Look familiar, Alan?

[Thomas E.]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1V1kxVXIteTMwQTA

How does the guy who owns the gold car get out of that spot?

http://bakermedia.ca/

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-01 6:35 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1V1kxVXIteTMwQTA

Should it?

>
> How does the guy who owns the gold car get out of that spot?

Why am I supposed to care?

>
> http://bakermedia.ca/


OK. You're running around the internet looking for me, are you?


How cute.

[Thomas E.]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 5:50:00 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-06-01 6:35 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1V1kxVXIteTMwQTA
>
> Should it?
>
> >
> > How does the guy who owns the gold car get out of that spot?
>
> Why am I supposed to care?

"Drive" up and down 1st Street. All those cars parked on the curb? Neighbors too poor to afford off-street parking? Makes me appreciate the burbs.

>
> >
> > http://bakermedia.ca/
>
>
> OK. You're running around the internet looking for me, are you?
>
>
> How cute.

Like that takes much time or trouble!

LOL

http://domainbigdata.com/bakermedia.ca/mj/Jq1nmKkE7ENvo-3iiVKKTQ

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-01 3:44 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 5:50:00 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-06-01 6:35 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1V1kxVXIteTMwQTA
>>
>> Should it?
>>
>>>
>>> How does the guy who owns the gold car get out of that spot?
>>
>> Why am I supposed to care?
>
> "Drive" up and down 1st Street. All those cars parked on the curb? Neighbors too poor to afford off-street parking? Makes me appreciate the burbs.

It's a neighbourhood of low rise condos...

...almost all of which are worth more than your house.

:-)

>
>>
>>>
>>> http://bakermedia.ca/
>>
>>
>> OK. You're running around the internet looking for me, are you?
>>
>>
>> How cute.
>
> Like that takes much time or trouble!

Did I say it took much time, Liarboy?

>
> LOL
>
> http://domainbigdata.com/bakermedia.ca/mj/Jq1nmKkE7ENvo-3iiVKKTQ

<http://domainbigdata.com/nj/o7rrHyqdoJ3RlaLeXdnwSA>

[-hh]

Funny thing, the 'Burbs ... when they're too spread out and you get older - and too old to confidently drive - they become a guilded cage...

-hh

[Thomas E.]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 7:25:15 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> Funny thing, the 'Burbs ... when they're too spread out and you get older - and too old to confidently drive - they become a guilded cage...
>
> -hh

So can downtown living. The only real escape from that fate is assisted living. They furnish the meals, the docs come to see you, and they will even take you places in their vans.

[Thomas E.]

"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." Oscar Wilde, Lord Darlington, Act III

An inflated price for a small condo in Canada does not make it worth more than my $300,000 (400,000 Loonie) 4 bedroom home. I'll take the house, the green space, the peace and quiet, and wide streets with no cars parked on them any day.

[Alan Baker]

Whatever...

The fact remains:

People want so much to live where I live that a one bedroom condo sells
for more than your house.

:-)

[-hh]

Alan wrote:
>> [YA self-aggrandizement from Tommy]

>
> Whatever...
>
> The fact remains:
>
> People want so much to live where I live that a one bedroom condo sells
> for more than your house.
> :-)

Which reminds me ... saw the builder who's flipping the house next door
to ours; he's planning on listing it for $575K (and noted that that is less
than a similar project on a better lot than his which is listing for $599K).

Again, its basic rules of supply & demand....

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Yes it is. We have an abundant supply of easily developed land and pro-growth community leadership that result in more affordable housing than where you live. Supply plays an important role!

[Thomas E.]

Really?

http://www.cityrealty.ca/listing/176676602-150112788/303%205520%20JOYCE%20STREET-Br-V5R%204H6/?RefCode=40001

Nice 1 BR for about US $180,000. That's a lot less than my house would sell for.

Having said that, Vancouver prices are generally more comparable to coastal U.S. cities. Which is to say, significantly more than the Midwest. Land prices and availability are one important factor.

[Alan Baker]

It's also nowhere NEAR where I live, Liarboy.

Try again without lying.

:-)

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> Again, its the basic rules of supply & demand....

>
> Yes it is. We have an abundant supply of easily developed land
> and pro-growth community leadership that result in more
> affordable housing than where you live.

Interesting set of claims there Tom .. but can you now substantiate
them, as clearly comparatively as you did?

> Supply plays an important role!

On in context: "Location, location, location!"

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Huh? 9 km away, same city. So let's look at a condo in central Indianapolis

http://www.talktotucker.com/idx/429-n-pennsylvania-street-indianapolis-in-46204/10902832_spid/?src=4

This high end 3 BR 320 sq meter condo will set you back $CAD 2.3 million. Like Vancouver, move out a little ways from the city center and the prices are lower. You cannot compare prices for your location to mine in the suburbs. Looking at like locations, the prices are a lot closer.

[Thomas E.]

Where we do not have easily developed land in the city center

http://www.talktotucker.com/idx/429-n-pennsylvania-street-indianapolis-in-46204/10902832_spid/?src=4

It's the high end of the local market, but would never be worth that in the suburbs.

[-hh]

That's precisely the point, Tom.

For example, your "9km out" bit is pretty nonsensical when a
city center is the draw ... and supply/demand become quite
immediately obvious when you put a metric on it. For example,
a 1 mile radius from city center is ~3 square miles, whereas a
5 mile is 78 ... a difference of 1:25 ratio.

-hh

[Alan Baker]

And once again you choose to compare oranges to apples...

...but here's a 2 bedroom condo less than 4 blocks from mine with half
that floor area...

...for $2.5 million.

And your house is about 20km from downtown Vancouver, so a little bit
more than half the distance to South Surrey.

The LEAST expensive 4 bedroom dwelling in that area is $589,000.

The least expensive HOUSE with 4 bedrooms in that area will set you back
$968,000.

[Thomas E.]

Exactly, Alan is compared his central Vancouver condo to my suburban Indianapolis single family home.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-05 10:09 AM, Thomas E. wrote:

No. YOU tried to denigrate my place and I put you in your place.

[Thomas E.]

You liar! My home is about 3,000 km from Vancouver!

$CAD589 is about $US440. Your area has more limited land development potential than the farmland that is all 360 degrees around here, and you have mountain and ocean access.

Compare your location to Newport Beach Calif. That is also a place with limited land availability and ocean access. Better climate that Vancouver too.

There has to be a reason that 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border!

[Thomas E.]

Just because your small hovel is relatively expensive does not make it nicer than a 3,100 square foot Indiana single family home. I would say the same thing about that condo in downtown Indy.

[Alan Baker]

I'd say you'll do almost anything to avoid the fact that a 1 bedroom
condo a block and a half from the beach in one of the most beautiful
cities on the planet is worth more than your house, Liarboy.

But it still remains a fact.

:-)

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> That's precisely the point, Tom.
>>
>> For example, your "9km out" bit is pretty nonsensical when a
>> city center is the draw ... and supply/demand become quite
>> immediately obvious when you put a metric on it. For example,
>> a 1 mile radius from city center is ~3 square miles, whereas a
>> 5 mile is 78 ... a difference of 1:25 ratio.
>

> Exactly, Alan is compared his central Vancouver condo to my suburban
>Indianapolis single family home.

Nope. It's thst from a location standpoint, Alan's is the more desired location,
as has been determined by free market forces.

Apparently, mine apparently is too, although I've really not been paying all
too close of attention, if and/or by how much as per the assessment numbers.
AFAIC, one has to live somewhere, and personal preferences apply for size,
amenities, etc....in addition to location, location, location. I've been shown some
real estate listings who's asking list price is less than my current but adds more
bedrooms, baths, garage bays, acreage, etc...but sacrifices location. As I've said,
living out in the sticks isn't magically a positive selling point. Especially once
one runs the lifecycle models.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

Uh, no I did not Liarboy. Look at 1 bedroom condos 1 block from the beach at almost any U.S. oceanfront location.

And, Liarboy, you are about 4 blocks from English Bay, a water view but no open ocean. You like seeing oil tankers and container ships?

I've been to Vancouver several times. It's not a beautiful city. It is surrounded by some great scenery. Want me to post some pictures of the tacky-tacky commercial strips near your condo?

[Thomas E.]

When you can't drive any more nearby it's not in easy walking distance either. In my case I picked a location that does have within a mile grocery, health care, restaurants, a LA Fitness, Home Depot, banks and too many other convenient store locations to mention. It does not have mountains or water view.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-07 6:08 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:46:27 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-06-05 10:34 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:17:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2017-06-05 10:09 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:52:35 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> That's precisely the point, Tom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, your "9km out" bit is pretty nonsensical when a
>>>>>> city center is the draw ... and supply/demand become quite
>>>>>> immediately obvious when you put a metric on it. For example,
>>>>>> a 1 mile radius from city center is ~3 square miles, whereas a
>>>>>> 5 mile is 78 ... a difference of 1:25 ratio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly, Alan is compared his central Vancouver condo to my suburban Indianapolis single family home.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. YOU tried to denigrate my place and I put you in your place.
>>>
>>> Just because your small hovel is relatively expensive does not make it nicer than a 3,100 square foot Indiana single family home. I would say the same thing about that condo in downtown Indy.
>>>
>>
>> I'd say you'll do almost anything to avoid the fact that a 1 bedroom
>> condo a block and a half from the beach in one of the most beautiful
>> cities on the planet is worth more than your house, Liarboy.
>>
>> But it still remains a fact.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Uh, no I did not Liarboy. Look at 1 bedroom condos 1 block from the beach at almost any U.S. oceanfront location.

"No [you] did not" what, Liarboy?

>
> And, Liarboy, you are about 4 blocks from English Bay, a water view but no open ocean. You like seeing oil tankers and container ships?

I'm sorry to have to correct you again, Liarboy, but I'm precisely two
and one half blocks from the beach (I apologize for forgetting one block
in my earlier post).

>
> I've been to Vancouver several times. It's not a beautiful city. It is surrounded by some great scenery. Want me to post some pictures of the tacky-tacky commercial strips near your condo?

Which ones would those be, Liarboy?

[ed]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 6:13:21 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
...

> In my case I picked a location that does have within a mile grocery, health care, restaurants, a LA Fitness, Home Depot, banks and too many other convenient store locations to mention.

and those things are in:

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 6:08:54 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
...
> ***tacky-tacky commercial strips***

:D

[-hh]

Which is only the beginning of Tom's unforced errors, such as how he
totally ignored any connection between economy/jobs and a region's
cost of living and property values.

And even if something is within a ~mile, that doesn't mean that it is
readlily walkable, particularly for a post-driver.


-hh

[Thomas E.]

It's all connected. I get to travel partly because I live in an affordable housing market. Not having a lot of money (as in east/west coast home prices) tied up in a house and/or mortgage payment frees up cash flow for fun activities.

You just made my last point. Whether you live in the city or the 'burbs, if you cannot drive you are pretty much screwed. Assisted living or moving in with the kids is the next home.

[Thomas E.]

Your domain is registered at the address shown in the link below. It looks like a condo, and it's more than 2.5 blocks from a beach. Are you saying that it's not where you live?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1eThMUWpCSlE3UjA

4th Street, Vancouver:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1dktxVV9VUjUza00

And

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1cmhycUNJOFAtRUU

West Broadway, Vancouver

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1SDFFNDVyRUtyXzQ

I'm not saying that Carmel Indiana is anything wonderful everywhere, but plop Vancouver down in the Canadian prairies and it's not either.

[Alan Baker]

Nice little (and not so little) shops and restaurants and the occasional
pub.

What's "tacky" about it?

>
> And
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1cmhycUNJOFAtRUU
>
> West Broadway, Vancouver
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxuJGTDTmSZ1SDFFNDVyRUtyXzQ

And the same.

>
> I'm not saying that Carmel Indiana is anything wonderful everywhere, but plop Vancouver down in the Canadian prairies and it's not either.
>

What you are trying to do is run down my condo and neighbourhood, and
what you don't want to address is people pay more than your house is
worth to live in a small condo in this area.

:-)

[-hh]

Tom wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>> >
>> >On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 6:08:54 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
>> >...
>> >> ***tacky-tacky commercial strips***
> >

> > Which is only the beginning of Tom's unforced errors, such as how he
> > totally ignored any connection between economy/jobs and a region's
> > cost of living and property values.
> >
> > And even if something is within a ~mile, that doesn't mean that it is
> > readlily walkable, particularly for a post-driver.
>
> It's all connected.

Indeed: prices are cheaper in places where fewer people want
to live ... Film at 11!

> I get to travel partly because I live in an affordable housing
> market. Not having a lot of money (as in east/west coast home
> prices) tied up in a house and/or mortgage payment frees up
> cash flow for fun activities.

Although higher cost of living areas also tend to have higher pay...

...and the costs for certain goods & products don't really vary as
much - for example, a Honda CR-V's MSRP, which means that in a
higher cost of living area with commensurate salary, it becomes a
smaller percentage of income.

> You just made my last point.

Hardly: I showed that your claimed "feature" wasn't

-hh

[Thomas E.]

So what you need to do is find a great paying job in a low cost housing area. I did.

[Thomas E.]

Wrong. You are trying to claim that your city is wonderful because housing is so expensive. Strange logic.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. Let's review:

'"Drive" up and down 1st Street. All those cars parked on the curb?

Neighbors too poor to afford off-street parking? Makes me appreciate the

burbs.'

Do you remember who said that, Liarboy?

Do you remember who brought the subject of where was more desirable to
live in this thread, now?

Face it, Liarboy:

People find where I live so desirable that my one bedroom third floor
walk-up condo is worth as much as your 4 bedroom, 3 bath home.

You brought it up: you got smacked down.

:-)

[Thomas E.]

LOL. Canucks so desperate for a job they are willing to spend a fortune for a tiny condo.

[-hh]

Tom wrote:
> So what you need to do is find a great paying job in a low cost housing area. I did.

Not so, since you did just also say:

"I get to travel partly because I live in an affordable housing market."

Which continued, to emphasize this even further:

"Not having a lot of money (as in east/west coast home prices) tied up in a
house and/or mortgage payment frees up cash flow for fun activities."

Now perhaps Tom can explain how the possession of an asset has a meaningful
effect on cash _flow_?



-hh

[Alan Baker]

Keep trying, Liarboy.

You got smacked down hard.

Your comment was about the desirability of the NEIGHBHOOD.

Do you really want me to tell you what a 4 bedroom 3 bath house in this
neighbourhood costs?

:-)

[Thomas E.]

Not having to buy and service that expensive asset frees up cash for other uses. DUH! Are you REALLY that stupid?

[Thomas E.]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 8:51:09 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mortgages-are-unaffordable-in-half-of-americas-largest-housing-markets-2017-06-09

Which is a really great explanation of why to live in the Midwest, make a lot of money, and travel the world. Worked for me.

:)

[Alan Baker]

A house in the suburbs requires precisely the same amount of service as
a house in the city...

[Alan Baker]

What year did you buy your home, Liarboy, and what did you pay for it?

[ed]

Sounds good. Except you're in the Midwest where people don't want to live with, and you have crappy weather as a kicker. :-)

[ed]

FYI, you can just provide a Google maps link instead of putting it on drive, eh?

[-hh]

ed wrote:
>
> Sounds good. Except you're in the Midwest where people don't want to live with,
> and you have crappy weather as a kicker. :-)

Merely YA "Location, location, location." And even so, one's home has long been
considered a primary investment for the average American. And even if it isn't so
for some cases, one still has to live somewhere, so there's always housing expenses
and these too are ultimately generally proportional to the same real estate market.

-hh

[-hh]

Alan wrote:
> Thomas E. wrote:
>> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
>>> Tom wrote:
>>>> So what you need to do is find a great paying job in a low cost housing area. I did.
>>>
>>> Not so, since you did just also say:
>>> "I get to travel partly because I live in an affordable housing market."
>>>
>>> Which continued, to emphasize this even further:
>>> "Not having a lot of money (as in east/west coast home prices) tied up in a
>>> house and/or mortgage payment frees up cash flow for fun activities."
>>>
>>> Now perhaps Tom can explain how the possession of an asset has a meaningful
>>> effect on cash _flow_?
>>
>>

>> Not having to buy and service that expensive asset frees up cash for other uses. DUH! Are you REALLY that stupid?
>
>
> A house in the suburbs requires precisely the same amount of service as
> a house in the city...

Costs of utilities vary by climate more so than how much a place is worth. Similarly, for replacing a
roof or renovating a kitchen, it's more the size/complexity/materials than the geographical location.

And for the mortgage, it should generally be a moot point (paid off) once one is old enough to retire,
but even so, one does have to. Live somewhere, so if not the, then there's rent to pay, and the landlord
isn't a charity, so he's adding on his profit.

-hh

[Thomas E.]

I was including servicing the larger mortgage.

[Thomas E.]

Purchased March 2002, $228,000

[Thomas E.]

People don't want to live here? Really?

2000 Carmel population 37,733, 2017 estimate 88,713

Neighboring cities:

2000 Fishers population 52,390, 2017 estimate 94,292
2000 Westfield population 30,068, 2015 estimate 36,738 (the next Carmel)

Indianapolis/Marion County 2000 population 781,926, 2016 estimate 855,164

Yep, people are leaving where I live in droves I tell you, droves!!!

Florida does not have hot summers? The entire Northeast does not have harsh winters? All of Arizona has simply wonderful summers? Southern California is lush and green every day (and gaining population)?

Then there's Alaska winters too. There are not very many places with weather drawbacks. Hawaii, now that's a state with great weather.

[Thomas E.]

It's a lot more difficult to pay off this house if it was in California than it is here in the Midwest.

[-hh]

> It's a lot more difficult to pay off this house if it was in California than it is here in the Midwest.

Which is made easier by that region's generally higher pay.

That's part of the basic reason why people in high cost of living regions often will retire to lower cost
of living areas: they can cash out some of their home 'investment' of 30 years and buy a place like
yours outright with cash left over.p to go on holidays, etc.

For example, in one area that we've recently researched, we've found that we can double the size of
the house (if we so desired) and with it on larger land (multiple acres, if so desired) and without stuck
being too far out in the boonies (again, if so desired) and still have $100K+ in hand (again, if so desired):
$100K at your $15K/yr would pay for seven year's worth of your vacation budget for you.

Or really downsize to just a condo and pocket a quarter mil or more: you could use that to finally double
your travel budget to $30K/yr for eight (8) years.

There's quite a lot of options when real estate is relatively cheap: buy a lot (or a knock-down) and
custom-build (starting today or in a few years); buy a city condo and use the savings to also buy a
"weekend escape" cabin out in the mountains (or a winter place in Florida); splurge for a place on a
private lake, or for one with a commanding view, etc. all from that place sold from a high cost area.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

People clearly don't value living in your neighbourhood as highly as
they value living in mine, Liarboy...

...which was where this started, remember: you trying to run down where
I live?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

So your investment has grown by only 25% or so.

If you'd rented and invested your money in my neighbourhood, you'd
probably have doubled it.

:-)

[Thomas E.]

Stop generalizing.

If you can do what I did and get a job with one of the best paying companies in the country and live in a modestly priced housing market it's the best of both worlds. It frees up significant cash flow for other things.

I moved here from the DC area where literally 50% of my take-home went to the mortgage. After the move it was under 20%. More pay, and a larger home that was about half the price.

And besides that, the new job was incredibly enjoyable.

[Thomas E.]

So what? I would have have the upkeep, taxes, and risk of a string of renters repeatedly trashing the place. I have friends who have rental houses, and they are a headache.

What year did you buy your condo, and what did you pay for it? What are the condo fees per year?

I see you gave up on the 1.5 blocks from the water after I posted a Google Earth snapshot of your address. Liarboy.

[Alan Baker]

I bought my condo in 1994 for $135,000. The fees started out at about
$80 and have risen to about $300.

>
> I see you gave up on the 1.5 blocks from the water after I posted a Google Earth snapshot of your address. Liarboy.
>

I admitted I'd forgotten it was actually 2.5 blocks, Liarboy.

[Alan Baker]

And none of it absolves you from denigrating a neighbourhood where
people think it so desirable to live, they pay as much for a one bedroom
condo as your house is worth.

:-)

[Thomas E.]

The picture was from Google Earth. That's not a browser.

But, as you insist, the Google Maps link:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+1st+Ave,+Vancouver,+BC,+Canada/@49.2705269,-123.15741,16.22z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x548673df4829d019:0x975ee06c08e025fe!8m2!3d49.2700653!4d-123.1102934

Just never thought to use Maps.

[Alan Baker]

"never thought" sums you up quite well.

[Thomas E.]

And for good reason. Vancouver similar to Indy. The outlying areas are booming while the growth is slow in the main city.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Vancouver+faces+mild+population+growth+while+Cities+Surrey+boom/6119747/story.html

"Metro Vancouver continues to lure new migrants and suck residents from B.C’s rural towns, but it appears most people are skipping Vancouver in favour of settling in the Tri-Cities or neighbourhoods south of the Fraser."

Why is this true? Vancouver city offer less value for money than the suburbs.
It's not as attractive, and the immigrants are not coming to the city in great numbers.

Like Indy, people moving to the area want the central city, but not necessarily live there. Tonight as a birthday present from the wife (you should get one of those, by the way) we are going to a Huey Lewis and the News concert at White River State Park on the west side of downtown Indy.

:)

[Thomas E.]

Forgotten? Really? Liar-liar pants on fire! ROTFLMAO!

Either that or the expense of living in Vancouver keeps you bottled up in your tiny condo 24x7.

Also, either you lied about your address for your domain, or you are actually 2 full blocks from the water. Hint, walk out the door, turn left, go to Vine Street, turn right, and walk to Cornwall Ave. You will cross York Ave. on the way. That's 2 full blocks. It's about 300 meters to the nearest water.

Lied again, didn't you?

[Thomas E.]

While you conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of the area's population growth is happening outside the Vancouver city limits. Why is that if the city is so attractive?

[Mayor of Cashiell]

aaah yes.

the pissing contest between a bunch of losers goes on ad nauseam.

you are all assholes without a pot to piss in.

[-hh]

> Stop generalizing.

Sorry Tom, but since you usually dodge providing full details on specifics, the alternative is generalizations.

> If you can do what I did and get a job with one of the best paying companies in the country and live
> in a modestly priced housing market it's the best of both worlds. It frees up significant cash flow for other things.

You keep trying to claim that, but I live in a clearly more expensive area ... and was who went back again on yet
another safari in Africa, while you've bragged about misappropriating a CAP vehicle for a personal diversion.

> I moved here from the DC area where literally 50% of my take-home went to the mortgage. After the move
> it was under 20%. More pay, and a larger home that was about half the price.

But not mentioned was your profit on that DC place....how convenient.

> And besides that, the new job was incredibly enjoyable.

And now trying to shift goal posts. Sorry, but that wasn't a public service job, was it?


-hh

[-hh]

Alan wrote:
>Thomas E. wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 1:24:30 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2017-06-11 4:52 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
>> >> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:13:53 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> >> On 2017-06-09 8:12 PM, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Which is a really great explanation of why to live in the Midwest, make a lot of money, and travel the world. Worked for me.

Where most of said travel was business (and paid for by same).

>>> >> What year did you buy your home, Liarboy, and what did you pay for it?
>> >>
>> >> Purchased March 2002, $228,000
> >>
> >> So your investment has grown by only 25% or so.
> >> If you'd rented and invested your money in my neighbourhood, you'd
> >> probably have doubled it.
> >

> > So what? I would have have the upkeep, taxes, and risk of a string of renters repeatedly
> > trashing the place. I have friends who have rental houses, and they are a headache.

The headache is if you try to cut out the property manager and DIY stuff for that extra 10%.

>> What year did you buy your condo, and what did you pay for it? What are the condo fees per year?
>
> I bought my condo in 1994 for $135,000. The fees started out at about
> $80 and have risen to about $300.

So figure roughly 20 years for $130K in profit is $6K/yr ... averages to roughly an extra $500/month,
realized above & beyond the profit made on the rent (even with paying a property manager).
An extra $6K/yr would pay for a couple of ski weeks each year.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Yup. Forgotten, not thought about, etc.

>
> Either that or the expense of living in Vancouver keeps you bottled up in your tiny condo 24x7.
>
> Also, either you lied about your address for your domain, or you are actually 2 full blocks from the water. Hint, walk out the door, turn left, go to Vine Street, turn right, and walk to Cornwall Ave. You will cross York Ave. on the way. That's 2 full blocks. It's about 300 meters to the nearest water.

Or turn right, walk to Cornwall, and everything beyond that is
generically referred to as "the beach"...

[Alan Baker]

The city is close to FULL, Liarboy, but in the best traditions of
capitalism, you can tell what people really WANT by how much they're
willing to PAY.

BTW, to get a 4 bedroom, 3 bath house in my neighbourhood, you'd pay
five times or more what your host costs.

Bottom line: the neighbourhood you want to denigrate is FAR more
desirable (five times more desirable) than your midwest suburb.

:-)

[-hh]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:23:51 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> The city is close to FULL, Liarboy, but in the best traditions of
> capitalism, you can tell what people really WANT by how much they're
> willing to PAY.

Here's a pretty extreme example of the opposite of that:

<https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5181209,-84.3649301,3a,75y,222.91h,77.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqTUx-kCJ3JxTmPAgJASOQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664>

Its a 3BR/2BA on a third of an acre that's currently listed for sale at $11K:
<https://www.realestate.com/586-monroe-st-madisonville-tn-37354--41899125>

Probably termite infested & many other problems, but perhaps its not a bad
prospect for a knock-down.

And similarly, here's a 3BR on ~4 acres for only $155K:
<https://www.realestate.com/1218-amerine-rd-maryville-tn-37804--40824313>

If Tommy doesn't want to have a private airstrip on site for an ultralight, he can
probably subdivide off the existing house on an acre from the rest of the land
and sell part to finally buy his own airplane.

Or perhaps a 3BR/2BA on a golf course asking $289.9K:
<https://www.realestate.com/714-devictor-dr-maryville-tn-37801--81046811>

> BTW, to get a 4 bedroom, 3 bath house in my neighbourhood, you'd pay
> five times or more what your host costs.

Oh, 4BR/3BA? Sorry, wasn't thinking of a place that big for a retiree. But
nevertheless, here's a place on a third of an acre asking $299K, which in this
market means you'll get it for less:
<https://www.realestate.com/1850-southcliff-dr-maryville-tn-37803--81051558>

As well as new construction asking only $292.9K:
<https://www.realestate.com/945-huntington-farms-rd-unit-1-maryville-tn-37803--2094297045>

> Bottom line: the neighbourhood you want to denigrate is FAR more desirable
> (five times more desirable) than your midwest suburb.
> :-)

Its not as if we haven't heard this before: "Location, location, location."


-hh

[Willie Brennan]

"Thomas E." wrote in message
news:32c44467-17ad-420a...@googlegroups.com...

The Shit Stain can't help it.

Perhaps Shit Stain will post an interior picture of IT'S 450 sq. ft. run
down, one room POS, that IT purchased with grandpappys inheritance money for
us to see ??

My bet, never gonna happen.

Amusing how IT likes to comp IT'S run down POS to other bigger, better, more
prestigious properties.

One thing IT"S apartment does have that's bigger than most others; the
roaches and vermin.

[Alan Baker]

Michael!

You DIDN'T die! That's great!

Can you still get around your little bungalow unaided?

:-)

[ed]

there is, of course, a little bit of hyperbole there, but i really don't recall ever hearing anyone say "i want to move to indiana!" i've heard it about new york, mass, california, oregon, washington, idaho, nevada, texas, florida, etc, etc. but indiana? c'mon now.

> 2000 Carmel population 37,733, 2017 estimate 88,713
>
> Neighboring cities:
>
> 2000 Fishers population 52,390, 2017 estimate 94,292
> 2000 Westfield population 30,068, 2015 estimate 36,738 (the next Carmel)
>
> Indianapolis/Marion County 2000 population 781,926, 2016 estimate 855,164
>
> Yep, people are leaving where I live in droves I tell you, droves!!!

population is the indicator you're using for where people *want* to live, when you're arguing with alan (vancouver) and hh (nj - ny msa) (and i'm in the los angeles msa) about what's an attractive place to live? c'mon now.

> Florida does not have hot summers? The entire Northeast does not have harsh winters? All of Arizona has simply wonderful summers? Southern California is lush and green every day (and gaining population)?

southern california isn't lush and green, but the weather is pretty awesome. :D

the thing about places with crappy weather like indiana is that it's got crappy weather without the benefits. i.e. you talk about hot fl summers, but you get almost as crappy weather without all the benefits - it's not much cooler in the summer and almost as humid as miami, without the benefits of the good winter weather (and the fact that it's f'in miami instead of indiana). then, in the winder, you get shitty cold weather, but not enough snow for decent snow sports (and you have shitty terrain for that too - paoli resort, 300 ft vertical! woohoo! when you master that, you can hit the big mountain and go to the *other* resort (perfect nort slopes) and take on the 400 ft mountain! which is why you have to take ski trips to get to anything decent).

you really get the worst of both.

...

[Thomas E.]

I made about $10k on the DC area home. At that time that $10k plus the $8k I got back from the down payment was the sum total of all my savings. It was used to make the down payment on the next house. In 1979 my total financial net worth was the equity in my home. Both cars were financed too.

The DC job was with USDA. The private sector was where I belonged, and flourished.

[Thomas E.]

The city is never full. You can always tear down and go up.

LOL, you are a world class cynic. Prices and value are far from perfectly correlated.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-12 11:55 AM, Thomas E. wrote:

I didn't say "full", Liarboy: I said "close to full"...

...and they are doing just that.

There are high-rises going up all over various parts of Vancouver.

>
> LOL, you are a world class cynic. Prices and value are far from perfectly correlated.

LOL.

"Perfectly correlated"? No. Of course not.

But let's face the cold hard fact, Liarboy. They aren't so imperfectly
correlated to dismiss a difference of five times the price.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

I'm sure you did flourish in the private sector...

...lobbying your former colleagues.

That's the American way!

[Thomas E.]

All the better that much of that travel was on the company. It let me put more money back so that it would be there to travel on after retirement!

$130k at $6k a year is a 4.6% return. I did better than that in the market, with none of the headaches. Of course I was working at a real job at the, with those pesky vacation time limits. Even if I had the extra cash, there was no available vacation to go on 2 more ski trips.

I made a good decision to put the money away for a time when we the freedom to go where want, when we want. In addition to the upcoming Danube (we hope) river cruise, we are heading to Colorado and Utah with friends for the first 3 weeks of September. Then too there is a 2 week cruise from Valparaiso Chile to Ft. Lauderdale and a trip to Sweden/Norway planned for next year.

[Thomas E.]

Lobbying? No, I wrote opinion papers and did quite a bit of market analysis.

[Thomas E.]

You lied again!

"Bottom line: the neighbourhood you want to denigrate is FAR more
desirable (five times more desirable) than your midwest suburb."

When challenged it's "imperfectly correlated."

That's all you know how to do, Liarboy.

[Alan Baker]

Riiiiiiiight.

[Alan Baker]

Perfect correlation isn't required, Liarboy.

[-hh]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:52:45 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:37:45 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > Tom wrote:

> > > ...

> > > I moved here from the DC area where literally 50% of my
> > > take-home went to the mortgage. After the move it was
> > > under 20%. More pay, and a larger home that was about
> > > half the price.
> >
> > But not mentioned was your profit on that DC place....how convenient.
> >
> > > And besides that, the new job was incredibly enjoyable.
> >
> > And now trying to shift goal posts. Sorry, but that wasn't
> > a public service job, was it?
>

> I made about $10k on the DC area home. At that time that $10k
> plus the $8k I got back from the down payment was the sum total
> of all my savings.

$10K in addition to your $8K down means that you made a 125%
profit on that house in only two years.

> It was used to make the down payment on the next house.

Which was back out in 'cheap' Indiana.

> In 1979 my total financial net worth was the equity in
> my home. Both cars were financed too.

If memory serves, that was a tough period for you, having
been let go from your college job, so it wouldn't be too
terribly surprising to see you eat through savings.

> The DC job was with USDA. The private sector was where
> I belonged, and flourished.

Where "flourished" means 'made more money'.

Although the Feds didn't have locality pay adjustments
back in 1979, so regions like DC were indeed a tougher
(underpaid) job market back then (DC today is +27.1%).


-hh

[Willie Brennan]

"Thomas E." wrote in message

news:5d7990e8-9445-4864...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:17:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-06-05 10:09 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:52:35 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> >> That's precisely the point, Tom.
> >>
> >> For example, your "9km out" bit is pretty nonsensical when a
> >> city center is the draw ... and supply/demand become quite
> >> immediately obvious when you put a metric on it. For example,
> >> a 1 mile radius from city center is ~3 square miles, whereas a
> >> 5 mile is 78 ... a difference of 1:25 ratio.
> >>
> >> -hh
> >
> > Exactly, Alan is compared his central Vancouver condo to my suburban
> > Indianapolis single family home.
> >
>
> No. YOU tried to denigrate my place and I put you in your place.

>Just because your small hovel is relatively expensive does not make it
>nicer than a 3,100 square foot Indiana single family home. I would say the
>same thing about that condo in downtown Indy.

Shit Stains POS is an old, 450 sq. ft., run down one roomer.

The Asshole thinks he can comp it to million dollar properties.

IT couldn't afford anything decent in Florida.

IT's little POS would fit in either of my living rooms with room to spare.

A widdle apartment for a widdle man.

And IT bought it with grandpappys inheritance. If not for that, IT would be
living in a cardboard box.

[-hh]

sockpuppet "Willie Brennan" wrote:

> "Thomas E." wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:17:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2017-06-05 10:09 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:52:35 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > >> That's precisely the point, Tom.
> > >>
> > >> For example, your "9km out" bit is pretty nonsensical when a
> > >> city center is the draw ... and supply/demand become quite
> > >> immediately obvious when you put a metric on it. For example,
> > >> a 1 mile radius from city center is ~3 square miles, whereas a
> > >> 5 mile is 78 ... a difference of 1:25 ratio.
> > >

> > > Exactly, Alan is compared his central Vancouver condo to my suburban
> > > Indianapolis single family home.
> > >
> >
> > No. YOU tried to denigrate my place and I put you in your place.
>
> >Just because your small hovel is relatively expensive does not make it
> >nicer than a 3,100 square foot Indiana single family home. I would say the
> >same thing about that condo in downtown Indy.

Except that the free market's valuation by price says so.

> Shit Stains POS is an old, 450 sq. ft., run down one roomer.
> The Asshole thinks he can comp it to million dollar properties.
> IT couldn't afford anything decent in Florida.
> IT's little POS would fit in either of my living rooms with room to spare.
> A widdle apartment for a widdle man.

Gosh 'Willie', it does seem quite odd that you keep on trying to
scream at the guy who's not bragging instead of the one who is.
Are you really that dense, or does Alan pwn you so profoundly?

Case in point, Tommy tried to brag on 6/12 about how he dodged
vacation expenses for years. And now he tries to rationalize it thus:

"I made a good decision to put the money away for a time when
we the freedom to go where want, when we want. In addition to
the upcoming Danube (we hope) river cruise, we are heading to
Colorado and Utah with friends for the first 3 weeks of September.
Then too there is a 2 week cruise from Valparaiso Chile to Ft.
Lauderdale and a trip to Sweden/Norway planned for next year."

-- the fact remains that he apparently needed to work until age 71, as
he didn't have that freedom to retire when he was a ~decade younger.

And that's even despite (despite his hedging on the Danube) how he's
trying to roll together two full years worth of trips in order to make it
sound more impressive. Even if they all pan out, stuff like a Chile/FL
cruise isn't all that huge: on the not-at-all-shabby Cunard, the price
currently starts at only $3K/pp+Air (less than the Danube).

Nevertheless, hope he likes Scandinavia, even though he probably
doesn't even realize that he's being a catch-up copycat <g>.

> And IT bought it with grandpappys inheritance. If not for that, IT would
> be living in a cardboard box.

Oh, you mean like your enviable 'doublewide' cardboard box! "Check!".


-hh

[Thomas E.]

I had no savings in 1979. However, other than the home and the car loan no debt either. I had paid off my small $1,200 student loan years earlier. I worked while in college, and borrowed only enough to make up the difference between paying cash and the total tuition.

The NKU episode ended in late 1975. I went to the U. IL in January 1976.

I was not let go from the U. IL job, but was not going to get promoted because I was not enjoying the whole academic scene. I had 2 more years to put the promotion resume together, and left anyway. I went to DC in 1978 to try USDA out, and did not like it either.

Flourished means I loved the job. The money followed. Lilly had a company savings plan, with a Lilly stock match. That morphed into a 401k in the 80's. That's where the investments started.

[Thomas E.]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

Oh, also, I was in the DC house only one year. So it was even better than you stated. I went from 10% down to 20% when we moved to Indiana.

[Thomas E.]

But you implied it is perfect, than backed down. Alan, you have told so many lies lately that I don't think I need to respond to any more of them.

[Thomas E.]

Total BS. I'm going to Norway/Sweden partly because it's one of the places I have not been. I'm not measuring myself against anyone. The Danube, Sweden/Norway, South America and Western trips are all motivated by getting to share the experiences with good friends.

That's 4 trips, 3 international, in 2 years, about average for the last few years.

I worked until now because I like what I do, the money is a bonus. I also have time to fly quite a bit - 15 hours in the last 5 days - and travel a bit.

Jealous?

[Thomas E.]

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 6:49:46 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

Part of the reason that Canada is so expensive is that the vast majority of the population finds the vast majority of the country undesirable. About 90% live along the southern border. The demand for housing in that relatively small area inflates valuations. How else can you explain the lower home prices in places like Minnesota and upstate New York?

[Alan Baker]

I implied nothing of the kind, Liarboy.

Let's just deal with the facts.

You attempted to denigrate my neighbourhood for (of all things) it's
parking situation (my building an my of the others have parking garages,
BTW), and it backfired on you.

:-)

[-hh]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:36:34 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 6:49:46 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > sockpuppet "Willie Brennan" wrote:
> > > "Thomas E." wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:17:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > On 2017-06-05 10:09 AM, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:52:35 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > > > >> That's precisely the point, Tom.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For example, your "9km out" bit is pretty nonsensical when a
> > > > >> city center is the draw ... and supply/demand become quite
> > > > >> immediately obvious when you put a metric on it. For example,
> > > > >> a 1 mile radius from city center is ~3 square miles, whereas a
> > > > >> 5 mile is 78 ... a difference of 1:25 ratio.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly, Alan is compared his central Vancouver condo to my suburban
> > > > > Indianapolis single family home.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No. YOU tried to denigrate my place and I put you in your place.
> > >
> > > >Just because your small hovel is relatively expensive does not make it
> > > >nicer than a 3,100 square foot Indiana single family home. I would say the
> > > >same thing about that condo in downtown Indy.
> >
> > Except that the free market's valuation by price says so.

Odd too how Tommy made a big profit on housing in but a single year in DC,
yet still tries to claim that living in the sticks of Indiana is allegedly still 'better'.

Oh, and this is particularly rich:
Tommy:
"Part of the reason that Canada is so expensive is that the vast majority
of the population finds the vast majority of the country undesirable."

...since he can't see how this applies to where he lives in 'Flyover Country'.

> Total BS. I'm going to Norway/Sweden partly because it's one of the
> places I have not been. I'm not measuring myself against anyone. The
> Danube, Sweden/Norway, South America and Western trips are all
> motivated by getting to share the experiences with good friends.

Total BS?
And yet none the less, Norway/Sweden travel from a thread that you *started*:

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/kZUMazpf6l4/y7AAvHCs7C8J>

Granted, your higher risk of senility is why I did note "probably doesn't even realize",
but consciously or not, its part of a pattern after a dialog here on destinations.
NZ, River Cruises, now Scandinavia ... I had dare not mention that we're looking at
going to Australia in 2017, because you'll "coincidentally" head there in 2019.

> That's 4 trips, 3 international, in 2 years, about average for the last few years.

Bravo for you!

> I worked until now because I like what I do, the money is a bonus. I also have
> time to fly quite a bit - 15 hours in the last 5 days - and travel a bit.
>
> Jealous?

Of the prospects of needing to work into my 70's so that I can then
take roughly **half as many** holiday trips as we're currently doing?
No thanks.


-hh

[-hh]

(more fun with numbers, Monday edition)

> I had no savings in 1979. However, other than the home
> and the car loan no debt either. I had paid off my small
> $1,200 student loan years earlier.

$1200 may seem "small" by today's standards, but back in
that timeframe (U of T; 1972) it was more than a year's
worth. In fact, while UofT's archives only go back to 1982-83:

<http://budget.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2015/06/Fees-and-Tuition-History-2015-16-web.pdf>

...they suffice to illustrate that their full time Graduate
Student tuition rates was only $349 (resident)/$936 (nonresident),
which if we use a 3%/yr model for the ten years prior to swag
your's, would be ~74.4% of the above, or $260/$696 tuition/year.

> I worked while in college, and borrowed only enough to make
> up the difference between paying cash and the total tuition.

Way back then, many were able to do the same.

> The NKU episode ended in late 1975. I went to the U. IL in January 1976.

> I was not let go from the U. IL job, but ...

Whatever.

> I went to DC in 1978 to try USDA out, and did not like it either.
>
> Flourished means I loved the job. The money followed.

Except that you've already revealed that the money was right away.

Specifically, you've pointed out that your DC house was $8K down
for 10%, which means an $80K home and $72K financed ... which you've
also said consumed 50% of your net pay. Ignoring modifications
by property & income taxes that tweak both, the KISS is that at
the average 1979 30yr fixed mortgage interest rate of 11.2%, your
base mortgage was $697/mo, which is $8364/yr and when this is 50%
means that your net pay was at least $16.7K/yr.

In comparison, you said that your DC sale profits were $18K and
that this was 20% down, which means a $90K home for $72K financed
again...but by 1980, rates were heading up - average for this year
was 13.74, but we'll assume 12.9% for January - which is $791/mo,
or $9492/year ... and you claimed that this was now only 20% of
your new net pay, which means that it was at least $47.5K/yr

So while you may _claim_ "The money followed", based on what
you've already stated, the following was pretty immediate, since
the jump between the two was roughly ~2.8x (ie, $47.5K/$16.7K).

Not at all shabby, but hardly as altruistic or eventual as was
being suggested.

> Lilly had a company savings plan, with a Lilly stock match. That
> morphed into a 401k in the 80's. That's where the investments started.

Well, on these, you've already tried to explain your divorce
settlement split for just how your stock options turned out to
be a bust that was nowhere near as valuable as you had hoped.

..and that's even without noting that 401(k)'s have been the
industry's basis to replace a defined benefit pension with a
defined cash balance one; a subtle means of decreasing employee
compensation.

Hence the consulting gigs after a supposedly 'very nice' severance
parachute, as well as working for a half decade beyond age 65.
That's the conclusion from even the basic parametric numbers
reveal from what Tommy has previously said in contrast.

In contrast, a simple "what if?" of if had you stuck with USDA
until just last year and made it to only a top step GS-13, your
defined benefit pension alone would have been over $85K+/yr.

Plus whatever you chose to add via the Fed's pre-tax 401(k);
using their +10%/yr historical averages and that you'd maxed
out contributions only since you turned age 50, the rough
swag would be a pot worth ~$1.5M, which at the 4% rule of
thumb means +$60K/yr...combined, you're in the ballpark of
having a $150K/year retirement income from just your career.

Yay, you!



-hh

[Thomas E.]

Are you kidding me? 90% OD Canada is considered undesirable by Canadians. The MMidwest population has concentrated in larger cities, just like the rest of the world, but there are towns everywhere.

Housing prices may be a signal for desirability, but it's just one dimension. Million dollar 3000 square foot homes do not add to attractiveness for those planning on moving there, all else equal they detract. I suppose you could say that expensive homes keep the poor and filthy masses away! If mortgaged they also absorb cash flow that can be used for other things.

Hah - you are no doubt going to Australia after you saw how many times I've been there.

As for number of trips, you may have more money than I do. So do millions of others. Big whoop. I'm happy with what I have. That's what matters.

[ed]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 5:41:05 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
...

> Part of the reason that Canada is so expensive is that the vast majority of the population finds the vast majority of the country undesirable.

we just had this conversation about the midwest, right? right. :P

> About 90% live along the southern border. The demand for housing in that relatively small area inflates valuations. How else can you explain the lower home prices in places like Minnesota and upstate New York?

eh? i'm missing your point about mn and upstate ny with regards to canadian prices - please elaborate.

[Thomas E.]

Once again you display just how you make assumptions regardless of what you know.

The student debt was for 1964-1969. At UTK I was on a NSF fellowship that PAID me a living stipend, and all school expenses. My student debt was deferred while I was still in school. I had no added student loans during my UTK years.

The DC house payment of 50% of pay was after taxes and pension. The house payment was PITI, and included hefty property tax and insurance accruals into escrow. Property taxes here are lower.

Based on tax returns I went from about $30k base pay at USDA to $36k plus bonus at Lilly. A jump, but your numbers are way off.

My retirement income is about double the current GS-13 level, but that assumes no USDA promotions. I was promoted into the management ranks at Lilly, accounting for a very large portion of the retirement difference.

LOL

[Thomas E.]

Toronto area versus upstate NY. Same for Minneapolis versus Canadian cities of similar size.

[ed]

yeah, what about it? it's easy to explain the price differences - toronto is MUCH, MUCH nicer and more desirable than the upstate ny cities near it (buffalo being the closes large-ish city). what's the point you're making exactly? it seems like you may be making the opposite?

[-hh]

> Are you kidding me? 90% OD Canada is considered undesirable by Canadians.

So then you're admitting that it is just like the USA. More
specifically, the 'Fly Over' region that you choose to live in:

> The MMidwest population has concentrated in larger cities, just
> like the rest of the world, but there are towns everywhere.

And yet, these Midwest downtowns still don't have real estate
that's as highly valued as stuff in NYC, SF, etc...

> Housing prices may be a signal for desirability, but it's
> just one dimension.

But of course.

> I suppose you could say that expensive homes keep the poor
> and filthy masses away!

Oh, so then you _have_ kept up on the "Mount Laurel" lawsuits..?

> Hah - you are no doubt going to Australia after you saw how
> many times I've been there.

You've been there? And on personal holiday on your own dime?
Cites please.

Or ... remember that travel spreadsheet you shared the other
year? Just simply point out which Row# it is listed under.

For point of reference, here's Row#2:

"1976 Trip to Malaysia 15 Palm oil study 6/4/1976 31 X X"

And here's Row#113:

"Indy-Auckland 10 Vacation 12/29/2015                14 X X"

> As for number of trips, you may have more money than I do.

Sorry, but that's not possible because you've bragged about
just how well off you are far, far more than I have /S

> So do millions of others. Big whoop. I'm happy with what
> I have. That's what matters.

And others include Alan ... but just who is it that keeps
on harping on him about such things? Are you going to try
to blame 'Walter' for all of your posts on that subject?


-hh

[-hh]

> Once again you display just how you make assumptions regardless
> of what you know.

Incorrect: I clearly stated what assumptions were being made,
which in this case were datapoints from your prior statements.
The rest was very straightforward lookups and basic math.

> The student debt was for 1964-1969.

Well, being even earlier (and also undergraduate) would make
the tuition even cheaper than what I had listed.

Since I based my estimate on your grad school of U of T,
which had an 1982-83 tuition of $349 (resident graduate),
the swag starting point would be their undergraduate tuition
of $289 and an additional 4-8 years of de-inflation.

But since you're representing your $1200 in loans as being
for four years, $1200/4 = $300/year ... and since that's
equal to UofT's tuition cost from ~14 years later, it would
appear that your loan was probably pretty close to being
100% of your undergraduate tuition.

> At UTK I was on a NSF fellowship that PAID me a living
> stipend, and all school expenses. My student debt was
> deferred while I was still in school. I had no added
> student loans during my UTK years.

Which merely reinforces my above observational conclusion.

> The DC house payment of 50% of pay was after taxes and
> pension.

Yes, I expressed my analysis as being versus your Net pay.

Oh, and on your pension deduction, the "old" Fed system,
didn't pay Social Security, so your net effective difference
was only 2% (since you then had to pay SSA at Lily); that's
relatively insignificant versus the other factors being ignored.

> The house payment was PITI, and included hefty property tax
> and insurance accruals into escrow.

But of course, but this was merely illustrating a parametric
*minimum* based on your claims.

> Property taxes here are lower.

Not surprising, but also not defined to help refine the estimate.

> Based on tax returns I went from about $30k base pay at USDA

So you started at as a mid-step GS-13 then?

<https://archive.opm.gov/oca/pre1994/GS1979.asp>

> ...to $36k plus bonus at Lilly. A jump, but your numbers are way off.

Nope. Based on the parametric minimums, my observation merely
means that your first year bonus had to have been more than $11K.

> My retirement income is about double the current GS-13 level,

And within the illustration I made, that can be readily
accomplished simply by more years into TSP than I used
to parameterize to a $1.5M nest egg...looks like $2.125
would do it, as per the 4% rule again.

And doing a simple 15% model for 1985-1995 on top of the
abbreviated (age 50+) max CUC I used before would increase
the egg from $1.5M to $2.9M and easily accomplish this with
margin to spare (could drop from a 4% to a 3% model).

> ... but that assumes no USDA promotions.

Of course not, as these were done as minimums, not max.

> I was promoted into the management ranks at Lilly, accounting
> for a very large portion of the retirement difference.

Not at all, since even a mere 13 at USDA could have equaled
what you've bragged about simply by just leveraging their
available TSP contribution opportunities, exactly the same as
how you've admitted doing so with FarmCon LLC.

And that's entirely on their own, without trying to deceptively
shift goalposts to a 'household' retirement income by taking
credit from their spouse's Pension, Social Security, etc.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Wow.

You have it completely backwards.

Housing prices rise where places are considered extremely desirable to live.

> Hah - you are no doubt going to Australia after you saw how many
> times I've been there.
>
> As for number of trips, you may have more money than I do. So do
> millions of others. Big whoop. I'm happy with what I have. That's
> what matters.

As long as you can denigrate what others have and do, Liarboy!

[-hh]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 4:37:58 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-06-19 11:14 AM, Thomas E. wrote:

> > [...]

> > Hah - you are no doubt going to Australia after you saw how
> > many times I've been there.

Still waiting to see what line# Tommy hid these alleged trips under,
for it isn't clearly listed even once on his own Int'l travel spreadsheet.

> > As for number of trips, you may have more money than I do.
> > So do millions of others. Big whoop. I'm happy with what I have.
> > That's what matters.
>
> As long as you can denigrate what others have and do, Liarboy!

As well as how Tom invariably runs away after being spanked from
his brags, such as this one from last September:

"As of tonight, financial and real estate assets add up to $1,984,125
not including life insurance. That includes paying my current credit
card balance in full. All other debt totals $4,026. It's all in Quicken."

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/9zaLEn2qC4Q/gv7h94OtEgAJ>

Since Tom turned 71 this month, its not really appropriate for him
to try to compare to younger generations' status, since they still
have many unrealized years of earnings, savings & investment still
ahead of them. Plus there's also that pesky factor of this claim
invariably being household not individual, which merits an equitable
division by two: Tom's personal "share" is effectively ~$1M. Now
subtract from that a city condo worth, say, $400K, and the 'goal'
is actually a lot closer than what initially was claimed. Assuming,
of course, that Tommy hasn't already run from the field. /S


-hh