Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd]
You realize you can’t own people, right?[/quote]
Of course, I do.
But theoretically, if I paid everything for the kids and the household expenses, and the salary for the homemaker, then I would expect that she takes care of the home as an employee.
If she wants to be part of the family, she would have to pay for 1/2 the expenses out of her salary. Anything that she cannot afford, she would be excluded from.
If I buy a multi-million dollar house and she can only afford 1/3 of her $100k, then she will be confined to her employee section of the house.
We will have good accounting to show the share of contribution from each parent.
We want to be clear and neat so that there’s no misunderstanding and ruffled feelings which have no place in a employer/employee relationship.[/quote]
You have missed two important elements of the analysis (at least). Quality of egg – eggs from women that you would deem acceptable with high sat scores, no genetic issues, etc. can cost as much as $50,000 or more. Assume at least 3 months of opportunities to fertilize such a high quality source – $150,000. For men who have low sperm counts, it could take a year ….hope you have deep pockets. . (Analogy here to IVF – patients pay whether success is achieved or not; multiple tries are very expensive). Multiply that by two or three kids – you’re probably out of your price range. Ivy League sperm is $1200 by the way, but that wouldn’t matter where you “owned” the result.
Also I assume, after having listened to you, you would want above average child care – something like Maria Von Trapp , etc. – another expense. I think you probably should hope for the traditional arrangement. Or if you want to own something, buy a cat (you don’t seem like a dog person).
Participant[quote=sdsurfer]I wonder about the stress vs drinking aspect. Of course I do think that people should find other outlets too, but I’m referring to the person that comes home from work and has a beer or two to loosen up from the day.
Say you had two people that were very similar. One of them has a beer or two every day when they get home on the porch as a little stress reliever and the other one does not.
Who would live longer if everything else stays the same?
I really think that as long as it does not lead to Jack Daniels the one that has a beer or two might have a bit more longevity. Let me know if you know of anyone like the second guy. I’ll be test subject #1.[/quote]
Problem is that the body’s response to alcohol (depressant) is to produce its own stimulants. Which causes me to wake up at 3:00 am if I’ve had a couple drinks the night before. So long term, is there any net gain in stress relief, or is there just a redistribution? Hard to say.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=njtosd]Can’t believe the difference between the top 10% and the remaining 90%. 75 drinks/wk – and they’re not dead? Makes you scared to drive.[/quote]
75 drinks a week is kind of high but really, just 2 bottles of wine a night which isn’t really all that much.[/quote]
Deleted. Was thinking workweek. Still , two bottles a night 7 days a week is a lot.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]The kids would be mine, not hers since I paid for everything.
If she wants 1/2 ownership of the kids, she would need to pay 1/2 the household expenses out of her $100k salary.[/quote]
You realize you can’t own people, right?
Participant[quote=UCGal]An argument for using a buyers agent:
– some properties are only available for view via lockbox or showings with an agent… you’d cut yourself out of those properties. Open houses are not the entire market.
– buyers agents *might* be privvy to pocket listings that aren’t on the MLS.Argument against buyers agent:
– if you use the listing agent you might be able to negotiate a kickback, or have them negotiate a lower price, with them kicking in some of the commissions. That seems unusual these days were sales prices are inflated by sellers paying buyers closing costs etc. (Which drives me nuts because the buyer ends up with higher prop taxes, realtors commissions are based on higher sales price, etc.)[/quote]If I were a seller and found out that a qualified buyer wanted to look at my house, they would get in (lock box or not). This is something to consider including on a listing agreement – perhaps the listing agent couldn’t accompany the prospective buyer (I know they are concerned about that situation) but someone could.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd]I don’t think my husband is getting much value from me. I’m not very domestic – although I like to bake. I work part time, but based on scaredy’s calculus, that probably sets me back because clients get me peeved (so I fall below the “happy 80% of the time” threshold). We just bought and installed shower doors together – but he put in more effort than I did (I don’t have much “hack saw” experience). I keep track of paperwork, insurance, etc.
Would we be calculating this stuff if we were single? And considering it imputed income to ourselves? I don’t think so.[/quote]
If you were single, you wouldn’t be doing it for others. For SAHPs, you’re working for other people, not yourself. There is a LOT more work involved when you’re doing everything for a family vs. just taking care of yourself.[/quote]
First off – I was being a little facetious. We have three kids, and the work is never done. Second – imputed income is usually used in tax considerations. In the real estate sense, there is an argument that if you own a home, you would charge someone else to live there, so you should be imputed to have received rent (taxable income) from yourself. So as a single person, you can choose to do your own laundry (a gain you receive for free – which is not taxed, yet) or pay for it to be done (gvt receives tax revenue on transaction). Should everyone pay taxes on all this imputed income? I would argue no, but it would definitely clarify the value of the services rendered.
ParticipantI don’t think my husband is getting much value from me. I’m not very domestic – although I like to bake. I work part time, but based on scaredy’s calculus, that probably sets me back because clients get me peeved (so I fall below the “happy 80% of the time” threshold). We just bought and installed shower doors together – but he put in more effort than I did (I don’t have much “hack saw” experience). I keep track of paperwork, insurance, etc.
Would we be calculating this stuff if we were single? And considering it imputed income to ourselves? I don’t think so.
Participant[quote=NicMM]
njtosd, complimenting a friend is not like granting a trophy to the winner of a competition. It is sad to think that way.NicMM[/quote]
I think another poster used the word “contorted” with respect to your analysis, so I won’t bother. I don’t choose or maintain friendships based on how people look. I don’t really comment much on people’s appearance because it doesn’t make a big difference to me. And I don’t tell people they are pretty, or great at kayaking, or anything else just to make them feel good. Do I mention it sometimes? Absolutely. Do I think it should matter a lot? No. What’s sad is to put that much importance on appearance, especially at the age of most on the people on this board (and Facebook).
ParticipantCan’t believe the difference between the top 10% and the remaining 90%. 75 drinks/wk – and they’re not dead? Makes you scared to drive.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
FWIW, I’m not lying when I compliment other women (or men). I think that all people are beautiful, each in his/her own way. We don’t all need to look like some stereotype in order to be attractive and appealing to others.[/quote]
To quote one of my favorite characters, Syndrome, “When everyone is super, nobody will be.” Beauty is a relative term – to say everyone is beautiful makes it meaningless. You may like everyone, you may find them to be valuable and meritorious, or you may say that physical beauty is unimportant to you in terms of other people’s worth. All of that would be fine. But everyone isn’t beautiful, or smart or funny.
And although I think your motives are genuine, there are a lot of people out there who say everything is great (for example, local school principle who uses the word “amazing” 100 times/parent meeting) to prove the depths of their own enthusiasm, rather than the merit of the object of their compliments.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Not good to criticize women for overplaying the beauty object thing and criticize the ones that you perceive as failing at it at the same time. I have always kind of had sympathy for women who tried to play the beauty is power trip around me. They kind of reminded me of fish on land gasping at the air who really needed to be thrown back in the water.[/quote]
The original post had to do with indiscriminate praise regarding beauty – and where was it coming from. I notice it too, and can’t figure it out. People aren’t bad because they are/aren’t good looking, but that doesn’t make them good either. Same with race, sexual orientation, political party, etc. etc. I always think it’s strange when people profess to be proud to be something – gay, Finnish, whatever. It’s not as though any of us had a choice in the matter (in my opinion). It would be equally logical to be proud of having two nostrils.
ParticipantTo see this in action, watch a show called “Say Yes to the Dress” a reality show featuring women shopping for wedding dresses. I would say 10% look pretty good, the rest comme ci comme ca to horrible. All receive glowing praise about their looks, though, from the salespeople and family members alike. Sadly, you will also notice that all the dresses are strapless and most lace up the back, which allows them to fit on almost any figure, regardless of pre-wedding weight loss or weight gain. Shoulders are the hardest thing to tailor well, so they’ve just gotten rid of them. Many look as though the dress is going to give out before the end of the evening . . .
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Attracting mates requires a different attitude than maintaining a marriage.[/quote]
That’s very true. Run away from people who don’t have long term friendships – there is a reason for that.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Wait i meant 20 percent bad to good ration.
And 20 percent vague complaining to positive statements. Wait, no one gets that do they?[/quote]
You said most guys would be happy with 2% satisfied to 98% morose. Now you say 20 vague complaining to 80% positive – that’s a BIG difference. 39 fold increase in happiness, if my calculations are right. What about talking about politics, business ideas or what to have for dinner? I would say those are neutral. Where do they fit in?
-
AuthorPosts
