Oyyobuy.com Review Why You Shouldn’t Shop Here {See Our Findings}

Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
  • BINARIUM
    BINARIUM

    Top Broker!
    Best Choice For Beginners!
    Free Trading Education!
    Free Demo Account!
    Big Sign-up Bonus!

  • BINOMO
    BINOMO

    Perfect For Experienced Traders!

There’s a very good reason why you shouldn’t pluck your nose hairs

As unsightly or awkward as they may be, your nose hairs play an important role in keeping you healthy. And there’s a very good reason why you shouldn’t pluck them out.

Business Insider’s video team chatted with Dr. Erich Voigt, an otolaryngologist (meaning he treats diseases and disorders related to the ear, nose, and throat) at New York University. He described what’s going on in your nose with the hairs that filter out all the stuff you breath in every day.

To start, there are two kinds of nose hairs that are key here: the ones you can see and want to pluck, called the vibrissae, and the microscopic cilia, which are responsible for filtering mucus and moving it to the back of the nose, where it can go into the stomach.

The vibrissae, which hang out near the front, are responsible for keeping some of the larger particles from making it that far.

If you pluck those hairs, germs and particles near the follicles can get inside and cause an infection.

He described the concept of a “danger triangle,” or the area on the face between your mouth and nose that’s susceptible to passing infections on to the brain.

That’s because the same veins that carry blood out of the nose meet up with veins that carry blood out from the brain as well. If those germs make it all the way back there, Voigt said, it could lead to conditions like meningitis (in which the protective membranes on the spinal cord and brain become inflamed) or brain abscess (another type of inflammation and swelling that happens in the brain, related to an infection).

These types of infections are rare, but they can cause serious trouble for people with weakened immune systems. And, depending on the infection type (bacterial meningitis, for example), the infections can be extreme and in some cases deadly.

So the next time you’re considering plucking a stray hair, consider trimming it instead; so long as you don’t get too close to the skin inside your nose, it could keep the “danger triangle” from becoming a full-blown problem.

Why you shouldn’t buy the worst house in the best neighborhood

Some proverbs offer sage counsel. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Cleanliness is next to godliness. Even a broken watch is right twice a day. Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. These are wise words to live by. But one saying that needs to have its proverbial status revoked is the well-known real estate adage, “Buy the worst house in the best neighborhood.”

Proponents of this strategy contend that buying a bad house in a good neighborhood is a surefire investment. The higher value of the surrounding homes, the argument goes, will elevate even the worst home’s value. A great neighborhood is like a rising tide: It will lift the price of all the houses in it.

Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
  • BINARIUM
    BINARIUM

    Top Broker!
    Best Choice For Beginners!
    Free Trading Education!
    Free Demo Account!
    Big Sign-up Bonus!

  • BINOMO
    BINOMO

    Perfect For Experienced Traders!

This advice has been offered, exaggerated, and accepted for decades.

As far back as the late 1970s, newspapers have profiled investors who cite their worst-house-in-the-best-neighborhood strategy as the guiding principle of the real estate game. In 1987, a Chicago Tribune article, entitled “Buy the Worst House on the Street,” asked readers, “Would you spend $1 to make $2?”

In 2020, Rich M. bought a fixer-upper in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. After renovating it, he sent the before and after pictures to the home improvement magazine This Old House, winning a spot as a finalist in the annual Reader Remodel Contest. The pictures ran with the caption—what else?—“Worst House in Best Neighborhood.”

Even British artist David Hockney shared his opinion on the matter: “Always live in the ugliest house on the street—then you don’t have to look at it.”

From CNN Money, to Investopedia, to the late Robert Bruss (known as the “Dear Abby” of real estate), the so-called experts have done their best to convince the rest of us that purchasing the best possible neighborhood’s worst house is a smart move.

But are they right? Is buying the worst house in the best neighborhood a wise investment or is this strategy a real estate myth?

Here’s how we used data to separate truth from adage.

Step one was to take a hard look at the cheapest 10% of homes in a given ZIP code. We wanted to start with a real understanding of what buyers are getting when they purchase a home that is priced well below a neighborhood’s median value. So we compared the appreciation rates of the bottom 10% against the rest of the homes in their respective ZIP codes. This let us see how the bottom 10% of homes performs relative to those of their neighbors.

If the adage were true, the bottom 10% of houses would need to perform better than the more expensive homes in their neighborhood. Faster appreciation would indicate that buying the cheapest house in the best neighborhood is a strategy that really does pays off.

Instead, we found that only rarely does the bottom 10% outperform the top 90% of houses in a ZIP code. On average, these bottom-tier homes do neither better nor worse than the others.

Looking at those numbers, we might have concluded that buying a neighborhood’s worst home is therefore a neutral investment strategy—a myth, but not a harmful one. It doesn’t maximize returns. But it doesn’t cost buyers either.

Then, however, we dug a little deeper—and we saw that buying the worst house in the best neighborhood can actually backfire. That’s because the more affluent a neighborhood is, relative to its greater metropolitan area, the worse the homes in its bottom 10% tend to perform.

In short, the nicer the neighborhood, the bigger the myth!

Take the case of two imaginary families in the Dallas metro area twenty years ago: the Neimans and the Marcuses. Both were scouring the market for a new home.

The Neimans were young, in love, and hadn’t amassed much in the way of savings. In fact, they weren’t even sure they could afford to buy. But then they found it: the perfect little bungalow in Eagle Ranch, a suburban neighborhood in Fort Worth. Sure, the house was in the bottom 10% of houses in the neighborhood. But the neighboring houses were so great!

Meanwhile, the Marcuses had been saving a little longer and were in a position to make a larger investment in a more expensive house. They could easily afford one of the nicer properties in Eagle Ranch, but instead, they decided to buy one of the worst homes in North Dallas, a more affluent neighborhood than Eagle Ranch. It wasn’t their dream home. But they figured that the pricier surrounding homes would pull the property value up. After all, Mr. Marcus told Mrs. Marcus, “You should always buy the worst house in the best neighborhood!”

You probably can guess what happened to the Neimans in Eagle Ranch. Even as the rest of the homes in their neighborhood appreciated in value, their house continued to lag behind by about 4% points.

But that’s not nearly as bad as what happened in North Dallas. There, the Marcuses watched in horror as their home underperformed its neighbors by a whopping 20 percentage points.

In other words, neither family found buying the worst house in the best neighborhood to be a winning investment strategy. But it turned out even worse for the Marcuses in North Dallas.

All of which raises an interesting question: Why does the bottom 10% of homes perform worse in a better neighborhood? The likeliest explanation is that there is less demand for lower-priced homes in nicer neighborhoods. As one might expect, in fancy areas, fancy homes are in the highest demand.

Imagine, for example, that you’re trying to sell a $375,000 co-op in Park Slope, a neighborhood on the western side of Brooklyn, which the New York Times described a few years ago as “both haunt and hatchery of New York’s smuggest limousine-liberal yuppies.” The median list price of a Park Slope home is typically six times the national average—and twice the price of the co-op in question. And buyers there aren’t messing around.

When you bought this house, you were so excited about finding a Park Slope home you could afford that you were willing to look past the fact that it was a dump. And, with the help of a contractor, you’ve made it much more livable. So you can’t understand why buyers aren’t biting. “Can’t they see what a steal this is?” you ask.

Unfortunately for you, the truth is that buyers in Park Slope aren’t looking for a $375,000 co-op. They’re in another stratosphere. A $375,000 co-op isn’t even on their radar. And even if they somehow stumbled upon a home that cheap, they might be excited. More likely, however, they’d wonder what the heck was wrong with it.

And therein lies the rub. Because the people who follow this advice do so right in the very neighborhoods where the bottom 10% of homes will deliver the worst relative performance. By buying the worst house in the best neighborhood, they’re also buying the worst house where it has the worst chance of appreciating in value.

It’s become clichéd in itself to say that clichés endure because they represent truths. But given how deeply this myth has penetrated real estate investors’ philosophy, we figured there must be something substantiated about it. So we asked: Is there anywhere that a buyer can purchase a home in the bottom 10% and still turn a profit?

The answer is yes, there are conditions under which the bottom 10% of houses can outperform the neighborhood as a whole. But these aren’t the worst houses in the best neighborhoods; they’re the worst houses in the hottest neighborhoods. In a hot neighborhood, even the bottom 10% of homes can turn a cool profit.

So what’s a hot neighborhood? It’s an up-and-coming area that has seen five consecutive years of higher-than-average home value appreciation. If you get to one of these neighborhoods within the first five years of it becoming hot, you have a chance of snatching a property at a low price point that, with some tender loving care, will soon reach the mean of the ZIP code. This especially is true in gentrifying neighborhoods where demand for higher density development such as condos and apartments drives up prices for cheaper properties.

Now Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, may not be the first place you think of when you hear about a hot trend. But, using data from 2008 on, we can see that Pittsburgh’s historic district of Manchester is seeing this exact phenomenon play out.

At the turn of the twentieth century, Manchester was a prosperous enclave of steel barons and other mansion dwellers. While some of their historic homes remain intact, many of them fell into disrepair as Manchester residents fled for the suburbs. But, by many accounts, the neighborhood is on the rise, experiencing a renaissance that is ushering in its second golden era. And, during the past five years, Manchester property values have been skyrocketing.

Let’s imagine another hypothetical family, the Roethlisbergers, die-hard Steelers fans, who are looking for a fixer-upper to transform into their dream house. They’ve heard stories about triumphant homeowners who have scooped up older Manchester properties on the cheap and restored them to their former glory. And so they buy one of the homes they can afford—which, of course, is valued in the bottom 10% of Manchester’s homes.

Unlike the Neimans and Marcuses, the Roethlisbergers’ story has a happy ending. Manchester is so hot that the bottom 10% of homes are not only keeping pace with the rest of the neighborhood; they’re outperforming the more expensive homes by an average of four percentage points. On the banks of the Ohio River, a Cinderella story has come true: The worst house in the best neighborhood has turned a profit.

Unfortunately, even in hot neighborhoods like Manchester, investing in one of those bottom 10% homes only works if your timing is absolutely perfect. Missing the boat can be extremely costly, because in neighborhoods where appreciation has slowed after an initial spike, the bottom 10% of homes tend to underperform compared to the neighborhood average.

In other words, if you don’t get to the neighborhood while it’s still hot, any cheap house you buy will likely do even worse than homes in the bottom 10% generally do.

We have a couple of theories about that, as well. One explanation is that a period of initial appreciation in a neighborhood can simply be a “false start”—an expected boom that quickly becomes a bust. People thought the neighborhood was going to be hot, but, for whatever reason, they were wrong.

Another explanation is that, after a fast start, the market is picked over. By then, all of the neighborhood’s investment or redevelopment opportunities have been exhausted—and the properties that are still cheap are cheap for a reason. Any home that could be replaced with high-density housing has already been identified, sold, and bulldozed to make way for a new building. This means the homes that are left are either in a horrible location or in such bad condition that no small amount of work will elevate their value to the mean of the ZIP code.

In short, they’re not going to provide a great return on investment.

The Las Vegas Strip is an example of one of the worst neighborhoods in which to own the worst home. While the Strip once was a hot neighborhood, due to its proximity to many casinos and tourist attractions, its luck eventually went cold, as luck in Vegas is wont to do. Now, the bottom 10% of homes in the area are underperforming the rest of the neighborhood by a solid nine percentage points. And buyers who took a gamble on one of those worst homes have learned the hard way that even in Vegas, the house doesn’t always win.

Which brings us back to those kindly folks who always seem to have an aphorism for every occasion.

Sometimes they’re not wrong. But that doesn’t always mean they’re right.

Here’s what the data says: Buy a decent house in the right neighborhood. What’s the right neighborhood? It’s the most expensive one where you can afford a home that is not in the bottom 10%.

Why We Buy Things We Don’t Need

You know that feeling of standing in your closet filled with clothes, but you have nothing to wear?

Most people believe that feeling is the brainchild of evil of branding and marketing experts conspiring to make you addicted to wanting more stuff.

Trust me, marketers wish they could dupe you into buying things you don’t want. Heck, I’d be a billionaire by now if we’d cracked that.

The simple truth is you can’t make people buy something they don’t want.

You can, however, make people buy things they don’t need.

I arguably don’t need more than one shirt. Functionally, it covers me and protects me from nature.

But I NEED 12 shirts because if I show up to client meetings in the same outfit over and over again, there are tangible consequences to my career.

In the best-case scenario it becomes a “thing” and I get to make a social statement about it (ergo, The Jobs Turtleneck). In the worst-case scenario, it becomes a point of mockery that comes with not-so-nice implications about my character (Exhibit A).

Given the track record of my life, it’s gonna be the latter.

Which means, I’m not being materialistic when I go on a shopping frenzy for shirts. I’m being practical.

Odds are, so are you. Because the real reason we buy things we don’t need is not as simple as “we’re vain materialistic capitalists!” The real reason has to do with how shopping came to be in the first place.

Shopping was invented

Back in the day, the ultra wealthy were the only ones who had lots of things. And they certainly did not “shop” for them.

Clothing was made by a custom tailor, art was commissioned or inherited, and dinnerware was a family heirloom. You got bragging rights for quality, durability, and longevity.

If you weren’t wealthy, then you were SOL.

Normal people had fewer things because they were difficult to manufacture and produce (and therefore, expensive).

The idea of something being disposable or portable or cheap didn’t exist. Plastic wasn’t mainstream yet, aluminum was just being invented, and only one company had an assembly line.

There wasn’t much to shop for because you couldn’t produce anything at scale (yet).

You had one coat. One pair of gloves. One pair of shoes. One pair of pants. And you took care of your stuff because you didn’t have much of it.

Plus, you didn’t need more things because upward mobility wasn’t a reality for most people.

If you were a servant, for example, you didn’t need nice dancing shoes or a tie bar. Where would you use them? You had your servant outfit and your casual outfit and that was it. You weren’t doing anything besides working and sleeping.

The notion of “options” for ordinary people was revolutionary.

There’s a great scene in the PBS series Mr. Selfridge (about the mogul who brought the department store to London) where Mr. Selfridge walks into a glove store and asks to see more options.

The lady who helps him is promptly fired as a result of her behavior. To be clear, her “behavior” was helping a customer browse options.

The scene is fictional, but the point still stands: You went into a store to buy something or you didn’t go in at all.

It was all very practical and very formal. “You need something to cover your hands because it’s cold? Here is something to cover your hands. Good-bye.”

You chose from what they gave you. There was no “shopping around” because there were no other places to go.

Shopping, in its inception, introduced the freedom of expression and freedom of choice into the mainstream.

It was the first time in history where things that were confined to the upper class were suddenly accessible to anyone.

Consider the first soap bar you didn’t have to make yourself. Or the first pair of gloves you didn’t have to sew yourself. Or the first pair of shoes you didn’t have to wear daily. Or the first pencils you could get in en masse.

(Side note: in getting distracted while writing this article, stumbled upon this awesome history of tape, another thing we didn’t have.)

All of these things are staples in our lives today, but they weren’t for most of human history.

Technically, we didn’t need any of them for survival, but they made life easier and more efficient.

These things made it so you weren’t concerned 24/7 with the business of survival. You could concern yourself with thriving.

That was emancipation my friends, not materialism.

Increased access to “things we don’t need” (or, more accurately, “things we lived without for centuries, but now have”) had massive cultural consequences.

Consider this: You’re a woman who’s worked as a ladies’ maid for 25 years.

You watched your masters live in luxury for 25 years. They go to exclusive parties and events decked out in fancy clothes, nice fabrics, and all the latest styles. You dreamed of donning those outfits, but it’s always been just that — a dream.

Then the department store comes along.

That nice dress you’ve been dreaming about for 25 years is suddenly accessible to you.

No. Where are you going to go in that kind of dress?

Except in your mind, you’re not thinking about the use of the dress. Because you were never buying “a dress.”

You were buying your permission slip into a life you never dreamed possible for you.

We never buy what we think we’re buying.

We don’t buy things.

We buy how things make us feel.

No one has a desire to own Uggs.

You have a desire to be comfortable and a desire to fit in. That’s why you buy Uggs.

And when you wear your Uggs, you get the feelings that you purchased. You feel comfortable and you feel like you fit in with your group of friends.

This is further evidenced by the reasons people cite for not buying Uggs: They do not want to feel like they fit in with the kinds of people who would buy Uggs.

Because purchases are emotional.

No matter how inconsequential of a purchase decision you deem it — you’re still choosing it based on emotion. Even commodities.

“ But I just pick the cheapest and move on with my life. How is that emotional?”

It’s emotional because there are implications about you built into the purchase.

If you view yourself as a salt-of-the-earth self-made man immune to the effects of advertising, well, buying cheap is very emotional because it affirms your self-concept.

Self concept: “I’m smarter than every other shopper, they’re fallin’ for this brand bull$%^&. Mmm mm not me.”

Try getting someone like that to buy the expensive bolt at the hardware store.

If they do, they’ll be pissed about it ALL day. You don’t get pissed about things you don’t feel something about. Pissed is an emotion.

More than affirming your self-concept, you’re also not buying what you think you’re buying.

You think you’re buying a bolt, but you’re actually buying that teaching moment you’re about to have in the backyard with your son.

Same thing with a gym membership. You’re not buying a gym membership. You’re buying your dream body.

Same thing with green juice. You’re not buying green juice. You’re buying permission to be naughty later without feeling guilty.

Same thing with a table. You’re not buying a table. You’re buying your fantasy social life where you host parties with wealthy friends who set their drinks on your expensive table.

You’re never buying what you think you’re buying.

Thanks to shopping-as-emancipation from restrictive social, economic, and gender norms, we started this whole “materialism” thing on a really positive note.

Which is why it’s really tough to undo it all now that we have plenty of stuff.

“Stuff” equaled upward mobility, convenience, and portability. Stuff made life easier. Stuff made life better.

We’ve set up a system where “stuff” is a prerequisite for success.

(You try getting a job without a smart phone and only one pair of pants. Good luck to you.)

Stuff wasn’t ever about stuff.

It was and still is about success. About moving up in the world. About a life bigger and better than the one you have.

Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
  • BINARIUM
    BINARIUM

    Top Broker!
    Best Choice For Beginners!
    Free Trading Education!
    Free Demo Account!
    Big Sign-up Bonus!

  • BINOMO
    BINOMO

    Perfect For Experienced Traders!

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
How To Choose Binary Options Broker 2020
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: