Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
poorgradstudent
ParticipantWhile I’m sure the protesters are sympathetic to both the Tea Party and Republican Party, it doesn’t sound like an actual tea party march.
On the other hand, any religion that finds dogs offensive is rather silly.
On the third hand, my dog’s drool is pretty gross.
ParticipantWhile I’m sure the protesters are sympathetic to both the Tea Party and Republican Party, it doesn’t sound like an actual tea party march.
On the other hand, any religion that finds dogs offensive is rather silly.
On the third hand, my dog’s drool is pretty gross.
ParticipantI got into it with someone else on a different thread, but if you’re in the top quintile of income, you are “rich”. If you are in the top 1%, have net assets of $1m+, you are “super rich”. In 2004 to be “rich” a household needed about $88k per year, nationally. From what I could find about San Diego, it’s probably comparable, perhaps a few thousand higher. With inflation I’d be willing to grant it’s probably close to $100k/year in San Diego to be “rich”.
One HUGE problem in this country is those of means tend to think of themselves in the middle, focusing more on the very few who make more than them than the huge numbers who make less.
ParticipantI got into it with someone else on a different thread, but if you’re in the top quintile of income, you are “rich”. If you are in the top 1%, have net assets of $1m+, you are “super rich”. In 2004 to be “rich” a household needed about $88k per year, nationally. From what I could find about San Diego, it’s probably comparable, perhaps a few thousand higher. With inflation I’d be willing to grant it’s probably close to $100k/year in San Diego to be “rich”.
One HUGE problem in this country is those of means tend to think of themselves in the middle, focusing more on the very few who make more than them than the huge numbers who make less.
ParticipantI got into it with someone else on a different thread, but if you’re in the top quintile of income, you are “rich”. If you are in the top 1%, have net assets of $1m+, you are “super rich”. In 2004 to be “rich” a household needed about $88k per year, nationally. From what I could find about San Diego, it’s probably comparable, perhaps a few thousand higher. With inflation I’d be willing to grant it’s probably close to $100k/year in San Diego to be “rich”.
One HUGE problem in this country is those of means tend to think of themselves in the middle, focusing more on the very few who make more than them than the huge numbers who make less.
ParticipantI got into it with someone else on a different thread, but if you’re in the top quintile of income, you are “rich”. If you are in the top 1%, have net assets of $1m+, you are “super rich”. In 2004 to be “rich” a household needed about $88k per year, nationally. From what I could find about San Diego, it’s probably comparable, perhaps a few thousand higher. With inflation I’d be willing to grant it’s probably close to $100k/year in San Diego to be “rich”.
One HUGE problem in this country is those of means tend to think of themselves in the middle, focusing more on the very few who make more than them than the huge numbers who make less.
ParticipantI got into it with someone else on a different thread, but if you’re in the top quintile of income, you are “rich”. If you are in the top 1%, have net assets of $1m+, you are “super rich”. In 2004 to be “rich” a household needed about $88k per year, nationally. From what I could find about San Diego, it’s probably comparable, perhaps a few thousand higher. With inflation I’d be willing to grant it’s probably close to $100k/year in San Diego to be “rich”.
One HUGE problem in this country is those of means tend to think of themselves in the middle, focusing more on the very few who make more than them than the huge numbers who make less.
ParticipantThis certainly goes against a big part of the media narrative (both left and right) about defaults. The leftwing coverage focused more on predatory lending while the right focused more on demonizing Freddie/Fannie. This study is looking more at actual defaults rather than being underwater.
Plus, let’s face it, it’s much easier to downgrade from a 1.5m home to a 800k home than it is to go from 500k to 300k. Lot of “want” vs. “need”.
ParticipantThis certainly goes against a big part of the media narrative (both left and right) about defaults. The leftwing coverage focused more on predatory lending while the right focused more on demonizing Freddie/Fannie. This study is looking more at actual defaults rather than being underwater.
Plus, let’s face it, it’s much easier to downgrade from a 1.5m home to a 800k home than it is to go from 500k to 300k. Lot of “want” vs. “need”.
ParticipantThis certainly goes against a big part of the media narrative (both left and right) about defaults. The leftwing coverage focused more on predatory lending while the right focused more on demonizing Freddie/Fannie. This study is looking more at actual defaults rather than being underwater.
Plus, let’s face it, it’s much easier to downgrade from a 1.5m home to a 800k home than it is to go from 500k to 300k. Lot of “want” vs. “need”.
ParticipantThis certainly goes against a big part of the media narrative (both left and right) about defaults. The leftwing coverage focused more on predatory lending while the right focused more on demonizing Freddie/Fannie. This study is looking more at actual defaults rather than being underwater.
Plus, let’s face it, it’s much easier to downgrade from a 1.5m home to a 800k home than it is to go from 500k to 300k. Lot of “want” vs. “need”.
ParticipantThis certainly goes against a big part of the media narrative (both left and right) about defaults. The leftwing coverage focused more on predatory lending while the right focused more on demonizing Freddie/Fannie. This study is looking more at actual defaults rather than being underwater.
Plus, let’s face it, it’s much easier to downgrade from a 1.5m home to a 800k home than it is to go from 500k to 300k. Lot of “want” vs. “need”.
ParticipantI’m about to dump my bank (wells fargo) for a credit union.
Got charged a $15 service fee for not having a high enough balance ($500 is the apparent minimum). Seriously, if it costs them $15 a month to maintain a checking account, they are an inefficient piece of crap.
The beauty of capitalism is I can vote with my dollars against ridiculous fees. Bye bye, WF!
ParticipantI’m about to dump my bank (wells fargo) for a credit union.
Got charged a $15 service fee for not having a high enough balance ($500 is the apparent minimum). Seriously, if it costs them $15 a month to maintain a checking account, they are an inefficient piece of crap.
The beauty of capitalism is I can vote with my dollars against ridiculous fees. Bye bye, WF!
-
AuthorPosts
