What Makes a Sale a Comp Killer? 3140 N. Sheffield in Lakeview
This 2-bedroom unit at 3140 N. Sheffield in Lakeview is listed as a short sale.
On the market since April 2010, it has recently been reduced and is now listed $120,500 under the 2007 purchase price.
It is by far the cheapest 2-bedroom in the building.
It has all the features of newer construction including wood floors in the main living areas. The kitchen has granite counter tops and black appliances.
The listing doesn’t say anything about parking with this unit so I’m not sure if that is extra.
Constructed in 2006/2007, 3140 N. Sheffield has 51 units.
Will the sale of this 2-bedroom be a comp killer in this building?
Caroline Yoon at Top Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #612: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1256 square feet
- Sold in May 2007 for $395,500
- Originally listed in April 2010 for $374,999
- Reduced
- Currently listed as a “short sale” for $275,000
- Assessments of $223 a month
- Taxes of $6019
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Parking isn’t listed. Extra?
- Bedroom #1: 15×22
- Bedroom #2: 12×12
Why pay a premium to live this close to the Belmont stop (and put up with the train noise) if you have a car?
I have actually had my eye on this unit – has anyone been in any like-units in the building or heard anything about the health of the reserves/condo board? Very interested in your thoughts…
I wouldn’t even want to rent here. Two pet peeves….The washer and dryer are hooked up on the wrong sides. You would have to drag the clothes out and around to put them in the dryer ( I know that’s an easy fix, but the lack of common sense drives me nuts!!). I also really don’t like how shoddy the kitchen looks. Having so much space between the top of the fridge and the cabinets looks horrible. I think that this unit still needs a price reduction to sell. I totally wouldn’t want to live in this neighborhood either….game days would be such a pain.
“Why pay a premium to live this close to the Belmont stop (and put up with the train noise) if you have a car?”
Dollar beers at Big Shitty twice a week to help you afford those hefty mortgage payments, taxes & HOA fees? (till 4am too).
Of course you could always rent one of these for even under this cost of owning and still pull tail at the ol big shitty and just tell them you own.
Hmm…I kinda of like it.
Decent price. Nice that it is full 2 bedroom 2 bath. Little on the small side (I prefer 2 bedrooms to be 1300 – 1400 sq. ft), but its ok.
Kitchen remodel and washer dryer hookups I can take care of by visiting Lowes
Ahh, I remember this place back when it was being financed/built. If I recall, the developer offered the little old lady in the tiny wood house just south of here a ton of money for her place so he could build the project even bigger…. something like $2MM bucks…. and she said no.
I’m sure it would be an unfavorable comp for the other properties here, but if that’s the market price of these units, then so be it.
“The washer and dryer are hooked up on the wrong sides. You would have to drag the clothes out and around to put them in the dryer ( I know that’s an easy fix, but the lack of common sense drives me nuts!!).”
Door on the dryer is almost certainly reversible. I’ll bring my screwdriver and fix it in under 10 minutes, if you buy good enough beer.
Given I’m a NewB and have only been looking at listings (and CC, of course) the last few months for a first buy, I can see this being a good deal provided the building isn’t doomed for failure or anything (River City-style).
Lake View condo/TH closings for October
1988 78
1989 86
1990 75
1991 64
1992 88
1993 101
1994 81
1995 127
1996 106
1997 131
1998 125
1999 111
2000 159
2001 131
2002 169
2003 180
2004 169
2005 207
2006 163
2007 147
2008 98
2009 124
2010 59
on a somewhat related note, maybe walking away is the best thing for the economy
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/la-fi-economy-mortgages-20101101,0,2516956.story?page=1&obref=obinsite
thanks Icarus, I am wondering here what is so bad about being underwater on a mortgage? Assuming you can afford the payments, it seems like anything you would buy on credit. You don’t hear about people carrying on that they are underwater on the toaster they buyght with their credit card. Or the student loan for the fine arts degree while they are a dog walker. You cetrainly don’t hear about (or feel bad for) those who bought an asset on margin and got a margin call – oh wait that’s exactly what happened. Everyone out there underwater should feel lucky that they don’t have to post additional collateral…
“Everyone out there underwater should feel lucky that they don’t have to post additional collateral…”
Well even if my brokerage account gets wiped out via my speculation that still doesn’t tie my to a physical piece of real estate if I need to relocate for whatever reason.
“Everyone out there underwater should feel lucky that they don’t have to post additional collateral…”
Good point, as long as you service the debt you are good to go. You gotta live somewhere.
“tie my to a physical piece of real estate if I need to relocate for whatever reason”
I was just talking past weekend to some friends who are completely fine jobwise but are stuck in a condo, with one toddler and another on the way. Not the end of the world but far from ideal. They really wish they hadn’t bought.
“They really wish they hadn’t bought.”
A time old question I ask which I’m sure many of the long-term regulars might be sick of but I just have to ask in situations such as this.
Given their incredible gift of planning and foresight do they even know _how_ they got pregnant?
Let those grasshoppers know this ant is laughing and thank god the bailouts are coming to an end.
“but are stuck in a condo”
What defines stuck in condo? I’d think most people in that situation move somewhere and rent (potentially at a loss) or dump the place altogether thinking they are getting a good deal on a SFH in this market. Girl who worked for me did just that. Sold her 2/2 in ELP slightly under 2004 price. Moved into SFH short sale. Not really any worse off but much happier lifestyle wise. SFH gives long runway as well depending on housing market.
Again, I’m presuming they are good or even improving job wise (else 2nd tot seems rash, at least for educated yuppie folk).
NFW I would consider a second child in a 2/2.
“with one toddler and another on the way.”
They bought a toddler? No wonder they can’t afford JMM’s employee’s approach!
“Given their incredible gift of planning and foresight do they even know _how_ they got pregnant?”
The other part of the story, which I hesitate to tell b/c I know it will subject them to ridicule, but the wife became a realtor oh sometime right around middle 2007. (She knows we’re looking to buy and drops hints, which I ignore.) Luckily the husband has a good job, at least low $100K and very secure. They didn’t overbuy relative to income but bought close to the peak of the bubble.
As far as preggo, I’m sympathetic. Right time for them to expand family and they didn’t want to hold up b/c they made a bad RE decision. A bit tight but workable. They have a 2/2 with den. They need to get out before the oldest goes to school.
‘What defines stuck in condo? I’d think most people in that situation move somewhere and rent (potentially at a loss) or dump the place altogether thinking they are getting a good deal on a SFH in this market. Girl who worked for me did just that. Sold her 2/2 in ELP slightly under 2004 price. Moved into SFH short sale. Not really any worse off but much happier lifestyle wise. SFH gives long runway as well depending on housing market.’
I think they’ve lost more than the downpayment and don’t have enough savings to cover their losses on the condo and a downpayment on a house. I don’t think they can get into a SFH (I didn’t quiz them on specifics). I’m not sure the how good the rental market is for their place (Rogers Park).
“They bought a toddler? No wonder they can’t afford JMM’s employee’s approach!”
Still less than downpayment on a house.
A 2/2 is not ideal with two children but that’s the great thing about being human: they’ll adapt.
“NFW I would consider a second child in a 2/2.”
Abraham Lincoln grew up with step parents and brothers and sisters in a 2 room house on a farm in Kentucky and he became president. A 2/2 with 2 adults, 2 children with granite countertops and a big screen TV is just fine.
@Bob, did I miss something? I don’t think JMM mentioned race at all. Yuppies can be black, brown, yellow, and all sorts of purple too!
“Maybe BC failed and they are against killing their offspring? Of course such scenarios are never considered by DBs who call these things brash.”
What if they just don’t know where babies come from?
Altho these two apparently mail ordered a toddler, so a fair point on them.
“Of course you could always rent one of these for even under this cost of owning and still pull tail at the ol big shitty and just tell them you own.”
I always get a kick out of people that seem to derive a sense of self-worth out of owning a place vs. renting. Renting can be a luxury; live in a great place in Chicago for a year or two, pay someone to move you another great place in New York… with increasing remote/working from home scenarios, this is more and more common.
With owning, many depend on that build up of equity that others can afford to give up. Now if you own AND own it outright, that’s a different story, but a lot of people who ‘own’ thier place actually only own 20%, 35%, whatever…
Ultimately, if you need to attach your sense of self-worth out of the place that you live in, then do so equally whether you own or rent.
“Abraham Lincoln grew up with step parents and brothers and sisters in a 2 room house on a farm in Kentucky and he became president. A 2/2 with 2 adults, 2 children with granite countertops and a big screen TV is just fine.”
Abraham Lincoln grew up in a country that permitted slavery and had a life expectancy of under 40 — and that was for white males.
What is your point?
something that was lost in all this discussion about what JMM meant and the racial composition of your garden variety Yuppie….
“What defines stuck in condo? I’d think most people in that situation move somewhere and rent (potentially at a loss) or dump the place altogether thinking they are getting a good deal on a SFH in this market”
That’s true in theory and maybe was even possible last year but it seems like with prices dropping they way they are, even those who would willingly accept a reasonable (read: affordable) loss aren’t able to get one because the shortfall eats up all the money for the downpayment for the next place.
“That’s true in theory and maybe was even possible last year but it seems like with prices dropping they way they are, even those who would willingly accept a reasonable (read: affordable) loss aren’t able to get one because the shortfall eats up all the money for the downpayment for the next place.”
It depends on your means I guess. The example I gave was a woman who bought in late 2003 I believe and sold for a late 2003 price, having upgraded the unit substantially however.
I suspect her means today are very different than those of 6 years ago, so I realize perhaps that is not commonplace, but there are people in that boat.
The other point I would add is that if you are stepping from a 2/2 to a SFH potentially in the 750k+ price point, your equity in the condo is not really what is driving your means to purchase the home.
My point is that you sound like a softie and a pampered crybaby when you say there is no feasible way you would ever consider a 2/2 with a second child. It’s not an ideal situation but far greater people than you have lived in situations far less comfortable.
“#JMM on November 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm
“Abraham Lincoln grew up with step parents and brothers and sisters in a 2 room house on a farm in Kentucky and he became president. A 2/2 with 2 adults, 2 children with granite countertops and a big screen TV is just fine.”
Abraham Lincoln grew up in a country that permitted slavery and had a life expectancy of under 40 — and that was for white males.
What is your point?”
“My point is that you sound like a softie and a pampered crybaby when you say there is no feasible way you would ever consider a 2/2 with a second child.”
Isn’t that pre-supposed when someone pays 400k for a 2/2 in the first place? Not suggesting that is the case here, but I’d bet it was hefty for Rogers Park.
Anyway, your comment is somewhat hypocritical as you yourself suggest 250k SFHs on the NW side at least once or twice a day. By definition, a SFH is more appropriate for a family of 4. Condos make no sense for a family of 4, and I am guessing most would agree.
So then why prolong the inevitable? Saying you are stuck is tantamount to being a crybaby about the current state of affairs. No one is truly stuck. If you job is solid and you are in the 6 figure range I’d be very surprised if you couldn’t at least rent a nice home in Park Ridge and ditch/rent the condo (which probably didn’t have much equity in it anyway).
The more I get older the more I appreciate what my parents did for me, seeing as we were in a 2/1 apartment until I was in 4th grade and sharing the bedroom with my sibling.
We moved to a SFH in a farther west suburb where I got my own room.
“Condos make no sense for a family of 4, and I am guessing most would agree. . .If you job is solid and you are in the 6 figure range I’d be very surprised if you couldn’t at least rent a nice home in Park Ridge and ditch/rent the condo. . .”
I imagine I’ll have a fair amount of scorn heaped upon me for this question, but what and where is “Park Ridge”?
You’re online. Google it.
What does being “stuck” mean? I’m hearing from realtors the following scenarios:
1. They are renting out the city condo and, if they have any money saved and decent credit, are buying a house in another neighborhood or the suburbs. Basically- doubling down on their real estate investment and “waiting it out” on the condo even if the rent doesn’t cover the monthly nut.
2. They are renting out the city condo and moving into a rental somewhere else that is larger because they don’t have money for a downpayment on another property.
3. They are going into foreclosure as most banks won’t allow a short sale without some reason to do so (and many that allow it make you bring cash to the table to get the deal done.)
4. They are figuring out they are underwater and staying in the condo until the market “gets better”- which, for now, appears to mean “next spring.” (as that’s when I’m hearing everyone believes things will be turning around and they can all list and sell and move.)
The majority of people in the condos who bought at the peak don’t have any equity in which to buy another property. That’s the problem. That’s why they consider themselves to be “stuck.”
JMM – I love it…you’re always telling me to find listings or do this or that myself! I hope you realize that, when ask these things, there’s typically a reason. With respect to my infamous ELP criteria, it’s to demonstrate the fact that, under the right circumstances, it absolutely makes sense to buy. Here, the reason is to show that, for many families, even families of 4, the notion of living in “Park Ridge,” rather than in a 2/2 in a highly desirable area of the city, is simply unfathomable.
Oh- I also like the argument that it’s okay to lose money on the condo because you’ll get a “deal” on the SFH in the burbs. But you still lost the $100k (or $200k or whatever it is.) That’s not coming back. Not now, not ever.
I love how people can justify the loss though. I guess you do what you do to just cope with the reality of it. It sucks, that’s for sure.
For most people in Chicago, the reality of the schools and having kids in a smaller space (without the basement they grew up in) just isn’t going to work. That’s why they’ll just jump to Park Ridge, Evanston, Oak Park. Better schools, more space, easier to get the kids to their soccer games.
I agree w/ JMM regarding the couple w/ 2 kids in a 2/2.
If they are that miserable, they should sell at a loss but they will make it up (and even come out ahead) by buying a more expensive place at a bigger loss.
Also, (with regard to the fam of 4 in a 2/2 who are “stuck”) where would they move if they could get out of their 2/2? Do they think that they are going to find a nice SFH in their area to rent for the same amount? This is just a case of the grass being greener on the other side. ….
“If they are that miserable, they should sell at a loss but they will make it up (and even come out ahead) by buying a more expensive place at a bigger loss.”
Hello? I just commented on this very dumb argument. You do not “make it up.” The $100k is lost. Forever.
You are simply buying a different property with your $400k (or however much you are spending.) Before the bust, your $400k bought you 3 bedrooms in Downers Grove. Now it buys you 4 bedrooms and a finished basement in Clarendon Hills. That is IT! It’s the same debt level of $400k.
Your net worth has still fallen $100k from your loss on the condo. You don’t ever get it back.
ARGH.
“Oh- I also like the argument that it’s okay to lose money on the condo because you’ll get a “deal” on the SFH in the burbs. But you still lost the $100k (or $200k or whatever it is.) That’s not coming back. Not now, not ever”
True, the 100k is not coming back to the buyers, but they are getting an even greater discount on a more expensive place that they need/want. Look at a real example of one of my friends:
2005: bought a 2/2 with new wife in ELP for 600k (500k mortgage) –
2007: first child
2009: second child
2010: sold condo for 450k BUT bought a relatively new house in Hinsdale for 1.05 million (it had been built in 2004 and sold in 2005 for 1.4 million).
Had my friend bought the house in Hinsdale in 2005 he would be at a loss of 350k. This way, he only lost 150k. Alternatively, if he had the luxury of waiting until his ELP condo came back to 600k (? 5 more years), the Hinsdale house would also be back up to 1.4 million. So, it makes a LOT of sense to sell at aloss WHEN YOU ARE UPGRADING
I think the argument goes something like this:
Someday, I am going to buy a house in [favorite suburb with good schools] that is as nice as one that costs $1m today. If I buy a condo for $400k now and home prices drop by 25%, then I have $100k less than what I would have had if I had not bought my condo. However, it is actually better for me that prices have dropped because now I get my $1m house for $750k (assuming home price appreciation the same between the two places, blah blah).
This assumes that you can take the $100k hit in equity right now and you can live with recouping it over the lifetime of your $750k mortgage in the suburbs. I agree that this is a big assumption and you do have $100k after your condo depreciates, but if you were always going to buy that more expensive house its not necessarily bad that your condo has fallen in value.
I know the concept of buying at a loss vs selling at a loss is hard to wrap your head around. Here is an example based on my friend above:
Let say that he had 1.4 million dollar in case in 2004.
Scenario A (what he did):
2005: Bought 600k condo in ELP (put 800k under his pillow)
2010: Sold condo for 450k and bought Hinsdale for 1.05 (still has 450k under pillow)
Scanario B:
2005: spent the 1.4 million on the Hinsdale house (has no money under his pillow).
See, even if he sold at a loss (Scenario A) he still came out way ahead!!!
I think you fail to comprehend the impact that losing $100K has on most folks balance sheets
“Sold condo for 450k and bought Hinsdale for 1.05 (still has 450k under pillow)”
I meant he still has 200k under his pillow
“I think you fail to comprehend the impact that losing $100K has on most folks balance sheets”
Like most everything in life, it is mostly psychological – and once you gain true knowledge and look at the hard facts, it SHOULDN’T be hard to do the right thing.
“What does being “stuck” mean? I’m hearing from realtors the following scenarios:”
I don’t see scenaro #1 or #2 as stuck. I see that as making the best of things and living life as most should consider doing.
“Here, the reason is to show that, for many families, even families of 4, the notion of living in “Park Ridge,” rather than in a 2/2 in a highly desirable area of the city, is simply unfathomable.”
I am not sure that was demonstrated by your comment, sorry.
It’s much more than “psychological” when you are talking about putting yourself in debt for 30 years.
Which do you value most: the gain that was missed or the loss that was avoided?
“I think you fail to comprehend the impact that losing $100K has on most folks balance sheets”
But that is why real estate, for the most part, is a zero sum game. I’d argue it is not if you are i) out of the market until now or ii) are upgrading. The lower housing prices go, the more the upgrader benefits.
I’d also argue the big step ups do not rely heavily on existing equity. 400k condo to a 1.5M house = bring substantial non-RE cash to the table.
When it comes to investments, real estate isn’t all that great. Sure you gotta live somewhere, but we’re talking about a highly leveraged asset that is hard to get out of, and hard to valuate in relation to other assets. You could reduce your risk by renting and holding REITs; some RE risk without the leverage or unwind issues.
“Sold condo for 450k and bought Hinsdale for 1.05 (still has 450k under pillow)”
Clio- 95% of people buying a $450k condo in 2005 are NOT buying a $1.05 million house just 5 years later after the worst recession in the country in 75 years! Come on.
Those who bought the condo in 2005 and now sold it for $450k- probably bought it for $550k. If they put down ANY money at all- let’s say they put down the $100k. So they will lose the entire $100k and then also the transaction costs and the realtor fee of at least another $30k to $40k.
So now they are down $130k (conservatively.)
They probably make about $150k or $160k in income and it will take them another 4 to 5 years (again, conservatively) in order to save up that $130k that is lost.
In the meantime, they do not have even $40k to put down on the new home they were going to buy in the suburbs (also costing $450k) because that went into paying the realtors/transaction costs after they lost their original downpayment. So they are now renting in the suburbs and it will be 4 to 5 years before they are able to buy again.
Is it the end of the world for them? No. But they have fallen a decade behind in building wealth now (which likely their parents never ever had to deal with.) And the housing market cannot “recover” because it has lost a possible buyer for at least 5 years.
“Had my friend bought the house in Hinsdale in 2005 he would be at a loss of 350k.”
This isn’t a “loss” if they aren’t moving (which under your scenario- they would not be.) The $100k in the condo was an actual loss on the balance sheet.
All that is happening for the buyer is that they can now get more for their money. They are taking out a $1.05 million loan either way.
It’s the same argument as to why housing prices don’t drop when interest rates rise (historically.) The buyer simply trades down.
Well Sabrina, I’m sure Clio will tell you that it’s just your lack of education that prevents you from seeing the truth. After all, Clio has been to Harvard, Stanford and UC-? and has earned a substantial fortune in real estate…. /rolls-eyes
Sabrina on November 2nd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
“It’s the same argument as to why housing prices don’t drop when interest rates rise (historically.) The buyer simply trades down.”
Huh? Housing prices like wages are sticky. They’ll drop if the cycle of high rates is long enough.
“So they are now renting in the suburbs and it will be 4 to 5 years before they are able to buy again.”
Sabrina, why? Why oh why oh why do we assume that they, i.e., any couple “unfortunate” enough (in scare quotes to denote the attitude most people on here have regarding kids) to have a second kid while…gasp…residing in a “mere” nearly half million dollar two bedroom would automatically be looking to move to the burbs?
I just bought a two bed in the Lincoln attendance area. I have one kid (toddler). If we don’t have another, I see no reason to move (unless I eventually have some burning desire to have a bigger, fancier place in the same ELP neighborhood; but I’d rather buy a vacation home). If we do have another in two or three years, will it be ideal with just two beds? No.
But will I feel “stuck”? Heck no. I’d much rather spend a year or two with a baby sleeping in our room (which may well happen regardless of the number of bedrooms we have, if the last couple of years are any indication), through at least 2015, than be living in a 4 bedroom place in some burb (and I likely won’t be in a position to buy a 4 bed in east Evanston or Wilmette in 5 years – and those are about the only burbs I’d consider). Yes, it might be rough on my poor kids, what with living a block from the park/zoo/nature musuem, attending a dump like Lincoln, and having their poor dad face a whopping 20 minute bus ride/10 minute cab ride to and from work. But, to paraphrase HD, if Abe could do it, so can they.
Have to jump in:we are raising three children in a 2/2 town home in the green zone. And we couldn’t be happier! We are close to a park ( very close! ) and the money we save on a mortgage we choose to spend on private school. I think most americans have erroneous ideas about how much space they really need.
“But they have fallen a decade behind in building wealth now (which likely their parents never ever had to deal with.)”
JUST WAIT A MINUTE HERE – do NOT sit there and say that older people had no problems with the economy and building wealth. that just makes you sound like a spoiled kid of a boomer.
For perspective, the top federal income tax rates:
1940-1964: 90%
1964-1981: 70%
1982-1986: 50%
2010: 34%
Yeah – try telling someone in the highest income bracket from 1940-1064 your whiny story about the problems today
OK, still not convinced, what about mortgage rates:
1979 11%
1980 16%
1981 18%
1982 16%
1983 13%
1984 14%
1985 13%
1986 11%
1987 11%
1988 11%
1989 11%
1990 10%
1991 9%
2010 4%
Yeah – our parents really had a great time in the 1980s making money in real estate.
I really don’t mean to be sarcastic but all the younger people (under 35) on this sie (and everywhere around) think that this is the acpocalypse and this type of downturn has never been experienced before, etc. = just look at the numbers and history and count your blessings.
That’s great to hear Endora. I doubt that you or your kids will one day look back and say, “gosh, I wish we would have moved out to Portagingtonaperridgehills, so that we could have a finished basement, four beds and our own private grass.”
Clio- we have not seen this wealth destruction in 75 years. My grandmother is 91. Her father was a banker in central illinois who could not sleep at night as he foreclosed on house after house. She, on the other hand, is living off a wonderful pension with no money problems whatsover. All the real estate she ever bought went up, up, up. She bought her first home in the 1950s- after the wars.
My parents lived through the biggest boom in stocks in the last 100 years. All you had to do was be in the stock market from 1981 to 2000 and you would have returned 18% a year. So pardon me if the Generation X and Y feel that they are “behind” their parents and grandparents (because they are.)
The mortgage rates also have little to do with wealth. Remember, when mortgage rates were 15%- you could put your money in a CD and get 20%. It was a good time to be a saver.
Easy credit caused this bubble. The only way to stabilize the housing market for the next generation is to do what they required in the 1930s- you must put down 20%. Have some skin in the game.
annony: I just used moving to the suburbs as an example. I know plenty of people who wish to stay in the city and raise their kids in the city. But they also want a single family home and when they see that they won’t live within a block of the zoo or in Lakeview for their $450k, they eject to the suburbs almost immediately. Not everyone is the Groove and smart enough to know that Norwood Park, Edison Park and Edgebrook have some of the best schools in the city.
You may be fine living in a smaller space. But as is evidenced by the number of cribs in many of the condos we look at all over the city on this site- not everyone is.
“Not everyone is the Groove and smart enough to know that Norwood Park, Edison Park and Edgebrook have some of the best schools in the city.”
They are also right next to Park Ridge or Lincolwood. So, if by “city” you mean, city line, then you are right. Unless you are a municipal worker, you are splitting hairs.
“They are also right next to Park Ridge or Lincolwood. So, if by “city” you mean, city line, then you are right. Unless you are a municipal worker, you are splitting hairs.”
JMM,
Lincoln Park and Lakeview borders the State of Michigan, is that splitting hairs also?
also dude you have been on a grumpy tear here lately, do you need me to get the person i hired to give HomeDelete hugs every other day to stop by and give you one too?
“(and I likely won’t be in a position to buy a 4 bed in east Evanston or Wilmette in 5 years – and those are about the only burbs I’d consider).”
So you don’t know where Park Ridge is, yet you know where Wilmette is?
Let me guess, you moved to Chicago for grad school at NWU, stayed here afterwards and now only know the near north shore and Lincoln Park. Way to get to know the city.
And by the way, for the price point you were casually throwing around earlier for your $3000 rent you can afford almost any 4 br home in Evanston and many in Wilmette.
Hell, you could even afford a small home in WKW. Speaking of which, how about my boys last night?
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Kenilworth/618-Melrose-Ave-60043/home/13783989
The melrose house was bought in 2007 for $530,000 and has a $530,000 mortgage.
JMM:
But that $3k/mo place in Evanston or Wilmette would not be in the city, let alone ELP, now would it? For that matter, I’d be curious to see what these $3,000/mo four beds look like in Evanston or Wilmette (I realize you’re just going to tell me to utilize the Internet). Note that my paramount preference for ELP applies up north as well: The house would need to be no more than a few blocks to the lake front.
As for “getting to know the city,” I’d be open to any recommendations of things I should check out on a trip to Park Ridge.
But for the most part, to the extent I’ve got free time, I like to spend it exercising, taking advantage of the city’s cultural offerings (please note that I’m not the one who decided to locate most of the world class offerings along the east side of the city), or getting on a plane and leaving the area altogether.
You’re right: I’ve only lived here for about 3 years total (but spent considerable time here for several years before that). I’ve thus just not yet gotten to the point where I’d say “gee, today’s the day we hit up Park Ridge.”
In Park Ridge, in many spots you eternally will have airplanes flying overhead at low altitude. If you are a light sleeper, this could be akin to living right near the train or highway. This also can affect your backyard bbq’s, as you have to stop talking until the plane passes. I’d rather do KW, Wilmette, or Evanston (asuming it’s not the southwest section).
“open to any recommendations of things I should check out on a trip to Park Ridge.”
for a throw back catch a flick at the pickwick theater, Park ridge country clubs christmas decorations are/where (its been about two years since i have been) a beautiful sight. good pick up games at the community center. the pancake place on NW Hwy is DAMNNNNN awesome.
also dont quote me but i want to say that pickwick was still rocking real butter on the popcorn 🙂 Portage theater before it closed was the only one in the city still melting real butter for movie pop corn.
i could give you more things if you would like but anonny i know you wont head out there as your blind ignorance probably doenst validate anything past western as chicago
“i could give you more things if you would like but anonny i know you wont head out there as your blind ignorance probably doenst validate anything past western as chicago.”
Grove, two things. First, I’m probably guitly as charged, though I’d say my ignorance is more “willfull” than “blind.” Second, you might want to have your hugs-for-hire person stop by your place.
I always say Park Ridge because:
1) it has a nice housing stock
2) it has good people that live there
3) it has a down town
4) many homes are walking distance to the metra
5) it’s not too far of a drive off I-90 which is the main corridor of my job and personal life
6) the schools are excellent
7) there’s not a lot of riff-raff
8) it’s a relative easy commute off I-90 to get into the city
9) housing prices have come down a decent amount
Some people prefer north shore, some prefer oak park, some prefer the suburbs out west. I’m from the northwest and most of my life revolves around I-90. SO that’s why. It’s not inherently better in Park Ridge than Barrington on Glencoe or Downers Grove.
“#Dave M on November 3rd, 2010 at 8:13 am
In Park Ridge, in many spots you eternally will have airplanes flying overhead at low altitude. If you are a light sleeper, this could be akin to living right near the train or highway. This also can affect your backyard bbq’s, as you have to stop talking until the plane passes. I’d rather do KW, Wilmette, or Evanston (asuming it’s not the southwest section).”
Clio said: “Yeah – our parents really had a great time in the 1980s making money in real estate.”
This is why you have just about no credibility with me. The average joe in Chicago isn’t trying to make money on real estate. In fact, for most people, their home is one of their biggest monthly expenses, whether renting or buying. In the boom days, appreciation of real estate offset this to the point where average homeowners were able to get a return on the place that they lived.
But as Sabrina points out, many (most?) buyers of half million dollar homes in the area have tied up a significant portion of their net worth in their home. When they lose the 100K+, it isn’t some abstract investment or retirement money to them they can make back through better investing. They don’t have sufficient additional savings to say, “oh well, I’ll just buy another place.” Which is exactly why they are stuck. They are paying a mortgage and expenses on a home which can’t be fully recouped at market rates for renting (remember, they didn’t put 50%+ down), so moving into a rental only puts them in a worse position financially and delays their ability to get back into the market.
You realize this is the “average” face of the folks underwater on their mortgages, right? These people are investors that talk about cutting their losses and investing elsewhere. They talk about losing their homes, the majority of their fluid net worth and having to rent. The fact that you pretend this isn’t a big deal to most people in this situation really shows how out of touch you are. Your friends aren’t the average mortgage holder.
My guess is that you keep living in fantasy land, where average homeowners are savvy investors with considerable cash reserves and no fear of losing their down payment or their homes…
Anyway, back to this place. If I wanted to live in the projects I could rent a place in Wilson Yard. These places are terrible.
“Second, you might want to have your hugs-for-hire person stop by your place.”
point taken, groove has been stressed lately and didnt notice it reflected in my random internet posting.
hugs shall heal the day!
“In fact, for most people, their home is one of their biggest monthly expenses,”
Yeah – exactly my point – in the 1980s, that expense would have been MUCH MUCH MUCH higher with the higher interest rates. Obviously you don’t understand this – so let me give you an example:
100,000 @ 5% = 5000 in interest (current rate)
100,000 @ 18% = 18,000 in interest (rate in the 80s)
DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT NOW?!!!!!
also right on the border of park ridge, is paradise pup. one of the top 5 burgers in chicago and the only one in the five that wasnt from a steak joint so it’s around half the price of the others
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW0bierLVfA
“100,000 @ 5% = 5000 in interest (current rate)
100,000 @ 18% = 18,000 in interest (rate in the 80s)
DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT NOW?!!!!!”
Find me a house that was $100k in 1982 and also $100k in 2010, while remaining in a comparable state of repair.
Alright, having given you time to find one, and you failing, I think the closer comparison is:
1982-house $100k @ 18% = 18k interest
2010-house $300k @ 5% = 15k interest
1982-house property tax = $1k
2010-house property tax = $5k
Total costs = less in nominal dollars in 1982
Also, if we’re talking about a “forever” house, let’s look at 10 years after purchase:
1982-house refi’d in 1992–>$100k @ 9% = $9k interest
2010-house in 2020–>$300k @ 5% = $15k interest
So, clio, my friend, I think you are the one arguing simplistically about this.
Loved that reference to “our own private grass” in one of the above posts.
You mean, like what they ALMOST legalized in Calif. Last night? “Grow-your-own” plots of pot for “personal/family” usage? That was one of the provisions of Prop 19. Tee hee…
Nice to have a bit of levity while feeling a bit “punchy” this morning after all those late-night election returns!
Really anon? really? – Is a 100,000 house bought in 1982 worth 300k now? Maybe – maybe not. My point wasn’t about a 100k house – it was regarding the whiny little pissants on this site complaining about how they have it harder than any other generation when, in fact this is just another downturn in a cyclical process. The current bad times will pass…..
Amen.
“thanks Icarus, I am wondering here what is so bad about being underwater on a mortgage? Assuming you can afford the payments, it seems like anything you would buy on credit.”
I grew up in LV and LP, and all of my friends who have parents who STAYED PUT have a great asset on their hands which their kids will do well with eventually (either due to inheritance, or because they can sell it to offset medical, etc).
The key is staying put. This means you have to REALLY put skin in the game – and by that, I mean SKIN/sweat equity, not money. I mean going to community meetings, paying attention to what your aldercreature is up to, what the gangbanging punk teens are up to, calling in graffiti requests immediately, ie, being an active participant in your community.
A 20% down is reasonable if prices return to earth – but for many of us, it simply wasn’t an option. We bought within our means, and are fine for the long haul.
You stay put, after a while you can get favorable property tax breaks, you know all your neighbors, etc.
I’ve long said the concept of flipping property is stump-stupid. A building is a depreciating asset, like a car. The only way prices can go up is if land value goes up – and that’s a function of supply and demand (zoning being a wildcard here) and pure speculation.
I’m at Diversey & Milwaukee, I’ll be laughing at all the naysayers in 2020 if not sooner, mark my words.
clio, wake up. Gen X and Y will indeed have it harder since any generation since the Depression/WWII.
seen the national debt recently? do you know that the interest alone is some 13 – 15% of the federal budget every year even as wealthy OPEC nations continue buying up our country’s mutual funds & infrastructure?
“think that this is the acpocalypse and this type of downturn has never been experienced before, etc.”
This graph doesn’t look like 2012 to you?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/TK8Q4athGoI/AAAAAAAAJdk/9mUK934WabQ/s1600/JobLossesRecessionsSep2010.jpg
yeah gen xy is pretty fucked thanks to the boomers jacking up the cost of everything for us by laying heavy on the debtmobile’s gas pedal for the last 40 years
“A 20% down is reasonable if prices return to earth ”
A 20% down payment will CAUSE prices to return to Earth. Sorry if you purchased in a laxer lending environment which encouraged idiots to bid up property valuations but such is life.
“clio, wake up. Gen X and Y will indeed have it harder since any generation since the Depression/WWII”
That’s only 50 years – and still has yet to be proven. In addition, there were a lot greatere hardships that people have gone through/fought in the past 50 years – (racial, gender, sexual inequalities; wartime unrest, and general inconvenient lifestyles which have gone by the wayside with computers, etc. ). I know that this blog is about housing and finances, but sometimes the entitlement and brattiness of the posters is unbelievable. You poor poor babies- can’t get a luxury house in ELP for cheap – wah wah wah.
“seen the national debt recently? do you know that the interest alone is some 13 – 15% of the federal budget every year even as wealthy OPEC nations continue buying up our country’s mutual funds & infrastructure?”
5.4% in 2009. No need to exaggerate.
“Really anon? really? – Is a 100,000 house bought in 1982 worth 300k now? Maybe – maybe not. My point wasn’t about a 100k house”
Then show us an example that’s at least specious, rather than obviously inapposite. No income cohort that would have bought a $100k house in 1982 would have also bought a $100k house in 2010.
what sucks more is that these same old boomers will vote and outweigh the younger generation’s interests every time.
Cut social security ? No way
Cut medicare? No way
Cut senior benefits? no way
Guess who’s stuck footing the bill until they die…..
“Sonies on November 3rd, 2010 at 9:19 am
yeah gen xy is pretty fucked thanks to the boomers jacking up the cost of everything for us by laying heavy on the debtmobile’s gas pedal for the last 40 years”
“Guess who’s stuck footing the bill until they die…..”
yeah, and guess who also inherits all the money when they die, you ungrateful, disrespectful bastards!!!
“DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT NOW?!!!!!”
I understand that you are yelling on the internet…but I have very little interest in defending a theory which I never brought up in the first place.
More to the point, do the people who are currently underwater really care whether previous generations were worse off than they were. What they care about is whether they can sell their place and not lose 70% of their assets in the process.
So all the parents of gen xy have assets to pass on when the die? I think you’re off on that one.
Sure some boomers have money they will pass on to their kids, but others in gen xy will have to help out their boomer parents who don’t have the resources to pay for the care they will need as they get older.
“yeah, and guess who also inherits all the money when they die, you ungrateful, disrespectful bastards!!!”
Groove:
I’m sorry. I’m out for the rest of the week, too.
Wanna have a conversation about something else?
Does anyone have a graph that shows over time the average age of the first time home buyer?
I know post-WWII there was a housing boom, but how old were those homebuyers? Before we had “condominiums”, wasn’t the first home purchased by folks in there late 20’s or early 30’s? Didn’t people only ever purchase maybe 2 homes in a lifetime? With that old 20% downpayment?
I think the only way I am where I am today is due to the homeownership of my grandparents. Gramma’s 3-flat was sold to get a 2-flat for her and my parents (so they could care for her in her old age). When gramma died, my sister moved in with her husband and 2 babies, to save til they could buy their first and only home in Park Ridge. After our parents died, we braved the unknown land of “gut rehab” back in the day, and kept the rental, where _I_ lived, til I found a crappy house nearby that I bought for my own. It’s a legacy of save, buy low, HOLD. I still don’t get all this moving and jumping around from place to place to place. Moving sucks. Clearly skeptic and I are cut from some old-school (logan square) cloth.
Better that than a lonely old hack who needs to yell at the internet. I guess since I’m not in a position to inherit that dosen’t apply and now my taxes are going to cover the BB’s debt hungry ways. Go smile at the lambo and STFU already.
“yeah, and guess who also inherits all the money when they die, you ungrateful, disrespectful bastards!!!”
“Sure some boomers have money they will pass on to their kids, but others in gen xy will have to help out their boomer parents who don’t have the resources to pay for the care they will need as they get older”
Dr. F – you are right- but all of that money will get transferred to the younger generation, directly or indirectly. Also, we know that inherited money is spent like “free money”. I’m telling you, in the next 25 years when those trillions of dollars are passed down to the younger generation, spending WILL increase like you have not seen before.
“Clearly skeptic and I are cut from some old-school (logan square) cloth.”
corduroy?
“5.4% in 2009. No need to exaggerate.”
Hmm, you are right – it was higher in years past, I’m guessing this is due to the ever-ballooning federal budget/stimulus programs, etc.
But consider this:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Over $400 BILLION in just interest payments.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
Twice as much as what we spend on education at a federal level. Three times what we spend on scientific research.
Not a recipe for success in a global economy.
Or more likely it will go to insane medical costs as we continue to spend more money extending life by a few months than we do for infant healthcare which has a lifetime of benefits.
I can’t even begin to tell you how many parents of people my age are going broke due to medical expenses.
“Dr. F – you are right- but all of that money will get transferred to the younger generation, directly or indirectly.”
“I’m telling you, in the next 25 years when those trillions of dollars are passed down to the younger generation, spending WILL increase like you have not seen before.”
You have no idea how much long-term care costs are. Maybe your heirs will inherit some assets but for boomer households with under 1MM net worth there isn’t going to be much left after long term care & medical costs.
Oh lord I wish this were true because I would have an entirely different outlook on life..
“#clio on November 3rd, 2010 at 9:27 am
“Guess who’s stuck footing the bill until they die…..”
yeah, and guess who also inherits all the money when they die, you ungrateful, disrespectful bastards!!!”
“Groove:
I’m sorry. I’m out for the rest of the week, too.
Wanna have a conversation about something else?”
I am lost on what your saying, but i hey i am always down for an off topic post.
well the wool PJ’s that DZ recommended came in, quality stuff, cannot say yet if the price was worth it.
also this goes back to a old debate but dude i actually had to do laundry recently and will say with 100% that i now do agree with the that laundry room on the bedroom level idea.
Bob: Unfortunately, it looks like Rep Foster lost his re-election. But, have you seen one of his proposals regarding downpayments? I found the idea intriguing.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rep-bill-foster-its-simple-heres-how-we-can-prevent-future-housing-bubbles-2010-6#-1
Sorry couldn’t find it on his site.
“I am lost on what your saying, but i hey i am always down for an off topic post.”
reference to your prior frustration with something here that I’m now fed up with, too.
Wicker,
Sounds interesting and his proposals are indeed based on logic. Unfortunately it doesn’t appear he took into account the feasibility of implementing such a solution. Bank underwriters are used to set tables and other metrics and to try to introduce something of this scope and complexity is just asking for more problems. Its almost akin to the tax code–which due to its complexity makes it especially easy to cheat on.
So in a sense I’m not crying for Foster. We need politicians who think pragmatically and understand the feasibility of implementing their ideas, however good they might be.
“reference to your prior frustration with something here that I’m now fed up with, too.”
all clear now!!! i can picture you at your desk doing the hands up in the air and the “WTF” face then mumbling i quit 🙂
to be honest IT had to replace my mouse because i broke it banging it on the desk.
“all clear now!!! i can picture you at your desk doing the hands up in the air and the “WTF” face then mumbling i quit”
Pretty much exactly on target. I won’t break my mouse, tho, as it’s anon property–had to get a wireless.
I think a better way would be to make mortgage debt repayment tax deductible instead of interest. Cap it at a reasonable amount, which kills two birds with one stone (prevents abuses, fictition and also limits deductibility for high income / net worth individuals).
Creating incentives to equitize is the true public policy goal. Then people really would have home ownership, not home borowership.
Granted this from someone who owns his house outright, but still.
“Anyway, back to this place. If I wanted to live in the projects I could rent a place in Wilson Yard. These places are terrible.”
They really are, aren’t they? It’s surprising in such a high-profile development in such a good location.
anon – my reading comprehension is better than you think……
“Creating incentives to equitize is the true public policy goal. Then people really would have home ownership, not home borowership. ”
Equitize? You mean if you maximize your allocation to housing you8 pay no taxes on it?
You clearly have little understanding that it was the statist philosophy already of making the interest deductible which helped foster the bubble. And look where it got us now.
So now you want even greater incentives to promote lofty RE valuations? What planet are you from?
“Clearly skeptic and I are cut from some old-school (logan square) cloth.”
corduroy?
“5.4% in 2009. No need to exaggerate.”
Hmm, you are right – it was higher in years past, I’m guessing this is due to the ever-ballooning federal budget/stimulus programs, etc.
But consider this:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Over $400 BILLION in just interest payments.
Twice as much as what we spend on education at a federal level. Three times what we spend on scientific research.
Not a recipe for success in a global economy.
“Hmm, you are right – it was higher in years past, I’m guessing this is due to the ever-ballooning federal budget/stimulus programs, etc.”
Also because of the unsustainably low rate we currently pay. That’s well under 4% of the outstanding debt–think that’s the rate in 5 years? And yes, 5 years matters b/c of the huge percentage of the debt that’s relatively short term (as opposed to 30 years ago when most of it was 30 year debt).
homedelete is right again. It would be sad to not have another blessed unique child and not provide the first child a sibling, for such a paltry reason.
“My point is that you sound like a softie and a pampered crybaby when you say there is no feasible way you would ever consider a 2/2 with a second child. It’s not an ideal situation but far greater people than you have lived in situations far less comfortable.”
after: “NFW I would consider a second child in a 2/2.”
“Over $400 BILLION in just interest payments.
Twice as much as what we spend on education at a federal level. Three times what we spend on scientific research.”
I could take a devil’s advocate position here and say what good has spending on education at the federal level ever accomplished? Also it sounds like you’re promoting statist goals with that quip.
Instead the silver lining with our ever bleaker financial picture is one day the beast will be so thoroughly starved so have to exit areas it really had no business playing in in the first place. Like education, healthcare and real estate.
Bob:
Ok I will spell it out for you
1. Strike interest deductibility
2. Add principal repayment deductibility up to 25k per tax year, inflation indexed
3. Refinance uses same basis as original purchase, so if you purchase with 300k in debt, pay to 275k, then refi at 350k, you cannot deduct until you are below 275k again
4. New purchase within 5 years has clawback similar to depreciation recapture if basis is adjusted.
5. Cap deduction at 28% marginal
I like your point 1. The rest of your points are garbage. People need to stop expecting government handouts and this includes things like the mortgage interest deductability.
Bob, you clearly have no experience working with budgets involving salaries & benefits.
You want to know why our economy is so badly in the pits? It’s because our companies are trying to compete with companies overseas that don’t have to pay healthcare costs.
The world you seek (where you get no benefit from your government) already exists, it’s called Appalachia. Ask them how that black lung disease, union busting and other safety-net free living is going for them.
“well the wool PJ’s that DZ recommended came in, quality stuff, cannot say yet if the price was worth it.”
I did say it was mostly (completely) to keep my wife happy. That said, we’re keeping his room at 67-68 at night now, with no complaints from anyone. Cooler than last year since he has blankie.
“I did say it was mostly (completely) to keep my wife happy. That said, we’re keeping his room at 67-68 at night now, with no complaints from anyone. Cooler than last year since he has blankie.”
smart man!!! i stand up to my wife twice a year, yes i win at that moment but really loose in the long run. (kind of like arguing on the intertubez, if you look at it you really loose in the long run)
He was the baby of the class you know
He really didn’t know that one and one was two
Two and two were four
He was the baby of the class you know
He really didn’t know that, really didn’t know that
Oh what a poor soul…Oooh, do we not sail on the ship of fools?
skeptic, you clearly have no appreciation for the dire financial situation our country now finds ourselves in and obviously have a paradigm more suited to the prior, more prosperous, times.
Sorry dude but the machine called big govt needs to be dismantled at all levels. Entitlements, defense, education, etc. THE MONEY IS NOT THERE. What part of that sentence do you not seem to understand? Or are you just bad at math?
I’ll repeat it again: THE MONEY IS NOT THERE.
“the wool PJ’s”
The other thing they’re good for is outside wear, really does keep the kid warm and it’s a slim layer underneath. (Apologies to everyone else who likely are not fascinated by little Groove and little DZ’s undergarment choices.)
“Sorry dude but the machine called big govt needs to be dismantled at all levels. Entitlements, defense, education, etc. THE MONEY IS NOT THERE. What part of that sentence do you not seem to understand? Or are you just bad at math?”
Just to repay the publicly held portion of the debt ($9,133,584,590,439.72, as of yesterday), at current revenue levels ($2.381 trillion (est), for 2010), would mean over 4 years without a DIME spent on anything other than debt paydown and interest.
Treat social security as a stand alone, and the revenue side drops to about $1.5T, and the debt jumps to $13,723,974,060,859.22–meaning over 10 years of absolutely no spending other than on debt service. No president, no military, no veteran’s benefits, no medicare, no courts, no road construction. NOTHING.
Bob’s right, the money ain’t there.
Bob,
I think the GI Bill’s effect after WWII had a measurable positive effect on education and prosperity. That’s off the top of my head for federal education funding.
The reason the state has to contribute to education is because the middle class that it serves provides a buffer that distracts the destitute at the bottom enough to keep them from running up in the homes off Armitage and Orchard/Burling.
Cut off all federal education funding and shut down public schools and Joe Yokel on his own is not going to bother to find an education solution for his three kids. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.
The vast majority of people on this planet are too stupid to take care of themselves. There’s a reason that the Norwegian Nanny States have the highest standards of living in the world and why you’ll get your throat cut for you ipod in Indonesia in broad daylight any day of the week.
What does Libertarian utopia look like, anyway? Is it a 16th century Mid-East Bazaar? Or is it the 1960’s Italian version of the American Wild West? Or is it the current Congo?
If we do use it for the wee cold months under the clothes it will be worth the cost 🙂
“(Apologies to everyone else who likely are not fascinated by little Groove and little DZ’s undergarment choices.)”
screw that, no apologies, we are subjected to Clio’s huge house, multiple properties, fast car, and oak brooks mecca of richy riches. Westloopelo’s war and peace posts, HD’s the sky is falling days, JMM on his thrown in the perch of the center of all that is right, and all around subjected to Bob on a daily basis.
“(Apologies to everyone else who likely are not fascinated by little Groove and little DZ’s undergarment choices.)”
I suspect even the most uninterested prefer it to some other lines of discussion …
“Bob’s right, the money ain’t there.”
why do you think that the fed is doing everything in their power to make the dollar worthless… because debts paid off in worthless dollars are still debts paid off…
“Bob’s right, the money ain’t there.”
And where exactly did that money come from in the first place?
You’re confusing existing government revenue/expenditure machinery streams with actual resources.
Rich Whitney had it right – the state may be broke, but our society has plenty of wealth.
All wealth has its source in society. The smartest, most hard-working guy on earth can’t do much all by himself on a deserted island.
And all the natural resources on earth aren’t worth much without people to make his brilliant inventions and then buy & use them.
Here’s a much larger wakeup call:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/222206?RS_show_page=0
“Cut off all federal education funding and shut down public schools and Joe Yokel on his own is not going to bother to find an education solution for his three kids. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.”
Total straw man argument. You are essentially trying to argue that public schools are funded by the Federal government. This couldn’t be further from the truth as any real estate owners on this blog will tell you. They’re funded via property taxes.
The moneys not there. Via your language (utopia) I can tell you seem to think its still about ideology–it isn’t. And its not going to be a libertarian utopia at all–its going to be quite unpleasant no doubt about it.
You are arguing to delay the inevitable pain as long as possible and pretend that everything is alright whereas I am for inducing the pain as quickly as possible so as to deal with less of it overall. Pick your poison. But know that this fairy tale land you live in isn’t going to last forever.
You’ll know the barbarians are at the gates when the USG has their first failed (undersubscribed) bond auction.
And as for these hilarious Libertarian types, what their utopia looks like is pretty much a State of Hypocrisy.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
Think Kentucky, New Mexico, Alaska, heck, most of the Confederacy, will be returning all of those federal dollars to the US Treasury that they didn’t earn themselves?
“The moneys not there.”
The money’s not there quite squarely due to Bush II’s tax cuts for those making more than $250K a year.
Them’s the facts.
At some point, you’d be better off contributing to a more peaceful society than going the route of uber-segregated South Africa, where the wealthy have cars that have built-in flame-throwers and the like to keep the poor desperate masses away.
“why do you think that the fed is doing everything in their power to make the dollar worthless… because debts paid off in worthless dollars are still debts paid off…”
Except as we are finding out these days the Fed actually has no comic book hero super-powers to speak of. They keep trying to prime the pump and it just goes right onto bank balance sheets.
“The money’s not there quite squarely due to Bush II’s tax cuts for those making more than $250K a year.”
I am curious–how much incremental revenue do you think Bush II’s tax cuts would’ve gathered since enacted?
“The money’s not there quite squarely due to Bush II’s tax cuts for those making more than $250K a year.”
Actually i’m gonna go with having 48% of the population not paying ANY taxes and 10% of the population actually receiving money to live here as the problem… since people making over 250k a year even with tax cuts, still pay a shitload in taxes. But then again who will be the liberals boogeyman if we can’t blame rich people… /rolleyes
You can check out the flamethowers at……….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDrzMGdYWZc
“You’re confusing existing government revenue/expenditure machinery streams with actual resources. ”
Um, we owe more than the TOTAL national income. Everything produced for a year goes to pay off debt–no one gets to consume *anything* for a year.
Then we’d be debt free in more than one way.
You guys are missing the impact of corporate offshoring for tax shelter purposes.
“how much incremental revenue do you think Bush II’s tax cuts would’ve gathered since enacted?”
Bob – I may press charges, as this belly laughter is damaging my organs. Did you learn nothing from the Reagan trickle-down fiasco?
INCOME tax cuts do not, and never have, been causally linked to increased revenue. Business tax cuts, who knows – in fact, the idea of divorcing health care from businesses (really, why does that make sense that your boss is responsible for that?) would accomplish the same thing.
We all want more jobs. Cutting taxes for the wealthy folks doesn’t create them. Did you buy into all this “it’s all Obama’s fault” baloney?
“Everything produced for a year goes to pay off debt–no one gets to consume *anything* for a year:
You’re confusing production and wealth/resources.
Oh, I know we’re in a deep hole. But you’ve got to be wearing partisan blinders that are more like a welding mask not to see where America’s fortunes abruptly changed under Bush & the GOP.
“Actually i’m gonna go with having 48% of the population not paying ANY taxes”
You can’t be this slow.
Poor people pay loads of taxes – sales taxes, user fees, it’s endless these days.
“Bob – I may press charges, as this belly laughter is damaging my organs. Did you learn nothing from the Reagan trickle-down fiasco?”
You misread him, or read him too literally–Bob was asking how much less of a debt hole we’d be in now had the 01 and 03 tax cuts not been implemented. The answer is, of course, quite a bit less, but not nearly enough for us not to have been in a whole lotta hole still.
“Oh, I know we’re in a deep hole. But you’ve got to be wearing partisan blinders that are more like a welding mask not to see where America’s fortunes abruptly changed under Bush & the GOP.”
Right back atcha, skeptic. We, as a country, have been spending far, far more than we’ve been paying for since the mid-70s. Both sides, Fed, State, County and Municipal governments, all regularly passing future tax increases in the form of unbalanced current budgets, bond issues and asset sales. To deny that everyone in government has been complicit in this theft from the future is to not just be wearing blinders, but to be blind.
“Poor people pay loads of taxes – sales taxes, user fees, it’s endless these days.”
they pay the 14% soda tax too! soon it will be as high as the tobacco tax.
anon(tfo) he is an idiot with blinders on and likely will not adjust well to the new reality facing us as a nation. Good luck skeptic, you’re going to need it!
““how much incremental revenue do you think Bush II’s tax cuts would’ve gathered since enacted?”
Bob – I may press charges, as this belly laughter is damaging my organs. Did you learn nothing from the Reagan trickle-down fiasco?”
You didn’t answer the question, skeptic, because you’re an idiot.
“I’ll repeat it again: THE MONEY IS NOT THERE”
uhh – it soon WILL be there with higher income, sales, and real estate taxes (not only for the rich – but for EVERYONE). The sooner you accept it, the happier you will be.
Groove and DZ,
Can you tell me more about wool pajamas you are discussing?
Sorry for offtopic!
“Poor people pay loads of taxes – sales taxes, user fees, it’s endless these days.”
really? what exempts rich people from all of those things you mentioned?
“they pay the 14% soda tax too! soon it will be as high as the tobacco tax.”
that sort of crap should be taxed… too bad poor people are too stupid to drink free water and instead give themselves diabetes or cancer voluntarily AND pay extra for that. But i guess its ok since the gubbermint will be picking up the tab for their insanely expensive healthcare so who cares right
“But i guess its ok since the gubbermint will be picking up the tab for their insanely expensive healthcare so who cares right”
uhhh the “gubbermint” and you ALREADY are paying for their expensive healthcare (not “will be”)
Regarding down payments: I do believe the vast majority of single-family homes purchased after WWII had either low dp’s (with FHA financing) or no dp’s (with VA financing).
In other words, 20% down is not the “norm.” Low-down and no-down housing purchases did NOT start with the sub-prime craze of the last decade, contrary to what some people here seem to think.
“I do believe the vast majority of single-family homes purchased after WWII had either low dp’s (with FHA financing) or no dp’s (with VA financing).”
FHA was created in 1934. It guaranteed mortgages for banks who required 20% down from buyers. I’m not sure about VA loans. But you still needed 20% down for FHA. In 1956, private mortgage insurance (PMI) came into existence allowing some buyers to buy homes with less than 20% down. But 20% down still remained the preference for lenders well into the 1980s.
“Can you tell me more about wool pajamas you are discussing?”
I really should get a commission. This originally came up b/c groove has to keep the house at 75 degrees at night (it’s possible I’m exaggerating) to keep mrs groove from thinking lil groove will freeze. We use as under layer for bedtime or outside time in winter.
http://www.novanatural.com/s.nl/sc.18/category.20902/.f
“really? what exempts rich people from all of those things you mentioned?”
Who said it did? Changing goalposts is the sign of a weak argument (or arguer). You said poor people don’t pay taxes. That’s incorrect, no matter how you want to slice it.
Bob – a nice Econ 101 course at a community college might be useful for you. Because society has long passed you by in terms of the “trickle down” nonsense. What did George H Bush call it again? oh right: VOODOO ECONOMICS.
“Bob – a nice Econ 101 course at a community college might be useful for you. ”
I’m fairly certain I went to a much better business school than you could ever gain admission to. You’re understanding of economics is simplistic and very partisan. You’re unable to separate the two and hence you’re really not much of an analyst at all but rather a propagandist.
Keynesian, monetarist, trickle-down, austrian theory; it’s all more belief systems and voodoo rather than true economic theory.
“#skeptic on November 4th, 2010 at 7:38 am
“really? what exempts rich people from all of those things you mentioned?”
Who said it did? Changing goalposts is the sign of a weak argument (or arguer). You said poor people don’t pay taxes. That’s incorrect, no matter how you want to slice it.
Bob – a nice Econ 101 course at a community college might be useful for you. Because society has long passed you by in terms of the “trickle down” nonsense. What did George H Bush call it again? oh right: VOODOO ECONOMICS.”
“
“Keynesian, monetarist, trickle-down, austrian theory; it’s all more belief systems and voodoo rather than true economic theory. ”
Whats hilarious is many universities have bachelor of science degrees in economics. As if modern day econ theory approximates anything close to real science. There isn’t even much (if any) observable phenomenon for much of this stuff. Its almost like a social “science” degree and about as useful.
Law, chemistry, philosophy, physics, astronomy, architecture, etc, were all fields that matured hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Medicine, economics, psychology, sociology and the like are nascent in the history of mankind and require a lot of progress to fully mature. I’m sure you’ve all heard the funny adage: “When doctors were prescribing leeches to cure General Washington’s cold, lawyers were drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”
“and require a lot of progress to fully mature. ”
Or maybe just more time to be debunked as science in the case of some of them. Astrology could use some company I’m sure.
Bob: “Whats hilarious is many universities have bachelor of science degrees in economics. As if modern day econ theory approximates anything close to real science. There isn’t even much (if any) observable phenomenon for much of this stuff. Its almost like a social “science” degree and about as useful.”
I would place economics not only outside of the “sciences” but beyond “academics”. I would put it in the same general category as astrology and the occult. Even social sciences like anthropology and geography have a semblance of “scientific process” to them.
But business school is just as useless of a field of study as econ, public policy, etc.
Right now, the U of C is constructing an institute/mausoleum for Milton Friedman. I can’t wait to make my pilgrimage south.
“astronomy … matured hundreds … of years ago”
Funny!!
“I’m fairly certain I went to a much better business school than you could ever gain admission to. ”
I’m going to posit that my acceptance into Washington University’s 5/3 MBA program ought to clarify some confusion for you.
I do agree with you 100% on “As if modern day econ theory approximates anything close to real science.”
I changed majors from Economics when I got into the micro 300 level classes. I think on a macro level the discipline does very well explaining things in the past, and can reasonably predict future outcomes – IF all factors are taken into consideration. That is of course the 25 million dollar question/problem. Way too many moving parts, at that level economics is like trying to predict the specific temperature 3 months in advance (impossible), as opposed to identifying general trends, patterns, demographic movements (similar to predicting winter will in general be colder than summer).
The micro concept that people behave according to identifiable matrices is ludicrous, and easily debunked by the existence of the advertising profession. Look at cola companies – they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ads fighting for the 5% of the marketplace that will buy either Coke or Pepsi, instead of just one specific brand. CLio is right – people go with their gut. They go with a clever packaging concept. They don’t simply “vote” according to price/value, as the calculus/limit theories they use in micro economics claim.
The real science is the art of spinning selected economic data. That is more advanced than most! The people who know how to redefine the metrics used to calculate inflation (ie, “the basket”) are clever monkeys. Same thing for jerry-rigging the unemployment rate.
But the tax thing is a no-brainer, and it’s based simply on the reality that wealthy people these days know how to move their money into assets that aren’t taxed IMO fairly. Why the hell would some wealthy person NOT offshore assets coming from a tax break as opposed to starting a new business in Illinois’ completely insane business-tax environment?
My dad has been a small business owner (law firm) for 40 years. He employs people, but certainly is among the majority of small business owners NOT making more than 250K a year. You want “trickle down” benefits, help the people who employ 5 – 25 people & can’t just simply move their operations to New Delhi at a whim.
Did someone say Keynesian?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU
DZ,
Thanks for the link! Scandinavians make the best winter gear, too bad so many brands are not available in US. We have similar wool shirts, but we brought them from the trip overseas, good to know I can buy them here too!
anonny,
We are in the same situation (recently purchased 2BR in ELP with a toddler), we should have a play date:).
Isaac made great contributions to astronomy.
“#anon (tfo) on November 4th, 2010 at 8:40 am
“astronomy … matured hundreds … of years ago”
Funny!!”
““astronomy … matured hundreds … of years ago”
Funny!!”
In terms of one person having basically the correct answers it matured thousands of years ago. Posidonius calculated that the Earth was round, the Earth’s circumference, and the distance to the Sun (using trig) over two thousand years ago.
Don’t be fooled by watered down history courses here that claim Copernicus was the first.
“Isaac made great contributions to astronomy. ”
Sure, and many in the renaissance (and earlier) made great contributions to medicine–which you feel needs more time to mature as a science.
To call astronomy “mature” at Newton’s time? … still funny!!
“To call astronomy “mature” at Newton’s time?”
Its still not mature if you look into many of the observed phenomena that can’t be explained which instead of just admitted it can’t be explained they invent “plug” phenomena like dark matter and dark energy.
Dark matter & dark energy = observed reality isn’t behaving as we’d like it to so we’ll invent plug terms to explain the (currently) unexplainable.
“In terms of one person having basically the correct answers it matured thousands of years ago. Posidonius calculated that the Earth was round, the Earth’s circumference, and the distance to the Sun (using trig) over two thousand years ago.”
So, a science is “mature” when a few fundamental facts are calculated? I guess economics really *IS* a science.
anon(tfo) – what is your problem today? You should chill out a little. I made a stupid comment to knock economics, it’s not to be taken literally or seriously.
“what is your problem today? You should chill out a little. I made a stupid comment to knock economics, it’s not to be taken literally or seriously.”
You haven’t noticed my overly earnest streak?
And then you poke at my noting that I found one part of your knock on econ specifically funny? And you expect that I’ll just let your defense of it–thus implying that you might think it is quasi-serious–just sit there? Really?
Therefor, I must ask you, sir, what is *your* problem today?
You mean like imaginary numbers? You wouldn’t dismiss mathematics just due to that bit of weirdness, would you?
“Dark matter & dark energy = observed reality isn’t behaving as we’d like it to so we’ll invent plug terms to explain the (currently) unexplainable.”
You all forget my favorite science of them all:
Alchemy.
my vote for the most off topic topics in one post.
“Dark matter & dark energy = observed reality isn’t behaving as we’d like it to so we’ll invent plug terms to explain the (currently) unexplainable.”
Sounds a lot like accounting
“You all forget my favorite science of them all:
Alchemy.”
Or the modern day spin on it: Quantitative Easing V2.0.
I’m surprised there hasn’t been some advancement in alchemy. Can’t idiots in a basement make illegal designer drugs by moving around a few molecules?
“Can’t idiots in a basement make illegal designer drugs by moving around a few molecules?”
That’s chemistry. Making compounds and/or alloys. Which was frequently mistaken for “true alchemy” until relatively recently.
Closest thing to “true alchemy” is fission/fusion and/or stuff that goes on in accelerators.
I think they used to, and it led to things like MDMA/ecstasy, but some sort of blanket “no-no” law was put in place that relied less on outlawing the chemistry as much as the usage. or something like that, you definitely can’t do it.
“Can’t idiots in a basement make illegal designer drugs by moving around a few molecules?”
btw Bob, still awaiting word on which business school you went to that is so much more prestigious than Wash U.
“btw Bob, still awaiting word on which business school you went to that is so much more prestigious than Wash U.”
He’s as much as said in the past (clear enough if you read the relevant threads), but it’s for him to actually post it, as he hasn’t *actually* posted it before.
doesn’t really matter of course, I think only the world’s biggest maroon would argue that Washington U’s program isn’t first tier.
my brother actually got his undergrad from Wash U and then his MBA from Yale – he didn’t have a lot of great things to say about Yale, frankly, it is indeed largely about the connections/networking.
I’ll give you a hint skeptic: its local and its not in Evanston.
funny story… i know a woman who graduated with a degree in finance from bobs school
she didn’t know that mutual funds could decrease in value and she was a registered financial advisor LOL
“MBA from Yale – he didn’t have a lot of great things to say about Yale, frankly, it is indeed largely about the connections/networking.”
Yale’s MBA program is a bit like Cornell’s–they ride of the coattails of the reputation of their respective undergrads. Not much widely recognized econ/finance theory/research has come out of either b-school, to my knowledge. One could argue that Yale is harder to get into, however, which is probably true.
In any case one tax increase IS in all of our immediate future. You can look forward to your paychecks being 98% of what they are currently come 2011 as the turd Quinn was given another float around the punchbowl.
Congrats union peeps and government officials–you were able to persuade enough commoners that it was about social issues too and you got the votes to keep the protected classes ensconced. Knowing anonny’s paycheck going down is slightly comforting to me knowing the same thing.
A few more decades of this and we’ll be California with a 9.3% top tax rate on anything over 30k. But hey they can afford it and government knows best, right skeptic?
“funny story… i know a woman who graduated with a degree in finance from bobs school”
There is no undergrad degree in finance at my graduate school, sorry. And also my grad school produces very few financial advisors as you need to have good people/salesperson skills to be one of those. Being a retail broker in my MBA class I can tell you was almost universally eschewed.
If it was my undergrad that’s understandable as it is entirely possible to slip through with mediocre grades from there without learning a thing. And being a financial advisor is indeed one of the career paths open to one with a 2.5 gpa in business from a large state school.
“the world’s biggest maroon”
Funny!! Funnier that HD’s Funny!!!
Even funnier if it wasn’t intentional.
“you were able to persuade enough commoners that it was about social issues too”
If the Illinois Repubs were serious about winning statewide races, they’d nominate more people like Kirk who don’t carry the specter of “across the board bad on social issues”. Kirk probably would have beaten Quinn by 10 points.
“If the Illinois Repubs were serious about winning statewide races, they’d nominate more people like Kirk who don’t carry the specter of “across the board bad on social issues”. Kirk probably would have beaten Quinn by 10 points.”
I’d rather have the state’s middle class who isn’t politically connected cease to exist and us become another Michigan/California. The remaining minority of people that think similarly will just become more militant in our ideology and can point and say “I told you so” with a smirk.
Lets see how Illinois is doing in four years–my guess is not very well. Not very well at all, unless your connected that is.
“she didn’t know that mutual funds could decrease in value and she was a registered financial advisor LOL”
i’m thinking she must have been hot…. but you said she was from bob’s school
“i’m thinking she must have been hot…. but you said she was from bob’s school”
Occasionally at the campus pub in the wee hours you might encounter someone that had an approximation of an attractive female. But that would only be if you started drinking early in the afternoon.
I think he might be referring to my undergrad which is a much more plausible scenario on many levels.
my bad, I thought bob got his mba somewhere in lincoln park, not the hyde variety
also I know that bob is a cat not of the evanston variety
Dan: “I’m surprised there hasn’t been some advancement in alchemy. Can’t idiots in a basement make illegal designer drugs by moving around a few molecules?”
One can theoretically make gold using particle accelerators, but the energy input would exceed the value of the finished product.
The ocean is full of gold (in concentrations of .1 to 2 mg Au/ton H2O). No one has yet devised an economical way to extract this gold. However, it should be in the realm of current science and engineering to devise a method to economically extract this ocean gold.
When I was in school I remember the teacher talking about how its already possible to make synthetic diamonds and is done.
But I think it’s not economically feasible either unless its special super/custom diamonds that are used as drill bits or other industrial crap.
Dick waving over what school one attended (let alone B school) is just pathetic. There is a spectrum of people, from idiot legacies to true geniuses at most Universities.
Prior admission to any particular university means very little in my book. Those who pull out their degree in order to win an online argument are doubly pathetic.
“Prior admission to any particular university means very little in my book. Those who pull out their degree in order to win an online argument are doubly pathetic.”
He wanted to try to explain econ to me and I had to explain to him he was not looking at facts and making shit up/distorting reality to fit into his nice little political position. I wasn’t the only one with this opinion of him.
“Prior admission to any particular university means very little in my book. ”
I don’t give a shit what it means in your book because your book is inconsequential. Sounds like a case of sour grapes Danny boy. Ohh the pipes, the pipes..
Maybe if we all chip in a buck we can send danny to a reading comprehension course so he can see how the discussion evolved into school being relevant. I think it was after one of skeptic’s big on hyperbole, low on facts, political rants (under the guise of “econ”).
Bob. There are currently “cultured” diamonds that can be manufactured for both industrial use (drill bits) and for jewelry. Check out this link:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/savinganddebt/p97816.asp
They are 100% diamonds (carbon) and not cubic zirconia or some other fake. In fact they are manufactured to be “flawless”, which is how a jeweler can identify an natural diamond (with flaws) from a cultured one. The question is whether the public (brides to be) will accept man made over natural.
“When I was in school I remember the teacher talking about how its already possible to make synthetic diamonds and is done.
But I think it’s not economically feasible either unless its special super/custom diamonds that are used as drill bits or other industrial crap.”
Nah, the industrial producers can churn them out for almost nothing. The problem is that the diamond jewelry biz is controlled–at every level–by de beers, so the industrial producers can’t get their lab diamonds into the jewelry chain at cut rate prices, so they happily take their outsized profits and let the cartel disparage their lab-ness.
“Nah, the industrial producers can churn them out for almost nothing.”
OMFG after Danny posted that link I started googling it and realized you can get a 16 karat synthetic diamond for $1,700 (without a signature micro-etching) or $2,400 (w/micro etching). This sh_t blows my F’ing mind!!!
Why the hell are people stupid enough to drop crazy amounts on natural diamonds without considering these? People are stupid!
The industrial manufacturing of diamonds has profound potential for the chip making. Diamonds are the ultimate insulator (both thermal and electrical), and someday may replace silicon. Check out this link:
http://diamondad.com/diamonds-in-computers.html
“Diamonds wafers can be of real use in computer industry. Nowadays, large silicon wafers that are about 300 millimeters in diameter are used by Intel to produce semiconductors. The problem is that silicon melts, if the temperature is very high. And since computer chips get smaller and faster they run hotter and hotter. Diamonds can stand a very high temperature, so they can be successfully used in wafers. In 2003 the Apollo Diamond company created a 10 mm square diamond wafer, and promise to go even further and create a 4 inch wafer within five years.”
And this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-10-06-man-made-diamonds_x.htm
“In technology, the diamond is a dream material. It can make computers run at speeds that would melt the innards of today’s computers. Manufactured diamonds could help make lasers of extreme power. The material could allow a cellphone to fit into a watch and iPods to store 10,000 movies, not just 10,000 songs. Diamonds could mean frictionless medical replacement joints. Or coatings — perhaps for cars — that never scratch or wear out.”
“Why the hell are people stupid enough to drop crazy amounts on natural diamonds without considering these? People are stupid!”
I’m surprised you opened it up to “people”. I would limit it to a much smaller set, but don’t want to start a big kerfuffle here today.
“I would limit it to a much smaller set,”
Well AFAIK the natural diamond industry hasn’t collapsed yet nor faced significant price pressure. Which means people are still plunking down thousands of dollars for engagement rings when they could be getting much larger stones in them for the same price. I was previously under the assumption that diamonds were rare and/or difficult to produce cheaply but as it turns out they’re not!
My mind is freakin’ blown by this crap.
It really is a question of whether modern women will accept cultured diamonds over mined ones. The environmental benefits of “cultured” vs. “natural” should convince most people, not to mention human rights issues associated with the diamond trade. Plus the ability to make custom cut and color should convince most women that “cultured” is the way to go. You can literally manufacture your perfect diamond at a discount to those of the DeBeers monopoly.
(I have another post in moderation, which has 2 links to articles about the potential uses of diamonds in computer manufacturing. I hope Sabrina releases it)
[I’ll post them one link at a time]
The industrial manufacturing of diamonds has profound potential for the chip making. Diamonds are the ultimate insulator (both thermal and electrical), and someday may replace silicon. Check out this link:
http://diamondad.com/diamonds-in-computers.html
“Diamonds wafers can be of real use in computer industry. Nowadays, large silicon wafers that are about 300 millimeters in diameter are used by Intel to produce semiconductors. The problem is that silicon melts, if the temperature is very high. And since computer chips get smaller and faster they run hotter and hotter. Diamonds can stand a very high temperature, so they can be successfully used in wafers. In 2003 the Apollo Diamond company created a 10 mm square diamond wafer, and promise to go even further and create a 4 inch wafer within five years.”
And this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-10-06-man-made-diamonds_x.htm
“In technology, the diamond is a dream material. It can make computers run at speeds that would melt the innards of today’s computers. Manufactured diamonds could help make lasers of extreme power. The material could allow a cellphone to fit into a watch and iPods to store 10,000 movies, not just 10,000 songs. Diamonds could mean frictionless medical replacement joints. Or coatings — perhaps for cars — that never scratch or wear out.”
I am not concerned with the human rights or eco issues. Its basically an issue of the gal is none too bright if she’d rather have a “natural” diamond from de Beers at 50x the cost for what is actually a purer gem, or more than likely it would be due to social pressures.
The eco friendly and human rights issues might just provide the entry for change as I’d suspect without those excuses there would be significant pushback from her social circles (girlfriends, parents, etc).
Seriously who wouldn’t want those extra thousands/tens of thousands to spend on something actually useful like more/better housing/etc?
Two months salary can kiss my arse I’d rather spend it on housing.
wow. if those stones were available in 04, I did a poor job shopping. could have gotten more bang for the buck it looks like.
“Which means people are still plunking down thousands of dollars for engagement rings when they could be getting much larger stones in them for the same price.”
There are some people who see it as an “expression of love” and think that spending less cheapens that expression. Even if you are getting a–to any observer, trained or untrained–superior product.
If you catch my drift.
“My mind is freakin’ blown by this crap.”
and where were these links when i was engagement ring shopping?
i second the mind freakin blowing.
“cultured” diamonds here on out beyaotches.
err…50x the cost for what is actually a less pure gem
now I know where I’ll be shopping if the wife ever gets wind of those pictures I sent to jen sterger.
http://www.diamondnexuslabs.com/
“There are some people who see it as an “expression of love” and think that spending less cheapens that expression.”
Methinks most modern women would rather have that 5-30k spent on a nicer MstrBA w/nice tile and steam shower, etc, as an “expression of love” as that would improve everday life significantly and be much more practical.
(You can’t steal a rehabbed BA and you already need homeowners insurance so don’t need to insure it as you would a pricey rock).
Plus any lady who equated $$$ with “expression of love” would be flashing warning signs to me (not talking about being frugal that never works but legit big spending).
LOL – Bob, the Friedman / Chicago school of “free market” economics was thoroughly discredited in the bank/real estate meltdown.
I’ll hazard a guess you’re one of these people who quotes Adam Smith all the time without ever understanding he supported regulating commerce.
either way, you’re wrong as far as my alleged simplistic lack of understanding. I’ll add that anyone who still points at Reagan’s policies in a positive light has a credibility gap. You know why Quinn will have to raise taxes? Because Republicans and Democrats alike have been spending they don’t have for DECADES.
I’d say the same thing is true on the national level, except that it is clearly Republican presidents who are responsible for the vast lion’s share of our debt.
Accountability is a bitch, ain’t it?
When the GOP actually returns to a part of fiscal conservatism I’ll change my opinions accordingly.
Bob… put a different spin on it. If you are going to put a lot of money into an engagement ring, put it into the platinum/gold weight. Since alchemy is still dream (unlike commercial diamond manufacturing which is happening today), it makes sense to put the money into the metal. If you want to get super fancy, get a precious metals amalgam containing rhodium or tellurium.
And her girlfriends will NOT be able to tell it is “cultured” by observing the rock. The only way to really tell is using a jewelers loop to see the absence of any flaws. And you could probably request the diamond manufacturer to put in some flaws by design.
“I’d say the same thing is true on the national level, except that it is clearly Republican presidents who are responsible for the vast lion’s share of our debt”
Actually not really. Aside from Clinton and GWB1 there aren’t too many others in modern memory who didn’t drastically grow the size of government and the debt.
“You know why Quinn will have to raise taxes?”
Because he can’t punish his union-boss overlords who got him there.
“Because Republicans and Democrats alike have been spending they don’t have for DECADES. ”
Best way to make certain the mistakes of the past don’t recur is to not give in at the 11th hour when it comes time for the presumed increase that they expected all along comes due.
By bending and allowing it, which you seem complicit with, we’re well on our way to becoming another California. How is that 9.3% rate working out for them?
“Accountability is a bitch, ain’t it? ”
That’s right it is, especially when it doesn’t fall on those responsible for it. You’re being held accountable in the end for their reckless spending decisions and graft over the years. Yet it was them who did it. Their plan all along was to raise taxes at some point in the future. Why do you think Quinn even started stiffing vendors at the start of the year?
Would’ve been better to give them a big middle finger and say you had to know this day of reckoning was coming sooner or later and it was very naive of you to assume we the common people of Illinois would bear its burden.
The machine is calculating and shrewd: they played the populace here like a fiddle.
“And her girlfriends will NOT be able to tell it is “cultured” by observing the rock. ”
Uhh…she gonna know its cultured. Her GFs gonna ask her about big rock. She gonna admit its cultured. Her idiot GFs might assume that means cubic zirc but that’s a social/acceptance issue. But the enviro/humanitarian/purity angles should probably outweigh these issues.
And who wants flaws in a rock just cuz mother nature ain’t perfect? I use synthetic motor oil in my crankcase for a reason I see no reason to go with a conventional rock or synthetic one with flaws added.
Not sure you can even get synthetic ones with flaws added or wouldn’t people be buying them en masse then selling them to jewellers for a huge profit?
Bob,
I agree with this:
“The machine is calculating and shrewd: they played the populace here like a fiddle.”
Unfortunately for your analysis, that machine is and has long been bi-partisan when it comes to the state government. Which governor is currently serving time again, oh yeah, Jim Ryan. Shall I quote oh, 300 John Kass columns for you detailing the sleaze of it all?
As for your version of the debt, back away from the pipe, son:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt
And a nice image showing what idiots most Americans are when they bitch and whine about the “exorbitant” taxes on the wealthy:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/top-rate.jpg
Yeah, how awful the rich had it in the 50s and 60s, right?
Bob,
I agree with this:
“The machine is calculating and shrewd: they played the populace here like a fiddle.”
Unfortunately for your analysis, that machine is and has long been bi-partisan when it comes to the state government. Which governor is currently serving time again, oh yeah, Jim Ryan. Shall I quote oh, 300 John Kass columns for you detailing the sleaze of it all?
As for your version of the debt, back away from the pipe, son:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt
ht?
The phenomenon of cultured diamonds is very recent, and the truth is unknown to the vast majority of the population (witness your reaction to this info). If a critical mass of people (I’d say 25%) become hip to cultured diamonds, the DeBeers cartel will surely fall.
I agree about not adding the flaw. Makes no sense.
Would we insist that our insulin still come directly from pigs or that our penicillin come directly from bread with blue mold? Of course not… we accept that the synthetic versions of these medicines are the best. The same should go for diamonds. Why not pay less money and manufacture the perfect, custom diamond instead? What is so special about digging holes in the earth to get the same product?
Peer pressure from other women to continue to buy into the DeBeers cartel is just outdated. I would argue this one to the end — definitely play up the environmental and human rights angle. They are good arguments.
and for good measure, a nice image showing what historically-ignorant selfish whiny idiots most Americans are when they bitch about the “exorbitant” taxes on the wealthy:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/top-rate.jpg
Yeah, how awful the rich had it in the 50s and 60s, right.
If you don’t like being taxed, go do what Tyson threatened to do and move to Morocco. You’ll be back.
“Unfortunately for your analysis, that machine is and has long been bi-partisan when it comes to the state government. Which governor is currently serving time again, oh yeah, Jim Ryan. Shall I quote oh, 300 John Kass columns for you detailing the sleaze of it all?”
You are the partisan troll dude not me. And you show your idiocy by assuming I’m a party line Republican.
And no this machine that is going to ram this tax increase through is not going to be bi-partisan at all. Its going to be along party lines wait and see. The state house Democrats are emboldened: if they held their seats through this election they know they can survive a tax increase.
I’m not talking about top rates genius. I’m talking about the general rate that everyone on here who files a tax return pays. You inability to differentiate the two (federal from state, politics & taxes) further shows just how dumb you are.
For anyone interested in the history of how diamond rings came to be what they are:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.3proctor.html
I’m going to justify the link and long quote by bringing back the analogy to housing, sorta:
“Diamonds were therefore unusual in being sentimental in ways that your car or even your house were (theoretically) not. When your wife died you could sell her car, but you really were not supposed to sell her ring. This of course had felicitous implications for the diamond monopoly. The new “tradition” of giving a diamond engagement ring gave the monopoly a stability few other industries could enjoy. Most people got married, so most people needed diamond rings. Demand was always high, since marriages were not going to go away. Diamonds might be “eternal” in some physical sense (see below, however)—but that was not a problem, since diamond rings were always supposed to be bought fresh for each marriage.
You were not supposed to buy a used ring, and (again) you were not supposed to sell your ring. Diamonds were supposed to be as permanent as your marriage; abandoning your ring would be like abandoning your marriage. Even when you died, the ring was not to be sold, but rather passed on to another generation as an heirloom. At some point in the future diamonds would presumably begin to accumulate, like hyphenated surnames—but that was a difficulty left to the future.
The diamond industry therefore had an excellent solution to the problem of overproduction. Diamonds were the perfect consumer good: always in demand, attached to a stable social relation, durable, and yet only satisfactory when purchased new.”
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt”
That’s funny genius. Because last time I checked it was congress that did the funding or withheld it. Perhaps you and the authors of that article should re-take a highschool civics class, because I see no mention of which party controlled congress. You are of the simplistic mindset that the party affiliation of the CiC determines everything. There’s no point in debating people that cherry pick facts to suit their version of reality such as you.
Why was the party that controlled the lower and upper houses of Congress never mentioned in that article? Oh yeah that’s right–because since the 60’s its been Republicans 90% of the time hasn’t it?
Roma – I will take the diamond ring story one step further! Diamonds were originally chosen due to the material attributes being the stongest, most durable, and ultimately beautiful – as these are “supposed” to be characteristics of marriage. They were also originally supported by gold due to those material attributes being warm, soft, heavy, dense, and again beautiful.
Funny thing is people piss months, if not years, of paychecks into purchasing a combination of the aforementioned and the marriage still ends up in ruins or the ring never gets passed on to the next generation.
Best article about the Diamond Cartel, e.v.e.r.:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/
Long, but a great read.
The widespread marketing of penis pills hopefully has resulted in the decreased poaching of rhinos for their aphrodisiac tusks. (I don’t know for sure)
In the same way, the cultured diamond industry will hopefully decrease a good portion of the nastiness associated with diamond mining (blood diamonds, warloards, child soldiers, etc.).
Moissanite have been on the market for the long time, but never became really popular. Still considered to be a “fake diamond”.
Plus, most brides prefer engagement rings from big jewelry houses and no way Tiffany or Cartier will start using lab created stones in the near future. So stop dreaming about saving money on engagement rings:).
Disclaimer: personally I don’t care about diamonds at all.
Engagement rings aren’t about diamonds it’s about the woman showing off of wealthy of a man she got.
I’ve had fellow lawyers tell me that if you spend less than $10,000 on a ring you are on a ‘budget’. I don’t believe that but plenty of people do. The woman gets to show off the ring as a status symbol and the man gets to derive self-worth from the ability to pay for an diamond, regardless of his standing or standing in life. Not everyone subscribes to these superficial notions of status and societal standing but enough do to support an entire industry.
The same concept applies to houses. Many homeowners, especially in recognizable neighborhoods, buy an expensive overpriced homes, one aspect of which is to show to the world that they can ‘afford’ such status symbols. It’s clio’s psychology argument, in a different form. It’s the lincoln park address, or the lake forest four square, or east of green bay road v. west of green bay road, or why people in northbrook and libertyville call themselves north shore (they’re not). These all mean things to people. that’s part of what makes something desirable is that it has meaning when you say “I live in lincoln park.”
HD: “…or why people in northbrook and libertyville call themselves north shore (they’re not).”
I always found that hysterical. In my opinion, you need to have something resembling a “shore” in order to be considered “northshore”. But that is just coming from me – a beach snob.
a-fed:
Check out the Proctor article. Saying diamonds are associated with marriage because they’re beautiful is begging the question. How did we come to see diamonds as examples of rare beauty in the first place?
Proctor:
”
It is actually the homogeneity of diamonds, their absence of character, then, that is central to their success. No one will deny that the stones are pretty in certain superficial respects—but then so is Coke-bottle glass, when properly cut to exploit its refractive index. (Try this, it really works!) The triumph of diamonds has to be understood in terms of their symbolic functions—which have to do with PR and marital history (including laws designed to stop “gold diggers”)—but also their physical peculiarities, which facilitate particular sorts of cultural and economic exploitation.
”
Anon – Yup, Epstein’s stuff from the 80’s is what Proctor is talking about when he says “part of this story is familiar” and cites his book and article.
“So stop dreaming about saving money on engagement rings:). ”
Honestly I think this is feasible but obviously it would depend on the girl. In fact I’m considering getting ma a rather large sapphire for x-mas as we speak.
“These all mean things to people. that’s part of what makes something desirable is that it has meaning when you say “I live in lincoln park.””
This is why I love Lakeview: same environment as Lincoln Park but without the associated snootiness.
But in all honesty I think Gold Coast/Near North Side/River North are far snootier than LP.
For anybody who cares:
Here’s a really nice looking Green Zone SFH at Racine/Diversey listed for less than the 2001 price and under contract in less than a couple of weeks.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2746-N-Racine-Ave-60614/home/13362428
LISTED at less than the 2001 price. Not an REO.
HD, that is an interesting one. However, assuming the redfin history is correct (never a given), note that crazy appreciation between ’98 and ’01.
HD: We already chattered about 2746 N. Racine (just a few weeks ago.) It’s funny how they all blend together, right?
I’m not surprised, given the price, that it went under contract quickly (once they lowered it enough). Everyone wants a “deal.”
http://cribchatter.com/?p=9407
LOL. Not even close. And I don’t think you’re a party-line Republican, so much as another self-centered single loser who thinks the world revolves around their demographic and nobody else.
“You are the partisan troll dude not me. And you show your idiocy by assuming I’m a party line Republican.”
So you’re saying it’s the Democrats which have been cutting tax rates for the upper income folks? Cherry picking facts would be if I had selected one year/budget out of context. I presented the FACTS, you just can’t cope with the truth. Sort of like how people can’t cope with the reality that private sector health insurance is far more administratively bloated and red-tape-laden then Medicare. Stay bitter amigo, it’s you.
“There’s no point in debating people that cherry pick facts to suit their version of reality such as you.”
“Sort of like how people can’t cope with the reality that private sector health insurance is far more administratively bloated and red-tape-laden then Medicare”
I don’t care what happens, just so long as the government keeps out of Medicare. Government run health insurance is Nazi-Communist-Socialism.