[Ash Housewares]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=Ash Housewares]
For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.[/quote]

What do you do and how do I get to do it too?[/quote]

I was referring to civil engineering (water resources). At my level private pay is around 75-80k, while at LADWP you rarely see engineers making less than six figures. It’s very difficult to get a job there if you already have experience; most are hired as college grads and just never leave.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=Ash Housewares]
For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.[/quote]

What do you do and how do I get to do it too?[/quote]

I was referring to civil engineering (water resources). At my level private pay is around 75-80k, while at LADWP you rarely see engineers making less than six figures. It’s very difficult to get a job there if you already have experience; most are hired as college grads and just never leave.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=Ash Housewares]
For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.[/quote]

What do you do and how do I get to do it too?[/quote]

I was referring to civil engineering (water resources). At my level private pay is around 75-80k, while at LADWP you rarely see engineers making less than six figures. It’s very difficult to get a job there if you already have experience; most are hired as college grads and just never leave.

[Ash Housewares]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=Ash Housewares]
For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.[/quote]

What do you do and how do I get to do it too?[/quote]

I was referring to civil engineering (water resources). At my level private pay is around 75-80k, while at LADWP you rarely see engineers making less than six figures. It’s very difficult to get a job there if you already have experience; most are hired as college grads and just never leave.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Re:
Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Washington voted on a similar proposition yesterday, and the vote tally so far has it failing. The difference in WA was that it would limit state revenue growth rather than spending growth (to CPI+population). Any revenue above that would have been used to lower property taxes. The interesting thing is that it appears to have failed even in the conservative counties east of the Cascades.

For what it’s worth, public employees in my profession and experience level make about 40% more than their private sector counterparts in raw salary; I’m not even counting the extra benefits like retirement pay. I’d vote for something along the lines of public salary=private salary*frac, where frac could be negotiated by profession but ideally around 0.8 to account for the retirement perks.

[Ash Housewares]

Often times with multi-family the seller will be willing to provide financing. I don’t know if they’d do zero down but it’s worth asking.

[Ash Housewares]

Often times with multi-family the seller will be willing to provide financing. I don’t know if they’d do zero down but it’s worth asking.

[Ash Housewares]

Often times with multi-family the seller will be willing to provide financing. I don’t know if they’d do zero down but it’s worth asking.

[Ash Housewares]

Often times with multi-family the seller will be willing to provide financing. I don’t know if they’d do zero down but it’s worth asking.

[Ash Housewares]

Often times with multi-family the seller will be willing to provide financing. I don’t know if they’d do zero down but it’s worth asking.

[Ash Housewares]

Update, he might have a plan. Here is what he wrote:

I just got done masterminding with some of the best investors/short sale experts in my office. This is what the group recommended I do.

Short Sale (Property C), wipes out the first $234,000 and drag out the second if lucky can settle the $63,000 for $10,000ish. That property is done no more $700-$800 per mo. loss.

Keep (Property D) current (saving Mom’s credit) and use the $100,000 HELOC money to invest down here in $30,000 condos that would cash flow $500-$600 per mo. ea (after HOA dues). Buy one, let property management company do all the work for $60 per mo. Once first unit rented repeat process for an additional 2 units for a total of three new properties, each cash flowing $500-$600 for a total positive of $1,500-$1,800.

Once that is done, Mom permitting, renegotiate the first and second mortgages on (Property C) to bring it from breaking even to a small monthly cash flow. Might have to miss a couple payments to get the credit unions attention.

In regards to the judgment…write the crazy lady a check for $2250 and stop thinking about it. Get property management to look over property….breaks even.

The house in (Property A) $164,000 breaking even, renegotiate loan to fixed 3-4% for cash flow of couple hundred a month.

Total outcome:

Sell 1 house that is loosing $700-$800 per mo. Keep all others and take from breaking even to $100-$200 positive cash flow per mo. 3 new properties cash flowing $1,500+ per mo.

My situation goes from a monthly loss of $700-$800 to positive roughly $2,000 per mo. while gaining total number of rental units. Save all cash flow and buy 1 new property every year (cash). Once market rebounds sell off property and look for apartment building.

Let me know what your blog members say.

[Author]

Posts