Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]toss your tv in the garbage.
not less soda. no soda. fuck soda. fuck that whole soda industry. fucking EVIL.
[/quote]
Totally agree with scaredy on this.
ParticipantUh-oh, I’ve been thinking about tai chi classes, too.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
Also, you’re underestimating how important classroom management is, especially if students are going to be working on their own. An aide will not be able to deal with all of the questions and situations that will arise in the classroom, especially if students are left to their own devices.[/quote]But if kids are working on their own through content at their own pace then you don’t need to put 30 kids in a room with 1 aide. You could take 100 of the kids that this type of teaching works really well for and put then in a room without the disruptive kids. You could put disruptive kids in isolation or in smaller groups. You’re not forced to commit to this 30 people in a room dynamic.
[/quote]
I was thinking about this quote today, and wondered if you have any children of your own. If you’ve ever had any experience with children, you’d know that putting more than 30-40 kids in a room together (and many experienced teachers would argue that this is too many), and expecting them to remain on task with just an aide…well, it’s just not going to end very well.
Participant[quote=joec]
I think the new Poway school is doing this where the kids just do classwork based on ability…You could have some kid good in math in 1st grade study with 3rd graders I believe, etc…It seems like it’s being done in numerous schools in the bay area as well so like with the teacher issue, things can change if people want to and teachers aren’t resistant to it…
A part of me wonders if the teacher/principal is supportive of your home schooling because at the end of the day, they just wanted you to stop bothering them and go away. 🙂
I know as a business owner, I really don’t want a lot of problem customers or people who make my job harder than it needs to be. Yes, we’re all a little lazy and have our own problems.[/quote]
No, as someone who knows what teachers have to deal with, I would never give another teacher a hard time unless he/she is actually bad. “Bad” isn’t defined as having a style or philosophy that is different from mine. I volunteered in the classroom on a regular basis, and like the volunteer that BG mentioned in her own kid’s classroom, they would have me do assessments and more academic tasks vs. cutting paper, gossiping in the back of the classroom, distracting the kids, causing problems, etc. 😉
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]Whether a home is paid off or not has no effect on value, only on whether the home CAN be sold without resorting to short sale or bank foreclosure.[/quote]
I understand that, spdrun. But an owner who has a paid-off property to sell (esp a longtime owner in CA with artificially low taxes) has many options. If they don’t get their price, they can rent it out or just furnish it, get an occasional landscaper and leave it “vacant” for occasional guests. Many do.
All I was trying to say is that these owners don’t have to entertain lowball offers or even need to price their listing in line with the comps. If they don’t get any offers that they will accept in a short period of time listed, they can just withdraw the listing and wait for a better day. And many do because it costs them very, very little to hang onto the property into oblivion.
I believe lots of these owners are just “testing” the market when they list. And they have the luxury of time and can do so.[/quote]
But this still doesn’t change the price they could get for their homes if they were to decide to sell. The only homes that matter are the ones that do sell to buyers who are willing/able to buy at a given moment in time. Those buyers are under no obligation to buy a house for any price, much less an artificially inflated one.
Participant[quote=joec][quote=CA renter]As for the bolded part of your quote, guess what the schools/classrooms would look like if we segregated by IQ? It would be segregated by race, color, and background/SES. That is why we legally cannot track students by IQ…and why teachers have to teach to the middle of the class. It is against the law to track by IQ.[/quote]
I thought IQ tests were not really academic tests and more how you think/reason, etc?
I think my IQ is very average having mostly gotten just “Satisfactory” throughout all my elementary school years.
I just studied a lot, even when I hear/read that other people didn’t really have to in High School…which I did have to.
I disagree that someone of a certain race/color/background at a young age has a lower IQ than someone of the other, more academic (considered) races.
You can call it the poor kid who doesn’t have a safe home to study and bad friends would be a bad influence, but I don’t think that’s called IQ.[/quote]
IQ is supposed to assess some basic knowledge, memory, logic, visual processing, and reasoning skills, among other things. You’re correct that people can overcome natural IQ deficiencies if they work harder (sometimes, much harder), but many people believe that IQ is heritable — a very contentious subject because of the implications, BTW.
No matter how one wants to define it, or what one believes are the causes of different IQ scores, if you were to segregate the classes by IQ/educational aptitude, they would be largely segregated by race, SES, and other demographic factors. Just look at where the “poor” schools are concentrated, and look at where the “good” schools are concentrated. It will clearly show that race/class/SES are very highly correlated to where these schools end up on the spectrum. Teachers, themselves, have relatively little effect on where schools place based on standardized test scores.
The reason I keep prodding EconProf for some kind of evidence to show that teachers’ unions have a negative effect on student outcomes is because he cannot find any evidence to back up his claim once race, SES, and other demographic influences are taken into consideration. If anything, studies show that schools with unions have better outcomes for students once these other factors are taken into consideration. Anyone who studies our education system knows this, which is why you will never see the anti-union Privatization Movement folks citing any of the actual facts and research.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]
Also, certain urban trendy areas and coastal areas in coastal CA counties are “immune” from large (and fast) price declines. SD would have to successfully be attacked with nuclear weapons for that to happen.
Yet we had 2007-2009 and 2011-2012 as periods of decline without any nuclear weapons being involved.[/quote]
I don’t recall any declines in these areas. I recall a VERY few TOTALLY UNINHABITABLE beat-up foreclosure listings which would take at $200 – $300K to become habitable but don’t recall declines of any magnitude in these areas. Example: 92106 and southern 92107 (which were the communities most prone to attack :0).[/quote]
In our area, which is considered a rather desirable area, prices fell by about 25-30%, on average from 2007-2011. Some individual houses fell by more, some less.
Back in the late 80s/early 90s bust, we were looking at properties on PCH in Malibu that had fallen in price by over 40%.
————-
So, what does it take for a decline of at least 10% in any housing market?
-an increase in supply while demand remains flat or fails to keep up with the increase in supply
-a decrease in demand while supply remains flat or fails to fall with the decreased demand
-money becomes more expensive (interest rates go up)
-other investments become more favorable relative to housing
-the lemmings realize that the top has been hit and they all try to cash out at the same time
-concurrent with the masses stampeding for the exits, investing in housing loses its cachet so demand can decline as dramatically as supply increases
-people think that prices are peaking, so those who still do want to buy will offer lower and lower prices
…
It doesn’t matter how many people own their homes free and clear. The prices are determined by the buyers and sellers who are actively in the market; prices are determined at the margin…always. Wanting a certain price, or insisting that one’s house is worth a certain price, doesn’t make it so.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Today’s copy of USA Today has some interesting data points about the status quo with existing tenure and unions in CA:
1. An average of 2.2 teachers a year are dismissed for unsatisfactory performance in a state where 275,000 teachers work.
2. A CA teacher has a better chance of being struck by lightning than being fired for incompetence.
3. A teacher in CA can gain what amounts to lifetime job protection in less than two years–the deadline for deciding whether to give tenure to new, probationary teachers. When layoffs occur, the newest teachers are the first to go, even if they are top performers. Seniority rules.
This is the status quo that union defenders have to answer for. Now that parents, employers, and the broader public is demanding change, I think that is a good thing. And I really don’t mind if rich people are among those advocating change. Let’s look at the merits of the arguments, not who is pushing for the needed reforms.[/quote]You think that unions and teachers should be scrutinized, but the mega-millionaires and billionaires who are pushing the anti-union message shouldn’t be scrutinized? Oh, hell no! More than anything, we need to get the word out about who is behind the anti-union message and why they are pushing this message. And it has nothing at all to do with what’s right for students or taxpayers!
In this post, you acknowledge that the non-tenured teachers are more heavily concentrated in the poor and poorly-performing schools. Doesn’t this contradict your entire message about unions and tenure putting these students at a disadvantage? Wouldn’t those non-tenured teachers want to “work harder” in order to avoid being terminated?
So, again, I’m asking you: Where is the evidence; where are the statistics and data — taking into account IQ/SES/parental resources — that shows that teachers’ unions and/or tenure have a negative impact on student outcomes? Answer this question, and then we can continue with the conversation once we have more information.[/quote]
Still waiting…
ParticipantI’ve always figured the MSM message was controlled, but that video is downright frightening. What’s even more interesting is the fact that the same script was given to different, and “competing,” networks.
Of course, it’s best to read from the script because if you try to dig into the really important stuff and force transparency…bad things happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_%28journalist%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
ParticipantYou’re not retired now, are you scaredy?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic]
i also wonder that more men don’t feel this way about affairs and not staying with their wives. when i see another woman, all i see is a giant headache. more desires, more problems, expenses, this that the other thing. good lord. it makes the head hurt.i don’t think my testosterone is low. but i am low on desire.[/quote]
I feel exactly this way.
I’m all setup in terms of material needs and housing. 700sf condo as a main residence and an 1800sf second home.
If I get married to an older woman whose biological clock it ticking, she’ll probably want a house in the suburbs somewhere with a luxury SUV. A younger woman would want shopping sprees for handbags, shoes, etc…
Yes, it makes the head hurt![/quote]
perhaps you are Harold looking for his Maude.[/quote]
I’ve never seen the movie, but because of your post, looked it up. Looks seriously good. Going to see if my DH will watch it with me (or I will watch it alone). Thanks for more inspiration, scaredy.
And, yes, Brian needs to give up on his unrealistic and conflicting desires and just marry a terrific older woman who is done with the whole family and kids thing. Great suggestion!
Participant[quote=HLS][quote=ltsdd]
Would you think it would be possible if it’s “the last 7 or 8 or 9 years” instead of “the last 6 years”? Would you care to share why you think such a scenario is not possible?[/quote]
Because I deal with loans, lenders, guidelines, regulations & underwriters on a daily basis and don’t just make up scenarios based on what I think I know.
It makes for creative writing and the possibility of developing a movie ‘based on a true story’ though….
Nobody was getting a new loan for a few years after a bankruptcy, foreclosure or short sale.
Certain programs have loosened up a bit if hardship in the past can be well documented.
Credit scores were affected and are a factor in getting a new loan.Although not impossible, there were some creative things happening on both sides of the fence…
BUT to assume that this was widespread because of stories in the media and internet is silly.Based on the OP, it was not implied that ‘these people’ ever had any cash as you suggest, but all done with borrowed money.[/quote]
How about this, HLS?
So how long? I have made a helpful list to give you an idea of when the bankruptcy will stop being important for the purpose of getting a mortgage loan.
CHAPTER 7:
Conventional mortgage – 4 years from the discharge or dismissal date.
FHA mortgage – 2 years from the discharge or dismissal date.
VA loan – 2 years from the discharge or dismissal date.CHAPTER 13:
Conventional – 2 years from the discharge date, or 4 years from the dismissal date.
FHA mortgage – You must have made at least 13 of the Chapter 13 payments on time. This should take 13 months.
VA – You must have made at least 13 of the Chapter 13 payments on time. This should take 13 months.FORECLOSURE – you can begin to qualify for a mortgage 2 to 3 years after the foreclosure. These years can pass at the same time as the years from the bankruptcy, so you have an incentive to do both at the same time, especially if your house is underwater.
ParticipantWhy should anyone have learned a lesson? If anything, the “Financial Crisis” taught us that being a deadbeat borrower or reckless lender will make you a victim; often, a rich victim.
The deadbeats were allowed to squat for YEARS while us loser renters paid our rent dutifully every month. If we renters were to stop paying, nobody would have revolted or marched to protect our rights to stay in our rentals for free or significantly reduced rents. Nobody is crying for us when we can’t earn a low-risk interest rate over 1% for short term savings vehicles — losing money every year because of the inflation that was forced on us in order to save the aforementioned “victims.”
Yes, it’s easy to become disillusioned with our financial system and govt, but at least we should be able to sleep well at night. Hopefully, someday, those who’ve tried to be more conservative and responsible will be rewarded for their efforts…but don’t hold your breath.
June 19, 2014 at 12:12 AM in reply to: ICELAND’s Pots & Pans Revolution…Virtually no US Media coverage #775363Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Soon wall street will be militarized, or perhaps will assume command of the US military and we can thank soldiers for protecting us from threats to the banking system and putting their lives on the line to ensure leveraged buyouts continue unmolested. after all, these law enforcement personnel and soldiers/sailors/marines are putting their lives on the line to protect certain credit swaps. anything less than complete gratitude is ridiculous,[/quote]
IMO, Wall Street has always been in control of our military. Our armed services are there to protect and serve our corporate interests.
-
AuthorPosts
