patrick.net

elliemae:

LOL!

I saw a guy on the freeway offramp this morning playing wave the "rich bankers stole my home and dreams" sign game.

@Mistrial @Elliemae

Misstrial says In any event, she’s well on her way to becoming a slumlord. Elliemae says When I was growing up, we were so poor we didn’t play cops & robbers or cowboys & indians. We played slumlords & tenants. It was fun, but now my kids play Wall Street Huge Bonus Recipient and Out of Work Foreclosure Welfare Recipient. Ya gotta roll with the times.

So how do you propose the poor improve their lot in life?...mopping floors at McDonalds wont work. College, Skill building activities will take her into the next 10 years. Be proud of her accomplishments, if it were your child I am sure you wouldnt want to see these sorts of comments posted. I agree that the timing of these purchases were right, however, we must applaud the capitalistic spirit being shown...even if it is on our dime.

@Mistrial @Elliemae

Can you comprehend the extreme amount of effort/resiliency it takes the poor to leave their circumstances behind?

What kind of lowlife is she planning on renting a room to when EVERYONE, including hand-to-mouth 20 year-olds like herself are buying houses? Who's left that is (shudder) renting?

4X says

@Mistrial @Elliemae
Can you comprehend the extreme amount of effort/resiliency it takes the poor to leave their circumstances behind?

That doesn't make it a good idea for them to be working themselves to death chasing real estate riches. The only real estate investment that anyone should do is when they want to be a landlord.

I'd much rather see the government money going to student loans. A college degree would do that girl more good than a home ever will.

4X:

Its "Misstrial" as in Miss and trial. Trial as in Court.

Thanks.

btw, by becoming a slumlord, she will simply pass off her "circumstances" (your term) onto some other vulnerable renter.

Have you ever met a slumlord? I have. Quite a few, actually. Ever heard of the saying: "Water seeks its own level"???

Now just apply that to this 20-year old.

I am not "proud of her accomplishments" (your term). More likely than not, her father arrived here illegally and she is an anchor. They came to the USA seeking to cash in on the casino enviro and with your accolades, they got it - flat screens and all.

~Misstrial

4X:

Wanted to add that I know a married couple that live in the zip you desire. They actually live in one of the canyons near the Mt. Wilson trail park...

....and not to criticize, but to expect to pay $200k for a 3/2 is not presently realistic in that zip - if there are any good deals they would be out there *now* with mud slide season upon us due to the horrific fires that have taken place in that area over the past year.

Anyway, you are competing with buyers who work at the JPL, CalTech, the LA Times (management office nearby off the 210), and Occidental college to name a few.

May want to expand your list to include Arcadia (I know its on the other side of the 210, but its nice and so is San Marino), La Canada Flintridge, Alta Dena, La Crescenta, or Montrose, especially down by Descanso Gardens. Eagle Rock is even more affordable for your price point. I was in Alta Dena, La Crescenta and Pasadena last week during rush hour and the commute is no where near as rough as it used to be prior to the downturn.

~Misstrial

The whole % of income to predetermine a loan incorporates much of what you're saying Bubble Boy. The government, banks and others can't easily figure out what skills a person might have in terms of money management. Not to mention it's pretty hard to figure out how a person will handle a "bad" situation, and whether they know how to dig themselves out or just keep going until they're so deep they can't get out.

The % idea leaves you with certain amount of left over income that you are responsible for. The % was probably not just randomly choosen, but probably included many years worth of data, which likely included who failed and who succeeded in payments, based on how much of their income was used. A certain % would be set aside for the mortgage, another for taxes, another for basic necessities, and the left over for luxury items and "unknowns".

I am betting that those numbers no longer work based on the sheer number of "monthly" commitments we now make. Over the last decade or so, we've been pushed contracts and monthly payments for almost everything. Everything now seems to want a small monthly payment, vs a single payment. Which means that our luxury/unknown portion has now changed to a strict luxury item, leaving people with 0% left over for unknowns.

People might have wanted that new tv years ago, but had to pay for the new fridge/washing machine/roof instead. Today that money is parceled up and already committed to some provider for some service. Freeing up extra income for 1-2 months to pay off that unknown item isn't as easy as it used to be, because more of our income always seems to end up locked in contracts.

Interesting thoughts pkennedy, unbelievably one I failed to think about before now. I have no car payment, no loan payments outside my mortgage and student loan, but yet I am overwhelmed every month by the sheer amount of commitments I have. I try so hard to simplify and reduce payments, but between phone, garbage, electricity, a dozen insurance premiums, property taxes....it's just an endless stream of bills that becomes overwhelming. When and how did it get to this place?

Rent at 1 (one) percent of your gross annual income and that will improve things. Not sure what to say to mortgage holders except to not get into any more debt than you presently have. Sorry.

If you rent at 1 percent of your *gross* that will work out to 25 percent of your take home each month - meaning that you should be able to pay your monthly rent OUT OF ONE PAYCHECK ONLY with a few dollars to spare.

This practice will enable you to be able to pay utilities and other modest obligations plus save.

~Misstrial

I’d much rather see the government money going to student loans. A college degree would do that girl more good than a home ever will.

Come on. This would be true if an overpriced college degree was some kind of magic solution to the distemper of mediocrity and poor decision making. It is not. Let's face it, people in general -- irrespective of their education -- lack the basic smarts or discipline required to understand the fundamentals of sound decision making or maximization of utility. What we are seeing here with this gal is a social phenomena. It's called easy money, or smash 'n' grab, and it's all American.

Misstrial says

If you rent at 1 percent of your *gross* that will work out to 25 percent of your take home each month - meaning that you should be able to pay your monthly rent OUT OF ONE PAYCHECK ONLY with a few dollars to spare.

Your math is strange. If I'm grossing $10k a month I should only spend $100 on rent? And that somehow equals 25% of my take home pay?

Austinhousingbubble says

Come on. This would be true if an overpriced college degree was some kind of magic solution to the distemper of mediocrity and poor decision making. It is not. Let’s face it, people in general — irrespective of their education — lack the basic smarts or discipline required to understand the fundamentals of sound decision making or maximization of utility. What we are seeing here with this gal is a social phenomena. It’s called easy money, or smash ‘n’ grab, and it’s all American.

The average college graduate makes more than twice as much money as the average high school graduate, plain and simple. Yes, a college education would do her more good than a subsidized house loan.

The average college graduate makes more than twice as much money as the average high school graduate, plain and simple. Yes, a college education would do her more good than a subsidized house loan.

It depends on the type of degree/field of study, to be fair -- and depending on a person's interests/aptitude, a college degree is often extraneous. The reality is that I know several people who took vocational courses who easily outpace my graduate friends struggling with college loan debt.

Anyway, the original point remains: a college degree is not a panacea. It will neither change the psychology or the popular mindset that inform and hold sway over plain old rotten decision making. If your point is that higher education is probably a better investment than a crack shack in Oakland, I agree, but I don't think taking money out of Uncle Sam's shirt pocket as opposed to his vest pocket makes me feel any better about subsidizing the ambition of fools.

Kevin:

Please reread my post: its one percent of your gross annual income.

Example: we make $198k/yr. We rent at $1700/mo which is actually under one percent gross annual.

Thanks.

~Misstrial

4X says

So how do you propose the poor improve their lot in life?…mopping floors at McDonalds wont work. College, Skill building activities will take her into the next 10 years. Be proud of her accomplishments, if it were your child I am sure you wouldnt want to see these sorts of comments posted. I agree that the timing of these purchases were right, however, we must applaud the capitalistic spirit being shown…even if it is on our dime.

4X says

@Mistrial @Elliemae
Can you comprehend the extreme amount of effort/resiliency it takes the poor to leave their circumstances behind?

Can I comprehend the effort? Buddy, I've lived the effort. I applaud her wanting to improve herself, but I doubt that taking on huge amounts of debt and working three jobs is the way to do it - especially if that's the only way she'll be able to continue paying for the place for 30 years. The capitalistic spirit on my dime concept is hard to swallow at this point - because I don't think that setting someone up to fail by loaning them a couple of hundred thousand dollars is the way to untold wealth.

If she works three jobs, she should work them a couple of years, save a 20% downpayment toward a home, and see if she can continue at that pace for 30 years before she takes our money. People should buy homes that they can afford.

A college degree worked for me because I had a chosen field of work that requires a diploma and a license. By the way, I'd like to send a shout-out to ya'll that contributed to my education, for without it I would have been a welfare recipient. College isn't for everyone, and there are a helluva lot of college grads looking for work as we speak. But 4x's comment about "mopping the floors at McDonald's" negates the possibility that the floor mopper will someday become Manager. Ya gotta start somewhere.

Again - I applaud the spirit of the person who is trying to get rich by buying a house for $155k and a 2nd of $28k; she now believes that she has an asset of $255k while she's paying 54% of her income (article doesn't specify gross or net) toward her house payment. But 2005 is calling, it wants its optimism back.

elliemae posted:

Can I comprehend the effort? Buddy, I’ve lived the effort. I applaud her wanting to improve herself, but I doubt that taking on huge amounts of debt and working three jobs is the way to do it - especially if that’s the only way she’ll be able to continue paying for the place for 30 years. The capitalistic spirit on my dime concept is hard to swallow at this point - because I don’t think that setting someone up to fail by loaning them a couple of hundred thousand dollars is the way to untold wealth.
If she works three jobs, she should work them a couple of years, save a 20% downpayment toward a home, and see if she can continue at that pace for 30 years before she takes our money. People should buy homes that they can afford.
A college degree worked for me because I had a chosen field of work that requires a diploma and a license. By the way, I’d like to send a shout-out to ya’ll that contributed to my education, for without it I would have been a welfare recipient. College isn’t for everyone, and there are a helluva lot of college grads looking for work as we speak. But 4x’s comment about “mopping the floors at McDonald’s” negates the possibility that the floor mopper will someday become Manager. Ya gotta start somewhere.
Again - I applaud the spirit of the person who is trying to get rich by buying a house for $155k and a 2nd of $28k; she now believes that she has an asset of $255k while she’s paying 54% of her income (article doesn’t specify gross or net) toward her house payment. But 2005 is calling, it wants its optimism back.

*APPLAUSE*

~Misstrial

double post, sorry....

~Misstrial

The point is, she is working 3 jobs and has invested in this house. She can maintain the house and has several options to survive if the need arises. In fact, by having 3 jobs she is in a better position than most. She could probably lose 1-2 jobs and still somehow make ends meet, albeit it would be pretty hard. She obviously feels good the house is "worth" 250K now, which is always a nice feeling eve if it isn't true, it doesn't hurt her or anyone else.

The story doesn't appear to cover what she plans on doing now, which is the key point. She might be heading towards a career as a LL. That is a career choice and if done correctly won't add to the current problems. If she wants to flip houses, that is a career choice. If her plan is to hold onto "any" house for a year and sell it for 50% more, she's missed out on that opportunity, and everyone flaming her is just in doing that. If that isn't her plan, then she's potentially on the right path and we shouldn't be flaming her for adding to the problems.

Realistically, she can rent out a couple of bedrooms now and make ends meet pretty easily. Renting 2 rooms for even $500 a piece would greatly reduce the amount she needs to work.

I don't believe she states how much she is working either, or the division in income. If it's 3 burger flipping jobs, that is going to be a painful life. If it's a primary job, with two side jobs just to add a little extra income, like selling hot dogs at a major sporting event once a week, her "three jobs" claim isn't really that bad. The shift style jobs would be horrendous.

It gets worse - we forgot about the $8,000 tax credit. We actually paid this young woman to buy a home that she can't afford. We're all fucked.

She works one full-time job and two part-time jobs - and makes $2470/mo. I don't think she can lose any job and still make ends meet.

Do you know what other expenses she has in her life?

Maybe she doesn't have the iphone $100/month plan, the $150 cable/internet combination and maybe she doesn't have a $500/month car payment. Maybe she bikes to work, and cooks her own food. We have no idea how close she is to her limit, and whether she will fold when put under duress, or if she'll make the necessary changes to make things work out.

You simply don't know, but you're sure you can blame her for your problems. Nice.

pkennedy says

You simply don’t know, but you’re sure you can blame her for your problems. Nice.

I don't blame her for my problems. I believe that she has made a poor choice, one that has been proven to be a poor choice over the past few years. She paid no money down (closing costs around $5,000, and will receive the $8,000 tax credit) and is now a homeowner. She owes 30 years, 183k total at 5.1%, payment of $1328.

According to the supplimental article posted in today's patrick links:
"Denise works three jobs so she can afford her new house. She makes $2470 a month but pays $1328 to service her mortgage. That means 54% of her income goes to the house, leaving her with $285 a week to live on. Doable, but tight. She’s breaking the 30% rule and then some, not to mention she’s still spending out of pocket to renovate the yard, fix the roof and paint." The house was a "box" with no kitchen or bathroom when she bought it.

No, I don't know what other expenses she has, other than those necessary to finish her home (unfinished in the video attached to the story). But it's thinking like this that created the bubble/bust - and $1,000 left over after she pays her house payment doesn't take into account rising utilities, cost of living, etc. I certainly hope she doesn't have a $500 car payment - food would be optional at that point. I am curious - exactly what changes would she make to work things out? Get another job?

We do know how close she is to her limit - one job loss and she's done for. There's no other logical conclusion.

What changes? I don't know what bills she has, but potentially she could dump cable altogether. Never eat out. Drop a car if she had one. Lots of things she could do, really it comes down to would she be willing to do them to make it all work? It's hard to say. Many people simply don't react fast enough to handle these situations. They figure they'll find another 6 figure job and cover the few missed months of mortgages and so the vacation they've been planning is still doable even without their job. Those are people who end up in real trouble, real fast.

Based on the fact that it's a 3 bedroom, and it's been updated, she could easily rent out 2 rooms. 2 rooms at $500 would give her $1000. That leaves her with $328 to cover, that is doable. Say she gets into real trouble, she moves in with her brother/parents/friends and rents out 3 rooms, each for $400 instead, that is $1200, or simply rents the whole house out for X dollars. Not perfect, but obviously a good chunk of her mortgage would be covered at that point. She has many ways out here.

The key here is that her parents are the ones who instilled the values in her, and her parents most likely still have their home, even during this down turn. She is trying to "beat" her brother to owning a home before the age of 21. If her family had a bunch of foreclosures in it's past, she likely wouldn't be so gung ho to jump in. Family and friends would have stopped her or demoralized her.

Yes her father said we have *ALL* this due to the house, which is the only thing that I say is pretty negative in that interview. I view this with some skepticism. It does sound like house=atm machine, but many families view owning a house as the best financial decision they could make. For someone without a 401K plan, or a stock account, owning a house *is* probably the easiest and best investments they could make. Even if the house tanks, as long as they can pay the mortgage, they will have a place to live. If a stock goes to $0, or a 401K is depleted, there is no way to pay next months rent if that is one of your only sources of income.

I have no idea what her personality is like, but it doesn't seem impossible to stay afloat.

Why wouldn't she think a home is a magical investment tool? Houses have been going up since she was 10. See... here's the problem. Really young ppl don't know about down... they only know up.
Agent told me yesterday, "You want to get into this property asap as things look like their going back up"
I was going to ask him... "Back up to what?" But I'm too worn out.
"Sure, sounds great.. *click*"

pkennedy says

We have no idea how close she is to her limit, and whether she will fold when put under duress, or if she’ll make the necessary changes to make things work out.

My point - and I do have one - is that you shouldn't buy a home and immediately have to make changes to make things work. We don't know that she'll have to make any changes - maybe she doesn't have teevee because she doesn't have time to watch, seeing as how she has one full time (40 hour) job and two part time jobs. Maybe she doesn't have time to eat either.

pkennedy says

She has many ways out here.

She shouldn't need a way "out." She just got "in."

I repeat: elliemae says

2005 is calling, it wants its optimism back.

pkennedy says

Based on the fact that it’s a 3 bedroom, and it’s been updated, she could easily rent out 2 rooms. 2 rooms at $500 would give her $1000. That leaves her with $328 to cover, that is doable. Say she gets into real trouble, she moves in with her brother/parents/friends and rents out 3 rooms, each for $400 instead, that is $1200, or simply rents the whole house out for X dollars. Not perfect, but obviously a good chunk of her mortgage would be covered at that point. She has many ways out here.

Not sure that finding suitable renters will be easy in her neighborhood.

As someone who has done Landlord/Tenant law for low-income areas, I can tell you that quite possibly its going to be more difficult than you think for her to find renters *to live with her* who lack criminal histories.

Another obstacle is going to be the creditworthiness of prospective renters or finding renters who lack a civil court history involving unpaid liens, nonpayment of loans, or breach of contract for one reason or another among others.

The world of the lower classes is a sad one, filled with one struggle or another. Domestic violence, neighborhood violence, landlord/housing problems, run-ins with State and/or Federal bureaucracies - particularly the Motor Vehicle Dept, Probation, and/or Child Protective Services Dept, lack of child support, lawsuits by credit bureaus, lack of a car or working transportation, unsafe public transportation that may not operate the during the same time frame as her work schedules - its a rough, tough world out there for them.

The sort of jobs she may have (service jobs, I imagine) may less stable than you may think in this present economy where layoffs in all industries, particularly service industries, are occurring frequently.

I would feel alot better about this transaction if she were not operating on the margin.
You know, done the 20 percent down thing, her mortgage payments based upon having one job and not three.

I think all of us would be happy for her choice were it made under different circumstances.

~Misstrial

@Misstrial

Wanted to add that I know a married couple that live in the zip you desire. They actually live in one of the canyons near the Mt. Wilson trail park…

….and not to criticize, but to expect to pay $200k for a 3/2 is not presently realistic in that zip - if there are any good deals they would be out there *now* with mud slide season upon us due to the horrific fires that have taken place in that area over the past year. Anyway, you are competing with buyers who work at the JPL, CalTech, the LA Times (management office nearby off the 210), and Occidental college to name a few. May want to expand your list to include Arcadia (I know its on the other side of the 210, but its nice and so is San Marino), La Canada Flintridge, Alta Dena, La Crescenta, or Montrose, especially down by Descanso Gardens. Eagle Rock is even more affordable for your price point. I was in Alta Dena, La Crescenta and Pasadena last week during rush hour and the commute is no where near as rough as it used to be prior to the downturn.

Yep, I work at a fortune 50 company myself and can afford to spend 3/4 my salary but it doesnt make good business sense. We are waiting for these areas to fall. Hopefully Owebama will get the point and stop endorsing 8K tax credits, policies aimed keeping owners in their home, and bank bailouts so the momentum will swing my way. Its not our fault these people made poor decisions to buy at the peak with an ARM mortgage, the homes need to come back down to where wages match the price points.. The places next door to me sold for 899k and are now worth 600k, so now these owners have a 300k debt on their hands should they foreclose. The other areas you mentioned have too lower economic of a mix for my liking. Generally, when people make less than 100k they tend to be lower-middle class and along with that stigma comes gangs, no pride in ownership and a bunch of non-sense I dont want to be around. You can tell by the iron bars on the windows in Altadena, West Pasadena, Arcadia south of the 210, Azusa south of the 210 they all incorporate a lower-middle class type mentality that i dont want my children around. Dont worry, just because the wealthy can afford to continue to buy during depressed markets doesnt mean their home prices are not falling. Some of these people are simply selling mom/dads home to upgrade.

The surrounding areas where we are willing to buy are avg priced at around 550K right now....now just how many of the people buying in my area really can afford to dish out 4,500/mo on a cottage is surprising to me?

@Misstrial

btw, by becoming a slumlord, she will simply pass off her “circumstances” (your term) onto some other vulnerable renter. Have you ever met a slumlord? I have. Quite a few, actually. Ever heard of the saying: “Water seeks its own level”??? Now just apply that to this 20-year old. I am not “proud of her accomplishments” (your term). More likely than not, her father arrived here illegally and she is an anchor. They came to the USA seeking to cash in on the casino enviro and with your accolades, they got it - flat screens and all.

...and you can tell all this by looking at the color of her skin?...we should not speculate or assume her background to be that of an illegal immigrant, many might take your comments and assume you are race biased. If she is illegal, then I agree that a better course may have been taken. However, I would still be proud of her accomplishments...and even more so had it not been on my dime. Now, your right...she will be a slum lord as she doesnt have the cash flow to maintain the property. Partly why I refuse to live in Altadena, West Pasadena areas. No pride in ownership.

@Elliemae

“Denise works three jobs so she can afford her new house. She makes $2470 a month but pays $1328 to service her mortgage. That means 54% of her income goes to the house, leaving her with $285 a week to live on. Doable, but tight. She’s breaking the 30% rule and then some, not to mention she’s still spending out of pocket to renovate the yard, fix the roof and paint.” The house was a “box” with no kitchen or bathroom when she bought it.

Thats not saying much, I work one job and have $50 left over per paycheck on a 100K+ salary, work 25 hours per week. Ok well, let me not fib too much as my wife works and pays only a few bills so our cushion is far better...I just aint tellin'. In comparison to her, I have car notes, day care x 2, student loans x 2, credit card debt x 2, Cable TV, Internet, Cell Phone...it all adds up to soak up a lot of money. With 285 per week left over, it sounds like she has a 1k per month extra cushion and if she should not have any student loans, car loans or credit card debt she may not be so bad off. But, you are right....if she loses one job then our money wasnt well spent. If I lose my job, then I am off to the executive recruiter while my wife and 9 mos emergency savings kicks in...dont need the unemployment like she would while searching for her next gig at who knows where.

Education is important, it opens a lot of doors...Your thoughts?

Generally, when people make less than 100k they tend to be lower-middle class and along with that stigma comes gangs, no pride in ownership and a bunch of non-sense I dont want to be around.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of dubious types who easily make 100K and well over, so this is a very poor determinant of class. Strippers, pimps, dealers, pornographers, scam artists, traffickers, drug reps, real estate agents and other lowlifes with luck on their side. On the flip side, you have the waitress with the BFA or the furloughed Librarian or the public school teacher.

There are no safe havens at any price.

@AustginHousingBubble

Unfortunately, there are plenty of dubious types who easily make 100K and well over, so this is a very poor determinant of class. Strippers, pimps, dealers, pornographers, scam artists, traffickers, drug reps, real estate agents and other lowlifes with luck on their side. On the flip side, you have the waitress with the BFA or the furloughed Librarian or the public school teacher. There are no safe havens at any price.

Sorry, I was referring to the pride in ownership of the neighborhood and attitudes of the people. Not many of the types you refer too are buying in the neighborhoods i listed. I just wouldnt want to live next door to people who dont have the funds available to fix their home nor the drive to raise their kids properly. Those types live in Sylmar, not East Pasadena, Hastings Ranch areas.

Sorry, I was referring to the pride in ownership of the neighborhood and attitudes of the people. Not many of the types you refer too are buying in the neighborhoods i listed.

Are you so certain? Have you had a thorough look under the rug in those neighborhoods? Not to be contrarian, but if you're going by the rationale that water seeks its own level, prepare to be disabused. Fact is, by hook or by crook, everybody wants to live in the tony neighborhoods, including the bad guys.

I just wouldnt want to live next door to people who dont have the funds available to fix their home nor the drive to raise their kids properly. Those types live in Sylmar, not East Pasadena, Hastings Ranch areas.

I think the idea of pride-in-ownership has been largely diminished by the mindset of the current market. The "you can always walk away" mentality has become the new byline for prospective buyers of all demographics, and that kind of halfheartedness doesn't really parlay into a rich community spirit. What's more, I suspect that all the free money from the government might have the same effect as when daddy buys junior his first car, and junior drives it into the ground,

Austinhousingbubble says

The “you can always walk away” mentality has become the new byline for prospective buyers of all demographics,

I agree, just look at the rise in numbers of foreclosures of prime mortgages. The media blames these prime foreclosures on job losses, But for what percentage? They don't say or know. If someone did decide to walk away, Why not tell the people that you are getting foreclosed on because of a "loss of income"? That way you don't have to deal with people who think there is some kind of moral obligation in a real estate contract.

4X says

it sounds like she has a 1k per month extra cushion and if she should not have any student loans, car loans or credit card debt she may not be so bad off. But, you are right….if she loses one job then our money wasnt well spent.

I'm not seeing $1k extra cushion - I see food, utilities, transportation of whatever type, at least finishing home improvements, home furnishings, clothing, etc. That's not a whole lot for California.

BTW, I make less than $100k. Much, much less. It's the curse of my chosen profession - but enough for me to live on and then some - and I don't belong to a gang. I realize we're talking Calif vs rural America, but even in Calif I wouldn't make $100k.

just sayin'

4X says

@Misstrial

btw, by becoming a slumlord, she will simply pass off her “circumstances” (your term) onto some other vulnerable renter. Have you ever met a slumlord? I have. Quite a few, actually. Ever heard of the saying: “Water seeks its own level”??? Now just apply that to this 20-year old. I am not “proud of her accomplishments” (your term). More likely than not, her father arrived here illegally and she is an anchor. They came to the USA seeking to cash in on the casino enviro and with your accolades, they got it - flat screens and all.

…and you can tell all this by looking at the color of her skin?…we should not speculate or assume her background to be that of an illegal immigrant, many might take your comments and assume you are race biased. If she is illegal, then I agree that a better course may have been taken. However, I would still be proud of her accomplishments…and even more so had it not been on my dime. Now, your right…she will be a slum lord as she doesnt have the cash flow to maintain the property. Partly why I refuse to live in Altadena, West Pasadena areas. No pride in ownership.

LOL, my spouse is 100 percent hispanic. You accused the wrong person.

Please be more careful when throwing around accusations of "racist."

Anyway, in the article referenced, it reports that she and her immediate family immigrated here from Guatamala.

The minimum costs to legally immigrate to the U.S. (law office paperwork with Immigration & Naturalization) is $15k. Per person.

So, you're going to tell me that based upon the facts presented in this article that she and her father came here legally? They're taking out "funny money" loans and financing their lifestyles on credit and HELOCS - its all fake wealth.

Just so that you know, from someone like myself who has actually lived in Mexico, Mexicans are killing Guatamalans and other Central Americans seeking to pass through Mexico to come to the US. Attacking them and killing them with machetes, actually. Within the past 2 years, Mexican authorities have set up buses to simply bus these people through their country to the US border where a coyote can smuggle them through.

And, the article states she is a "first generation" American. For her, whose family MOST LIKELY arrived illegally, she is an anchor.

So, Mexico knows how to guard its border (unlike US).

And my previous posting still stands.

~Misstrial

Austinhousingbubble says

Generally, when people make less than 100k they tend to be lower-middle class and along with that stigma comes gangs, no pride in ownership and a bunch of non-sense I dont want to be around.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of dubious types who easily make 100K and well over, so this is a very poor determinant of class. Strippers, pimps, dealers, pornographers, scam artists, traffickers, drug reps, real estate agents and other lowlifes with luck on their side. On the flip side, you have the waitress with the BFA or the furloughed Librarian or the public school teacher.
There are no safe havens at any price.

This is very true.

Real Life Example:

M.D. and spouse live in Mt. Olympus near Los Feliz area in Los Angeles. They live in a 1920's mansion. As Austinhb has posted, everyone wants to live large and who moves in to this tony neighborhood: drug dealers.

That's right, drug dealers. Complete with gunfights.

~Misstrial

Lots of people enter the country legally. They pay the $15K or more and do it. Lots don't.

Being illegal doesn't really mean she can't afford the loan. Having backup plans is great, and she has a lot of ways out if her jobs start dwindling away. She doesn't have a family to support right now, she has spare rooms, she has 3 jobs vs 1, granted they could be unstable, but with her work ethic she's probably going to be able pick up another pretty quickly doing "something". She might be talking about the riches, but it doesn't mean she's going to try and cash out now and collect on those riches. It just means she feels good about what she's done.

As for renting and finding good tenants. I'm guessing she would use friends and/or others she knew, rather than just posting ads and trying to get people in there. That is just a guess. She is pretty young, and probably has a large pool of people she knows that she could tap. If she has to dig through low income people with histories, I agree, it could end poorly.

If she had said anything along the lines of "I'm going to sell and................." I wouldn't be here. But jumping all over someone with speculations as to their ability to manage money with no sense of how she does it, is really stereo typing her.

I agree with ellie-- Calling anyone making less than $100K lower middle class is not realistic. Maybe in California, but CA is almost a different country than the rest of the US. In the vast majority of the country, making $100K would put you comfortably in the upper middle class.

Tatupu70,

The reality is that anyone making even $100K as my family is, is unfortunately lower middle class in CA. The costs to live here exceed the benefit. The only reason we stay is that this is where we were raised and we enjoy the weather and visiting some of the attractions. It is really hard to live here and see that we are now lower middle class, when we were once solidly middle class. The housing boom increased some peoples incomes so much that it drove up the cost of everything else.