Simple life Manhattan: a 90-square-foot microstudio (by kirstendirksen)
Crazily this woman seems like she has a pretty good life in her tiny space. Applaud her savings :)
Still her rent is 700$ which is pretty hilarious - I mean New York prices vs. rest of world. Wow. (3600$ for a normal apt, she claims)
In 1970, the average size of a new home was about 1,500 square feet. Today, it’s about 2,521 square feet, which is 68 percent larger. There are fewer people living in the average home, too, so each person has more space. In 1970, each resident of a home occupied 478 square feet, on average. Today, each person occupies 996 square feet. Many kids get their own bedrooms, some kitchens rival those in restaurants, and 90 percent of new homes have a garage.
It’s interesting to me how people are spreading out….
the fireplace — long considered a trophy, particularly in a city like New York — is acquiring a social stigma. Among those who aspire to be environmentally responsible, it is joining the ranks of bottled water and big houses. “The smoke from a fire smells very nice,” said Diane Bailey, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco. “But it can cause a lot of harm.” The tiny particles, she said, “can cause inflammation and illness, and can cross into the bloodstream, triggering heart attacks” as well as worsening other conditions.
Ha, yeah, I’m with this article. I love fireplaces…but they are sort of a rare luxury that should be used not so frequently…Sort of junk food for the lungs…it smells good, but it ain’t so good…
1,000 people live in the flooded labyrinth of tunnels below Las Vegas. Many of them have carved out incredibly home-like spaces for themselves, despite the water which covers most of the tunnel floors.
This handy mnemonic — color, cut, clarity and carat — was developed in the 1940s by the Gemological Institute of America, still the world’s premier diamond-grading company. Lore holds that every diamond is unique and a work of nature’s art. But this idea was intimidating to American customers who wanted a firm readout of a diamond’s worth before buying it. De Beers therefore loved the Four Cs, and the company sent speakers on a promotional tour to explain these standards as if they had been observed for centuries. But when it comes to the most popular kind of diamond — the round, brilliant-cut stone that is a staple of engagement solitaires — a key factor embedded in the cut rating is likely to have a big impact on value. The “depth percentage,” the relationship between the stone’s top and the angle of its slanted sides, can make a diamond’s glitter a little more spectacular thanks to the physics of light. The sweet spot? A ratio of 58 to 60 percent. Too many buyers of stones of less than two carats get hung up on minor gradients of color and clarity, which are invisible to the naked eye and meaningful only at the cash register. For those who don’t plan to routinely ogle their stone under a microscope, an easier formulation would be the Two S’s: size and sparkle. The resale value of a diamond drops between 30 and 50 percent the moment you walk out of the store with it (a sixth myth is that they are good investments; they aren’t) so you might as well enjoy its illusory light while you can.
This kind of kind of hilarious - a good thing to think of when buying a diamond…just look for size and sparkle…
The article also has some interesting history about how diamond companies are all holding back on supply. In my opinion new supply coming onto the market is one reason why diamond prices have been flat and diamonds are a horrible investment - yeah…. it’s all marketing… but it’s marketing that has worked…
“Diamonds are a marketing gimmick as much as anything else. Most men feel they have to give a diamond ring when they propose—even though, as anyone knows after a moment’s thought, the only woman worth buying a ring for is the one who doesn’t care how much you spent on her ring.
The biggest winner in the diamond game is the Oppenheimer family, which runs De Beers, the Standard Oil of the diamond world.
Nicholas Oppenheimer, the billionaire in charge of the company, admitted this week that most of the sales growth in the U.S. over the past decade has been the result of clever marketing campaigns.
There’s no logical reason why you should have to cut a check to Mr. Oppenheimer’s family, or even to their competitors, in order to ask your girlfriend to marry you on Sunday. But you probably will anyway. Most of us do. Marketing is a powerful thing.
Russell Shor, senior industry analyst at the Gemological Institute of America, has some advice. Pear-shaped diamonds can often seem bigger than round ones of the same number of carats, he says. And small differences in clarity are often less visible to the naked eye than differences in color.”
As this graph shows, diamonds have been a terrible investment over the past 30 years. You might think that a diamond ring would rise in value over time, but no… it’s just money sitting there that could otherwise be used for something else. It’s one of the great cons that everyone should buy one - if I was a girl, I’d tell my guy not to spend a lot - I’d feel stupid with some expensive rock that never rises in value…
Having said that … of course it’s possible diamonds may rise in the future… I can only infer that diamonds are plentiful enough that we haven’t reached any sort of shortage yet - this is in stark contrast to gold which is marketed as a substitute for money and whose value has skyrocketed…