This is the terrible economic Pain we are feeling?

[NotCranky]

O.K. Nost,
Got it and sent you a reply. I must admit the “spammers must die stuff”, in the post above, frightened me!LOL

[NotCranky]

O.K. Nost,
Got it and sent you a reply. I must admit the “spammers must die stuff”, in the post above, frightened me!LOL

[NotCranky]

O.K. Nost,
Got it and sent you a reply. I must admit the “spammers must die stuff”, in the post above, frightened me!LOL

[NotCranky]

O.K. Nost,
Got it and sent you a reply. I must admit the “spammers must die stuff”, in the post above, frightened me!LOL

[Anonymous]

did you know there’s a correlation between height and mathematical ability? Apparently all those three foot tall four and five year olds aren’t better at math than a five foot 12 year old!
I’m unsure whether the homeownership is going to be proven to be the cause of better performance, it seems likely that it’s masking the true cause, but I’ll accept it for the present. Okay, now how about all these people who are going to have owned their homes for three years or less. Are their children going to show a slight increase in performance? How long to you have to “own” a home to have a benefit. Isn’t it more critical *when* the home is owned, i.e., during the elementary school years or during the high school years? I’ll guess that the effect if any is over-shadowed by the parental involvement/expectations.

This reminds me of the Baby Einstein stuff, conveniently ignoring that people thought Albert Einstein was developmentally retarded at age six. He thought up relativity while riding in horse drawn street cars, before there were computers, or mass produced autos for that matter. I love my computer, but computers don’t seem to make for better students as far as I can see, and I suspect that computer ownership will be shown to have correlation, too, just not as much as the parents attitudes.

[Anonymous]

did you know there’s a correlation between height and mathematical ability? Apparently all those three foot tall four and five year olds aren’t better at math than a five foot 12 year old!
I’m unsure whether the homeownership is going to be proven to be the cause of better performance, it seems likely that it’s masking the true cause, but I’ll accept it for the present. Okay, now how about all these people who are going to have owned their homes for three years or less. Are their children going to show a slight increase in performance? How long to you have to “own” a home to have a benefit. Isn’t it more critical *when* the home is owned, i.e., during the elementary school years or during the high school years? I’ll guess that the effect if any is over-shadowed by the parental involvement/expectations.

This reminds me of the Baby Einstein stuff, conveniently ignoring that people thought Albert Einstein was developmentally retarded at age six. He thought up relativity while riding in horse drawn street cars, before there were computers, or mass produced autos for that matter. I love my computer, but computers don’t seem to make for better students as far as I can see, and I suspect that computer ownership will be shown to have correlation, too, just not as much as the parents attitudes.

[Anonymous]

did you know there’s a correlation between height and mathematical ability? Apparently all those three foot tall four and five year olds aren’t better at math than a five foot 12 year old!
I’m unsure whether the homeownership is going to be proven to be the cause of better performance, it seems likely that it’s masking the true cause, but I’ll accept it for the present. Okay, now how about all these people who are going to have owned their homes for three years or less. Are their children going to show a slight increase in performance? How long to you have to “own” a home to have a benefit. Isn’t it more critical *when* the home is owned, i.e., during the elementary school years or during the high school years? I’ll guess that the effect if any is over-shadowed by the parental involvement/expectations.

This reminds me of the Baby Einstein stuff, conveniently ignoring that people thought Albert Einstein was developmentally retarded at age six. He thought up relativity while riding in horse drawn street cars, before there were computers, or mass produced autos for that matter. I love my computer, but computers don’t seem to make for better students as far as I can see, and I suspect that computer ownership will be shown to have correlation, too, just not as much as the parents attitudes.

[Anonymous]

did you know there’s a correlation between height and mathematical ability? Apparently all those three foot tall four and five year olds aren’t better at math than a five foot 12 year old!
I’m unsure whether the homeownership is going to be proven to be the cause of better performance, it seems likely that it’s masking the true cause, but I’ll accept it for the present. Okay, now how about all these people who are going to have owned their homes for three years or less. Are their children going to show a slight increase in performance? How long to you have to “own” a home to have a benefit. Isn’t it more critical *when* the home is owned, i.e., during the elementary school years or during the high school years? I’ll guess that the effect if any is over-shadowed by the parental involvement/expectations.

This reminds me of the Baby Einstein stuff, conveniently ignoring that people thought Albert Einstein was developmentally retarded at age six. He thought up relativity while riding in horse drawn street cars, before there were computers, or mass produced autos for that matter. I love my computer, but computers don’t seem to make for better students as far as I can see, and I suspect that computer ownership will be shown to have correlation, too, just not as much as the parents attitudes.

[Anonymous]

did you know there’s a correlation between height and mathematical ability? Apparently all those three foot tall four and five year olds aren’t better at math than a five foot 12 year old!
I’m unsure whether the homeownership is going to be proven to be the cause of better performance, it seems likely that it’s masking the true cause, but I’ll accept it for the present. Okay, now how about all these people who are going to have owned their homes for three years or less. Are their children going to show a slight increase in performance? How long to you have to “own” a home to have a benefit. Isn’t it more critical *when* the home is owned, i.e., during the elementary school years or during the high school years? I’ll guess that the effect if any is over-shadowed by the parental involvement/expectations.

This reminds me of the Baby Einstein stuff, conveniently ignoring that people thought Albert Einstein was developmentally retarded at age six. He thought up relativity while riding in horse drawn street cars, before there were computers, or mass produced autos for that matter. I love my computer, but computers don’t seem to make for better students as far as I can see, and I suspect that computer ownership will be shown to have correlation, too, just not as much as the parents attitudes.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[Author]

Posts