OT: How much baggage will you accept?

[CA renter]

Maybe that’s it. 🙂

But war…you’d be surprised how many men support war, whether or not they’re signing up to fight the war themselves.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]
Maybe it’s a Jewish thing. I wish my iq were higher. My 94th percentile LSAT score was basically in the borderline mentally retarded from a Jewish perspective.[/quote]

That’s hilarious. I can see the older women discussing this.

Bewildered, as if they’d lost someone. “He seemed like such a little genius. I don’t know what happened. 94th percentile! Remember little David? He scored in the 96th percentile and we thought that was bad. Oy vey ist mir.”

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=zk][quote=scaredyclassic]
Maybe it’s a Jewish thing. I wish my iq were higher. My 94th percentile LSAT score was basically in the borderline mentally retarded from a Jewish perspective.[/quote]

That’s hilarious. I can see the older women discussing this.

Bewildered, as if they’d lost someone. “He seemed like such a little genius. I don’t know what happened. 94th percentile! Remember little David? He scored in the 96th percentile and we thought that was bad. Oy vey ist mir.”[/quote]

it really does suck if you’re only comparing yourself to the top 10%. Also and this is the really shameful thing…I studied really hard to get that sad bottom half of the class of the top 10 % score. Maybe if I’d just gotten over the flu or something. But I felt great..

not getting into Harvard with that kind of moronic result.

Although LSAT scores correlate strongly with law school success, life success and LSAT score and I would think IQ have little in common or to do with making it, as long as you have enough to work with..

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=CA renter]Maybe that’s it. 🙂

But war…you’d be surprised how many men support war, whether or not they’re signing up to fight the war themselves.[/quote]

Yes, men support wars more frequently.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/7243/gender-gap-varies-support-war.aspx

But I don’t know if war is only a man thing. Lots of women encourage war. In novels women send off their men and boys to war as heroes. Could it be that if it weren’t for the glory in the eyes of their women, men wouldn’t go to war?

I think it’s a good thing that women are now allowed in combat. With technology, women and man can do the same things, almost all the time.

Women voters are safety conscious wanting to protect their own suburban bubbles. I believe that women supported 3 strike and you’re out more than men. Women support punitive drunk and drug laws. And when their own kids get caught, they wail like crazy.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi] Could it be that if it weren’t for the glory in the eyes of their women, men wouldn’t…?

[/quote]

You could end that sentence with a lot of things.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=CA renter][quote=zk]Being of high intellect is, really, almost worthless by itself. It’s rarely what determines how far you get in life financially. It’s more likely to hinder than help socially. Chicks don’t necessarily dig it. What’s it good for? Inventing stuff, maybe. I don’t know. Not much.

Hard work will get you more than intelligence. Social skills will get you a hundred times more in life than intelligence.[/quote]

Absolutely agree with this.[/quote]

It’s been my experience that women, and people in general, like cleverness and wit, which can come when you add social skills to intellect. People don’t like to be made to feel stupid or inferior, which was something I didn’t understand as a cocky teenager. Using your brains to create something interesting is attractive, but constantly using it to show everyone how smart you are is not (One of my wife’s friend’s husband is pretty awful in this regard).

Intelligence is like a generator. On it’s own it isn’t especially useful, but it can certainly be harnessed for useful application.

[FlyerInHi]

I always had an admiration for the ivory tower and pure intellect. I hold professors in high regard. Maybe I’m in the minority these days, but I believe that prior to the 1930s, wit and intellect were expressions of manhood. Then mass media and pop culture took over and the rugged man become the definition of manhood.

Flyer, what does your wife think about the depiction of men in movies over time?

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]
it really does suck if you’re only comparing yourself to the top 10%. Also and this is the really shameful thing…I studied really hard to get that sad bottom half of the class of the top 10 % score. Maybe if I’d just gotten over the flu or something. But I felt great..

not getting into Harvard with that kind of moronic result.
[/quote]

Anything can suck if you’re comparing it to something.

One could say, “I’m in the bottom half of the 99th percentile. I’m not too bright.” Or “Son, you’re good at baseball but you suck compared to Babe Ruth.” At some point, it’s just ridiculous.

Not sure what you’re like in real life, scaredy, but if you’re half as fun, funny,intelligent, insightful, original, generous, and full of (a kind of understated) flair as you are on these pages, then you’re way higher than the 94th percentile of mental capacity by any measure that counts. Your talents are indeed quite rare. There’s no way in hell 6 people in a hundred could come up with the stuff you come up with. Not one in a thousand, if you ask me.

I’m a bit embarrassed to say all that because a) you don’t need me to tell you that and b)it sounds somewhat obsequious (and I despise obsequiousness). But there it is.

[scaredyclassic]

Aww. Zk. I feel good because of you. Intelligence like money isn’t everything it’s just well I wouldn’t mind having more of each.

But in reality I am pretty awesome. I have way more than enough of each to function well and I see myself not so much as just another lawyer but more as a cultural treasure who singlehandedly increases ever so slightly property values simply by being here.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

I see myself not so much as just another lawyer but more as a cultural treasure who singlehandedly increases ever so slightly property values simply by being here.[/quote]

(Big booming super-hero-announcer voice):

It’s SCAREDY MAN!!

He’s not just another lawyer.

He’s a CULTURAL TREASURE!

Single handedly raising your property values since 2010!!

(Legal disclaimer voice): 94th percentile only, no guarantees. Please, no loud noises, sudden moves, risky investments, questions about women, or other scary things. Void on halloween.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=zk][quote=scaredyclassic]

I see myself not so much as just another lawyer but more as a cultural treasure who singlehandedly increases ever so slightly property values simply by being here.[/quote]

(Big booming super-hero-announcer voice):

It’s SCAREDY MAN!!

He’s not just another lawyer.

He’s a CULTURAL TREASURE!

Single handedly raising your property values since 2010!!

(Legal disclaimer voice): 94th percentile only, no guarantees. Please, no loud noises, sudden moves, risky investments, questions about women, or other scary things. Void on halloween.[/quote]

94th percentile just sounds pathetic but not as pathetic as the fact that I remember the results of a test from 1991.

[flyer]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I always had an admiration for the ivory tower and pure intellect. I hold professors in high regard. Maybe I’m in the minority these days, but I believe that prior to the 1930s, wit and intellect were expressions of manhood. Then mass media and pop culture took over and the rugged man become the definition of manhood.

Flyer, what does your wife think about the depiction of men in movies over time?[/quote]

FIH, she feels that, for the most part, both sexes have and continue to be presented in fairly stereotypical ways in books and film, but this is based on a highly calculated premise that sells around the world. Granted, there are exceptions.

IMO, she and her colleagues are some of the smartest people in the room, and they know how to constuct projects from every perspective that “play well” domestically and internationally. Since entertainment is, first and foremost, a business, these considerations are essential if you want to remain in the business.

[CA renter]

BG, I’m putting this quote here (obtained from the “Are Men Success Objects” thread), because this is the thread where we were discussing the cost/benefit analysis of having a SAHP. We’ve all kind of wandered back and forth on these two threads. 🙂

Did you have a chance to run the numbers, yet?

[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I’ve been swamped but I haven’t forgotten about Joe and Jane Sixpack who have 3 kids under the age of 6 years old. I’ve wanted to run Turbo Tax on their “theoretical situation” to demonstrate the value of the “secondary wage-earner’s” take-home pay (after expenses). I’ll get to this task hopefully tomorrow.

[/quote]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]BG, I’m putting this quote here (obtained from the “Are Men Success Objects” thread), because this is the thread where we were discussing the cost/benefit analysis of having a SAHP. We’ve all kind of wandered back and forth on these two threads. 🙂

Did you have a chance to run the numbers, yet?[/quote]CAR, I’ve been swamped but I haven’t forgotten about Joe and Jane Sixpack who have 3 kids under the age of 6 years old. I’ve wanted to run Turbo Tax on their “theoretical situation” to demonstrate the value of the “secondary wage-earner’s” take-home pay (after expenses). I’ll get to this task hopefully tomorrow.[/quote]

Sorry for the delay, CAR. I’ve been really busy and only got as far as inputting a theoretical mom and dad (living in SD County) with three kids into Turbo Tax with gross take-home pays of $45K and $80K respectively.

Before completing form 2441, however, I wanted to double check into the current DASH and 6-6 program costs for this family (even though all the kids are currently under the age of 6), for projection purposes. This is because the secondary wage-earner … in this case, we’ll say “mom,” is likely going to get raises every year (however small but let’s say 1-3%) while the family’s child care costs go down exponentially year by year.

I do plan on using the Y’s costs for local home daycare but this sample family will NOT be living in a “higher-cost” area of the county (for daycare exp) as shown on their report.

Not that it doesn’t all come out in the wash, but I’m also going to assume the dad is claiming M-4 on his W-4 form and mom is claiming M-1 on her W-4 at work (for a total of five dependents). In my mind, this practice would help a little with take home pay for both.

Also, you had posted earlier (on this thread, I think) that our sample family shouldn’t have been trying to borrow for a home priced out of their league. I wholeheartedly agree but in the case of Joe and Jane Sixpack and their 3 young kids (our sample here), they wouldn’t be able to buy a SFR at all in San Diego County without Jane’s pay being factored in their mortgage ratios and also a portion of Jane’s pay being saved over the years to help with a downpayment. I wanted to use a mortgage amount of ~$300K +/- with a purchase price of $350-360K for this family. If our sample family was unable to purchase a home in the past few years, they would have been surely locked out of SD County (SFR’s) and forced to pay $1600 – $2400 mo rent for a similarly-situated home in a much lesser (rental) condition.

IMHO, that would have been a both a huge trap and a travesty for our (locally-employed) sample family.

I wanted to run the front/back end RE borrowing ratios for our sample family to illustrate this point and also that a moderate/middle income family with kids will never be able to get ahead in a region such as SD County, CA without both spouses working (preferably both FT). Through their progressive tax codes over the past 25 years, Congress has supported working families in that they have made it entirely worthwhile to both joint filers and heads of households to work FT.

So, there is a bit more work to this than I originally envisioned. I really hope to have it all done by the TK holiday and at the very least a thread started with our sample family’s tax return figures for 2013 for the Piggs to munch on.

Thanks for your patience.

[CA renter]

Thanks for your response, BG. Totally understand that you’ve been busy.

BTW, not sure why you’re calculating different housing/mortgage types, as that has nothing to do with the expenses incurred when the second income earner chooses to work outside the home. We can assume that they are living with parents, or living in an apartment, or living in a SFH that they had bought when prices were more reasonable, or in a condo, or in a mobile home. We’re assuming that this couple is already living somewhere when they are trying to run the numbers and make this decision.

Assume that all else is equal; just factor in the taxes and extra costs of working outside of the home.

We’re trying to see how much that second income earner is *really* netting (positive or negative), all else being equal, if s/he chooses to work outside of the home. Please refer to my original post to see what we’re trying to discover.

[Author]

Posts