Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantSpot on, UR. Thanks for your thought-provoking post!
ParticipantSpot on, UR. Thanks for your thought-provoking post!
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
Participant[quote=SK in CV]BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? :P[/quote]
SK, did you currently have an online ad posted for “casual sex” in SD? And did you need someone to proofread it or help you edit it to get “better results??”
Actually, I haven’t had an “online profile” up for “dating” since 2003. At that time, I was bombarded with messages from men who were actually looking for “casual sex,” but stated in their profiles they were looking for a “LTR” or even “marriage,” lol. I never even “officially” joined and took my profile down after about 2-1/2 weeks.
All I can tell you is the only thing truthful about these mens’ profiles was their professions. All the rest was BS. I think this is a problem here and maybe other CA coastal areas (possibly Silicon Valley) where workers work remotely and fly in for meetings, etc. Many established career people ARE NOT WILLING to relocate their families to coastal CA (or their families are NOT WILLING to come). They want their families to maintain their “cloistered lives” in the “better enclaves” of less-expensive housing markets and have in their SD employment contract an apt in SD and rental car included (or leave one of their own vehicles here). Some of these “sky warriors” fly coast-to-coast 7+ times per month EVERY month, usually on Sunday night and Thurs/Fri nights, plus possibly 1-2 int’l trips per month. Their companies pay their “per diem” and let them “work from home” the rest of the time because these people don’t ask for relo assistance for their families and they have a particular skillset that is not easy to find. Needless to say, it is difficult to keep your “schedule straight” if you are making dates with one woman in CA while forgetting you agreed with your spouse/kid on the east coast that you would do something with them at that same time, lol.
I thought I was a pretty good judge of character but these people are very, VERY good as “posers.” They have apts here and work out at gyms here and are well-spoken and well-traveled. They claim divorced or widowed and talk about “grown kids” and everything else in detail and it all seems “plausible.”
SD is nothing more than a “playground” to a lot of these people (as well as home to their employer), lol.
I have had no problems meeting people “the regular way” thru friends and stuff I’m involved in so won’t be trying online dating again. After that experience, I’ve insisted dating only “local” people who possibly have other relatives nearby I can meet ASAP. This policy has worked out well for me and I have everything I need and then some, thank you 🙂
Participant[quote=SK in CV]BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? :P[/quote]
SK, did you currently have an online ad posted for “casual sex” in SD? And did you need someone to proofread it or help you edit it to get “better results??”
Actually, I haven’t had an “online profile” up for “dating” since 2003. At that time, I was bombarded with messages from men who were actually looking for “casual sex,” but stated in their profiles they were looking for a “LTR” or even “marriage,” lol. I never even “officially” joined and took my profile down after about 2-1/2 weeks.
All I can tell you is the only thing truthful about these mens’ profiles was their professions. All the rest was BS. I think this is a problem here and maybe other CA coastal areas (possibly Silicon Valley) where workers work remotely and fly in for meetings, etc. Many established career people ARE NOT WILLING to relocate their families to coastal CA (or their families are NOT WILLING to come). They want their families to maintain their “cloistered lives” in the “better enclaves” of less-expensive housing markets and have in their SD employment contract an apt in SD and rental car included (or leave one of their own vehicles here). Some of these “sky warriors” fly coast-to-coast 7+ times per month EVERY month, usually on Sunday night and Thurs/Fri nights, plus possibly 1-2 int’l trips per month. Their companies pay their “per diem” and let them “work from home” the rest of the time because these people don’t ask for relo assistance for their families and they have a particular skillset that is not easy to find. Needless to say, it is difficult to keep your “schedule straight” if you are making dates with one woman in CA while forgetting you agreed with your spouse/kid on the east coast that you would do something with them at that same time, lol.
I thought I was a pretty good judge of character but these people are very, VERY good as “posers.” They have apts here and work out at gyms here and are well-spoken and well-traveled. They claim divorced or widowed and talk about “grown kids” and everything else in detail and it all seems “plausible.”
SD is nothing more than a “playground” to a lot of these people (as well as home to their employer), lol.
I have had no problems meeting people “the regular way” thru friends and stuff I’m involved in so won’t be trying online dating again. After that experience, I’ve insisted dating only “local” people who possibly have other relatives nearby I can meet ASAP. This policy has worked out well for me and I have everything I need and then some, thank you 🙂
Participant[quote=SK in CV]BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? :P[/quote]
SK, did you currently have an online ad posted for “casual sex” in SD? And did you need someone to proofread it or help you edit it to get “better results??”
Actually, I haven’t had an “online profile” up for “dating” since 2003. At that time, I was bombarded with messages from men who were actually looking for “casual sex,” but stated in their profiles they were looking for a “LTR” or even “marriage,” lol. I never even “officially” joined and took my profile down after about 2-1/2 weeks.
All I can tell you is the only thing truthful about these mens’ profiles was their professions. All the rest was BS. I think this is a problem here and maybe other CA coastal areas (possibly Silicon Valley) where workers work remotely and fly in for meetings, etc. Many established career people ARE NOT WILLING to relocate their families to coastal CA (or their families are NOT WILLING to come). They want their families to maintain their “cloistered lives” in the “better enclaves” of less-expensive housing markets and have in their SD employment contract an apt in SD and rental car included (or leave one of their own vehicles here). Some of these “sky warriors” fly coast-to-coast 7+ times per month EVERY month, usually on Sunday night and Thurs/Fri nights, plus possibly 1-2 int’l trips per month. Their companies pay their “per diem” and let them “work from home” the rest of the time because these people don’t ask for relo assistance for their families and they have a particular skillset that is not easy to find. Needless to say, it is difficult to keep your “schedule straight” if you are making dates with one woman in CA while forgetting you agreed with your spouse/kid on the east coast that you would do something with them at that same time, lol.
I thought I was a pretty good judge of character but these people are very, VERY good as “posers.” They have apts here and work out at gyms here and are well-spoken and well-traveled. They claim divorced or widowed and talk about “grown kids” and everything else in detail and it all seems “plausible.”
SD is nothing more than a “playground” to a lot of these people (as well as home to their employer), lol.
I have had no problems meeting people “the regular way” thru friends and stuff I’m involved in so won’t be trying online dating again. After that experience, I’ve insisted dating only “local” people who possibly have other relatives nearby I can meet ASAP. This policy has worked out well for me and I have everything I need and then some, thank you 🙂
Participant[quote=SK in CV]BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? :P[/quote]
SK, did you currently have an online ad posted for “casual sex” in SD? And did you need someone to proofread it or help you edit it to get “better results??”
Actually, I haven’t had an “online profile” up for “dating” since 2003. At that time, I was bombarded with messages from men who were actually looking for “casual sex,” but stated in their profiles they were looking for a “LTR” or even “marriage,” lol. I never even “officially” joined and took my profile down after about 2-1/2 weeks.
All I can tell you is the only thing truthful about these mens’ profiles was their professions. All the rest was BS. I think this is a problem here and maybe other CA coastal areas (possibly Silicon Valley) where workers work remotely and fly in for meetings, etc. Many established career people ARE NOT WILLING to relocate their families to coastal CA (or their families are NOT WILLING to come). They want their families to maintain their “cloistered lives” in the “better enclaves” of less-expensive housing markets and have in their SD employment contract an apt in SD and rental car included (or leave one of their own vehicles here). Some of these “sky warriors” fly coast-to-coast 7+ times per month EVERY month, usually on Sunday night and Thurs/Fri nights, plus possibly 1-2 int’l trips per month. Their companies pay their “per diem” and let them “work from home” the rest of the time because these people don’t ask for relo assistance for their families and they have a particular skillset that is not easy to find. Needless to say, it is difficult to keep your “schedule straight” if you are making dates with one woman in CA while forgetting you agreed with your spouse/kid on the east coast that you would do something with them at that same time, lol.
I thought I was a pretty good judge of character but these people are very, VERY good as “posers.” They have apts here and work out at gyms here and are well-spoken and well-traveled. They claim divorced or widowed and talk about “grown kids” and everything else in detail and it all seems “plausible.”
SD is nothing more than a “playground” to a lot of these people (as well as home to their employer), lol.
I have had no problems meeting people “the regular way” thru friends and stuff I’m involved in so won’t be trying online dating again. After that experience, I’ve insisted dating only “local” people who possibly have other relatives nearby I can meet ASAP. This policy has worked out well for me and I have everything I need and then some, thank you 🙂
Participant[quote=SK in CV]BG, I take you at your word that you’ve never placed any ads like this. Since I don’t live in San Diego anymore, but I do visit every month or so for both business and pleasure, I do have a question for you. Besides “casual sex”, what are the key words you look for when responding to these ads? :P[/quote]
SK, did you currently have an online ad posted for “casual sex” in SD? And did you need someone to proofread it or help you edit it to get “better results??”
Actually, I haven’t had an “online profile” up for “dating” since 2003. At that time, I was bombarded with messages from men who were actually looking for “casual sex,” but stated in their profiles they were looking for a “LTR” or even “marriage,” lol. I never even “officially” joined and took my profile down after about 2-1/2 weeks.
All I can tell you is the only thing truthful about these mens’ profiles was their professions. All the rest was BS. I think this is a problem here and maybe other CA coastal areas (possibly Silicon Valley) where workers work remotely and fly in for meetings, etc. Many established career people ARE NOT WILLING to relocate their families to coastal CA (or their families are NOT WILLING to come). They want their families to maintain their “cloistered lives” in the “better enclaves” of less-expensive housing markets and have in their SD employment contract an apt in SD and rental car included (or leave one of their own vehicles here). Some of these “sky warriors” fly coast-to-coast 7+ times per month EVERY month, usually on Sunday night and Thurs/Fri nights, plus possibly 1-2 int’l trips per month. Their companies pay their “per diem” and let them “work from home” the rest of the time because these people don’t ask for relo assistance for their families and they have a particular skillset that is not easy to find. Needless to say, it is difficult to keep your “schedule straight” if you are making dates with one woman in CA while forgetting you agreed with your spouse/kid on the east coast that you would do something with them at that same time, lol.
I thought I was a pretty good judge of character but these people are very, VERY good as “posers.” They have apts here and work out at gyms here and are well-spoken and well-traveled. They claim divorced or widowed and talk about “grown kids” and everything else in detail and it all seems “plausible.”
SD is nothing more than a “playground” to a lot of these people (as well as home to their employer), lol.
I have had no problems meeting people “the regular way” thru friends and stuff I’m involved in so won’t be trying online dating again. After that experience, I’ve insisted dating only “local” people who possibly have other relatives nearby I can meet ASAP. This policy has worked out well for me and I have everything I need and then some, thank you 🙂
ParticipantI would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.
A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).
OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.
And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=]
ParticipantI would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.
A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).
OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.
And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=]
-
AuthorPosts
