[ucodegen]

Best that I can remember the diffs.

1960’s

[ucodegen]

Best that I can remember the diffs.

1960’s

May need earthquake retro.

Old wiring.

Probably galvanized piping instead of copper (can get plugged up with calcium salts)

Watch out for work where both copper and galvanized is used (dissimilar metals create galvanic action which corrodes the pipe)

Possibly real roughsawn 2x4s

Possibly Lath and Plaster vs wallboard (quieter house, improves insulation).

Fiberglass insulation standards are not a good.

1970’s late

Some earthquake retro may be needed.

Switch from Lath & Plaster to wallboard.

Construction started switching over to copper piping, watch out for flexible plastic plumbing – it was at its infancy and had problems. Type often used was polybutylene(PB)

2x4s no longer 2″ by 4″.

Slight insulation requirement improvement, windows still a problem

Start of large scale housing dev, keep an eye on manufacturer defect patterns on developments

1980s

Earthquake retro needs may be limited to how waterheaters are mounted etc.

Large scale housing dev, keep an eye on manufacturer defect patterns on developments.

Because of problems of PEX plumbing, fewer manufacturers used it from this point on. Watch out for ‘do-it-yourself-ers’ though.

Shear-walls went from angled 1x12s to 4×8 plywood sheets, particularly on lower floors of multi-story. Significant improvement on rigidity/shear strength/earthquake resistance

Starting to see pre-stressed concrete garage floors, prevents cracks but do not drill into them.

1990s

Start of ‘imported’ cheaper labor – with all that it brings.

Large scale housing dev, keep an eye on manufacturer defect patterns on developments.

Improved insulation requirements.

Almost entire outside of house is now ‘wrapped’ as a shear-wall.

Pre-stressed concrete garage floors, prevents cracks but do not drill into them.

Improvements in flexible plastic plumbing. Transition to Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX). One advantage of plastic plumbing is that it is more resistant to breakage under freezing conditions. On the other hand, doing it right is an issue – too many amateurs.

More info on Polybutylene(PB) plumbing:

Polybutylene has been involved in several major class action settlements.

Over a billion dollars has been paid from settlement funds.

Some hazard insurance companies will no longer insure homes piped with this product.

Some home warranty companies exclude PB leaks from coverage

There is more.. but gotta get working on some other stuff right now..

[ucodegen]

Best that I can remember the diffs.

1960’s

May need earthquake retro.

Old wiring.

Probably galvanized piping instead of copper (can get plugged up with calcium salts)

Watch out for work where both copper and galvanized is used (dissimilar metals create galvanic action which corrodes the pipe)

Possibly real roughsawn 2x4s

Possibly Lath and Plaster vs wallboard (quieter house, improves insulation).

Fiberglass insulation standards are not a good.

1970’s late

Some earthquake retro may be needed.

Switch from Lath & Plaster to wallboard.

Construction started switching over to copper piping, watch out for flexible plastic plumbing – it was at its infancy and had problems. Type often used was polybutylene(PB)

2x4s no longer 2″ by 4″.

Slight insulation requirement improvement, windows still a problem

Start of large scale housing dev, keep an eye on manufacturer defect patterns on developments

1980s

Earthquake retro needs may be limited to how waterheaters are mounted etc.

Large scale housing dev, keep an eye on manufacturer defect patterns on developments.

Because of problems of PEX plumbing, fewer manufacturers used it from this point on. Watch out for ‘do-it-yourself-ers’ though.

Shear-walls went from angled 1x12s to 4×8 plywood sheets, particularly on lower floors of multi-story. Significant improvement on rigidity/shear strength/earthquake resistance

Starting to see pre-stressed concrete garage floors, prevents cracks but do not drill into them.

1990s

Start of ‘imported’ cheaper labor – with all that it brings.

Large scale housing dev, keep an eye on manufacturer defect patterns on developments.

Improved insulation requirements.

Almost entire outside of house is now ‘wrapped’ as a shear-wall.

Pre-stressed concrete garage floors, prevents cracks but do not drill into them.

Improvements in flexible plastic plumbing. Transition to Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX). One advantage of plastic plumbing is that it is more resistant to breakage under freezing conditions. On the other hand, doing it right is an issue – too many amateurs.

More info on Polybutylene(PB) plumbing:

Polybutylene has been involved in several major class action settlements.

Over a billion dollars has been paid from settlement funds.

Some hazard insurance companies will no longer insure homes piped with this product.

Some home warranty companies exclude PB leaks from coverage

There is more.. but gotta get working on some other stuff right now..

[ucodegen]

1) Slip rent? Is this on a mobile home park?
2) How the heck did you end up with this albatross?

[ucodegen]

1) Slip rent? Is this on a mobile home park?
2) How the heck did you end up with this albatross?

[ucodegen]

1) Slip rent? Is this on a mobile home park?
2) How the heck did you end up with this albatross?

[ucodegen]

1) Slip rent? Is this on a mobile home park?
2) How the heck did you end up with this albatross?

[ucodegen]

1) Slip rent? Is this on a mobile home park?
2) How the heck did you end up with this albatross?

[ucodegen]

[quote=briansd1]ucodegen, I actually think that there is mutual culpabibility between government and business.[/quote]
I wouldn’t let ‘individuals’ off the hook here. There has to be responsibility for your own actions and to stop playing the ‘victim’ card. Victim mentality is very self-defeating.

[quote=briansd1]The government is allowing the most sophiticated financial products (adjustable pick-a-pay mortgages, pay-day lending, car leases, etc… ) to be sold to the poorest, least educated people who don’t undertand those products. Those people end up getting in debt buying things they don’t need.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call them ‘sophisticated’ financial products.. but I would call them more complex, harder to understand.
I would be careful about outright banning these(they have a potential use, but the real problem is education). I think a better approach would be to teach basic finance in High School(along with putting drivers ed back in High School). There has been too much special interest driving what is taught in High School. I saw some of what was added to teaching math, and I became quite disturbed. It should be basics, not trying to define new terms for everything to make it ‘new’.

The basic approach to what is taught in public schools, should be to list everything that someone would need to know or skills they would have to have to function once they hit 18. Take this list and prioritize it by importance(how much harm to the individual if they don’t know it, don’t have the skill). This should be the list of priority items/skills to teach in public schools. Everything else is an ‘elective’. The high school I went to even had a basic “Law” course (Civil/Tort and Criminal) that lasted a year. I would still love to have that text book.

[quote=briansd1]IMO, it would be best to ban certain financial products altogether or at least cap the interest rates that can be charged.[/quote]

The problem of capping interest rates is that this is the very thing/approach that got us in trouble. Interest rates are based off of a base zero risk rate of return + a risk premium. If you cap, you prevent adjustment based upon risk. The products that I think should be limited/eliminated are the ones that have ‘teaser’ rates.. with the ‘promise’ you could always refi later. This is like fishing.. getting the fish to bite the hook.

[ucodegen]

[quote=briansd1]ucodegen, I actually think that there is mutual culpabibility between government and business.[/quote]
I wouldn’t let ‘individuals’ off the hook here. There has to be responsibility for your own actions and to stop playing the ‘victim’ card. Victim mentality is very self-defeating.

[quote=briansd1]The government is allowing the most sophiticated financial products (adjustable pick-a-pay mortgages, pay-day lending, car leases, etc… ) to be sold to the poorest, least educated people who don’t undertand those products. Those people end up getting in debt buying things they don’t need.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call them ‘sophisticated’ financial products.. but I would call them more complex, harder to understand.
I would be careful about outright banning these(they have a potential use, but the real problem is education). I think a better approach would be to teach basic finance in High School(along with putting drivers ed back in High School). There has been too much special interest driving what is taught in High School. I saw some of what was added to teaching math, and I became quite disturbed. It should be basics, not trying to define new terms for everything to make it ‘new’.

The basic approach to what is taught in public schools, should be to list everything that someone would need to know or skills they would have to have to function once they hit 18. Take this list and prioritize it by importance(how much harm to the individual if they don’t know it, don’t have the skill). This should be the list of priority items/skills to teach in public schools. Everything else is an ‘elective’. The high school I went to even had a basic “Law” course (Civil/Tort and Criminal) that lasted a year. I would still love to have that text book.

[quote=briansd1]IMO, it would be best to ban certain financial products altogether or at least cap the interest rates that can be charged.[/quote]

The problem of capping interest rates is that this is the very thing/approach that got us in trouble. Interest rates are based off of a base zero risk rate of return + a risk premium. If you cap, you prevent adjustment based upon risk. The products that I think should be limited/eliminated are the ones that have ‘teaser’ rates.. with the ‘promise’ you could always refi later. This is like fishing.. getting the fish to bite the hook.

[ucodegen]

[quote=briansd1]ucodegen, I actually think that there is mutual culpabibility between government and business.[/quote]
I wouldn’t let ‘individuals’ off the hook here. There has to be responsibility for your own actions and to stop playing the ‘victim’ card. Victim mentality is very self-defeating.

[quote=briansd1]The government is allowing the most sophiticated financial products (adjustable pick-a-pay mortgages, pay-day lending, car leases, etc… ) to be sold to the poorest, least educated people who don’t undertand those products. Those people end up getting in debt buying things they don’t need.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call them ‘sophisticated’ financial products.. but I would call them more complex, harder to understand.
I would be careful about outright banning these(they have a potential use, but the real problem is education). I think a better approach would be to teach basic finance in High School(along with putting drivers ed back in High School). There has been too much special interest driving what is taught in High School. I saw some of what was added to teaching math, and I became quite disturbed. It should be basics, not trying to define new terms for everything to make it ‘new’.

The basic approach to what is taught in public schools, should be to list everything that someone would need to know or skills they would have to have to function once they hit 18. Take this list and prioritize it by importance(how much harm to the individual if they don’t know it, don’t have the skill). This should be the list of priority items/skills to teach in public schools. Everything else is an ‘elective’. The high school I went to even had a basic “Law” course (Civil/Tort and Criminal) that lasted a year. I would still love to have that text book.

[quote=briansd1]IMO, it would be best to ban certain financial products altogether or at least cap the interest rates that can be charged.[/quote]

The problem of capping interest rates is that this is the very thing/approach that got us in trouble. Interest rates are based off of a base zero risk rate of return + a risk premium. If you cap, you prevent adjustment based upon risk. The products that I think should be limited/eliminated are the ones that have ‘teaser’ rates.. with the ‘promise’ you could always refi later. This is like fishing.. getting the fish to bite the hook.

[ucodegen]

[quote=briansd1]ucodegen, I actually think that there is mutual culpabibility between government and business.[/quote]
I wouldn’t let ‘individuals’ off the hook here. There has to be responsibility for your own actions and to stop playing the ‘victim’ card. Victim mentality is very self-defeating.

[quote=briansd1]The government is allowing the most sophiticated financial products (adjustable pick-a-pay mortgages, pay-day lending, car leases, etc… ) to be sold to the poorest, least educated people who don’t undertand those products. Those people end up getting in debt buying things they don’t need.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call them ‘sophisticated’ financial products.. but I would call them more complex, harder to understand.
I would be careful about outright banning these(they have a potential use, but the real problem is education). I think a better approach would be to teach basic finance in High School(along with putting drivers ed back in High School). There has been too much special interest driving what is taught in High School. I saw some of what was added to teaching math, and I became quite disturbed. It should be basics, not trying to define new terms for everything to make it ‘new’.

The basic approach to what is taught in public schools, should be to list everything that someone would need to know or skills they would have to have to function once they hit 18. Take this list and prioritize it by importance(how much harm to the individual if they don’t know it, don’t have the skill). This should be the list of priority items/skills to teach in public schools. Everything else is an ‘elective’. The high school I went to even had a basic “Law” course (Civil/Tort and Criminal) that lasted a year. I would still love to have that text book.

[quote=briansd1]IMO, it would be best to ban certain financial products altogether or at least cap the interest rates that can be charged.[/quote]

The problem of capping interest rates is that this is the very thing/approach that got us in trouble. Interest rates are based off of a base zero risk rate of return + a risk premium. If you cap, you prevent adjustment based upon risk. The products that I think should be limited/eliminated are the ones that have ‘teaser’ rates.. with the ‘promise’ you could always refi later. This is like fishing.. getting the fish to bite the hook.

[ucodegen]

[quote=briansd1]ucodegen, I actually think that there is mutual culpabibility between government and business.[/quote]
I wouldn’t let ‘individuals’ off the hook here. There has to be responsibility for your own actions and to stop playing the ‘victim’ card. Victim mentality is very self-defeating.

[quote=briansd1]The government is allowing the most sophiticated financial products (adjustable pick-a-pay mortgages, pay-day lending, car leases, etc… ) to be sold to the poorest, least educated people who don’t undertand those products. Those people end up getting in debt buying things they don’t need.[/quote]
I wouldn’t call them ‘sophisticated’ financial products.. but I would call them more complex, harder to understand.
I would be careful about outright banning these(they have a potential use, but the real problem is education). I think a better approach would be to teach basic finance in High School(along with putting drivers ed back in High School). There has been too much special interest driving what is taught in High School. I saw some of what was added to teaching math, and I became quite disturbed. It should be basics, not trying to define new terms for everything to make it ‘new’.

The basic approach to what is taught in public schools, should be to list everything that someone would need to know or skills they would have to have to function once they hit 18. Take this list and prioritize it by importance(how much harm to the individual if they don’t know it, don’t have the skill). This should be the list of priority items/skills to teach in public schools. Everything else is an ‘elective’. The high school I went to even had a basic “Law” course (Civil/Tort and Criminal) that lasted a year. I would still love to have that text book.

[quote=briansd1]IMO, it would be best to ban certain financial products altogether or at least cap the interest rates that can be charged.[/quote]

The problem of capping interest rates is that this is the very thing/approach that got us in trouble. Interest rates are based off of a base zero risk rate of return + a risk premium. If you cap, you prevent adjustment based upon risk. The products that I think should be limited/eliminated are the ones that have ‘teaser’ rates.. with the ‘promise’ you could always refi later. This is like fishing.. getting the fish to bite the hook.

[ucodegen]

1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.
2) The referenced article is simplistic. Much more simplistic than a professor of Economics and Law should come up with. He took a something which had a surprisingly simple cure and spun it into a justification for something much more far reaching. The author also did not distinguish between regulation and the enforcement of existing regulation. There is a big difference between having regulation and not enforcing it versus not having the regulation in the first place.

The cause of the whole financial collapse of cards is actually fairly simple. Risk was not correctly priced when it came to mortgage loans. Why?
1) You had Congress tampering with risk pricing through Freddie and Fannie.
2) Credit Default Swaps, which are really insurance policies, are not regulated as such. Credit Default Swaps are the sacred cows of the banking industry because they allow almost unlimited leverage.

You can also expand this to include:
3) Lack of basic financial knowledge on the part of most of the populace.
4) Reduction in concepts of personal responsibility on the part of a large portion of the populace. (Entitlement generation).

[ucodegen]

1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.
2) The referenced article is simplistic. Much more simplistic than a professor of Economics and Law should come up with. He took a something which had a surprisingly simple cure and spun it into a justification for something much more far reaching. The author also did not distinguish between regulation and the enforcement of existing regulation. There is a big difference between having regulation and not enforcing it versus not having the regulation in the first place.

The cause of the whole financial collapse of cards is actually fairly simple. Risk was not correctly priced when it came to mortgage loans. Why?
1) You had Congress tampering with risk pricing through Freddie and Fannie.
2) Credit Default Swaps, which are really insurance policies, are not regulated as such. Credit Default Swaps are the sacred cows of the banking industry because they allow almost unlimited leverage.

You can also expand this to include:
3) Lack of basic financial knowledge on the part of most of the populace.
4) Reduction in concepts of personal responsibility on the part of a large portion of the populace. (Entitlement generation).

[Author]

Posts