I’m not finding that a problem. When I want to speak to someone, I drop them a zoom invite, we hop on zoom, and have a conversation. I don’t see the big deal, other than we’re not chatting about family over the coffee machine.
The one thing that is a pain, and only because we don’t have the infrastructure, is pinging someone. I’m using email right now so it’s not always immediate.
The company my daughter works for uses sococo which I suspect is similiar to MS teams. They have an app that displays their company and staff as a building on an island, complete with offices, reception and meeting rooms. If she wants to speak to someone she ‘knocks on their door’, they get an immediate notification and can accept or decline. if they accept, the two of them are immediately connected by zoom, and everyone else can see that they’re in a meeting. if they want to have a multi-person meeting they all just click on a meeting room.
I’d like to have something like that, but we’re not there just yet.
I would love to do this, but I don’t want to pay California taxes. I don’t make enough for that. I also can’t afford the housing. My hometown is under 100k population, but houses smaller than mine in a big urban area cost 2x as much there, or more. I mean, I could afford it if I didn’t want to save for retirement, but not affordable with current (admittedly higher than normal) level of savings.
I found Slack OK for one-to-one. But you still have to wait for them to react to your overture. Int he office, I go over and we start talking right away.
I may be old fashioned, but my preferred commumication/collaboration methods are:
In person >>>>>Phone>>>>>Video>>>>>>>>E-mail
We have Teams. I can see who is available, and who is busy. Instead of walking over to my coworker’s desk, I send an IM that says, “do you have a minute to talk about XYZ?” And the usual reply is either “sure” or “just let me finish this email, how about in 10 minutes”? Then we chat via voice call, and share screens.
A lot of people buy in expensive areas for the schools. And expensive areas tend to have older homes because they were developed earlier because there’s something appealing about the area, such as proximity to an urban center and/or schools or general quality of life in the area. Not always, but often.
And you must live in a much more expensive area than me. I don’t make any $200K, nor do most actuaries around here, although a few do. That said, you can also get a pretty nice home for under a million dollars here.
In the US it’s more about location and school district. A house 5 miles from downtown in a good school district will cost more than a house 20 miles from downtown in a similar-quality school district.
And the range of quality of the school districts is tremendous. A house in a good school district will go for 30-80% more than the exact same house in a crappy school district that’s the same distance from downtown.
Now it’s not JUST the school district that drives that. The area with the good school district most likely also has better roads and is a more prestigious neighborhood in which to live. But it’s largely the school district.
Generally speaking though, to the extent that apples-to-apples comparisons are possible… yes, you do tend to get more house for your money with an older house. Condition obviously matters too.
Where I really notice it though is with the yards. You usually get a much bigger yard with an older home.
You do get the location and school district issues here as well. However, a new build house is usually tiny in comparison to the Victorian or even 20th century houses in the same area, especially when comparing houses with the same number of bedrooms.
Depends on the price range. McMansions are a thing here in the US.
In a more moderate price range then you see more of a difference.
One of my favorite homes (and between getting married/divorced and changing locations I’ve had more than my fair share) was a mid-century that had really generously sized rooms and closets. It had a pretty good setup, but there were plumbing and drainage issues. (And an ex-husband issue.) Of course it was also the most expensive of the homes I’ve owned. And it was the biggest and required the most maintenance. So I actually liked the next place better. But it was a good house, for sure.
In my neighborhood, there are no new builds. My house now is valued at the same amount as my previous house, which is about 25 years old now and twice the size, in a “good school district.”
We get a lot more crime here, being an urban neighborhood near freeways, our high school includes a lot of poorer neighborhoods, and many houses are limited to street parking only. Our yards are actually a lot smaller, too. But it’s the area we love.
We had ducks a few years ago, or my son did. They are proper assholes. But I wouldn’t wish a death by raccoon on them. I lost some chickens to raccoons, not pleasant. I had to relocate a couple raccoons, and try to reign in my son who had a more immediate relocation plan for them.
We also had a fox get one. I was outside with my coffee one morning and saw some white stuff fluttering near the bush. At first I though it was snow, then I realized I’m watching a fox take down one of the ducks. Ran, but too late.
When we moved, we actually found someone with some acreage and a pond who was super happy to take them on. they had a whole menagerie there, so that was a nice ending.
I recently heard the 17-year cicadas will be coming back this summer, and Stu said “Good, the ducks will get fat” – those ducks really try to eat everything moving around. They tried eating toads, but the toads were too big. Since we got them, none of us have gotten tick bites or Lyme disease. So even if we don’t get more eggs, it’s kind of worth it for the pest control.
We also had turkeys at one point. They terrorized our dog (they just walked over the fence like it was nothing) as well as any cars coming in the driveway because they were tall enough to look in a car window. And they razored my SO’s gardens.
They were tasty though.