[jpinpb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jp: If Penelope Cruz AND Halle Berry showed up to rent my place, I’d PAY THEM to live there![/quote]

LOL. You know what I mean. There’s more to race here. Not just attractive women. If someone clean-cut that looked like Will Smith that worked at a stock brokerage company wanted to rent a room, you wouldn’t b/c of his race?

Too many factors to consider.

[jpinpb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jp: If Penelope Cruz AND Halle Berry showed up to rent my place, I’d PAY THEM to live there![/quote]

LOL. You know what I mean. There’s more to race here. Not just attractive women. If someone clean-cut that looked like Will Smith that worked at a stock brokerage company wanted to rent a room, you wouldn’t b/c of his race?

Too many factors to consider.

[jpinpb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jp: If Penelope Cruz AND Halle Berry showed up to rent my place, I’d PAY THEM to live there![/quote]

LOL. You know what I mean. There’s more to race here. Not just attractive women. If someone clean-cut that looked like Will Smith that worked at a stock brokerage company wanted to rent a room, you wouldn’t b/c of his race?

Too many factors to consider.

[jpinpb]

Ultimately, it really depends on who you would be comfortable having live in your home. Sure there are stereotypes and some of those are carried on and perpetuated by the people themselves. If a black man came to your house in a suit and worked at a stock brokerage company, would you consider him? If a black man came to your house w/a baseball cap backwards and baggy pants down past his butt, working part time would you consider him?

I know this may seem like appearances, but it’s more than that. It’s presentation and what they think of themselves, too. If Hally Berry or Penélope Cruz look-alike came to your house looking for a room to rent, would you say no b/c strictly b/c of their race?

There’s more to this than just race. There’s so many factors to consider besides their job and ability to pay rent and cleanliness and even hobbies. If some white guy wanted to rent a room from me and he played drums in a band and would practice 20 hours a week, I might not want to have him as a roommate.

And of course religion would be considered, as well. If a born-again christian wanted to rent a room from me and I sensed they would be preaching and wanting to convert me, I maybe wouldn’t rent a room to them.

Excuse the pun, but it’s not just so black and white.

And as far as discrimination, I think one should be somewhat discriminating about with whom they will be sharing a home.

[jpinpb]

Ultimately, it really depends on who you would be comfortable having live in your home. Sure there are stereotypes and some of those are carried on and perpetuated by the people themselves. If a black man came to your house in a suit and worked at a stock brokerage company, would you consider him? If a black man came to your house w/a baseball cap backwards and baggy pants down past his butt, working part time would you consider him?

I know this may seem like appearances, but it’s more than that. It’s presentation and what they think of themselves, too. If Hally Berry or Penélope Cruz look-alike came to your house looking for a room to rent, would you say no b/c strictly b/c of their race?

There’s more to this than just race. There’s so many factors to consider besides their job and ability to pay rent and cleanliness and even hobbies. If some white guy wanted to rent a room from me and he played drums in a band and would practice 20 hours a week, I might not want to have him as a roommate.

And of course religion would be considered, as well. If a born-again christian wanted to rent a room from me and I sensed they would be preaching and wanting to convert me, I maybe wouldn’t rent a room to them.

Excuse the pun, but it’s not just so black and white.

And as far as discrimination, I think one should be somewhat discriminating about with whom they will be sharing a home.

[jpinpb]

Ultimately, it really depends on who you would be comfortable having live in your home. Sure there are stereotypes and some of those are carried on and perpetuated by the people themselves. If a black man came to your house in a suit and worked at a stock brokerage company, would you consider him? If a black man came to your house w/a baseball cap backwards and baggy pants down past his butt, working part time would you consider him?

I know this may seem like appearances, but it’s more than that. It’s presentation and what they think of themselves, too. If Hally Berry or Penélope Cruz look-alike came to your house looking for a room to rent, would you say no b/c strictly b/c of their race?

There’s more to this than just race. There’s so many factors to consider besides their job and ability to pay rent and cleanliness and even hobbies. If some white guy wanted to rent a room from me and he played drums in a band and would practice 20 hours a week, I might not want to have him as a roommate.

And of course religion would be considered, as well. If a born-again christian wanted to rent a room from me and I sensed they would be preaching and wanting to convert me, I maybe wouldn’t rent a room to them.

Excuse the pun, but it’s not just so black and white.

And as far as discrimination, I think one should be somewhat discriminating about with whom they will be sharing a home.

[jpinpb]

Ultimately, it really depends on who you would be comfortable having live in your home. Sure there are stereotypes and some of those are carried on and perpetuated by the people themselves. If a black man came to your house in a suit and worked at a stock brokerage company, would you consider him? If a black man came to your house w/a baseball cap backwards and baggy pants down past his butt, working part time would you consider him?

I know this may seem like appearances, but it’s more than that. It’s presentation and what they think of themselves, too. If Hally Berry or Penélope Cruz look-alike came to your house looking for a room to rent, would you say no b/c strictly b/c of their race?

There’s more to this than just race. There’s so many factors to consider besides their job and ability to pay rent and cleanliness and even hobbies. If some white guy wanted to rent a room from me and he played drums in a band and would practice 20 hours a week, I might not want to have him as a roommate.

And of course religion would be considered, as well. If a born-again christian wanted to rent a room from me and I sensed they would be preaching and wanting to convert me, I maybe wouldn’t rent a room to them.

Excuse the pun, but it’s not just so black and white.

And as far as discrimination, I think one should be somewhat discriminating about with whom they will be sharing a home.

[jpinpb]

Ultimately, it really depends on who you would be comfortable having live in your home. Sure there are stereotypes and some of those are carried on and perpetuated by the people themselves. If a black man came to your house in a suit and worked at a stock brokerage company, would you consider him? If a black man came to your house w/a baseball cap backwards and baggy pants down past his butt, working part time would you consider him?

I know this may seem like appearances, but it’s more than that. It’s presentation and what they think of themselves, too. If Hally Berry or Penélope Cruz look-alike came to your house looking for a room to rent, would you say no b/c strictly b/c of their race?

There’s more to this than just race. There’s so many factors to consider besides their job and ability to pay rent and cleanliness and even hobbies. If some white guy wanted to rent a room from me and he played drums in a band and would practice 20 hours a week, I might not want to have him as a roommate.

And of course religion would be considered, as well. If a born-again christian wanted to rent a room from me and I sensed they would be preaching and wanting to convert me, I maybe wouldn’t rent a room to them.

Excuse the pun, but it’s not just so black and white.

And as far as discrimination, I think one should be somewhat discriminating about with whom they will be sharing a home.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl]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).[/quote]

BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.

I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl]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).[/quote]

BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.

I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl]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).[/quote]

BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.

I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl]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).[/quote]

BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.

I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.

[jpinpb]

[quote=bearishgurl]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).[/quote]

BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.

I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]Why do you want a deck instead of a concrete patio? A deck is a lot of maintenance and will not look good 10 years later.[/quote]

I don’t know about jwizzle, but for me, we have a concrete patio that was poured. However, we want to build a deck over part of the house to capture a view.

brian – that is a very nice gate. I can see something like that costing quite a bit, but it is impressive.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]Why do you want a deck instead of a concrete patio? A deck is a lot of maintenance and will not look good 10 years later.[/quote]

I don’t know about jwizzle, but for me, we have a concrete patio that was poured. However, we want to build a deck over part of the house to capture a view.

brian – that is a very nice gate. I can see something like that costing quite a bit, but it is impressive.

[Author]

Posts