patrick.net

Carolyn C says

shut up! when you have kids you can talk. otherwise shut up yuppie

Chances are that the poster you are telling to shut up has the money to play with RE because he does NOT have kids. Life's a load of compromises. Having kids is a HUGE item on the "want" list, and as you likely know all too well, checking that item off requires crossing out a bunch of others. If I asked you if you would rather have kids OR have a house, I do not doubt for a second that you would choose your kids.

Don't let yourself fall victim to the self-pity mentality...you got to have kids, which is physically not an option for a lot of people. There are more important costs associated with raising happy, healthy kids than buying a house. Yeah, other people have more money or are willing to borrow more to get their name on a deed. Just because you think that they are happier than you does not mean that they actually are, or that their happiness means that you must be unhappy until you are exactly like them. Would you EVER tell your kids that they can only be happy if they do what everyone else is doing? Would you tell them that they cannot be happy until they acquire an arbitrary measure of material wealth?

I already know what sort of response this post will generate, but hopefully I am wrong.

Carolyn C says

shut up! when you have kids you can talk. otherwise shut up yuppie

Angry victim. Clearly you did not see the point of my post at all.

The smart money is on renting 99% of the time. You don't know if you'll keep your job, if the market will collapse, if taxes will skyrocket, if your home gets badly damaged, etc. Money wise, you will almost always come out ahead by renting.

However, you only get one life and a lot of people want to spend it in a house. That's fine, but the sooner you accept that you are likely losing money to own a home, the better you'll feel. Buy something you can afford instead of living month-to-month to pay for it. Stop worrying about falling value and enjoy the extra privileges buying gives you.

Ewww, icky poo - children.

"We don't want to do the 'kid thing'."

This attitude, more than anything else, will give the world the rise of The Islamic Republic of Europe, faster than you can say "what's become of western values?".

B.A.C.A.H. says

Ewww, icky poo - children.

"We don't want to do the 'kid thing'."

This attitude, more than anything else, will give the world the rise of The Islamic Republic of Europe, faster than you can say "what's become of western values?".

Do I sense condescension towards people without kids?

Is it our duty to save the world from all those brownies by pumping out as many white, Christian children as possible? Yes, Europe faces some MAJOR issues from the mass influx of ultra-conservative Muslims that have no intention of integrating, but Europeans out-breeding them won't fix anything. Their issue stems from their collective lack of testicles to tell the Sharia Law masses to integrate or get the fuck out (and have the capability to boot them out if they refuse to comply).

bmwman91 says

Do I sense condescension towards people without kids?

No. Just the uppidityspeak of "some" people. I know lotsa childless adults, probably you do too, who don't share like that. Even in the Cool and Hip Bay Area.

bmwman91 says

s it our duty to save the world from all those brownies by pumping out as many white, Christian children as possible?

Where did I mention white or Christian? (You were the one who mentioned parochial school in the other thread, not me. Or did you mean a madrasa?)

BTW we both know that neither you nor I are part of a "white solution".

Sorry, just being facetious. You know that Bay Area etiquette requires that any white person that does not outwardly display guilt for being white be labeled as a WASPy bigot. (more facetiousness btw)

But yeah, I would put my kids in parochial school because it is well structured and seems to do well at teaching more than SAT facts. I did 12 years in parochial school and I emerged an agnostic. It isn't the Christian brain-washer that some think it is.

CrazyMan says

(sorry, not to be a dick, but that's borderline chump change)

Hint: next time just omit the parenthetical comment altogether if you want to "not be a dick"

I think that is human nature. When we jump into something, you want to be right and start looking at reasons to justify your decision .

Some people in life get tossed around by tsunami waves and live to tell the tale. Some of them may realize you really have no control-well not all the control over life- and reach a state of neutrality about the outcome. But for most of us we do want to be right.

E-man says

be honest with us here. It doesn't feel the same being a homeowner than being a renter

Everybody is an individual and we should not presume to know how others feel inside of their own minds.

If we could do that, there'd be 12 more people living in Colorado today.

I bought a year ago. Overall, it decreased some angst about the housing situation. We under-bought price wise, and that limited the emotional aspect to some degree. But it is still hard to be emotionless after making such a big investment. Maybe it's better just to recognize whatever emotional changes are there & move on.

If I bought a house that I thought was overvalued, it would bother me. It may still prove to be a good decision if you are going to be there a long time. But it's a big potential liability if you cannot walk away easily & that should probably be an emotional pressure.

edvard2 says

But now I sort of don't care. I guess being a total hypocrite, to me its like- oh well, I got mine, so who cares?

after buying a house, i'm hoping to completely ignore housing news. i hate spending so much time on it. there's more productive things to do. it doesn't make you a hypocrite. it just means you've got other priorities.

my buying rule is no more than 20% net worth (for the down payment), and no more than 20% net paycheck(ie after taxes) for the monthly costs(mortgage payment, insurance , and taxes). ideally, it would be a 15 year fixed mortgage.

the reason for the rule is i want no more than 20% of all my assets and net income exposed to a non-productive asset.

this allows me to diversify and continue funding retirement with the cash left over.
also if RE prices crash another 50% (which i doubt but you never know), my net worth will drop only 10% (assuming a static 20% exposure to RE). this is a simplification but i'm sure you get the idea.

finally, after many years, as income grows (at least with inflation) the percentage towards monthly payments decreases. the portion of total net worth allocated to housing should also decrease assuming my investments grow faster than the price of the house, and due to increased savings.

Ultimately, everyone should be a truth seeker when it comes to buy vs rent. Unfortunately, it appears that some people who were speaking the truth back during bubble days while everyone was blindly buying have become a bit like what they hated - now they preach renting no matter what and seem to be in denial about rising rents that crush workers. When prices for rents become exorbitant and extortionary that needs to be acknowledged instead of pretending like it does not exist.

Truth is subjective. Everyone should do what is best for him and take personal responsibility for his actions.

It's human nature, and it's the reason why no party should have control of markets. Just remember, whenever someone gets a deal as a buyer and then as a seller because of timing, his kids and grandkids get screwed.

Edvard...you're like the twin brother I never knew.

I, too, sat on the sidelines (for 10 years) and bought a house 60 days ago. I used every bit of those 10 years renting and saved versus the equivalent home purchase and prevailing interest rates then. I feel a bit hypocritical, too.

We scored what we consider the home of our dreams, so different for everyone I realize, and put 20% down. The bank told us with our assets and FICO's we could've bought 2x the house and they would've approved us. In the 6 months looking from Jan to July, we went from Union Bank at 3.6% to First Republic at 2.9%. It was a Jumbo, so no FHA for us...if you're in the market for a JUMBO I highly recommend First Republic.

Hey, if your concerned about future house catastrophe's, just keep your home warranty up to date. First Republic requires it for the first year and our realtor bought it for us (cost her ~$400).

I am here from day 1 of this site. Someday I'll buy but never come back here and scream - it is time to buy - like one guy who did it once he bought. IMO housing is never a good investment - it is a place to live - kinda luxurious commodity - you always loose money.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Even in the Cool and Hip Bay Area.

Any area to me that considers itself cool and hip? ISN'T

bgamall4 says

jsmarket says

The bank told us with our assets and FICO's we could've bought 2x the house and they would've approved us. In the 6 months looking from Jan to July, we went from Union Bank at 3.6% to First Republic at 2.9%. It was a Jumbo, so no FHA for us...if you're in the market for a JUMBO I highly recommend First Republic.

You are the exception, not the rule. Jumbos are evidence of a very expensive house. But, realize this, your 20 percent could be wiped out in a flash if toxic lending becomes the norm and destabilizes things. But if you are in an area where most of the loans are 20 percent down you will have a more stable neighborhood.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

My theory is if one must take out a JUMBO? they likely cannot afford the place to begin with so they must be pretty fucking DUMBO

War says

Reader says

Any area to me that considers itself cool and hip? ISN'T

TOUCHDOWN!

It is a fucking joke isn't it? I have yet to see one God damn area touted as cool and hip be anything more than sad poseurs and insecure wannbes desperately shelling out big money for overpriced shite.