patrick.net

I have avoided this thread because practically everything stated here are generalizations of stupid things PEOPLE do. They are not the realm of female only or male only. Both sexes have people that can be selfish, stupid, self-centered, immoral, etc, etc. I don't know any of the type of women you are talking about. None of them are my friends. In fact, most women I know are valuable assets to their family and husband or are single women. You guys are citing the most extreme examples of bad behavior and applying it to all women in a hysterical manner. There is no logic in it. I think these strange comments reflect more about the one making the comments than anything else.

You can try a fiscal one, but I wouldn't recommend an economic pissing match.

American Woman Hollywood:

American Woman Reality:

At least they're upfront about who pulls their strings.

i heart california

MsBennet says

I have avoided this thread because practically everything stated here are generalizations of stupid things PEOPLE do. They are not the realm of female only or male only. Both sexes have people that can be selfish, stupid, self-centered, immoral, etc, etc. I don't know any of the type of women you are talking about. None of them are my friends. In fact, most women I know are valuable assets to their family and husband or are single women. You guys are citing the most extreme examples of bad behavior and applying it to all women in a hysterical manner. There is no logic in it. I think these strange comments reflect more about the one making the comments than anything else.

Yes people are people. But the laws need to change. Women are equal-agree-so act like an equal and remove the crutches of alimony. A wife married to a drunk unemployed abusive man contributes far more into the family-but gets nothing in a divorce and may even have to pay.

A wife who goes shopping all day, has servants and flies around in jets may get a billion or more-for what? If marraige ends-time to find your own way-if you fall, welcome to the world of men.

Childcare -half of basic expenses, with an equal say for the man. Change that and no one will be talking about generalities. The law now favors women ironically under the guise of equality-brilliant on the feminists part. I mean palimony???

bgamall4 says

And he is a near genius.

If he is so smart he should be able to come up with enough of his own money for investments.

Every movement is ran by someone with money. Average folk can't afford those kinds of adventures. It's fine.

The Cast of Saturday night live and a couple of political hacks over at comedy central gets a comedian elected as the president of the free world. And you guys didn't see the problem.

I don't see the problem with people understand business and world political policy host a republican luau.

It's not like Civics is taught in school and the young minds these bastards corrupt have a clue who they are even voting for.
Those with the best "Production" wins.

The kids are clueless as to what's under the hood anyway.

All's good may the best casting director win.

I didn't know that SNL & Comedy Central backed G.W.Bush. They could have simply put him in the cast.

Take Katie Kouric, SNL, and Comedy Central out of the picture, and there would be no President Obama.

But I think the kids have learned their lesson. You don't eat Sushi from a gas station and you take political advice from a Comedy TV show.

Hilbillary Clingon is going to have a hell of time selling her self to this generation. After we just spent the last 8 years convincing the Youth that all of their problems is because of the Old people.

This Hillary might have won,

but not this one

MsBennet says

I have avoided this thread because practically everything stated here are generalizations of stupid things PEOPLE do. They are not the realm of female only or male only. Both sexes have people that can be selfish, stupid, self-centered, immoral, etc, etc. I don't know any of the type of women you are talking about. None of them are my friends. In fact, most women I know are valuable assets to their family and husband or are single women. You guys are citing the most extreme examples of bad behavior and applying it to all women in a hysterical manner. There is no logic in it. I think these strange comments reflect more about the one making the comments than anything else.

Exactly. The point in the original post was that the law was also designed to protect women from the least common denominator in men, but punishes all men good or bad with the same severity.

epitaph says

the law was also designed to protect women from the least common denominator in men, but punishes all men good or bad with the same severity.

This is why I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance, such as mandatory minimum sentencing laws which take all discretionary power out of the hands of judges, or mandatory suspension for having ibuprofen in school, or the three strikes law.

My hope is that some of the angry males who have witnessed the stupidity of assembly-line justice first hand will reconsider their support for things like three strikes, but I have my doubts. Humans seem to favor one-size-fits-all justice for all demographic groups not including themselves.

To prosecute a financial crime you need a gun.

The Justice(?) Department is colluding with the criminals, and so citizens need to start plinking the criminals.

John Bailo says

2014

Train wreck for house prices.

Bonanza for buyers.

Government will essentially create a New Homestead Act by unleashing torrents of land at budget prices.

All the wrongs must be righted.

At least you are making a prediction. We'll find out by the end of 2014 who was right...

Carolyn C says

Inventory is not increasing if the homes are bought the minute they hit the market.

In our market place houses came, and went off the market in a matter of days, with escalation clauses for pricing.

You may be thinking of Months of Supply, but inventory was getting sold.

SubOink says

We'll find out by the end of 2014 who was right...

Exactly.

David Losh says

SubOink says

We'll find out by the end of 2014 who was right...

Exactly.

but will those that are wrong admit that they were wrong?

as of today, the bears of last few years have been wrong - period! If you bought a house 2009-2011, you can sell that place now for much much more. Why that is, doesn't really matter. The fact is, prices are much higher and are currently trending higher. Maybe it stops, maybe it keeps going. We will see. I am glad I bought when I bought.

Call it Crazy says

So, it only counts as inventory if the houses go unsold???

Yes, that's pretty much the definition. The "inventory" refers to inventory of houses for sale. If a house is sold, it's not counted in the inventory number.

Did you have another definition in your mind??

Removing mandated child support from unmarried men helps well-intentioned women because it forces early and honest conversations. If a man says he wants to keep the baby and wants to raise it with you then he will sign a marriage license. Women still have 100% of the choice.

(talking new births only, not retroactively)

Technically speaking, Carolyn is correct.
Inventory:
a : an itemized list of current assets: as (1) : a catalog of the property of an individual or estate (2) : a list of goods on hand

In your "200 houses" example, you would have to give a specific date/time to determine the actual inventory at any point in time. If you are calculating 'monthly inventory', you would have to subtract houses available minus houses sold for that period.

Call it Crazy says

Carolyn C says

Inventory is only increasing if homes are put on the market and no one is buying. Inventory is not increasing if the homes are bought the minute they hit the market.

Oh God.... another math major....

So, it only counts as inventory if the houses go unsold???

If 50 people put their houses on the market last month and they sold, then this month 200 people put their houses on the market and they sold, since in your world the numbers equalled out, that means that supply didn't rise this month compared to last month??

"Inventory" is what is available at any point in time.
It has nothing to do with what has already been 'sold'.

David Losh says

Carolyn C says

Inventory is not increasing if the homes are bought the minute they hit the market.

In our market place houses came, and went off the market in a matter of days, with escalation clauses for pricing.

You may be thinking of Months of Supply, but inventory was getting sold.

SoftShell says

If you are calculating 'monthly inventory', you would have to subtract houses available minus houses sold for that period.

So, if day 1 of the month there are 200 houses available; then during the last week of the month 200 houses were sold.

Your monthly inventory would be:
200 (Available) - 200 (Sold) = inventory of Zero for the month?

theoakman says

I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on some call options on gdxj. Maybe Monday if I get a chance.

boom goes the dynamite?

jessica says

Removing mandated child support from unmarried men helps well-intentioned women because it forces early and honest conversations. If a man says he wants to keep the baby and wants to raise it with you then he will sign a marriage license. Women still have 100% of the choice.

Actually this is one reason why it may be a good idea. Then if later they divorce the man could have to pay child support and alimony.

A marriage has more consequence than just child support and child support alone should be an option if both agree.

I think the man should simply be free to opt out of child support when he learns of the pregnancy, leaving the woman the choice to have an abortion or raise the baby without support.

Yes.
The word "inventory" is improperly used by the real estate industry to express the 'amount of houses available for sale' during any given month.

In business, 'monthly inventory' is used to express what is left in stock at the end of the month.

Monthly inventory = ( Current Stock + Stock acquired during the month - Stock sold ) .

leo707 says

SoftShell says

If you are calculating 'monthly inventory', you would have to subtract houses available minus houses sold for that period.

So, if day 1 of the month there are 200 houses available; then during the last week of the month 200 houses were sold.

Your monthly inventory would be:

200 (Available) - 200 (Sold) = inventory of Zero for the month?

Heraclitusstudent says

A marriage has more consequence than just child support and child support alone should be an option if both agree.

And raising a child is more than just child support too. Who will stay home with them, how you plan on raising them and how they will affect your goals as a couple are all things that should be discussed. The consequences of divorce usually seek to protect the decisions that were made before shit went south.

If you want to express the amount of houses for sale during any given month, you would say:
"There were 200 houses for sale during the month of XXX".

The Real Estate industry is trying to hijack the meaning of the word "inventory", just like the gay population are in the process of hijacking the meaning of the word 'marriage'.

leo707 says

SoftShell says

If you are calculating 'monthly inventory', you would have to subtract houses available minus houses sold for that period.

So, if day 1 of the month there are 200 houses available; then during the last week of the month 200 houses were sold.

Your monthly inventory would be:

200 (Available) - 200 (Sold) = inventory of Zero for the month?

Because they are lazy bastards and it is easier to say "inventory", versus "There were 200 houses for sale during the month of XXX".

You should not even be using the word.
Invent one, you dumbass.

robertoaribas says

BS. you compare the inventory for sale, on a given day of the month, with the same given day the prior month, or year or whatever you want to compare to.

In one zip I track homes under 140K. Today, there are 13 for sale. Over the past 30 days, 34 sold. So by the theory above, inventory would be -21?

No.
You would say: "Today, there are 13 houses in inventory for sale".
You would then say : "Over the past 30 days, 34 houses sold".

If you wanted to express the monthly inventory, you would calculate:
( Total houses for sale at beginning of month + houses added for sale during month - houses sold during month )

robertoaribas says

In one zip I track homes under 140K. Today, there are 13 for sale. Over the past 30 days, 34 sold. So by the theory above, inventory would be -21?

Prices in Oakland are up 100% . The chart has gone vertical, lol.

A guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

The mandatory child support should not be calculated based on the guy's income, but a fixed amount depending on the regional average cost for raising a child. So laws do not penalize productive people and encourage loser behavior like they do now. The cost of raising a normal healthy child by the mother alone has nothing to do with who provides the sperm. If the guy opts out of or is unable to provide half of the monthly basic cost of raising a child in the area, there ought to be adverse consequences for knocking a girl up, such as mandatory snipping or castration or locking up behind bars, so he is no longer a danger to other girls and taxpayers (unless the girl and her family is willing to pay for his share of the cost of raising the child or at least have an abortion). The guy is welcome to pay more than the mandatory minimum voluntarily; OTOH, if circumstances change much later and causes his ability to pay diminish, that's when adjustment downwards can be considered without penalty. At the time of procreation, both parties ought to be held to a standard that they are able to raise what they procreate. Otherwise, their action would be a crime on the child and the society at large.

There's complete groups and mindsets on some of this material (google MGTOW) and Tom Leykis back in the day.

I'd add that in Mass until a few years ago alimony was FOR LIFE!

Not a few years..not a decade...LIFE!
The vast majority of people believe that this is a good idea when the governor signed it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/28/states-no-longer-wedded-to-idea-of-alimony-for-lif/?page=all

The idea that someone should accept payment for life just doesn't work well and actually hurt future couples from making payments on their own bills meanwhile it encourage those receiving extra funds from doing pretty much anything.

On the inverse it also meant that for quite some time if you met someone divorced in the state that this applied and acted like a huge deterrent because anyone getting divorced knew these terms at the time of filing.

I'd also add that I don't think "the pill" is that far off for guys. Once that is made that's going to really change things.

I think there has been some breaking down of some barriers but it does not always go as far as what we might think. Female truck drivers are rare, male babysitters are rarer.

Sometimes what has happened is frankly the amount of work performed has gone down to the point where identity can be questioned. For example a feminist argument probably held more validity 100+ years ago. But today when most household labor is automatic it is harder. Washers and driers, microwaves, dishwashers, refrigerators..heck Roombas, automatic timers, public education, television and the list goes on and on. Less household work means less incentives to pretty much get married. There was a time when tending land meant having to have a large family or if rich have slaves (that was the primary reason). Technology changed all that. Farming is automatic and cooking is pretty much on that level.

Having said this of course there are complications today. I know of one divorced couple where apparently both of them found someone else that was also going though it. So in effect they had to have about six people agree to custody terms (original spouse, new spouse with exes). Add in some grandparents here and there and she didn't know if she was going to live in Florida, PA or Mass.

It's part of the Liberal doctrine now, the economy is back on track, and we don't need the fucking old people around dragging us down with their SSI needs. They didn't adequately fund it after all.

That Old Hag don't stand a Chinaman's chance in hell.

why do those batillacs always let their hair grow long??

CaptainShuddup says

but not this one

Recent Dow day is Thursday, August 15, 2013

Anchor babies...

Dating & living with one now actually. She's already asked me to marry her, they all do, it's a profitable objective. I'll go back to living alone again after our lease is up. I can live cheaper and retire sooner on my own.

I just could not afford wife, or children.

Reality says

The guy should not be allowed to knock up a girl and then essentially force the girl to have an abortion or force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child, then rinse and repeat.

I'm assuming a guy cannot force a woman to get pregnant, and cannot prevent her from having an abortion.

My post comes in a thread that argues convincingly that woman have choice but a man can be stuck in financial slavery just by having sex, which is not the same as deciding to have a child. The consequence is that there needs to be a choice of men to opt out taking care of a child.