[njtosd]

[quote=Scarlett]

P.S. How much a solar heater consumes to heat up your pool?[/quote]

The only energy required is the extra amount necessary to pump the water up to the roof. We have put in an offer on a house in SD that doesn’t have one, so I looked into the cost of installing one and they are about $3-5,000. We used to live in SD and had a pool with a solar heater and we’d have to turn it off from time to time because the water would get too warm (our grid was positioned on a portion of our roof that faced due south, so it was very efficient). And I think I’ve said this before in this thread, but I have looked at a million pool websites and http://www.poolcenter.com has been the best – lots of great information. For example, here is a link to basic info about solar pool heaters http://www.poolcenter.com/Swimming_Pool_Solar_Heating_22.htm.

[njtosd]

[quote=Scarlett]

P.S. How much a solar heater consumes to heat up your pool?[/quote]

The only energy required is the extra amount necessary to pump the water up to the roof. We have put in an offer on a house in SD that doesn’t have one, so I looked into the cost of installing one and they are about $3-5,000. We used to live in SD and had a pool with a solar heater and we’d have to turn it off from time to time because the water would get too warm (our grid was positioned on a portion of our roof that faced due south, so it was very efficient). And I think I’ve said this before in this thread, but I have looked at a million pool websites and http://www.poolcenter.com has been the best – lots of great information. For example, here is a link to basic info about solar pool heaters http://www.poolcenter.com/Swimming_Pool_Solar_Heating_22.htm.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

One thing that the Vanity Fair article ignores is the fact that income is inversely proportional to child bearing.

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2000, the fertility rate was highest (86.8 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years) for women with annual family incomes below $10,000, second highest for women with family incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, and lowest in families with incomes of $75,000 and over (60.1 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44 years).

If you assume a starting point with equal income distribution, the only variable being the number of children a family has, the result is pretty easy to see. Those who have fewer kids will be able to invest more per child, expend more attention and guidance per child (therefore maximizing the likelihood that the child will do better in school, etc.) and potentially leave a higher portion of an estate to each of them. Those kids who grow up with more would once again be expected to have a higher income and the cycle would continue. In a very few cycles, you would end up with huge wealth disparities, without any of the complicated reasons that are bandied about.

The question is, what would cause the disparity in child bearing in the first place? And by the way, I’m not saying this as a justification for unequal income distribution. At all. I like population genetics (a field that has much in common with economics) and I wonder sometimes why these basic factors are ignored.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[njtosd]

[quote=davelj]

I think that income inequality, however, has resulted in a lot of people *feeling* that they’re worse off because one’s feeling of well-being is to some extent tied to one’s position in life relative to others, and increasing income inequality exacerbates this issue.

I agree that health care costs are insane – that’s clearly one area in which the majority (that is, the generally healthy) are far worse off from a cost perspective than the minority (that is, the unhealthy, who are net beneficiaries in the system). [/quote]

I am in complete agreement about people feeling that they are worse off, and I think the images that people are bombarded with by TV programming and advertising have contributed to that. The set of the show “Roseanne” was much more typical of an American house that what is shown on “Friends” etc. The expectation that everyone needs a cell phone, the proliferation of three car garages (and all that fills them up), the decorating shows that seem to suggest that most people can’t possibly live without granite countertops . . It’s mind boggling.

With respect to health care – it’s hard to say. When I was young, diabetics received insulin purified from the carcasses of cows and pigs – resulting in lots of allergic reactions, etc. The insulin used now is synthetic human insulin, resulting in higher costs but a much higher quality of life. A single dose of the drug EPO used to be made by filtering a mixture of approximately 10,000 urine samples (taken from roughly that many people) and the work involved resulted in a very low supply. It is made synthetically now, it’s available in much greater supply and doesn’t have the potential for disease transmission. In the 70s, a pair of twins who lived down the street from me were frequently taken to the hospital by ambulance because of life threatening asthma attacks – you don’t hear about that anymore. And finally, according to my neighbor (a pediatric oncologist), the survival rate for pediatric cancer has gone way up, just in the last 10 years. All of these advances came at a cost – and I’m not sure what the right cost is – but health care is improving every day – and I don’t think anyone thinks the progress should stop.

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Yes the agent does have a fiduciary obligation however that agent does work for and is employed by the seller. The obligation implies that the agent shall advise the seller, however the agent cannot make decisions that are against the wishes of the seller. I think your assumption about the agents ignoring the rules is incorrect.

[/quote]

Not sure whether you are replying to me or XBoxBoy. Just to reiterate what I said in an earlier post “my understanding was that once a house was listed with a realtor, the realtor was required (either by listing agreement, ethical rules or something else) to get it up on the MLS as quickly as possible (assuming that the seller wanted it done that way).” So I don’t think that you and I have any disagreement on that point.

Xboxboy expressed his view that sellers’ agents sometimes diverge from the what is required, and I agreed. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position – I haven’t found a profession yet that doesn’t have it’s bad apples.

Finally – the fiduciary duty requires an agent (whether real estate or otherwise) to act as instructed by the principle – that is the duty of obedience. The two can agree on whether the agent has a broad or narrow scope of discretion – but the agent’s duty is to carry out the wishes of the principle, or withdraw from the representation.

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Yes the agent does have a fiduciary obligation however that agent does work for and is employed by the seller. The obligation implies that the agent shall advise the seller, however the agent cannot make decisions that are against the wishes of the seller. I think your assumption about the agents ignoring the rules is incorrect.

[/quote]

Not sure whether you are replying to me or XBoxBoy. Just to reiterate what I said in an earlier post “my understanding was that once a house was listed with a realtor, the realtor was required (either by listing agreement, ethical rules or something else) to get it up on the MLS as quickly as possible (assuming that the seller wanted it done that way).” So I don’t think that you and I have any disagreement on that point.

Xboxboy expressed his view that sellers’ agents sometimes diverge from the what is required, and I agreed. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position – I haven’t found a profession yet that doesn’t have it’s bad apples.

Finally – the fiduciary duty requires an agent (whether real estate or otherwise) to act as instructed by the principle – that is the duty of obedience. The two can agree on whether the agent has a broad or narrow scope of discretion – but the agent’s duty is to carry out the wishes of the principle, or withdraw from the representation.

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Yes the agent does have a fiduciary obligation however that agent does work for and is employed by the seller. The obligation implies that the agent shall advise the seller, however the agent cannot make decisions that are against the wishes of the seller. I think your assumption about the agents ignoring the rules is incorrect.

[/quote]

Not sure whether you are replying to me or XBoxBoy. Just to reiterate what I said in an earlier post “my understanding was that once a house was listed with a realtor, the realtor was required (either by listing agreement, ethical rules or something else) to get it up on the MLS as quickly as possible (assuming that the seller wanted it done that way).” So I don’t think that you and I have any disagreement on that point.

Xboxboy expressed his view that sellers’ agents sometimes diverge from the what is required, and I agreed. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position – I haven’t found a profession yet that doesn’t have it’s bad apples.

Finally – the fiduciary duty requires an agent (whether real estate or otherwise) to act as instructed by the principle – that is the duty of obedience. The two can agree on whether the agent has a broad or narrow scope of discretion – but the agent’s duty is to carry out the wishes of the principle, or withdraw from the representation.

[Author]

Posts