http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* No Swine Flu Sick Leave For Wal-Mart Slaves! No SURPRISE, Either! - 10
messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f7324c46ba4e89fe?hl=en
* Acai juice now in supermarkets - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2cfe81079a38305b?hl=en
* found a site, shipping container and other green stuff - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c188e775b9c024c3?hl=en
* Burning "wet" newspapers - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1640b73c501da42b?hl=en
* slowpoke general contractor got us $6,000!!! (home tax credit) - 3 messages,
3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7692010fa0607f6?hl=en
* Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again - 8 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dff28f482d02ae5c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: No Swine Flu Sick Leave For Wal-Mart Slaves! No SURPRISE, Either!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f7324c46ba4e89fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 1:37 pm
From: Rick Merrill
Tony Sivori wrote:
> krw wrote:
>
>> Tony Sivori <TonySivori@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For my employer, one minute late or leaving one minute early equals one
>>> half of a point. One day missed with doctor's statement equals one
>>> point. Refusing mandatory overtime equals one point. Staying home with a
>>> sick child equals one point. A point stays on your record for one year
>> >from the day you get it. Seven points equals fired.
>>
>> If you don't like the policy, work somewhere else. It's spelled out
>> pretty plainly, evidently.
>
> I'll make my own decisions about where I work, thank you.
>
> You seem to have missed my point, mister corporate apologist. For the
> Wal-Mart workers in question, it isn't as simple as "staying home with no
> pay".
>
> Sam Walton isn't the saint that his Billions helped him to buy in public
> perception manipulation (what a Regular Guy, he wears plaid shirts!).
>
> The real Sam Walton: When confronted with early minimum wage laws, in an
> attempt to evade the wage law he broke each Wal-Mart into separate
> businesses on paper that each were small enough to be exempt. When that
> failed to fool the law, he wrote checks for back pay as required by law.
> He delivered them with the message that any one who cashes his or her
> check is fired.
>
> Since his death, Wal-Mart has only become more unethical.
>
>> It's likely that they have such policies because even management can't
>> be trusted to think.
>
> They have such policies because if anything might cost them a dollar they
> are against it, no matter who suffers or how much.
Does Walmart apply the same policies and "points" to their executives as
they do to their line employees?
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 2:32 pm
From: krw
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:51:05 -0500, Tony Sivori <TonySivori@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>krw wrote:
>
>> Tony Sivori <TonySivori@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>For my employer, one minute late or leaving one minute early equals one
>>>half of a point. One day missed with doctor's statement equals one
>>>point. Refusing mandatory overtime equals one point. Staying home with a
>>>sick child equals one point. A point stays on your record for one year
>>>from the day you get it. Seven points equals fired.
>>
>> If you don't like the policy, work somewhere else. It's spelled out
>> pretty plainly, evidently.
>
>I'll make my own decisions about where I work, thank you.
Then don't whine in my face if you don't like it.
>You seem to have missed my point, mister corporate apologist. For the
>Wal-Mart workers in question, it isn't as simple as "staying home with no
>pay".
I didn't miss any point, shit-for-brains. I simply said that you made
your bed, lie in it. ...or find another.
>Sam Walton isn't the saint that his Billions helped him to buy in public
>perception manipulation (what a Regular Guy, he wears plaid shirts!).
His corporation isn't the evil you leftist loons make it out to be
either.
>The real Sam Walton: When confronted with early minimum wage laws, in an
>attempt to evade the wage law he broke each Wal-Mart into separate
>businesses on paper that each were small enough to be exempt. When that
>failed to fool the law, he wrote checks for back pay as required by law.
>He delivered them with the message that any one who cashes his or her
>check is fired.
Any more red herrings in your bag of tricks, shit-for-brains?
>Since his death, Wal-Mart has only become more unethical.
Yep, I knew you had one.
>> It's likely that they have such policies because even management can't
>> be trusted to think.
>
>They have such policies because if anything might cost them a dollar they
>are against it, no matter who suffers or how much.
I wasn't talking about Walmart, in case you hadn't noticed. If *you*
don't like your employer, find another. It really is that simple.
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 3:39 pm
From: clams_casino
Marsha wrote:
> Too many Mondays or Fridays and you get a couple points. Too many
> points in a 12-month period and it goes on your record.
>
> Marsha
Did you know that nearly 20% of all absenteeism is on Mondays & Fridays?
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 3:45 pm
From: Tony Sivori
krw wrote:
>
> Any more red herrings in your bag of tricks, shit-for-brains?
Been nice discussing this topic with you, I stand in awe of your oratory
skill and logical mind.
--
Tony Sivori
Due to spam, I'm filtering all Google Groups posters.
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 3:52 pm
From: Tony Sivori
Rick Merrill wrote:
> Does Walmart apply the same policies and "points" to their executives as
> they do to their line employees?
I don't know, but I doubt it.
The management where I work is not subject to the occurrence based
attendance policy.
--
Tony Sivori
Due to spam, I'm filtering all Google Groups posters.
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 6:35 pm
From: krw
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:45:37 -0500, Tony Sivori <TonySivori@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>krw wrote:
>>
>> Any more red herrings in your bag of tricks, shit-for-brains?
>
>Been nice discussing this topic with you, I stand in awe of your oratory
>skill and logical mind.
I calls 'em as the are, shit-for-brains.
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 6:55 pm
From: "h"
"Tony Sivori" <TonySivori@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.14.23.45.36.607889@yahoo.com...
> krw wrote:
>>
>> Any more red herrings in your bag of tricks, shit-for-brains?
>
> Been nice discussing this topic with you, I stand in awe of your oratory
> skill and logical mind.
Just killfile that loon like the rest of us already have.
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 7:11 pm
From: tmclone
On Nov 14, 3:29 pm, Coffee's For Closers <Usenet2...@THE-DOMAIN-
IN.SIG> wrote:
> In article <c294f36e-bbf6-4a46-b37f-
> 9b40a6fe6...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, bigdog...@gmail.com
> says...
>
> > On Nov 12, 1:21=A0am, "fries...@zoocrewphoto.com"
> > > It seems to me that Walmart's system is nicer than ours, and ours is
> > > pretty reasonable. Most people do not sick more than a few days a
> > > year. Anybody who has been her a year or more will easily have enough
> > > sick leave to cover a week or more absence. Sure, we lose the first 2
> > > days if we have been sick in the last 6 months or so. But that is
> > > reasonable. The alternative is people calling in sick, pretending to
> > > have the flu, just so that they can go to a party or have a free day
> > > off.
> > My wife works at a bank with a nearly identical sick leave policy.
> > Additionally if someone, even with a full sick leave bank, calls in
> > sick the work day before or after a paid holiday, they lose that
> > holiday pay.
>
> The implication there is that, the employee may be lying about
> being sick, and just wants to extend the three-day weekend.
>
I had that problem years ago when I worked for a bank which provided
UNLIMITED sick time, EXCEPT on Mondays/Fridays, and any days prior or
following a legal holiday. I scheduled surgery on Thursday November 10
(we
had Friday the 11th (Veteran's Day) as a holiday) so that I could
recuperate
all weekend ON MY OWN TIME and not have to take sick leave. I was told
by HR
that even though I was scheduling it 8 WEEKS in advance, and obviously
could
get a doctor's note, the day would be considered "not paid" and I
would be
docked. So...I scheduled my surgery for Monday, and took Tues, Wed,
Thurs,
as sick days. They had a rule that the only way to not be docked for
"adjacent to holiday sick days" was to be sick (doctor's note) for at
least
2 days prior to the holiday. SO...bottom line was that they had to pay
me
for 4 sick days when they would have had to only pay for 1 if they'd
used
their brains. Corporate idiots. How much do I NOT miss working in a
cube
farm no matter how crappy the economy? :)
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 7:41 am
From: "Dave C."
>
> Did you know that nearly 20% of all absenteeism is on Mondays &
> Fridays?
Well considering that's 28% of the work week, I guess absenteeism is
LESS of a problem on Monday and Friday than it is the rest of the
week. -Dave
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 7:57 am
From: "Dave C."
> It's not that simple. Wal-Mart has an "occurrence based" attendance
> policy, similar to where I work. If you miss work due to illness, even
> with a valid doctor's statement, you receive a point.
That is fucking nuts. In the age of swine flu, you should be able to
stay home with or without a doctor's statement...with no penalty at all
attached to staying home.
>
> For my employer, one minute late or leaving one minute early equals
> one half of a point. One day missed with doctor's statement equals
> one point. Refusing mandatory overtime equals one point. Staying home
> with a sick child equals one point. A point stays on your record for
> one year from the day you get it. Seven points equals fired.
I wouldn't have ever gotten through the orientation for your employer.
If they are that anal, I would have probably walked out during the
initial interview. Shit man, I'd be tempted to rack up 7 points in a
week. Or are you in one of those areas with 40% unemployment REPORTED
as 20%? -Dave
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Acai juice now in supermarkets
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2cfe81079a38305b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 1:59 pm
From: "Bob F"
www.Queensbridge.us wrote:
> I was very surprised to find this week that
> Acai Juice
> sometimes sold via MLM at $45.00 a bottle was
> $2.50 for a liter at
> the supermarket in Queensbridge, LIC, Queens, NYC, NY
>
> The cheapest that Costco has it is $17.00 a bottle.
>
> Is the bottom about to fall out of
> Acai MLM?
Or is it really watered down?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: found a site, shipping container and other green stuff
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c188e775b9c024c3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 3:15 pm
From: "sr"
"Tony Sivori" <TonySivori@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.14.20.20.54.952391@yahoo.com...
> sr wrote:
>
>> I've done a lot of research. Need to look deeper. they are like legos
>> you can snap one to another,buy as you can accumulate money, good for
>> those starting out, More solid than trailors. You can spray foam the
>> inside before sheetrock, or you can use panels. I like this type of
>> work, so no problem.
>
> Have you added things up? That's not a rhetorical question, I really would
> like to see a list of how cheap you could go from shipping container to
> habitable home.
>
> It seems to me that it can't be done cheaper than acquiring an existing
> structure and applying the materials and labor to a priced right piece of
> real estate.
>
> When you buy a container, to make it habitable, you would have to buy
> *everything* but the exterior walls and a roof.
>
>> If you can find unrestricted land, that is. That's my problem, right
>> now.
>
> I'm wondering why you want unrestricted land. You obviously have some
> knowledge and practical experience. It should not be any trouble for you
> to meet code. Every line in the building and electrical codes are there
> because someone was killed, injured, or suffered damage to property.
>
> The code protects the public. It isn't an arbitrary bureaucracy.
>
>> Good books on plumbing and wiring. In this state, after you are
>> finished, DIY, you need a master elec. to wire into the Master Elec.
>> box, is all. You can do this yourself. I did. Bought a 9th house,
>
> 9th house? I've never heard of that, and Google didn't produce anything
> relevant.
>
>> practiced on it, took adult ed classes, learned elec. practiced it on
>> the house. Only had to call the firedepartment Once.
>
> Yikes!
>
>> Every once in awhile I drive by the place to see if it's still standing,
>> It is
>
> Having skill and experience, and already having leaned from past
> mistakes is a very valuable asset.
>
> --
> Tony Sivori
> Due to spam, I'm filtering all Google Groups posters.
9 thousand dollar house, I bought for an experiment, to see if I had the
git, and the fortitude to do the job.
At this low price, I could afford to make mistakes.-
---
I am not interested in housing codes, reason for unrestricted land. No
codes. Fee will, self responsibility. If it goes wrong, you have only
yourself to blame. That's how I live my life, which is getting more
difficult as society becomes more and more a "nanny state" putting
restrictions on its citizens.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Burning "wet" newspapers
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1640b73c501da42b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 4:41 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7m8b9oF3gjiofU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote
>>>>>>>>> gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
>>>>>>>>>> rocket scientist <georgespamk@toast.net> wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted ,
>>>>>>>>>>> then dried, burns much better. Why is that?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about the other response regarding it being
>>>>>>>>>> drier afterwards,
>>
>>>>>>>> Its just plain silly.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of
>>>>>>>>>> the paper being disrupted from swelling and then shrinking.
>>>>>>>>>> That would increase the surface area, and produce lots of
>>>>>>>>>> small, fine slivers sticking up instead of a smooth, dense
>>>>>>>>>> surface.
>>
>>>>>>>>> That may be true,
>>
>>>>>>>> It is.
>>
>>>>>>> Really?
>>
>>>>>> Yep, try it yourself.
>>
>>>>> Try what?
>>
>>>> Jumping in front of a moving bus, stupid.
>>
>>> So when you get stepped on,
>>
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed liar fantasys...
>>
>>>>>>>>> but you'd think that would happen in the paper making process
>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, that deliberately makes the surface smoother than
>>>>>>>> otherwise.
> Let's face it, you've lost your ability to entertain,
You never ever had anything like that.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 10:03 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7m910vF3h1q4dU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <7m8b9oF3gjiofU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>> Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote
> >>>>>>>>> gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> rocket scientist <georgespamk@toast.net> wrote
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted ,
> >>>>>>>>>>> then dried, burns much better. Why is that?
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know about the other response regarding it being
> >>>>>>>>>> drier afterwards,
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Its just plain silly.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of
> >>>>>>>>>> the paper being disrupted from swelling and then shrinking.
> >>>>>>>>>> That would increase the surface area, and produce lots of
> >>>>>>>>>> small, fine slivers sticking up instead of a smooth, dense
> >>>>>>>>>> surface.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> That may be true,
> >>
> >>>>>>>> It is.
> >>
> >>>>>>> Really?
> >>
> >>>>>> Yep, try it yourself.
> >>
> >>>>> Try what?
> >>
> >>>> Jumping in front of a moving bus, stupid.
> >>
> >>> So when you get stepped on,
> >>
> >> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed liar fantasys...
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> but you'd think that would happen in the paper making process
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Nope, that deliberately makes the surface smoother than
> >>>>>>>> otherwise.
>
> > Let's face it, you've lost your ability to entertain,
>
> You never ever had anything like that.
Such a sad thing when a has-been has to
alter posts
==============================================================================
TOPIC: slowpoke general contractor got us $6,000!!! (home tax credit)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7692010fa0607f6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 6:51 pm
From: "h"
"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-bugged@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:atlas-bugged-976179.11090514112009@aries.ka.weretis.net...
> In article
> <RKALm.24235$Wf2.15038@newsfe23.iad>,
> Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:
>
>> >At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have
>> >kids.
>>
>> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
>> the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
>> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
>> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
>> then get a return on their investment.
>>
>> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
>> would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
>> typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
>
> So there is no need to vaccinate at risk
> people because they would never spread
> any disease or infection?
>
Well, depends on what you call "at risk". Supposedly, since I'm well over
50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should be vaccinated. I don't think so.
I rely on something I call an immune system. I do not believe in "wellcare"
or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care". If I have bleeding
I can't stop or a broken bone then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not
so much.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 9:28 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
h wrote
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds <atlas-bugged@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote
>>>> At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
>>> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with
>>> kids in the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run. It is a short term investment, with
>>> a long term
>>> return on investment. Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business, then get a return on
>>> their investment.
>>> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor
>>> or take pills. It typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
>> So there is no need to vaccinate at risk people because they would never spread any disease or infection?
> Well, depends on what you call "at risk". Supposedly, since I'm well over 50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should
> be vaccinated. I don't think so. I rely on something I call an immune system.
Fat lot of good that did those who ended up with polio.
> I do not believe in "wellcare" or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care".
More fool you, particularly with infectious disease
and that magnificent protection against it, vaccination.
> If I have bleeding I can't stop or a broken bone
> then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not so much.
And its that mentality that has seen it so difficult to eliminate the remaining important infectious diseases.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 10:14 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <hdnqc5$ava$1@aioe.org>,
"h" <tmclone@searchmachine.com> wrote:
> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-bugged@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:atlas-bugged-976179.11090514112009@aries.ka.weretis.net...
> > In article
> > <RKALm.24235$Wf2.15038@newsfe23.iad>,
> > Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have
> >> >kids.
> >>
> >> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
> >> the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
> >> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
> >> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
> >> then get a return on their investment.
> >>
> >> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
> >> would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
> >> typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
> >
> > So there is no need to vaccinate at risk
> > people because they would never spread
> > any disease or infection?
> >
> Well, depends on what you call "at risk". Supposedly, since I'm well over
> 50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should be vaccinated.
Actually you are at the lower limit of
not "at risk" unless of course you have
an underlaying disease or illness
> I don't think so.
> I rely on something I call an immune system.
I used to think of humans as monolithic,
lacking in genetic variablity. I now
recognize that the variability is much
more prominent than I thought. Which
means in any group of people there will
probably be someone immune to any one
disease/illness. Of course we subject to
so many environmental factors that we
cannot control so I suspect most of us
are victims of some kind of
disease/illness/poisoning that we can
generally shrug off and historically
did. But a 1% chance of flu immunity
multiplied by a 1% chance of not having
a precursor to some disease/illness and
now you are possibly talking about 1
chance in 10000.
I do not believe in "wellcare"
> or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care". If I have bleeding
> I can't stop or a broken bone then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not
> so much.
Good luck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dff28f482d02ae5c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 9:09 pm
From: Les Cargill
SoCalMike wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>>
>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>> more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
>>
>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>> ownership.
>
> all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what
> your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your own
> its probably worth it.
I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much
maintainence costs for a home. All I can tell you is that
I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy,
to the tune of thousands per year.
--
Les Cargill
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 9:31 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Les Cargill wrote:
> SoCalMike wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>>>
>>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>>> more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
>>>
>>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>>> ownership.
>>
>> all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what
>> your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your
>> own its probably worth it.
> I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much
> maintainence costs for a home.
I know I didnt. Its cost sweet fuck all over 35 years now.
And you pay for that indirectly when you rent anyway.
> All I can tell you is that I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy, to the tune of thousands per
> year.
And if you are a spendthrift, you can end up with
fuck all in the way of assets when you stop working.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 9:41 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:09:25 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>SoCalMike wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>>>
>>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>>> more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
>>>
>>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>>> ownership.
>>
>> all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what
>> your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your own
>> its probably worth it.
>
>
>I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much
>maintainence costs for a home. All I can tell you is that
>I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy,
>to the tune of thousands per year.
A lot depends on the construction of the house, age of stuff that has
to be maintained, etc.
Real estate taxes are the killer for some. Mine run about $400 a
month now.
In 12 years here I've spent maybe $15k on maintenance, including all
new windows, roof, new furnace and central air, new appliances, tree
cutting, etc.
Taxes have been over $40k.
Maintenance costs could have been lower if I did more of the work
myself or went with cheaper stuff.
Can't avoid the taxes though.
That's the first thing to look at when house hunting.
A lot also hinges on how much space you're getting. To get an
equivalent sized apartment would have cost many times what I've paid.
If you live spartan and don't care about collecting junk, or having a
garage, or having neighbors on the other side of the wall, an
apartment could well be cheaper, but it depends on the time frame
you're talking about.
Then there's the RE market itself - home costs - location, interest
rates, etc.
Lots goes into getting any sense from a calculation.
But it's pretty hard to make a financial case for an apartment if the
time frame is 10 years or longer. Maybe less.
I'm assuming you don't get foolish and buy a home at an inflated
price, as many have done.
Too bad for some youngsters that they fell into that trap.
--Vic
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 9:44 pm
From: Les Cargill
Rod Speed wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> SoCalMike wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>>>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>>>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>>>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>>>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>>>>
>>>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>>>> more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>>>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>>>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>>>> ownership.
>>> all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what
>>> your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your
>>> own its probably worth it.
>
>> I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much
>> maintainence costs for a home.
>
> I know I didnt. Its cost sweet fuck all over 35 years now.
>
That's completely ridiculous. No new roof, no plumbing
issues? No paint? No carpet?
Two of the three houses I've bought were rehabs. I know what
happens to a house that goes unmaintained. The last rehab was $6k
materials, but it would have been close to $25k if we'd hired
it done.
And it's completely, totally different if you can stay
in the same house for 35 years. The average tenure is
closer to five, and the transaction costs aren't really
even covered in that time. When you do what I do for a
living, you have to move. Since just 1998, I've worked
for a total of five firms. Only one of them even still
exists.
> And you pay for that indirectly when you rent anyway.
>
That depends on the market you're in. Each person must evaluate
for themselves which makes the most sense. But with how
wages and real estate prices have diverged, the landlord has
to have significant equity to even break even.
Fees, realtor commissions and other transaction costs can run
as high as ten percent of the purchase price.
>> All I can tell you is that I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy, to the tune of thousands per
>> year.
>
> And if you are a spendthrift, you can end up with
> fuck all in the way of assets when you stop working.
>
>
So don't do that. I certainly don't.
--
Les Cargill
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 10:47 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Vic Smith wrote
> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote
>> SoCalMike wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>>>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>>>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>>>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>>>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>>>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership
>>>> is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
>>>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>>>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>>>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership.
>>> all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what
>>> your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your
>>> own its probably worth it.
>> I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much
>> maintainence costs for a home. All I can tell you is that
>> I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy,
>> to the tune of thousands per year.
> A lot depends on the construction of the house, age of stuff that has to be maintained, etc.
Yes.
> Real estate taxes are the killer for some.
Those are irrelevant, they're included in the rent if you rent.
> Mine run about $400 a month now.
> In 12 years here I've spent maybe $15k on maintenance, including all new
> windows, roof, new furnace and central air, new appliances, tree cutting, etc.
I wouldnt have spent more than $1.5K, and that was just the
hot water service and a couple of the big patio glass doors.
> Taxes have been over $40k.
See above.
> Maintenance costs could have been lower if I did
> more of the work myself or went with cheaper stuff.
> Can't avoid the taxes though.
See above.
> That's the first thing to look at when house hunting.
> A lot also hinges on how much space you're getting. To get an
> equivalent sized apartment would have cost many times what I've paid.
> If you live spartan and don't care about collecting junk, or having a
> garage, or having neighbors on the other side of the wall, an
> apartment could well be cheaper, but it depends on the time frame
> you're talking about.
> Then there's the RE market itself - home costs - location, interest rates, etc.
> Lots goes into getting any sense from a calculation.
> But it's pretty hard to make a financial case for an apartment if the
> time frame is 10 years or longer. Maybe less.
> I'm assuming you don't get foolish and buy a home at an inflated
> price, as many have done.
> Too bad for some youngsters that they fell into that trap.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 11:03 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Les Cargill wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Les Cargill wrote
>>> SoCalMike wrote
>>>> Les Cargill wrote
>>>>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>>>>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>>>>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>>>>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>>>>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>>>>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it
>>>>> properly.
>>>>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>>>>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>>>>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership.
>>>> all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than
>>>> what your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on
>>>> your own its probably worth it.
>>> I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much
>>> maintainence costs for a home.
>> I know I didnt. Its cost sweet fuck all over 35 years now.
> That's completely ridiculous.
Nope, fact.
> No new roof,
Nope, it metal, raised ridge, its as good as it was new.
> no plumbing issues?
Only very trivial stuff, tap washers.
> No paint?
Nope, the outside isnt painted, concrete block, the inside is washable paint.
> No carpet?
Nope, hard floors, quarry tiles. As good as when they were laid.
> Two of the three houses I've bought were rehabs. I know what happens to a house that goes unmaintained.
Depends on the construction.
> The last rehab was $6k materials, but it would have been close to $25k if we'd hired it done.
> And it's completely, totally different if you can stay in the same house for 35 years.
Yes, and few can do that with rentals.
> The average tenure is closer to five,
You dont have to keep changing the house you own
and no one I know has changed the house they own
at anything like that rate. When I built my house from
scratch myself, I managed to infect quite a few with
house owning and one of those has changed houses
in that time, and he changed the town he lived in.
All the rest are still in the house they built then
and so are all but one of my neighbours too.
> and the transaction costs aren't really even covered in that time.
Depends entirely on how you do it. I had quite literally none
with mine, didnt even bother with a lawyer or anything like that.
> When you do what I do for a living, you have to move.
Yes, like I said, renting has some advantages if you move a lot.
Most dont tho.
> Since just 1998, I've worked for a total of five firms. Only one of them even still exists.
Sure, but thats not that common.
>> And you pay for that indirectly when you rent anyway.
> That depends on the market you're in.
Nope. Its only dying ghost towns where the rental doesnt
cover the maintenance on the property you are renting.
It covers the property taxes too.
The main thing that the rent doesnt cover is the interest on the mortgage.
> Each person must evaluate for themselves which makes the most sense.
Yes, but your claim about maintenance is far from the truth if you
choose the construction of the house with maintenance costs in mind.
> But with how wages and real estate prices have diverged, the landlord has to have significant equity to even break
> even.
That varys with the property market.
> Fees, realtor commissions and other transaction costs can run as high as ten percent of the purchase price.
Only if you're stupid enough to go that route.
>>> All I can tell you is that I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy, to the tune of thousands per
>>> year.
>> And if you are a spendthrift, you can end up with
>> fuck all in the way of assets when you stop working.
> So don't do that.
Easier said than done with spendthrifts.
> I certainly don't.
I dont either, but I do recognise that owning is a form of forced saving for spendthrifts.
Nothing else works as effectively saving wise for them.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 11:30 pm
From: Les Cargill
Rod Speed wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Les Cargill wrote
>>>> SoCalMike wrote
>>>>> Les Cargill wrote
>
>>>>>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>>>>>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>>>>>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>>>>>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>>>>>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>
>>>>>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it
>>>>>> properly.
>
>>>>>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>>>>>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>>>>>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership.
>
>>>>> all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than
>>>>> what your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on
>>>>> your own its probably worth it.
>
>>>> I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much
>>>> maintainence costs for a home.
>
>>> I know I didnt. Its cost sweet fuck all over 35 years now.
>
>> That's completely ridiculous.
>
> Nope, fact.
>
>> No new roof,
>
> Nope, it metal, raised ridge, its as good as it was new.
>
>> no plumbing issues?
>
> Only very trivial stuff, tap washers.
>
>> No paint?
>
> Nope, the outside isnt painted, concrete block, the inside is washable paint.
>
>> No carpet?
>
> Nope, hard floors, quarry tiles. As good as when they were laid.
>
>> Two of the three houses I've bought were rehabs. I know what happens to a house that goes unmaintained.
>
> Depends on the construction.
>
Fair enough, then. You specifically selected materials
for indestructibility. Cripes, my parent's house, build in the
late '60s, they had to replace the linoleum flooring because of
40 years of traffic wear.
>> The last rehab was $6k materials, but it would have been close to $25k if we'd hired it done.
>
>> And it's completely, totally different if you can stay in the same house for 35 years.
>
> Yes, and few can do that with rentals.
>
I wouldn't rent the same property for 35 years. We'll probably
settle down in about ten years.
>> The average tenure is closer to five,
>
> You dont have to keep changing the house you own
> and no one I know has changed the house they own
> at anything like that rate. When I built my house from
> scratch myself, I managed to infect quite a few with
> house owning and one of those has changed houses
> in that time, and he changed the town he lived in.
> All the rest are still in the house they built then
> and so are all but one of my neighbours too.
>
Believe it or not, I worked day labor for a guy that
was doing exactly that when I was in college. He
ended up building an entire subdivision. He was also
lifting river rocks with a 40 horse Ford tractor to
where the hydraulics popped maniacally.
Things ever slow down enough for me to stay put,
I might just.
>> and the transaction costs aren't really even covered in that time.
>
> Depends entirely on how you do it. I had quite literally none
> with mine, didnt even bother with a lawyer or anything like that.
>
>> When you do what I do for a living, you have to move.
>
> Yes, like I said, renting has some advantages if you move a lot.
>
> Most dont tho.
>
Right.
>> Since just 1998, I've worked for a total of five firms. Only one of them even still exists.
>
> Sure, but thats not that common.
>
Depends. I work in an industry where firms are keenly
subject to Schumpeterian forces. But if you backed
the right horse, you'd win big.
>>> And you pay for that indirectly when you rent anyway.
>
>> That depends on the market you're in.
>
> Nope. Its only dying ghost towns where the rental doesnt
> cover the maintenance on the property you are renting.
>
I'd look around at the rental prices where you are. This is
fairly recent. After all, the mortgage market became very
good at inducing people who couldn't afford it to buy.
I'm seeing... pre 1990 prices on rental now. And lots
of vacancy. In multiple areas. But of course it depends.
One place we did rent was a dying town, and we got a hell
of a good deal. We knew it was dying, that's why we rented.
> It covers the property taxes too.
>
> The main thing that the rent doesnt cover is the interest on the mortgage.
>
Agreed. Hence my point that landlords must have a significant down
on property.
>> Each person must evaluate for themselves which makes the most sense.
>
> Yes, but your claim about maintenance is far from the truth if you
> choose the construction of the house with maintenance costs in mind.
>
No question - but most builder-built houses don't come with those
options, or they're very expensive.
>> But with how wages and real estate prices have diverged, the landlord has to have significant equity to even break
>> even.
>
> That varys with the property market.
>
>> Fees, realtor commissions and other transaction costs can run as high as ten percent of the purchase price.
>
> Only if you're stupid enough to go that route.
>
It's not exactly stupid.... 99% of housing purchases are like
that, and it's probably worth it. Takes a lot of factors to do it your
way, and if you get the paperwork wrong, you can (in the US) be unable
to sell, unable to bequeath the property or even be condemned.
>>>> All I can tell you is that I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy, to the tune of thousands per
>>>> year.
>
>>> And if you are a spendthrift, you can end up with
>>> fuck all in the way of assets when you stop working.
>
>> So don't do that.
>
> Easier said than done with spendthrifts.
>
>> I certainly don't.
>
> I dont either, but I do recognise that owning is a form of forced saving for spendthrifts.
>
> Nothing else works as effectively saving wise for them.
>
That's probably unfortunately true. And in years past, I might have
looked spendthrift, what with one income and two kids. But that was
then. Hasn't been that way for years.
>
>
--
Les Cargill
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 14 2009 11:47 pm
From: Les Cargill
Vic Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:09:25 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> SoCalMike wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>>>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>>>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>>>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>>>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>>>>
>>>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>>>> more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>>>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>>>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>>>> ownership.
>>> all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what
>>> your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your own
>>> its probably worth it.
>>
>> I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much
>> maintainence costs for a home. All I can tell you is that
>> I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy,
>> to the tune of thousands per year.
>
> A lot depends on the construction of the house, age of stuff that has
> to be maintained, etc.
> Real estate taxes are the killer for some. Mine run about $400 a
> month now.
Ouch.
> In 12 years here I've spent maybe $15k on maintenance, including all
> new windows, roof, new furnace and central air, new appliances, tree
> cutting, etc.
> Taxes have been over $40k.
> Maintenance costs could have been lower if I did more of the work
> myself or went with cheaper stuff.
> Can't avoid the taxes though.
> That's the first thing to look at when house hunting.
> A lot also hinges on how much space you're getting. To get an
> equivalent sized apartment would have cost many times what I've paid.
I've mostly rented houses. And what I found, through sampling
error or whatever, is that the simple monthly costs of rental were
usually lower. I've also seen several tales of woe from
wannabe landlords who ended up bankrupt over leveraged rent
houses.
My point is that since about 1980, wages ( as opposed to total
compensation ) have been pretty flat, and "what the traffic will bear"
in the rental market hasn't kept up with cost.
> If you live spartan and don't care about collecting junk, or having a
> garage, or having neighbors on the other side of the wall, an
> apartment could well be cheaper, but it depends on the time frame
> you're talking about.
> Then there's the RE market itself - home costs - location, interest
> rates, etc.
> Lots goes into getting any sense from a calculation.
Absolutely.
> But it's pretty hard to make a financial case for an apartment if the
> time frame is 10 years or longer. Maybe less.
Agreed. I managed 9 years in *one* house I bought. The rest,
I gotta go chase a job. That one was shocking - that area had
effectively negative unemployment for 25 years before the bottom
fell out.
> I'm assuming you don't get foolish and buy a home at an inflated
> price, as many have done.
Oh, I did. Once. It all came out fine, though. I about broke
even on it, didn't lose that much of the upfront. Dummy me. It
was, at least a modest home. Although really, what I paid for it
was pretty much the original price plus inflation. It's now
worth about 75% of what it *originally* sold for in 1983, so
the guy who bought it from me....
> Too bad for some youngsters that they fell into that trap.
>
The real problem there is credit cards. Bad craziness, credit cards.
Been there, too, to a modest amount. Not going back. Technically,
the charges were business finance ( contract travel expenses ), but
still... that took me about a year off plan.
> --Vic
>
>
--
Les Cargill
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment