Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 8, 2012 at 8:01 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745345June 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745297
an
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=paramount]To answer your last question: Absolutely, yes. Maybe it’s the fear that motivates, just last week I worked 21 hours straight over 1 day. Got some sleep and then went right back to work.
Last week alone 25+ people were let go.
There is NO sense of job security; that is understood.
Pension Gone: Check
Vacation Time: Cut in half
401k: What a joke, 50% up to 3%. I cashed mine out last year (more or less) and bought a second house. To this day I still think it was a good idea (sort of), but who knows…
Medical Benefits: Bare bones, I have so many medical bills (and for routine stuff) I literally can’t keep track.
Sick Time Gone: Check
Job Security Gone: Check
Holidays Lost: Check
And on and on…
I’d say in 2006 we probably had 2000+ employees on site, today certainly less than 1000.[/quote]
paramount, it sounds like you (and your fellow “co-workers”) need to be unionized … and PRONTO![/quote]
Why? To put that company out of its misery quicker?June 7, 2012 at 8:55 PM in reply to: My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs #745287Participant[quote=SK in CV]One thing that hasn’t been mentioned anywhere that I noticed, is that many (most?) public employees aren’t covered by Social Security. I know SD cops aren’t. So when we’re comparing that $50K a year pension or $100K a year pension, compared to a private industry employee 401K, an adjustment of $15 to $20K a year for social securty has to be made.[/quote]
Uh… you might want to read about 1/2 way down the thread. I did compare average pension vs average SS recipient and what that average worker would need to have by age 55-60 to match the average pension recipient. Oh, and btw, I calculated using NPV.Participant[quote=desmond][quote=briansd1]A free-range chicken is a happy chicken. He’s
better off than a chicken cooped up in a cage.Neither chicken know that they eventually become meals.[/quote]
Unless you have a “chicken brain” you really do not know that either….[/quote]
Haha, chicken brain….ParticipantMy uneducated guess is, they spent around $20-30k max to fix that place up. So, the profit is probably around $80-90k. Still amazing return for just 4-5 months.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Not a big loss as far as I’m concerned. I think that foie gras can still be made under humane conditions but it’ll cost much more.
I prefer pâté de campagne.[/quote]
There’s nothing human about killing the animal. If you’re not a vegan, then you’re being inhumane in the treatment of the animals that were killed to feed you.pâté and foie gras are both good, but what does pâté have anything to do with the banning of foie gras? So, it’s ok ban certain food because most people don’t eat it?
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Those damn flippers….[/quote]
Yep, another dam flipper making bank… http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120020678-9023_Kirby_Ct_San_Diego_CA_92126June 6, 2012 at 4:59 PM in reply to: Question for those of you opposed to government pensions. #745188ParticipantYes they should (for those who were not injured during their time of service). For those who were injured, it’s the least we can do for their sacrifice (i.e. take care of them financially for the remaining of their life, since the likelihood of them finding a job when injured is reduced, especially if they lost both legs and an arm). They should pay active military men and women more (at least similar to police), give them 401k & SS. But since even with prop B, police pension are preserved.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]No, never “clumped.” Got two good friends in Bay Ho (92117) and KNOW the difference. One of their BY’s looks out over Sea World Tower. I am a person who shopped at Costco at the end of Rose Cyn when it was the Price Club, lol :=0 I KNOW the difference and KNOW the hoods up there. HOWEVER, the quality of construction varies wildly in 92117. Near sdr’s “fav corner” (lol) of Clairemont Drive and Clairemont Mesa Blvd, the residential construction is bad, just ba-a-a-ad, IMO. Another “bad construction” area is just west of I-805 and north of Clairemont Mesa Blvd.
Quality of construction IS worth something. Especially if one intends to buy an older home or occupy a newer home more than ten years. You can’t imagine how much shoddy grading, construction or plumbing can cost a homeowner over the long haul. Not to mention the cost and inconvenience of thin walls, zero or inadequate insulation, substandard electrical service, leaky windows and on and on.
I think buyers (esp FT buyers) get wrapped up in stucco boxes with “archways,” tile roofs, or a certain neighborhood “look” without realizing that what’s actually under the hood is horribly inferior to the ’50’s ranch. They’re hung up on the wrapping paper (which likely has been patched and painted over as well).
And don’t laugh at those small mid-century houses in Linda Vista. Most are built very, very well built :=][/quote]
OK, since you’re not referring to Bay Ho/Bay Park and were specifically talking about Mt. streets in Clairemont 92111 as the superior lots, then I’d have to disagree. The best of Mira Mesa are the ones with over .3 flat usable acre AND 90-330 degrees canyon views. Just briefly looking at houses on Mt. streets, I don’t think anything there have both of these features.Quality construction is worth something, but floor plan also is worth something. Quality construct would be worthless if the floor plan is so horrible that you’d have to tear down all the walls and reconstruct it to modern standards. You’re making blanket statements about construction superiority for areas you’ve never been to? Just because they’re newer, they new be built like crap? I’m sure houses that are standing without major problem after 30-40 years were built pretty well.
Talking about thin walls and inadequate insulations, aren’t the older houses that tend to have thin walls and inadequate insulations? I’m pretty sure some really old houses don’t even have insulations. Talking about substandard electrical service, the new houses now have the house prewired for ethernet and have a 220 Volt main breaker vs older houses with 110 Volt and no ethernet. Which is substandard when the standard today is a computer or TV in every room and those devices need to talk to each other over ethernet? I would assume there’s a higher chance of old windows leaking than new ones. But you might know something I don’t.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Just to clarify there are homes in 92117 with great bay views but they are in Bay Park not Clairemont. The highest concentration of high paying jobs in SD are in MM and based upon trends will continue to be so for a long time. As much as I never got MM before I get it now and wish I had invested in it long ago. CM is centrally located but is mostly a blue collar community and will continue as such for a long time. Nowhere do you see more construction vehicles parked on streets, side yards and front yards than there in central SD. There are amazing canyon view lots in MM as big and as good as any in CM also. A client closed on one recently.[/quote]
I was assuming BG was clumping Bay Park/Bay Ho in with Clairemont. She said 92111 specifically, but when I look at 92111, SDLookup say 92111 is Linda Vista and the price for houses in 92111 are generally cheaper than MM. When you’re talking about the best part of CM vs best part of MM.Yes, there are amazing canyon view lots in MM, and as you and I both saw, there are a few with over .4 acre flat usable lots too. But those still can’t be compare to Bay view lots in Bay Park/Bay Ho.
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker]Geez. You guys are cheap. Just avoid buying expensive house that you cannot afford, avoid sending your kids to private schools that you cannot afford, etc, etc. If you can take out these unnecessary major expenses, you will have plenty of money to buy new clothes for the kids and avoid cribs that are falling apart, which are really unsafe.
You will need 250 grand/year to afford college for your kids? Either you have a financial management issue or you have some serious priority issue.[/quote]
It’s all about priority. It’s not that we can’t afford new clothes, but there’s nothing wrong with Gymboree/Carter’s quality hand me downs from our cousins. When we do buy clothes, we only buy stuff that are on clearance. If I buy clearance stuff for myself, why should I spend more on my kids’ clothes than on my own clothes?BTW, I would never suggest people to send their kids to private schools that they cannot afford or buy expensive house that they cannot afford. I would only suggest private school if you already max out your retirement, save enough to pay for their college (regardless of where they go), and save enough to build up for a decent rainy day fund.
Participant[quote=lifeisgood]You said that if you don’t have money, you don’t have to do these luxury things. Is it not OK to have money and still not do those luxury things? I think that you can still raise your kids cheaply even if you have the funds to buy all of the things that you have pointed out. Most of the time parents put their kids in swimming lessons, piano lesson, and other various sports whether the kid wants to or not. You always see the kids playing soccer that actually want to be there and the ones that don’t. I think that society has driven parents to do certain things because they are socially accepted. Almost like they want to one up other parents. Shouldn’t we let kids decide what they are interested in? As far as private schools, I would like like to see the data that shows that a child going to a private school is worth the cost. Why not save that cost for tuition to a college? Isn’t that the diploma that counts anyways?[/quote]
You’re right, you don’t have to spend on those luxuries, even if you have money. Which is why I said it’s optional. WRT all the activities, the caveat is that the kids would want to do those things. I don’t believe in forcing them to do stuff when they’re miserably doing it (except for academic stuff). Those extra curricular activities are there to enhance their life and if they’re miserable, that’s not enhancing anything and you’re just wasting money. However, if the kids are interested in those things, it cost money to provide them with those activities and lessons.As for private school, it would be interesting to see data as well. I don’t know if it’s worth it or not, but what I do know is class size. While public schools are dealing with high 20s to 1 teacher, my kid’s school at the same grade have a teacher to student ratio of 12 to 1. I never said to send your kids to private school and not save for college. I’m doing both. Yes, the degree at the end is what matter. I think elementary level private schools makes a bigger difference than Jr. High and HS level. There was a study that show kids who are ahead by 5th grade tend to keep that lead through out Middle school and high school. So, I’m putting my money is elementary school level education and college level education. Once you kick start their desire to learn in the elementary school level, they’ll carry that desire to learn in MS/HS level by themselves.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]$300 to $700 in the 70’s was PITI.[/quote]$300-$700 are for people who bought in the 80s to mid 90s. Those who bought in the 70s should have PITI <$300. I've seen houses in MM with tax of $800/year, so, assuming it's paid for, since they bought it in the 70s, their PITI is <$150/month. [quote=bearishgurl]In short, yes. It was commonplace at that time to get married, buy a house and start a family all before the age of 22-23. The models on the Mt Streets of Clairemont cost approx $11K to $18K new in 1961-ish, depending on lot size, location and square footage and most originally sold VA/FHA.[/quote]That's interesting to know. Didn't know people can save up that quick back then. [quote=bearishgurl]AN, even the "best of MM" doesn't compare with the "best of Clairemont" (92111) due to lot size, topography, setback, very mature landscaping, proximity to ocean/bay, weather ... many factors.[/quote]I agree, best of CM (92117 not 92111) is better than MM. They have some great bay views there. Although, this is the best of MM: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120017711-5938_Shaw_Lopez_Row_San_Diego_CA_92121. Way over priced IMHO.
BTW, if lot size, topography and setback are high on your importance list, MM have some lots that are superior than any CM have to offer (except for those with bay views). How does .4+ flat usable acre with 90-330 degrees canyon view sound?
ParticipantI don’t think it’s that big of a difference between different cities. I personally don’t think it’s expensive to raise a child. My kids wear hand me downs. The new clothes they get are ones when I can find great deal for (i.e. ~$5/t-shirt and <$10 for jeans/shirts/jackets). We reused the same car seat/stroller for both kids, then we'll be giving it to my SIL. We got hand me down crib too before it fall apart and we have to buy a new one. Most of their toys are gifts. So, the materialistic things are pretty cheap. However, private schools, piano lesson, swim lesson, various other activities are expensive. These items though are all luxury. So, if you don't have money, you don't have to do these luxury things. So, you can raise your kids on the cheap if you wanted to. But it can be quite expensive if you want to give them all the advantages you can afford.
Participantdelete.
-
AuthorPosts
