Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1
[/quote]I surmised Jobs was probably entering hospice at the time of his resignation announcement after all he has been through.
see: http://piggington.com/when_is_a_house_historic_and_when_is_it_a_teardown
My heart goes out to Steve and his family at this time.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1
[/quote]I surmised Jobs was probably entering hospice at the time of his resignation announcement after all he has been through.
see: http://piggington.com/when_is_a_house_historic_and_when_is_it_a_teardown
My heart goes out to Steve and his family at this time.
ParticipantSK and all, although not about “Ron Paul,” thanks for your comments on the issues Warren brought up in her speech at Berkeley. This is a very interesting topic. I was not referring to the “poor” in particular but instead the “spending habits” of those “middle class” families who bid up properties in order to “win” a house in a “coveted” school attendance area. Warren even talks about this phenomenon in SD County! If you read the Amazon book reviews by Susie Q Public and Joe 6P, you will see that I am not alone in my opinions.
I just checked into Pigg but am very busy right now so will reply to SK’s comments in a couple of days.
ParticipantSK and all, although not about “Ron Paul,” thanks for your comments on the issues Warren brought up in her speech at Berkeley. This is a very interesting topic. I was not referring to the “poor” in particular but instead the “spending habits” of those “middle class” families who bid up properties in order to “win” a house in a “coveted” school attendance area. Warren even talks about this phenomenon in SD County! If you read the Amazon book reviews by Susie Q Public and Joe 6P, you will see that I am not alone in my opinions.
I just checked into Pigg but am very busy right now so will reply to SK’s comments in a couple of days.
ParticipantSK and all, although not about “Ron Paul,” thanks for your comments on the issues Warren brought up in her speech at Berkeley. This is a very interesting topic. I was not referring to the “poor” in particular but instead the “spending habits” of those “middle class” families who bid up properties in order to “win” a house in a “coveted” school attendance area. Warren even talks about this phenomenon in SD County! If you read the Amazon book reviews by Susie Q Public and Joe 6P, you will see that I am not alone in my opinions.
I just checked into Pigg but am very busy right now so will reply to SK’s comments in a couple of days.
ParticipantSK and all, although not about “Ron Paul,” thanks for your comments on the issues Warren brought up in her speech at Berkeley. This is a very interesting topic. I was not referring to the “poor” in particular but instead the “spending habits” of those “middle class” families who bid up properties in order to “win” a house in a “coveted” school attendance area. Warren even talks about this phenomenon in SD County! If you read the Amazon book reviews by Susie Q Public and Joe 6P, you will see that I am not alone in my opinions.
I just checked into Pigg but am very busy right now so will reply to SK’s comments in a couple of days.
ParticipantSK and all, although not about “Ron Paul,” thanks for your comments on the issues Warren brought up in her speech at Berkeley. This is a very interesting topic. I was not referring to the “poor” in particular but instead the “spending habits” of those “middle class” families who bid up properties in order to “win” a house in a “coveted” school attendance area. Warren even talks about this phenomenon in SD County! If you read the Amazon book reviews by Susie Q Public and Joe 6P, you will see that I am not alone in my opinions.
I just checked into Pigg but am very busy right now so will reply to SK’s comments in a couple of days.
Participant[quote=Arraya]…Now, Elizabeth Warren did a good job showing that 1 income was better off in 1975 than two incomes are today with things that are mostly out of their control but it is certainly not the whole picture….[/quote]
No, it’s NOT the whole picture, Arraya. In her daughter, Amelia Tyagi’s book, “The Two-Income Trap,” they don’t delve into the REASONS why these “two income” families are stretched to the limit on finances and even filing for BK. Warren seems to understand WHY parents of today are driving up the price of RE in some areas but won’t delve into SOLUTIONS for these families’ (self-imposed) financial morass that they have spent themselves into. She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!
I didn’t read the book, but in her speech, Warren never addresses the compulsion for “overconsumption” that you speak of here or the infinitely higher expectations for every facet if their’s (and their childrens’) lives that most parents of today display. This is the main reason for her “perception” that families in 1975 were better off, IMO.
Actually, children are MUCH better off today than in “1975.” At that time, there were no laws against child abuse or sexual abuse of a child…only visible and overt neglect. Sexual abuse which occurred in families was swept under the rug and often the children were led to believe that it was they who were the perpetrator! There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.
As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.
I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.
Participant[quote=Arraya]…Now, Elizabeth Warren did a good job showing that 1 income was better off in 1975 than two incomes are today with things that are mostly out of their control but it is certainly not the whole picture….[/quote]
No, it’s NOT the whole picture, Arraya. In her daughter, Amelia Tyagi’s book, “The Two-Income Trap,” they don’t delve into the REASONS why these “two income” families are stretched to the limit on finances and even filing for BK. Warren seems to understand WHY parents of today are driving up the price of RE in some areas but won’t delve into SOLUTIONS for these families’ (self-imposed) financial morass that they have spent themselves into. She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!
I didn’t read the book, but in her speech, Warren never addresses the compulsion for “overconsumption” that you speak of here or the infinitely higher expectations for every facet if their’s (and their childrens’) lives that most parents of today display. This is the main reason for her “perception” that families in 1975 were better off, IMO.
Actually, children are MUCH better off today than in “1975.” At that time, there were no laws against child abuse or sexual abuse of a child…only visible and overt neglect. Sexual abuse which occurred in families was swept under the rug and often the children were led to believe that it was they who were the perpetrator! There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.
As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.
I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.
Participant[quote=Arraya]…Now, Elizabeth Warren did a good job showing that 1 income was better off in 1975 than two incomes are today with things that are mostly out of their control but it is certainly not the whole picture….[/quote]
No, it’s NOT the whole picture, Arraya. In her daughter, Amelia Tyagi’s book, “The Two-Income Trap,” they don’t delve into the REASONS why these “two income” families are stretched to the limit on finances and even filing for BK. Warren seems to understand WHY parents of today are driving up the price of RE in some areas but won’t delve into SOLUTIONS for these families’ (self-imposed) financial morass that they have spent themselves into. She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!
I didn’t read the book, but in her speech, Warren never addresses the compulsion for “overconsumption” that you speak of here or the infinitely higher expectations for every facet if their’s (and their childrens’) lives that most parents of today display. This is the main reason for her “perception” that families in 1975 were better off, IMO.
Actually, children are MUCH better off today than in “1975.” At that time, there were no laws against child abuse or sexual abuse of a child…only visible and overt neglect. Sexual abuse which occurred in families was swept under the rug and often the children were led to believe that it was they who were the perpetrator! There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.
As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.
I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.
Participant[quote=Arraya]…Now, Elizabeth Warren did a good job showing that 1 income was better off in 1975 than two incomes are today with things that are mostly out of their control but it is certainly not the whole picture….[/quote]
No, it’s NOT the whole picture, Arraya. In her daughter, Amelia Tyagi’s book, “The Two-Income Trap,” they don’t delve into the REASONS why these “two income” families are stretched to the limit on finances and even filing for BK. Warren seems to understand WHY parents of today are driving up the price of RE in some areas but won’t delve into SOLUTIONS for these families’ (self-imposed) financial morass that they have spent themselves into. She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!
I didn’t read the book, but in her speech, Warren never addresses the compulsion for “overconsumption” that you speak of here or the infinitely higher expectations for every facet if their’s (and their childrens’) lives that most parents of today display. This is the main reason for her “perception” that families in 1975 were better off, IMO.
Actually, children are MUCH better off today than in “1975.” At that time, there were no laws against child abuse or sexual abuse of a child…only visible and overt neglect. Sexual abuse which occurred in families was swept under the rug and often the children were led to believe that it was they who were the perpetrator! There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.
As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.
I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.
Participant[quote=Arraya]…Now, Elizabeth Warren did a good job showing that 1 income was better off in 1975 than two incomes are today with things that are mostly out of their control but it is certainly not the whole picture….[/quote]
No, it’s NOT the whole picture, Arraya. In her daughter, Amelia Tyagi’s book, “The Two-Income Trap,” they don’t delve into the REASONS why these “two income” families are stretched to the limit on finances and even filing for BK. Warren seems to understand WHY parents of today are driving up the price of RE in some areas but won’t delve into SOLUTIONS for these families’ (self-imposed) financial morass that they have spent themselves into. She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!
I didn’t read the book, but in her speech, Warren never addresses the compulsion for “overconsumption” that you speak of here or the infinitely higher expectations for every facet if their’s (and their childrens’) lives that most parents of today display. This is the main reason for her “perception” that families in 1975 were better off, IMO.
Actually, children are MUCH better off today than in “1975.” At that time, there were no laws against child abuse or sexual abuse of a child…only visible and overt neglect. Sexual abuse which occurred in families was swept under the rug and often the children were led to believe that it was they who were the perpetrator! There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care. There were no health or dental plans in place for children. At that time, Title IX was new which allowed girls to participate in some boy’s sports. Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. There was nothing preventing one parent from withholding child visitation from the other parent, which deprived countless children of the other parent. In CA, many dads never even realized they HAD children and (unknowingly) lost them thru adoption, because the law didn’t require the mom to name them as the father and notify them! When they found out about the adoption (thru friends/relatives and tried to take custody of them during or directly after the process, they were denied and told by the court that they “failed to offer to pay for prenatal care, failed to bond with the child, failed to support it and bring it into their homes,” etc. How could they do any of these things when they never knew the mom was pregnant or she refused to talk to them during her pregnancy? In a nutshell, the above was nearly the exact language of a whole host of statutes in CA that have since been repealed. Yes, the lives of children have been greatly improved since the early/mid seventies.
As I stated on the “shadow inventory” thread, Tyagi’s book reviews overwhelmingly showed little sympathy for parents who were attempting to live a life which was more than they could afford.
I thought Warren was intelligent but her speech often “victimized” the “poor, overworked, overspending parent” who is currently “trapped” in suburbia-ville and unable to survive on two incomes. I was left wanting to hear about her take on “personal responsibility” but that never materialized.
ParticipantSpot on, UR. Thanks for your thought-provoking post!
ParticipantSpot on, UR. Thanks for your thought-provoking post!
-
AuthorPosts
