Cross posted from Discuit

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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?

        • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

        • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

            • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

        • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          So, basically we know it’s a falsehood because it’s plausible. Saying something plausible is precisely what a liar would do!

        • samus12345@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • samus12345@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.”