Bubble bust and changing landscape

[Eugene]

I absolutely doubt that a single-income engineer with two kids will HAVE TO spend more than 4 grand / month in addition to housing. Based on my personal experience. I wouldn’t call myself all that frugal, but our monthly expenses stay under $2000/month. Granted, I don’t have $600 car payments because the BMW and the minivan are paid off, and I don’t spend $300/month on gas and maintenance. My kids aren’t old enough to need braces, but they are young enough to need diapers, and we just got the twins off the formula. (Now they drink milk like there’s no tomorrow – we usually buy 4 gallons at a time – but it’s a lot cheaper)

But that’s not even the point. The point is, like I said repeatedly, whether you rent or buy, you’ll keep nearly the same amount of money in your pocket. Even ignoring future appreciation, raises, and rent hikes. It is quite feasible for a family with 130K income to buy in 4S today.

[SD Realtor]

Esmith, your caclulations are very much in line with my own reality. I have run the numbers to a nauseating extreme and for me they come out very close to your results.

Currently we pay 2500 a month rent. What you said rings very very true. Also the “opportunity costs” of saving money is quite poor in todays environment.

Congrats on the twins. Get a second fridge if you don’t have one already.

Note this is not an endorsement to buy but it is simply confirming the calculations put forward by Esmith.

[SD Realtor]

Esmith, your caclulations are very much in line with my own reality. I have run the numbers to a nauseating extreme and for me they come out very close to your results.

Currently we pay 2500 a month rent. What you said rings very very true. Also the “opportunity costs” of saving money is quite poor in todays environment.

Congrats on the twins. Get a second fridge if you don’t have one already.

Note this is not an endorsement to buy but it is simply confirming the calculations put forward by Esmith.

[SD Realtor]

Esmith, your caclulations are very much in line with my own reality. I have run the numbers to a nauseating extreme and for me they come out very close to your results.

Currently we pay 2500 a month rent. What you said rings very very true. Also the “opportunity costs” of saving money is quite poor in todays environment.

Congrats on the twins. Get a second fridge if you don’t have one already.

Note this is not an endorsement to buy but it is simply confirming the calculations put forward by Esmith.

[SD Realtor]

Esmith, your caclulations are very much in line with my own reality. I have run the numbers to a nauseating extreme and for me they come out very close to your results.

Currently we pay 2500 a month rent. What you said rings very very true. Also the “opportunity costs” of saving money is quite poor in todays environment.

Congrats on the twins. Get a second fridge if you don’t have one already.

Note this is not an endorsement to buy but it is simply confirming the calculations put forward by Esmith.

[SD Realtor]

Esmith, your caclulations are very much in line with my own reality. I have run the numbers to a nauseating extreme and for me they come out very close to your results.

Currently we pay 2500 a month rent. What you said rings very very true. Also the “opportunity costs” of saving money is quite poor in todays environment.

Congrats on the twins. Get a second fridge if you don’t have one already.

Note this is not an endorsement to buy but it is simply confirming the calculations put forward by Esmith.

[peterb]

The calculations look close enough. But I would caution that the risks are quite different.

Exposure to risk if purchasing:
1)Depreciation of the house.
2)Limited flexibility to relocate if needed.

Given the economic climate, flexibility seems to be of paramount importants. If employment is threatened, you could rent a lower cost place or move to where a job is located. Ownership could make this very difficult.

[peterb]

The calculations look close enough. But I would caution that the risks are quite different.

Exposure to risk if purchasing:
1)Depreciation of the house.
2)Limited flexibility to relocate if needed.

Given the economic climate, flexibility seems to be of paramount importants. If employment is threatened, you could rent a lower cost place or move to where a job is located. Ownership could make this very difficult.

[peterb]

The calculations look close enough. But I would caution that the risks are quite different.

Exposure to risk if purchasing:
1)Depreciation of the house.
2)Limited flexibility to relocate if needed.

Given the economic climate, flexibility seems to be of paramount importants. If employment is threatened, you could rent a lower cost place or move to where a job is located. Ownership could make this very difficult.

[peterb]

The calculations look close enough. But I would caution that the risks are quite different.

Exposure to risk if purchasing:
1)Depreciation of the house.
2)Limited flexibility to relocate if needed.

Given the economic climate, flexibility seems to be of paramount importants. If employment is threatened, you could rent a lower cost place or move to where a job is located. Ownership could make this very difficult.

[peterb]

The calculations look close enough. But I would caution that the risks are quite different.

Exposure to risk if purchasing:
1)Depreciation of the house.
2)Limited flexibility to relocate if needed.

Given the economic climate, flexibility seems to be of paramount importants. If employment is threatened, you could rent a lower cost place or move to where a job is located. Ownership could make this very difficult.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]
Ah, I see a straw man and possible ad hominem.
Ad hominem: “you will be able.”
Straw man: necessity vs. possibility of money being spent.

Since the future appreciation cannot be known there is no point in arguing about it.

[/quote]
The terms you used don’t seem to jive with the citations you made. Unless you 2 had a separate conversation that was not on the thread, I saw no personal attack be esmith on you (your ad hominem). Just using the second person does not generally qualify.
Also, making a competing argument is (necessity v possibility) does not a straw man make. I did not see her (I think its her) reduce your arguments to absurdity and attack them.

While we are bandying about debate club terms, your inapplicable use of “straw-man” and “ad-hominem” are “red-herrings”. It is a distraction from the primary debate and (while intention cannot be determined) they seem to be an intentional attempt to distract.

It seems like you are trying to throw her off her argument (which seems pretty strong).

I don’t generally agree with esmith. But her rent v buy scenario does seem to stand up here. Appreciation can never be known but trends and graphs that track rent to purchase can be obtained (and thus speculation can be made). Rich’s previous graphs about cash flow were very good for this purpose.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]
Ah, I see a straw man and possible ad hominem.
Ad hominem: “you will be able.”
Straw man: necessity vs. possibility of money being spent.

Since the future appreciation cannot be known there is no point in arguing about it.

[/quote]
The terms you used don’t seem to jive with the citations you made. Unless you 2 had a separate conversation that was not on the thread, I saw no personal attack be esmith on you (your ad hominem). Just using the second person does not generally qualify.
Also, making a competing argument is (necessity v possibility) does not a straw man make. I did not see her (I think its her) reduce your arguments to absurdity and attack them.

While we are bandying about debate club terms, your inapplicable use of “straw-man” and “ad-hominem” are “red-herrings”. It is a distraction from the primary debate and (while intention cannot be determined) they seem to be an intentional attempt to distract.

It seems like you are trying to throw her off her argument (which seems pretty strong).

I don’t generally agree with esmith. But her rent v buy scenario does seem to stand up here. Appreciation can never be known but trends and graphs that track rent to purchase can be obtained (and thus speculation can be made). Rich’s previous graphs about cash flow were very good for this purpose.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]
Ah, I see a straw man and possible ad hominem.
Ad hominem: “you will be able.”
Straw man: necessity vs. possibility of money being spent.

Since the future appreciation cannot be known there is no point in arguing about it.

[/quote]
The terms you used don’t seem to jive with the citations you made. Unless you 2 had a separate conversation that was not on the thread, I saw no personal attack be esmith on you (your ad hominem). Just using the second person does not generally qualify.
Also, making a competing argument is (necessity v possibility) does not a straw man make. I did not see her (I think its her) reduce your arguments to absurdity and attack them.

While we are bandying about debate club terms, your inapplicable use of “straw-man” and “ad-hominem” are “red-herrings”. It is a distraction from the primary debate and (while intention cannot be determined) they seem to be an intentional attempt to distract.

It seems like you are trying to throw her off her argument (which seems pretty strong).

I don’t generally agree with esmith. But her rent v buy scenario does seem to stand up here. Appreciation can never be known but trends and graphs that track rent to purchase can be obtained (and thus speculation can be made). Rich’s previous graphs about cash flow were very good for this purpose.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]
Ah, I see a straw man and possible ad hominem.
Ad hominem: “you will be able.”
Straw man: necessity vs. possibility of money being spent.

Since the future appreciation cannot be known there is no point in arguing about it.

[/quote]
The terms you used don’t seem to jive with the citations you made. Unless you 2 had a separate conversation that was not on the thread, I saw no personal attack be esmith on you (your ad hominem). Just using the second person does not generally qualify.
Also, making a competing argument is (necessity v possibility) does not a straw man make. I did not see her (I think its her) reduce your arguments to absurdity and attack them.

While we are bandying about debate club terms, your inapplicable use of “straw-man” and “ad-hominem” are “red-herrings”. It is a distraction from the primary debate and (while intention cannot be determined) they seem to be an intentional attempt to distract.

It seems like you are trying to throw her off her argument (which seems pretty strong).

I don’t generally agree with esmith. But her rent v buy scenario does seem to stand up here. Appreciation can never be known but trends and graphs that track rent to purchase can be obtained (and thus speculation can be made). Rich’s previous graphs about cash flow were very good for this purpose.

[Author]

Posts