Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
carlsbadworker
Participant[quote=rockingtime]I take nothing 🙁 though I try to eat healthy and try to exercise regularly: both weights and cardio..[/quote]
That’s pretty good.
Old wisdom says business strives when it solves people’s pain. But when I look at the drug and supplementary market, I see it as a complete lie. How many people are taking pain killers v.s. fish oil/vitamin? We spent more money to make us feel good than to avoid pains…gym membership fee included. Heck, even the lawyer that is known for getting pains whenever he spends money, is now buying life insurance. 🙂
ParticipantFish oil…and that’s it.
The issue with taking any pill, is that it affects the metrics but you don’t really know if it affects your health. Say, fish oil helps cholesterol, but you don’t really know if cholesterol is really doing anything for you personally. It is all based on statistics and there are no personalized medical advice. In addition, we don’t even know that many-made pill has any effect compared to what your body generated.
So it is all placebo.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]At least they’re not synthetic drugs. what you’re taking, you can also consume in your diet.
Have fish at least one a week. Or make it like Catholics and have fish on Fridays.[/quote]Well, pollution, ever heard about that? Where do you get healthy fish anymore?
ParticipantOK. Putting a little bit more thoughts into this now that you mention it. I think there should be certain (perhaps most) housework that they do that shouldn’t earn them money. They need to learn responsibility as well rather than making everything a financial trade. But they would be rewarded extra for noticing things that we need help on and getting that fixed. Maybe fix the sprinkler, I can pay them 5x to 10x the material costs. I want them to discover problems and then fix them.
In fact, that’s something wrong with our society. I have numerous kids knocking my door asking for donation or sell me some junk, but why no one has knocked my door and told me my sprinkler is broken and offering fixing it. I would gladly pay 5x for the material cost too for their parents’ effort of raising the kids right.
ParticipantI think it is great. It certainly beats UGMA or 529. But I think you need to wait until they really start to earn their income. 1) It is really the right thing to do rather than lying to IRS 2) IRS could easily audit it if you claim that your two-year-old is making $5K a year.
The order of importance to me is:
1) Teach kids about money
2) Teach kids about saving money (i.e. the value of having money to spend when they want it)
3) Teach kids about how to earn money (I don’t like monthly stipend, I want my kids learn how to earn money by meeting people’s need, rather than becoming an entitlement). So, maybe $1 for taking out trash daily, I haven’t thought through this yet. It will start with earning my money, but eventually earning money outside by looking for “work” opportunity (e.g. I can teach them writing codes and they can do freelancing).
4) Once they start earning money from the outside world, 80% of their money will need to go to Roth. I can cover their little expenses and co-pay for their bigger expenses up to a limit (kind of like insurance company to them, without insurance premium, again details not hashing out yet). Of course, they will have expenses that they don’t want me to know about (not “insurance” claimable) which they can use their 20%.
5) I won’t worry about they being less illegible for government handouts and scholarships. If they learn to how to become financially more independent, with enough assets and income ability. Tax and government handouts are secondary. Get the first order of business right.ParticipantHello, citi and visa:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/costco-replacing-american-express-visa-132250261.html
ParticipantIt didn’t say that you have to use Capital One in U.S. Costco.
ParticipantParticipantI agree.
I don’t see crash coming mainly because there are too much money on the sideline.
But I don’t see a quick appreciation as well because the price is already too high and there are no significant pools of buyers in the short-run.
I am in the camp that if you see a good deal, it doesn’t hurt to buy right now, but it doesn’t hurt to wait either.
Stock markets are likely to crash earlier than the U.S. RE market.
[quote=The-Shoveler]Just my Two cents.
To me it seems the higher end has topped out, but I don’t see a crash coming, just much slower appreciation.
The main reason I don’t see a crash coming is they have not been making crazy RE loans like they were in 2005-6.
On the lower end I do see some catch up occurring (most of the high end stuff is back at peak, I expect the lower end to catch up as well because TPTB seem to be pushing it from many sides in that direction).
Anyway IMO.[/quote]
ParticipantI can tell you who is not buying:
1. Hedge funds, because the price is no longer attractive. Individual investors are splitting: most are waiting in the sideline and some are still buying
2. First-time buyers, because it is much harder to qualify now and the crazy loan hasn’t arrived here yet. They want to buy but they are still saving the down payments.
3. Deadbeats. The people who are foreclosed in the last RE bottom are surprisingly not buying this time, even though their credit scores are gradually repaired allowing them to buy. I don’t know why, maybe they are scared of REs for now. Normally, after the price surges in 2013, they will show up in the party expecting they can be rich again, but they didn’t in 2014.
4. Younger generations. The reason is job market related. While the job market has improved, they don’t feel that they get secure jobs (e.g. part-time) or the jobs that they like. Previously, people would still buy because they expect the RE to make them rich, now the expectation of that has been lowered, they are reluctant to buy until the optimal moment would come. But this is a timing bomb, who wants to live with their parents or even roommates forever?ParticipantCheck: https://www.edyn.com/
It is not in your price range, but it seems pretty cool.
ParticipantYou are justified to raise rents after 3 years. But I wouldn’t do it personally if the rent is still 10% within the market price. The tenant may not move because the 3% increase, but psychologically, they may want to get back their money by calling your more for small issues and delay the needed maintenance.
You can ask them to sign a contract instead. I read that the contract is not really enforceable in CA but at least psychologically you get them more committed to stay.
But I would raise rents even if they are perfect tenants after 5 years (unlike AN)…but I will always price it under the market (e.g. 5-10% if they are perfect tenant). In fact, 10% under market is my threshold. I will try to keep it between 5-10% below market for perfect tenant.ParticipantI found your view point as short sighted as “peak oil” claim. Just because there is a short-term over-supply of oil does not mean it is here to stay.
Fracking reserves basically run off in two years and are much closer to oil storage reserves than a good, traditional field that flows for 30 to 60 years. Instead of a reserve, we are using it up as fast as we can at the moment. The entire industry is also not cash flow positive, which allow for the possibility that fracking costs have been underestimated…as the bankruptcy of many firms will soon show.
Meanwhile, cheap traditional oil, in contrast, becomes increasingly difficult to find both in the U.S. and globally. Last year for example, despite spending nearly $700 billion globally – up from $250 billion in 2005 – the oil industry found just 4½ months’ worth of current oil production levels, a 50-year low.
The “market system” that you are so proud of is very short-sighted and we are still using fossil fuels that were deposited in millions years in history as quickly as we can despite all the energy conservation “mindset” people claim to have.
It is like last year, CA government boasting about that they ended fiscal year with cash for the first time in seven years. But we all know the problems didn’t end there. But we are all more willing to accept happy-ending stories without much harder choices about our lifestyles.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]I remember years ago the CA DMV would charge a fee for online payments, then some genius must have told them that they actually save money by automating the process, don’t have to pay people to open mail and process the payment.[/quote]
You mean destroying jobs to automate the process?
-
AuthorPosts