- This topic has 665 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM #685611April 7, 2011 at 12:09 AM #684447
CA renter
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.
I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.
I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.
Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.
Anyhow, just my 2 cents.[/quote]
Yes, I agree with you that wealth/income inequality is a major reason for the perception that the “Average Joe” is falling quickly behind. Even so, there are many families whose counterparts a few decades ago had a stable “lifetime” job, a defined-benefit pension, 100% healthcare coverage for themselves and their families, etc. What we are really lacking now vs. then is security, and this is what makes many people feel anxious about their prospects, IMHO.
State colleges were already hiking fees in the late 80s/early 90s, but I actually found a receipt from 1996, when I was doing some post-grad work. The cost of a semester with 7+ units (I believe it was any number of units above that) was $792/semester, plus a registration fee of $193, and parking was $63. IIRC, when I was going in the late 80s, the total semester cost was ~$800.
I also found a receipt from community college from 1987. The total cost for 12 units (including parking and the ASO fee) was $72 per semester.
While costs today might be lower than “prestige” universities, they are still very expensive compared to what they were in the 80s and 90s. Also, the wages for typical college-student jobs have absolutely NOT gone up as much as the tuition costs have. Back then, I was able to work my way though college, taking off a semester here or there to work more hours so that I could pay bills or save for the next semester. I received very little help from my parents (my choice — they would have helped more, if I would have let them), but I did have reduced rent when I would live with them occasionally — always attended local college.
I intend to have our kids follow what my parents and I did (dad with an MBA from CSULA, and mom, who graduated with honors from UCLA both started out in community college, as well). If the kids want to attend a fancy school, they will have to pay the difference themselves or earn scholarships, etc.
Also, as to your question about our house preference, we would ideally want a ~2,500 sf house, which is about the size of the house I grew up in. We are also open to houses that are under 2,000, if they are laid out exceptionally well. We have a family of five, with a possible sixth if my MIL lives with us. Our former house was <1,300 sf, FWIW.
April 7, 2011 at 12:09 AM #684495Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.
I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.
I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.
Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.
Anyhow, just my 2 cents.[/quote]
Yes, I agree with you that wealth/income inequality is a major reason for the perception that the “Average Joe” is falling quickly behind. Even so, there are many families whose counterparts a few decades ago had a stable “lifetime” job, a defined-benefit pension, 100% healthcare coverage for themselves and their families, etc. What we are really lacking now vs. then is security, and this is what makes many people feel anxious about their prospects, IMHO.
State colleges were already hiking fees in the late 80s/early 90s, but I actually found a receipt from 1996, when I was doing some post-grad work. The cost of a semester with 7+ units (I believe it was any number of units above that) was $792/semester, plus a registration fee of $193, and parking was $63. IIRC, when I was going in the late 80s, the total semester cost was ~$800.
I also found a receipt from community college from 1987. The total cost for 12 units (including parking and the ASO fee) was $72 per semester.
While costs today might be lower than “prestige” universities, they are still very expensive compared to what they were in the 80s and 90s. Also, the wages for typical college-student jobs have absolutely NOT gone up as much as the tuition costs have. Back then, I was able to work my way though college, taking off a semester here or there to work more hours so that I could pay bills or save for the next semester. I received very little help from my parents (my choice — they would have helped more, if I would have let them), but I did have reduced rent when I would live with them occasionally — always attended local college.
I intend to have our kids follow what my parents and I did (dad with an MBA from CSULA, and mom, who graduated with honors from UCLA both started out in community college, as well). If the kids want to attend a fancy school, they will have to pay the difference themselves or earn scholarships, etc.
Also, as to your question about our house preference, we would ideally want a ~2,500 sf house, which is about the size of the house I grew up in. We are also open to houses that are under 2,000, if they are laid out exceptionally well. We have a family of five, with a possible sixth if my MIL lives with us. Our former house was <1,300 sf, FWIW.
April 7, 2011 at 12:09 AM #685123Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.
I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.
I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.
Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.
Anyhow, just my 2 cents.[/quote]
Yes, I agree with you that wealth/income inequality is a major reason for the perception that the “Average Joe” is falling quickly behind. Even so, there are many families whose counterparts a few decades ago had a stable “lifetime” job, a defined-benefit pension, 100% healthcare coverage for themselves and their families, etc. What we are really lacking now vs. then is security, and this is what makes many people feel anxious about their prospects, IMHO.
State colleges were already hiking fees in the late 80s/early 90s, but I actually found a receipt from 1996, when I was doing some post-grad work. The cost of a semester with 7+ units (I believe it was any number of units above that) was $792/semester, plus a registration fee of $193, and parking was $63. IIRC, when I was going in the late 80s, the total semester cost was ~$800.
I also found a receipt from community college from 1987. The total cost for 12 units (including parking and the ASO fee) was $72 per semester.
While costs today might be lower than “prestige” universities, they are still very expensive compared to what they were in the 80s and 90s. Also, the wages for typical college-student jobs have absolutely NOT gone up as much as the tuition costs have. Back then, I was able to work my way though college, taking off a semester here or there to work more hours so that I could pay bills or save for the next semester. I received very little help from my parents (my choice — they would have helped more, if I would have let them), but I did have reduced rent when I would live with them occasionally — always attended local college.
I intend to have our kids follow what my parents and I did (dad with an MBA from CSULA, and mom, who graduated with honors from UCLA both started out in community college, as well). If the kids want to attend a fancy school, they will have to pay the difference themselves or earn scholarships, etc.
Also, as to your question about our house preference, we would ideally want a ~2,500 sf house, which is about the size of the house I grew up in. We are also open to houses that are under 2,000, if they are laid out exceptionally well. We have a family of five, with a possible sixth if my MIL lives with us. Our former house was <1,300 sf, FWIW.
April 7, 2011 at 12:09 AM #685265Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.
I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.
I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.
Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.
Anyhow, just my 2 cents.[/quote]
Yes, I agree with you that wealth/income inequality is a major reason for the perception that the “Average Joe” is falling quickly behind. Even so, there are many families whose counterparts a few decades ago had a stable “lifetime” job, a defined-benefit pension, 100% healthcare coverage for themselves and their families, etc. What we are really lacking now vs. then is security, and this is what makes many people feel anxious about their prospects, IMHO.
State colleges were already hiking fees in the late 80s/early 90s, but I actually found a receipt from 1996, when I was doing some post-grad work. The cost of a semester with 7+ units (I believe it was any number of units above that) was $792/semester, plus a registration fee of $193, and parking was $63. IIRC, when I was going in the late 80s, the total semester cost was ~$800.
I also found a receipt from community college from 1987. The total cost for 12 units (including parking and the ASO fee) was $72 per semester.
While costs today might be lower than “prestige” universities, they are still very expensive compared to what they were in the 80s and 90s. Also, the wages for typical college-student jobs have absolutely NOT gone up as much as the tuition costs have. Back then, I was able to work my way though college, taking off a semester here or there to work more hours so that I could pay bills or save for the next semester. I received very little help from my parents (my choice — they would have helped more, if I would have let them), but I did have reduced rent when I would live with them occasionally — always attended local college.
I intend to have our kids follow what my parents and I did (dad with an MBA from CSULA, and mom, who graduated with honors from UCLA both started out in community college, as well). If the kids want to attend a fancy school, they will have to pay the difference themselves or earn scholarships, etc.
Also, as to your question about our house preference, we would ideally want a ~2,500 sf house, which is about the size of the house I grew up in. We are also open to houses that are under 2,000, if they are laid out exceptionally well. We have a family of five, with a possible sixth if my MIL lives with us. Our former house was <1,300 sf, FWIW.
April 7, 2011 at 12:09 AM #685616Participant[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]When you add in the increased costs in healthcare, childcare, education, etc., people are much worse off today than they were decades ago.
[/quote]I think that in general, most folks in the US are not “much worse off today than they were decades ago.” I think a LOT of folks are not measurably better off than they were decades ago… but that’s a very different statement.
I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.
I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). Child care I have no idea about… but one chooses to have children. As far as I’m concerned, children are a luxury good and should be thought of as such – but you already know my position on this issue. Education – and I think we’re mainly talking about college here – is very expensive at the most competitive schools, but is pretty reasonable at the Community College and State schools. In-state tuition at SD State, for example, is $4,200/year (which is quite reasonable). And I firmly believe that you get out of a college education what you put into it – the real *learning* that takes place at UCSD ($22,000/year in-state tuition) probably isn’t materially different from that which takes place at SD State. The College Competitiveness which permeates many of today’s upwardly mobile parents is largely about… Keeping up with the Joneses… not about true educational attainment.
Having said all that, there’s a contrary view of your perception of our current relative standard of living (today versus the “Halcyon Days” – just to pick a term – of yore). Perhaps… the Halcyon Days (pick your decades) were the exception – and to be celebrated for their exceptionalism – and today is the “norm.” That is, instead of bemoaning how difficult things are today (in your perception) – which is the “norm” – perhaps we should just be happy that the Halcyon Days ever existed at all – that is, perhaps they were the exception, never meant to return again. That’s the glass-is-half-full view of things. It’s kind of like comparing stock returns over different periods. People bemoan the fact that the decades of 15%+ annualized returns aren’t returning… when instead they should be happy with 7% and just be glad that the 15%+ years ever existed at all… it’s all a matter of perspective. And, of course, we all suffer from reference bias, which is that our views of the present are biased by our views from some reference point in the past… which may have NOTHING to do with anything.
Anyhow, just my 2 cents.[/quote]
Yes, I agree with you that wealth/income inequality is a major reason for the perception that the “Average Joe” is falling quickly behind. Even so, there are many families whose counterparts a few decades ago had a stable “lifetime” job, a defined-benefit pension, 100% healthcare coverage for themselves and their families, etc. What we are really lacking now vs. then is security, and this is what makes many people feel anxious about their prospects, IMHO.
State colleges were already hiking fees in the late 80s/early 90s, but I actually found a receipt from 1996, when I was doing some post-grad work. The cost of a semester with 7+ units (I believe it was any number of units above that) was $792/semester, plus a registration fee of $193, and parking was $63. IIRC, when I was going in the late 80s, the total semester cost was ~$800.
I also found a receipt from community college from 1987. The total cost for 12 units (including parking and the ASO fee) was $72 per semester.
While costs today might be lower than “prestige” universities, they are still very expensive compared to what they were in the 80s and 90s. Also, the wages for typical college-student jobs have absolutely NOT gone up as much as the tuition costs have. Back then, I was able to work my way though college, taking off a semester here or there to work more hours so that I could pay bills or save for the next semester. I received very little help from my parents (my choice — they would have helped more, if I would have let them), but I did have reduced rent when I would live with them occasionally — always attended local college.
I intend to have our kids follow what my parents and I did (dad with an MBA from CSULA, and mom, who graduated with honors from UCLA both started out in community college, as well). If the kids want to attend a fancy school, they will have to pay the difference themselves or earn scholarships, etc.
Also, as to your question about our house preference, we would ideally want a ~2,500 sf house, which is about the size of the house I grew up in. We are also open to houses that are under 2,000, if they are laid out exceptionally well. We have a family of five, with a possible sixth if my MIL lives with us. Our former house was <1,300 sf, FWIW.
April 7, 2011 at 2:17 AM #684462Participant[quote=sdrealtor]CAR
While it doesnt mean prices cant go down it does mean prices wont go down anywhere near the level of our bet for the good ones which is what you are looking for. If prices drop, your competition goes up not down. [/quote]You and I see things differently. IMHO, it’s the reduced number of buyers as financing tightens, or interest rates rise, or more jobs are lost/less stable, or if wages decline, or if costs of other basic necessities go up (or any number of other factors) that causes prices to fall. While falling prices might make more people *want* to buy as they see prices falling, my guess is that other conditions and constraints will prevent them from doing so.
Now, as you know, there is ONE thing that I do worry about, and that is a currency collapse. It’s a very real threat, and it’s the ONLY thing that concerns me going forward.
April 7, 2011 at 2:17 AM #684510Participant[quote=sdrealtor]CAR
While it doesnt mean prices cant go down it does mean prices wont go down anywhere near the level of our bet for the good ones which is what you are looking for. If prices drop, your competition goes up not down. [/quote]You and I see things differently. IMHO, it’s the reduced number of buyers as financing tightens, or interest rates rise, or more jobs are lost/less stable, or if wages decline, or if costs of other basic necessities go up (or any number of other factors) that causes prices to fall. While falling prices might make more people *want* to buy as they see prices falling, my guess is that other conditions and constraints will prevent them from doing so.
Now, as you know, there is ONE thing that I do worry about, and that is a currency collapse. It’s a very real threat, and it’s the ONLY thing that concerns me going forward.
April 7, 2011 at 2:17 AM #685139Participant[quote=sdrealtor]CAR
While it doesnt mean prices cant go down it does mean prices wont go down anywhere near the level of our bet for the good ones which is what you are looking for. If prices drop, your competition goes up not down. [/quote]You and I see things differently. IMHO, it’s the reduced number of buyers as financing tightens, or interest rates rise, or more jobs are lost/less stable, or if wages decline, or if costs of other basic necessities go up (or any number of other factors) that causes prices to fall. While falling prices might make more people *want* to buy as they see prices falling, my guess is that other conditions and constraints will prevent them from doing so.
Now, as you know, there is ONE thing that I do worry about, and that is a currency collapse. It’s a very real threat, and it’s the ONLY thing that concerns me going forward.
April 7, 2011 at 2:17 AM #685280Participant[quote=sdrealtor]CAR
While it doesnt mean prices cant go down it does mean prices wont go down anywhere near the level of our bet for the good ones which is what you are looking for. If prices drop, your competition goes up not down. [/quote]You and I see things differently. IMHO, it’s the reduced number of buyers as financing tightens, or interest rates rise, or more jobs are lost/less stable, or if wages decline, or if costs of other basic necessities go up (or any number of other factors) that causes prices to fall. While falling prices might make more people *want* to buy as they see prices falling, my guess is that other conditions and constraints will prevent them from doing so.
Now, as you know, there is ONE thing that I do worry about, and that is a currency collapse. It’s a very real threat, and it’s the ONLY thing that concerns me going forward.
April 7, 2011 at 2:17 AM #685631Participant[quote=sdrealtor]CAR
While it doesnt mean prices cant go down it does mean prices wont go down anywhere near the level of our bet for the good ones which is what you are looking for. If prices drop, your competition goes up not down. [/quote]You and I see things differently. IMHO, it’s the reduced number of buyers as financing tightens, or interest rates rise, or more jobs are lost/less stable, or if wages decline, or if costs of other basic necessities go up (or any number of other factors) that causes prices to fall. While falling prices might make more people *want* to buy as they see prices falling, my guess is that other conditions and constraints will prevent them from doing so.
Now, as you know, there is ONE thing that I do worry about, and that is a currency collapse. It’s a very real threat, and it’s the ONLY thing that concerns me going forward.
April 7, 2011 at 3:01 AM #684472Participant[quote=davelj]I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.
[/quote]
Dave,
I specifically quoted your response to Scarlett in my post:
[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.
Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]
Perhaps you don’t think that what you said was rude/obnoxious/snarky/arrogant, but I can assure you that most people would be offended by your attitude and assertion there. Scarlett has NEVER made any indication that she was the type to “keep up with the Jonses,” nor has she ever said anything to my knowledge that would indicate a superiority complex or any such thing. There was no reason, whatsoever, for you to take that tone in your response.
I also mentioned that you had said almost the exact same thing to me in another post or thread, which I ignored, and you’ve made a number of comments to me and others that were totally inappropriate and offensive — and you meant them to be offensive.
It’s just funny that you’re accusing a decent and more humble poster of trying to “keep up with the Joneses” when your username is the one with “LJ” in it. I’m assuming it stands for “La Jolla,” no? You’ve also mentioned something about living in or buying a penthouse condo/apartment. So, it seems to me that the only one trying to “keep up” with anything around here is you. And yet, you’ve said that you like to point out hypocrisy.
I’m not trying to get into a pissing match with you, and I’ve stated on multiple occasions that your knowledge, input, and perspective is much appreciated, especially when the conversation revolves around banking. But many of us have had to correct people’s assumptions about things, and most of us manage (or try to) do so in a tactful and respectful way. The arrogant tone in many of your posts does not add anything to the discussions, and it does not make you look smarter or superior to anyone else. Do realize that most of the posters here are higly educated and very intelligent people with their own history and knowledge about certain topics; almost everyone brings something valuable to the discussion, even if it’s something you or I don’t agree with. It would really add to the quality of our discussions/debates if everyone would stick to the topics, stay away from personal attacks, and remain as respectful as possible with one another.
April 7, 2011 at 3:01 AM #684520Participant[quote=davelj]I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.
[/quote]
Dave,
I specifically quoted your response to Scarlett in my post:
[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.
Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]
Perhaps you don’t think that what you said was rude/obnoxious/snarky/arrogant, but I can assure you that most people would be offended by your attitude and assertion there. Scarlett has NEVER made any indication that she was the type to “keep up with the Jonses,” nor has she ever said anything to my knowledge that would indicate a superiority complex or any such thing. There was no reason, whatsoever, for you to take that tone in your response.
I also mentioned that you had said almost the exact same thing to me in another post or thread, which I ignored, and you’ve made a number of comments to me and others that were totally inappropriate and offensive — and you meant them to be offensive.
It’s just funny that you’re accusing a decent and more humble poster of trying to “keep up with the Joneses” when your username is the one with “LJ” in it. I’m assuming it stands for “La Jolla,” no? You’ve also mentioned something about living in or buying a penthouse condo/apartment. So, it seems to me that the only one trying to “keep up” with anything around here is you. And yet, you’ve said that you like to point out hypocrisy.
I’m not trying to get into a pissing match with you, and I’ve stated on multiple occasions that your knowledge, input, and perspective is much appreciated, especially when the conversation revolves around banking. But many of us have had to correct people’s assumptions about things, and most of us manage (or try to) do so in a tactful and respectful way. The arrogant tone in many of your posts does not add anything to the discussions, and it does not make you look smarter or superior to anyone else. Do realize that most of the posters here are higly educated and very intelligent people with their own history and knowledge about certain topics; almost everyone brings something valuable to the discussion, even if it’s something you or I don’t agree with. It would really add to the quality of our discussions/debates if everyone would stick to the topics, stay away from personal attacks, and remain as respectful as possible with one another.
April 7, 2011 at 3:01 AM #685149Participant[quote=davelj]I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.
[/quote]
Dave,
I specifically quoted your response to Scarlett in my post:
[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.
Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]
Perhaps you don’t think that what you said was rude/obnoxious/snarky/arrogant, but I can assure you that most people would be offended by your attitude and assertion there. Scarlett has NEVER made any indication that she was the type to “keep up with the Jonses,” nor has she ever said anything to my knowledge that would indicate a superiority complex or any such thing. There was no reason, whatsoever, for you to take that tone in your response.
I also mentioned that you had said almost the exact same thing to me in another post or thread, which I ignored, and you’ve made a number of comments to me and others that were totally inappropriate and offensive — and you meant them to be offensive.
It’s just funny that you’re accusing a decent and more humble poster of trying to “keep up with the Joneses” when your username is the one with “LJ” in it. I’m assuming it stands for “La Jolla,” no? You’ve also mentioned something about living in or buying a penthouse condo/apartment. So, it seems to me that the only one trying to “keep up” with anything around here is you. And yet, you’ve said that you like to point out hypocrisy.
I’m not trying to get into a pissing match with you, and I’ve stated on multiple occasions that your knowledge, input, and perspective is much appreciated, especially when the conversation revolves around banking. But many of us have had to correct people’s assumptions about things, and most of us manage (or try to) do so in a tactful and respectful way. The arrogant tone in many of your posts does not add anything to the discussions, and it does not make you look smarter or superior to anyone else. Do realize that most of the posters here are higly educated and very intelligent people with their own history and knowledge about certain topics; almost everyone brings something valuable to the discussion, even if it’s something you or I don’t agree with. It would really add to the quality of our discussions/debates if everyone would stick to the topics, stay away from personal attacks, and remain as respectful as possible with one another.
April 7, 2011 at 3:01 AM #685290Participant[quote=davelj]I was unaware that I “always try to turn debates into a volley of personal insults.” You sure about that? Please, reference specific posts where I’ve engaged in ad hominem and not brought specific data to the table. Now, I do like to point out hypocrisy – of which there is plenty – when I see it (and I quite enjoy the “snarky” – as you put it – riposte in that regard)… but I don’t consider those insults. I also like to point out when someone simply has no clue as to what they think they’re talking about (and, as you’re aware, I provide detailed analysis to back these instances up) – plenty of that as well. But if one is insulted by data and logical inconsistencies unveiled… then there’s nothing I can do about that. So, I doubt you’re going to get much support on your view here.
[/quote]
Dave,
I specifically quoted your response to Scarlett in my post:
[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett]Back in the 1950 and 1960, the median home price was roughly just below TWO times the median household income – which was then predominantly ONE income.
Nowadays, the median home price is roughly THREE times the median household income – which is at least 1.5 full-time incomes, if not close to TWO incomes. In San Diego that ratio is probably even larger.
[/quote]As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]
Perhaps you don’t think that what you said was rude/obnoxious/snarky/arrogant, but I can assure you that most people would be offended by your attitude and assertion there. Scarlett has NEVER made any indication that she was the type to “keep up with the Jonses,” nor has she ever said anything to my knowledge that would indicate a superiority complex or any such thing. There was no reason, whatsoever, for you to take that tone in your response.
I also mentioned that you had said almost the exact same thing to me in another post or thread, which I ignored, and you’ve made a number of comments to me and others that were totally inappropriate and offensive — and you meant them to be offensive.
It’s just funny that you’re accusing a decent and more humble poster of trying to “keep up with the Joneses” when your username is the one with “LJ” in it. I’m assuming it stands for “La Jolla,” no? You’ve also mentioned something about living in or buying a penthouse condo/apartment. So, it seems to me that the only one trying to “keep up” with anything around here is you. And yet, you’ve said that you like to point out hypocrisy.
I’m not trying to get into a pissing match with you, and I’ve stated on multiple occasions that your knowledge, input, and perspective is much appreciated, especially when the conversation revolves around banking. But many of us have had to correct people’s assumptions about things, and most of us manage (or try to) do so in a tactful and respectful way. The arrogant tone in many of your posts does not add anything to the discussions, and it does not make you look smarter or superior to anyone else. Do realize that most of the posters here are higly educated and very intelligent people with their own history and knowledge about certain topics; almost everyone brings something valuable to the discussion, even if it’s something you or I don’t agree with. It would really add to the quality of our discussions/debates if everyone would stick to the topics, stay away from personal attacks, and remain as respectful as possible with one another.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.