If they had just said “my Trump voting Neighbor just lost his job at the USDA. FAFO.” I’d be totally down to believe it. Tons of people are losing their jobs right now, that is reality. But the flag/house thing? Give me a fucking break
It makes sense if they were behind on their mortgage and would be forced to sell immediately or something
Normally most people would try to keep their home by looking for a new job. Not sure how it works in the US, but in my country it would also be fairly common to have mortgage insurance specifically in case you’re laid off, fired, or suffer an injury that causes you to be out of commission for long. I suspect it’s less common in the US if it’s even a thing. Is it a thing?
They do if they have no savings and the payments are more than any income they are getting. It’s better to quickly sell before the fees start for non payment. There are also options to put your home on forbearance while it’s on the market so the homeowner could have done that immediately to prevent the house being repossessed.
When you see moving to a smaller house is inevitable, it might not be worth it to delay for some additional months. Better preserve the savings so they last longer. When your economy goes south, better start more economical life right away.
I didn’t say it never happens. I’m saying most people don’t respond to layoffs by selling their home immediately. Trump hasn’t even been in office for 60 days. So this dude probably got laid off, assuming this happened, 4 to 6 weeks ago if we’re being generous.
You’re also not taking into account current interest rate/home prices. If this person has held their home for a long time, then even if they got a higher interest from the 90’s or 2000’s The home was so cheap back then that their bill is probably pretty reasonable. If they’ve had it for a couple of years, then they got incredible interest rates And to give that up for a higher interest rate upwards of 7-8% would be asinine. Not to mention it would be very hard to finance when you admit you were laid off and don’t have a job. The most likely outcome is an equal or even higher mortgage payment unless they truly uproot their lives. Again, all over a recent layoff.
The narrow lane of parameters for this story to be true makes it possible but highly unlikely. And the flag thing…come the fuck on.
Plenty of people are having their lives ruined. Some random person on the Internet telling this story is what we’re going to point to?
If you have a reason to believe you might be living off your savings for the next two years, you will want to maximize your savings. If you have paid enough of your house to buy the smaller and more remote one with cash, then that’s what you should do.
Despite your stance/tone I’ll answer this in good faith and assume you’re genuinely asking even if I think you’re not.
The best lies/misinformation attempts are couched in 1) truths and/or 2) plausible things that can’t be dismissed as impossible.
It is plausible [insert any JFK assassination conspiracy]. Should they all be equally weighted? Is each equally plausible? No, yet dozens persist because they’re at all plausible. I say this as someone who says the least plausible scenario was lone gunman who was killed by some rando. I think it was a conspiracy. But it doesn’t mean I treat each conspiracy theory as equally plausible. Unfortunately it’s hard to 100% disprove basically anything, so even the worst ideas remain sticky if people want them to be true.
In any case, all this is very little proof that the story is a falsehood. Obviously, by default everything you read online falls to the category “this may have happened”, but that’s all we really have.
I don’t understand why so many people are eager to (metaphorically) scream “FAKE!!!” at every story (that isn’t highly unlikely) told on the internet. Sure, maybe, but does it even matter? Odds are good something like this did happen somewhere.
Yes, and the difference is that facts show they are incorrect. False equivocation. “Man sells house after losing job” is not even remotely equal to “Haitians eat peoples’ pets.”
Trust me bro.
If they had just said “my Trump voting Neighbor just lost his job at the USDA. FAFO.” I’d be totally down to believe it. Tons of people are losing their jobs right now, that is reality. But the flag/house thing? Give me a fucking break
Loosing a job means no more mortgage payments, so that’s not too far fetched.
It makes sense if they were behind on their mortgage and would be forced to sell immediately or something
Normally most people would try to keep their home by looking for a new job. Not sure how it works in the US, but in my country it would also be fairly common to have mortgage insurance specifically in case you’re laid off, fired, or suffer an injury that causes you to be out of commission for long. I suspect it’s less common in the US if it’s even a thing. Is it a thing?
Most people don’t immediately sell their homes the moment they are laid off.
They do if they have no savings and the payments are more than any income they are getting. It’s better to quickly sell before the fees start for non payment. There are also options to put your home on forbearance while it’s on the market so the homeowner could have done that immediately to prevent the house being repossessed.
I didn’t say it doesn’t happen. I said most people do not.
When you see moving to a smaller house is inevitable, it might not be worth it to delay for some additional months. Better preserve the savings so they last longer. When your economy goes south, better start more economical life right away.
I didn’t say it never happens. I’m saying most people don’t respond to layoffs by selling their home immediately. Trump hasn’t even been in office for 60 days. So this dude probably got laid off, assuming this happened, 4 to 6 weeks ago if we’re being generous.
You’re also not taking into account current interest rate/home prices. If this person has held their home for a long time, then even if they got a higher interest from the 90’s or 2000’s The home was so cheap back then that their bill is probably pretty reasonable. If they’ve had it for a couple of years, then they got incredible interest rates And to give that up for a higher interest rate upwards of 7-8% would be asinine. Not to mention it would be very hard to finance when you admit you were laid off and don’t have a job. The most likely outcome is an equal or even higher mortgage payment unless they truly uproot their lives. Again, all over a recent layoff.
The narrow lane of parameters for this story to be true makes it possible but highly unlikely. And the flag thing…come the fuck on.
Plenty of people are having their lives ruined. Some random person on the Internet telling this story is what we’re going to point to?
If you have a reason to believe you might be living off your savings for the next two years, you will want to maximize your savings. If you have paid enough of your house to buy the smaller and more remote one with cash, then that’s what you should do.
Agreed. But now you’re making your own host of assumptions. We know nothing about this person. We don’t even know how old they are.
Most people do not sell their homes the moment they are laid off.
Maybe it’s real, maybe not, but it’s certainly plausible.
Of course it’s plausible. The point is that it’s most likely not true.
Plausibility is incredibly useful way to introduce falsehood.
So, basically we know it’s a falsehood because it’s plausible. Saying something plausible is precisely what a liar would do!
That is not even remotely what I said and you know it
No, I don’t.
Please elaborate.
Despite your stance/tone I’ll answer this in good faith and assume you’re genuinely asking even if I think you’re not.
The best lies/misinformation attempts are couched in 1) truths and/or 2) plausible things that can’t be dismissed as impossible.
It is plausible [insert any JFK assassination conspiracy]. Should they all be equally weighted? Is each equally plausible? No, yet dozens persist because they’re at all plausible. I say this as someone who says the least plausible scenario was lone gunman who was killed by some rando. I think it was a conspiracy. But it doesn’t mean I treat each conspiracy theory as equally plausible. Unfortunately it’s hard to 100% disprove basically anything, so even the worst ideas remain sticky if people want them to be true.
Thanks ❤️
In any case, all this is very little proof that the story is a falsehood. Obviously, by default everything you read online falls to the category “this may have happened”, but that’s all we really have.
I don’t understand why so many people are eager to (metaphorically) scream “FAKE!!!” at every story (that isn’t highly unlikely) told on the internet. Sure, maybe, but does it even matter? Odds are good something like this did happen somewhere.
I heard very similar responses when conservatives were shown that Haitians were not eating dogs in Ohio.
Yes, and the difference is that facts show they are incorrect. False equivocation. “Man sells house after losing job” is not even remotely equal to “Haitians eat peoples’ pets.”