Comments on: San Francisco is #1 Best City for Young Professionals

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:27:39 +0000

“Debt is debt. Net worth is ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES. You have a $750K mortgage, you have zero savings, you are negative $750,000, according to Finance 101.”

LOL, looks like someone failed Finance 101.

By: madhaus

madhaus — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:01:14 +0000

Debt is debt. Net worth is ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES. You have a $750K mortgage, you have zero savings, you are negative $750,000, according to Finance 101.

Ummm, you forgot something. If you have no savings, a $750K mortgage and a house worth $750K, then you are not negative $750K but ZERO. Slightly underwater after selling costs, but definitely not 3/4 mil in the hole.

This is Finance 101. You can argue that the house is the bank’s, not yours, but they don’t go after you for the $750K after you sell the house, they just take the proceeds.

By: Pralay

Pralay — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:07:21 +0000

Let’s chill on some of the baiting, shall we?
——-

Come on, burbed! I truly believed it. Or was it just a joke?

By: DreamT

DreamT — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:23:53 +0000

buckborden – your assertions are generally in line with mine but your question definitely isn’t. “If real estate is SO REAL or more “real” than cash, then why are folks walking away from their “wealth” when it loses value?” -> well they don’t, they walk away from debt not wealth.
I also have some problems with other definitions you use. Real estate is land much more than a building (land accounts for about three times as much value as the house sitting on it).
Owning fully mortgaged real estate still give you specific rights, preferred access and ownership protection that you do not have as a renter, so saying ‘it ain’t yours’ is somewhat simplistic (not wrong, just simplistic).
Short of major flooding (and even then) land is here forever, whereas cash is fabricated and can become entirely worthless within a few years (such as during currency conversion as with the Euro – old currencies could only be exchanged at banks for a certain duration), and don’t get me started on inflation.
I don’t consider net worth and wealth to be equivalent (you used both words interchangeably apparently) because net worth is a raw number, whereas wealth, as wikipedia says, provides “a type of safety net of protection against an unforeseen decline in one’s living standard in the event of job loss or other emergency (…)” That’s why equity in your primary home may be included in measures of net worth, but is typically not included in measure of wealth because it’s illiquid – it takes a bank to approve a second mortgage on it for example.
Where’s my gift?

By: nomadic

nomadic — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:13:18 +0000

buckborden, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who has no equity in their house and no savings claiming to be wealthy. (The few I’ve come across just whine about their mortgage, when they shouldn’t have bought in the first place.) As you pointed out, the measure of wealth is assets minus liabilities. There is still a large percentage of homeowners with actual equity in their houses and won’t be walking away from them.

By: buckborden

buckborden — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:56:17 +0000

DreamT,

Debt is debt. Net worth is ASSETS MINUS LIABILITIES. You have a $750K mortgage, you have zero savings, you are negative $750,000, according to Finance 101. How can that be categorized as wealth? Cash is cash; real estate is just a building, and if you don’t own it outright, IT AIN’T YOURS. Believing otherwise is a delusion. And furthermore, if real estate is SO REAL or more “real” than cash, then why are folks walking away from their “wealth” when it loses value? Answer me that, please, dear gifted one.

By: nomadic

nomadic — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:56:14 +0000

…been running around all day.
madhaus, in answer to your question in #14, it can be done. (That is, building equity in flyover land.) I mentioned it because I did it. I owned two houses out there (1993-1997 and 1997-2001, one at a time!) which yielded around $200,000 to bring out here. Then we rented for two years to get used to the prices here. I still think it was worth giving up all the extra space to come here.

By: burbed

burbed — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:54:05 +0000

Let’s chill on some of the baiting, shall we?

By: Pralay

Pralay — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:51:33 +0000

Finally being wealthy is basically having the option not to work for as long as wished while sustaining one’s lifestyle level.
——-

Damn, I thought some people work for the purpose of getting frequent flyer mileage.

By: Pralay

Pralay — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:33:37 +0000

Regarding post #35, the link to male/female ratio stat:
http://www.xist.org/earth/pop_gender.aspx

By: Pralay

Pralay — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:32:52 +0000

It’s pretty much social thing. In society where ratio girls/guys is >1, girls get dressed every day as they go to a night club even if it’s a trip to grocery store. When this ratio < 1.0, then you see what you usually see in US: utterly obese and ugly dressed people who don’t care how they look.
——

Wow! Let’s get the facts straight -

Venezuela: 101 (more male, less female)
Brazil: 97. Argentina: 96 (more female, less male)
And USA: 97

Basically, USA ratio is no different from Brazil or Argentina. So, why females dress sexy there? May be it’s not really male/female ratio, but just cultural and social thing.

How about India? 107 (more male, less female). Still females try to look attractive (not necessarily sexy) to males, considering the fact India is primarily a male dominated society and males are primary breadwinners. So, may be it is not just social and cultural thing – it’s economic thing too.

Bottomline, concluding that females try to be more attractive when society has more females than males is utter bullshit.

Needless to say that the concept of “well-dressed” has nothing to do with “looking sexy” anyway. A welldressed person can look unsexy and ugly dressed can look sexy.

By: DreamT

DreamT — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:28:44 +0000

buckborden – since when is cash more real than real estate? We’re not in Zimbabwe but still, that’s a dramatic statement you’re making.
Also home equity is appraised (or sold) value minus debt, last I checked. How could debt disguise as home equity?
Finally being wealthy is basically having the option not to work for as long as wished while sustaining one’s lifestyle level. Neither home equity nor debt really qualify unless you can get them to generate income…

By: buckborden

buckborden — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:13:42 +0000

When you home-ownders get the bill for the coming $5 trillion (yes, that’s $5 trillion) Freddie/Fannie bailout–and trust me, it is coming on faster than a loaded freight train–your home “equity” or whatever you care to call it, won’t save you. Market forces will take care of your butt no matter who you are or what you think you “own.” The RBA will return to normal (meaning at least a 75% decline in prices from their still ridiculously overpriced levels).

BTW, when nobody can borrow anymore, what can the government do, FORCE PEOPLE TO BORROW? Lots of luck on that one. Fools will get what they deserve, all of you. Those of us in cash or other REAL ASSETS, AS OPPOSED TO DEBT DISGUISED AS HOME EQUITY, will be in great shape. (I’m still trying to figure out how folks with a mortgage consider themselves wealthy if they have zero in savings to offset their debt.) Can someone please tell me when DEBT BECAME WEALTH? Am I missing something here???????

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:08:52 +0000

> Isn’t the whole concept of “well-dressed” and
> “ugly-dressed” come from fashion world? If so, why do
> I have to care about their standard?

Well-dressed is actually more complicated thing than it seems at first. Yes, there’s connection between fashion magazines and how people get dressed. It’s pretty much social thing. In society where ratio girls/guys is >1, girls get dressed every day as they go to a night club even if it’s a trip to grocery store. When this ratio < 1.0, then you see what you usually see in US: utterly obese and ugly dressed people who don’t care how they look. Every ugly b$%@$ has a chance to find a pair here, so who cares how sexy she is. Funny thing is that best dressed people in Bay Area are gays.
I personally don’t care what people are wearing as long as they look clean. However, when you’re single and want to impress somebody, you probably have to dress better than average person. Go to any Eastern European country or countries like Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina etc… and you’ll get the idea how feminine and sexy women may look. I know you came from India and have your own set of stereotypes… but believe me, there’er countries where sandals and sari are not considered to be fashionable.

By: madhaus

madhaus — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:17:19 +0000

bob, once again you have what sounds like an outragious idea that has already been implemented (though not as you meant it).

Just about every school around here has several “portable” buildings that have been in place for YEARS without permanent structures going in to replace them. My kids wonder why schools in movies are always 2-story fortresses with tiled hallways, locker banks, and intimidating stairways, when all they’ve known are unconnected buildings with doors opening only to the fresh air.

By: bob

bob — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:43:54 +0000

Tell you what,
I just had an idea for getting prices in the BA to drop: portable trailer schools. Yes- highly rated schools that show up at all neighborhoods via semi truck housed in giant trailers. Therefor, all neighborhoods will have ‘excellent’ schools thus it won’t become the cash-cow of realtors to tout a specific area because it’ll become generic.

By: madhaus

madhaus — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:10:56 +0000

Okay, I found a 94087/CUSD house for a 3/4 mil. It's small but it is a house, not a townhouse, and this has been an area that's hard to find a place for sale at all, let alone at a lower one. Kind of a marginal neighborhood but schools are close by except for the middle school (Nimitz Elemntary & Fremont HS). I think Nimitz is the 2nd lowest scoring school in the district, and so is Fremont HS. But what do you want? It's a HOUSE in used-to-be-RBA 94087! Also check out the pictures because it looks like it was decorated in Late Crayola.

By: sonarrat 94619

sonarrat 94619 — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:35:28 +0000

There are FOR LEASE signs all over Sunnyvale, so I don’t know what WG is referring to. Maybe some investors bought commercial property at the peak and can’t afford to lease it for current market rates?

I don’t think there was a commercial RE bubble, or if there was, at least it didn’t mirror the residential RE bubble.

By: Pralay

Pralay — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:05:00 +0000

If there was a competition for city with ugliest and worst dressed girls, SF would be in the top 5 for sure, next to Nowhere, IA and Cornfields, OH.
———-

Isn’t the whole concept of “well-dressed” and “ugly-dressed” come from fashion world? If so, why do I have to care about their standard?

By: burbed

burbed — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:46:36 +0000

It seems like most of my friends are doing the whole “eternal girlfriend” thing

It’s like the eternal beta thing.