patrick.net

justme Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
"Maybe I should ask Patrick if I can start to author a thread, so I don’t just keep participating in derailing other people’s threads (with inspiration from DennisN and NVR this time). But I should be careful what I wish for, I bet it is very hard work to come up with an original thread on demand. So maybe not :-)."

I've thought the same thing but realize I prefer to comment than to create a topic. I have to admit I'm just not creative enough. I have a lot of respect for the thread authors here because they come up with really good material that is relevant to many people's lives.

LOL Peter. Jokingly this is a thread you would start:

Homelessness in America....
Who should pay for the funeral when a homeless person starves in America due to his own laziness?

I have been thinking about a new thread topic the past few days...on reform of Prop 13. To whom should I send it for posting? Patrick? HARM?

You can also just post it here and someone will put it up.

PeterP,

I was on the net long before AOL and LOL (I used to hate that expression) came along.
But just for the record: LOL !! :-),. That was a classic Peter P.

Ok, I'm feeling frisky. Who's done an "upper decker" in a tankless water heather? Keep in mind, I had never heard of an upper-decker until right here on Patrick.Net a few weeks ago
Courtesy of Ex-Sunnyvale Renter, I believe.

"Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud."
--Pollution, by Tom Lehrer

The comments section in Peter P's tankless water heater link was a good summary of "negative experiences" that I have also read elsewhere on the internet. Be aware that others love their tankless systems and wouldn't part with them for any amount of money. One additional negative that I have seen is that you no longer have hot water if the electricity goes out as (all?) tankless systems have electronic ignition. Some people solve this problem with a UPS for backup. Also, the low flow issue is brought up by many when hand washing pots and pans at the kitchen sink.

Hmm. yeah. I think one can have multiple small tankless systems spread around the house in the kitchen, bathrooms, etc, I think that is what I saw in Hong Kong,. Some kind of battery-based or water-wheel-generator ignition ought to be possible. Of course, if it is all electrical that would no help either.

How about about local small-tank heaters with 5-10Gals of emergency supply?

HARM Says:

> Median Salary by Years Experience - Job: Painter,
> Construction and Maintenance (United States)
> 10-19 years $45,009

If you divide $45K by 52 you get $865/week when you divide by 40 you get ~$21.50/hour

Then Peter P Says:

> HARM, ‘job’ and ‘business’ are very different concepts.

I know illegal aliens that work their ass off painting working 10 hour days at $30 hour (or $1,500/week $78K a year) taking home more per month than guys with degrees that have “jobs” paying $100K.

Then HARM Says:

> Not all tradesmen make $100-200k/year, just the very best.

You only need to work a 40 hour week at $50/hour to clear $100K. Try and find anyone (even a crappy tradesman) that will work for less. When I plumber fixes a sink and charges $125/hour they also charge $125 for the crappy faucet that they bought for $29.99…

Added new thread by Dennis.

FAB,

I can buy that a lot of carpenter/plumber/contractor business is all cash & off the books, but if every one of those jobs (not the just the owners/foremen) made that kind of dough, then CA median housing : income ratio would be low enough to *almost* justify asking prices.

You can't take a few personal acquaintances from a fairly *select* group of people (your business associates) in the posh neighborhoods where you live & work and then extrapolate out to the whole population. If Patrick.net represented an "average" group of people, then the "average" Californian would have a Masters/PhD and make six figures.

I also don't buy the myth of all these "rich illegal aliens" all making $100k. If that were true, why are immigrant neighbrohoods in CA so poor --10 people living to a room, etc. And why not just hire an American to do the same thing (fewer potential legal liabilities)? The whole idea of hiring illegals is you pay crap, work them to death, don't provide any benefits, and fire them at will.

Shoot, I did house painting and yardwork during H.S., college and also moved furniture and did warehouse work after college (only jobs being offered). I would have killed for *any* job that paid that much.

There are simply not that many jobs as a % --cash-based or otherwise-- that pay that much. If there were, the housing bubble would not exist.

The rich illegal aliens is not entirely a myth. many immigrants are willing to work more/hr, save more and spend less. They become rich not because they get more $$/hr but because they are willing to save more and spend less.

Peter P bought a house. Makes it less pleasant to read about falling prices.

looks like more and more patrick.neters are pulling the trigger.
I am waiting for the day when patrick will buy a house :-)
Anyways, looks like the market is now in a state where its not easy to say whether to buy or not to buy.
It was pretty obvious ( atleast in patrick.net) in 2005 that buying was not the way to go.

I'll buy a house the day it's cheaper than renting. For me, it's not even close yet. It's just so damn cheap to rent by comparison with owning in Menlo Park, and anyway, prices are still falling.

But I do admit it has turned around in a lot of cheaper places. You can actually buy houses in Antioch and parts of Oakland and rent them out for a tidy profit, if you can handle collecting the rent from people who are probably on the edge financially. And maybe armed.

True, I had not thought about it, but rents (and therefore property prices) would be lower without Section 8 type subsidies.

But you can't let families with young kids be homeless. We should take care of our fellow citizens at least that much. What's a better way to do it?

True, I had not thought about it, but rents (and therefore property prices) would be lower without Section 8 type subsidies.
But you can’t let families with young kids be homeless. We should take care of our fellow citizens at least that much. What’s a better way to do it?

No, of course not! People who can ill afford to have children should be subsidized by those who work for a living. 'Magically' squeezing out children should give you a free spot on the public trough. If welfare recipients want to have dozens of children (by god knows how many baby~daddys) they should be encouraged to do so because we 'can't let families with young kids be homeless'. 'We should take care of our fellow citizens at least by that much.' *rolly~eyes emoticon*

Peter P bought a house.
Almost as stunning as when surfer-x capitulated. Do you know the city where Peter P settled?

Where is HARM? Did too much sun in Walnut Creek fry his brain?