JayB

"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Global+Markets/Global+Credit+Perspectives/2007/U.S.+Credit+Perspectives-+5-2007.htm

Might have a winner here.

"This delightful 3 bedroom Craftsman home built in 1925 boasts tons of original charm: built-ins, and hardwood floors throughout. Sunny spaces including living room with traditional fireplace, formal sitting den/parlor, and large updated eat-in kitchen w/French doors leading out to deck for BBQs & huge level backyard for relaxing & summertime fun! Two bedrooms upstairs, one bedroom on the main, full bath updated w/pedestal sink. Unfinished lwr lvl for expansion or storage. Sweet Ballard location!" 3 bedroom, 1 bath, 1280 square feet. $499,950 Underpriced isn't an adjective that I'd use in association with long-commute-free real estate in Seattle. Whether you think that paying a half-a-fucking-million for a 1300 square foot home on a postage-stamp lot constitutes a good value becomes irrelevant at some point. Get to a certain price threshold, and the math just doesn't work anymore for the average household, and the folks that want to own their own detached house start moving to places where they can actually afford to buy, and perhaps buy something with a bit more square footage than your average two bedroom apartment. Supply/demand constraints being what they are, that's bound to be way out in commuterland for the forseeable future. When I commute from North Ballard (technically Crown Hill, so I'm as north west as you can get without being in Golden Gardens) to Seattle in my car, it takes 20 min. I am at the start of the bus line, so the bus is always on time. If I take the express, it takes about 30-35 min. So what is this horrible commute? I understand the restraints and moving somewhere you can afford and all that shit--that's how I bought my place in Ballard. All the whining in the world won't change that (not that you are whining-I just mean folks in general). Housing is expensive and living on the streets ain't fun. I was using Ballard of an example a place that's close to the city but now well beyond the means of the average household, who will have to choose between staying close to the city and never owning a home or buying something more affordable in commuterland.

"I agree, but there are more costs associated with commuting than just fuel, namely the car itself, maintenance, and insurance. Because we live in Ballard, my wife and I are able to make due with one car as I'm able bike/bus to work. The further you live out in commuter land, the more likely it is that the typical family will require two cars. Most importantly, and not directly related to fuel prices, is the cost of my time. I work a lot, and I can get home to my family far quicker on my bike than I could in a car if I lived in commuter-land. That's a huge added value." I agree with a lot of what you've said, and share alot of your priorities, but you have to be able to actually afford a place before any of these considerations become material. There's always renting, but the popular mythology surrounding home-ownership is such that relatively few people are content with this option.

"This delightful 3 bedroom Craftsman home built in 1925 boasts tons of original charm: built-ins, and hardwood floors throughout. Sunny spaces including living room with traditional fireplace, formal sitting den/parlor, and large updated eat-in kitchen w/French doors leading out to deck for BBQs & huge level backyard for relaxing & summertime fun! Two bedrooms upstairs, one bedroom on the main, full bath updated w/pedestal sink. Unfinished lwr lvl for expansion or storage. Sweet Ballard location!" 3 bedroom, 1 bath, 1280 square feet. $499,950 Underpriced isn't an adjective that I'd use in association with long-commute-free real estate in Seattle. Whether you think that paying a half-a-fucking-million for a 1300 square foot home on a postage-stamp lot constitutes a good value becomes irrelevant at some point. Get to a certain price threshold, and the math just doesn't work anymore for the average household, and the folks that want to own their own detached house start moving to places where they can actually afford to buy, and perhaps buy something with a bit more square footage than your average two bedroom apartment. Supply/demand constraints being what they are, that's bound to be way out in commuterland for the forseeable future.

When the average POS 3/2 craftsman in Ballard that has both wiring and plumbing from the 1940s or earlier is going for something north of $500K - any expense associated with driving is going too and from a much less expensive home is going to be trivial by comparison. People may elect to commute in more fuel efficient cars, but when you factor all of the other elements that determine where people live - the price of fuel is way, way down on the list. It's also worth remembering that the price of fertilizer, energy, shipping, plastics, etc, etc are all affected by the price of oil, so pretty much anything that's made, grown, shipped - eg, everything - will rise along with the price of oil. Those who spend a disproportionate share of their money on consumer goods and utilities will see a real reduction in their purchasing power, ability to save, and overall standard of living as a result of higher oil prices. The much loathed rich guys in SUV's that divert much more of their income into savings, investments, etc really aren't going to notice the impact much.

170. Will enter as the sole contestant in my own reverse-weight-loss contest and try to get back to 175 by June 1.

One month. Separate prizes for greatest percentage lost and greatest number of pounds lost. Winners will receive Karen Carpenter CD's and Posters....

I wear large cloudveil drytooling gloves and I couldn't get my pinky onto the tool. Literally. If the new cobra's grip is as tight as the prototype they were showing at the show, and you have large hands, forget about it. Same with the vipers. None of the guys who wandered over to the booth with me could fit their fingers in the pinky grip either, one fat fingered desert rat couldn't even get his hand on without gloves! BD has enlarged the fang so that all you sausage finger kids can get your mitts on them. Anybody shopping for a pair of quarks or nomics? Will be by the time next Winter rolls around. Somthing tells me that they may be gone by that time though...

I think that it's much more realistic to calculate the maximum real value of childcare for a given person or family by determining by the amount that they could actually afford to pay if the parent or both parents are working full time, or a single parent is doing the same. Ditto for any other domestic service. If the maximum salary for a given woman is $20,000 per year, and the maximum amount that she could actually spend on child-care and other miscellaneous domestic help is $500, you are drifting way off into fantasy land if you seriously believe that she is creating $40K in real value for herself with each additional kid that she cranks out by not paying for childcare that she could never afford in the first place. Per "real value is created by not spending money on things I could never afford in the first place" model it should be possible for me to generate $235K in "economic value" for myself by electing to buy a car costs $15K, rather than one that costs $235K despite the fact that I couldn't afford a $250,000 car in the first place.

If we are talking about raising children in solely economic terms, in the US and other first-world countries I think it would be hard to show that they represent anything other than a net expense - where the total dollar value of inputs they require to the age of 18 amounts to something like 2-300K or something on that order, and the dollar return that they generate for the household is next to zero - so I'd say we are talking about reducing the magnitude of the losses rather than actually creating something that generates an economic return for the household that exceeds the value of the inputs. Who knows. No, of course I'm not talking about the net economic value of having children. This entire conversation has been about the net economic value of a stay-at-home parent. The entire conversation is premised on the fact that kids are already present. Duh. I really don't see how this is so hard to comprehend. People with kids do this all the time, when one spouse is contemplating going back to work. You compare how much more money it will cost to outsource the domestic duties to how much the returning-to-work spouse will be able to bring in. The amount of money it costs to pay someone else to perform the domestic duties to your satisfaction is the true economic value of the stay at home parent. My calculations show it can range between 42k/yr and 125 k/yr. Simple. What do your calculations tell you about the net economic value created by an unemployable illiterate woman who stays at home with 8 children?

There was the whole court stacking thing that he tried after the supreme court overturned some of his New Deal initiatives...

Whether or not this is a problem depends on the nature of the political pressure we are talking about. I think it's perfectly acceptable for an administration to direct the prosecutors in the justice department to elevate one set of law enforcement priorities over another so long as this doesn't favor the perogatives of any particular person or party. For example, if the political pressure amounts to "We'd like to see you spend less time prosecuting illegal immigration cases and more time prosecuting contractors who have defrauded the government over the next four years" and a prosecutor continues to allocate most of their office's time towards illegal immigration, then I think that an administration is within it's rights to replace them. If the administration is coercing them into investigating a particular political enemy, abandoning an investigation into a political ally or donor, etc - then this would be a gross abuse of the office.

If we are talking about raising children in solely economic terms, in the US and other first-world countries I think it would be hard to show that they represent anything other than a net expense - where the total dollar value of inputs they require to the age of 18 amounts to something like 2-300K or something on that order, and the dollar return that they generate for the household is next to zero - so I'd say we are talking about reducing the magnitude of the losses rather than actually creating something that generates an economic return for the household that exceeds the value of the inputs. Who knows.

Per the logic of this retarded study, we could be equally justified in engaging in the same-kind of fantasy calculations to calculate the monetary value of each routine task that we perform on our own behalf every day. -Take the average hourly wage for dental hygenists and use that to figure out how much the time that you spend brushing and flossing is worth. -Take the time you spend washing and combing your hair and multiply that by the hourly rate for barbers/stylists. -Take the time that you spend bathing and multiply that by the hourly rate for a home-health aid, etc. -That ingrown hair you removed? Take a look at the average cost-per-visit to the ER and add that to the tally. Ditto for the papercut, the shaving cut, etc. You will soon find that no-matter what your level of drive, education, initiative, the relative scarcity of your skillset relative to the effective demand - your true economic worth is well into the millions.

Four to 12? Not really that familiar with women's sizes, but what kind of a weight range does that encompass? Does either end represent an unhealthy extreme for you? I've worn the same stuff anywhere from ~160 to a few pounds north of 180, but have spent the most time in the 168-172 range.

In the midst of my voluntary Beefcake4000 liftothon this winter I found that when I got over about 182 I hit the "wardrobe limit" and most of my clothes - but especially my pants - were maxed out. I had to unbutton my pants when I sat down, and some shirts that used to fit started looking like metrosexual clubwear. At that point I ended the experiment and dropped down to around 175, and then had a couple of injuries that put the kibosh on the lifting for a while and dropped back down to the long-term set-point of 170. Since I absolutely hate spending money on clothes, and try to minimize my expenses in this area - I figure that if push came to shove my desire to avoid buying new clothes to accomodate my increased girth would keep any involuntary weight-gain in check. Anyhow - this got me wondering how much room for expansion most people have in their wardrobes, and whether this plays into anyone else's weight control regimen.

Wow. What's the source of the mileage? Most of mine is weekend/vacation driving.

The whole thing is asinine. It's like trying to compute the value of your sex life with your spouse by multiplying the frequency of intercourse times the average fee assessed by an equally attractive prostitute.

Just curious, how many "frazzled-underappreciated-supermartyr" stay at home mom's have you met? I'm not sure if I've meet any, despite the growing cadre of moms in our life now. Roughly 50%. IMO most women seem to vocalize complaints and perceived hardships way, way, way, way more than men, and tend to center their conversation on what's going on in their lives way more than men. Might be more psychologically healthy for them, definitely more tiresome for me. Always been way more interested in ideas than listening to an infinite loop of domestic/personal minutia/trivia.

"Due" in geologic timescales entails a period of time that can encompass quite a few human lifetimes.

I guess the rainbow colored triangular trailer and ooncha!oooncha!oooncha! music that are not visible, but nonetheless contained within that photo, were dead giveaways.

It's been interesting to contrast the few men that I've met that stay at home with the kids with the average woman that I've met that does the same. Didn't get any of the frazzled-underapreciated-supermartyr vibe from the dudes.

'95. 180K. Still on the original clutch.