patrick.net

Uh I don’t know how to break this to you but after a certain age males become totally invisible to “young girls”.

Or worse, they become downright disgusting to "young girls." A guy in his late 30s+, even if he is lean, good-looking and rich, is a turnoff (read "lech") to most self-respecting women under 27 or so... As for those who don't respect themselves, well, if he buys her nice things, anything goes!

I'm 35 years old, and I feel like I'm ontop of the world. I've never felt more attractive, although not to girls 25 and under. The good thing is that I actually think women right at the 28-35 mark are the most attractive to me, and the most interesting. I'm 6'1 and thank God I've still got all my hair. I just renewed my passport and putting the two pictures next to each other I actually like the new picture better.

I also recently heard an interesting stat, that out of the guys under 30, 1/3rd of them are not getting laid. I was surprised, but most of the guys I encounter in that age group seem to be single and suffering from blue balls. I was surprised at the number of single people in my MBA program both men and women. I think it's part of our new culture of putting relationships off because everyone is hoping to find absolute perfection.

that's on top :)

Here is some good reading, real live stories of realtors that lie.

Glen,

Huh? Maybe you're just not lean, good looking, and rich enough.

This dating scene of which you all speak sounds like one heck of a cross objectification clusterf&ck.

I would imagine trophy wife worthy material in the 20-27 age group would rather be burnishing their credential or looking for the perfect husband. IF that's what you're looking for, early 30s is probably the age group to hunt in. Anyone fitting that discription in their late 30s probably has too many issues to be worth dealing with.

"because everyone is hoping to find absolute perfection"

And... the longer one waits, the narrower... that definition becomes!

If someone wants to ride their bicycle to work, HEY more power to them! But like I say, live your life the way YOU want to! Don't do it b/c you think it will score points w/ "the chicks". Every thing that's worthy of your time should be it's own reward.

When I was young I learned to play the electric guitar b/c "I" thought it was cool. 30 years later I have never 1) been paid OR 2) "got chicks". What most folks in this category really seek, is the approval of other musicians, not some stoned out chick. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!) :)

"And… the longer one waits, the narrower… that definition becomes!"

Classic! Like closing time at the bar, or the San Miguel glasses.

Serously though, many women are doing a "career" before settling down. I know several women ex-pilots that once they "been there, done that" have gotten out of the AF, got married and are now housewives. I think you will find many housewives who married late 20s early 30s who had careers first.

Plus, what's the hurry? A man can party until he is 35, that leaves plenty of time to marry and raise a family. Works out well, since the desire to party ebbs a bit at that age.

Glen,

Huh? Maybe you’re just not lean, good looking, and rich enough.

That's for sure. But I wasn't really basing my observation on my own personal experience.

This dating scene of which you all speak sounds like one heck of a cross objectification clusterf&ck.

I've been married for 6+ years, so I am just talking out of my &ss. Please ignore my ignorant rantings. :)

I used to live in Berkeley, then SF, then moved to LA. I think some of the stereotypes of BA vs. LA are based in reality--at least in my experience. When I lived in the BA, I was broke but my dating life was still pretty good. When I moved to LA, everything changed. Seemed like you had to have lots of money to get a foot in the door of the dating scene. Luckily I got out of the dating scene entirely and got married--also, lucky for me, my wife is not a typical LA woman.

@azrob
Go ahead, factor that in (I did with my own internal analysis). I'm just saying that there is a specific valuation to the proximity of real estate to where you work. And it might or might not jibe with what REIC folks are representing. I've heard off-the-cuff estimates ranging from $10K per year to $50K per year. I would just like to see some actual calculations that have some semblance of reality.

In my post, I was using round-trip times, but your point was taken. So on a $100K gross annual income, a one hour round trip commute is $12,500 per year gross value. Over 30 years, $375,000. So adding in our relatively implausible scenario I previously introduced, a $462,600 difference over 30 years.

As long as you are factoring in opportunity costs however, you probably need to factor in the probability you have to move for another job (whether out of town or another part of town). And increased wear and tear on the vehicle (compute the TCO per mile, kind of like the automobile equivalent of PITI). And figure the discount of that opportunity cost if you are on salary; it is not as if you freed up those hours you would automatically be paid for them.

I wanted to get a discussion going on what the real value is of living close-in to where you work. Because I can easily see a lot of people with a vested interest in real estate wildly inflating those figures.

For my own situation, I'm relatively fortunate in that I can actually commit discretionary time to wealth-producing activities, and realize income from that decision, so a $200,000 differential over 30 years is not hard for me to justify. But other people's mileage would vary quite a bit from mine, so I tried to pick one aspect that would likely be a common denominator.

apostasy Says:

> Just in case someone in an urban property is
> approached about refinancing, and assured that
> rising gas prices will surely inflate their valuation..
> Imagine while living at your close-in property you
> only have to drive 10 miles per day, and the option
> of living out in the suburbs is 60 miles per day.
> Over a period of 30 years, the savings from moving
> closer in amount to $87,600….

Then azrob Says:

> apostacy: wow you really don’t value your life at all!
> you calculate the gas to the penny, but don’t discount
> the fact that your wasting 2 hours a day commuting?
> assuming a 40 hour normal work week, you just gave
> yourself a 25% paycut in terms of hours spent working
> and commuting when compared to money earned.

Let’s take an average guy with a $60K/$30/Hr job. If he has a Honda he will be lucky to get his cost per mile down to $0.50 (Edmunds.com has a great “True Cost to Own”/TCO feature that gives fairly accurate cost per mile for every car).

60 one way mile commute = $30/day + 3 hrs at $30/hr = $120/day, $600/week, $31,200 a year…

Time is valuable. This is why fractional jet ownership is growing ever more popular.

Apostacy,

Living close in will have some value, and it may be quantifiable as you suggest.

Some trends that may ameliorate that value could be changing from 8 hour/5day to 10 hour/4 day, increased telecommuting or work at home, or changing work hours to avoid rush hour time.

But then, and increase in gas proces and the trend toward toll roads could move the equation the other way.

"Time is valuable. This is why fractional jet ownership is growing ever more popular."

Yes, and cheaper too with the introduction of the Very Light Jets (cost about $1-2 million vs $20 million+)

But then, you have to include the cost of your "carbon offsets".......

FAB said:

Edmunds.com has a great “True Cost to Own”/TCO feature that gives fairly accurate cost per mile for every car

I love that feature. I love Edmunds, and haven't bought or sold a vehicle without consulting it for many years now. There used to be a great essay on there somewhere which everyone should read before considering ever buying a car from a salesman at a lot. Kind of an insiders view of how different operations work. I was suprised at just how many different ways they have to "get you", even when you think you're getting a great deal on price.

DinOR Says:

> azrob, Uh I don’t know how to break this to you but after
> a certain age males become totally invisible to “young girls”.
> They can see through, above and around you. Balding or
> not. “Lean and sexy” or not. Do it for yourself.

Then Malcolm Says:

> I’m 35 years old, and I feel like I’m on top of the world. I’ve
> never felt more attractive, although not to girls 25 and under.
> The good thing is that I actually think women right at the 28-35
> mark are the most attractive to me, and the most interesting.
> I’m 6′1 and thank God I’ve still got all my hair. I just renewed
> my passport and putting the two pictures next to each other
> I actually like the new picture better.

I’ll be 44 this year and I have three passports with photos taken when I was 18, 28 and 38 and I still look about the same in all three photos. Someone mentioned that James Gandolfini from the Sopranos is just a little older than I am and we were wondering how much younger Gandolfini would look if he still weighed as much as he did at 18 and had a full head of hair like I do…

But then, you have to include the cost of your “carbon offsets”…….

What are carbon offsets?

btw Peter

I got Vista64 working finally. It was a problem with "PCI memory remapping". That has to be on for V64 to work. So far I'm happy. This thing computes my giant spreadsheets that used to take 40minutes in about 12 minutes.

What are carbon offsets?

Never heard of them ;)

Randy, great to hear that you got Vista working. I knew Vista was more than a 286 emulator for your Windows 2.0. :)

From wikipedia: ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset

Carbon Offsets are ways that rich environmentalists, like Al Gore and other leftist elitists, are able to continue their indulgence in polluting the environment without any of the guilt.

Actually, I think fractional jet ownership is gaining popularity because people do not want the hassle of airport security.

But since the fractional schemes are looking more and more like prepaid airline flights, it will be a matter of time before fractional jet passengers are screened as well. After all, a highjacked Gulfstream makes a serious guided weapon, too.

Carol Llyod's latest column discusses short sales. She does mentioned getting 1099'd for the amount of debt forgiveness. So an underwater FB in the Golden State with a non-recourse loan faces two choices:
1. Foreclosure (no 1099, but wrecked credit)
2. Short sale (debt forgiveness with 1099, saved credit score)
Which do you choose? Which do you chose if you were a typical FB? Which really tanks the market?

But since the fractional schemes are looking more and more like prepaid airline flights, it will be a matter of time before fractional jet passengers are screened as well. After all, a highjacked Gulfstream makes a serious guided weapon, too.

How do you screen people flying out of Sedona, AZ?

The 4/29 conspiracy proved that a fuel truck is just as serious a guided weapon.

I think carbon offsets is a great free-market solution to environmental problems.

Looks like defacement is still a issue for wikipedia.

Which really tanks the market?

Between cyanide and arsenic, which one is poisonous?

"How do you screen people flying out of Sedona, AZ?"

Good point, but most business flights will be out of bigger areas.

"The 4/29 conspiracy proved that a fuel truck is just as serious a guided weapon. "

True again. Plus, anyone can load a fertilizer bomb in the trunk of a car and take out any tunnel. But due to 9-11, airline aviation has a special interest to the authorities. Do you really think it is possible to highjack an airline today? I believe you would be fought by every passenger if you tried. Beside, why not sit at the approach/departure end of a runway and shoot up engine and cockpit with an AK? The flight paths of any airport has aircraft flying low over large areas in the vicinity.

I think the current passenger screening is a waste of time and resources, but I think it mayl be extended to fractional jets anyway - if fractional jets get popular enough.

"I think carbon offsets is a great free-market solution to environmental problems."

Didn't Milton Freidman come up with the idea of selling pollution rights some 25 years ago? He saw it as a free market way to lower pollution by alllowing large companiies to benefit from there clean air improvements.

But at that time, the libs were aghast at his suggestion

I think the current passenger screening is a waste of time and resources, but I think it mayl be extended to fractional jets anyway - if fractional jets get popular enough.

Fractional ownership still has a highish entrance fee ($150K+).

Perhaps chartering will be more closely scrutinized. Anyone with a few thousand dollars can book a "private" flight nowadays.

But at that time, the libs were aghast at his suggestion

Perhaps the "libs" got richer in the past 25 years. ;)

EBGuy,

Can someone do a short sale, then take out a HELOC to pay the 1099 taxes?

Can someone do a short sale, then take out a HELOC to pay the 1099 taxes?

Huh? after the short sale, there is no house?

Well, but then people keep telling me I am pre-approved for a HELOC anyway. I rent.

Peter P,

You are better with words. I was trying to imply that "fractional" was getting closer to "chartering." As more interest and cheaper jets come about, the entry fee shrinks as these planes are spread over more "owners", to the point it resembles a charter club.

Current airport security measures do absolutely nothing to encourage safety. If anything, it just introduces a lot more sketchy airport employees who would get access to sensitive areas.

OOPS, I confused "short sale" with "renegotiated loan," which was the subject of an article I was reading. The renegotiated loan also had the 1099 issue.

As more interest and cheaper jets come about, the entry fee shrinks as these planes are spread over more “owners”, to the point it resembles a charter club.

Fractional owners always own the same interest (e.g. 1/16) on a plane. So the entry fee will not shrink when there are more owners. With more people, there will be more planes.

(Similarly, the same time-share condos will not be spread over more owners.)

Chartering is different. They are more like private airlines.

"If anything, it just introduces a lot more sketchy airport employees who would get access to sensitive areas. "

Yes, like the ones who pre-planted the boxcutters for the 9-11 highjackers.

Cheaper jets will lower the entry fee though, although they are not really much heavier than SUVs.