Has anyone noticed that NOWHERE in America is affordable anymore? When did this start?
Before someone jumps in with their fedora on and goes "well actually" without understanding, this is what is I mean.....
When I was growing up the expensive places in America and even Europe where very localized meaning people would say "Park Avenue/Beverly Hills/Bel Air/Knightsbridge are expensive places to live in".
Then around 10 years ago it became large principalities like specific sections of LA or NYC were known to be expensive.
Then around right before Covid whole cities became expensive like people started saying "Los Angeles is expensive, Manhattan is expensive, London is expensive" only this time it started including cities that weren't dumps and were sorta popular but you wouldn't consider living there to be a grind like people weren't just saying LA or Manhattan or London, they were saying Seattle, Nashville, Austin, Brooklyn, Essex are expensive places to live in. I don't care how many comedians move to Austin, studio apartments for $2500 in Austin is crazy.
Now even Portland Oregon is an expensive city to live in. Like cities that used to be the armpits of America are now squeezing crazy rents and home prices out of their citizens just because.
Its like they (idk who) slowly brought in this idea that anywhere that's even passably livable should have sky high rents because the big cities are even higher.
Some of my friends who are junior bankers, who in prior years had their 100k a year afford them luxurious lifestyles, are now moving to the Bronx with roommates in tow due to their rents being insane but its only a matter of time before they have to move even further away because they're going to up their rents even more because bankers are moving in.
I remember last year telling my friends who were moving to Harlem that they would not be able to afford living there in a year and people called me alarmist and now they have to move to the Bronx, its getting alarming but because its creeping in its like noone is noticing.
I don't know how to round this up but has anyone noticed this? Its crazy how more people aren't speaking up about it.
lol I made a post about this like a year ago. but yes I agree. see: 'rent is getting out of control'
Just read it and people in the comments were doing the most annoying thing when this is brought up, thats why my first sentence specifically called them out, in a very smug way they trivialize it and say its not a big deal with little to no sensible reason why or throw in a stupid red herring that has nothing to do with what you're saying, like the one guy just simply chucking it up to inflation or people comparing NYC to Tokyo and saying it could be worse, its like they aren't seeing that its going to get worse and its only a matter of time before even people in IB will have to live in a non metaphorical closet like in Tokyo, maybe that's when people realize they need to take to the streets.
My friends also did this when they initially moved to Williamsburg, i told them its insane they can't afford to live in Murray Hill and its surround sounding areas and they thought i was overreacting a few years ago and now they've been priced out of there and are settling in Bushwick thinking they're safe but now Bushwick is getting the initial whispers that its getting too expensive and they're shakey on their future once again, its going to keep happening, same with my friends who moved to Harlem last year and are now talking about moving to the bronx, its like the frog in the slow boiling water thing, people don't realize they're already being pushed to serfdom because the push is very gradual and gentle but it keeps pushing nonetheless and that's where we're headed
Thats crazy. We were in Bushwick last summer. You sure it’s too expensive now? Thinking of moving back with our return offer had a great time.
The Central Bank will inflate the currency until it is too expensive for the average citizen to live by their own means. Then the State will step in to become their landlord, their food provider, their healthcare, their education - their master. He who controls the purse controls the nation.
This is the real answer.
The central bank is purposely causing rents to rise so they can... make housing free?
Even if this was true, how in the world could the central bank of the largest free market economy in the world get secretly infiltrated by communists?
If these people were capable of logic, they wouldn't believe the things they do.
It's all a socialist conspiracy. You won't change their minds.
There's nothing secret about it.
The public will get what the public wants, see: the rise of AOC, Bernie Sanders, "Modern Monetary Theory," et al.
First of all, the central bank is not the State. It explicitly exists outside the State as a quasi-private entity with ultimate control over our monetary policy in addition to handing the power of the purse to corrupted Statesman that are more or less selected by the various political interests of our ruling oligarchy. I didn't say anything about communists (although Vladimir Lenin did clearly state, "The establishment of a central bank is 90% of communizing a nation"), I rephrased a quote attributed to Mayer Rothschild, "Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws".
I said nothing about rents, I said they are inflating the currency (and by extension rents, food costs, energy, etc.) which no one can argue otherwise - printing money with nothing to back in devalues all the money that's been printed, only to be kept in check by the exercise of the US military in defense of the petrodollar + the foreign aid scheme. This works vastly in the favor of ultra wealthy asset owners (the oligarchy), with the added benefit of sucking resources out of the middle class (potentially resistant voter base that's fractured by artificially inflated 2-party political turmoil amplified by a controlled media apparatus) and cutting off social mobility for the poor and making it effectively impossible for them to exist without government assistance. People dependent on the government for their ability to survive (housing, food, healthcare, education, etc.) will almost always vote to increase government's authority to distribute more "free" benefits since they either cannot or choose not to provide for themselves. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.
Lastly, calling us a free market economy is in my opinion flat out wrong. Are we more free than most countries? Sure. But I find it very hard to seriously support the position that a government which constantly bails out its banks, refuses to let massive companies that make poor strategic decisions fail, chokes out SMBs with burdensome regulations, and regulates its healthcare and educational markets into oblivion can be called "free market". We have what is effectively socialism of losses for the ultra wealthy that's continuously back-stopped by the future generations of the working class in the form of an ever-growing tax liability. The last 2 huge plunges in the stock market were turned into the longest bull run in history by the government instructing the Fed to print obscene amounts of money and/or reduce rates - that is by definition a government-controlled economy from that point forward because without the government pressure to continue those actions it all falls apart. Doesn't sound very "free market" to me.
Uh, you do know what inflation does to wage earners vs asset owners? Do you know what it does to debt? The US government has no choice but to devalue the currency, the promise made to secure votes are out stripping the value creation egine of the US econony.
It was not long ago that the news coming out of Davos was that in a couple decades people wouldn't own anything anymore, and we would be happy about it. This has been the plan since the New Deal in America. The privileged and elite want it all back, from social security to home ownership. If they can't get the hard assets, they'll settle for a lifetime of student and medical debt payments.
Torch and pitchfork manufacturers are are a growth industry.
Exactly
This map shows changes in home selling prices between 2021 - 2022
https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/home-selling-prices-in…
This map shows migration between 2020 - 2022
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/stories/2022/03/net-d…
They're not exactly time aligned, but the same pattern is really there. People migrate from smaller areas to larger areas, and the prices shoot up.
You can probably still find cheap houses out in nowhere - but even medium sized cities have experienced quite the influx of people from rural areas.
If you looked at similar maps between 2012 - 2022, it would probably be even more apparent.
I'd be inclined to agree, though I'm finding it pretty nice being in Chicago rather than NY/SF atm.
That said though, the rental market in London is horrific. I'm back visiting this week and caught up with some friends over the weekend. Coupled with the soaring cost of living in London, guys are now having to bid on rental properties by up to £500-700 a month than list price in some cases and more often than not putting 6 mo down immediately. I thought it was bad when I left London a few years ago but now I'm more glad than ever that shifted stateside.
Collectively we all work in finance one way or another and by a large, we're pretty well compensated for our time and effort. It does make me feel for those who aren't well compensated in other fields but have a requirement to live close to cities and work in the CBD.
I'll jump in here as a perma resident of Tier 5+ cities (I have never [and will never] live in major metro areas).
Without indicating agreement/disagreement with OP's question; I think there needs to be additional context in order to provide an answer (that would either agree or disagree with OP). Define "affordable" and relative to what? Are we talking about average rent relative to average income? Are we talking about changes in rents/COL over time relative to changes in average income over time?
Now adding my own two cents as a flyover country resident... I have not noticed that everywhere is unaffordable, because it isn't. To be sure, median prices for SFR real estate has increased dramatically, but rents have not seen a similar increase on a relative basis.
But is it becoming "unaffordable"? Hardly.
Has the COL in these areas been below average for a long period of time? Yes.
Is this likely a reversion to the mean as people and capital become more mobile (rapid onset of WFH due to COVID and peak market search for yield)? Probably.
Are there even more rural areas where I could move to and enjoy price levels observed 5 years ago (both for RE and non-RE assets and consumer goods)? 100%. And these places are not in the middle of BFE; they're just 40 miles away from the central business district of the city I'm in. People will pay a premium for convenience.
I appreciate your thoughts. I guess if this is a "mean reversion", then I imagine there are also places that are "mean reverting" down? I would have imagined (given mobility/WFH during covid) it would have meant that larger metro areas would see decreased prices, but I'm really not sure that has been the case. My experience in Seattle is that prices have really increased, even during covid (there was a short drop in rental prices in the very dense downtown area, but I'm pretty sure that's back up). Can you point to examples of places mean reverting down during this period? (I'm not asking as a "gotcha" or to put you on the spot, but I am very curious)
Mean reversion need not be zero sum in that some places exhibiting increased costs are offset by places exhibiting decreased costs.
Hypothetical: Costs could increase by 5% in one major market because people pursued WFH lifestyle and living just outside that major market, which caused prices in the surrounding submarkets to increase by 6%. Absent that WFH trend, prices in the major market would have increased by 12% and the submarket would have seen just 3% increases. Who knows?
Which leads back to my questions about "what defines affordable" and "relative to what"?
Traditionally the measure of affordability in real estate is if you can pay all of your living expenses (rent or mortgage, insurance, HOA fees if applicable, utilities, etc.) for less than 30% of your gross income. Aka you make $100k a year pre-tax, if you spend less than $30k/yr on housing you are ok, if you spend more you are what is considered "rent burdened". The latest data shows that more than 40% of the country is considered rent burdened: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/renters-burdened-by-housing-costs.html
The definition was created by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), but is adopted by a variety of agencies and has become the national standard for determining housing affordability. As you can see, other agencies such as the US Census (above) and the Federal Reserve use the same standard: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-the-severity-of-rent-burden-on-low-income-families-20171222.html
Note, this measure is non-dimensional, it is not a dollar threshold, it does not concern itself with inflation or cost of living, it's simply a ratio of expense to income. Someone who makes $20k a month and spends $10k of it on housing is just as rent burdened as someone who makes $2k/mo. and spends $1k of it on housing, the measure does not adjust for other factors.
inb4 some smartass shows up: Yes, I know there are problems with the definition, no measure is perfect. No, I don't care about how you think we should measure it instead.
Are these areas really affordable though?
I grew up in a place like this and usually there's barely any blue collar or white collar industry. Most of the wealthy are doctors. Thankfully there are still some factories in business, and my parents earn a living as engineers in them. That's not the case for many old factory towns. So yes, the prices are nice but it's still going to be hard to pay the rent with nothing but McJobs.
I mean, it seems a little reductive to assume that the only jobs out there are professional jobs, factory jobs, and minimum wage. There is a whole ecosystem of small businesses and niche businesses that thrive in low cost of living areas. Maybe not your town of 300 people in Appalachia that's been slowly dying since 1950, but there are plenty of large towns/small cities scattered around.
Yeah, real estate price are very high and have been for a while. To find something more affordable, you have to go to a less desirable location. I was in the Poconos this weekend. I rented a 3 bedroom house, which was decorated in a very high end way. The house was small but very nice looking. The market value of this house is about $230,000. This same house at the Jersey Shore would cost $1,000,000+, depending on the location.
Poconos are so freakin nice too, screw NJ.
This is not a US problem, my rent in the EU was NYC level with pay at 50% of what I'd get in NYC and the availability for affordable rent was incredibly low. An open house for renting 60 year old apartment that hadn't been touched since construction renting at $1,500 for a 300 sqft apartment and 100 people showing up isn't uncommon.
Well, wage growth has been effectively stagnant until 2022, as most businesses focused on cutting expenses and raising stock prices, so it's not surprising that income hasn't kept up with inflation. EDIT: should have clarified that wage growth had been effectively stagnant for a number of decades prior to 2022.
Home building in the US in particular has been effectively nonexistent since the financial crisis (not zero, but extremely below what is needed to keep up with demand), and housing is basically the biggest cost, so more people renting and higher prices for housing means less free income for other things.
It is also worth asking what it is that we consider necessities; what is the average basket of goods an American expects to buy? Twenty years ago, your average person didn't own a cellphone. I'd argue that owning an iPhone is considered a basic cost of living at this point, and that is hundreds of dollars. Ditto lots of other consumer goods and services. I'm not asserting this, merely asking or inquiring, but it seems to me that while the relative cost of some of these things has come down, in an absolute sense they add up to major additional expenditures which a previous generation wouldn't have had to deal with. Lets say I am reasonably well off and live in Oklahoma - yeah, I probably own a smartphone. So do my kids. How many thousands of dollars have I spent on buying my family smartphones every couple years for a decade and a half? Thousands? Ten thousand? That's a meaningful difference in my financial situation. I'm not saying it is wrong to buy those things, merely that what is generally considered "necessary" changes over time to include additional costs
You should read jarstar’s lengthy comment where he explains very well the classical method to measure housing affordability. Your rant on smartphones is not particularly useful for this conversation. Just so you know many jobs require workers to have smartphones as a way to sign in to company property and systems but they do not pay for the phone.
Yes, I'm well aware of HUD's guidelines. I'm not sure he's entirely correct, actually, since the conversation around rent burdens usually doesn't track homeownership, for obvious reasons.
But the part about smartphones has no bearing on housing costs. And of course it's useful, if you can't get past the example used (smartphones) to the concept of what a basket of "necessary" goods is, then you shouldn't be having this discussion. Of course what we buy matters. Of course the cost of those goods/services matters! Very few extremely wealthy families have armies of servants anymore, whereas 150 years ago even moderately well off families would have a maid. Because labor is way more expensive. That doesn't mean someone with $1mm income is less wealthy relative to someone with $10,000 in 1873 just because those people had 3 maidservants and the modern family has one.
The smartphone part actually makes sense. Basically, if households were companies, revenue is increasing at a way slower rate than expenses are increasing. This cuts into profit (which I don't have to explain here). Its not just the cost of things going up, its new expenses that pop up. Yes, my grandparents had to buy things like eggs, bread and milk, which I buy today, but I'm also paid more. New expenses are things my parents/grandparents never had to pay for, such as computers, smartphones, dog care, Netflix, expensive vacations, coffee. Yes, you can make the argument those things are luxury and can easier be cut out; however, most people don't, that's why the pricing of things now is hurting most.
Essentially, people can't continually living better than prior generations if we just try to live the same way.
Yup, globalization has its drawbacks... and everyone wants to come to America.
feelin ya
While I agree with the sentiment of the thread, there were opportunities as well.
1) American friends waited a long time to buy property in Europe. When the GBP fell a few months ago and a few objects were below average, they struck and bought it. They saved a bundle because they could wait.
2) During the pandemic not all property prices went up. It was mostly desirable areas outside of large cities. There were quite a few deals back then and, taking the UK as an example, stamp duty was also no longer required.
3) I purchased property in the US before the interest rates went up significantly. On a long-term low interest mortgage which is not available in Europe. That, in my opinion, was a deal although I wish the prices were lower.
People like you cry, but if people couldn’t afford the rent, they would all move. Yet, somehow, all the places keep getting rented out. Nyc really isn’t that bad if you have a roommate or two and budget properly. Living below your means for a few years as a youngster isn’t that bad man.
Amen. No one forces you to live in NYC. Go live in a 950 sf one bedroom in New Rochelle for 2,300/mo.
Of course NYC is expensive. But people want to be near bars and restaurants and theaters and everything else. Think of it as paying for easy access to all that.
Your comment already proves OP’s point. New Rochelle is a town with 60,000 people. $2300 rent is insane when you consider that 40X = $92,000. That’s affordable for an only extremely small subset of the population.
That's cause people need somewhere to live. People get into more debt, live with roommates, and put off having kids or getting married.
Haha, people have been talking about housing affordability since forever, I'm not trying to insult you but it looks like you are fresh out of school and only now starting to see the real expenses of living as an adult. The Rent is Too Damn High guy has been a meme since 2010. As Ozymandia pointed out, home building has declined significantly over the last decade, and overall housing construction has been far behind what we need to keep up with migratory and population shifts. The latest report on housing deficiencies show the US is short about 3.8 million dwelling units (source: FannieMae). People have been making a steady shift from rural to urban living and we haven't been building enough, for the most part, since the 1980's. Some places have, and it's one of the reasons that zoning-free (or relatively free) Texas and Florida have been bastions of affordability the last decade. But even those regions have hit their limit with their low-density strategy of endless suburb. The Sun belt and is hitting the limits of what is affordable since the prime real estate has been taken up mostly by single family homes, and density has been left to the wayside. They are now starting to experience the same troubles that ailed California and New York two decades ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/upshot/housing-shortage-us.html
And you are going to see more issues with people building further and further from city limits, like this story about people getting their water cut off in unincorporated Arizona. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/16/us/arizona-water-rio-verde-scottsdale.html
Yep, post reeks of “I’m early 20s and lack the perspective” with a double shot of getting news from left leaning echo chambers (poor friends and Reddit). See the same here from kids on wealth inequality, and can instantly tell they are in college still or just left
you can still find 1BR in most cities in this country in desirable living areas (safe, walkable to bars/nightlife) for $1,000. Have a roommate and you can cut that substantially in 95% of cities. Not a yuppie? Again in most major cities you can find good safe quality 1BR or nice studio apartments for much less than a thousand a month.
wow if you pick Manhattan or a meme city that everyone in the country moved to like Austin or Denver then yea you better have $$$. Otherwise america is still very adorable, you just have to stop being entitled to a A+ city and experience from your typical Netflix show or a house as nice as the one your parents have
Name some of them. None of the sun belt cities are even remotely walkable. Most midwestern cities are walkable, but are built around factories that are closed down or automated and are now blighted. The coastal cities are nowhere near that affordable.
Name some of these cities? What do you consider a major city?
Studio apartments in Durham, NC are $1,500-1,800/month.
I found a studio in SF that’s a co-living arrangement (share bathroom, living area, and kitchen) with 12 people for $1,200/month and a room at a seedy motel for $1,000/month.
Cincinnati is $1,300-1,500 for a studio/1 bedroom.
5 years ago you could get a nice studio/1 bed in Phoenix for $1,000-1,200/month. Now those are all $1,500+ and the RE market there has exploded.
You’re not finding rent like that in Boston.
I just listed a tier 1, tier 2, tier 3/4 city, and a college town outside of an up and coming metro (Raleigh) all with rents above $1,000/month just off the top of my head.
It’s here clear as day for anyone to see. You’re “entitled” for even thinking about having the same life your parents did.
Do you actually believe the nonsense you just wrote? It’s not a surprise that many companies are short staffed. When you want high demands relative to what was expected of the parents and pay and abysmal wage that doesn’t even come close to resembling the same lifestyle, people lose interest. If you’re going to be poor either way, what’s the point?
The vast majority of asset ownership has concentrated into the hands of a very select few individuals and companies. If you really had a full picture on who owns and controls what (land, stocks, real estate) it would be frightening.
Agreed. Outside of saying that people start at different places, meaning, they might inherit money or have parents that are very good with money, our economy is a game where people who are better at "playing" it will continue to make money. So over time, money will follow to these people. Its how its designed. Big question is how to make it more equal, but that's a tough task.
There is nothing you can do. Just put the work in internally and your personal income will compound much faster.
By internal work are you referring to something akin to personal development?
I like living in a nice part of Manhattan because if I ever decide to move out to any other part of the US, I’ll be pleasantly surprised by how far money can go. Sure, the difference might not be as stark anymore, but it’s still extremely noticeable.
It’s not just the US. The situation you’re describing is identical in every Western country
The first house my parents purchased in the US after immigrating from London was 600k in 2004 at the time, that same property is now worth 3.5M… says everything you need to know about the current market. Wages are garbage in comparison to real estate. Fucking boomers
Sad
Historical preservation/zoning/NEPA/CEQA all coming home to roost. That's it, that's the tweet.
Average car note in America close to $1000. Yes things have become totally insane.
So really New York isn't that much more expensive than these smaller cities if you go without a car.
Fair but majority of these are working class people outside of cities where the pay is much less as well
Yeah, it's become a banana republic
Other countries are worse though for salary people.
I don't understand the sentiment that IB analysts can't afford to live in Manhattan. At your $110k base out of college, 30% of your gross income is $33k which equates to $2,750 a month. Assuming you have roommates, this is totally doable. At no point in time were first year analysts living solo in massive 1BR apartments in luxury condos unless they were being subsidized by family wealth. By the time you're an associate you should be able to swing living by yourself in Manhattan if that's what you want to do. None of this is new.
Keyword being Gross. Have you taken a look at Taxes in NYC? On a net basis, 1/3 of a monthly salary for someone on 110k p.a. (assuming you don't contribute at all to your 401k) is c. $2000/mo.
Could you find a shitty room in a pre-war apartment with three other people in Alphabet City for that? Sure. But I can't blame Analysts for feeling shitty that after working 80 hours a week, the vast majority of Manhattan Real Estate is off limits.
I don't disagree it sucks, but craig's point is that's what it's always been. Shitty apartments in alphabet city and murray hill - 1 bed shares. That hasn't really gotten worse
In that scenario you'd have $4k+ of after tax disposable income every month (which is more than the median gross wages in this country) after paying your rent and with dinner every night and commute home is comped. Look, it's an expensive city but let's cut out the hyperbole. You can't realistically expect to live wherever you want, have unlimited fun money, and sock away savings on your base salary in a notoriously expensive city as a 22 year old but you can live comfortably in Manhattan off your base and save your bonus every year just like decades of analysts have done before you.
Yessss
What’s crazy is some people have to work remotely so they can live in an affordable area. Shouldn’t have to employ real estate/COLA arbitrage to just survive.
I don't think anyone would disagree that people "shouldn't" but that's a normative judgment. Ignoring the non-market factors at play (which are significant), prices still reflect market clearing rates. So hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) are willing to do exactly this. 'Muhrica?
You're not entitled to anything buddy.
Google Timebrook investment
Sounds like it's the same outside the US too. Everywhere is becoming unaffordable
Blame it on the central bank esp the fed
Just don't live in the center of Manhattan then. There are so many places you can move to.
It started when the government began borrowing trillions of dollars to buy off the voters, and convinced the population that their home is "their biggest investment". Blame the government 100% of the time everytime.
It's the exact opposite: the government borrowed trillions to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Under President Clinton we had a budget surplus and we would have been debt free in around a decade. Then we got trillions for tax cuts and a war! And then Trump did it again! I wonder when it will trickle down...
We infact did not actually have a "surplus" under Clinton. They shifted liabilities and delayed accounting of expenditures to future years to create a paper surplus for one year. Your statement has nothing to do with the context of this thread, nor does it have to do with what I said. The idea that the government did not create the environment for the housing buble to develop is idiotic. Also there is no one side or the other who is responsible for this. Graft and stupid policies exist on all sides.
I think what we are all getting at is that the US as a society has largely failed/is about to fail. Time to fuck off to the UAE my friends.
Thank the lord for having well to do family. I live in a family owned penthouse apartment in one of the nicest parts of town and only have to pay HOA dues which include electric, water, trash, gas, cable, concierge, valet, etc. If I had to stake out on my truly own, that'd be 3x the costs in rent alone in a suburb at least 30min away then toss all the utilities costs on top, raising it to 4x the costs easily. More tolls, gas (20mpg @ 93 Octane in a 20gal tank ain't cheap ya'll!), no more walking to the grocery store, etc.
So yes, *ish is getting unaffordable unless you want to move to a Midwest college town. Montana is beautiful, but hard pass on a Bozeman winter.
Spent most of my life in the Northeast and living in the South currently.
In a popular city and prices keep going up for rent every year. My budget now vs. what I budgeted while living in Philadelphia is about ~50% higher (2.6-2.8K now vs. a 1.6-1.8K budget then). Going out with friends, very similar prices. I also live in a relatively high end neighborhood now vs. borderline the 'hood' in Philly.
For what I'm paying now vs. what I would be paying in Northeast cities, I'm fairly content with my living arrangement.
US economy needs to crash. Which I actually believe is the current strategy of the Biden admin.
Americans are paying more in taxes than Europe or elsewhere it’s mental and they don’t even get anything for their taxes.
And that’s because the American right has passed trillions in tax cuts for the rich every time they get power from 1980 to the present. Plus the endless wars they created. Dumbasses really think it will trickle down.
Believe it or not, Biden cut taxes more than Trump for the average American
Is has always trickled down. More jobs, more wages, more money is put into work. Supply-side economics was pretty much the thing since the American Revolution
dude it's global. fuck inflation
Eum praesentium fuga quaerat in. Quo aut eaque iste debitis. Porro expedita recusandae qui architecto ullam. Aut pariatur ut ullam optio nisi nemo aut.
Blanditiis dolore ad neque facere. Aliquam reiciendis quod et sit dolorum est necessitatibus. Labore modi exercitationem aspernatur quas ut non. Sint at quos ut perferendis. Facilis recusandae qui quibusdam et.
Consequuntur voluptatem amet ea repellat. Fugit aut hic eveniet sit et. Illum quia quia sit dolorem adipisci minus sit aliquid. Odit voluptatem minima et aliquam.
Est voluptas eum voluptatem magni. Sit ut corporis consequatur voluptatibus non enim nobis soluta. Mollitia doloremque culpa voluptatum iste perspiciatis dolore non.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ut quia est suscipit unde numquam voluptatum aut. Similique consectetur ipsam rem similique quod inventore soluta voluptatem. Cum et quos animi dolorem. Distinctio adipisci id officiis voluptas aut magnam. Numquam culpa corporis voluptate beatae nisi quos eaque. Et quod nostrum error est dolorem delectus maiores. Omnis aliquam illo dignissimos exercitationem ullam molestias.
Accusantium eos molestiae sequi ea hic iste deleniti. Commodi laudantium asperiores labore tempora consequuntur laborum. Illo ullam et sed eius. Rerum laboriosam consequatur magnam ut.
Ad laudantium quaerat tenetur velit nihil et. Ut fugiat dolore enim accusamus. Est adipisci possimus molestiae consequatur.
Aut ut debitis et quod quasi. Saepe ea nemo rem eos voluptate. Tempore quia in velit nostrum natus corporis.
Quasi iusto nemo labore eos qui. Eligendi facilis molestiae dolorem rerum possimus sed itaque.
Voluptatem numquam animi consequatur id cupiditate. Fugit id et labore similique. Voluptatum cumque sapiente reprehenderit doloribus id sint est. Sunt eius architecto velit sed.
Animi omnis quam ut dolor. Perspiciatis odio deserunt deserunt.
Optio magnam blanditiis quasi dolor harum ea. Sint hic suscipit in perspiciatis. Nihil mollitia dolore exercitationem hic.