I fail to see how a deflated housing market and some of the lowest interest rates ever equate to not a good time to buy. . If you are a first time home buyer this situation coupled with the tax credit was probably the greater investment opportunities one would ever see. I don't see how paying a landlord to build equity or building your own equity with a monthly payment would be any question or maybe i'm missing something? From a supply and demand standpoint, I don't see how owning land in a major metropolitan is NOT a good look, but again, i am open to the fact i am missing something.
The last time in US history you could get this 30 year rate was 1959.
Word. Dudes forget the time not long ago when 8-10% interest rates were the norm. If you have the capital now and plan to own/live in a house for 5-10 years, why not lock in a 4% rate and buy?
I fail to see how a deflated housing market and some of the lowest interest rates ever equate to not a good time to buy. . If you are a first time home buyer this situation coupled with the tax credit was probably the greater investment opportunities one would ever see. I don't see how paying a landlord to build equity or building your own equity with a monthly payment would be any question or maybe i'm missing something? From a supply and demand standpoint, I don't see how owning land in a major metropolitan is NOT a good look, but again, i am open to the fact i am missing something.
The last time in US history you could get this 30 year rate was 1959.
Word. Dudes forget the time not long ago when 8-10% interest rates were the norm. If you have the capital now and plan to own/live in a house for 5-10 years, why not lock in a 4% rate and buy?
If I'm getting my bachleor's at the ripe age of 27, work full-time, and have minimal students, do I fall under anything in that article? It seemed a bit too long for me to read.
I fail to see how a deflated housing market and some of the lowest interest rates ever equate to not a good time to buy. . If you are a first time home buyer this situation coupled with the tax credit was probably the greater investment opportunities one would ever see. I don't see how paying a landlord to build equity or building your own equity with a monthly payment would be any question or maybe i'm missing something? From a supply and demand standpoint, I don't see how owning land in a major metropolitan is NOT a good look, but again, i am open to the fact i am missing something.
The last time in US history you could get this 30 year rate was 1959.
Word. Dudes forget the time not long ago when 8-10% interest rates were the norm. If you have the capital now and plan to own/live in a house for 5-10 years, why not lock in a 4% rate and buy?
Unless you're buying in a prime area there is a very good chance your home won't appreciate or will decline in value. I check out real estate prices in a casual way and things I'm seeing now are disturbing - there is at least 12 months, if not 24 or more, of inventory on the market, and decent properties in less than prime areas are becoming unsellable. If you're locked in at 4% but your home isn't appreciating, you're losing ground.
I bought in 2005, so I'm not happy about this, but at least I bought a modest place in a prime location. Even so, I'm coming to the realization that my place may never function as an investment, but at least I love it.
The only way buying now makes sense (in most cases) is if you're in it for the long haul - meaning you plan to retire or live there for at least 15 years. I may be overstating this a bit, but I believe this is the direction for the foreseeable future.
The problem I see with people in their 20's isn't that they are lazy and don't want to work hard, but they have a completely different attitude towards the work environment and dealing with people who are higher up the ladder than I could have had when I started my career. It's a constant struggle with recent grads to get them to just be professional and learn their jobs and take honest criticism without having to cater to their feelings like 5 year olds. All those years of "everyone is a winner" treatment doesn't seem to serve people well when they get to jobs where they have actual responsibilities and where there are real negative consequences for poor performance. Instead of learning and trying to improve many of them just want to complain that they are being treated unfairly by old farts who don't want to let them get ahead. No doubt there is some of that going on, but it goes both ways and the sense of smug entitlement is definitely there from a lot of kids in my experience.
I agree with this. I don't believe in that "pussification of the USA" garbage that conservative tough guys like to preach about, but I notice that some of those who I talk with are hyper-aware about self actualization/esteem and, therefore, more "sensitive". Based on what I observe daily, some of today's youth appear they have that "oh, c'mon! That's not nice!" reaction built in. I can even speak from personal experience, admittedly. When I first started landing $10+/hour jobs after high school; building my resume while attending college, it was a shock to go from the classroom to the real life grind, where you meet all sorts of people who will shatter your fragile little sensibilities. You then have to adapt accordingly - learn to grit your teeth amongst the bullshit....motivating you to obtain a skill and move on. I quickly learned that while superiors can be dicks, it is in your best interest to keep getting that paycheck. But while doing so, it's also important to strive to be something greater and more worthwhile.
The problem I see with people in their 20's isn't that they are lazy and don't want to work hard, but they have a completely different attitude towards the work environment and dealing with people who are higher up the ladder than I could have had when I started my career. It's a constant struggle with recent grads to get them to just be professional and learn their jobs and take honest criticism without having to cater to their feelings like 5 year olds. All those years of "everyone is a winner" treatment doesn't seem to serve people well when they get to jobs where they have actual responsibilities and where there are real negative consequences for poor performance. Instead of learning and trying to improve many of them just want to complain that they are being treated unfairly by old farts who don't want to let them get ahead. No doubt there is some of that going on, but it goes both ways and the sense of smug entitlement is definitely there from a lot of kids in my experience.
I agree with this. I don't believe in that "pussification of the USA" garbage that conservative tough guys like to preach about, but I notice that some of those who I talk with are hyper-aware about self actualization/esteem and, therefore, more "sensitive". Based on what I observe daily, some of today's youth appear they have that "oh, c'mon! That's not nice!" reaction built in. I can even speak from personal experience, admittedly. When I first started landing $10+/hour jobs after high school; building my resume while attending college, it was a shock to go from the classroom to the real life grind, where you meet all sorts of people who will shatter your fragile little sensibilities. You then have to adapt accordingly - learn to grit your teeth amongst the bullshit....motivating you to obtain a skill and move on. I quickly learned that while superiors can be dicks, it is in your best interest to keep getting that paycheck. But while doing so, it's also important to strive to be something greater and more worthwhile.
I think we're delving too far into this. Young people don't just come up with ideas such as politeness and being "nice" all on their own; the prior generation instilled these expectations in them. I've had internships where I put in 8 hour days with zero pay and I would have been offended if my superiors weren't at least cordial. I've worked for $10-$11 an hour doing literal bitch work in an office, overhearing my superiors say things like "Are we torturing the intern today?" and in those cases, being "nice" wouldn't have made a difference, but it helps. If I've learned anything, it's that "gritting your teeth amongst the bullshit" isn't always in your best interest. If you're amongst bullshit, please recognize that you're not in a good place. I think the current phenomena of college internships offer both an opportunity to learn as well as an opportunity to be degraded by your superiors who know you need to grit the shit to get that line on your resume.
*when I was 14, the 9/11 attacks happened. I have never really known a time when "terrorism" was not a threat,
*when I was still in high school, the nation went to war with Iraq,
*when I was doing my undergrad coursework, the nation went into a enormous recession,
*I start taking computer classes in kindergarten and I took my first typing class in school in 2nd grade.
Just off the top of my head, terrorism, technology and the economy have been the most significant phenomena to affect my generation, IMO. Maybe same-sex marriage and the first Black president, too.
Not doing your job - or handing in shoddy work and expecting high praise or kid glove treatment - isn't some generational quality or shift, it's a character flaw. If you don't like your work environment, leave it. If you don't like your work, move on. That is showing character. If you decide to stay in a position you don't like, don't want to do the work for, or simply don't do well, you will eventually be let go (or worse - fired) because one thing that is certainly true of this day and age is that there are thousands of overqualified people waiting to take any open position, that will work their asses off and learn to do the job right.
To many folks in 2010, a day's pay isn't some accessory to career advancement, but its own reward.
When We Say ???College,??? We Don???t Mean You...
Sigh. The New York Times strikes again. This time it???s with a four-part colloquy of important people discussing ???why are colleges so selective????
How is someone at a community college supposed to read the question ???why are colleges so selective????
a. ironically
b. as a direct slap in the face
c. as yet another indication of just how provincial the New York Times is
d. all of the above
To explain the Times??? thinking, I???ll trot out my old friend, the syllogism. Colleges are selective. Community colleges are not selective. Therefore, community colleges are not colleges.
Grrrr.
Honestly, sometimes reading the Times I channel my inner Lou Ferrigno. ???HULK SMASH PUNY RECORDING SECRETARY OF RULING CLASS!??? What???s the difference between the New York Times and David Hasselhoff? One is a pathetic joke, and the other is David Hasselhoff. This story is so bad, it almost makes me long for the only-mildly-embarrassing musings of Stanley Fish.
Honestly.
I couldn???t really expect them to acknowledge the existence of community colleges. There are only 1100 or so of them in the U.S., enrolling just under half of the entire undergraduate population of the country. By contrast, there are over seven schools in the Ivy League alone!
Of the four -- count ???em! -- contributors to the ???dialogue,??? only one, Jane Wellman, even bothers to note the existence of non-elite colleges. Only one -- Stephen Trachtenberg -- has actually worked in college administration. It goes without saying that none of the four works at a community college.
Lest this be written off as status anxiety, I???ll note that I???m a graduate of one of the colleges the authors actually name. Been there, done that, graduated with honors, thanks. It???s not about sour grapes, and don???t even try to get all ad hominem on me. I got my hand stamped.
It???s about objecting to elite provincialism. Put differently, it???s about acknowledging reality.
From this story, you???d think the greatest challenge facing students today is too much perfectionism. If only! Most of our students require developmental math. Perfectionism is the least of our problems.
Here???s a thought. Instead of wringing our hands over the poor lost souls who miss out on Dartmouth and have to settle for Bucknell -- oh, the humanity! -- let???s send some fraction of that money and time and money and focus and money to the institutions that actually educate most Americans: the non-elite publics. That would mean community colleges, and it would also mean most of the four-year state colleges. You know, the backbone of the middle fucking class. Those schools. The ones that actually compete with the for-profits, and that provide the best hope for most people. The ones that have taken draconian cuts even while their enrollments have risen. Those.
Hell, while we???re at it, let???s make a point of generating enough math teachers so that every state in the country can require four years of math in high school. Get the public K-12 system up to basic competence, and see what happens. Yes, it might lead to even more competition for the elite colleges, as all those talented-but-lower-income kids finally get a chance to shine, but frankly, that???s a problem worth having. And if we can fund public higher ed the way it should be funded, it will provide plenty of capacity for the strong students who didn???t get into Princeton. Speaking for my math department, I???ll attest confidently that we???d be happy -- thrilled! -- to add more sections of differential equations. Bring ???em on! The English department would be more than happy to run more upper-level literature electives. Admissions would be thrilled to process more AP credits. We can handle this problem.
Elite college angst isn???t a symptom of the human condition. It???s a direct and predictable consequence of class polarization. You know, the kind of class polarization in which it never even occurs to some people that some colleges aren???t selective. Because they don???t mean to include those when they say ???college.??? The kind in which other classes are so far removed as to become simply invisible. The kind in which you???d convene a group to discuss college admissions without once mentioning open-admissions institutions. That kind.
I???m tired of watching mysteriously-annointed experts solve the wrong problem. Times, if you???re the least bit serious about higher education -- a colossal ???if,??? I???ll admit -- would it actually, physically kill you to acknowledge the colleges to which most Americans go? And when you do, could it please be in the same section of the paper as the stories about safety schools and selective admissions? The blind, smug elitism is really getting to be a bit much, even for you. Community colleges are news fit to print, too. Honestly.
Comments
Word. Dudes forget the time not long ago when 8-10% interest rates were the norm. If you have the capital now and plan to own/live in a house for 5-10 years, why not lock in a 4% rate and buy?
Bedbugs.
Shit, even people I know with $ for the downpayment are getting fusked over in trying to get financing. Banks = SHOOK.
I've always thought so, but it seemed like I was alone in that opinion these days.
Irony!
Unless you're buying in a prime area there is a very good chance your home won't appreciate or will decline in value. I check out real estate prices in a casual way and things I'm seeing now are disturbing - there is at least 12 months, if not 24 or more, of inventory on the market, and decent properties in less than prime areas are becoming unsellable. If you're locked in at 4% but your home isn't appreciating, you're losing ground.
I bought in 2005, so I'm not happy about this, but at least I bought a modest place in a prime location. Even so, I'm coming to the realization that my place may never function as an investment, but at least I love it.
The only way buying now makes sense (in most cases) is if you're in it for the long haul - meaning you plan to retire or live there for at least 15 years. I may be overstating this a bit, but I believe this is the direction for the foreseeable future.
I agree with this. I don't believe in that "pussification of the USA" garbage that conservative tough guys like to preach about, but I notice that some of those who I talk with are hyper-aware about self actualization/esteem and, therefore, more "sensitive". Based on what I observe daily, some of today's youth appear they have that "oh, c'mon! That's not nice!" reaction built in. I can even speak from personal experience, admittedly. When I first started landing $10+/hour jobs after high school; building my resume while attending college, it was a shock to go from the classroom to the real life grind, where you meet all sorts of people who will shatter your fragile little sensibilities. You then have to adapt accordingly - learn to grit your teeth amongst the bullshit....motivating you to obtain a skill and move on. I quickly learned that while superiors can be dicks, it is in your best interest to keep getting that paycheck. But while doing so, it's also important to strive to be something greater and more worthwhile.
I think we're delving too far into this. Young people don't just come up with ideas such as politeness and being "nice" all on their own; the prior generation instilled these expectations in them. I've had internships where I put in 8 hour days with zero pay and I would have been offended if my superiors weren't at least cordial. I've worked for $10-$11 an hour doing literal bitch work in an office, overhearing my superiors say things like "Are we torturing the intern today?" and in those cases, being "nice" wouldn't have made a difference, but it helps. If I've learned anything, it's that "gritting your teeth amongst the bullshit" isn't always in your best interest. If you're amongst bullshit, please recognize that you're not in a good place. I think the current phenomena of college internships offer both an opportunity to learn as well as an opportunity to be degraded by your superiors who know you need to grit the shit to get that line on your resume.
Shit I feel real old reading that..... :-P
To many folks in 2010, a day's pay isn't some accessory to career advancement, but its own reward.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Higher-education-bubble-poised-to-burst-720594-102180809.html
is there a way to explain why no one goes to university in sweden, even though it's free?
http://suburbdad.blogspot.com/2010/09/when-we-say-college-we-dont-mean-you.html
When We Say ???College,??? We Don???t Mean You...
Sigh. The New York Times strikes again. This time it???s with a four-part colloquy of important people discussing ???why are colleges so selective????
How is someone at a community college supposed to read the question ???why are colleges so selective????
a. ironically
b. as a direct slap in the face
c. as yet another indication of just how provincial the New York Times is
d. all of the above
To explain the Times??? thinking, I???ll trot out my old friend, the syllogism. Colleges are selective. Community colleges are not selective. Therefore, community colleges are not colleges.
Grrrr.
Honestly, sometimes reading the Times I channel my inner Lou Ferrigno. ???HULK SMASH PUNY RECORDING SECRETARY OF RULING CLASS!??? What???s the difference between the New York Times and David Hasselhoff? One is a pathetic joke, and the other is David Hasselhoff. This story is so bad, it almost makes me long for the only-mildly-embarrassing musings of Stanley Fish.
Honestly.
I couldn???t really expect them to acknowledge the existence of community colleges. There are only 1100 or so of them in the U.S., enrolling just under half of the entire undergraduate population of the country. By contrast, there are over seven schools in the Ivy League alone!
Of the four -- count ???em! -- contributors to the ???dialogue,??? only one, Jane Wellman, even bothers to note the existence of non-elite colleges. Only one -- Stephen Trachtenberg -- has actually worked in college administration. It goes without saying that none of the four works at a community college.
Lest this be written off as status anxiety, I???ll note that I???m a graduate of one of the colleges the authors actually name. Been there, done that, graduated with honors, thanks. It???s not about sour grapes, and don???t even try to get all ad hominem on me. I got my hand stamped.
It???s about objecting to elite provincialism. Put differently, it???s about acknowledging reality.
From this story, you???d think the greatest challenge facing students today is too much perfectionism. If only! Most of our students require developmental math. Perfectionism is the least of our problems.
Here???s a thought. Instead of wringing our hands over the poor lost souls who miss out on Dartmouth and have to settle for Bucknell -- oh, the humanity! -- let???s send some fraction of that money and time and money and focus and money to the institutions that actually educate most Americans: the non-elite publics. That would mean community colleges, and it would also mean most of the four-year state colleges. You know, the backbone of the middle fucking class. Those schools. The ones that actually compete with the for-profits, and that provide the best hope for most people. The ones that have taken draconian cuts even while their enrollments have risen. Those.
Hell, while we???re at it, let???s make a point of generating enough math teachers so that every state in the country can require four years of math in high school. Get the public K-12 system up to basic competence, and see what happens. Yes, it might lead to even more competition for the elite colleges, as all those talented-but-lower-income kids finally get a chance to shine, but frankly, that???s a problem worth having. And if we can fund public higher ed the way it should be funded, it will provide plenty of capacity for the strong students who didn???t get into Princeton. Speaking for my math department, I???ll attest confidently that we???d be happy -- thrilled! -- to add more sections of differential equations. Bring ???em on! The English department would be more than happy to run more upper-level literature electives. Admissions would be thrilled to process more AP credits. We can handle this problem.
Elite college angst isn???t a symptom of the human condition. It???s a direct and predictable consequence of class polarization. You know, the kind of class polarization in which it never even occurs to some people that some colleges aren???t selective. Because they don???t mean to include those when they say ???college.??? The kind in which other classes are so far removed as to become simply invisible. The kind in which you???d convene a group to discuss college admissions without once mentioning open-admissions institutions. That kind.
I???m tired of watching mysteriously-annointed experts solve the wrong problem. Times, if you???re the least bit serious about higher education -- a colossal ???if,??? I???ll admit -- would it actually, physically kill you to acknowledge the colleges to which most Americans go? And when you do, could it please be in the same section of the paper as the stories about safety schools and selective admissions? The blind, smug elitism is really getting to be a bit much, even for you. Community colleges are news fit to print, too. Honestly.