[bearishgurl]

Deadzone, my youngest is currently an undergrad Bus Admin/Acct major at a CSU and the Bus Dept is coaching all the students in this program to combine it with a Masters specialty or at the very least, combine it with one other (of the 8 available CSU business fields) to be the most competitive in the job market after graduation. A second field (minor) for a Bachelor of Science degree in Bus Admin involves taking only 7-11 additional units (which could be taken in the summer).

During the Masters (5th) year in Acct, the CSU degree candidate buys the (deeply discounted thru the school) study material for the state CPA exam and the bus dept offers workshops on preparing the Master’s candidate to take the exam.

The CSU has become very “occupational” in its priorities and programs offered to bachelor candidates and fluid in their course offerings as to the changing job market. I believe they are truly endeavoring to graduate as many students as possible in four years (or five with an occupational specialty). Gone are the days in the CSU admitting HS students who are not ready to do college-level work and allowing too many undergrads into programs where the program’s advisors cannot adequately monitor the progress of its students.

Hence, the swift “impaction” you see in most of the CSU’s occupational majors, varying by campus. As failing and/or withdrawing undergrads are weeded out of the programs every semester/quarter, spaces open for those qualified undergrads who are waitlisted to enter the program.

[bearishgurl]

Not ONE.SINGLE.DOCTOR (specialist) that I see (out of 8, depending on year/need) is under the age of 70. Two of them are frequent “expert witnesses” here in SD. And they are ALL SO BUSY they can’t even “retire.” One is “trying to retire” by limiting his office hours to 8:30 – 12:30, 4 days per week but he still has his hand in too many pots, lol…

Why would I (or anybody else who has a choice, for that matter) see an inexperienced “newbie” specialist when I can have the best in town??

How about surgery (major or minor)? If given the choice, who would the Piggs choose to perform it, a dr who has “observed and/or assisted with it” a handful of times and performed it a handful of times or a dr who has performed it hundreds (or thousands) of times and possibly taught interns and residents to perform it as well??

And I have never, ever hired an attorney in this town (or in any other jurisdiction) who wasn’t at least 65 years old … and I’ve hired a few in my lifetime. I didn’t have an “age requirement” when choosing them but I SURE wanted them to have a lot of credibility with local judges and with their (specialty) bar. It helps GREATLY if they have their names (figuratively) placed on a favorite chair in front of the judges benches they most frequent. And that the bailiffs in those departments greet them by name before they even sign in. You’re damned straight that all this matters … much more than one would think!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone][quote=flu][quote=deadzone]So every career on FLUs dream list are Wall St. banking activities. Personally I don’t consider those legit careers, certainly not for living in Socal. But sure those guys can get rich if that is your only goal in life and don’t mind selling your soul. Realistically, do you even need a college degree to be an investment banker? Probably more important who you know and what is your ethnicity.[/quote]

I’m sure doctors do pretty well mid-career, better than engineers, don’t you? And how long can doctors practice for?

I’m sure a decent attorney can still practice when their in their 60ies.

I’m sure a decent real estate broker/agent can still work in their 60ies.

You think you can practice in your engineering job when you are 70? Have you seen many 60-65 year old engineers?

I know you’re going to say, well most of those doctors/real estate brokers/agents/attoronies don’t do well… Well guess what? Most of the engineers these days that aren’t really good, don’t do really well either. They usually are the ones that get outsourced overseas first. So if you want to make a comparison, compare best case scenario to best case scenario or worst case scenario to worst case scenario. Also, if you felt engineering is so great, why do you continue to complain about H1-Bs being a threat? just curious[/quote]

You are nuts if you believe H1B is not a threat. Do you want your kids to have to compete with lower cost imported labor? Regardless of how “good” they are, net result is negative for the American worker. Just like with all the immigration debate, the only Americans that benefit from this are the employers.[/quote]

I’ve been arguing for YEARS that H1B is a real threat to American workers … esp tech workers. Other countries do not allow their (valuable) “living-wage” jobs to be usurped by hungry, foreign applicants …. and rightly so. It’s as it should be in those countries. The US is “giving away the store” in allowing employers to do this. We have always had PLENTY of homegrown talent in this country in ALL fields! It’s just that employers always want fresh (read: “young”) blood. They don’t want the 55+ yo American worker. There is a misconception out there among employers that older workers do not have the latest skills or their skills are not in the latest computer science or engineering subspecialities.

In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. And now that healthcare-coverage cost is “off the table” due to the ACA, employers can just give older workers an “allowance” to help them pay their (already-supplemented) health premiums from exchange-purchased plans and give each worker just under FT-status (30-34 hrs wk?) so they don’t have to give them more expensive company-paid health benefits.

Instead, US employers (esp medical and tech employers) would rather deal with the annual H1B headache and often pay relocation and other, more expensive benefits to hire foreign applicants over available American applicants. Just because a foreign applicant possesses a recent “advanced degree” from a US university doesn’t mean they can express themselves coherently on paper or have a full command of the spoken English language. They could have hired someone (like me, lol) to write all their papers in college or dictated them to a typist before turning them in! Ha! And I’m no “spring chicken!”

For the most part, US employers treat vibrant and energetic “older-worker applicants” like they’re dumb, out of touch and have one foot in the grave. It’s a dirty shame and they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]Okay, give me one example of a Tech company that is run by Ivy grads? I just picked two of the most important San Diego companies, not cherry picking.

Reality is getting an Ivy degree does not give you a leg up in any type of tech career. Certainly not if you want to live/work in Socal which everybody here obviously does.

Also FLU, you are the only person I have ever heard that complained about Engineering not being a well paid profession. Can you name another white collar profession that you can pull nearly six figure starting salary immediately after a 4 year degree from a lowly state school? Pharmacy is the only profession that pays better starting out, but usually that is a 5 year or more degree nowadays.

But no, you are not going to get rich being an Engineer or most any other profession. Most wealthy people are trust funders. A fortunate few get lucky with IPOs, real estate etc. but I don’t consider those careers.[/quote]

Deadzone, Accounting pays nearly $100K right out of the gate IF the student passed their CPA Exam and got their masters degree (which is one additional year [or less] over the Bachelor’s degree requirements, depending on curriculum of the school’s business programs). Many public colleges and universities all over the country are now offering ALL the credits for a Master’s in Accounting (incl subspecialties) for the same price as undergrad credits PROVIDED the degree candidate walks at graduation only ONCE and stays at the same school and works through BOTH programs diligently and full-time, either consecutively or concurrently, graduating in a timely manner.

NOT ALL Engineering grads make $100K immediately upon graduation. It completely depends on the graduate’s field of study, demand in that field in the locale they they’re applying for jobs in and the salary levels of that locale. In SD, I could see $65K as a more realistic starting pay for many recent engineering grads and I could see some types of engineering grads (civil eng?) possibly having to relocate out of SD to get any job at all in their fields.

I agree that an “Ivy degree” doesn’t really matter on the west coast in obtaining entry-level positions in almost all fields. I have no idea how much sway it holds for employers hiring for entry-level positions on the east coast. In any case, it’s probably not worth it to pay for ALL one’s college credits at an Ivy school. In paying only for graduate school at an Ivy school (if that’s what one aspires to do), this would have the same result out there in the “real world” because the ink on the diploma dries the same, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

I think the CSU is now much improved from the past 20 years or so. Yes, all campuses. They have stepped up their admission standards, their classes are challenging (even GE’s), the vast majority of their instructors are good to excellent and CA companies are hiring from their business graduates (as well as those CSU graduates from engineering, hospitality and many other fields). The CSU is still relatively affordable and can be even downright economical if your kid attends campus near “home” or in a lower-cost region of the state. I don’t recall if my kid(s) actually ever competed with “ivy-leaguers” for jobs and it doesn’t really matter.

As to AN’s explanation of his “tradeoffs,” his kid(s) are still young yet. I have told mine NOT to come back to SD County in search of jobs (they’re doing fine in higher-paying counties). It’s not about visiting me often. It’s about them making something of themselves in their fields in a city/county where that is actually possible (not here). Also, I want them to make a living wage (not possible here, especially in the years immediately post-graduation). AN may change his tune when his kids leave for college in effort to eventually become financially self-sufficient. I can’t speak for them but at that point, they may not want or need to see their parents or grandparents daily or weekly.

As to flyer’s kids …. sure it would improve anyone on this board’s (retirement) “bottom line” exponentially if their kids had access to an (unlimited?) college trust fund as flyer states here that his deep-pocketed parents and/or in-laws provided for his kids. For that, he is very fortunate in that he and his spouse did not have to use any of their own funds (or very little of them) to get their multiple (3-4?) children all the way through to graduation (and post-grad work?) in expensive private colleges. Of course, he often wonders how others will fare in retirement but he himself has been given a huge leg up … a gift in this regard in the form of family help for his kids’ college educations irrespective of any pensions or retirement preparations he himself has earned/made on his own behalf over his lifetime.

There’s nothing wrong with any of this, folks. I’m just pointing out that there are many “flyers” out there whose family legacies pave the way for their goals in life as opposed to the other 97% of the population who don’t have the same advantages. For this, I’m certain flyer is very grateful.

I agree with scaredy in that “trust fund kids” have much more choice in colleges that they can apply to AND realistically expect to attend (should they be accepted) than does everyone else’s kids.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=skerzz]Didn’t know that. Are they located on Phoenix way?[/quote]

They were actually sold comps:

This one on Jason Lane states it has has a gas dryer hookup and gas heat (forced air):

https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Marcos/445-Jason-Ln-92078/home/3857290#!

I can’t seem to re-locate the “interesting-looking house” I saw in CH. It was likely a sold comp as well. I’ll keep trying.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=skerzz]Didn’t know that. Are they located on Phoenix way?[/quote]

I can’t remember the streets. I can try to find them again in about 20 mins. In the meantime, you can look and see what you find. I remember they were on big lots with views. One house looked very interesting from the outside. I didn’t look at the interior photos.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, in general, people live in areas where they need to control the indoor climate. And it’s a good thing that we have technology to allow us to set the temperature we like, light up the house the way we want, and run our appliances and electronics. Solar is great technology to lower the cost of comfort. Isn’t that wonderful?

BTW, natural gas is not the most efficient way to cook. There’s a lot of heat loss, and associated cooling. The most efficient way to cook would be to use insulated electric appliances like electric rice/slow cookers.[/quote]

Understand, FIH. I have many relatives who live in “flyover states” with 85-90 deg heat with 80%+ humidity at least 8 months per year. It’s just that we in coastal CA have a “choice.” Anyone living in oppressive heat in SD County is “choosing to.” Households residing =<7 miles from the coast likely use half the energy that more inland households do (with similar family sizes and house sizes and comparable windows/insulation).

I like a gas cooktop. I like the flames .... for tortillas and other things. I also like downdraft cooktops (which are only available in gas). I don't have high-end appls but high-end ranges (for "serious" cooks) almost all run on natural gas as do professional cooktops for restaurants. There are good reasons for this.

I do use a slow cooker once in a while (if I have other people here to share the food).

A gas furnace in SD is way more economical than an electric wall heater or electric furnace (I haven’t actually seen an electric furnace in SD but I’m sure they exist … somewhere). We are very fortunate here in that we don’t have to use the furnace very often. If we did, our utility bills would be much, much higher.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=skerzz]Not sure, but perhaps has something to do with the low density (1 acre min lot size, and most homes have lots many times larger). We’re also not on city sewer, everyone has their own septic tank, there are no sidewalks, we know all of our neighbors by first name, and we frequently have deer visit the property. It’s truly like living in the country just minutes from freeways and PUD track homes.[/quote]

Yeah, I just looked at a couple of listings there on Redfin. I see now that it is made up of custom homes on septic. I could see how it is possible that utilities weren’t brought to every street.

I see that a few of your neighbors have cleared FAR down the slope from their homes and planted drought-resistant landscaping.

Good idea. Hopefully, your fire dept has access to nearby fire hydrant(s) on your street. If not, its every homeowner for themselves until the planes are called in. Compare to the likes of Oakland Hills ….

Oh, and it looks as though a sprinkling of your “neighbors” do have natural gas service. Maybe it was only brought into some streets but not others.

[bearishgurl]

Gas is more economical than electricity, esp in SD County. And gas cooktops, gas water heaters, gas dryers and gas furnaces are superior to electric models, IMO. I’ve never lived anyplace in SD County where I wasn’t able to have all of the above items in my home.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=skerzz][quote=bearishgurl][quote=skerzz]Coronado Hills Neighborhood of San Marcos (epicenter of last year’s Cocos fire).[/quote]

skerzz, is the fire the reason you no longer have gas service or were gas lines never installed there?

I seem to remember that area was near (or overlooking) CSUSM (predated CSUSM) … not sure.

I guess you must be paying $3K+ yr homeowner’s insurance premiums as well … with a limited selection of carriers to choose from ….[/quote]

An,

SDGE only provides electrical service to the area (gas lines never put in), so it’s all electrical unless you pay for a propane tank. That’s the area. The west side of the hill overlooks CSUSM and the east side looks out over parts of San Marcos, Escondido, Ramona, Poway.

I’m insured through statefarm for less than $2K per year. I’m a loyal customer with several policies and they have always treated me right. Not sure if it would be difficult to find another insurer because of the recent fires (the risk of fire is low now that all the brush has burned)…I’ve haven’t tried since statefarm is one of the few insurers that doesn’t discriminate against dog breeds (I have a “scary” rottweiler).[/quote]

Oh, I just remember the area where the fire started from the TV coverage. That’s great your home is still eligible for coverage by a well-known, reputable carrier, skerzz. <$2K yr is not too bad for a fire prone area. I pay <$1K yr for a Farmer's "Protector Plus" (replacement value) policy but I live in an urban area which is not close to any fire-prone areas. I find it odd that your micro area does not have access to natural gas. Did your area predate the incorporation of SM? Is there a reason that gas lines could not be dug there? Maybe other longtime SM dwellers can shed light as to why .... svelte??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=skerzz]Coronado Hills Neighborhood of San Marcos (epicenter of last year’s Cocos fire).[/quote]

skerzz, is the fire the reason you no longer have gas service or were gas lines never installed there?

I seem to remember that area was near (or overlooking) CSUSM (predated CSUSM) … not sure.

I guess you must be paying $3K+ yr homeowner’s insurance premiums as well … with a limited selection of carriers to choose from ….

[bearishgurl]

[quote=skerzz]Any reputable Solar company will not suggest that you install solar unless your SDGE electric bill (excluding gas) is in excess of $125/month. So I agree, as do most in the industry, that solar does not make sense in your situation.

I live in an area that does not have access to SDGE gas service. My wife and I with one infant child were running SDGE bills in excess of $250/month without using the A/C (the unit was non-functional). To reduce my SDGE bills down to a more reasonable level, I would have had to put in new insulation ($3K+), replace the single pane windows ($8K+), put a new energy efficient A/C and air handler ($10K+), take cold showers, and possibly install a propane tank/run gas lines, and replace water heater, dryer, stove-top to run on propane ($expensive).

Instead (and for less money), I installed a solar system for $23K (after tax credits) that reduces my SDGE bill to $0 and paid less than $1,500 to replace my A/C with one of those out-dated, but brand new, energy inefficient R-22 A/C units that works with my air handler (luckily I’ve got a family connection in the industry that was able to get one of these units for me). I now use as much energy as I want without pause and have locked my $0 SDGE bill in for the next 20+ years. Perhaps in the future I’ll make the energy efficiency home improvements you suggested and use the savings to charge an electric and reduce my monthly payment to the local Chevron station.

Not all buyers are the same, but if deciding between two identical houses, I’d definitely assign a premium to the one without an SDGE bill.[/quote]

skerzz, do you live somewhere in the mtns? Wildcat Cyn or Pine Valley, possibly …?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, some people like to run the AC all the time. I also like to have lights on for esthetics inside the house. The house just looks better with the lights on.

You may think that solar panels look ugly as sin. But popular opinion has shifted. People think that solar panels look high-tech. They lend a cool factor to the home. Not sure if that “look” will last though.
I personally prefer a modern house with clean lines and solar panels. Adapting solar panels to a Tuscan/Mediterranean house is ugly. They should have dispensed with the stucco covered foam architectural elements to begin with!

I agree with you that insulation should be first priority. A well-insulated house is also a quieter house.

I live in a condo… but I’m considering solar for a house in Las Vegas.[/quote]

Those people who feel they have to run AC all the time live in too hot a climate (like yourself, FIH :)). We’ve got a lot of “Mediterraean” in combination with “Mid-Century” house styles going on around here with Spanish-style and Craftsman sprinkled in the mix (which tend to be the oldest houses). Our few examples of “back east” house styles don’t have the “syrofoam-pillar facade,” like you see in newer construction, lol. Our Mediterraneans often have wrought-iron railing, block wall decor and gates, incl remote-controlled driveway gates. Also many “Mediterranean” homes have one or more archways. Perched atop an authentic “s-tile” clay roof, those solar panels look ridiculous, IMO. Especially facing the front of the house.

You’re right in that it definitely costs more to live in “lizardland” (that includes LV, FIH)! Not only is your utility cost jacked up beyond recognition 8-10 months per year but if one or more wage-earning homeowners are commuting long distances to work every day from “lizardland,” their gas expense alone no doubt costs $200 or more extra per month for each vehicle in the household making a daily commute.

There’s a lot to be said for living 0-7 miles or so from the ocean in coastal CA’s most “temperate zone.” For a SFR dweller, living near the coast is just a much less stressful (and cheaper, overall) life. Size and age of home be damned.

Living in a crowded multifamily unit in a beach community with a tiny, useless garage or no garage and/or lacking in available street parking … not so much (ex: Mission Beach SD).

[bearishgurl]

I got my SDGE bill this morning in my e-mail and was shocked to learn that it was <.30>! I downloaded the bill to find out that, apparently, my energy usage was below the baseline in the last billing cycle simultaneous to receiving the “CA Climate Credit.”

http://www.energyupgradeca.org/en/see-whats-new-and-fun/faqs/residential-climate-credit-faq

I was home every day during the billing cycle (did not take any trips). I work out of my home and leave the surge protectors in my office on 24/7, with 8 items attached to them. Normally, my bill is $44 – $55 month, depending on time of year.

This is for a 4 bdrm/2 bath SFR of approx 2200 sf (although very well insulated with double-paned windows). I have never closed any vents while running the furnace.

Why the h@ll would I consider paying for solar? Seems like a huge expense that a homeowner may not recover any or all of at the time of resale.

In addition, I’ve gotten three “Home Energy Reports” from SDG&E since December telling me that I am doing GREAT due to using just 2/3 of the energy of my “most efficient neighbors” (which are the “top 20% of all neighbors”).

Yes, I will admit that I am now a “one-person” household (with occasional houseguests). But so are a good portion of my neighbors. Another good portion of them are two-person households. Even when I had kid(s) living with me, my SDGE bill was never over $90 in the dead of winter and $50-$55 month in the summer.

Why not consider R-30 insulation and double-paned “Low E” windows instead of solar? The Pella Encompass (“Low-E”) windows really enhance the look of a house (have a slight green tint).

http://www.pella.com/windows/product-lines/encompass-by-pella.aspx

If your house has a crawlspace, you can insulate directly under your floor, as well.

Would thicker insulation and new windows be cheaper than spending a small fortune for solar? Methinks you could recover most of the cost of “Low-E” windows upon resale due to their aesthetics alone. Not so sure about solar. Solar panels on the roof are ugly as sin. Your buyer must be looking for that and also willing to pay for it.

It just seems to me that some homeowners on this and other threads here have “boxed themselves in” to a particular property in trying mightily to recoup the cost of solar. In those ensuing years, anything could happen to one or more wage-earners in the household causing them to have to relocate, or, at the very least, the household would benefit greatly from moving over 20 miles away. Of course, this theory only applies to those homeowners with a mortgage who are wage-earners. Just my .02.

[Author]

Posts