patrick.net

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.

jessica says

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.

I think what you mean is child support is more than just financial, which I agree. It doesn't require a couple either. In fact after divorce obviously there is no couple. So no "goal as a couple" involved.

Heraclitusstudent says

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.

There may be religious reasons why a woman may not be able to have an abortion. In fact, the biological urge for a woman to keep her fetus might be as strong as the biological urge for a man to have sex. The action may not be rational or up to reason at all.

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

Supporting the next generation has a cost (beyond schools) and there is no reason some totally escape this cost.

Reality says

There may be religious reasons why a woman may not be able to have an abortion. In fact, the biological urge for a woman to keep her fetus might be as strong as the biological urge for a man to have sex. The action may not be rational or up to reason at all.

If she has a religious reason to not have abortion, she should not have sex either or accept the consequences.

The same is true for the man: if he wants to avoid the abortion, he may be forced to accept to pay support.

Reality says

The guy should not be able 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.

Women know how to use birth control, it is readily available and it is free. I think we've made a lot of great strides in its accessibility and removing stigma from single mother and certainly from the bastard children days!

Heraclitusstudent says

It doesn't require a couple either. In fact after divorce obviously there is no couple. So no "goal as a couple" involved.

Yea, I guess I meant more of if you went into it as a couple with the intention of remaining a couple but ended up separating. You would have had agreements with each other that extend beyond child support.

everything says

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.

And do what when you retire? Die a lonely old man with no family. Only your retirement money to keep you warm at night. Then off to a state home as you wait to die. You are not living life to the fullest without family. Children make the world new again. Most things you have probably seen in your life time. Not much to get excited about at your age. But when you have a child, that child becomes your world. You no longer see the world through your eyes, but instead through your child's eyes. The whole world becomes new again. All of your hopes and dreams transfer to that child. They are the greatest gift to man. There is no greater love than that for a child. In regards to the person you are dating. Is it possible that she is not concerned about profitability, but feels you two have bonded and genuinely wants to spend the rest of her life with you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

You ARE kidding right?

Heraclitusstudent says

Supporting the next generation has a cost (beyond schools) and there is no reason some totally escape this cost.

Oh don't worry, they won't. What do you think happens to the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs?

Even if the possessions go to other family members it always stays behind.

New Renter says

What do you think happens to the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs?

No not really kidding. Why would other parents pay for single mothers welfare in addition to supporting their own kids? The one that should pay for this cost are childless people above 30.

As to "the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs", assuming they exist, an heir is not necessarily a child. It could be a sibling.

Carolyn C says

And do what when you retire? Die a lonely old man with no family. Only your retirement money to keep you warm at night. Then off to a state home as you wait to die. You are not living life to the fullest without family. Children make the world new again. Most things you have probably seen in your life time. Not much to get excited about at your age. But when you have a child, that child becomes your world. You no longer see the world through your eyes, but instead through your child's eyes. The whole world becomes new again. All of your hopes and dreams transfer to that child. They are the greatest gift to man. There is no greater love than that for a child. In regards to the person you are dating. Is it possible that she is not concerned about profitability, but feels you two have bonded and genuinely wants to spend the rest of her life with you?

Carolyn

That's a nice sentiment but as we all know having children is NOT for everyone. We also have 7+ BILLION people on this planet and will hit 10B by 2062. The world does NOT need more children. It can't even handle the ones it already has. Foster or adopt instead.

If a human child is too much of a commitment foster or adopt a pet. You can get a lot of satisfaction from a non-human companion as well.

This is bullish.
This will heal the economy fast.

Heraclitusstudent says

New Renter says

What do you think happens to the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs?

No not really kidding. Why would other parents pay for single mothers welfare in addition to supporting their own kids? The one that should pay for this cost are childless people above 30.

Why SHOULD childless people above the age of 30 pay for people who have children without the means to support them?

Heraclitusstudent says

As to "the worldly possessions of someone who dies with no heirs", assuming they exist, an heir is not necessarily a child. It could be a sibling.

So what - that sibling may have children who will benefit from the deceased childless person. If not then the possessions will be passed along until they are used up supporting the economy or they end up in the state coffers which is in essence a 100% tax on childless people.

New Renter says

No not really kidding. Why would other parents pay for single mothers welfare in addition to supporting their own kids? The one that should pay for this cost are childless people above 30.

Why SHOULD childless people above the age of 30 pay for people who have children without the means to support them?

Because someone needs to have some kids, and one person is not enough to support a kid. Therefore someone should pay. It's a charge at the community level. That's fairer than all other solutions.

You can always adopt or have your own child if you want and get exemption.

Reality says

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.

Following that philosophy, a woman should not be allowed to have a child she cannot support. If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

That will prevent childhood poverty and ensure that the tax payers don't have to bear the burden of raising the children of irresponsible parents. However, it also has the consequence of changing reproduction from being a right to being a privilege. Are you willing to accept that trade-off?

Dan8267 says

If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

And include an IQ test too.
And people who don't pass must leave some body parts at the exit.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

force the taxpayers to pay for raising his child

On this point, I would simply have childless people above 30 pay a special tax and give the proceeds to single parents.

Supporting the next generation has a cost (beyond schools) and there is no reason some totally escape this cost.

I would have the parents, single or not, pay a special tax and give the proceeds to the childless over 30. That is far more socially just.

The childless pay all sorts of taxes, including real estate taxes, that go to services they don't use. To add more insult and injury, the childless pay more not less in income taxes even though they use far fewer resources.

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess. The state wanted only parents with their children to use the park -- a total violation of the 14th Amendment -- and considered any chess-playing single man to be a pedophile -- don't even get me started on that.

Finally, we live in a world where we cannot even support the number of people on the planet already. Every additional person adds ecological, economic, and political strain on the world and may lead to a mass death event. A third of the world's population doesn't even have adequate safe drinking water. Even America cannot support its population at the current level of technology and so we are borrowing from the future both in terms of dollars and in terms of ecological resources.

If anything, we should structure our tax code to severely discourage reproduction, particularly after two children. And we should reward the single. The single and childless produce more advancements in science and technology by far than the married or parents. These advancements are exactly what we need to support the soon-to-be 10.1 billion people on the planet without destroying the world's ecosystem.

And quite frankly, the childless guy spending massive amounts of time working in a STEM career is way the fuck more important to accomplishing this goal and avoiding a mass death event than you typical parent is. That's the cold hard truth. So I find no social or ethical justification for punishing and exploiting people for being childless.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

If we go down that road, the logical conclusion is that anyone who wants to have a child must meet a fiscal requirement by purchasing "child poverty" insurance. Anyone who cannot make the payment, cannot have a child.

And include an IQ test too.

And people who don't pass must leave some body parts at the exit.

The good news is that most politicians won't pass. The bad news is that the politicians will rig the test and write exceptions into the law just like they do with TSA security. The wealthy and connected don't have to go through rape scanners and get molested because they are on a "privilege list" of "ok people" that you will never be able to get on. They would do the same thing for an IQ requirement for reproduction.

Dan8267 says

In our disgusting legal system, the state arrested and prosecuted single and childless men for using a public park -- for which they paid through their tax dollars -- to play chess.

Are you sure they weren't card carrying members of NAMBLA?

Lets see a link!