The Housing Bubble

Why hold depreciating assets like houses and double down on the losses by financing them?

TASTES GREAT!!!

LESS FILLING!!

TASTES GREAT!!!

LESS FILLING!!!

Round and round the mulberry bush we go.

You guys are starting to sound like a broken record. The bottom line is that the power to make real estate entail either a good or bad investment outcome rests solely in the hands of a small number of individuals at the Fed. Will they continue to print money like a Zimbabwean warlord with a press, or return to a sane, rightsized interest rate structure that preserves the value of the dollar?

In the former case, you are in fact much better off buying real estate now, particularly on borrowed money as it will be much easier to repay in future devalued dollars.

BUT (and it’s a REALLY big BUT),

If interest rates become more normative and realistic in terms of actual value of future production and goods basket, then you’re completely füücked if you buy or even own real estate(as a value store).

The BOTTOM bottom line is this: The fed is a fulcrum point of the see-saw between hyperinflation and hypodeflation(did I just coin that?) meaning that massive consequences rest on a very tiny number of individuals with unknown influences, motivations, and true goals, which in turn sends the risk factor for investment through the roof. In an ironic twist, the Fed which has as one of its primary goals the lessening of volatility in the market, is now the cause of it.

China(or others) may force the Fed’s hand if they ever manage to supplant the dollar as reserve currency. This would force the raising of interest rates to protect the value of dollar denominated treasuries lest all foreign investment in said assets runs for the exits.

This is the default outcome anyway if the money printing spigot isn’t turned off and soon. See: Zimbabwe, Argentina, Weimar, etc.

“the money printing spigot…”

Just where do you see money flowing down Main Street from so-called spigot?

It’s not, and I don’t think I implied that it did. The effects show up as mass increases in the price of basic commodities and resources and all the other effects of M1 increase.

It will show up on main street though if it continues. Nobody shows up to a $10/hr job when bread costs $1000.00 a loaf. Therefore, to stay in business, the employers would have to up the pay to around $3000/hr, or nobody shows up to work.

We’re a ways off from that, but that’s the economics of it.

‘That a crony political appointee would do something that would damage housing’

I don’t see it this way. What these people want is to stay in power. Greenspan trashed talked housing for many months, and raised rates. The SHTF and what happened? The Federal Reserve came out of it with even more power.

House prices are just a tool to accomplish something. In this case, fighting off deflation. If or when a bubble blows up, as long as they can be seen as calm stewards of the economy, they can use the next crisis to re-rig (again) the system in their favor.

Let’s take them at their word; they are foaming the runway for the banks. What’s the foam? Millions of people who buy houses. As the song says, it’s as wicked as it seems.

Lock this thought deep into your cranium, minion:

Bankers rule. But bankers do not rule by force, bankers rule by persuasion.

Bankers do not have to take, all they have to do is receive.

I love to buy manipulated assets. makes me feel so good to know the recovery is so strong.

5 years into a recovery there still printing a trillion a year to keep it all going.

Everytime I turn on the TV they talk about how great things are.

“Every time I turn on the TV they talk about how great things are.”

Another bunch of my favorite employees, the talking heads (aka my mouthpeices).

Still dont see much a a recovery here buildings that have been empty 4-5 years..sill empty……Long Island city has lot of older 1 and 2 story manufacturing buildings heck most of your classic hi fi marantz klh, fisher, McIntosh were made here..

the only thing really new is a huge new Fed Ex distribution center, they bought a whole city block and tore down 4-5 lo rise buildings to build this.

That seems like the best use here but there are literally hundreds of these buildings

A few buildings are trying to be green space with lots of rent able part time shared office space. It seems to be working I’ve seen 3 being renovated now….and the others are Full….

The rules of the game say the Fed Chair gets a four-year term (minimum).

Of course, there is no rule that says the bankers can’t change the rules in the middle of the game if they don’t like the score.

So instead of making things, they just ship stuff that was made for something else. Ending not with a bang but with a whimper…

Bankers have motorized goal posts, retractable basketball hoops, and invisible glass fronts on soccer goals, amongst other things…

I’m currently selling stock in digitaltoiletpaper.com. Don’t miss this incredible investment opportunity! It has .com right in the name - what more could you possibly need to know?

It seemed pretty rigged in the late 90’s.

To me it definitely felt like a bubble…but didn’t feel rigged to me back then. People actually were that irrationally exuberant. This feels totally rigged.

Donkey,

Still under this deep delusion I see. Regardless of the land, the materials and labor are cheap.

Oxide - see my post above. REALLY cheap housing(nominal) could easily come back if/when interest rates skyrocket.

The key here is “nominal.” The numbers. You might very well find a 3Bd 2Ba home in Seattle for $60k at some point in the future, but your salary will have dropped from 100k down to around 20k along with it.

Housing is cheap or expensive only in relative terms of how much time/effort one has to give up for how many years to acquire it.

Right now, compared to what the average college grad is making, housing is EXTREMELY overpriced. Thus it may be reasonable to assume that eventually supply and demand will take effect and price will drop.

Lower supply of dollars + greater supply of houses = downward price shift.

That said, one big unknown is the effect of institutional buyers. They may keep the price afloat for a while too, but eventually they will need to see a substantial ROI (which may never materialized due to the aforementioned lack of dollars) or they will head for the exits, further depressing prices.

Sooner or later the market will have to reflect what people can afford to pay. Currently, it’s reflecting the carnival mirror image of what the Counterfeiters Fed and hopeful speculators think people can afford to pay.

It ain’t over until the bearded lady sings.

Nonsense.

The value of a house is entirely founded on input costs. And current asking prices of resale housing are 200%+ higher than input costs(lot, labor, materials and profit).

“The value of a house is entirely founded on input costs.”

Just like rents are based on how much the landlord paid for their units.

‘rents are based on how much the landlord paid for their units’

I manage a few rentals. Obviously I’d like to maximize the returns for the owners. I can tell you that without question the amount paid for the houses has nothing to do with what can be charged for rents. It never even enters the thought process.

I can tell you that without question the amount paid for the houses has nothing to do with what can be charged for rents. It never even enters the thought process.

Exactly.

Just ask the millions of underwater LoanOwners who can’t cover even half their costs by renting the depreciating house.

” I can tell you that without question the amount paid for the houses has nothing to do with what can be charged for rents.”

And one would expect that the amount paid to build a house would have nothing to do with the selling price.

‘And one would expect that the amount paid to build a house would have nothing to do with the selling price.’

Now you’re just getting circular.

“Now you’re just getting circular.”

Umm, no. Cost of inputs only acts as a floor for outputs. New rentals won’t be acquired if they won’t be profitable, nor will new houses be built if they can’t be sold at a profit. But most of the time the cost of inputs don’t affect prices, be it the price of buying or renting.

Unless by circular you mean consistent, then yes.

lol

‘Mr. Banker - What can be done with Bill? How can we get a transaction out of this deadbeat, so as to skim the costs? Cat?’

Laser cats. Send the laser cats in.

I love cats. Tried to own one while I traveled a lot. It was darn hard to go 2,000 miles away for a weekend every weekend and come back - the cat was very exhausted, probably stressed and bored. If your life is controlled by a four footed feline and that keeps you from earning the big bucks, you got problems. The cat had to go. I paid a lady $600 to give the at a good home. Never felt good about leaving the cat.

And certainly will not have a cat now. Not until I am sure situated. They are great for keeping scorpions away.

It’s common. Take it from the husband of a self-employed musician. Can’t get much more night-owlish than that!

Janet, you’re a lesbian?

Janet Felon could be a “lesbian in a man’s body”

Amy Hoax is, I think

So funny. A realtor told my friend it was a buyers market now here in PHX. In a recent article posted by Ben (?) some other cheerleader also said that.

It hasn’t been a buyers market in more than a year. It’s coming though. Why buy now when you can buy for tens of thousands of dollars less in a few months?

I had a good year in the market for my IRAs, but recognize that to have that year, I took risks (lots of small-cap stocks) that many folks wouldn’t take…I traded volatility for return, and the bet worked out in my favor more than I would have guessed based on the Russell 2000 move for the year.

However on my taxable account, since most of my holdings are REITs, my results lagged. I suspect small caps will either do OK for 2014, or crash harder than the market as a whole if there is a broader correction, but the REITs should have a better 2014 than 2014…my $0.02.

Better 2014 than 2013…sheesh…

At least you have “investments.” A lot of people have NOTHING. Not even a job. Enjoy your life, young lady.

and it’s 60 degrees and sunny here today. we have peyton, we have legal weed, and we have 300+ days of sunshine a year.

haters gonna hate!

But I want 72 degrees.

But I want 72 degrees.
———
Then move to the Southern California coast and take a zanax to stop being so worried about the radiation water.

No no my friend. HERE. I want it to be 72 degrees and sunny.

What city is that hell in?

except for Payton

I’m afraid that’s the deal breaker. You don’t expect us to cheer for Ahmed and the Baghdad Bombers do you?

Either you’ll produce the child, or someone else will do it for you. Harsh? Indeed, but heed my every word.

A very real possibility. And if that happens, most courts will stick you with child support payments should she divorce you, even if you can produce DNA tests that show it isn’t yours.

‘In most cases a married woman gets more and more desperate by mid thirties and it’s her way or the highway.’

Where are these women and how does a guy get to meet them..?

(arms swinging wildly) “Danger Will Robinson, Danger!”

“Danger Will Robinson, Danger!”

The Lost in Space robot is a fond childhood memory.

“No extraordinary measures.”

It’s okay if God tells her no. It’s not okay if you tell her no. ESPECIALLY if the only thing you see in a baby is dollar signs, which is what today’s (and previous) posts has implied.

RMS is 100% right.

“I knew it…that was going to be my next question.”

I’m sure is having an effect, however, I honestly thought this would work in my favor. Their marriage (which was great) is now on the rocks. Both the husband and wife look terrible (both gained at least 20lbs). The husband is so depressed I’d have him on suicide watch. The wife constantly belittles him to the point where I find it uncomfortable to be around them anymore. I mean, with the exception of having a beautiful, healthy baby, just about everything else in their life has turned to s**t. I’m just waiting to hear that “they have money problems” which, I have no doubt, is coming next.

So, I thought this would work to help prove my point; instead, it seems to have backfired. It doesn’t seem to matter how miserable these folks are, my wife still seems to want what they have. I’m sure the wife is telling my wife how wonderful it all is, but, even for my wife, their strife is painfully obvious.

Each partner gives up “life goals” when they cede some of the decision making to another person. I gave up the goal of retiring by 40 when I married my wife. She gave up the goal of living close to her parents when we got married. It’s not as simple as “she needs to get everything and you have to give it to her or get divorced”. It’s more nuanced that you make it out to be.

Overtaxed:

Having kids is a life goal. Living near your parents is something you want right now. If you don’t live there now, then you still might live there later, and you could change your mind. Those are different.

And retiring at 40 was not impacted by your marriage, but it would be impacted by having kids. Being married without kids makes it easier to retire early. Being single makes it not easier.

This thing about reproduction is not as black-and-white as you think. You can’t just tell your spouse “no kids for you”. The person can/should leave if they really want kids, but you don’t.

And retiring at 40 was not impacted by your marriage, but it would be impacted by having kids. Being married without kids makes it easier to retire early. Being single makes it not easier.

I’m thinking that as a BiLA type of bachelor he was thinking of a more spartan lifestyle than the one he has a DINK.

These are dealbreakers that need to be discussed before tying the knot.

The problem with that is that sometime people’s objectives change over time. A 25 year old with a fresh Harvard MBA might think at the time that all she wants is her career, but when she hits her 30’s priorities can change.

There is a reason why beta guys, who spend most of their twenties as invisible to women, suddenly find themselves in demand. And a Beta guy isn’t necessarily a loser who plays XBox all day in his parent’s basement.

Last summer I went to Denver ComicCon (yes, I’m a nerd). Anyway, I attended a panel where Anthony Montgomery (Ensign Travis Mayweather from Star Trek: Enterprise) was talking about the show and plugging a comic book he was writing.

So get this: He confessed that in his twenties that he was an “invisible beta”, shoved into the “friend zone” by every woman he met. This is an actor, a TV star, a fit and good looking guy. But he does come across as a “nice guy” and not a “bad ass”. Then he tells us that when he turned 30, that all of a sudden a lot of women in their 30’s (many who had friend zoned him earlier) wanted to marry him and have his babies.

Knock me over with a feather!

I was under the assumption his wife had always wanted to start a family and he was always opposed (that’s what it sounded like to me at least). I any case, you are correct. In my experiences-at least here in the U.S., I haven’t come across very many women that did not want to have children. Even the ones who were steadfast in their 20’s about not having kids flip-flopped by the time they were 30. I would hazard to put the percentage at 90-95% of women want to have children if they are married, assuming both partners are biologically capable. You are definitely working against a stacked deck if you are looking for marriage without kids. Point being, whether right or wrong, if you are going to get married, you probably should expect to raise a family, even if your wife says she doesn’t want them. Your alternative is to have a girlfriend for the rest of your life; there is no inherent benefit to getting married at that point.

I think Common Sense has it right. The only purpose of marriage is to accomodate raising a family. You can have a relationship without kids, but the “marriage” part implies kids.

” You can have a relationship without kids, but the “marriage” part implies kids.”

You guys are aware that marriage is just a legal contract, right? It doesn’t imply anything other than the fact that you’re now a combined taxable entity and your assets pass, by default, to one another. It’s not like being married makes it easier to have children. Or changes the game if you split on who gets custody. Or child support. Marriage is the coming together of 2 people, that’s really it.

“I was under the assumption his wife had always wanted to start a family and he was always opposed”

My wife was always ambivalent and I was ambivalent but closer to “opposed” than she was. As our relationship has grown and matured, I find myself more and more opposed and she’s moving in the opposite direction. I can see the “light” at the end of the tunnel, the point where we’ll have “take this job and shove it” money and can really get on with living our lives. A child pushes that back at least 10, and more likely 20 years.

” I would hazard to put the percentage at 90-95% of women want to have children if they are married”

I’d put the percentage of guys who want a new Ferrari in the front yard around 95% as well. Does that make it OK to put my wife to work for another 20 years to afford my car?

I think the problem here (as stated by another poster) is that I’m trying to use logic to understand something that’s clearly not logical (at least, not anymore; 100 years ago it was very logical because you needed help on the farm, or tending the house, etc). I’ve never wanted anything so badly that I was willing to give up decades of my life to get it. It’s just very hard to understand that you want something that you’ve never had, don’t know if you’ll like, and you’ll be responsible for to the day you die so badly that you’re willing to give up years of your life to get it.

Of course, the “fairy tale” is pretty attractive, even to me. Live in a nice big house, don’t work anymore, play with the kids all day. I don’t even really like kids and that’s attractive to me; I can’t imagine what it looks like to a women who has baby fever! Thing is, it’s a fairy tale for 95% of the world, most of us have to work, the women has to work, and you have crushing bills to pay other people to look after your kids while you toil away at the office. It’s like most women are unable to separate the reality from the fantasy. My fantasy of owning a Ferrari looks a lot like Miami Vice; driving around in a nice white suit, women throwing themselves at me, men dying to be me. However, I recognize the reality; it would be a huge PITA, I’d be forever worried about parking it/washing it/maintaining it; it would cost about 5K/mo in payments, and, frankly, it’s just not a sacrifice that I’m willing to make. I don’t want a Ferrari enough to put up with the delayed retirement and inevitable dings/dents/maintenance that I know would go with it. It seems that women (in general) simply can’t see past the shiny car (or even conceptualize the cost of the car) to the actual experience of owning something like that and what it would really be like in everyday life.

And Overtaxed reveals his misogynistic tendencies, which are commonplace on this blog and the internet in general.

What is said: “Women are the people who give birth, and tend to have the instincts that come with that responsibility. Hence, women are irrational, like animals. Men are more rational because we are completely focused on stuff to buy for ourselves right now. Men are actually better than women, so I hate women.”

What is meant: “Obviously, if it weren’t for the instincts that led my mom to have kids, I wouldn’t exist. When I was a kid, my dad supported the family so my mom could engage in the nonstop work of raising me properly. Unfortunately, I do not feel adequate enough to fill my dad’s shoes. Hence, I will pretend that I actually hate kids (and, by extension, women). That way, I won’t have to admit that I feel inadequate.”

Just tell your wife that you can’t handle kids, and get on with the divorce already, and stop whining so much about it.

I get what you’re saying, but you are only looking at having children from a monetary perspective. Hell, marriage itself has PLENTY of downfalls, why did you get married? There are many reasons couples decide to have a child(ren).
-It is a committment and a way to create a physical bond directly from your union and have a lifelong tie and mutual goal between the two of you, and creates your own family.
-To start a family, to create better people for the world and therefore improve the chances of the world being better, and to create a better world, life, and family for someone else than you had.
-To have a family environment to be a part of when you don’t have much of a family.
-So that the parts of the genes that make us special will prevent idiocracy from becoming a reality which it kind of slowly is.
-To give someone else a good life and pass on knowledge and understanding of the world, to pass on the things you have learned to someone else, someone who can later take your place in the world.

I’m sure you can make a rebuttal for each of the points I made, but at the end of the day, these are real reasons people choose to procreate. I’ve always wanted a Lamborghini (still do), but I wouldn’t give up my child for any amount of material possessions and wealth. You will understand this if you ever end up in that situation. It’s less about you and your wants, and more about them (the kid) and their needs at that point. And it’s a beautiful thing.

““Obviously, if it weren’t for the instincts that led my mom to have kids, I wouldn’t exist.”

And what would be the harm in that? People who don’t exist don’t have standing.

“When I was a kid, my dad supported the family so my mom could engage in the nonstop work of raising me properly.”

Actually, no. My parents both worked (product of the women’s lib movement) hard to provide a good life for me. I was raised mostly by my grandparents. My parents could never have afforded children without that support.

“Unfortunately, I do not feel adequate enough to fill my dad’s shoes. Hence, I will pretend that I actually hate kids (and, by extension, women). That way, I won’t have to admit that I feel inadequate.””

How does not liking kids mean that I don’t like women? If I didn’t like women, I wouldn’t really have this angst, I’d get that “pesky woman” out of my life and move on much happier alone. Unfortunately, I found a good woman who I really enjoy spending time with. It hasn’t made me like kids any more or less; she is, after all, an adult.

You are correct about one thing though, I do feel a bit inadequate, because it does kind of feel like she should be able to have the “stay at home, raise the kids” experience that most women had until the 1960’s or so. I simply don’t make enough money to live our current lifestyle and do that, certainly not if we expect to retire before we’re 70 or so. It would take a huge portion of my salary just to contribute at the level we do today to both of our retirement accounts, pay the mortgage and have reasonable transportation. Forget about any “childcare” add-ons.

You guys are aware that marriage is just a legal contract, right?

Again, you’re trying to use logic. It might just be a “legal contract” for you, but for her it might mean much more than that.

To be fair, I don’t think that overtaxed is being any less sexist than his wife is. She was always leaning toward kids, she knew his mind, and yet still married him probably thinking she could convince him to her side. Same as he is trying to convince her toward his side now. Both are guilty (or innocent?) here.

To be fair, I don’t think that overtaxed is being any less sexist than his wife is.

Agreed. He is right in that we have “redefined” marriage to be a “contract.” The problem is that biology doesn’t change.

“marriage” isn’t defined in biology; sex is, monogamy maybe. Marriage is a social and legal construct, based on the scenarios arising from that biology. If you think differently, show me a lion (or any other animal) justice of the peace/minister/judge that presides over lion marriages.

That is my point, we are expecting biology (sex, desire to reproduce) to conform to a “contract”, which we call marriage. It doesn’t work that way. Biology always wins.

Biology lost in my case. I took the necessary steps to make sure it would.

Marriage’s primary reason is for people to make babies? Silly me, I thought it was a way for two people in love with each other to commit themselves fully to the other. I better tell my wife we’ve been doing it wrong according to some yahoos on the Internet who presume they speak for the human race. I guess we’ll have to throw aside the fact that we’re still crazy about each other after all these years and immediately commence divorce proceedings so she can go start having babies. Sure, she’s in her early 40s, but I’m sure she can do it!

Like people wait until marriage to breed anyway…

I married my husband because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him. I wanted to grow old with him, love him and cherish him. He’s my best friend, my confident, the man who accepts me for who I am and what I am.

Silly me to think that marriage was just for babies. I guess we should just divorce, because we don’t want babies? Because a marriage contract is just for producing the almighty heir, the worthy sprog?

Pffff…..

Guys are wired to want to sleep with anything that has 2 legs and walks semi-upright. The “we’re wired that way” excuse is lame, both for men and women. That’s why we have a massive brain (in comparison to other species); so that we’re not a slave to instinct alone and can actually conceptualize and make rational decisions based on projecting our futures.

The “we’re wired that way” excuse is lame, both for men and women.

So you didn’t marry your wife to have a steady source of sex? Not saying that was the only reason, but I’m guessing that if the deal had been “no sex” that you wouldn’t have married her anyway for all of her other wonderful qualities.

“So you didn’t marry your wife to have a steady source of sex?”

Not trying to be an a** here, but I had more sex before I was married than I do today.

So, no, I didn’t marry my wife to have ready access to sex. I married her because she’s awesome, fun to be with, and makes my life so much better than it was before I met her.

“if the deal had been “no sex” that you wouldn’t have married her anyway for all of her other wonderful qualities.”

Of course that would have been a non-starter. You want to be my “live in friend” but share half of everything? No thanks.

That’s why we have a massive brain (in comparison to other species); so that we’re not a slave to instinct alone and can actually conceptualize and make rational decisions based on projecting our futures.

Those massive brains haven’t done much to prevent bubbles and manias, have they?

Overtaxed:

What happens to a species when it develops a massive organ that prevents reproduction? It’s fine if you don’t want kids, but she will be forever unhappy with that decision if you make it for her. Divorce would be better. You don’t have the option of telling her that “it’s illogical, so that’s that”.

Of course that would have been a non-starter. You want to be my “live in friend” but share half of everything? No thanks.

So in other words, the hard wired part kicked in. Being her platonic life partner doesn’t cut it (in spite of all those wonderful qualities she has) and not getting laid is a deal breaker.

Just pointing out the very obvious. Guys want to get laid and women want to have babies. Are there exceptions? Certainly. But as a rule of thumb it’ pretty applicable. And as has been discussed here, the “I gotta have a baby” thing often doesn’t kick in until later, unlike the “I gotta get laid” thing which shows up at puberty.

“So in other words, the hard wired part kicked in. Being her platonic life partner doesn’t cut it (in spite of all those wonderful qualities she has) and not getting laid is a deal breaker.”

I’d be happy to be her platonic life partner, but, at the same time, not at the exclusion of ever getting laid again. And, I suppose, that’s the point your trying to make.

“What happens to a species when it develops a massive organ that prevents reproduction?”

There’s a movie about that called Children of Men. It’s not a massive organ, but in this movie, women all of a sudden become sterile worldwide, and nobody knows why.

Clive Owen is in it. Pretty good movie.

That’s one of my favs. Amazing movie.

Wow, after reading “Uncle Fred…..” I’d think one would rather he skipped than women. He is full of it that marriage is only for having kids. As has been pointed out, kids or no - plans to stay home should have been discussed before marriage. However, given your current situation I’d say 2 things.
1. DON”T have a kid unless you are both in agreement. The only thing to make this worse is to drag a child into the familial and legal mess.
2. I know you say you love your wife & want her to be happy, but is this reciprocated? It seems very one sides to me. She want you to give up plans to remain childfree and plans to retire early. She want you to support her and child while she stays home. Yet she isn’t willing to cut back so that you can get some of the upside to these changes. Sorry if I sound harsh, I sure don’t have all the facts, but, the way I read it, she seems to want you to be a sperm donor and wallet, not a dad.
Sounds like you guys need lots of long conversations about life goals. Given that her friend seem to have baby rabies perhasp you could talk to some happy DINKS/CF and/or visit their websites to get some perspective? Until that time, wrap up Willie so that you don’t end up with a bouncing baby oops. Good luck.

I’m late to this conversation, but Overtaxed, I’ve gone through something similar, but had these conversations before tying the knot.

My last relationship ended because she wanted kids and I didn’t. I’m staunchly against it. We had many conversations, same kinds of things you bring up here - what if it can’t happen, can you accept that? Etc. In the end, even though everything else was perfect, we split. She found a new guy, got married in 9 months, and is popping out her kid sometime this month.

My current long-term gf is as anti-kid as I am. It works well, except she’s also anti-dog, which we still have to sort through (I’m a dog person, and am not re-homing my dog for her).

Anyway, I can’t keep up with the conversation here, but am happy to offer my experience/insight as someone who’s gone through something similar in a few, admittedly less-serious, relationships. Feel free to email me at my handle (above) at yahoo.

Over,

Is there some reason your wife can’t go to work while you downsize and do the consulting-out-of-the-home thing? Kids DO sleep, you know…and go to school during the day. Perhaps trading off breadwinning duty every few years might be a good compromise? It would also allow each of you to develop new skills and career paths. (And just for the record, my father managed five kids, his practice, AND the Maseratis.)

As with drummin, please feel free to contact me at my user name at wildblue network. All is not lost.

Overtaxed > I’m frankly, just terrified

There it is. Own it. Now conquer it. One thing that has helped me relax immensely is this thought: no matter what may happen tomorrow, I will take some risks today, and count on my future self to fix the consequences because I am a badass, and missing all the rewards that come with taking risks is worse than dealing with one bad choice.

Note: I did say some risks, not playing russian roulette. But come on, being poor and happy is better than being rich and miserable. But if you take some risks, you can be rich AND happy.

WHOA… Mathguy, Drummin, and Allena all back at the table! Great to see you all posting.

I have nothing to say to OT that hasn’t been said (I second Allena’s post). However, I find his preference of Ferrari over Lamborghini troubling.

Actually, I do have a few things:

1. There is no feeling like seeing the baby for the first time, and the high that happens for the first 24 hours is better than anything Goon is smoking in CO.

2. The little moments are great. All of the big things you’ve mentioned (boating, vacations, cars, etc.) are still fun, but little things like sitting with my kids while excitedly waiting for the mailman are a blast. You will be surprised how much the little moments mean. The grin my son gets when he connects with a baseball never gets old. I don’t mean this comment as a judgement, but I simply cannot imagine going back to a time when I cared about some of the stuff I used to care about.

3. If you prefer quiet, you;re screwed.

4. Your life will become like a greatest hits reel from America’s Funniest Home Videos. It doesn’t matter what it is, or how it gains momentum, but it will eventually strike your testicles. Having kids means a lot (ALOT) of groin shots.

I know, it was really great to get the perspectives from a lot of different folks on this, and Ben, I really appreciate you allowing the venting on your blog on a very OT discussion.

And, yes, it was fun to see some of the older posters at the table again. Even if I didn’t really like what they had to say.

I’m too old for a Lambo. I probably wouldn’t have a Ferrari either, they indicate a lack of originality. My dream car, believe it or not, is probably something more like an old Mustang (GT500?) or something equally silly like a Viper; which, IMHO, is the absolute “taken to the extreme” of American muscle. I wouldn’t turn my nose up at the new Jag, that’s a great looking car. Ok, you’ve got me, I’m a total car wh**e. There’s not much I’d say no to when it comes to exotic automobiles.

Kids are not OT for a housing blog. We forgot this gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPIxrzmatq0

Kids are a huge part of the housing equation. Those of us with lots of kids (who are not trust fund babies) get disproportionately screwed by high housing prices.

I don’t mean this comment as a judgement, but I simply cannot imagine going back to a time when I cared about some of the stuff I used to care about.

That’s how it is for me. I wasn’t that excited the first 24 hours or even the first week, but once it clicked, that was it.

Sorry to say this, but you sound REALLY bitter towards men.

Hey mathguy:

No one asked you. And BTW, if you wanna be the next hater to start picking on girls on this blog, then I’ll get bitter toward you next. Why do guys always act likes it’s OK to be haters toward women, but it’s not OK for us to hate back? You get what you give, and you are not the center of the universe.

can’t we all just get along?

“cowardly misogynists”

What are you talking about? I’m sorry, but what in my statements made you think that I hate women/my wife?

“reproduction is illogical (i.e., you’re inadequate)”

I wouldn’t debate that statement; I never said I would be an “adequate” father, in fact, that’s one of the things that I’m most concerned about!

Also, from your previous post, what’s a “dweezer”? Just wondering, I might need to use that as an insult in a future conversation.

All heterosexual sex is rape.

“It seems that women (in general) simply can’t see past the shiny car (or even conceptualize the cost of the car) to the actual experience of owning something like that and what it would really be like in everyday life.”

= Misogynistic statement, designed to prevent yourself from acknowledging the true source of your apprehension (inadequacy). This is not a failure of women in general. Your wife knows exactly how much money will be available for the life she seeks. You’re just worried that you might get fired and everything will come tumbling down. You’re probably overthinking that. She won’t be out of the workforce forever.

Dweezer (n), dwee’ zr: A comination of a dweeb and a loser, but with a “z” for emphasis.

I think he has been having the convo, but he doesn’t like what he’s hearing and is hoping that pure logic will turn her to his way of thinking. Maybe she will … maybe she won’t.

FWIW, he hasn’t said anything about “hating” his wife. He just wants to bring her around to his way of thinking (”we’re better off without kids”).

He also isn’t too keen on the idea of her quitting her job and being a stay at home mom either while he gets stuck with providing all the income.

FWIW, I can understand that he’s not too happy about her attempt to “renegotiate the deal”, so to speak, but then again, he should have known better. And if changing the deal is unacceptable, then he might have to consider splitsville, especially since she can do it unilaterally, and maybe even get awarded some alimony in the process.

Comment by In Colorado

FWIW, I can understand that he’s not too happy about her attempt to “renegotiate the deal”, so to speak, but then again, he should have known better.
————————————————————————

Is this the part where we blame the white man?

Cool!

Hold on while I get the key to my storage unit.

Is this the part where we blame the white man?

Cool!

This situation is as color blind as they get.

I think you missed the humor…

My estimate is low to keep people from telling me that I’m exaggerating. My wife’s income is close to 6 figures. Staying home to 10 years old would, absent any child costs, drive the price of missed wages well above 500K. The “all told” cost is probably closer to 1M if you figure college in, missed wages from the wife, and costs of raising the child.

You are off about a year and a month. I assume you do recall the recession that started on … wait for it …BOOSH’S WATCH in December 2007 that knocked the U.S. growth trajectory down to its current subprime path?