0
0

And Now For Something Completely Different


 invite response                
2006 May 28, 4:17pm   18,796 views  108 comments

by astrid   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Carol Cleveland

And now for something completely different. What? I don't know. Threads always end up going where the posters want them to go.

However, here's something to start off the discussion.

What is the maximum amount you're willing to pay for rent/PITI? This means that if rent/PITI goes above this amount, you would consider moving out/moving home/roommates to decrease your costs.

(warning: this threadmaster may modify or erase sexually explicit and trollish comments)

Comments 1 - 40 of 108       Last »     Search these comments

1   bikes2work   2006 May 28, 4:50pm  

What I pay now is an obscene amount. I'm an FB. I've been an FB now for less than a year. Prior to that I was a JBR for over 12 years in the Bay Area. I don't expect my place to hold its value in the short term. It is small, rather new and in a great location. I can walk to Trader Joe's, Safeway, Albertsons, Target, (Whole Foods soon), Mervin's and Walmart. I'm only a two blocks from a Caltrain station too. The school district is quite good and my kids are both under 7.

But what I pay is affordable to me right now. It wasn't even close a few years ago. But I no longer have to deal with unresponsive landlords, mold infested bathrooms, and crumbling asbestos popcorn on the ceiling.

Low rent allowed me to save a huge amount of cash. I didn't dump it all into the house. I still have a decent rainy day fund. I never carried a credit card balance, and I still don't. The house is all my debt. But the rate is fixed and rather low by historical norms.

But I'm the demographic that you are competing against. I'm not a boomer. I'm a gen'Xer that saved and toiled for far too long to stay in this crazy Mecca of technology. I hope things level out a little. I waited for it to happen as long as I could stand it. But the rents where I live now are too high. I am satisfied to pay more and own it. My '06-07 property tax is already sitting in a CD waiting for October. And that's not the rainy day fund.

2   surfer-x   2006 May 28, 5:32pm  

Well if I'm Ha Ha, it's 160/12 otherwise it's 1/3 take home income.

3   Girgl   2006 May 29, 12:17am  

Rent: 1/2 of take home income - that's what I'm paying now
PITI: 1/2 of take home income after 25-30% down, and after tax breaks. Mortgage must be fixed interest and amortizing.

Take home income = Gross income - 401k (maxed out) - Taxes - ESPP (maxed out)
ESPP is where the savings for my kids' education start off.

Today, Zillow and my calculator tell me that PITI for the rather modest house I'm renting in West San Jose would be about 120% of my take home income, even after tax breaks.

My conclusions:
- I may never buy.
- If rents go up more than 10-15%, I cannot save anymore and will have to move away (or get a big raise if my company decides they must do what it takes to keep me here. Say hi to runaway inflation at this point).

4   Girgl   2006 May 29, 12:24am  

I wrote:
Today, Zillow and my calculator tell me that PITI for the rather modest house I’m renting in West San Jose would be about 120% of my take home income, even after tax breaks.

Correction after doing the correct math: about 100% of my take home income after tax breaks.

5   DinOR   2006 May 29, 1:04am  

Interesting question.

I am being paid to blog whilst renting. Each day of every month that I'm not making a mortgage payment I am making money. What a lot of people fail to realize is that even in a 30 year FRM the first ten years are "IO". I am being TOTALLY serious here. After 10 years in our last residence our initial balance of 130K went down by a whopping two thousand dollars! I am well aware that a comment like that will draw all kinds of fire and you know what? I couldn't care less. True, my home more than doubled in value from 1994 to 2004 but there certainly was no gaurantee of that. Never is, never was. When we take out the appreciation (yes, I usually put appreciation in parenthesis) we would have been able to pocket a cool two thousand dollars. Oh but wait, subtract our realtors 5% commission and we now have a hole!

My landlord, (and I just LOL every time I think of it) pockets the tidy sum of $457.34 after paying H.O.A's, taxes and a property manager. $457.34. On which, he must pay taxes. Assuming he paid cash (which I know for a fact he didn't) and he is able to collect rent each and every month this translates into a 3.23% return! Wow! A 3.22% return! Folks this is BELOW SIPC Insured Money Market Rates! With NO risk!

So, I ask you. Do you want to be in the Landlord business, or the Renter business? $850 X 12 = $10,200. So virtually all of the rent that we pay is covered by the standard deduction. (Married filing joint). 1099, "Self Employed" enables me to write off a certain percentage of my rent and utilities (just as if I "owned") further reducing the expense of renting. (Btw, if you haven't already, please claim that you have a home based business).

I realize that this "math" has been covered here many times, by many people. My "threshold of pain" is therefore substantially higher. My rent would have to basically DOUBLE for owning to make so much as "break even and hope for the best" sense! At some point we have to acknowledge that so many of the properties that we are surrounded by that are "completed but not sold" are VACANT. Vacant properties all around us. In Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego, Las Vegas and yes, (Portland, OR)! Completed? Finished? "Model Home"? You know what!? Whatever, they're VACANT! How can even the most ardent RE Bull have a claim in the world that my landlord has "pricing power"? I don't believe it and you shouldn't either.

6   astrid   2006 May 29, 1:07am  

Mike,

I wouldn't attribute the government with that level of superpowers. It seems to me a lot of attempts to hide trash under the rug, in the hope that it'll go away. It'll inevitably catch up when the trash starts to rot the planks on the ground.

I personally think means testing for social benefits is a necessary first step to correcting America's currently ridiculous old age and retirement package. Social security should be a safety net, not a substitute for disappearing private sector pensions. And giving old people unhindered access to free healthcare while many children here are denied cost efficient preventative care? Also ridiculous.

7   astrid   2006 May 29, 1:17am  

DinOR,

I'm not gonna attack you or "disappear" your comments. You brought up a great point. Most people in America do not live in the same house for 30 years or even 15 years, and most of the payment in the first years are interest on the amount borrowed. Conservative folks in the past have taken out 15 year interests or pay on top of the minimum, to decrease interest costs, but I fear the decrease in overall housing affordability is making that harder and harder for new home buyers.

However, I don't think we can completely ignore the inflation portion of that interest. Right now, inflation is by some calculation (Mike, I'll go with your numbers) running above the rate of fixed interest rate. The only problem is that the current housing market built in this boondaggle and then some into the prices.

8   DinOR   2006 May 29, 1:24am  

Mike,

Beautiful post! I mean it!

By selling in 1998 (just as we irreversibly and forever screwed ourselves with tax laws that made NO sense) you missed out on the biggest asset bubble in human history! Bigger than Tulips, dwarfing the stock market bubble and imploding as we speak. Please to notice how "lackluster" your appreciation was PRIOR to 1998! Murphy's Law, you sell, then BLAM! I AM WITH YOU! I sold on the last day of 2003. I looked around, and NOTHING made sense. Not a lick. I suppose had we held out another year it would have paid for daughter #2's college AND daughter #1's wedding! Am I remorseful? No, I am not in the least. Since the current "owner" would have to struggle to break even on what he paid me my resolve remains firm and unflinching.

Mike, if you can (and I realize I am no more to you than Adam) would you please detail your "history of ownership" prior to 1998? This is a great "test case" for all of us.

9   astrid   2006 May 29, 1:26am  

DinOR,

Is DinOR daughter #1 getting married? (In which case, congratulations are in order)

10   DinOR   2006 May 29, 1:36am  

astrid,

Much thanks and Happy Memorial Day. As we speak John Wayne is saving the Philippines from Japan (again).

Actually, I invite spirited debate on my last point. For me, the issue is all about taking "appreciation" or inflation out of the picture altogether (for purposes of illustration) to see if you still want to be a player. It's been debated and then some before but the truth is I tend to look at people (in a financial sense) as a business! Yeah, I know, I suck but if you don't visualize yourself as "Astrid Inc." who else will? Businesses gauge the market on a daily basis and aren't in the least bit timid about making decisions as to whether it makes more sense to rent or own. If (as Girgl suggests) she is FULLY funding her 401K by renting when it would take about 100% of her take home income to "own" where's the debate?

11   Randy H   2006 May 29, 1:39am  

The reasoning I'm hearing in this thread is a direct example of why economic fundamentals will win out in this scenario.

* People cannot afford PITI on their incomes
* People can afford Rent on their incomes
* People fear rising rents will force them out of the area

Therefore, Rents will not rise unless wages also inflate and/or house prices come down. Everyone isn't going to sleep in the park and companies aren't going to just give up. In fact, this is the ugly head of inflationary cycles.

Companies are forced to raise salaries because of regional inflation. Then they have to charge more for their goods/services, which in turn causes more inflation. Then the Fed has to raise interest rates resulting eventually in job losses, thereby causing both inflation and stagnation. The rest is an academic exercise.

12   DinOR   2006 May 29, 1:41am  

astrid,

Thank you! We were supposed to view the "estate" for the wedding on Friday but it was coming down like Manila in the rainy season. So I says, "Uh, so how's much is dis gonna run a fella"? I gets the "stink eye" from da boat of'm.

13   DinOR   2006 May 29, 1:48am  

I suppose if we had 4 or 5 children (most of which were daughters) we could plead indigence. But when you only have 2 children and they're BOTH daughters (and Filipinas at that) weddings are a big deal. When one of my wife's co-workers daughter got married they got hotel rooms for the brides maids to change and a limo to deliver them to the ceremony. God help me.

14   astrid   2006 May 29, 1:59am  

DinOR,

Congrats! I'm not one for big weddings or even little weddings (eloping is so much more cost and time effective), but maybe you can think of this as a business opportunity. Invite all your clients over and see if you can drum up some business! :)

It's funny you mention the Astrid, Inc. aspect. Actually, my boyfriend and I try to cost justify our behavior, although we also do a double take with personal utility. Of course, if we knew the housing market was gonna go up up up, we would have bought in 01 or 02 and sold in 05. But that's like saying we knew the winner lottery number, we should buy...and if we go there, then I should also blame his grandparents for not buying Berkshire Hathaway shares in the late Sixties and my parents for not buying MSFT in the Eighties...and that's just crazy talk.

It would be cool to be a corporation (or as lawyers like to remind us, corporations are legal people), I get to be immortal and get all kinds a cool tax treatments. And if I get too bloated financially or otherwise, I can do a ruthless takeover of myself and see my share prices zoom up.

15   DinOR   2006 May 29, 2:25am  

astrid,

Too funny!

The HB will just have to collapse without me for now (Mrs. DinOR wants me to find THE best parking place at the Outlet Mall). Oh joy.

16   surfer-x   2006 May 29, 4:28am  

The above comment was not mine and I would like it deleted.

(quoted section is sexually explicit)

LILLL the comment was not mine, but rather the troll that is enamored with me.

17   FormerAptBroker   2006 May 29, 5:10am  

Randy H wrote that :

> The reasoning I’m hearing in this thread is a direct example
> of why economic fundamentals will win out in this scenario.
> Everyone isn’t going to sleep in the park and companies
> aren’t going to just give up. In fact, this is the ugly head of
> inflationary cycles. Companies are forced to raise salaries
> because of regional inflation. Then they have to charge more
> for their goods/services, which in turn causes more inflation.

What companies will do is move out of the Bay Area (or move the jobs out of the Bay Area) before they raise prices…

bigblackdog wrote:

> that he pays $385/mo for an 800 sf duplex in a good
> neighborhood across the street from a park.

It is obvious that bigblackdog lives a long way from the Bay Area where many of my friends pay more than $385 for a second parking space (since most million dollar condos only come with one parking space)…

What most people with high paying jobs in the Bay Area don’t understand is that every day there are people trying to figure out how to get their job done for less.

There are many new companies that specialize is working with US companies to match them with Chinese and/or Indian workers who will do the work of their current US workers for less $.

If I did not plan to stay in Real Estate (and didn’t mind the travel) I would join a business school classmate at his (wildly successful) firm that is setting up groups in India to do work for US firms.

18   FormerAptBroker   2006 May 29, 5:11am  

DinOR Says:

> I suppose if we had 4 or 5 children (most of which were
> daughters) we could plead indigence. But when you only
> have 2 children and they’re BOTH daughters (and Filipinas
> at that) weddings are a big deal.

If the two Filipino American weddings I’ve been to are anything like most Filipino American weddings they are a BIG deal. When a college roommate that grew up in Daly City got married there were almost two dozen bridesmaids and groomsmen plus another dozen male and female relatives both young and old wearing outfits that matched the wedding party, and I think they rented every white limo between SF and SM…

19   FormerAptBroker   2006 May 29, 5:26am  

Astrid wrote:

> It would be cool to be a corporation (or as lawyers
> like to remind us, corporations are legal people),
> I get to be immortal and get all kinds a cool tax
> treatments.

You don’t need to be a corporation to get cool tax treatments…

Just try and avoid getting “money” since we are taxed on “money” not “things”…

If a company pays your rent and leases your car you will pay a lot less taxes (and the company will pay a lot less social security and other payroll taxes).

If you buy a piece of investment property or set up a small business you can have the business buy many things for you so you don’t have to buy them with after tax dollars…

20   astrid   2006 May 29, 5:31am  

Fake Surfer-X,

Please stop. What you're doing is by definition trolling and I don't tolerate such behavior.

LILLL,

Wow, didn't realize threadmastering was not just a fulltime job, but one that ties me to the desk 24/7. Oh wait, it's not!

I will say this to you just once more: my threads, my policies. Everyone here has been warned about my policies.

21   astrid   2006 May 29, 5:32am  

Surfer-X,

I will erase inappropriate comments to the best of my ability. However, their rudeness does not mean I will refrain from moderating your comments in response.

22   requiem   2006 May 29, 5:33am  

Kirk,

Assume the upper rent limit is 1/3 of gross income. So, 1500/mo means (clickety clickety) a 54000/yr income, or 27 kilodollars per person.

Or, a couple earning together 108 kilodollars could almost rent a 1 bedroom for 3000/month in SOMA.

So, I'd say a decently playing job is 80 kilodollars, assuming DINK status. That's enough to get a semi-decent place pretty much anywhere in SF.

23   requiem   2006 May 29, 5:41am  

Kirk,

From observation a good deal of the current "decently paying" jobs are in accounting firms. But, that could just be my biased perspective. They seem to be similar to law firms (associate, partner, etc. ladder structure) but at a lower price point.

24   astrid   2006 May 29, 6:11am  

LILLL,

Firstly, I would prefer to directly answer you queries via email. Except I can't because you already blocked my email.

Secondly, as I've already said numerous times and the administrator has confirmed, I get to decide what's appropriate on my threads. I apply my standards, not LILLL's standards. For me, your comment referring to an inappropriate relationship between Surfer-X and an underaged minor is inappropriate and grounds for deletion.

If you don't like my policy, you can ask Patrick to let you author your own threads and put your fairmindedness to work. Your vocal but solitary complaints will not change my thread policies.

25   astrid   2006 May 29, 6:24am  

LILLL,

I think you've already made your opinions about my policies and my person fully clear to me and others here. I will consider your future comments about my thread policy to be threadjacking and will act according.

If you are serious about your concern and want to address them point by point, you know how to reach me via email.

PS - if you do something petty like add my email to a bazillion spam lists, you should know that the email address you have is only used for this blog, I can easily switch out to another address if I have to.

26   astrid   2006 May 29, 6:30am  

Everybody else,

Sorry about all this.

27   astrid   2006 May 29, 6:44am  

FAB,

What you say about tax loopholes (AKA planning opportunities) are very true. When I took corporate tax, the amount of "planning opportunities" available to the self employed and business owners just hit me like a ton of bricks. It really just floored me how much tax these nice folks can defer or avoid altogether. I also realized the truth behind the truism about business decisions being tax driven.

Unfortunately, most of these strategies require working at a level and on a salary way above the reach of the average worker bee. Hence, I'm kinda stuck with the ordinary income tax system right now.

28   astrid   2006 May 29, 7:39am  

DinOR,

Outlet malls are pretty awesome. Where else can you find 10 china and houseware stores, 5 stores owned by Gap, 5 stores stocked only with cloth you can't fit into, etc, all at 50-75% off retail? It's true that I only frequent two stores at my local outlets, but boy that Eddie Bauer makes some good cloth, and that Saks outlet sure have some steep discounts ($600 retail? We can sell it for 80% off of 80% of $600).

veritas,

Haha, your wedding sounds pretty sweet.

Realistically, I think I'd have to throw together a BBQ for people here and do a banquet in Shanghai to keep the old folks happy, and bribe them with a "no gifts" invitation. I'd much rather spend the time and money of a traditional wedding (no offense, DinOR, and mazol tov!) on something fun and constructive, like taking 6 months off to travel the world.

29   Randy H   2006 May 29, 7:50am  

FAB,

What companies will do is move out of the Bay Area (or move the jobs out of the Bay Area) before they raise prices…

Some will do this, of course. They won't all do this. Others will raise prices because that will be less costly (in terms of lost sales rev) than relocating or outsourcing. Others cannot source. Some will go out of business. None of this will happen instantly, and it won't all happen simultaneously.

Price is but one variable. Some companies are price-takers, or effectively price-takers, and simply cannot raise prices. Most companies are not.

Keep in mind that the past 6 quarters have been the strongest in relative corporate earnings in over 16 years. Companies are doing just fine; they're just not passing that along to employees, instead it's mostly going to shareholders.

30   Randy H   2006 May 29, 7:56am  

FAB Said,

If a company pays your rent and leases your car you will pay a lot less taxes (and the company will pay a lot less social security and other payroll taxes).

Be careful before following this advise. Such schemes will almost always count as income, and are fully taxable to both the company and the employee. A company cannot pay your rent or lease your car except under very specific circumstances. The IRS will flag you if you do it, and you have a very high chance of being reviewed if not audited. Even when your company rents an apartment for you, say for an out-of-town project, it is very difficult for the company to achieve 100% detectability without breaking some rules.

31   Randy H   2006 May 29, 8:30am  

On threadmasters, moderators, and trolls:

Patrick.net is a loosely moderated forum, in general. The spirit around here has always been pretty open (at least since I've been here). That said, the Threadmaster of any thread has authority to moderate as they see fit. The custom is for the "admins" to not override threadmasters unless something egregious has occurred, which I'm not aware of ever happening to date.

Just a couple of points:

* Patrick is the owner of this blog, no one else. The admins and threadmasters don't have any absolute power. Anyone who has any issue is always free to email Patrick. His email is on the front page.

* The admins are: Peter P, HARM, SQT, Randy H. We also start a lot of threads. Whenever Patrick or one of us starts a thread, only the thread owner or Patrick can exercise moderation powers on that thread.

* A lot of others are threadmasters (people with power to author their own threads and then moderate that thread). Anyone who is interested in trying out their hand at authoring is encouraged to contact one of the four admins or Patrick. We're almost always happy to give folks a stab at authoring topics; it gets tough to keep things fresh when only a couple of us contribute threads. To my knowledge, no real filter is applied to whom we grant authoring powers except for keeping out obvious trolls or blatant spammers.

Finally, I remind everyone that each author has their own personality. After you get a feel for their topics and moderating style, you may choose to either pay extra attention to, or entirely skip their threads. I'm sure that there are plenty of folks here that skip right on past when they see a Randy H "great, there's yet another graph" thread. If you find a hole in the set of "on air personalities" here lacking, by all means let us know you'd like to take a crack at it yourself. That's the power of blogs: this isn't a broadcast media. Everyone can contribute, we can all be heard, and everyone has a chance to influence or be influenced.

32   astrid   2006 May 29, 8:56am  

Sort of OT, but my favorite photo website now has a San Jose gallery:

http://terragalleria.com/california/region.san-jose.html

In addition, the same website has a beautiful selection of BA and CA pictures here:

http://terragalleria.com/california/index.html

33   tsusiat   2006 May 29, 9:07am  

Randy,

nice succinct summary, hopefully it proves useful to the disembodied, disenfranchised or just plain disillusioned. I expect many lurkers here might become a bit more active if they understand the basics of how this works.

On a side note, anyone here who wants to do something similar, the blogging software used here is free, and pretty easy to set up, relative to your own page, on whatever subject interests you. Software is wordpress Its a good way to get some interesting new content on your site everyday, without working hard at it - provided people are visiting your blog!

Cheers,

tsusiat

34   astrid   2006 May 29, 9:28am  

Mike,

Don't be so optimistic, you might live to 110! :)

I'm rather torn between your vision of the future and the optimism expressed by Randy H and OO. Right now, I think I'd side with them. I think the energy shock will be a short term thing, 5 to 10 years. America can use energy in a much more efficient manner than it is currently doing. Societies have a great ability to adjust to resource shortages over the long term and the only resources that we absolutely cannot do without are: good farmland, clean water, and a decent growing season. American still has that in abundance.

What worries me more about America are the inadequacy of its human capital and the erosion of its intellectual capital. Right now, American companies are going beyond outsourcing manufacturing and are beginning to outsource R&D to India and China. The kids here are growing up to be undisciplined and underskilled compared to the top 10% of India or China, yet they are accustomed to expect a comfortable first world life. If these two areas erode significantly while the rest of the world advances on us, America's comparative advantage may go away in time.

35   surfer-x   2006 May 29, 11:52am  

@Astrid, thanks for deleting the "fake Surfer-X" comments!;)

36   FormerAptBroker   2006 May 29, 11:59am  

Mike (in a great long post made some good points that I’ll comment on):

> For the record, I’m closing in on 70 years old.

I’m only about 2/3 as old so I have a lot less experience…

> Here’s some history of property values going back to 1946.
> I’ll start with the UK where I was born. My mother bought a
> house (big struggle) in 1947 just out side London for (exchange
> rate now) $4,000. She lived in that house until she died in 1998.
> That property hardly moved (value-wise) until the late 1960’s.
> Maybe a few percentage points a year. Then in the mid-seventies
> it started to take off. It’s now worth $550,000.

My grandfather paid $3,000 for the Noe Valley house my Dad grew up in. When he died in the early 70’s my Dad didn’t have the money to buy his brothers out (who wanted the cash) so it sold for just under $40K (appreciation about $1,000 per year). In the early 90’s a friend bought a home down the street for $220K and my grandfathers home was probably worth a little less (appreciation about $10,000 per year). Last year the actual home (with a new kitchen) was listed at $995K, but is sold for just over $1.3mm (appreciation about $100K a year). Everyone in SF today expects their home to go up AT LEAST $100K a year and have no idea that before the recent boom we had a 20 year period of about $10K appreciation per year that followed a 40 year period of $1K per year appreciation…

> However, I have learned a few things over the years (I day trade btw)
> about finances and politics and “how it works”. Greenspan instigated
> his free money policy to compensate for all the big losses ($7 trillion
> I understand) brought on by the tech “crash”. The reason being, he
> needed to “inject” that lost money back into consumers pockets.
> Without BIG consumers the US economy nose-dives.

The reason I see a dive is that I can’t think of anything else that will pump tons of cash in to the US economy so consumers can buy more worthless junk like:

1980’s: Women going to work (as a public school kid in the 70’s not one Mom had a job)
1990’s: Stock Market Boom (tow truck drives with E*Trade accounts)
2000’s: Home ATM withdrawals (and GOP tax cuts)

> Where to from here. Bad news for America I’m afraid. Property will
> fall back to fundamentals. Eventually - sooner or later. Statistics
> show that it takes around 18 quarters for over-priced property values
> to reach bottom. The house I rent will probably settle around $400,000
> from it’s current price. About 1/3 or 33% drop. A crash is unlikely.
> Remember, bottom fishers will continually move in to buy at what they
> think is support. Then the support cracks and property falls again.

I was reminded of the hundreds of S. Cal property that went REO twice in the last cycle when I saw people rushing in to buy tech stocks in Oct. 2001 for “half price” (50 times next years earnings)….

> The support level, of course, now becomes resistance.
> Just like stocks. I’m sure the realtors will scream, “BUY
> NOW!” when we get a 10% drop - but it will NOT be the
> bottom. Next level down and new “greater fools” will appear
> and the realtors will cry, “BUY NOW!”

REALTORs and Stock Brokers always scream “Buy Now!” because they don’t make money unless people are buying…

> Look for a serious crisis in the hedge fund and derivatives markets.

I’ve got some real smart friends that are really worried about what the Hedge Funds are doing with leveraged derivatives. They way they all get paid there is really no reason not to “swing for the fences” every year since if the fund has big returns they all make millions, but if the fund goes under it is no big deal since they have made $10 million over the past few years and can always get a new job (they cover their asses with letters to the top guys talking about the risks that they can show when they are looking for a new job)…

> Up until now the US (for over 70 years) has had the world to itself.
> Competition was almost zero. Now China and India and to a certain
> extent Russia and to a big extent Europe, are pushing the US down
> down the economic ladder.

We have all watched manufacturing jobs slowly go away over out lives, but I am amazed how fast technology is allowing companies to move other jobs overseas…

> Worse, again because of Bush, America is very out of favor and in
> many places around the world hated.

I’m no fan of Bush, but I don’t things would be much different if we had Al Gore or John Kerry running the show (what will the Muslims do if we ever elect a woman president?)…

37   FormerAptBroker   2006 May 29, 12:12pm  

crimsonbey Says:

> I don’t think people who have higher ed ergo Ma’s and
> Ph’ds are worried about Chinese or Indians taking their job.

I found on census.org that MORE than 75% of the US population does NOT even have a bachelors degree so I’m guessing that maybe 5% of the population has a Masters or PhD.

I don’t think the top 5% worries about their job going to China or India because real smart people know they can always make a living…

38   astrid   2006 May 29, 12:29pm  

FAB,

I agree with most of your points. My sole point of possible disagreement is that I think there is a real difference between Bush and Gore. I don't think the Muslim world hated the US nearly as much pre-Gulf War II as post-Gulf War II. I don't think Gore would have went into Iraq or would now try to tangle with Iran, so the hostility level would be much lower.

This is particularly important because the Saudi government is really an American client state. The Saudi and Kuwaiti governments needs the US at least as much as we need their oil. We're the ones with the technology and we're the arbiters of power in the region. They also have a simmering pot of discontent at home and they need every bit of US help possible to contain it, or risk following the Iranian and Iraqi kings into exile and disgrace. Bush's naivete has stirred up a real Muslim hornet's nest there and made the Saudi royal family's job that much harder. I think Gore would not have blundered into war and would have concentrated on hunting down Bin Laden.

The other major difference I see is Gore's fiscal policy. Gore has a pretty decent track record as a fiscal moderate and worked in a White House that actually managed to turn a federal deficit into a surplus. While I think he would have difficulty dealing with the aftermath of dot.com bust, I think he would have taken on less federal debt and have this country in a better shape to face the challenges ahead.

39   astrid   2006 May 29, 12:33pm  

FAB,

I agree with your assessment about highly educated people. Especially for people with financial or technical expertise. There is very little language problem for people from Anglo-Saxon countries since most of the World's elite can speak passable English.

40   astrid   2006 May 29, 12:34pm  

Surfer-X,

No problem! It's my job and it's my promise. :P

Comments 1 - 40 of 108       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions