Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Dec 2006 12:23 T Wake wrote: > Oh, and don't forget the little faeries who make sure things get done. Don't forget the gremlins either. Graham
From: T Wake on 6 Dec 2006 12:23 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el6dr0$8ss_005(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <yrydnS7hKe5-TejYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:el43bu$8ss_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <4575811C.AEDAD6A9(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I >>>>> >>>> >suspect >>>>> >>>> > it's just another of your fanciful folksy notions. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Nope. It's fact. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful >>>>> >>>to >>> date. >>>>> >>All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they >>>>> >>got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They >>>>> >>worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's >>>>> >>side had some kind farm business before they were legal. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>/BAH >>>>> > >>>>> >Teenagers buy their own homes, and "none were right -- none were even >>> middle >>>>> >class." >>>>> > >>>>> >There's your problem -- you have no idea of what "middle class" >>>>> >means. >>> Hint: >>>>> >>>>> >middle-class teenagers are not able to buy their own homes. >>>>> >>>>> Right. Poor ones manage to do so. One of the lessons you learn >>>>> when you grow up poor is how not to spend money. >>>> >>>>Dear BAH, >>>> >>>>the 'entry price round here for even a modest single >>>>bedroom apartment, never mind >>>>a house is the equivalent of �300,000. >>>> >>>>Please explain how a 'poor person' can acquire one. >>> >>> Don't buy in the ritzy neighborhood. Pool resources >>> with 3 others. There all kinds of ways to get started >>> owning instead of renting. >> >>Hmm. Reading block appears to remain in place. >> >>Eeyore isn't talking about a ritzy neighbourhood. > > 300,000 pounds for a single bedroom is a ritzy place if > I did my conversions correctly. It is expensive, however it really does depend where you live. In my village there are _no_ properties under that price, even the one bedroom cottages are going for 300,000. I have no idea about the US but in a capitalist society house prices will increase as long as people can afford to pay them. The poor person getting their first home is so far down the ladder, being unable to purchase a home will not affect the market. In the UK, the housing market spiraled out of control under Thatcher - UNTIL - the middle class were unable to keep buying new houses then it collapsed. Currently, poor people in the UK can not afford to buy new homes. Middle class people can and often then rent them out to the poor, further ensuring the prices will rise beyond the ability of the poor to pay. This is the miracle of capitalism which created the middle classes. Your socialist anti-middle class rhetoric will get you no where. >> How do you share a house >>with three other people when it has one bedroom? > > Bunk beds. Or do as the Chinese do and sleep in shifts. Hahaha. Keep digging. All four people work 0800 - 1700, with a sixty minute commute each way to work. How would you suggest they stagger their four "sleep shifts?" The day from 0700 - 1800 is already taken. Assume 30 mins before and 30mins after work for meals and you are left with 12 hours of the day to play with. Are you seriously suggesting getting three hours sleep each is an acceptable alternative? Or, as the case may be, are you simply arguing for the sake of it and you dont mind that your ideas are actually insane? As an example, imagine a �100,000 one bedroom starter home. Unless you are earning over �28,000 per year (and as such in the top 11.59% of the UK regarding pay - http://www.channel4.com/money/chat_vote_win/richometer/) you need a deposit. Let us assume that by some miracle the person getting their first house has scrimped together, inherited, stolen or whatever to get a �20,000 deposit. On average this person is going to need to pay �500 per month mortgage for the next 25 years. Now this works out as an easy �6000 per year, but add in average costs for clothing, food and transport to work (bus pass) this adds in another �200 per month (and this is frugal - no money for anything else such as a TV, phone, PC, books, newspapers etc) and then tax will round this off to _about_ �10,000 as the minimum salary to afford the house (*). The problem is 63% of the UK population earn _below_ �10,000 per year. They are incapable now (and probably for ever as house prices rise much faster than inflation) of buying a house. Nothing you say about bunk beds or the like will change this major problem. You may want to return to Victorian work houses and slavery under a different name, but most of the developed world has moved on. (*) Not to mention the mortgage company wont give a �80,000 mortgage to anyone earning less than �20,000 per year. It really is pretty much impossible for poor people to buy houses. >>Personally, I do not doubt it is _possible_ in both the US and UK for poor >>people to "do good" and become rich. I am 100% confident it is _harder_ >>for >>the poor person to become a "success" in business. > > What do you call successs? Becoming a billionaire overnight? I'm > not talking about that kind of success. Neither am I. You are right though, we need to define success a bit. Prior to this debate, I would have though "success" in this context would have meant being able to get your own house and look after your family. The rich kids can already do that though so it makes the debate pointless. How would you define sucess in a manner which support poor people being more able than rich ones? Do you define it as being able to earn more than your parents? In which case yes, poor people will be more successfull. Do you define it as becoming an MD or similar - in which case research by the Institute of Management certainly suggests children from rich / middle class backgrounds do better than poor ones. >> >>I suspect this was true even in the weird bizarro time zone /BAH lives in >>but it really is true in the "modern world." > > I'm beginning to wonder why human society has managed to survive as well > as it has. I am sure you are. I suspect you are still getting to grips with the black death.
From: T Wake on 6 Dec 2006 12:25 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4576BED2.87468C78(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>Dear BAH, >> >>> >> >>>the 'entry price round here for even a modest single >> >>>bedroom apartment, never mind >> >>>a house is the equivalent of �300,000. >> >>> >> >>>Please explain how a 'poor person' can acquire one. >> >> >> >> Don't buy in the ritzy neighborhood. Pool resources >> >> with 3 others. There all kinds of ways to get started >> >> owning instead of renting. >> > >> >Hmm. Reading block appears to remain in place. >> > >> >Eeyore isn't talking about a ritzy neighbourhood. >> >> 300,000 pounds for a single bedroom is a ritzy place if >> I did my conversions correctly. > > Whoops ! > > That was meant to be $300,000. > > St Albans is a sought-after location on account of the relatively easy > commuting > to London and the reasonable ( I won't say good ) train service to do > that. It's > also quite a nice location generally but I wouldn't call my place ritzy > even > though it's easily worth $500,000. > > A newish house 50 yds away with 4 quite small bedrooms and maybe ~ 1500 sq > ft > total floor area just went for $800,000. > > Prices in the SE of England are pretty damn high not least because there > are > jobs here. Where house prices were low there were no jobs so people _still_ couldn't afford them. Then all the people from the south east turned up and bought second homes - pushing the prices even further away from the locals. Oh well. I have my houses and I am happy :-)
From: T Wake on 6 Dec 2006 12:26 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el6fc8$8qk_002(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4576BED2.87468C78(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>Dear BAH, >>> >>> >>> >>>the 'entry price round here for even a modest single >>> >>>bedroom apartment, never mind >>> >>>a house is the equivalent of �300,000. >>> >>> >>> >>>Please explain how a 'poor person' can acquire one. >>> >> >>> >> Don't buy in the ritzy neighborhood. Pool resources >>> >> with 3 others. There all kinds of ways to get started >>> >> owning instead of renting. >>> > >>> >Hmm. Reading block appears to remain in place. >>> > >>> >Eeyore isn't talking about a ritzy neighbourhood. >>> >>> 300,000 pounds for a single bedroom is a ritzy place if >>> I did my conversions correctly. >> >>Whoops ! > > Whoops forgiven ;-). > > >> >>That was meant to be $300,000. > > OK. That "sounds" much better. > > >> >>St Albans is a sought-after location on account of the relatively easy > commuting >>to London and the reasonable ( I won't say good ) train service to do >>that. > It's >>also quite a nice location generally but I wouldn't call my place ritzy >>even >>though it's easily worth $500,000. > > It's become the fad to live there. This kind of phenomena happens > all over the world. Yesterday's warehouse district is today's > artsy community which is going to be tomorrow's yuppie haven. > That's how property evolves. > > You are now living in a snooty place :-). My area has evolved > in a similar way. The cottage across the street sold for $350K. > That's completely insane. >> >>A newish house 50 yds away with 4 quite small bedrooms and maybe ~ 1500 sq >>ft >>total floor area just went for $800,000. > > The one across the street may have two bedrooms. >> >>Prices in the SE of England are pretty damn high not least because there >>are >>jobs here. > > In 20-30 years, there won't be jobs. Maybe true. The SE of England has had higher employment rates than the rest of the country for the last two hundred years though so saying 20 - 30 years might be a tad pessimistic. Even then, 20 years is a long time to wait to buy a house.
From: Eeyore on 6 Dec 2006 12:35
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Prices in the SE of England are pretty damn high not least because there > > are jobs here. > > Where house prices were low there were no jobs so people _still_ couldn't > afford them. Then all the people from the south east turned up and bought > second homes - pushing the prices even further away from the locals. > > Oh well. I have my houses and I am happy :-) I doubt I could afford mine if I was buying today. Graham |