Slightly OT(but slightly not)...Why are people so dumb?
invite response
2011 Jun 11, 4:34am 22,211 views 174 comments
« First « Previous Comments 88 - 127 of 174 Next » Last » Search these comments
Schizlor
2011 Jun 13, 7:30am
But let me ask you…do you not have to pay rent every month until you die unless you bought a house free and clear?
And let me ask you, who is responsible for the rent "debt" once that renter dies?
No one. Because it's not fucking debt.
Forgive my obtuseness, but please explain why those people should not have received the credit again? Because if it’s not because they couldn’t afford it in the first place, then I’m stumped.
Do you really need me to explain it? Do you need to re-read what I said before I answer your question?
SubOink says
But let me ask you…do you not have to pay rent every month until you die unless you bought a house free and clear?
And let me ask you, who is responsible for the rent “debt†once that renter dies?
No one. Because it’s not fucking debt.
Are you Klarek's split personality or something? You really need to curse about that? Why are you guys so picky about words? Benefit or intangible benefit. Debt or not. SO's point is that you have to pay to live somewhere. If you plan on staying in Virginia Beach, you have to pay a mortgage or a landlord. There's not much practical difference if you pay it the month before or the month after.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 13, 7:37am
LOL dude… just stop. You’re seriously embarrassing yourself. There’s no way that you cannot understand the concept of “debtâ€. Nobody over the age of 10 could be this clueless. You’re just going overboard with your post-purchase rationalization
Actually he's pretty much correct. If you sign a 1 or 2 year lease, it's pretty analagous to a 1 or 2 year loan. You've agreed to pay x amount over the course of the agreement in monthly payments. The owner has financed you.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 13, 7:39am
One is using past labor (surplus on hand) to obtain real goods/services in the present. The other is taking something for free in the present, and promising your future output (with interest) as defferred compensation. In that respect, they could not be more different.
Only if you are always living month to month in your rental agreement.
I did buy some properties, flats and all of them have doubled in less than 4 years. But the properties in Mumbai have become 10 times.
Where in Mumbai and when did you buy and sell, and for what price? Also, what type of flats?
corntrollio , i wasn't fortunate enough to buy in Mumbai like my friend and multiply my money 10 times. BUT i did buy properties in Chandigarh and Ludhiana ( Punjab) and doubled by money every time i invested.
most of us are individually better off– avoiding debt, living within our means
But then we’ll miss the opportunity to get rich investing in RE, isn’t it? Living in America debt free is foolish. /sarcasm
Those are two very different ideas. Living within your means is, of course, vitally important. But that is not at all incongruent with taking on some debt. Debt is a tool, used by wise investors.
Living debt free is foolish.
I paid off the last of my debt--car loan, student loans, credit cards, and other debts--about four years ago. You think it would have been smarter not to? Why, exactly?
I can’t believe you’re arguing that any time you have to pay money for something, that means you’re paying on a debt.
You didn’t get it…I did not say that any time you have to pay money for something you are paying on a debt.
I was saying that because you have to live somewhere there is no way to get around having to pay that rent EVERY month. It doesn’t matter if you are technically paying on something you owe or not because the fact is…you are paying your rent every month and I am paying my mortgage every month.
We are both forced to keep working to pay that rent or mortgage.
Yes, technically you are “debt freeâ€â€¦but in reality you have to come up with the money EVERY month to pay your rent. Do you not??
He's right--regular and unavoidable payments are not debt. You're a bit confused.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 13, 11:54am
I paid off the last of my debt–car loan, student loans, credit cards, and other debts–about four years ago. You think it would have been smarter not to? Why, exactly?
Not at all. But you DID use debt when you needed to--to go to school, buy a car, etc. It would have been foolish not to use debt when you needed it. That's my point.
it sounds like your grandparents did a wonderful job and were wonderful people. it also sounds like, for the period in which they lived, they were happy and content.
however, to be perfectly honest, for someone in the prime of their life in 2011, i'd shoot myself in the head if i lived that existence.
when i'm traveling abroad, cost is one of my least concerns. i'm looking to enjoy myself and have a great time.
have you ever traveled with someone who is watching every penny they spend? that person is absolutely miserable; and if they aren't, they should know they're making everyone else miserable!
i know i'm going to spend money on food and drinks and nice hotels in good locations. i'm certainly not going to stay in the middle of nowhere or some hostel so i can save a few bucks.
i guess what i'm saying is, you certainly have to be smart about your spending habits, but not to the point where dinner at applebee's is considered your night to splurge.
you only get one crack at life; and when your existence becomes that awful, what's the point of waking up tomorrow?
you only get one crack at life; and when your existence becomes that awful, what’s the point of waking up tomorrow?
Applause!
I paid off the last of my debt–car loan, student loans, credit cards, and other debts–about four years ago. You think it would have been smarter not to? Why, exactly?
Not at all. But you DID use debt when you needed to–to go to school, buy a car, etc. It would have been foolish not to use debt when you needed it. That’s my point.
I think we're sliding off topic again; I wasn't posting to attack the very idea of debt under all conditions.
All I meant to say is that most of us are not talented at investing, and most of us are better off not trying to play investor with our residences. We're better off living within our means. Society is better off if we do so.
But mostly I wanted to refocus attention on the most important part of dodgerfan's first post: Happiness and satisfaction have a weak correlation with making lots of money, and they are inversely correlated with living beyond your means. His grandparent's generation was smarter than current generations in this respect.
I don't know why.
And that's my last post on this thread.
bubblesitter
2011 Jun 13, 2:08pm
I am very clear on that, whether interest rate go down or you expect it to go up, downward slide of home prices will continue.
Wrong. I don’t expect interest rate to go up. If home prices were to continue to decline. The likelihood of interest rate going down is high. This is how the market typically works.
You guys are the ones that just keep advocating that interest rate will go up, which would cause home prices to go down further. History doesn’t back your thesis.
Success isn’t by chance, but by choice.
Home prices in California will keep going down. Let me be very clear - NO MATTER WHAT INTEREST RATE. :)
terriDeaner
2011 Jun 13, 4:59pm
LOL! For fucks sake E-man, lighten up before you call me dumb. And don't straw-man me - I dislike it immensely.
That said... I'm not even quite sure what you're all bunged up about. If you don't like my interpretation of reality, go back and re-read your copy of 'Millionaire: Attitude first!' or 'Be well and let others be' or 'Fucktards? not in my back yard!' or whatever other shitbox inspirational claptrap you're sleeping next to tonight. All will be well after... so don't mind me!
LOL...
klarek
2011 Jun 14, 12:43am
I was N O T talking about the concept of debt…why do you insist on twisting and turning my words to try to prove me wrong in some way.
No, those were your words:
There is no such thing as debt free. Life costs money. You need a place to live and if you cannot afford to buy a house with cash you have 2 choices…rent or buy one. If you think you are debt free as a renter because you don’t have a 30 year mortgage than you are lying to yourself because as long as you have to rent…you have the debt of paying rent. You OWE the landlord a rent check every month. Whether you relocate to another rental or not…you owe a rent check. The sucky part is that rents are subject to change. And rents track inflation. So you are on the hook for more and more rent over the years.
Same in a 30 year mortgage..you owe the mortgage except that payment is going to be the exact same until the house is yours.
Debt Free would be to move in the mountains, be completely self contained, own well, solar power, no tv, internet…and no prop tax even. Not sure if there is such a place and if it would be desirable to live like that. Maybe it would. I don’t know. I’ll try it in my next life…maybe. Maybe not. :)
You clearly do not understand the concept of debt. You were loaned money, and are paying interest on that debt. I on the other hand am debt-free. Unless I forget to pay my credit card bill at the end of the month, I am not paying interest. I don't pay my landlord any interest. I pay him for the following month's shelter. If I were to pick up and leave tomorrow, I owe him nothing so long as his house isn't damaged. In fact, upon termination of the lease, he owes me my security deposit (again, assuming the house is not damaged). He has debt, not me. He owes his mortgagor and he owes me my deposit less damages to the house.
You don't understand what debt is.
Actually he’s pretty much correct. If you sign a 1 or 2 year lease, it’s pretty analagous to a 1 or 2 year loan. You’ve agreed to pay x amount over the course of the agreement in monthly payments. The owner has financed you.
Wrong. It's an agreement. No money is being loaned. There's a penalty for early termination in the same way that I am penalized for terminating my cell phone plan too early. I'm not saying that any and all debt is bad, but that is not debt.
This topic has gotten way out of focus. It looks like its turned into another rent versus buy argument. If you rent and are happy, then that's good. If you bought a house and are also pleased, that too is good. If you're renting to save for a house, that too is fine as well as those who went ahead and bought with a big mortgage. Buying or renting isn't a golden ticket to anything. Neither will ensure your financial future. Both have liabilities and faults. Both cost money. If anything both are more symbolic than anything else.
That's that.
Schizlor
2011 Jun 14, 1:50am
Why are you guys so picky about words?
Because they have an enormous potential for misinforming, coercing, and decieving, if they are used disingenously. Careless or wilfully-manipulative use of words is one of the contemptible behaviors engaged in by real estate salesmen that this blog seeks to shed light on, so naturally many of us who frequent here would be preoccupied with people being careless with their word choice when they post. And since all of these ideas are being exchanged in text form, word choice is extremely important. Asking us to participate in a written forum but not be so picky about words is like asking us to watch a movie but disregard the quality of the dialogue. It's hard to separate the two.
ch_tah says
Why are you guys so picky about words?
Because they have an enormous potential for misinforming, coercing, and decieving, if they are used disingenously. Careless or wilfully-manipulative use of words is one of the contemptible behaviors engaged in by real estate salesmen that this blog seeks to shed light on, so naturally many of us who frequent here would be preoccupied with people being careless with their word choice when they post. And since all of these ideas are being exchanged in text form, word choice is extremely important. Asking us to participate in a written forum but not be so picky about words is like asking us to watch a movie but disregard the quality of the dialogue. It’s hard to separate the two.
I appreciate that you need to focus on words, but you also need to focus on context. You and SO seem to be arguing two different points at each other. While you and Klarek are technically right that your rent payment is not debt, you are either missing or ignoring SO's point that you need to pay to live somewhere. Bottom line of it all, I think edvard2 summed it up very well in his most recent post above.
Schizlor
2011 Jun 14, 2:12am
While you and Klarek are technically right that your rent payment is not debt
If SubOink had said that in response originally, it would have ended there. Instead the farce was perpetuated by some thin argument about how they are the same thing. They are not. A simple statement to that effect ("Ok, bad choice of words, but you get my point.") would have sufficed. But when someone vociferously defends their statement which is patently untrue, I'm not going to back down just because I think in the back of my head they know they're wrong. There are other people here who never post but are constantly reading this stuff, and if they are doing so to educate themselves or because they find the debate fascinatingly enlightening, it behooves us to peer-review each other if you will, to ensure the reader is getting the best possible information.
Being careless with word choice is one thing. But when people reading this stuff who may have no idea about economic fundamentals or market variables, come on and see things like, 'Paying rent and paying a mortgage are exactly the same thing. They are both debt.' or, 'Living debt free all your life is idiotic', then the debate needs to rage, because statements like that have no business being on a forum as quality as patrick.net. That stuff belongs in the comment section of a USA today article.
I do lament the fact that this thread has been hijacked. (though the title is "slightly OT", so I guess veering off topic like this is apt)
FortWayne
2011 Jun 14, 2:12am
Buying or renting isn’t a golden ticket to anything.
Words of wisdom, but for the past 10 to 15 years the mentality of an average folk has been that of "buying a house makes me a winner who will get infinite free money because I was smart enough to buy". No logic was exercised, just dumb sheep mentality. Not very different from dotcom bubble.
klarek
2011 Jun 14, 2:26am
While you and Klarek are technically right that your rent payment is not debt, you are either missing or ignoring SO’s point that you need to pay to live somewhere.
Nobody missed the point. That was never an article of contention. That was SubOink changing the subject.
A "Mortgage is debt"
B "So is rent"
A "No it isn't"
B"Yes it is"
A "No it isn't"
B "You have to pay for shelter"
^---- This is not a constructive argument, or a lively debate. It's either an extreme example of how bad American consumers' ignorance has become, or it's trolling.
If you want to argue that renting costs money, nobody will argue with you. That was not what SubOink was saying. He was trying to stretch the definition of what a debt is, and his argument was laughably fallacious.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 14, 2:41am
Wrong. It’s an agreement. No money is being loaned. There’s a penalty for early termination in the same way that I am penalized for terminating my cell phone plan too early. I’m not saying that any and all debt is bad, but that is not debt.
OK--it's not really worth too much more discussion. Obviously a lease isn't exactly the same as a loan. Nobody is saying it's exactly the same thing. But it's not like a cell phone contract. There isn't a penalty for termination unless you negotiate it--a standard lease obligates you to pay the entire rental agreement whether you live there or not. Seems closer to an owner financed 2 year loan.
The original point that you seem intent on trying to confuse was that you have to pay for your residence whether you rent or own. The whole debt slave argument is just stupid. You are no more a debt slave then a renter is a lease slave.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 14, 2:44am
Because they have an enormous potential for misinforming, coercing, and decieving, if they are used disingenously.
Yes, and you are a very guilty party. You misrepresent others comments willfully and purposely.
I'd suggest you not throw stones else you break your glass house. (or rental in your case)
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2011 Jun 14, 2:44am
Buying or renting isn’t a golden ticket to anything.
Words of wisdom, but for the past 10 to 15 years the mentality of an average folk has been that of “buying a house makes me a winner who will get infinite free money because I was smart enough to buyâ€. No logic was exercised, just dumb sheep mentality. Not very different from dotcom bubble.
I could not have said it better. I'd narrow the window to 10 years, but thats about it.
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2011 Jun 14, 2:48am
Like others said, you do live once and you never know what can happen. I would not entertain a frugal lifestyle like my parents did. You can convince yourself that a yosemite vacation is better Maui, but it sure as heck not. You live in a four seasons or ritz carlton hotel and it is not the same as four point and embassy suite. There is a difference, you view it as dumb, I view it as standards. Of course, standards can be expensive, but life is somewhat in your control if you are courageous enough.
I do not disagree. In the past six months, I've been to 4 NBA games, a NHL game, and a couple Dodger games. I tried to get 100 or field level tickets most times. Also went to a few concerts...Tim McGraw, John Mellencamp, etc. And eating out, and other entertainment. And a whole lot of other stuff. Its why I live where I live(downtown LA).
Thats not the point.
Point of the posting was people living above and beyond their means and how that ties into the housing market. And how people still do so even after their individual bubble burst. How people make really horrible decisions based on emotional whims and fancy. Including buying homes they can't really afford.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 14, 2:48am
^—- This is not a constructive argument, or a lively debate. It’s either an extreme example of how bad American consumers’ ignorance has become, or it’s trolling.
If you want to argue that renting costs money, nobody will argue with you. That was not what SubOink was saying. He was trying to stretch the definition of what a debt is, and his argument was laughably fallacious.
If anyone was trolling it was your and your buddy Schliz. There is no way any normal person could have read Subs original post and not understood his meaning.
Schizlor
2011 Jun 14, 3:03am
There is no such thing as debt free
False.
If you think you are debt free as a renter because you don’t have a 30 year mortgage than you are lying to yourself because as long as you have to rent…you have the debt of paying rent.
False.
There is no way any normal person could have read Subs original post and not understood his meaning.
Color me abnormal then. It reads plain as day. He was trying to morph debt into cost. This is the definition of cost:
"An amount that has to be paid or given up in order to get something."
He wants to argue that since you cannot go through life without paying a cost for something, that you in turn cannot go through life without paying a "debt" on that which has a cost. This is a false statement, the two are not mutually exclusive. I do not have to pay on a debt for something I wish to obtain, unless the debt is going to service the cost. If I find other ways to cover the cost, besides debt, then I've just paid the cost without paying a debt. The fact that this isn't plain as day is mind boggling to me. Call it trolling if you want, but I'm not going to play the, "Oh come on, you know what I meant" game just because someone is so stubborn as to be incapable of saying, "Ok sorry, poor choice of words."
I know he knows this, and I know you know this. But there may be people reading that don't truly know the distinction between cost and debt, and to argue that there is none is inexcuseable.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 14, 3:18am
Color me abnormal then
Done.
Funny how when you take random sentences out of context they can appear to say something different than the theme of the paragraph is, isn't it?
What you did is misrepresent his post to say what you wanted it to say. Because you didn't really have an answer to his actual post.
Schizlor
2011 Jun 14, 3:28am
I’d suggest you not throw stones else you break your glass house. (or rental in your case)
Trolling would be pointing out something just to argue, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Like, for instance, if I pointed out how dumb your statement is. People in glass houses should not throw stones lest others throw some back at them and break their house in kind, not because they might accidentally shank one when throwing and break their own house.
See, if I were trolling, even though I got the gist of what you were saying, I would have stopped to point out how you completely fucked it up anyway. Not to mention the hilarious irony of trying to tell me to be humble and not insult others, while in the very same sentence throwing in a backhanded insult at me. (which was well-played btw. Would have been better though if I actually considered being called a renter an insult)
In his case, I was just calling a spade a spade (a falsehood a falsehood)
Get the distinction?
klarek
2011 Jun 14, 3:31am
or rental in your case
*ZING!*
Hah, take that, you piece of shit renter. You aren't contributing to your community by paying an assload of interest, you fool! Now go pay your landlord's rent while throwing your money away and living like a peasant.
What you did is misrepresent his post to say what you wanted it to say. Because you didn’t really have an answer to his actual post.
Nothing was distorted or misrepresented. Schizlor is being as objectively accurate as possible here, going out of his way to distinguish between costs versus debt, and you're using your own projections and reinterpretations ("you know what they/I really meant" is the operative backpedaling phrase, utter proof that you know Schizlor isn't making the distortions).
There is no such thing as debt free. Life costs money. You need a place to live and if you cannot afford to buy a house with cash you have 2 choices…rent or buy one. If you think you are debt free as a renter because you don’t have a 30 year mortgage than you are lying to yourself because as long as you have to rent…you have the debt of paying rent. You OWE the landlord a rent check every month. Whether you relocate to another rental or not…you owe a rent check. The sucky part is that rents are subject to change. And rents track inflation. So you are on the hook for more and more rent over the years.
Same in a 30 year mortgage..you owe the mortgage except that payment is going to be the exact same until the house is yours.
This is what SO wrote. If you can't understand his point, apparently it was too nuanced for you. And after looking up "debt" which has a very narrow interpretation and several broader definitions, his use of it seems fine. Beyond the nitpicking of word choice, his point was clear when taken in context.
If anyone was trolling it was your and your buddy Schliz. There is no way any normal person could have read Subs original post and not understood his meaning.
At least some people understand what I meant in "the big picture"...
But we can keep arguing about the defintion of the word "debt". If it makes Klarek/Schizl (the same guy, I think) happy I will say...I should have not used the word "debt" in all this. Same point but different words. My Bad. I didn't expect somebody to play wordgames but understand my concept instead.
In the meantime, I pay my mortgage and Klarek pays his rent. I have all this debt and Klarek is debt free. Ok. Nevertheless, Klarek has to keep working to pay his rent and I have to keep working to pay my mortgage.
I guess Klarek sleeps better reminding himself that he is debt free. And when he can't pay his rent and gets evicted from his rental house he can tell the landlord that he is debt free. I believe he still would have to move out because the landlord wants a check regardless.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 14, 3:51am
Trolling would be pointing out something just to argue, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Like, for instance, if I pointed out how dumb your statement is. People in glass houses should not throw stones lest others throw some back at them and break their house in kind, not because they might accidentally shank one when throwing and break their own house.
touche. Now that's funny.
And please don't overanalyze the rental comment. I don't consider renters to be any worse than owners. I rented when I was in CA. because it was loads cheaper than buying. Where I am now, it's not the case so I bought.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 14, 3:56am
Nothing was distorted or misrepresented. Schizlor is being as objectively accurate as possible here, going out of his way to distinguish between costs versus debt, and you’re using your own projections and reinterpretations (â€you know what they/I really meant†is the operative backpedaling phrase, utter proof that you know Schizlor isn’t making the distortions).
Yes it absolutely was. You guys took one line out of context and tried to imply that it was his overall point. If his entire post had consisted of this line:
Renting is debt.
Then you'd be correct. In reality it was much longer and you guys falsely represented his meaning.
Schizlor
2011 Jun 14, 3:56am
If you can’t understand his point, apparently it was too nuanced for you.
"Hey man, I thought you said you had sex with Katy last night??"
"I did"
"Well that's not what she says. She's claiming you raped her."
"Same thing."
"What?!?!?! It's totally NOT the same thing!!!"
"Dude, you knew what I meant. If you couldn't understand my point, apparently it was too nuanced for you."
It's funny. Nuance is exactly what you seem to be missing in all of this. The distinction between words is exactly the issue here. Claiming debt is the same as cost is a gross generalization. Saying there is a difference is the nuanced argument, not the other way around.
If you want to continue to contend that the statements:
"I'm $10,000 in debt because of my car purchase"
and
"I just bought a car for $10,000 in cash."
Are even remotely the same thing, fine, be my guest. Just don't ever become a teacher at any school my kids attend.
tatupu70
2011 Jun 14, 3:58am
Claiming debt is the same as cost is a gross generalization.
See that's it. Please post where he said "debt is the same as cost"
You can't? Huh?
Schizlor
2011 Jun 14, 3:58am
touche. See now that’s funny.
And please don’t overanalyze the rental comment. I don’t consider renters to be any worse than owners. I rented when I was in CA. because it was loads cheaper than buying. Where I am now, it’s not the case so I bought.
Is this where we kiss and make up?
There isn’t a penalty for termination unless you negotiate it–a standard lease obligates you to pay the entire rental agreement whether you live there or not. Seems closer to an owner financed 2 year loan.
Not to interject into the chain because this argument isn't particularly interesting, but this is absolutely not true. If you break a lease, the landlord has a duty to mitigate damages. The contractual remedies are different from debt.
« First « Previous Comments 88 - 127 of 174 Next » Last » Search these comments
I am not talking about IQ or intelligence level.
I'm talking about uncaring and unthinking. The people who walk or drive around in a daze....they have the intellectual capacity, but choose not to use it.
The people who buy houses in CA at the moment.
This is actually sort of a serious question. And for it I go back to my grandparents. Immigrated here from Germany in the early 1920's. Both their parents had fought in WWI for the Germans, and they came here because Germany was @^%$^ up. Seriously, my grandfather was starving to death in Berlin. Came here, learned english real quick, finished school up through 8th grade and thats it. Went to work. No advanced education. Not even a serious worker. My grandfather played semi pro baseball and was drafted by the Yankees, but broke his leg on the last game before reporting to the Yankees minor league team. My grandmothers life was unremarkable as well. I'm not even sure when they met.
But they did, saved, went to work really hard jobs during the depression, saved more, bought a house. In 1941 at age 37, my grandfather, with baby on the way, was drafted into WWII. He was a medic under Gen. Stillwell in southeast asia, assigned to assist a Chinese Army unit. At some point along the way, things were a real bloodbath there. I only know that from history, he would never talk about it except to complain about marching over the Burma road a couple times, and saying that they had to stand watch at night more due to the tigers than the japanese.
When he got back, they stayed in the same 2 bed/1ba house, even with a kid. He got a job at a nearby tire factory. They were happy and even though they never had a TON of money to spend, they enjoyed life pretty well. honestly, California seems to have been almost a magical place in the 50's. The picture perfect land of milk and honey.
After years at the tire factory, he became very involved with the union, eventually retiring and going to work for the union full time. At some point in the early 70's, he felt the union was pushing pay too much. He warned that the tire company would move if the union kept trying to negotiate higher salaries. He retired in 1975 in part because of the unions insistence on negotiating higher salaries. The tire factory closed in 1979, and I can't remember if they moved to another state, or overseas, but nearly all their production is now overseas. The location is now the Citadel shopping center in Commerce.
So he retired at 65, enjoyed the last 10 years of his life retired. Never spent a lot...def did not buy stuff he did not need. He did collect stamps, coins, and model trains. He started buying me baseball cards in 1979 when he would pick me up from school once a week. We would go and get an ice cream at Thrifty's and a $0.15 pack of Topps baseball cards. He drove the same car for 10 years before replacing it, took a vacation once a year, spent when it was justified, was frugal most of the rest of the time.
My grandmother was a clerk with the county part time for 30 years.
Despite no real education, they managed all this(with six figures in the bank as well). They used what was known as "common sense". Things they could not figure out for themselves...they took the advice of someone who was brighter. They did things the "tried and true" way. And they never needed, wanted, or pursued extravagance, even when they had actually worked hard and earned it. A night out once a week was an ice cream cone and movie in a more upscale area like Whittier or Downey. Vacation was a tent in Yosemite. A car was a means to transport them somewhere. Pleasure was a glass of fresh squeezed orange juice on the backyard patio.
So whats the point of all this? It's to question how people currently live their lives. Still after all the economic problems of the past 6-7 years, people still INSIST entitlement to material goods. People still stretch to buy the most house they can possibly get a loan for. And people still run around without any regard for common sense.
And so onto my question...Where is the disconnect? How did we go from immigrants who could not speak the language comming here and building a hard scrabble life into the quintissential American Dream....to what we have now days. People who are seemingly incapable of exercising common sense. People who spend nonsensical high 6 and low seven figure amounts on homes and land that in no way shape or form will ultimately sustain a value that high. People who make the largest(by far) purchase of their life on whimsy and emotion USING SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY(EFF U SUZANNE).