The Money Mustache Community

Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: monstermonster on November 24, 2015, 04:47:47 PM

Title: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 24, 2015, 04:47:47 PM
"Customer Spotlight: Chelsea Hartmann
 
Chelsea Hartmann decided by the age of 25 she was going to own a home, she bought it at 24.
 
"I thought if I have a mortgage at 25, I would have it for at least 30 years. I would be done paying by 55, which means I would be able to save 10 years for my retirement. I felt like if I do this right, I'll be okay."

I nearly head-desked. This is from a non-profit that focuses on getting working class people into homeownership.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Making Cookies on November 24, 2015, 05:06:48 PM
Hey - that's how alot of people I've talked to were raised. Get into a house early so you aren't paying rent. And paying it off early seems impossible. Still, gotta have a place to live.

They don't consider that compound interest works for you or against you.

Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: marty998 on November 25, 2015, 03:36:48 AM
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: arebelspy on November 25, 2015, 03:56:27 AM

Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

No one takes the full 30 years cause they move.

What "many" get less than halfway in money-wise (15 years) and then pays off the whole thing in one chunk?  I'd guess less than 0.1% do that.

People either prepay what they can all along, and get it repaid at some random point, or they never get it paid off (via continual moving/refinancing/upgrading/etc.).  But paying 15 years and then clearing the whole thing?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: MgoSam on November 25, 2015, 07:10:46 AM
Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Bearded Man on November 25, 2015, 08:04:51 AM
She will likely end up in foreclosure. Probably one of these 3% down loans, living check to check, tapping home equity to look like you are doing well, vacation, cars, etc.

Will likely see the house at a foreclosure option in a few years.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Making Cookies on November 25, 2015, 08:13:17 AM
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

I know a few that started out with a 30 year mortgage and then it became a 45 year mortgage after a few refi to cash out some equity. I know a couple of people working well into their retirement years (70+) to payoff their house so they can afford to retire.

"Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know."

And how many never consider that the interest on a 30 loan just about equals the purchase price of the home. I know I was surprised by that little tidbit when I was studying the mortgage on our first home.

I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Of course the ~52% divorce rate would destroy that plan for many. Cash from parents to buy a house, and then 5 years into the marriage everything implodes b/c of unforeseen qualities of their spouse.

Some of my Sunday morning church going friends worry about homosexuality destroying America but I think the real danger is the 52% divorce rate among straight folks. Its not that I'm against divorce as a solution but I question why so many marriages fail.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 25, 2015, 08:45:32 AM
She will likely end up in foreclosure. Probably one of these 3% down loans, living check to check, tapping home equity to look like you are doing well, vacation, cars, etc.

Will likely see the house at a foreclosure option in a few years.

That's likely not to happen luckily at least because this nonprofit in a 20 year history has a .5% delinquency rate, including through the recession. They're pretty good about prepping you for the financial burden of a home, only taking out what you can afford, making you save for at least a 10% down payment (and most folks don't need to pay property taxes for 10 years because of a low-income exclusion.) They only put people into specific houses that have a system of support for homeownership.

That being said, they've fundamentally failed to teach the mechanics of compound interest here, sadly. Which is a bummer.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Bearded Man on November 25, 2015, 08:52:59 AM
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 25, 2015, 09:29:07 AM
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

Or "work your ass off and don't make any money because those that own the means of production that had the health, wealth, access and privilege to get an education and job that make them your boss don't pay you a fair way."

And an "innovative public policy solution gives you a fair chance at being able to access similar resources and tax breaks as the ruling class do because of policies that recognize the wage gap and try to correct the wealth disparity based on little more than how you started in life."
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Cpa Cat on November 25, 2015, 09:51:49 AM
Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know.

Absolutely. I have several clients who are financial wrecks. They have good income, but they spend every penny. Getting them to save or plan for anything is like pulling teeth.

But then they buy a house and suddenly paying their mortgage is their #1 priority. They would never even consider missing a payment.

I have come to accept that no matter how much financial advice I give to some of my clients - a house is the only net worth they'll ever have.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: eljefe-speaks on November 25, 2015, 10:29:44 AM
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

Or "work your ass off and don't make any money because those that own the means of production that had the health, wealth, access and privilege to get an education and job that make them your boss don't pay you a fair way."

And an "innovative public policy solution gives you a fair chance at being able to access similar resources and tax breaks as the ruling class do because of policies that recognize the wage gap and try to correct the wealth disparity based on little more than how you started in life."

Bravo!
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: KCM5 on November 25, 2015, 10:38:38 AM
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

Or "work your ass off and don't make any money because those that own the means of production that had the health, wealth, access and privilege to get an education and job that make them your boss don't pay you a fair way."

And an "innovative public policy solution gives you a fair chance at being able to access similar resources and tax breaks as the ruling class do because of policies that recognize the wage gap and try to correct the wealth disparity based on little more than how you started in life."

Bravo!

Seconded!
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: RFAAOATB on November 25, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Just as my parents made it so I had no idea what the deal was with student loans and paid for my college outright, my goal is to go further and have my future kids have no idea what the deal is with mortgages.  Make them as foreign a concept as payday loans.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Bearded Man on November 25, 2015, 10:58:23 AM
Amazing, I immigrated here, and stood on my own two feet since 18, and make more than any of my friends who was born here with every advantage while I was at every disadvantage. Seems to me success is about the individual and their efforts, not liberal excuses as to how these people are held down, followed by taking money from those who made it and giving it to those who haven't, or cutting them a break on taxes. But go on cheering an ideology that punishes success and rewards sloth and failure, then claims they couldn't succeed because the rich man held them down, lol.  You're totally right, you've convinced me...
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Bearded Man on November 25, 2015, 11:04:51 AM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: horsepoor on November 25, 2015, 11:15:18 AM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 25, 2015, 11:31:18 AM
I'm not really going to get in an argument about working class struggles with you, Bearded Man. It's clear that you think that you bootstrapped your way up (not gaining any advantages from the mortgage interest exemptions on your property, of course, because you're a self-made man, obviously. And you didn't have any advantages that lead to you being able to immigrate to the US at 18 years old, like your country of origin or family connections in the US or education level that made a visa process successful, because of course immigration to the US just works by showing up), and that there's no possible way that societal factors could play into someone else not being able to replicate your success.

And the wealthy class clearly get no "cutting them a break on taxes"- nothing like the capital gains tax exclusion or the mortgage interest tax credit that means my partner who makes 4x what I do and owns 3 houses pays less in taxes than I do.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 25, 2015, 01:23:24 PM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Megma on November 25, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

Not everyone who buys a home through an affordable housing program is an impoverished welfare mom, this is a very unfair stereotype.

I personally bought my first property (a 1 bed condo) from through a city run affordable housing program. I have an advanced degree and no kids but without that program, I would not have been able to buy that first house. I am a saver but it was a very expensive market (1 bed condo was more than most people's 3-4 bed SFHs). Having access to that program helped me to have the leverage I needed to be able to break into the market and took away the burden of very high rent at the same time (condo payment was lower!).

My city also offered no property taxes for the first 5 years to owner occupants. You can call this socialism (I'm a social-democrat so I don't see that as a negative) but the city also recognizes that having too high a percent of property owned by investors is bad for building long-term community and attracting people who care about the future of the city as residents.

This woman might not have everything up to Mustaschian saving standards, but she is headed in the right direction and investing her future at what is still a pretty young age.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 25, 2015, 02:08:08 PM
Not everyone who buys a home through an affordable housing program is an impoverished welfare mom, this is a very unfair stereotype.

I personally bought my first property (a 1 bed condo) from through a city run affordable housing program. I have an advanced degree and no kids but without that program, I would not have been able to buy that first house. I am a saver but it was a very expensive market (1 bed condo was more than most people's 3-4 bed SFHs). Having access to that program helped me to have the leverage I needed to be able to break into the market and took away the burden of very high rent at the same time (condo payment was lower!).

My city also offered no property taxes for the first 5 years to owner occupants. You can call this socialism (I'm a social-democrat so I don't see that as a negative) but the city also recognizes that having too high a percent of property owned by investors is bad for building long-term community and attracting people who care about the future of the city as residents.

This woman might not have everything up to Mustaschian saving standards, but she is headed in the right direction and investing her future at what is still a pretty young age.

Just to be clear, As OP I fully support the low-income housing nonprofit (and am also not a - ugh- "welfare queen mom" but in fact am a hard-working, educated person with no debt in a crazy rental and housing market who qualifies for this assistance) I just wish that understanding of compound interest had been part of their required education series because there's some significant flaws in the logic that the last 10 years of your working career- assuming the health and other circumstances to get there - should be your first time saving for retirement.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: horsepoor on November 25, 2015, 02:19:28 PM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

If women fathered children.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 25, 2015, 02:30:40 PM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

If women fathered children.
Ah, perhaps it's not biology but english grammar I need to learn...
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Megma on November 25, 2015, 06:07:30 PM
Not everyone who buys a home through an affordable housing program is an impoverished welfare mom, this is a very unfair stereotype.

I personally bought my first property (a 1 bed condo) from through a city run affordable housing program. I have an advanced degree and no kids but without that program, I would not have been able to buy that first house. I am a saver but it was a very expensive market (1 bed condo was more than most people's 3-4 bed SFHs). Having access to that program helped me to have the leverage I needed to be able to break into the market and took away the burden of very high rent at the same time (condo payment was lower!).

My city also offered no property taxes for the first 5 years to owner occupants. You can call this socialism (I'm a social-democrat so I don't see that as a negative) but the city also recognizes that having too high a percent of property owned by investors is bad for building long-term community and attracting people who care about the future of the city as residents.

This woman might not have everything up to Mustaschian saving standards, but she is headed in the right direction and investing her future at what is still a pretty young age.

Just to be clear, As OP I fully support the low-income housing nonprofit (and am also not a - ugh- "welfare queen mom" but in fact am a hard-working, educated person with no debt in a crazy rental and housing market who qualifies for this assistance) I just wish that understanding of compound interest had been part of their required education series because there's some significant flaws in the logic that the last 10 years of your working career- assuming the health and other circumstances to get there - should be your first time saving for retirement.

I got that from you post OP, I was more responding to the comments of bearded man. 😃 there were clearly some issues with the flyer and one of the challenges with affordable home ownership programs is they do sometimes fail to educate people on the true costs or put them in homes they cannot afford.


Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: MrsPete on November 25, 2015, 07:46:14 PM
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world.
I agree.  Everyone doesn't have the income or the drive to get ahead in the ways promoted on this website, but pretty much everyone can manage to pay off a house.  With a paid-off house, living on Social Security in retirement looks a whole lot more do-able. 
But then they buy a house and suddenly paying their mortgage is their #1 priority. They would never even consider missing a payment.

I have come to accept that no matter how much financial advice I give to some of my clients - a house is the only net worth they'll ever have.
Yes, to too many people saving for the future seems like a vague commitment, something that can be skipped this month since the car broke down ... and next month since it's Christmas ... and again next June when we're going on vacation.  But a mortgage is a bill!  You have to pay that!  It's a form of structure for those who need structure to force them to save.
Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 
Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.
Also wrong.  Teen pregnancies are down in number, likely because of the increase in availability and acceptability of birth control pills and Norplant implants.  I used to teach 2-3 pregnant girls every year; I haven't taught one myself now in 2-3 years.  Almost all pregnant teens in my high school are seniors (so 17-18 years old).  I'm not saying 13 year olds don't get pregnant, but they are very rare.

Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: kenner on November 26, 2015, 07:43:31 AM

Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

Usually happy to lurk, but this is incorrect, at least for the US.  I will say birth control and sex education is getting better--states have started to decline Title V/State Abstinence Education Grant Program funding, but the current stats (pulled off  http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx):

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.
As of Jan. 1, 2015:
22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education).
33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.”

Many states define parents’ rights concerning sexual education:
37 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs.
Three states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.
35 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.


So depending on where someone is living there might be some classes that might be medically accurate that might not need parental permission to attend, but it doesn't come close to covering all states/schools in the US at this point.  From personal experience (also known as a lot of moving around as a kid) I'd say the northeast and west are probably the best with the south lagging behind--the focus on religion in MS/TX/TN tended to mean abstinence only was stressed to the point that if a teenager did decide to have sex he/she was afraid to even buy condoms for fear that one of the grocery tellers would see the parents in church--but obviously that's personal experience not actual data and in my case ~10 years old on top of that.  On the other hand, although teenage birth rates are declining as Mrs. Pete said, they're still the highest in southern states (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html) so it may not be so far off.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Avidconsumer on November 27, 2015, 07:34:30 AM
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

I know a few that started out with a 30 year mortgage and then it became a 45 year mortgage after a few refi to cash out some equity. I know a couple of people working well into their retirement years (70+) to payoff their house so they can afford to retire.

"Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know."

And how many never consider that the interest on a 30 loan just about equals the purchase price of the home. I know I was surprised by that little tidbit when I was studying the mortgage on our first home.

I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Of course the ~52% divorce rate would destroy that plan for many. Cash from parents to buy a house, and then 5 years into the marriage everything implodes b/c of unforeseen qualities of their spouse.

Some of my Sunday morning church going friends worry about homosexuality destroying America but I think the real danger is the 52% divorce rate among straight folks. Its not that I'm against divorce as a solution but I question why so many marriages fail.

I agree that the majority probably never pay off their house. End up moving or refinance their house.

Your idea to enable your child by buying a home debt free in theory would work but in practice has the very opposite effect in most cases.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: GuitarStv on November 27, 2015, 08:06:16 AM

Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

Usually happy to lurk, but this is incorrect, at least for the US.  I will say birth control and sex education is getting better--states have started to decline Title V/State Abstinence Education Grant Program funding, but the current stats (pulled off  http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx):

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.
As of Jan. 1, 2015:
22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education).
33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.”

Many states define parents’ rights concerning sexual education:
37 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs.
Three states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.
35 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.


So depending on where someone is living there might be some classes that might be medically accurate that might not need parental permission to attend, but it doesn't come close to covering all states/schools in the US at this point.  From personal experience (also known as a lot of moving around as a kid) I'd say the northeast and west are probably the best with the south lagging behind--the focus on religion in MS/TX/TN tended to mean abstinence only was stressed to the point that if a teenager did decide to have sex he/she was afraid to even buy condoms for fear that one of the grocery tellers would see the parents in church--but obviously that's personal experience not actual data and in my case ~10 years old on top of that.  On the other hand, although teenage birth rates are declining as Mrs. Pete said, they're still the highest in southern states (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html) so it may not be so far off.

Holy shit, that is disgraceful.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: honeybbq on November 27, 2015, 09:38:25 AM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

"Fathering" semantics aside, for some reason, this thought process was more interesting to me than the actual OP.... lol. I have friends who have had children less than 1 year apart. Just need one of those to be twins and BANG!
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Bearded Man on November 27, 2015, 09:41:54 AM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
I think you need to take a class on basic common sense. I said she has three kids with two different men. As in, two kids with one man, and one kid with another. Nice try at the insult though. Just exposed your own ignorance. Ah, bravo, you've convinced me.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Bearded Man on November 27, 2015, 09:45:14 AM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.
Oh look, another person who emotes. Everyone is held sown by rich people. They can't get ahead because of rich people, who make better decisions and educate themselves instead of popping out kids they cant support, criminal lifestyles, etc. Bravo...you've convinced me. Right along with that "biology class" genius.

I have a tenant with several kids, each from a different man. Had her first at 16, dropped out of high school. Yep, it's Bill Gates' fault she is poor. Not her own. Brilliant. Lol. What a bunch of emotional people.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Hank Sinatra on November 27, 2015, 10:10:02 AM
Ah, gotta love socialism. Don't work hard! We will take money from those who do and give it to you/make it so you don't have to pay taxes for 10 years!.

Isn't this just Business 101?  The Rich don't work. They take money by way of  having ownership rights to the productive capacity of workers. And then pay for favorable legislation exempting themselves from taxes. Every business is set up on exactly this mechanism.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: GuitarStv on November 27, 2015, 10:16:59 AM
Did you never make a bad decision at 16?  I sure did, but fortunately none of them ended up hobbling me for the rest of my life.  Absolutely, her decisions are her own to make, and she clearly screwed up.  But those decisions have been made.  If we want her to become a productive member of society and be able to raise those children to be productive members of society we need to try to help lift her out of that situation.

Having a giggle about how hard her life is because she is doing her best to support the family that she now has, and trying to punish her further for past mistakes isn't as much a reflection on her character as your own.  When we are blessed with so much, it's sad to read such greedy and mean-spirited posts as that.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: former player on November 27, 2015, 11:12:34 AM
Also, a girl having children at age 16 may well have been the victim of sexual abuse, perhaps from the fathers of her children and perhaps not.  Studies on prostitution show that a high proportion of prostitutes were subject to sexual abuse and/or underage sex.  Even if not subject to obvious sexual abuse (I would tend to argue that unprotected sex with an underage child is by definition abuse), she has probably had poor parenting, poor life models and poor health care options.   Most of us here have had enough levels of privilege to make it difficult to recognise the devastating impacts of their absence.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: franklin w. dixon on November 27, 2015, 12:25:22 PM
Also, a girl having children at age 16 may well have been the victim of sexual abuse, perhaps from the fathers of her children and perhaps not.  Studies on prostitution show that a high proportion of prostitutes were subject to sexual abuse and/or underage sex.  Even if not subject to obvious sexual abuse (I would tend to argue that unprotected sex with an underage child is by definition abuse), she has probably had poor parenting, poor life models and poor health care options.   Most of us here have had enough levels of privilege to make it difficult to recognise the devastating impacts of their absence.
It's very important to me that I, a rich adult, mock children on the internet. Haha! Fuck the young people! And poor people! They are morally inferior to myself! As you can see, I'm extremely well-adjusted. I also have an uncle who works at Nintendo and a girlfriend who you can't meet because she lives in Canada. She's a gymnast.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: bacchi on November 27, 2015, 01:21:52 PM
It's very important to me that I, a rich adult, mock children on the internet. Haha! Fuck the young people! And poor people! They are morally inferior to myself! As you can see, I'm extremely well-adjusted. I also have an uncle who works at Nintendo and a girlfriend who you can't meet because she lives in Canada. She's a gymnast.
[/quote]

This is a picture of her. No, it's not the picture that came with the frame! I'm going to see her this summer.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: NoraLenderbee on November 27, 2015, 10:44:05 PM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
I think you need to take a class on basic common sense. I said she has three kids with two different men. As in, two kids with one man, and one kid with another. Nice try at the insult though. Just exposed your own ignorance. Ah, bravo, you've convinced me.

You said she had three kids when she was 16, which is confusing unless she had triplets (you also said she fathered them, which I think is what horsepoor was referring to). More important, I think, is that whatever lousy decisions she made, she IS working to support her kids and she is ambitious to better herself. That's not someone who deserves abuse.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: MrsPete on November 28, 2015, 08:05:32 AM
Holy shit, that is disgraceful.
Yeah, but it's not representative of what I see in the actual high school where I work. 
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 28, 2015, 08:50:25 AM
Holy shit, that is disgraceful.
Yeah, but it's not representative of what I see in the actual high school where I work.
Anecdotal to anecdotal:

But it is representative of what I see in the actual shelter for young mothers where I worked for the first 5 years of my career or the alternative high school I work with now, where 70% of the kids are parents. There's a full range of sex education unfortunately, and while it's getting better, those that are not in school consistently because of homelessness, the substance abuse of their parents, their own addiction, or because they went to "grown-up jail" (which plenty of under-18's get sent to) often don't receive sex education even if their state allows it.

The state I worked in requires parental notification to acquire condoms at a supermarket. CONDOMS. Talk about barriers to getting sex education.

No disrespect to the amazing in-roads that educators like yourself have made on getting the right information to students when they need it. And I'm very glad it's improving in your classroom. Unfortunately, lawmakers still have plenty of opportunity to prevent students from getting sex education in the classroom in much of the country, if the rest of their life circumstances doesn't get in the way.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Zamboni on November 28, 2015, 09:19:36 AM
Back on topic:

I got a mortgage tax credit when I bought an inexpensive condo in my mid-twenties while I was still a starving graduate students. It was the only reason I could make the numbers work. Rather than default, I finished my Ph.D., got a high paying job, sold the condo at a profit a decade later, etc. It was not nearly as a great of a deal as the ~$30K tax-deferred I stash now, though, and it was not nearly as great of a deal as the fact that I only pay 15% tax on my capital gains.

But the young lady in the article should have her bit of the advantageous programs that we all use to our advantage. Landlords, especially, benefit from all kinds of tax writes off like depreciation, deductions when unoccupied, etc. Talk about a hand out! Sure, there is some work involved with being a landlord, but most of it boils down to sitting on your ass month after month while others pay your mortgages for you. I can make most rental properties legally look like a loss on tax papers despite the high actual cash flow. So an argument about others getting breaks and govt handouts from a landlord is particularly nauseating. That is all.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on November 29, 2015, 11:34:03 AM
Back on topic:

I got a mortgage tax credit when I bought an inexpensive condo in my mid-twenties while I was still a starving graduate students. It was the only reason I could make the numbers work. Rather than default, I finished my Ph.D., got a high paying job, sold the condo at a profit a decade later, etc. It was not nearly as a great of a deal as the ~$30K tax-deferred I stash now, though, and it was not nearly as great of a deal as the fact that I only pay 15% tax on my capital gains.

But the young lady in the article should have her bit of the advantageous programs that we all use to our advantage. Landlords, especially, benefit from all kinds of tax writes off like depreciation, deductions when unoccupied, etc. Talk about a hand out! Sure, there is some work involved with being a landlord, but most of it boils down to sitting on your ass month after month while others pay your mortgages for you. I can make most rental properties legally look like a loss on tax papers despite the high actual cash flow. So an argument about others getting breaks and govt handouts from a landlord is particularly nauseating. That is all.

*cheers*
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: maizefolk on November 29, 2015, 07:55:03 PM
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

I know a few that started out with a 30 year mortgage and then it became a 45 year mortgage after a few refi to cash out some equity. I know a couple of people working well into their retirement years (70+) to payoff their house so they can afford to retire.

"Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know."

And how many never consider that the interest on a 30 loan just about equals the purchase price of the home. I know I was surprised by that little tidbit when I was studying the mortgage on our first home.

I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Of course the ~52% divorce rate would destroy that plan for many. Cash from parents to buy a house, and then 5 years into the marriage everything implodes b/c of unforeseen qualities of their spouse.

Some of my Sunday morning church going friends worry about homosexuality destroying America but I think the real danger is the 52% divorce rate among straight folks. Its not that I'm against divorce as a solution but I question why so many marriages fail.

I agree that the majority probably never pay off their house. End up moving or refinance their house.

Your idea to enable your child by buying a home debt free in theory would work but in practice has the very opposite effect in most cases.

This seems to work surprisingly well in some other cultures where the parents buying a house/apartment for their child is considered a key requirement of having their kid be considered marriage material. I think the problem in the US would be that, because buying a house without a mortgage is so unusual, the next generation would be more likely to see a mortgage-free house as a windfall, rather than a reminder that they should probably already be starting to stash money away against the day their own children are ready to get married.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Avidconsumer on December 01, 2015, 02:02:32 PM
Look, it's not the worst plan in the world. Nobody ever takes the full 30 years anyway. Many get to about 15 years in and say, "yeah fuck it, lets clear it now".

She's young. She's got time to figure it out.

At least she has a general idea to want to save for 10 years for her retirement. Many people don't save anything.

I know a few that started out with a 30 year mortgage and then it became a 45 year mortgage after a few refi to cash out some equity. I know a couple of people working well into their retirement years (70+) to payoff their house so they can afford to retire.

"Gotta keep in mind that for the majority of most people in the US, owning a home is going to be the main source of their net worth because paying a mortgage is akin to forcing them to save. The people that haven't bought a home or saved consistently, but have been working for decades, generally have little to show for their lives, at least that's the case for the people I know."

And how many never consider that the interest on a 30 loan just about equals the purchase price of the home. I know I was surprised by that little tidbit when I was studying the mortgage on our first home.

I think as a society we'd do well to get the bankers (debt) out of our lives right from the start. If the parents could afford to help their children buy a starter house without debt for anyone, and that new generation could help their children someday, etc. That way people could build up savings. Probably would never happen like that in this American spendy pants culture.

Of course the ~52% divorce rate would destroy that plan for many. Cash from parents to buy a house, and then 5 years into the marriage everything implodes b/c of unforeseen qualities of their spouse.

Some of my Sunday morning church going friends worry about homosexuality destroying America but I think the real danger is the 52% divorce rate among straight folks. Its not that I'm against divorce as a solution but I question why so many marriages fail.

I agree that the majority probably never pay off their house. End up moving or refinance their house.

Your idea to enable your child by buying a home debt free in theory would work but in practice has the very opposite effect in most cases.

This seems to work surprisingly well in some other cultures where the parents buying a house/apartment for their child is considered a key requirement of having their kid be considered marriage material. I think the problem in the US would be that, because buying a house without a mortgage is so unusual, the next generation would be more likely to see a mortgage-free house as a windfall, rather than a reminder that they should probably already be starting to stash money away against the day their own children are ready to get married.

I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: MrsPete on December 02, 2015, 06:04:16 PM
I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation. 
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on December 03, 2015, 10:09:14 AM
I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation.

Handing off the family land, house, business, etc. was actually the norm throughout most of human history. Parents taught their children all the useful skills they'd need to survive (be it house cleaning, cooking, weaving, riding a horse, working the front desk of a shop or stall in the marketplace, hunting, whatever) and prepared them to earn the best kind of living available. Generally that meant passing on tricks of the trade, so if your dad was a blacksmith, you'd most likely grow up to be a blacksmith too. Once people realized that kids learn better and are treated more fairly by people besides their parents, apprenticeship or fostering systems developed. But until very recently, people had no reason to *not* expect to inherit whatever their parents, grandparents, and other ancestors built up over time. The idea was to improve whatever it was you got, so you'd have a way to set up your own kids. That worked in an agrarian and even an industrial economy, but it doesn't work in a knowledge based economy unless you're a shareholder in an IPO.

Only recently has it become possible to earn an upper-class or upper-middle-class income and to amass significant amounts of wealth without owning the business you work for. The university-education based system of professions is part of what makes it possible and I'm glad for that. I don't want to imagine someone apprenticing a twelve-year-old to be a brain surgeon. The up-side to a profession is that it's a way to climb the socio-economic ladder. The down-side is that there's no way to pass on the means of income production.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: zephyr911 on December 03, 2015, 10:54:27 AM
What a bunch of emotional people.
You do realize virtually all your posts contain emotional language, right? Negativity toward government. Negativity toward taxes. Scorn for anyone who makes inferior choices to your own. Value judgments implied through comparisons. It's there virtually every time I see your name on a post.

The fact that these judgments are based on objective realities in no way removes the emotional loading you attach to them. And I'm not saying you're right or wrong, in general or in any specific case. But you (and I) are no less emotional than the bleeding hearts, even when employing logic to justify our stance. (and that's OK)

I think (and who knows, I've been wrong before and will be again) that what chafes you about these objections is a conflict in values, not the level of emotion or reason involved (and that's OK too). Most analysis indicates that the majority of political and philosophical divisions have those at their core, as opposed to the informational or sentimental factors their proponents like to cite. And reasonable people can disagree on what is most important. But seeing the conflict for what it is, is key to managing it in a civil and rational way.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: mm1970 on December 03, 2015, 12:30:39 PM
Did you never make a bad decision at 16?  I sure did, but fortunately none of them ended up hobbling me for the rest of my life.  Absolutely, her decisions are her own to make, and she clearly screwed up.  But those decisions have been made.  If we want her to become a productive member of society and be able to raise those children to be productive members of society we need to try to help lift her out of that situation.

Having a giggle about how hard her life is because she is doing her best to support the family that she now has, and trying to punish her further for past mistakes isn't as much a reflection on her character as your own.  When we are blessed with so much, it's sad to read such greedy and mean-spirited posts as that.
This was very well said.

It seems to be very easy to judge on these items.  I remember visiting home and having pizza and some beer with my favorite cousin when I was in my early 20's.  My much younger cousin was there at the same time, off in the corner with friends.  She was 17 and pregnant.  My other cousin and I spent quite a bit of time discussing how she basically effed up and ruined her life, the dummy.  (Note: this is a rural area.)  I wondered about my poor aunt, who had already raised 6 kids in 38 years (her oldest and youngest, the pregnant one, were 19 years apart in age). 

Well, darned it if she didn't prove us wrong.  She graduated from HS, had the baby at 18, got married.  Went to college, and grad school, and got a PhD in physics.  She's now in her mid-30's and she and her husband are empty nesters, kid is in college on scholarship majoring in engineering.  But my cousin?  Smart.  Top of her class in HS, etc.  Got married.  Had a supportive family (lived at home, and my aunt helped with child care because she was self-employed).  No drug abuse, alcohol abuse, homelessness.

How do we move forward without punishing people for past mistakes, or even worse - punishing the children (who had no choice in the matter), and perpetuating the cycle?
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: RetiredAt63 on December 03, 2015, 05:32:20 PM
People are proud of their century farms and 4 generation farms around here.  And if you knew your farm was going to be supporting your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, you took care of the land.

I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Jack on December 03, 2015, 07:51:04 PM
Not everyone who buys a home through an affordable housing program is an impoverished welfare mom, this is a very unfair stereotype.

No kidding. My wife and I bought our first house immediately after I graduated college (before I got a job), and were able to get about $20K in assistance from the city because we were qualifying based only on her income (~$30K at the time). My future income as an engineer would have blown that option out of the water, but I wasn't technically employed as an engineer yet and thus qualified (and no, I didn't hide the fact that I had good future prospects when we applied to the program). And then we got another $8K from the Feds (the 2009 first-time-buyer tax credit) and got to buy in near the bottom of the market. Moreover, we're currently in the middle of a refinance and got the appraisal back at 150% of what we paid (even though we haven't done any substantial renovation) because I carefully and purposefully bought in one of the fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods in the city.

(My only regret is that we didn't buy a more expensive house, and/or a duplex/triplex/quad so that we could house-hack, but I digress...)

In other words, not everybody is a proverbial welfare mom; at least some of the people using these programs know what they're doing, and are making out like bandits. Most people using the program are somewhere in between.

I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation.
The idea was to improve whatever it was you got, so you'd have a way to set up your own kids. That worked in an agrarian and even an industrial economy, but it doesn't work in a knowledge based economy unless you're a shareholder in an IPO.

Only recently has it become possible to earn an upper-class or upper-middle-class income and to amass significant amounts of wealth without owning the business you work for. The university-education based system of professions is part of what makes it possible and I'm glad for that. I don't want to imagine someone apprenticing a twelve-year-old to be a brain surgeon. The up-side to a profession is that it's a way to climb the socio-economic ladder. The down-side is that there's no way to pass on the means of income production.

I had been thinking that the widening wealth gap in the last few decades had been due to things like changes in tax rates and pro-corporate court rulings, but now I'm wondering if this might be a significant factor too.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on December 03, 2015, 07:56:07 PM
got the appraisal back at 150% of what we paid (even though we haven't done any substantial renovation) because I carefully and purposefully bought in one of the fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods in the city.

(My only regret is that we didn't buy a more expensive house, and/or a duplex/triplex/quad so that we could house-hack, but I digress...)


Great, so what you're saying is that you used a program designed for the working class that in principle you shouldn't have qualified for to instead displace them out of their neighborhood? Hope you love the lower moral ground you stand on.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Jack on December 03, 2015, 08:35:05 PM
got the appraisal back at 150% of what we paid (even though we haven't done any substantial renovation) because I carefully and purposefully bought in one of the fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods in the city.

(My only regret is that we didn't buy a more expensive house, and/or a duplex/triplex/quad so that we could house-hack, but I digress...)


Great, so what you're saying is that you used a program designed for the working class that in principle you shouldn't have qualified for to instead displace them out of their neighborhood? Hope you love the lower moral ground you stand on.

On the contrary; the program was intended to stabilize neighborhoods (one of the requirements is that you have to owner-occupy the property for 10 years or you have to pay it back), and people like me buying meant it was working as designed. In fact, I'd say that my wife and I are even more of a success story than usual for the program, considering how involved we are with volunteering and such.

I should also point out that although the income limits are a little bit lower than the median income, you could use the program to buy up to about a quarter-million dollar house (which is a lot in Atlanta), so we're really talking about a program applicable for people well into the middle class here.

Finally, yes: I'm entirely comfortable with the morality of the situation. I didn't make the rules; I just followed them. And we bought our house in a standard full-market-value sale (not a short sale or foreclosure) so the lady we bought it from was only "displaced" of her own free will.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Making Cookies on December 03, 2015, 08:42:19 PM
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

I wonder if that is a state by state situation. Folks here get bent out of shape about alot of stuff. I could imagine them getting flustered about Sex-Ed. Will ask my teen if they are getting the info.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Jack on December 03, 2015, 09:46:23 PM
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

I wonder if that is a state by state situation. Folks here get bent out of shape about alot of stuff. I could imagine them getting flustered about Sex-Ed. Will ask my teen if they are getting the info.

State-by-state, and probably district-by-district. I guarantee sex-ed is very different between most of the metro Atlanta school systems versus some rural county school system.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on December 03, 2015, 09:47:42 PM
got the appraisal back at 150% of what we paid (even though we haven't done any substantial renovation) because I carefully and purposefully bought in one of the fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods in the city.

(My only regret is that we didn't buy a more expensive house, and/or a duplex/triplex/quad so that we could house-hack, but I digress...)


Great, so what you're saying is that you used a program designed for the working class that in principle you shouldn't have qualified for to instead displace them out of their neighborhood? Hope you love the lower moral ground you stand on.

On the contrary; the program was intended to stabilize neighborhoods (one of the requirements is that you have to owner-occupy the property for 10 years or you have to pay it back), and people like me buying meant it was working as designed. In fact, I'd say that my wife and I are even more of a success story than usual for the program, considering how involved we are with volunteering and such.

I should also point out that although the income limits are a little bit lower than the median income, you could use the program to buy up to about a quarter-million dollar house (which is a lot in Atlanta), so we're really talking about a program applicable for people well into the middle class here.

Finally, yes: I'm entirely comfortable with the morality of the situation. I didn't make the rules; I just followed them. And we bought our house in a standard full-market-value sale (not a short sale or foreclosure) so the lady we bought it from was only "displaced" of her own free will.

1) I'm insanely jealous that a $250,000 house is a middle class house in Atlanta and now I want to move because of it, a bit. Here that's the lowest end of a studio condo available in the city limits. 1-bedroom if you're lucky. (unless it's part of a land trust.)

2) I was mostly commenting on the poor taste of gloating about buying into a gentrifying neighborhood that you don't have family connections to when you're not working class (engineers /= working class), not the policy goals of a particular program. And if you know anything about displacement, you DO realize that it isn't usually "by force", right? (Key exceptions here excluded for lack of space.)

Homeowners sell their properties because of rising property values and then create ethnic/racial/working class enclaves in further-out  non-gentrified neighborhoods. Gentrification is about the commodification of the "coolness" and "newness" of a neighborhood that has established communities for years. In the case of  historically black cities like Atlanta, this is usually black well-established neighborhoods that suddenly become "hip" to gentrifiers and acquire dog parks, yoga studios, high-end ice cream shops, coffee shops, and lose their original core institutions due to owners selling for market-rate prices to gentrifiers. They lose community centers, local pubs, barber shops, ethnic restaurants, and other core pillars of the community due to changing demographics and due to rising property rates that entice landowners to sell.

You're just complicit in the march that so many of us are part of. It's merely gloating about why it was good business decision to use those benefits not originally designed for you to drive the working class out of their community that's poor taste.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Jack on December 03, 2015, 10:13:00 PM
1) I'm insanely jealous that a $250,000 house is a middle class house in Atlanta and now I want to move because of it, a bit. Here that's the lowest end of a studio condo available in the city limits. 1-bedroom if you're lucky. (unless it's part of a land trust.)

2) I was mostly commenting on the poor taste of gloating about buying into a gentrifying neighborhood that you don't have family connections to when you're not working class (engineers /= working class), not the policy goals of a particular program. And if you know anything about displacement, you DO realize that it isn't usually "by force", right? (Key exceptions here excluded for lack of space.)

Homeowners sell their properties because of rising property values and then create ethnic/racial/working class enclaves in further-out  non-gentrified neighborhoods. Gentrification is about the commodification of the "coolness" and "newness" of a neighborhood that has established communities for years. In the case of  historically black cities like Atlanta, this is usually black well-established neighborhoods that suddenly become "hip" to gentrifiers and acquire dog parks, yoga studios, high-end ice cream shops, coffee shops, and lose their original core institutions due to owners selling for market-rate prices to gentrifiers. They lose community centers, local pubs, barber shops, ethnic restaurants, and other core pillars of the community due to changing demographics and due to rising property rates that entice landowners to sell.

You're just complicit in the march that so many of us are part of. It's merely gloating about why it was good business decision to use those benefits not originally designed for you to drive the working class out of their community that's poor taste.

To point #1: I'd say a middle-class house actually starts somewhere around the $100K mark, especially outside the city limits (and if you're talking lower-middle-class as opposed to upper-middle-class). Unlike some metro areas (e.g. LA), the City of Atlanta proper is pretty small, comprising only about 10% of the population of the metro area. The vast majority of middle-class Atlantans live in varying degrees of suburbia, even if said suburbs would have been in the city proper in a less Balkanized area.

To point #2: Fair enough. I take a little bit of issue with your characterization of Atlanta as "historically-black" -- it's more like "historically-divided." It became blacker during the '60s and '70s due to integration/white flight, and now the racial mix is moving back towards the pre-'50s norm. The other interesting thing is that my particular neighborhood has (as far as I can tell) pretty much always been one of the most integrated, or at least, segregated at a scale smaller than a census block or whatever. The exact percentage has varied, but it's probably never gone farther than 70%/30% in either direction.

(By the way: my wife is mixed-race and an artist; does that make it better?)
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: zephyr911 on December 04, 2015, 07:19:55 AM
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

I wonder if that is a state by state situation. Folks here get bent out of shape about alot of stuff. I could imagine them getting flustered about Sex-Ed. Will ask my teen if they are getting the info.

State-by-state, and probably district-by-district. I guarantee sex-ed is very different between most of the metro Atlanta school systems versus some rural county school system.
There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: vivophoenix on December 04, 2015, 07:33:09 AM
1) I'm insanely jealous that a $250,000 house is a middle class house in Atlanta and now I want to move because of it, a bit. Here that's the lowest end of a studio condo available in the city limits. 1-bedroom if you're lucky. (unless it's part of a land trust.)

2) I was mostly commenting on the poor taste of gloating about buying into a gentrifying neighborhood that you don't have family connections to when you're not working class (engineers /= working class), not the policy goals of a particular program. And if you know anything about displacement, you DO realize that it isn't usually "by force", right? (Key exceptions here excluded for lack of space.)

Homeowners sell their properties because of rising property values and then create ethnic/racial/working class enclaves in further-out  non-gentrified neighborhoods. Gentrification is about the commodification of the "coolness" and "newness" of a neighborhood that has established communities for years. In the case of  historically black cities like Atlanta, this is usually black well-established neighborhoods that suddenly become "hip" to gentrifiers and acquire dog parks, yoga studios, high-end ice cream shops, coffee shops, and lose their original core institutions due to owners selling for market-rate prices to gentrifiers. They lose community centers, local pubs, barber shops, ethnic restaurants, and other core pillars of the community due to changing demographics and due to rising property rates that entice landowners to sell.

You're just complicit in the march that so many of us are part of. It's merely gloating about why it was good business decision to use those benefits not originally designed for you to drive the working class out of their community that's poor taste.


(By the way: my wife is mixed-race and an artist; does that make it better?)

only if you let the more ethnic side of her family use your bathroom. then you get the 'i'm not a part of the problem' guilt free special we are offering today.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on December 04, 2015, 09:03:04 AM

To point #1: I'd say a middle-class house actually starts somewhere around the $100K mark, especially outside the city limits (and if you're talking lower-middle-class as opposed to upper-middle-class). Unlike some metro areas (e.g. LA), the City of Atlanta proper is pretty small, comprising only about 10% of the population of the metro area. The vast majority of middle-class Atlantans live in varying degrees of suburbia, even if said suburbs would have been in the city proper in a less Balkanized area.
Oh my god. There's nothing for $100K here unless you move to an extremely rural area or it's a former meth house that requires substantial investment in cleanup. Gosh, now I'm remembering why I don't look at real estate prices in the rest of the country. Good thing I like Portland. Otherwise I'd be moving to your neighborhood too :-P


To point #2: Fair enough. I take a little bit of issue with your characterization of Atlanta as "historically-black" -- it's more like "historically-divided." It became blacker during the '60s and '70s due to integration/white flight, and now the racial mix is moving back towards the pre-'50s norm. The other interesting thing is that my particular neighborhood has (as far as I can tell) pretty much always been one of the most integrated, or at least, segregated at a scale smaller than a census block or whatever. The exact percentage has varied, but it's probably never gone farther than 70%/30% in either direction.
I'm sure you know a lot more about Atlanta history than me. I was speaking in broader terms about gentrification so I'll concede all of that to you.


(By the way: my wife is mixed-race and an artist; does that make it better?)
....Kiiiiiiinnnndaaa. When people talk about gentrification, it's more about roots in a neighborhood than simply skin color (there's plenty of black hipsters and yuppies that are still gentrifiers in black neighborhoods), and - as you pointed out- segregated neighborhoods aren't a good thing either. This is where gentrification just gets frustratingly complicated.

Economic eviction from neighborhoods is the root of the issue- working class people that don't recognize their neighborhood because it becomes "hip" to live in. Their community has left because property values have led to house flipping, unaffordable rents, and public housing being moved away (HUD requires the portfolios of land in housing projects be managed for a profit, so once a neighborhood gentrifies, usually they have to sell the property and use the money to buy into a less expensive neighborhood.) Gentrification also isn't the social justice issue as much as displacement is- so in the case of your neighborhood, perhaps there wasn't an established community (sounds like they were trying to stabilize the neighborhood) and you're not responsible for displacement. Oh gentrification, nothing about you is simple.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: GuitarStv on December 04, 2015, 09:24:08 AM
Damn you gentrification.  It's terrible when increased property values mean that poor people can sell their heavily appreciated homes.  Better to keep everyone poor, the drug dealers on the streets, and property values depressed than deal with the horrors of yoga studios and dog parks.  :P
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: monstermonster on December 04, 2015, 09:30:39 AM
Damn you gentrification.  It's terrible when increased property values mean that poor people can sell their heavily appreciated homes.  Better to keep everyone poor, the drug dealers on the streets, and property values depressed than deal with the horrors of yoga studios and dog parks.  :P
Remember that most poor people don't own homes, homeownership has long been the provenance of the middle-class and up. The homeowners in many low-income neighborhoods are often slumlords, who then sell the properties and the properties get flipped, evicting the tenants. Some residents (owner-occupiers) benefit from the rising property values when they sell, but many residents get economically or no-cause evicted.

Some neighborhoods that get gentrified are terrible neighborhoods with drug dealers, slumlords. But many are simple lower-income neighborhoods with black and brown people that are reasonably safe and filled with things like inexpensive taquerias, black churches with small congregations, bodegas, head start programs, day cares, that then get driven out to be replaced by indoor 'dog gyms' and yoga studios.

Note I said there's plenty of benefits to gentrification itself, particularly in unsafe neighborhoods- it's the displacement and losing of culture that is the social justice issue.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on December 04, 2015, 09:33:07 AM
I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation.
The idea was to improve whatever it was you got, so you'd have a way to set up your own kids. That worked in an agrarian and even an industrial economy, but it doesn't work in a knowledge based economy unless you're a shareholder in an IPO.

Only recently has it become possible to earn an upper-class or upper-middle-class income and to amass significant amounts of wealth without owning the business you work for. The university-education based system of professions is part of what makes it possible and I'm glad for that. I don't want to imagine someone apprenticing a twelve-year-old to be a brain surgeon. The up-side to a profession is that it's a way to climb the socio-economic ladder. The down-side is that there's no way to pass on the means of income production.

I had been thinking that the widening wealth gap in the last few decades had been due to things like changes in tax rates and pro-corporate court rulings, but now I'm wondering if this might be a significant factor too.

On the plus side, the possibility for social mobility created in an profession-based and education-based economy was a key factor in allowing capitalism to out-compete Marxism.

Here's an idea I've never heard discussed by economists or historians; feel free to kick at it a bit and see if it holds together. The idea is... a knowledge based economy promotes socioeconomic mobility and pervasive wealth inequality at the same time, but people tolerate the wealth inequality because they like the upward mobility.

Definitely there's upward mobility associated with knowledge, but unless the person living out the Horatio Alger story stashes a lot of the cash so that the lifestyle is backed by investments or a transferable business of some kind, his or her standard of living is tied 100% to his or her ability to work and earn an income. Lose that (such as through illness), and everything collapses like a house of cards. So there's downward socioeconomic mobility too. Since so many people insist on living like factory workers of the 1800's and spending every cent as quickly as it comes in, even high income earners are often only one paycheck from homelessness. But, as a group, we're willing to tolerate the risk of downward mobility for large numbers of people if we believe it's a necessary sacrifice we must make to get the upward mobility.

The knowledge economy also hasn't produced lasting wealth for very many people. Unlike a farm or shop, which can be passed down from one generation to the next, a job as a hospital surgeon or aerospace engineer can't be. Each generation has to spend years reinventing the wheel and becoming qualified to take on a similar earning role. People who retire are also living longer and spending down their assets for end-of-life care. So, with little to no accumulated wealth being passed down from one generation to the next, each generation of income-earners or professionals has to make its own way. Contrast this with the generations of hotel owners or store chain owners who no longer have to work, because the businesses make their money for them. They can be FIRE at a much earlier age, without having to go through decades of school or career training, and can set about accumulating more. Thus the wealth increases, one generation after the next, unless of course the people who inherit it are utter fuck-ups.

Now for the capitalism-versus-Marxism angle. Communism looked attractive during the industrial economy because the owner class and the worker class really were separate groups of people, and there was no opportunity for mobility. I'd venture to say that it wasn't the inequality that offended people so much as the fact that the people who had less really didn't have any good way to get more. So, forcibly redistributing ownership of the means of production had to sound like a really, really good idea (especially to people who had no fucking clue how to actually run a factory, farm, or business, and who therefore proceeded to run it into the ground after the leveling initiative was complete). But when there's a way to get a lot of mobility and access to a higher standard of living without all the drama-- as there was because of the knowledge based economy-- violent revolution sounded less attractive. It's a lot easier and more fun to go to college, and there's less personal risk.

It wasn't the Korean war or the Vietnam war that saved the world from a lengthy and disappointing experiment with Communism (which is inherently flawed due to its farcical reliance on human altruism, but humanity didn't know that at the time). It was the GI Bill and Sallie Mae in the United States, and federally subsidized university programs in Europe. Both provided a path to education and professional-class incomes for large numbers of people. Education created enough social mobility opportunity to interest the ambitious, and that was enough to provide a relief valve.

Anyway, people on other threads here have noted that a degree isn't what it used to be. Between student loan debt and other factors, college and university education isn't a reliable path to a higher standard of living. I'd venture to guess that the collapse of that path to social mobility, and the impermanence of wealth created by professional incomes, poses a very credible and long-term threat to the free market economy.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: zephyr911 on December 04, 2015, 10:03:41 AM
Cherry-picking for brevity:
Here's an idea I've never heard discussed by economists or historians; feel free to kick at it a bit and see if it holds together. The idea is... a knowledge based economy promotes socioeconomic mobility and pervasive wealth inequality at the same time, but people tolerate the wealth inequality because they like the upward mobility.
IMHO, it's nearly self-evident. As Steinbeck put it, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Economic mobility enables this self-image to persist, and I would argue that even the perception of mobility is enough. Believing I can get to the top not only makes being pissed on at the bottom tolerable - it can even help me rationalize full-throated support for policies that won't help me till I get there. Along those lines, an old friend of mine used to joke about "all the unemployed plumbers who want to repeal the estate tax".
Quote
But, as a group, we're willing to tolerate the risk of downward mobility for large numbers of people if we believe it's a necessary sacrifice we must make to get the upward mobility.
Doesn't this rely on the assumption of a zero-sum game?
Yes, increasing the money supply just produces inflation, but directing more of our income toward durable goods and less toward ephemeral consumer shit could mean higher average quality of life - tangible wealth, if you will - for everyone.
Quote
Anyway, people on other threads here have noted that a degree isn't what it used to be. Between student loan debt and other factors, college and university education isn't a reliable path to a higher standard of living. I'd venture to guess that the collapse of that path to social mobility, and the impermanence of wealth created by professional incomes, poses a very credible and long-term threat to the free market economy.
I think a bigger problem is the decline in quality of the average student (via increasing enrollment numbers at the expense of lower standards) and the employability of the average degree (as emphasis on exploration and enjoyment has supplanted employability). I don't think a straight-A student with a newly minted STEM degree is worth less than they used to be - if anything hinders that kind of graduate, it's the older workforce dragging their feet on retirement because they raided their home equity for toys in their 50s.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: maco on December 04, 2015, 10:41:05 AM
I'm not saying 13 year olds don't get pregnant, but they are very rare.
And when it does happen, I suspect you're looking at incest the vast majority of the time. Some older relative has been abusing the kid for years, and suddenly it becomes possible for irrefutable evidence to appear in the form of pregnancy as soon as that first period hits.

"Fathering" semantics aside, for some reason, this thought process was more interesting to me than the actual OP.... lol. I have friends who have had children less than 1 year apart. Just need one of those to be twins and BANG!
The twins in my family were born 12 months after me.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: infogoon on December 04, 2015, 10:41:46 AM
Damn you gentrification.  It's terrible when increased property values mean that poor people can sell their heavily appreciated homes.  Better to keep everyone poor, the drug dealers on the streets, and property values depressed than deal with the horrors of yoga studios and dog parks.  :P

We blame people with money for leaving the cities and ruining everything, then we blame them for coming back and ruining everything.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: maco on December 04, 2015, 10:48:21 AM
Back on topic:

I got a mortgage tax credit when I bought an inexpensive condo in my mid-twenties while I was still a starving graduate students. It was the only reason I could make the numbers work. Rather than default, I finished my Ph.D., got a high paying job, sold the condo at a profit a decade later, etc. It was not nearly as a great of a deal as the ~$30K tax-deferred I stash now, though, and it was not nearly as great of a deal as the fact that I only pay 15% tax on my capital gains.

But the young lady in the article should have her bit of the advantageous programs that we all use to our advantage. Landlords, especially, benefit from all kinds of tax writes off like depreciation, deductions when unoccupied, etc. Talk about a hand out! Sure, there is some work involved with being a landlord, but most of it boils down to sitting on your ass month after month while others pay your mortgages for you. I can make most rental properties legally look like a loss on tax papers despite the high actual cash flow. So an argument about others getting breaks and govt handouts from a landlord is particularly nauseating. That is all.
This, right here, is the entire point of the game Monopoly.

Yeah, you know how Monopoly (if played without house rules) results in a fight and a table flip? That's because it was created specifically to show how broken the landlording system is.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Making Cookies on December 06, 2015, 04:36:04 PM
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

I wonder if that is a state by state situation. Folks here get bent out of shape about alot of stuff. I could imagine them getting flustered about Sex-Ed. Will ask my teen if they are getting the info.

State-by-state, and probably district-by-district. I guarantee sex-ed is very different between most of the metro Atlanta school systems versus some rural county school system.
There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.

THAT sounds familiar... ;)
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: nobodyspecial on December 06, 2015, 07:56:59 PM
There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.
Well if you can get pregnant without sex (ask Jesus) then you may as well fsck like bunnies anyway !
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: GuitarStv on December 07, 2015, 06:00:55 AM
Jesus got pregnant without having sex???
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Jack on December 07, 2015, 09:25:34 AM
Good thing I like Portland. Otherwise I'd be moving to your neighborhood too :-P

Maybe I shouldn't mention that my neighborhood is pretty much the most "Portland-like" of any in Atlanta, then. ; )

Remember that most poor people don't own homes, homeownership has long been the provenance of the middle-class and up. The homeowners in many low-income neighborhoods are often slumlords, who then sell the properties and the properties get flipped, evicting the tenants. Some residents (owner-occupiers) benefit from the rising property values when they sell, but many residents get economically or no-cause evicted.

I'm not sure how prevalent this pattern is, but in a lot of the "bad" neighborhoods in Atlanta, the houses that the gang members or other criminals live in are owned by their elderly grandparents, who bought back when the neighborhood was middle-class.

Of course, when the elderly person dies and their heirs (who moved to the suburbs long ago) inherit it, they certainly don't want to live there and the paper value of the property is destroyed, so they quit paying the taxes and then the slumlord/real-estate speculator (namely, this guy (http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local/whats-a-nice-mayor-like-kasim-doing-in-a-place-lik/nmQpG/)) gets it.

(To explain the apparent contradiction between "criminal grandchildren" and "heirs in the suburbs:" the heirs were the high-achieving siblings; the criminals are the children of the fuck-up siblings.)


Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...m
Post by: iris lily on December 07, 2015, 09:47:18 AM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

It's an old chestnut that teens have babies because they don't know or have access to birth control.
The research shows that they are able to use birth control, they have access to it.

The reality is that in the culture of poverty, children provide value to their lives. It is a conscious choice of  poor young women to have babies out of wedlock. Some research suggests that having babies young and out of wedlock doesn't really affect the socioeconomic position of these women anyway. In other words, they are making logical decisions within their own culture. Because it doesn't make sense to the mustachioed doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This is very hard for those of middle class values to hear and grok.

For a good view into this culture see the book Promises I Can Keep.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...m
Post by: monstermonster on December 07, 2015, 11:24:50 AM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

It's an old chestnut that teens have babies because they don't know or have access to birth control.
The research shows that they are able to use birth control, they have access to it.

The reality is that in the culture of poverty, children provide value to their lives. It is a conscious choice of  poor young women to have babies out of wedlock. Some research suggests that having babies young and out of wedlock doesn't really affect the socioeconomic position of these women anyway. In other words, they are making logical decisions within their own culture. Because it doesn't make sense to the mustachioed doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This is very hard for those of middle class values to hear and grok.

For a good view into this culture see the book Promises I Can Keep.
Purely anecdotal but, I worked (as a live-in social worker, so I also lived with my clients and their kids) in a shelter for young mothers (18-25) for years and then at a homeless youth day center, and plenty/most of the women there were not pregnant or parenting because they made a choice to get pregnant. Many had children as a product of rape in the foster system or homes with alcoholism/meth abuse, or because they were never taught about birth control or had access to it (our state required parental notification and nearly none of these girls had coverage on Medicaid after age 12 before ACA). I'd say at least half of their baby daddies were supposedly trusted adults. Some of the youth I worked with had children so they qualified for more foodstamps and for medicaid so they could get their teeth fixed (meth really fucks up teeth) while pregnant (back then you only got medicaid for the 9 months you were pregnant.)

In addition to my 5 years of anecdotal experience, the data supports the idea that while social connection/fulfillment is a reason for teen parenting, it is not the only reason by a longshot. Like most things, sweeping conclusions about individual's motivations are challenging. Maybe if our foster system wasn't so fucked up and we didn't have a school-to-prison pipeline, this wouldn't be such an issue and more pregnancies would be by choice in youth.

I'll check out the book, it might help inform my conversations with youth I work with. Thanks for the recommendations.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: nobodyspecial on December 07, 2015, 02:58:11 PM
Jesus got pregnant without having sex???
Well that was his mother's excuse
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...m
Post by: Gin1984 on December 07, 2015, 03:02:29 PM
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

It's an old chestnut that teens have babies because they don't know or have access to birth control.
The research shows that they are able to use birth control, they have access to it.

The reality is that in the culture of poverty, children provide value to their lives. It is a conscious choice of  poor young women to have babies out of wedlock. Some research suggests that having babies young and out of wedlock doesn't really affect the socioeconomic position of these women anyway. In other words, they are making logical decisions within their own culture. Because it doesn't make sense to the mustachioed doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This is very hard for those of middle class values to hear and grok.

For a good view into this culture see the book Promises I Can Keep.
Citation please?  Because that statement is directly opposite what was taught in my psychology of sexuality, and they had citations.  Granted, I did not check them and this was almost ten years ago, but  I'd be surprised if this was true.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: tobitonic on January 14, 2016, 08:59:46 PM

Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

Usually happy to lurk, but this is incorrect, at least for the US.  I will say birth control and sex education is getting better--states have started to decline Title V/State Abstinence Education Grant Program funding, but the current stats (pulled off  http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx):

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.
As of Jan. 1, 2015:
22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education).
33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.”

Many states define parents’ rights concerning sexual education:
37 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs.
Three states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.
35 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.


So depending on where someone is living there might be some classes that might be medically accurate that might not need parental permission to attend, but it doesn't come close to covering all states/schools in the US at this point.  From personal experience (also known as a lot of moving around as a kid) I'd say the northeast and west are probably the best with the south lagging behind--the focus on religion in MS/TX/TN tended to mean abstinence only was stressed to the point that if a teenager did decide to have sex he/she was afraid to even buy condoms for fear that one of the grocery tellers would see the parents in church--but obviously that's personal experience not actual data and in my case ~10 years old on top of that.  On the other hand, although teenage birth rates are declining as Mrs. Pete said, they're still the highest in southern states (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html) so it may not be so far off.

Thanks for bringing facts into this discussion. There's a lot we take for granted when belittling people for their situations.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Making Cookies on January 15, 2016, 10:23:41 AM
An odd (to me) logic is a situation I've witnessed a number of times.

Teenager gets pregnant, struggles to get started in adult life, never gets anything beyond a HS education, family laments the poor choices made, etc.

Then cousins and siblings do the same thing.

You'd think one person would make a tough choice and the rest would witness and learn but they don't...

Another layer of "interesting" on this metaphorical cake is that everyone professes to be a God-fearing conservative and bad mouths people using welfare when I'm pretty sure they are quietly using these programs themselves.

???
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: onlykelsey on January 15, 2016, 10:56:18 AM

There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.

This is so, so true.  I got very very basic sex education in Pennsylvania growing up, but when I moved to Texas I had to teach my liberal, not-Bible Bashing 32 year old boyfriend how to use condoms correctly because he had literally never learned. Thankfully he had had a lucky previous decade...
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Gin1984 on January 15, 2016, 11:26:13 AM

There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.

This is so, so true.  I got very very basic sex education in Pennsylvania growing up, but when I moved to Texas I had to teach my liberal, not-Bible Bashing 32 year old boyfriend how to use condoms correctly because he had literally never learned. Thankfully he had had a lucky previous decade...
My first boyfriend called me years later, after taking a human sexuality class in college, where he learned about the clit.  To apologize.  Some schools don't even teach basic human biology because it can be construed as supporting sex.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 15, 2016, 12:02:21 PM
An odd (to me) logic is a situation I've witnessed a number of times.

Teenager gets pregnant, struggles to get started in adult life, never gets anything beyond a HS education, family laments the poor choices made, etc.

Then cousins and siblings do the same thing.

You'd think one person would make a tough choice and the rest would witness and learn but they don't...

They witness and learn the following things:

(1) You don't explode on the spot if you drop out of high school or becoming a parent at an early age. In fact it's possible to get by. You won't have a lot of independence or comfort, but you don't immediately die.

(2) The family tends to rally around the teen parent, so everybody else learns that enablers are in fact available. There is now a precedent for helping clean up the bad consequences of someone else's mistake. Indeed, people who enable are treated as "good" while people who don't are "bad" or "selfish". So if you make the same mistake that your older brother or sister did, it's reasonable to expect that you, too, will be taken care of. It doesn't matter if the mistake is "dropping out of high school", "becoming a parent at a young age", or "experimenting with meth".

(3) You're going to be pressured, guilted, or otherwise conscripted into caring for the new baby or the mistake-making adult who now has high needs. This means you will be less able to focus on school work and more likely to have difficulty. If you're struggling, you won't receive help because all the available help is going to the new baby or the new addict.

(4) You learn to rationalize that it's "better for the family" if one or more young people drop out of high school or never continue into more advanced education, because the young adults are now available for child and elder caregiving for siblings, sick parents, addicted persons, minimum wage earners, or replacements for people who are in prison. So if you do something that sabotages your long-term future as an individual, it's OK because you're benefiting somebody else. The fact that you'd be a far better contributor to the family if you went to university and earned a computer science degree is nice in theory, but it also means that your needy sister, uncle, cousin, or parent won't get their needs met *today*.

(5) Communist culture sets in ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). Any individual who attempts to set money aside instead of giving it to needy family members is socially punished for it. Same goes for anybody who insists on pursuing advanced education and doing homework instead of "helping", or who is unwilling to overload the lifeboat by taking in the children and young adults who are left without reasonable care because the extended family's available resources are being focused on a few high-needs individuals.

In short, in an environment where the family bands together to take care of its own, individuals sometimes learn that it's easier and better to self-sabotage.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Making Cookies on January 15, 2016, 01:53:40 PM
Yeah, you nailed it. You've obviously given it more thought than I have.

I never had the life boats you detailed.

I wonder how many of the forum participants might be in the same situation where they NEED to be self-supporting and can't/won't move back home or make risky long term commitments.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: SunshineAZ on January 15, 2016, 02:13:24 PM
I just want to make a comment about another reason young girls get pregnant.  Society, the media, etc. in an effort to take away the shame that historically was given to young unwed mothers, have made single motherhood  "cool" or at least a sympathetic character.  How often do you see "single mother" in TV shows or movies as the main character, who is the martyr and/or the badass heroine who everyone is supposed to root for. 

I know my own niece had her son at 18, with a loser father who isn't around much, and she constantly reminds everyone she is a mother and her son is so precious to her, blah blah, like she should get a medal and have automatic adult status for having a kid.  And the ironic thing, is she is a terrible mother.  She constantly yells at the poor kid, he wasn't potty trained until he was almost 4, because she couldn't be bothered to pay enough attention to him to work with him.  But it is obvious that she thinks she deserve special status because she is a "mom", and makes sure everyone knows it.  I feel really sorry for her kid and am glad that I don't live near them anymore. 
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Making Cookies on January 15, 2016, 02:18:23 PM
Yeah - I have one of those in the family too. It IS really, really sad. Nothing like a little kid with little or no understanding taking the brunt of their parents' ignorance and immaturity.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on January 15, 2016, 04:54:15 PM
Yeah, you nailed it. You've obviously given it more thought than I have.

I never had the life boats you detailed.

I wonder how many of the forum participants might be in the same situation where they NEED to be self-supporting and can't/won't move back home or make risky long term commitments.

I intend for the lifeboat to be an analogy for a family or household. Like a lifeboat, a household is designed to stay afloat under most conditions, although there's such a thing as a storm that will sink it no matter what. But there's an upper limit as to how much each lifeboat can hold. Overload it, and it will sink especially in bad weather. A family or household has a finite amount of resources in terms of money, space, adult attention, etc. and if you exceed the limits too much or for too long, at least some of the family members get a raw deal. Either their needs aren't met (they fall or get thrown overboard, to continue my lifeboat analogy) or their physical or mental health suffers.

Sadly, a lot of people truly don't accept the idea that there are limits to their own power or resources, so they overcommit to the point where being overcommitted seems normal, and rely on luck, faith, or other people to relieve their discomfort afterwards.

I doubt that many of the forum participants were raised that way, to routinely overcommit themselves (or others) to the point of incapacity while regarding it as moral necessity.

Admittedly, a Mustachian household is more able to handle an extra child or a sickly adult than an anti-Mustachian home would be. Living below one's means and not over-consuming creates a margin that can allow more schedule and spending flexibility. Having sizable savings, or even being FIRE, allows a parent to devote more time to child care if needed.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...m
Post by: Gin1984 on January 15, 2016, 07:04:23 PM
It's an old chestnut that teens have babies because they don't know or have access to birth control.
The research shows that they are able to use birth control, they have access to it.

The reality is that in the culture of poverty, children provide value to their lives. It is a conscious choice of  poor young women to have babies out of wedlock. Some research suggests that having babies young and out of wedlock doesn't really affect the socioeconomic position of these women anyway. In other words, they are making logical decisions within their own culture. Because it doesn't make sense to the mustachioed doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This is very hard for those of middle class values to hear and grok.

Citation please?  Because that statement is directly opposite what was taught in my psychology of sexuality, and they had citations.  Granted, I did not check them and this was almost ten years ago, but  I'd be surprised if this was true.

Poverty Causes Teen Parenting, Not the Other Way Around (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/04/29/poverty-causes-teen-parenting-not-the-other-way-around/)
For Many Poor Black Girls, Teen Pregnancy Is A Rational Choice (http://amptoons.com/blog/2005/09/22/for-many-poor-black-girls-teen-pregnancy-is-a-rational-choice/)
Why Are Teen Moms Poor? (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/teen_moms_how_poverty_and_inequality_cause_teens_to_have_babies_not_the_other_way_around_.html)
Controversy over Teen Pregnancy (http://prospect.org/article/dubious-conceptions-controversy-over-teen-pregnancy)

Many of those articles link back to the research articles; the summary is that it's hard to differentiate between correlation and causation.
The link isn't as strong as moralizing about bad choices makes it seem to be.

The way out of the mess would be solving poverty, better education, jobs for people who don't have them, end of crime etc. It's a hard problem to solve, easier to point fingers at the mess.
Except none of those cited research articles actually support your statement, especially given the extreme disparity of teen pregnancy/birth between states with actual sex ed/abortion clinics and those without.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: Wilson Hall on January 15, 2016, 07:18:44 PM
An odd (to me) logic is a situation I've witnessed a number of times.

Teenager gets pregnant, struggles to get started in adult life, never gets anything beyond a HS education, family laments the poor choices made, etc.

Then cousins and siblings do the same thing.

You'd think one person would make a tough choice and the rest would witness and learn but they don't...



They witness and learn the following things:

(1) You don't explode on the spot if you drop out of high school or becoming a parent at an early age. In fact it's possible to get by. You won't have a lot of independence or comfort, but you don't immediately die.

(2) The family tends to rally around the teen parent, so everybody else learns that enablers are in fact available. There is now a precedent for helping clean up the bad consequences of someone else's mistake. Indeed, people who enable are treated as "good" while people who don't are "bad" or "selfish". So if you make the same mistake that your older brother or sister did, it's reasonable to expect that you, too, will be taken care of. It doesn't matter if the mistake is "dropping out of high school", "becoming a parent at a young age", or "experimenting with meth".

(3) You're going to be pressured, guilted, or otherwise conscripted into caring for the new baby or the mistake-making adult who now has high needs. This means you will be less able to focus on school work and more likely to have difficulty. If you're struggling, you won't receive help because all the available help is going to the new baby or the new addict.

(4) You learn to rationalize that it's "better for the family" if one or more young people drop out of high school or never continue into more advanced education, because the young adults are now available for child and elder caregiving for siblings, sick parents, addicted persons, minimum wage earners, or replacements for people who are in prison. So if you do something that sabotages your long-term future as an individual, it's OK because you're benefiting somebody else. The fact that you'd be a far better contributor to the family if you went to university and earned a computer science degree is nice in theory, but it also means that your needy sister, uncle, cousin, or parent won't get their needs met *today*.

(5) Communist culture sets in ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). Any individual who attempts to set money aside instead of giving it to needy family members is socially punished for it. Same goes for anybody who insists on pursuing advanced education and doing homework instead of "helping", or who is unwilling to overload the lifeboat by taking in the children and young adults who are left without reasonable care because the extended family's available resources are being focused on a few high-needs individuals.

In short, in an environment where the family bands together to take care of its own, individuals sometimes learn that it's easier and better to self-sabotage.

Good points. I know families with two or three generations of teenage/unplanned pregnancies. Actions speak louder than words. If the younger generation sees mom getting support from grandparents and other extended family, they assume they will get the same benefits eventually.

Maybe this is why people who are trying to break out of the cycle of family poverty ultimately have to move away. Staying in the familial community may very well keep them from achieving financial independence.
Title: Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
Post by: tobitonic on January 15, 2016, 11:20:08 PM
An odd (to me) logic is a situation I've witnessed a number of times.

Teenager gets pregnant, struggles to get started in adult life, never gets anything beyond a HS education, family laments the poor choices made, etc.

Then cousins and siblings do the same thing.

You'd think one person would make a tough choice and the rest would witness and learn but they don't...

They witness and learn the following things:

(1) You don't explode on the spot if you drop out of high school or becoming a parent at an early age. In fact it's possible to get by. You won't have a lot of independence or comfort, but you don't immediately die.

(2) The family tends to rally around the teen parent, so everybody else learns that enablers are in fact available. There is now a precedent for helping clean up the bad consequences of someone else's mistake. Indeed, people who enable are treated as "good" while people who don't are "bad" or "selfish". So if you make the same mistake that your older brother or sister did, it's reasonable to expect that you, too, will be taken care of. It doesn't matter if the mistake is "dropping out of high school", "becoming a parent at a young age", or "experimenting with meth".

(3) You're going to be pressured, guilted, or otherwise conscripted into caring for the new baby or the mistake-making adult who now has high needs. This means you will be less able to focus on school work and more likely to have difficulty. If you're struggling, you won't receive help because all the available help is going to the new baby or the new addict.

(4) You learn to rationalize that it's "better for the family" if one or more young people drop out of high school or never continue into more advanced education, because the young adults are now available for child and elder caregiving for siblings, sick parents, addicted persons, minimum wage earners, or replacements for people who are in prison. So if you do something that sabotages your long-term future as an individual, it's OK because you're benefiting somebody else. The fact that you'd be a far better contributor to the family if you went to university and earned a computer science degree is nice in theory, but it also means that your needy sister, uncle, cousin, or parent won't get their needs met *today*.

(5) Communist culture sets in ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). Any individual who attempts to set money aside instead of giving it to needy family members is socially punished for it. Same goes for anybody who insists on pursuing advanced education and doing homework instead of "helping", or who is unwilling to overload the lifeboat by taking in the children and young adults who are left without reasonable care because the extended family's available resources are being focused on a few high-needs individuals.

In short, in an environment where the family bands together to take care of its own, individuals sometimes learn that it's easier and better to self-sabotage.

Excellent points. To summarize it: social support. It's also why most people remain in their home towns, even if there aren't educational or career ops, vs. leaving town or state or country. We close some doors to keep others open.