[bearishgurl]

My advice for parents of high schoolers is to push them to take AP English or Math as a senior (and earn at least a “C” in both courses all year) if they don’t score high enough in their CAHSEE in these areas as a junior.

correction: the EAP is the test taken by CA high school juniors to assess their readiness to take university-level English and Math, NOT the CAHSEE (also a required exam taken by high school juniors):

see: http://www.calstate.edu/eap/

Sorry for the error. Seriously, there is so much bureaucracy at the CA high-school level for students these days that I’m so grateful to be finally done with it.

Also, I stated above that incoming CSU freshmen could NOT take their English and math remediation courses at their local CC. I checked into this when my last kid sat for their ELM/EPT in January of this year (just in case) and the two CSU campuses my kid was admitted to would not accept remediation courses from our local CC (SWC). It depends entirely on which CSU campus your kid will accept an admission offer from and which CC your kid is planning to remediate at prior to CSU enrollment. The decision is entirely up to the particular CSU campus and should be obtained in writing before your kid attempts to enroll in English and math remediation courses at a CC.

The EPT cannot be repeated and the ELM can be repeated, although not in the same month (in SD, they are given at SDSU). The best case scenario is for your kid not to have to sit for them in the first place (be “exempt”).

see: https://www.ets.org/csu/about

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Awesome news about your eldest, svelte!!!

Would you mind sharing his/her major with us? I think many of us are pretty worried about world our children will be inheriting from us.[/quote]

I’m not svelte but I believe the best majors for good jobs right out of college are the eight business disciplines at the CSU. The best of those eight for immediate good jobs are Business Admin – Acct Option and Business Admin – Mgmt Option.

If the business student follows their 4-year plan and keeps going past four years, they can get an MBA in just ONE academic year going FT or a minor (such as Int’l business or Human Resources) in just ONE quarter/semester (4-11 addt’l units).

And as I’ve posted before here, CSUN has the “Professional Accountancy” 4-year BS program available but they are very picky about who they accept as freshman into the program.

Also, unlike the UC’s, a handful of the CSU’s use only full tenured professors (NOT student TA’s) to teach class (CSUN being one of those schools).

The CSU has 4-year plans available now for the Class of 2018 on at least eight campuses. If the student (declaring a bus major, for instance) seeks out regular academic counseling from the business dept and follows it religiously, they are now *supposed* to be able to graduate in four years.

The CSU’s aren’t messing around anymore admitting marginal freshmen who are not ready for college level English and math so a lot of changes have been made to their admission procedures for Fall 2014. If your student has a “conditional” admission to a CSU campus right out of HS, they will need to attend summer school immediately after HS graduation at a qualifying CSU campus up to five days per week for five weeks in person/residence or five days per week for two weeks online for no credit (depending on their level of remediation needed) or their admission will be rescinded. The CSU will NOT accept remediation taken at the incoming freshman’s local CC. My last kid did not need remediation but several of their current classmates had to take it.

see: http://earlystart.csusuccess.org/

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/05/pf/college/graduation-guarantees/

The CSU has had a very poor reputation for graduating students in four years in the past decade-plus and they are now striving mightily to fix that problem in campuses which are the least “impacted.” My advice for parents of high schoolers is to push them to take AP English or Math as a senior (and earn at least a “C” in both courses all year) if they don’t score high enough in their CAHSEE in these areas as a junior. This will negate the need for them having to sit for the EAP and ELM in January (in which they can get “trapped” into remediation courses before enrolling at a CSU if they’re having a bad test day).

If a kid follows the proper bureaucracy in HS, they should be able to gain admission to at least two CSU campuses if they apply to at least 4 campuses (preferably 6-8) thru CSU mentor. If your highschooler doesn’t know what they want to major in and can’t decide by Oct of their senior year, then the CSU probably isn’t for them at this time as they will get up there and possibly take the wrong GE’s, spin their wheels and end up spending 7-10 years getting a bachelor degree with a bunch of excess, worthless credits under their belt. In that case, I would find a small (public or private) liberal arts college (<5K students) tucked away somewhere ruralish with little distraction to send them to where they can get enough individual attn to "find themselves" in the most expedient manner possible.

Having your 19+ yo kid tied to mommy and daddy's apron strings living in their old bdrm while wasting a lot of time at CC and working at the local McD's with their high-school buddies (many of whom they've known since K) getting nowhere is a surefire way to end up with your kid (and their kid [s]) whining at your doorstep ten years later.

The CSU can make your kid successful and your kid CAN get a good FT job in the Golden State straight out of the gate but they've got to be open as to location of first job and eloquent and presentable by the time they are a senior working their contacts: that is, be able to talk it, walk it, groom it, dress it and engage adult-interviewers in meaningful conversation at the drop of a hat. My kid(s) are products of the CSU and were/are like this and that is why they are and (hopefully) will be very successful in life. So I feel that job success for college grads is one-third choice of major, one-third perseverance and stamina to finish a rigorous 4-year plan (w/no other classes added in) and one-third personality traits (which can be cultivated in some cases if not already there).

Just my .02.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=harvey]A while back, when I actually attempted to read her almost-plausible data-strewn nonsense, there was something that caught my eye:

She complained once that she got in trouble at work for sleeping on the bathroom floor.

The signs were there all along, but that’s when it really hit me.

She posted some made-up stuff about me and my family once. I asked Rich to delete it and he obliged.

Ah, whatever … I wish her the best.[/quote]

Uhhhhh, harvey . . . I mean . . . pri_dk (former-champion-of-uninformed-trolling-but-improved-somewhat-as-of-late)?? Can you show the Piggs where I posted your (bolded) statement?

I’m waiting with bated breath :=0

zk, I apologize here if you feel I was trying to make you “look bad.” Your main concern here seems to be that I was but, honestly, I really don’t have the time or desire for those kinds of BS games (especially now) and nothing could be further from the truth. The reality was that I saw an opportunity to “yank your chain” a little because your initial posts on the “tidy” thread clearly stated that you were frustrated with some aspects of living with your “tidy” partner because you were a lifelong “messy person” (“reformed” or not). And there’s nothing wrong with that. But before the thread was even noticed by me, you (rather self-righteously) ranted on and on here in-finitum about all the ways you disagree that “tidiness” has anything to do with one’s character. (I respectfully disagree in that in some cases, tidyness (or lack thereof) has a lot to do with one’s character and we are all entitled to our own opinions.) All of your words here speak for themselves.

I myself have purchased home(s) in the past with particular lots/floor layouts which lent themselves to both indoor and outdoor medium and large-scale entertaining. Upon purchase and a bit of fix-up, I fully expected to use them for that purpose and did just that for many years. I couldn’t imagine in my wildest dreams making the numerous (expensive) improvements you say you did on your lot and then later agreeing to be (unreasonably) restricted by a partner/co-owner as to how I could use my lot!

If I was a co-owner of my residence, my expected use of my/our lot would have been an agreement that was crystal clear between me and my co-owner long before purchase, or at the very least, before spending a small fortune improving the backyard for the sole purpose of entertaining. I see this as a huge issue because often offers are made on a particular parcel solely due to its lot configuration, floor layout of the house, etc, lending itself to the (allowed) uses of it in the mind of a prospective buyer. If there are two or more prospective co-buyers/co-remodelers for the same parcel, then they all or both need to be on the same page regarding the scope and cost of future improvements and future uses of such improvements before making them, or better yet, before purchasing the property together.

I don’t think anybody in their right mind would make the numerous and costly improvements to their BY as you state you did in the “tidy” thread without the expectation of using it to entertain groups of people in. Everyone knows that you can hardly play bocce ball all by yourself.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Don’t buy paper towels that enrich the Koch brothers.

I just buy a big pack of regular towels at Costco in the auto department to use as rags. Then I wash them….[/quote]

I don’t use them either. I just use old rags for cleaning and handiwipes for glass, then wash everything and reuse it. Paper towels are a waste of money.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=harvey]Ok, but that’s still $1/meal for one of the cheapest options possible. The budget I’m skeptical about is $1.38 average.

No doubt there are inexpensive dishes, but it would be tough to eat them exclusively, three meals a day, 365 days a year. All while working two full time jobs. And, like CAR said, there’s more to grocery bills than just food.

Are there holiday meals or an occasional celebration? Those could easily break the $1.38 average.

Another challenge with maintaining such a tight budget is medical costs. The $250/month estimate is for insurance only. That policy likely won’t cover all costs. The only way to maintain that budget is to never be sick.

There’s also no fun in that budget. Do the kids play sports?

I suppose the budget is theoretically possible, but this is a good week to be thankful that I don’t have to make it work.[/quote]As I’ve stated, I can give you a big long list of all the dishes you can make with that budget. This is just one of the many. But I didn’t feel the need to do so.

The rest of your post is essentially saying, you can’t afford luxury on a bare bone budget. Of course you can’t. But that was never the point of UCGal’s post or mine. All we’re saying is, it’s very doable. You can stay within that budget and be fully fed.

What’s the point of bringing up fun budget and sports?When you have limited income, you have to prioritize and food is much more important than sports or trips. If you make more money, then you can afford to do those other luxury things.

BTW, I’m not talking about theory here. I’m talking about plain old facts. My grocery budget on average for a family of 4 is between $400-600. My parents’ budget is much lower than that. So, it’s not just theoretically possible. It’s realistically possible.[/quote]

Totally agree, AN. My grocery budget (incl non-food personal/hshld items) was ~$170 mo for 1.5 people before my last kid turned 18 (when I lost my military commissary privileges). It is now ~$160 mo just for me and my pets. However, the months of Nov-Dec usually cost me $230-$300 mo, depending on how much entertaining I am doing at home.

Grocery outlet has good prices but does not carry several items I use (or only carries them sporadically). Sprouts is cheap for produce and Vons is good for (markdown) dairy and meat. Ralph’s has the best markdown (dry) grocery table and bakery rack in town and Albertson’s has the best markdown OTC drug and personal items rack in town. I’m fortunate enough to be able to conveniently shop at all of these stores. The trick is to shop at about 8:30 am for the best selection in markdown mdse. I’ve also gone into CVS on several occasions emerging with ~$80 worth of hsld/personal items for $15-$20 using their loyalty program benefits in combination with mfr coupons.

There are people out there on utube (yes, from CA) instructing the masses on how to properly use store loyalty programs to their benefit. That’s how I first learned how to “game” CVS a few years ago 🙂

edit: between 11/12 and 11/19, Albertsons had a deal for two for one Butterball turkeys (of similar size). They do this every year one week in advance of TK. I got two 12-pounders for under $20.

[bearishgurl]

CAR, I DID play with Turbo Tax last night but am now back to finishing up two more court filings before I can get Joe and Jane’s tax return completed. (I’m going to assume their oldest is in Kindergarten half-day.)

I just wanted to respond to my comments that you are taking umbrage with.

Firstly, if you read my comments about SAHP’s I stated that I was aware that there are some good FT “household mgrs” out there (you?) but in my personal experience with “friends” (most of my friends are/were “worker-bees”), neighbors and some family members, I just had not seen it. Instead I’ve seen obviously depressed “homemakers” who are addicted to alcohol, tobacco, gambling and shopping (or a combination thereof) and can’t see their way clear to mop the floor at least once every five years, take out the trash more than once a month or put their piled-up dirty laundry into their washing machine and turn it on.

Both FIH and scaredy have mentioned on this thread that they have seen same or similar and they’re likely not the only ones.

It’s one thing if this segment of the population is “retired” (with no minor children living in their residence) but quite another when they are attempting to raise minor children in the cesspool that they call “home.” Although not illegal (unless someone calls CPS on them and their kids end up being removed from the home), I feel that this behavior in adults amounts to child neglect and causes so many health issues for their kids and thus, is indicative of poor character in the parent.

Yes, not regularly removing trash from the home is a form of “hoarding,” which could be called untidy, messy or filthy. I’ve seen it all, first-hand, in households where the presumed “homemaker” has all the time in the world to “manage their household” but choose not to.

The way zk framed his posts here, especially the one where he felt he couldn’t entertain as he wanted to in a home he especially upgraded to do so (at great expense) spoke to me as someone who was frustrated with their spouse’s demands in this regard to which they (voluntarily?) acquiesced. It is not for me or anyone else to decide if zk is happy or not. I believe he stated somewhere here that he’d been married for 18 years. 18 years is a l-o-o-o-ong time to have not “traveled” or “stayed in a hotel.” (He clearly stated he hadn’t “traveled” since he’d been married.) To the reader, it sounds like he’s been (voluntarily?) incarcerated. I don’t personally know zk (to know whether he was joking here) so can only take his words at face value.

A very large portion of American adults (35 – 40%?) have been divorced at some point in their lives (esp boomers and beyond, many of whom married young). So, divorce is a reality among our peers and maybe us. A portion of those people have been divorced two or more times. I do not judge anyone for deciding to divorce and the “stigma” of being divorced has been gone for decades. But we all need to be honest with ourselves here. I believe a lot more people would choose to divorce if it weren’t for the financial ramifications of doing so. I do know that in CA, one thing is for certain. That is, the lower earner of the parties (or the non-earner) very often cannot and will not be able to support themselves (and their child[ren], if any) in the manner which they were accustomed while married … or even support themselves at all if they don’t work or otherwise have their own independent income. Even if the lower earner/non-earner party is eligible to receive awards of spousal and/or child support and the higher earner makes in excess of $200K annually, the lower earner still cannot support themselves properly unless they receive a lump sum award (or paid-off RE to live in) in lieu of SS, manage their investments properly and begin FT training/work immediately, so as not to (quickly) deplete their savings. This is because after the (much) higher earner’s income differential is factored in by the court, the SS/CS guidelines become subjective and negotiable.

Several lower-earner/non-earner types have utilized my services in the past for document preparation because they did not yet have an order in place for attorney fees and could not initially afford an attorney to file or answer their Petition and Summons. They were from all walks of life and had estranged spouses who made anywhere from $40K to $250K. I can safely say that ALL of them ended up moving in with local relatives in order to litigate their divorces and have a place to keep their children on their timeshare days. All but two are still living with same relatives up to 10 years later. All but two have minor children left in the home. One is now renting a room in a friend’s home. The other one whose children are grown is still living with their (now elderly) parents. I feel that their problems for failure to move on in life after divorce stem from mismanagement of their settlement funds (if awarded) and/or failure to obtain and keep employment.

My (limited) experience working on family law cases (I primarily prepare law and motion filings for civil lit) has taught me very well that it is utter folly for a married parent to leave the FT workforce (if they are otherwise qualified in a line of work) for a long period of time (5+ years) in order to care for child(ren) who do not have special needs. Divorce can happen to anybody at any time and often comes as a surprise to one party. Since CA is a no-fault state, the party who filed for a divorce and wants one will be granted one, regardless of what the other party wants. FWIW, the reasons for my own divorce had nothing to do with any party being a spendthrift, infidel or “messy.”

The reason the divorce rates are higher in some “flyover states” than CA, in particular, is because it is much cheaper there for both parties to live separately, plain and simple. I see that some of these same states are now mandating proof of attending premarital counseling before a marriage license is issued and offering marriage-license applicants other premarital contracts (such as obtaining counseling before divorce is contemplated) before a divorce can be filed.

I know that if I someday remarry, there will be a prenup in place months before marriage and our (separate and together) estate planning will already be completed. I won’t mingle finances, except for 1/2 of the “household fund” (utils, food, property taxes, fire ins, etc). If I end up purchasing a residence with a partner, we will each pay 1/2 cash for it and will take title as “joint tenants” (if living in CA). I won’t take out a mortgage with anyone else and won’t share legal ownership of my vehicle (my spouse can drive it) or any other assets I have and will not comingle them. My kids deserve an inheritance (if I have anything left) and so would my partner’s. If I move into a partner’s home (or they move into mine), I won’t ask to be put on title to their property and I won’t put them on title to mine.

I know I am not alone in my views here … not by a long shot.

I’ve actually seen cases where prematurely-disinherited (accidentally or on purpose) adult kids later made up credible-sounding stories accusing the surviving step-parent of sexually abusing them when they were minors (as retaliation for not getting any of their parent’s estate). Hence, we have a portion (5-10%?) of PC 290 registrants in residence in CA from all walks of life who were wrongly or erroneously technically convicted of a felony for a variety of reasons. These people are still being stigmatized by the public 40+ years after they served their time and/or paid off their fines and restitution. I feel that the lifetime registration requirement is ridiculous for one-time non-violent offenders.

There are frequently two sides to every story and a lot of shades of grey, colored by each individual’s perspective based upon their personal experiences. The only way to avoid that is to be crystal clear in your speaking and writing.

[bearishgurl]

Lol, I just sat down to take a stab on Joe and Jane Sixpack’s tax return and see zk’s latest rants and then decide to review the thread to refresh my memory:

[quote=zk]. . . bg, if you want to make me look stupid instead of yourself, try using my words instead of what you’ve been doing. I know I don’t give you much to work with, but if you’re patient it’ll probably happen for you.[/quote]

Good L@rd, zk. You’re now beginning to sound narcissistic with your last few rants.

YOU already gave me (and whoever else who wants to bite, lol) plenty to ammunition to make fun of your situation (as you describe it here) all the while vociferously berating people simply because they state here that they don’t like to be surrounded by untidiness or filth (I’m not a perfect housekeeper but I AM firmly in the FIH/brian camp).

To each his own.

[quote=zk]When I travel (I should say travelled, it’s different now that I’m married), I didn’t insist on daily room service. But I preferred it so that I didn’t have to clean. I will clean if I have to (I won’t tidy up, though, generally). I’m messy, but I’m not dirty. I don’t like cleaning, but I do it because I insist on clean. If somebody will do it for me, perfect.[/quote]

zk, you actually stated earlier in this thread that you believe it is essentially okay that you are messy, sloppy, whatever, because you don’t cheat on your spouse, you aren’t a spendthrift and aren’t a rapist or pedophile, none of which has anything to do with being clean or “tidy.” YOU yourself brought up all these attributes to compare with being a “messy person” right here on this thread! Later, above, you’ve stated here that you won’t “tidy up” (pick up after yourself) and, “If somebody will do it for (you), perfect.”

Glad you hear that you (hopefully) found a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Nevermind you can only invite half a dozen people at a time in your (expensive and expansive) back yard, can’t have a small super bowl party without a lot of grief afterwards and don’t travel anymore (due to your marital status?)

To the reader of your posts, it appears that you are clearly paying the price for having a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Whether you are paying a fair price (or not) for that service is in the eye of the beholder.

Don’t come here and talk about yourself ad nauseaum and then later backpedal in numerous paragraphs trying to defend yourself and say that someone got the wrong idea about you. Nobody did that, least of all me. You came here and did it to yourself … all without being prompted or cajoled. You even admitted here that you gave 97% in your relationship and then later backpedaled and stated you gave only ~45%. I can read your posts and surmise your situation from them just fine as can everyone else. I’ve been a lot of places in life and talked to a lot of people who have (or had) partnerships similar to what you describe yours to be here. If you have a “tacit agreement” with your partner about particular issues, that’s fine. It’s a free country.

If you’re happy, zk, then we’re all happy for you. Notice that I haven’t tried to insult you here but you have found it necessary to call me numerous names here, including “stupid,” as well as telling me, “fvck you,” which I’m assuming is another one of your defense mechanisms.

I’m about the least “emotional” one can be on this forum. As a matter of fact, the opposite can be said about me. I’ve tried on numerous occasions to inject a semblance of reality into other posters who became “emotional” (or just over-the-top “concerned”) about issues for which they were not considering all the facts and/or did not know all the facts. Two examples which come to mind would be rejecting a perfectly decent house on a perfectly decent street because of the presence of a nearby PC 290 registrant in residence or lambasting Pigg krowe (or her case or “misdeeds”) when she has not yet been tried in a court of law and has not yet had her day(s) in an administrative tribunal where her employment status will be adjudicated. There have been many other examples over the years. I’m only concerned about how the “system” actually works and how the the world works, NOT how I think it “should be.” I don’t care how the MSM has chosen to spin their latest “darling” story so it will “sell” to the (largely ignorant and complacent) public.

zk, your insults to me on this thread don’t bother me but are very telling about you. Why don’t you endeavor to just stick to the topic at hand and refrain from hurling insults at people who don’t have the same opinions that you do? The examples you gave about yourself here are fine. It’s perfectly legal to be “messy” (and have a partner who will pick up after them). We get it. OTOH, it’s okay for FIH/brian and others to consider themselves “superior” to messy people because they are clean and tidy.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]BG, I’m putting this quote here (obtained from the “Are Men Success Objects” thread), because this is the thread where we were discussing the cost/benefit analysis of having a SAHP. We’ve all kind of wandered back and forth on these two threads. 🙂

Did you have a chance to run the numbers, yet?[/quote]CAR, I’ve been swamped but I haven’t forgotten about Joe and Jane Sixpack who have 3 kids under the age of 6 years old. I’ve wanted to run Turbo Tax on their “theoretical situation” to demonstrate the value of the “secondary wage-earner’s” take-home pay (after expenses). I’ll get to this task hopefully tomorrow.[/quote]

Sorry for the delay, CAR. I’ve been really busy and only got as far as inputting a theoretical mom and dad (living in SD County) with three kids into Turbo Tax with gross take-home pays of $45K and $80K respectively.

Before completing form 2441, however, I wanted to double check into the current DASH and 6-6 program costs for this family (even though all the kids are currently under the age of 6), for projection purposes. This is because the secondary wage-earner … in this case, we’ll say “mom,” is likely going to get raises every year (however small but let’s say 1-3%) while the family’s child care costs go down exponentially year by year.

I do plan on using the Y’s costs for local home daycare but this sample family will NOT be living in a “higher-cost” area of the county (for daycare exp) as shown on their report.

Not that it doesn’t all come out in the wash, but I’m also going to assume the dad is claiming M-4 on his W-4 form and mom is claiming M-1 on her W-4 at work (for a total of five dependents). In my mind, this practice would help a little with take home pay for both.

Also, you had posted earlier (on this thread, I think) that our sample family shouldn’t have been trying to borrow for a home priced out of their league. I wholeheartedly agree but in the case of Joe and Jane Sixpack and their 3 young kids (our sample here), they wouldn’t be able to buy a SFR at all in San Diego County without Jane’s pay being factored in their mortgage ratios and also a portion of Jane’s pay being saved over the years to help with a downpayment. I wanted to use a mortgage amount of ~$300K +/- with a purchase price of $350-360K for this family. If our sample family was unable to purchase a home in the past few years, they would have been surely locked out of SD County (SFR’s) and forced to pay $1600 – $2400 mo rent for a similarly-situated home in a much lesser (rental) condition.

IMHO, that would have been a both a huge trap and a travesty for our (locally-employed) sample family.

I wanted to run the front/back end RE borrowing ratios for our sample family to illustrate this point and also that a moderate/middle income family with kids will never be able to get ahead in a region such as SD County, CA without both spouses working (preferably both FT). Through their progressive tax codes over the past 25 years, Congress has supported working families in that they have made it entirely worthwhile to both joint filers and heads of households to work FT.

So, there is a bit more work to this than I originally envisioned. I really hope to have it all done by the TK holiday and at the very least a thread started with our sample family’s tax return figures for 2013 for the Piggs to munch on.

Thanks for your patience.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]I have no idea what you are on, but whatever you are smoking, can I try some?[/quote]

flu, I know it’s a bit late, but why don’t you put the following comment in your pipe and smoke it tonight. It may help you understand that which you don’t seem to be following too well.

http://piggington.com/ot_life_changing_magic_tidying_japanese_art_decluttering#comment-249329

[bearishgurl]

Inasmuch as I can’t stand filthy people and the effect their habits have on those around them, I acknowledge that it’s not illegal to be filthy. But it could be cause for kids getting removed from their parent(s) home.

I do recognize that some of these people suffer from mental disorders which causes them to be the way they are but feel the vast majority of them have a choice and consciously choose to be lazy and unmotivated.

And “messy” is, more often than not, not the same as “filthy.” My desk is frequently “messy” because I am often drowning in paper :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]Well, scaredy, the price is never right. It seems that some Piggs may choose to “make a tradeoff for the sake of their family” to live in the path of of the likes of “Slaughterhouse Cyn” Rd. off SR-67…
[/quote]

Which Piggs would that be?

You’re like a polarizing radio talk show host with that attempt at “debate.” You take a person’s comments/ideas (people make tradeoffs for their families) and turn them into “people make tradeoffs for their families and live in deadly places.” Now, your average idiot who listens to polarizing talk show hosts, they can’t see that what you’ve just done is bullshit. They just start thinking that anybody who makes a tradeoff when buying a house is willing to risk the lives of their kids. They think, “man, what horrible people.”

But you’re on piggington. Not only are most people here smarter than that, but also you can’t just cut them off and have them not say anything more, like a radio host can. So, if you come up with weak, lame bullshit like the above (and like pretty much everything you’ve come up with on this thread, from your incorrect understanding of how economic obsolescence relates to buying and selling a home near a freeway to your defensive, puffed up bragging about your local schools (which, according to you, should be meaningless anyway since “CA public school districts can basically place your student anywhere they have room for them so school placement is essentially out of a parents’ control”) to your shrill harping about other schools to your hilarious contention that your feelings weren’t involved to your unsubstantiated claim that my arguments were circular to your assumption that people buy new homes near a freeway because they insist on newer construction), then people will call you on it. As you can see.

And yet you try. You are to be commended for your perseverance. I look forward to your next comment (although I must admit that I’m looking forward even more to my response to your next comment).[/quote]Awesome, zk. Waiting to hear from you! Like you, I have to actually “work” for a living and can’t monitor this board 24/7. Please roll on …. but while doing so remember that you are dealing with a Pigg here who has quite a bit of archives in their personal stash and a very l-o-o-ong memory ….

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer construction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for.[/quote] Settle? Sure. But pretty much everyone who’s not rich is settling in some way when they choose their house.[/quote] Sure, nearly every homebuyer has to “settle” in some way, shape or form. But “settling” for ear-splitting jets overhead on the hour or a freeway within shouting distance is completely unnecessary, that is, unless the particular RE market has a dearth of single-family listings which mostly go to cash buyers before even hitting the MLS (ex: most parts of San Mateo Co). In that case, a buyer who needs a mortgage would probably need to shop in another county and commute longer to work. We don’t have that problem in SD County and really never have …. not even in recent years. There has ALWAYS been homes in quiet areas to choose from.[/quote] Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways.[/quote]No, you don’t “have that right,” zk. What I said was that the “newer construction” homes which are built for moderate, middle and upper-middle income families are built on the “least desirable land.” Often, that land is bordering a freeway and some streets can suffer much worse with constant ambient noise than others in the same subdivision. Why is this so? a) Because the most desirable sections of land in CA coastal counties have already been developed or are privately owned; and b) the “rich” with their powerful community groups and well-connected neighbors with many resources can afford to fight CalTrans into oblivion to keep any open space close to themselves open space, fight for zoning and legislation to keep themselves insulated from the likes of freeway construction, flight paths and heavy industry, etc.

[quote=zk]If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did. It’s fascinating to see that you can’t seem to imagine a person buying a house near a freeway for a good tradeoff (more time with their family), but it’s easy for you to see them buying one for (what you see as) a bad tradeoff (they “insist” on newer construction).[/quote] Actually, buying a residential property with constant noise is a bad tradeoff, not a good one. It is not only newer construction that suffers from economic obsolescence due to freeway construction. Many older areas have had their own thoroughfares widened to connect with new freeway ramps and have a LOT more traffic today than they ever did or that they ever imagined they would when they purchased their home 40, 50 or 60+ years ago. The SR-56 as it looks today is a relatively new freeway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_56

Even though both ends of it already had residential development at the time of its construction, the SR-56 was only needed because of the relatively new construction which has popped up along its route in the last 15 years. As such, the development that has sprung up along its route is fairly new or new (<15 yrs old). A buyer looking to buy in the entire nine-mile stretch of the SR-56 (or works on either end of it) has many options. They don’t have to buy a home affected by the noise. zk, you still haven’t shown us a listing or ad for a home in or near the former “Rhodes Crossing” (now 56 merge) as the OP is referring to here and pricing it and then finding a similar nearby home without the freeway noise and pricing it. That was your “homework” and instead you would rather insult me. You claim that buyers “need” to make a “tradeoff” to buy a home that would be very uncomfortable to live in long-term and I maintain that they don’t.

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]Newer construction is not usually why people choose a home near a freeway. They choose it for a multitude of reasons, most of them likely good, solid reasons. There are plenty of homes near freeways in older areas, and people buy those houses regularly. And most of them probably for good reasons.[/quote]The older areas which I am familiar with in metro and South County which have had freeways come through ended up turning into primarily rental areas immediately before, during and after freeway construction rendered those streets “economically obsolete.” People don’t “choose” to live in very noisy areas. They either “end up there” because they didn’t do their homework, they are renting there and didn’t realize how bad the noise would be or they purchased the property long before the freeway came through. There really isn’t any good reason to buy a residential property badly affected by freeway noise unless it was dirt cheap and the investor feels he can keep tenants in it.[/quote]You say, “bottom of the barrel in local home selection” as if it’s necessarily a bad thing. I’d rather live in the worst house in a fairly nice part of Chula Vista than the best house in a bad part of National City (or in a noisy neighborhood near my work so I have more time to spend with my family rather than in a quiet neighborhood farther away), that could easily be a wise choice.[/quote]

Different strokes for different folks. Actually there are “bad” (or shall we say, “inadequately zoned”) parts of Chula Vista and gracious, stately, well-kept-up blocks of National City . . . as there is in every well-established micro area.

Why is there no good-quality land left in SD County for tract subdivisons? Because, aside from its exhorbitant purchase price, it is extremely costly for the subdivision and permitting process in this region (before one single-family pad has been graded), so much so that Big Development can’t build the compact mcmansion-type dwelling that today’s families are seeking without getting whatever land is leftover as dirt cheap as they can.

Read my lips. There has been no quality land left to buy for subdivision development in SD County (excepting the occasional 1-4 unit spec bldg on an urban razed lot) for the last 22 years. It was all taken before that. If you don’t believe me, ask the major Big Developers … and while you’re at it, ask them why they left town and when they left town (or exited the local residential SFR market). They’ll tell you the truth.

If you see ANY subdivision in SD County (of whatever size) springing up today that you believe lies on actual “quality” land, rest assured that that land has been owned by a developer or other private party for a minimum of 25 years. This longtime owner may or may not be the one who is developing it today. If not, each improved parcel will be very expensive at the time of marketing (over $1M).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=bearishgurl]The issue, zk, is that you are correlating being “tidy” with criminal behavior.”[/quote]

Uhm… what?

No, he’s not doing that at all. Did you read what he wrote, or his explanation of what he wrote, both of which make it clear that he’s not doing this AT ALL?

I also like how you basically accuse zk of being a rapist, etc, based solely on him mentioning that rapists exist. Classy move.

This is even more bizarre than your detailed rant about the Scott Peters winning the MAYOR’S race… BG, I think you need to put down the wine box.[/quote]

Sorry if you read it the way you did, Rich. For the record, I haven’t had any wine around my house for months …

I’m not accusing zk of anything. I was saying that he posted that persons who are “tidy” could be a “rapist, pedophile, cheater and spendthrift.” (Likewise, the reverse could be true.) I might be able to agree that “messy persons” could be a “spendthrift” (this goes along with the lack of paying attn to detail) but his criminal implications, to me, were way, way off the mark.

In essence, I read that he stated he himself was “messy” and that was better than being a “tidy” rapist, pedophile, philanderer or spendthrift, in so many words.

The jist of my thread about the mayor’s race was not about Scott Peters at all. It was about how incompetent Carl DeMaio would have been (and disastrous for the City) if he had been elected to ANY local political post … yes, even the rep for the 52nd.. This is because he is delusional and those delusions would have cost city taxpayers dearly.

Of course, I don’t need to tell you any of this. It has all been detailed ad nauseum in various issues of the VOSD.

I apologize here in that I have not been keeping up with the latest CDM antics and what post he was currently running for as I do not vote in the City of SD and do not watch TV. When I heard that CDM was “losing” in a close local race, “Thank God” was my knee-jerk reaction. Again, I apologize that it was for the wrong race, but I stand by “Thank God” on behalf of the City voters, all the same.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]
Ahhh, I find this thread re-a-llly interesting. zk, you brought up some things here that indicate that YOU have your own issues that you are bringing here which have nothing to do with tidiness or cleanliness. zk, are you comparing yourself here to a pedophile or rapist who is “tidy?” What does being a pedophile or rapist have to do with tidiness?

[/quote]

Wow. For the longest time, I thought you were pretty sharp, bg. But lately you’ve been posting nothing but scattershot, fire-from-the-hip, uninformed, off-the-point stupidity. Read Brian’s post, and then mine. Obviously I was countering Brian’s suggestion that a tidy person is superior in upbringing by bringing up a hypothetical person who was brought up to be tidy while simultaneously having a horrible upbringing. It’s not that complicated. But then, you’re not that smart.[/quote]

The issue, zk, is that you are correlating being “tidy” with criminal behavior. A person who possesses organizational skills and the motivation and perseverance to get things done (i.e. can properly manage their household) isn’t necessarily (or usually) a criminal, as you attest here. You’re bringing in lots of other criminal propensities which have nothing to do with being “tidy” or “clean.” Why you’re bringing these off-the-wall traits in here to compare with “messy people” is anybody’s guess.

What you’ve posted here shows that you not only were raised as a “messy person” (which is ok if you have the a partner who freely accepts that trait), but that you are on a very short leash at home.

If you are ok with that (after all you claim here that you’ve been through to get your property as you want it), then so am I. Far be it from me to judge the “tacit arrangement” you have with your “co-owner,” whether you are satisfied with it … or not.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=zk][quote=FlyerInHi] Superior in upbringing[/quote]Superior in upbringing? So a tidy person who was taught to be tidy and was sexually abused and is now a rapist or a pedophile is superior in upbringing to a person who grew up in a messy house and was taught to treat people right and is now messy but treats people well?[/quote]

I agree that we should judge a person as a whole. Untidiness by itself doesn’t make a person bad, but it lowers the overall score.

However, I still insist that, all else being equal, tidiness is better.

On this subject, I believe that your giving 97% and your wife only giving 3% clearly shows that it’s a non-negotiable item to her. I’m with your wife.. but I wouldn’t go as far as making guests walk around back and through the garage.

Also, I don’t thing we can throw out societal norms and start with a blank slate. There’d too much to throw out.[/quote]

“There’d (be) too much to throw out.” You got that part right, FIH.

Ahhh, I find this thread re-a-llly interesting. zk, you brought up some things here that indicate that YOU have your own issues that you are bringing here which have nothing to do with tidiness or cleanliness. zk, are you comparing yourself here to a pedophile or rapist who is “tidy?” What does being a pedophile or rapist have to do with tidiness?

Firstly, I’ll leave “tidiness” out of my discussion here as I’m not into rolling up my clothing in my drawers, etc. In addition, I … like millions of other Americans, have house pets and well know it is difficult, at best, to keep an entirely clean and tidy house 24/7 with pets living there. I’ve also had “friends,” relatives and neighbors in the past and present who are and were filthy people. In the case of my relatives, their houses were so filthy that I would not stay overnight there, sit on any of their furniture or use their bathrooms. In 90% of cases, their physical filthiness trait manifested itself into an inability to manage family finances (all the while having an adequate to GREAT income) due to overspending, hoarding brand-new unused items they purchased themselves, chronic gambling, smoking, drinking, partying, etc, etc, all the while attempting to raise their families. These behaviors undoubtedly lead to BK filings, foreclosure and the family having to go on aid in order to eat and subsist. Their children (now all grown) had chronic asthma and chronic bronchitis while growing up due to all the smoke and stale ashtrays all over the house, keeping them absent from school regularly. Cat litter boxes hadn’t been changed or cleaned in months and their cats relieved themselves throughout the home. Dirty dishes are piled to the ceiling on every kitchen counter (and in all the bdrms) and in the past, infant bottles and their paraphernalia had been “soaking” in greasy water in the kitchen for days. Laundry is piled to the ceiling and no one in the family ever has any clean underwear or socks. Carpets in the house need to be burned, and in some cases, maybe the entire house should be/have been burned down as well, lol ….

I felt “so sorry” for the kids who were never taught to do any household chores or to even make their beds and keep their own rooms clean. Naturally, these kids can’t wait to leave home at 18 years old (plus one minute) or even earlier if they can possibly live with a friend for awhile to finish HS. They often end up almost immediately “hooking up” with somebody so they can live cheaper on their own and then having their own kids while still a teen. Then you can well imagine a repeat of all of the above behaviors because these kids don’t know anything else. So yes, filthiness leads to all kinds of problems unrelated to cleanliness, especially if the filthy person is a parent. I agree with FIH in that this subset of the population lacks discipline, is very often borderline or clinically depressed and lacks respect for others’ property. An example is neighbors who move barely-running junk cars around the street over and over for YEARS (to keep them from getting towed) yet never drive them anywhere and have several feet high of rusty junk and more junk vehicles piled up in their driveways and front yards. Due to lack of respect for their neighbors, this type of person lacks empathy so possibly also suffers from NPD. Some of these people are literally spilling out of their houses, garages, lots and recycle and trash carts. Of course, when their trash carts are dumped weekly, their trash is never bundled correctly so spills and flies out on the street, sidewalk and neighbors’ lots. Their vehicles have more than a foot of trash on every floorboard. I could go on and on here but you get the drift. The filthy ones are very often the same people with judgment liens, NOD’s, NOS’s and BK filings on their record but NOT for lack of income or insufficient income but because they consciously and continually lived beyond their means for an extended period of time.

I believe filthiness is a character flaw which extends to all areas of life. In my experience, that character flaw goes hand in hand, not necessarily with criminal tendencies but with the filthy person’s level of motivation, reliability, perseverance and trustworthiness.

I’m not talking here about failing to roll your clothes properly to put in a drawer or failing to feather dust your lampshades and picture frames regularly. I’m talking about living in filth and FIH is correct in that many, many Americans do. I don’t have any respect at all for these kinds of people.

There was a recent discussion here about how “valuable” SAHP’s are to society. I do understand that there are some very good household managers out there but in my experience, I have seen more SAHP’s do little to nothing to “earn their keep” than ones that do (except spend money). This isn’t to negate in any way, shape or form that personal choice, but I just haven’t seen any really spectacular household mgrs who are SAHP’s. On the other hand, I’ve seen several GREAT household mgrs who had full time careers while raising children (that doesn’t mean they did everything themselves).

Yeah, I’m judgmental about this topic because I believe it’s deplorable and unconscionable to raise kids in filth when a bottle of ammonia costs 59 cents and rags are free (CPS agrees with me). If you need junk hauled off, there are very low cost ways to do that, too. Even if the family is low income, there are ways to “do poor right” as Blogstar stated in the “Ferguson” thread. Having a reasonably clean home and teaching kids how to clean is part of being a parent, no matter what the family income.

[quote=zk]Our home is super fresh and extremely neat and clean. We are proud to invite people over. But there are disadvantages to having a neat-freak wife:

We have a very large back yard with a bocce ball court, a covered patio, a built in bbq, an iron gazebo shaded by bougainvillea, a fire pit, a putting green, a horseshoe pit, a huge cabana with a 60 inch tv, a lawn big enough for croquet or badminton, and a 270 degree view. Perfect for entertaining 60 or 70 people. But she won’t have more than three couples and their kids over at a time. (She tries to keep it to two couples, but will allow three in a pinch.) Because it would freak her out to have the house that messy just between the time it got messy and when we finished cleaning up. And somebody might, god forbid, spill something on the carpet. Given the option, I’d take both large parties and some messiness rather than neither.

Also, when I have a poker game or a football draft at my house, everybody has to stay outside (in the cabana) except to use the bathroom. And they have to go around the house and through the garage to get there.

I managed to get permission to have a small super bowl party last year. Had about 20 or 25 people over. It took me a year to get permission, and I heard about it for a month after. Not doing that again.

So there are disadvantages. But, hey, to make a marriage work, you have to work together and compromise. I do most of the giving in this particular area, but she more than makes up for it in other areas.

So, I don’t see myself as lucky that my wife is neat. I see the advantages of it, but overall it’s not a benefit.[/quote]

WOW, zk, it looks like you may have dumped about $100K?? in your backyard so you could comfortably entertain your friends! If you don’t mind my asking, did that ~$100K come from your salary? Or maybe your spouse’s salary?? Is the property half yours (half yours and half your spouse’s)? At the time you were dumping big bucks into your BY, were you aware that your spouse would later insist on you only being able to entertain just six people at a time? Must all your guests be married or would your spouse approve a guest who was single?

And I’m wondering why you left the carpet in the house when you purchased it if you planned on entertaining large groups of people?

Having entertained at home a lot in the past myself (up to 240 people), I WELL KNOW how much work it is before, during and after the party. But for the life of me, I don’t know why one co-owner would be able to successfully prohibit the other co-owner from doing what they expected to do with their property at the time of purchase and the time of installing those subsequent (expensive) improvements.

[quote=zk]…In any case, a person’s value shouldn’t be measured by their intelligence, let alone their their tidiness or lack thereof.

Same with a tidy person. Maybe he’s tidy, but that doesn’t make him superior. It doesn’t even make him superior in discipline and personal habits. Maybe he cheats on his wife or can’t control his spending or doesn’t change the oil in his car.[/quote]

zk, I find it very telling that your sample “tidy person,” (above) is a male who cheats on his wife and/or can’t control his spending, etc. In essence, you’ve stated here that you are a lifelong messy person by upbringing and habit yet are now only a “tidy person” because you feel you have to be to keep your relationship together. Infidelity, inability to control spending and failing to change oil in one’s vehicle are actually equally shared traits of both genders, none of which has anything to do with being a clean or “tidy” person.

Might you yourself be struggling with both of these traits and so that’s why you used them in this discussion? Just wondering ….

I agree with FIH. Based upon your posts and your own admission, you’re giving 97% in your relationship. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth :=0

[bearishgurl]

I now see the whole thing that has transpired (while I was asleep at the switch), lol …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_San_Diego

HOWEVER, DeMaio’s election as the Rep for the 52nd would have been DISASTROUS for the City of SD.

Hopefully, Demaio has now realized that he should “throw in the towel” on his “future political aspirations.” The people have spoken … so …. good bye …

[Author]

Posts