[one_muggle]

djrobsd,

Do you really want to live around a bunch of spoiled rich peeps?
This is a major issue for my family as well, but we are finding (through private school tours) that we would face as big, if not bigger problem with the private school crowd.

The best (or worst in this case) is the private academy in my local ‘expensive school district’–these people buy the multi-million dollar homes to be in the desirable school district, and then pay $20k per year to go to private school.
I am not poor, but damn, that takes lots of disposable income.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

djrobsd,

Do you really want to live around a bunch of spoiled rich peeps?
This is a major issue for my family as well, but we are finding (through private school tours) that we would face as big, if not bigger problem with the private school crowd.

The best (or worst in this case) is the private academy in my local ‘expensive school district’–these people buy the multi-million dollar homes to be in the desirable school district, and then pay $20k per year to go to private school.
I am not poor, but damn, that takes lots of disposable income.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

djrobsd,

Do you really want to live around a bunch of spoiled rich peeps?
This is a major issue for my family as well, but we are finding (through private school tours) that we would face as big, if not bigger problem with the private school crowd.

The best (or worst in this case) is the private academy in my local ‘expensive school district’–these people buy the multi-million dollar homes to be in the desirable school district, and then pay $20k per year to go to private school.
I am not poor, but damn, that takes lots of disposable income.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

I have a similar (enough) situation that I ran some simple numbers for this just last week.

Just to give you an idea, the current cost for private school (in my area) starts around $1k/month/kid. With 2 kids, that is a monthly equivalent to a $300k 30yr fixed loan at 7%.

With LostCat’s projected profit, that means you could buy a ~$550k house in a neighborhood with good public schools, for the same price as today’s private school tuition.
This is very back of the envelope, since taxes, opportunity cost (for the $250k), etc are not included. But it just gives one an idea of how much house you could get, just for the cost of private school.

Long term, the cost of school will rise, but your mortgage should stay the same (except your write-off starts shrinking). If house prices were stable, and the good public school were just as good as the private–BUY or RENT.
If prices are rising rapidly–it’s a no brainer BUY.
If prices are falling rapidly–RENT.

For my case, since we already sold our primary residence, we will rent next year, when my oldest starts kindergarten, in the best public school district around. The rent premium to go from our very nice neighborhood–but with lousy schools–is about $1200/month. So, purely financially, it does not make sense, except that we have another one starting school sometime after and I am not jerking my kids around different schools to maximize my finances!

If all goes well, we are looking at buying in 2-4 yrs (RE depending) in the same neighborhood.
It made much more sense for us, than private school–though a major assumption is the equivalence of the good public versus private–another reason we are renting, rather than getting stuck. We want to find out first hand.

Good luck, I know from personal experience how freakin hard it is to figure out schools in SoCal.
-one muggle

[one_muggle]

I have a similar (enough) situation that I ran some simple numbers for this just last week.

Just to give you an idea, the current cost for private school (in my area) starts around $1k/month/kid. With 2 kids, that is a monthly equivalent to a $300k 30yr fixed loan at 7%.

With LostCat’s projected profit, that means you could buy a ~$550k house in a neighborhood with good public schools, for the same price as today’s private school tuition.
This is very back of the envelope, since taxes, opportunity cost (for the $250k), etc are not included. But it just gives one an idea of how much house you could get, just for the cost of private school.

Long term, the cost of school will rise, but your mortgage should stay the same (except your write-off starts shrinking). If house prices were stable, and the good public school were just as good as the private–BUY or RENT.
If prices are rising rapidly–it’s a no brainer BUY.
If prices are falling rapidly–RENT.

For my case, since we already sold our primary residence, we will rent next year, when my oldest starts kindergarten, in the best public school district around. The rent premium to go from our very nice neighborhood–but with lousy schools–is about $1200/month. So, purely financially, it does not make sense, except that we have another one starting school sometime after and I am not jerking my kids around different schools to maximize my finances!

If all goes well, we are looking at buying in 2-4 yrs (RE depending) in the same neighborhood.
It made much more sense for us, than private school–though a major assumption is the equivalence of the good public versus private–another reason we are renting, rather than getting stuck. We want to find out first hand.

Good luck, I know from personal experience how freakin hard it is to figure out schools in SoCal.
-one muggle

[one_muggle]

I have a similar (enough) situation that I ran some simple numbers for this just last week.

Just to give you an idea, the current cost for private school (in my area) starts around $1k/month/kid. With 2 kids, that is a monthly equivalent to a $300k 30yr fixed loan at 7%.

With LostCat’s projected profit, that means you could buy a ~$550k house in a neighborhood with good public schools, for the same price as today’s private school tuition.
This is very back of the envelope, since taxes, opportunity cost (for the $250k), etc are not included. But it just gives one an idea of how much house you could get, just for the cost of private school.

Long term, the cost of school will rise, but your mortgage should stay the same (except your write-off starts shrinking). If house prices were stable, and the good public school were just as good as the private–BUY or RENT.
If prices are rising rapidly–it’s a no brainer BUY.
If prices are falling rapidly–RENT.

For my case, since we already sold our primary residence, we will rent next year, when my oldest starts kindergarten, in the best public school district around. The rent premium to go from our very nice neighborhood–but with lousy schools–is about $1200/month. So, purely financially, it does not make sense, except that we have another one starting school sometime after and I am not jerking my kids around different schools to maximize my finances!

If all goes well, we are looking at buying in 2-4 yrs (RE depending) in the same neighborhood.
It made much more sense for us, than private school–though a major assumption is the equivalence of the good public versus private–another reason we are renting, rather than getting stuck. We want to find out first hand.

Good luck, I know from personal experience how freakin hard it is to figure out schools in SoCal.
-one muggle

[one_muggle]

I have a similar (enough) situation that I ran some simple numbers for this just last week.

Just to give you an idea, the current cost for private school (in my area) starts around $1k/month/kid. With 2 kids, that is a monthly equivalent to a $300k 30yr fixed loan at 7%.

With LostCat’s projected profit, that means you could buy a ~$550k house in a neighborhood with good public schools, for the same price as today’s private school tuition.
This is very back of the envelope, since taxes, opportunity cost (for the $250k), etc are not included. But it just gives one an idea of how much house you could get, just for the cost of private school.

Long term, the cost of school will rise, but your mortgage should stay the same (except your write-off starts shrinking). If house prices were stable, and the good public school were just as good as the private–BUY or RENT.
If prices are rising rapidly–it’s a no brainer BUY.
If prices are falling rapidly–RENT.

For my case, since we already sold our primary residence, we will rent next year, when my oldest starts kindergarten, in the best public school district around. The rent premium to go from our very nice neighborhood–but with lousy schools–is about $1200/month. So, purely financially, it does not make sense, except that we have another one starting school sometime after and I am not jerking my kids around different schools to maximize my finances!

If all goes well, we are looking at buying in 2-4 yrs (RE depending) in the same neighborhood.
It made much more sense for us, than private school–though a major assumption is the equivalence of the good public versus private–another reason we are renting, rather than getting stuck. We want to find out first hand.

Good luck, I know from personal experience how freakin hard it is to figure out schools in SoCal.
-one muggle

[one_muggle]

I have a similar (enough) situation that I ran some simple numbers for this just last week.

Just to give you an idea, the current cost for private school (in my area) starts around $1k/month/kid. With 2 kids, that is a monthly equivalent to a $300k 30yr fixed loan at 7%.

With LostCat’s projected profit, that means you could buy a ~$550k house in a neighborhood with good public schools, for the same price as today’s private school tuition.
This is very back of the envelope, since taxes, opportunity cost (for the $250k), etc are not included. But it just gives one an idea of how much house you could get, just for the cost of private school.

Long term, the cost of school will rise, but your mortgage should stay the same (except your write-off starts shrinking). If house prices were stable, and the good public school were just as good as the private–BUY or RENT.
If prices are rising rapidly–it’s a no brainer BUY.
If prices are falling rapidly–RENT.

For my case, since we already sold our primary residence, we will rent next year, when my oldest starts kindergarten, in the best public school district around. The rent premium to go from our very nice neighborhood–but with lousy schools–is about $1200/month. So, purely financially, it does not make sense, except that we have another one starting school sometime after and I am not jerking my kids around different schools to maximize my finances!

If all goes well, we are looking at buying in 2-4 yrs (RE depending) in the same neighborhood.
It made much more sense for us, than private school–though a major assumption is the equivalence of the good public versus private–another reason we are renting, rather than getting stuck. We want to find out first hand.

Good luck, I know from personal experience how freakin hard it is to figure out schools in SoCal.
-one muggle

[one_muggle]

I have a similar (enough) situation that I ran some simple numbers for this just last week.

Just to give you an idea, the current cost for private school (in my area) starts around $1k/month/kid. With 2 kids, that is a monthly equivalent to a $300k 30yr fixed loan at 7%.

With LostCat’s projected profit, that means you could buy a ~$550k house in a neighborhood with good public schools, for the same price as today’s private school tuition.
This is very back of the envelope, since taxes, opportunity cost (for the $250k), etc are not included. But it just gives one an idea of how much house you could get, just for the cost of private school.

Long term, the cost of school will rise, but your mortgage should stay the same (except your write-off starts shrinking). If house prices were stable, and the good public school were just as good as the private–BUY or RENT.
If prices are rising rapidly–it’s a no brainer BUY.
If prices are falling rapidly–RENT.

For my case, since we already sold our primary residence, we will rent next year, when my oldest starts kindergarten, in the best public school district around. The rent premium to go from our very nice neighborhood–but with lousy schools–is about $1200/month. So, purely financially, it does not make sense, except that we have another one starting school sometime after and I am not jerking my kids around different schools to maximize my finances!

If all goes well, we are looking at buying in 2-4 yrs (RE depending) in the same neighborhood.
It made much more sense for us, than private school–though a major assumption is the equivalence of the good public versus private–another reason we are renting, rather than getting stuck. We want to find out first hand.

Good luck, I know from personal experience how freakin hard it is to figure out schools in SoCal.
-one muggle

[one_muggle]

Wow. Sounds like this is a religious issue for some of us.

All I was saying about Hubbert’s Peak is that it is an overly simplistic model and that his estimates were based on the extraction of cheap oil. As price goes up, production will increase because one can now make money on the oil that is more expensive to extract (deep ocean, shale, etc) or more expensive to refine (such as oil with high sulfur).
I liked the suggestion for me to read a science book because I said production follows demand–as if I suggested we could simply manufacture more oil. The fact is, oil wells are not simply straws sucking the fluid from a big bucket of dino-goo.
If you read a book on the subject, you will see that many current oil wells require a relaxation time before pumping can continue since these oil fields are more like sponges. Once you pump out all the oil near the well, it takes time for the oil to percolate depending on the permeability of the substrate, and viscosity if the oil.
Other wells require enormous capital outlay to reach the remaining oil. Many wells only reach 10% extraction ratios–and all this is the oil Hubbert used in his calculation, not the 100% that is there. If we increase the extraction ratio, the date of peak total oil shifts out.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue.

As far as oil/energy being a problem–it is probably the most pressing long term issue of the planet, but for now and in the short term, it is mainly an economic issue.

Anyone interested in a fairly easy paper on advancing extraction methods http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/Beresnev/beresnev_johnson.pdf

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

Wow. Sounds like this is a religious issue for some of us.

All I was saying about Hubbert’s Peak is that it is an overly simplistic model and that his estimates were based on the extraction of cheap oil. As price goes up, production will increase because one can now make money on the oil that is more expensive to extract (deep ocean, shale, etc) or more expensive to refine (such as oil with high sulfur).
I liked the suggestion for me to read a science book because I said production follows demand–as if I suggested we could simply manufacture more oil. The fact is, oil wells are not simply straws sucking the fluid from a big bucket of dino-goo.
If you read a book on the subject, you will see that many current oil wells require a relaxation time before pumping can continue since these oil fields are more like sponges. Once you pump out all the oil near the well, it takes time for the oil to percolate depending on the permeability of the substrate, and viscosity if the oil.
Other wells require enormous capital outlay to reach the remaining oil. Many wells only reach 10% extraction ratios–and all this is the oil Hubbert used in his calculation, not the 100% that is there. If we increase the extraction ratio, the date of peak total oil shifts out.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue.

As far as oil/energy being a problem–it is probably the most pressing long term issue of the planet, but for now and in the short term, it is mainly an economic issue.

Anyone interested in a fairly easy paper on advancing extraction methods http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/Beresnev/beresnev_johnson.pdf

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

Wow. Sounds like this is a religious issue for some of us.

All I was saying about Hubbert’s Peak is that it is an overly simplistic model and that his estimates were based on the extraction of cheap oil. As price goes up, production will increase because one can now make money on the oil that is more expensive to extract (deep ocean, shale, etc) or more expensive to refine (such as oil with high sulfur).
I liked the suggestion for me to read a science book because I said production follows demand–as if I suggested we could simply manufacture more oil. The fact is, oil wells are not simply straws sucking the fluid from a big bucket of dino-goo.
If you read a book on the subject, you will see that many current oil wells require a relaxation time before pumping can continue since these oil fields are more like sponges. Once you pump out all the oil near the well, it takes time for the oil to percolate depending on the permeability of the substrate, and viscosity if the oil.
Other wells require enormous capital outlay to reach the remaining oil. Many wells only reach 10% extraction ratios–and all this is the oil Hubbert used in his calculation, not the 100% that is there. If we increase the extraction ratio, the date of peak total oil shifts out.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue.

As far as oil/energy being a problem–it is probably the most pressing long term issue of the planet, but for now and in the short term, it is mainly an economic issue.

Anyone interested in a fairly easy paper on advancing extraction methods http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/Beresnev/beresnev_johnson.pdf

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

Wow. Sounds like this is a religious issue for some of us.

All I was saying about Hubbert’s Peak is that it is an overly simplistic model and that his estimates were based on the extraction of cheap oil. As price goes up, production will increase because one can now make money on the oil that is more expensive to extract (deep ocean, shale, etc) or more expensive to refine (such as oil with high sulfur).
I liked the suggestion for me to read a science book because I said production follows demand–as if I suggested we could simply manufacture more oil. The fact is, oil wells are not simply straws sucking the fluid from a big bucket of dino-goo.
If you read a book on the subject, you will see that many current oil wells require a relaxation time before pumping can continue since these oil fields are more like sponges. Once you pump out all the oil near the well, it takes time for the oil to percolate depending on the permeability of the substrate, and viscosity if the oil.
Other wells require enormous capital outlay to reach the remaining oil. Many wells only reach 10% extraction ratios–and all this is the oil Hubbert used in his calculation, not the 100% that is there. If we increase the extraction ratio, the date of peak total oil shifts out.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue.

As far as oil/energy being a problem–it is probably the most pressing long term issue of the planet, but for now and in the short term, it is mainly an economic issue.

Anyone interested in a fairly easy paper on advancing extraction methods http://www.ge-at.iastate.edu/Beresnev/beresnev_johnson.pdf

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

SImply RENT. Do not buy. Get a feel for SD. IT’s a big city, with a small town feel. There are so many different communities. RENT RENT RENT RENT…

Take this advice. Even ignoring all economics, you need to rent to figure out the place. I have lived in three major and two medium cities (3 of which, with kids). You cannot tell from anyone else or even short visits, what different areas are like. Take at least six months, better yet, a year. Go for strolls, ice cream, dinner, whatever, in a different neighborhood every weekend. You will soon figure out the flavor of the areas.
As long as housing isn’t appreciating wildly (it’s not), you will be so much better off making an informed decision in a year or so. Plus, if the job sucks or you hate that lovely burned avocado smell, you can easily leave.

Good luck.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

SImply RENT. Do not buy. Get a feel for SD. IT’s a big city, with a small town feel. There are so many different communities. RENT RENT RENT RENT…

Take this advice. Even ignoring all economics, you need to rent to figure out the place. I have lived in three major and two medium cities (3 of which, with kids). You cannot tell from anyone else or even short visits, what different areas are like. Take at least six months, better yet, a year. Go for strolls, ice cream, dinner, whatever, in a different neighborhood every weekend. You will soon figure out the flavor of the areas.
As long as housing isn’t appreciating wildly (it’s not), you will be so much better off making an informed decision in a year or so. Plus, if the job sucks or you hate that lovely burned avocado smell, you can easily leave.

Good luck.

-one muggle

[Author]

Posts