which is really quite a boring legal footnote that doesn’t make any of the claims implied by the article. I.e., it’s clickbait, and it’s obviously working.
I do appreciate you providing a relevant link that at least attempts to answer my request for evidence of the previous commenters’ claim, but unfortunately it’s not a very strong piece of evidence.
Lastly, I’d just like to point out that even if UHC does end up changing its practices and extending more coverage, all that ultimately means is that rival health insurance companies under less legal scrutiny will expand their market share proportionally and it’ll simply be a situation of new boss, same as the old boss.
Damn, you’re a real tough customer, I should have known I couldn’t get one over on you 😂
Where do you stand on Osama bin Laden, pray tell? Terrorist or freedom fighter?
Oh, the world is a better place now, and it’s all thanks to Luigi? I must have missed that part
Keep telling yourself that, it’s a nice story to fantasize about but I don’t personally buy it. I wonder if you have any hard data supporting that claim
The deification of Luigi really pisses me off because he didn’t do shit to help anyone. Robin Hood wasn’t a deranged murderer, he stole from the rich to help the poor. What the fuck did Luigi actually accomplish with his idiotic “plan”? It just shows how dire the current situation is that people are desperately latching onto that assclown as some kind of revolutionary, when in reality he is nothing of the sort.
Do you ever let the kids play games with butt scooters like these? If not I would highly recommend adding them to your curriculum. Those things were the bomb
You have my blessing, go forth and drain the machine. Godspeed
Agree to disagree. Shutdown all the ski resorts in Colorado and see what happens to property values over the next 20 years. The proportion of land might be small, but the population and monetary influx is massive.
In order for housing to be expensive, people need to have the money to pay for it. If there’s no high paying jobs within hundreds of miles, and there’s no tourism money, the demand simply won’t be there and prices will fall. Again, look at the Appalachians and the Adirondacks for example. Ever since the advent of air travel, they’ve been steadily depopulated and economically depressed, as people from the cities prefer to vacation in more remote locations, such as the Rockies.
I should also acknowledge that a lot of land out west is owned by the government or other major groups, and that probably also plays a role. I’m not as familiar with the real estate market of Wyoming as I’d like to be. But I can’t help but dispute your assertion that prices are high because building is expensive. Seems like a tautology somehow.