teachers get trained every few years. curriculum gets changes every few years. school board gets trained every few years. that means from the time something new and obvious to teach appears, it takes ten years to get into the classrooms. and some things are multi-year lessons that can't just be thrown into grade 12. so it's another four years until the grade 9 student graduates. so it's basically 15 years from when an obvious idea with zero resistance at any stage along the way actually makes it through. 15 years ago, college was a great idea because most job openings came down to applicants without advanced education.
today, it's not like that. today, most applicants actually do have college degrees. so competing on that front puts you into the bigger pile, not into the smaller one.
but here's the better answer to your question. because high school is taught by teachers, and principles, and school boards. Not a single person in the entire system is an entrepreneur. Not even one. Even the private tutors for hire are teachers-by-day. The only entrepreneur in school is the guy selling drugs in the parking lot.
like some of us do, did, and continue to do. many business don't need more than $1'000 of capital. Some need absolutely zero. Most need zero experience. The only thing that they require is that you guarantee your work. That's easy to do: don't charge until the job is done. That's it. It's not complicated.
Except that in grade six, on career day, they didn't have any presentations by entrepreneurs. So you needed to figure it out for yourself -- which is the very definition of starting your own business.
you are most definitely correct, I missed the "especially"; that's embarassing.
but I can say that with my own investments over the years, even down to simple GICs, ten year commitments has gotten me far more than 5%. Even my current mutual funds seem to get me 10% per year -- 20% this past year, not that I have enough invested to make much of a difference.
you've taken small counter-arguments directed at specific earlier-arguments and are treating them as whole concepts out of context. that's not the original debate.
counting is not math. math is a shortcut to counting because counting takes longer and more effort, sometimes unreasonably so.
keep reading, throughout I've said "for my situation, for me, with my numbers, do your own". but if you're paying off your mortgages in 5 years, then you're agreeing with me. we're not talking about the piece of paper than reduces your options. we're talking about the real-world, real-time, number of years for which you have and are paying for your mortgage. no one cares what the paper says.
Nice try. Again, as I've commented elsewhere, only your second mortgages are worse rates than the first. My second mortgages aren't. Playing with money later comes with greater intelligence (as in intel), it's fore-sight, and it's retro-actively psychic. If you believe that your first mortgage rate is the best rate you'll ever get, and the current stock rate is the best it'll ever be, then you've made the right choice by the definition of your expectations for the future. And the bank is very happy about that.
Heh, I read "socks" the first time. I was very confused!
I have friends doing exactly what you're saying, 2014-750 to 2024-1500, absolutely. And you can watch them struggle to stretch every month of life, and you can watch it affect their marriage, and their children, and none of that has anything to do with the "financial" benefits. Except that it ripples.
When the struggle is too far (and that's the stretch part) an additional loan throws things off of the plan. And that still doesn't alter the financial "decision".
But in 2024, they don't get 1.5M in cash in their pocket. They never actually get the benefits of that appreciation until they sell the house and don't buy another -- so they'd need to down-size to see any of that financial benefit in the first place. Which they won't do.
But I'll let you in on a little secret. In order to make that "stretch", as you call it, you need to work harder at your job, to make more money, to afford the payments. In practical terms, this means that you are working for your house -- as in your house is paying you to work harder.
But if you work at your job, you pay income taxes. Those taxes don't go into your house.
If, instead, you trade in those working hours for DIY projects, you can physically work for your house directly. That work is "unpaid", and hence it is untaxed. If you're not an idiot, you can learn to do a lot of the house upgrades that very quickly increase the value of your house -- far more than appreciation -- at very minimal cost.
So you've asked me to list 2 more things into which you could invest for return. I'm going to say into your house and into your land. Gardening, floors, counters, cabinets, paint, furniture, driveways, even brick-work are all very easy to learn and to do and don't require any certification or licencing or dangerous efforts or safety concerns.
Right now, if I want to spend 200 hours doing something, I could work as an employee for a month and get a typical $10K income, which is really only $7K bottom-line. As a typical small-business owner, that's closer to $9K. Or I could finish my basement and increase my house's value by about $50K over what I'd spend on lumber, drywall, paint, and an electrician and a plumber.
5% wasn't "5%", it was referencing the "5% these days", which is different. The 67% referenced a sustained 5% over 10 years.
If you're getting 5% on an investment today, I'm saying there's nothing terrible about that. If you're expecting to get 5% per year for the next 10 years, that sucks because with that kind of long-term, you ought to be getting way more than 67%. You ought to be able to double your money quite easily.
On top of all of that, I'm personally expecting what's-considered-good-these-days to grow over the next ten years.
I'm upset because many here seem to thing that 5% per year is the same as 67% after ten years but it's not. One is an ever-changing current rate, the other is a hind-sight result.
You'll need to read more of my comments to see that your confusion has been dealth with three times.
The "paying it off in 10 years" wasn't my conclusion. That was the given. I also didn't say that I'm paying 3.5% per year, only you said that, and I didn't include lots of other things. So I'll tell you the same: stop using math, start using counting. You'll find that math yields mathematical approximations requiring a spherical frog in the proverbial microwave.
Talk to me again when you actually cash out. Because you likely won't. You'll run the same gambit that you're running now. Most people never cash out. It's also never free to cash out a house. Cradle-to-grave, then tell me. You sound perfectly competant, I just honestly don't believe that you'll cash out. Most people who enjoy the pleasures of profiting from financial decisions never stop doing so, and so they never actually posses the profits.
the 5% being referenced was said by you with a "these days" qualifier. 10 years is not the same as "these days". Stop debating the words used in the Nth comment of a long conversation. If you want to debate something, debate the original position as supported by the subsequent comments. Don't debate the comments themselves -- they aren't whole.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I think you've got your threads mixed up. So I'll answer you again over here.
No one ever forced you to work for a company. And no one ever forced you to be trained in anything. If your 4-year degree is a means to work for a company or to get trained, you don't need either so you don't need it.
I'm not counting it wrong. I'm not doing math. You're the one doing math with interest and inflation and six other dynamic figures.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm counting. I took a calendar, I went through every month for thirty years. I wrote down every income dollar and every expense dollar and every expected problem and every expected winfall. I'm telling you that for me, and for anyone even remotely like me, my way works out better by many many many dollars.
Comparing apples and oranges is incredibly easy in this conversation. They have retail costs, they have growing costs, and they have market costs too.
Moron. You can't tell me that owners can't find employees on the same day that you need a dregree to compete with countless applicants in HR.
Pick one. If you believe that there aren't enough employees to be an owner, than it's easy to get a job. rsilvergun said that there aren't enough jobs for all of the employees. If he's correct, then you won't have any trouble finding your privates.
Yes, you don't understand compound interest. First, it's 3.5% on the every-shrinking balance from the 230'000. If it were linear, that would mean exactly half. In this case it's not linear, but for this comment it's close enough.
And second, it's not just ANY mortgage. This is MY mortage. I said "I'll have paid it off in 10 years". That wasn't a calculation, that was a promise. I make an additional $10'000 per year, and use it to pay down my mortgage. I also have a retirement fund of $40K -- which I'll use to zero-out my mortgage at the end. In ten years, between everything, I'll have paid off the mortgage.
So, after 10 years, I'll have paid back the $230'000 loan, plus $12'000 of interest.
Like I said, and this is my entire point here and always, don't use math to approximate life when you can use counting. My money, my house, my mortgage, my income, my life, my problems = $12'000 of interest on my $450'000 house. I'll pay 2.67% interest on my house. For that, either I'll be able to live in it 10 years earlier than I otherwise would have, or I'll have a house twice as big as I could have otherwise afforded -- depending on which perspective you prefer.
first, that means I'm the same holophrastic as I was three comments ago. I don't know if you're the same coward or a different coward.
second, you do know that's my real name right? As in, I pay federal and provincial and property taxes under that name. I applied for my mortgage under that name. you're not in any position to authenticate "holophrastic" as being my name or not. I don't know why you'd assume that it isn't. Nice presumption. totally incorrect.
refinancing is an application process, takes days or weeks, and you can be turned down. borrowing against my equity is optional, controllable, and can be done for short-term efforts.
if it's exactly the same, in your opinion, then take the control, don't force yourself to be tied to your initial decision for 30 years!
it's also not the same, because being able to change things and control things is being able to use intelligence, and that's an input.
put your name to your argument, or it has no value. you can decide to what that pronoun refers.
Slashdot Mirror
always a bucket sort. but they don't teach those in CS courses.
teachers get trained every few years.
curriculum gets changes every few years.
school board gets trained every few years.
that means from the time something new and obvious to teach appears, it takes ten years to get into the classrooms.
and some things are multi-year lessons that can't just be thrown into grade 12. so it's another four years until the grade 9 student graduates.
so it's basically 15 years from when an obvious idea with zero resistance at any stage along the way actually makes it through.
15 years ago, college was a great idea because most job openings came down to applicants without advanced education.
today, it's not like that. today, most applicants actually do have college degrees. so competing on that front puts you into the bigger pile, not into the smaller one.
but here's the better answer to your question. because high school is taught by teachers, and principles, and school boards. Not a single person in the entire system is an entrepreneur. Not even one. Even the private tutors for hire are teachers-by-day. The only entrepreneur in school is the guy selling drugs in the parking lot.
like some of us do, did, and continue to do. many business don't need more than $1'000 of capital. Some need absolutely zero. Most need zero experience. The only thing that they require is that you guarantee your work. That's easy to do: don't charge until the job is done. That's it. It's not complicated.
Except that in grade six, on career day, they didn't have any presentations by entrepreneurs. So you needed to figure it out for yourself -- which is the very definition of starting your own business.
start your own business.
dude. different country. different career. different life. none of that applies to me. I'm not an employee and there is no such thing as a 401k.
You said: 230 000*3.5%*10 = 80 500
That's not what actually happens.
It's half of that.
Because it's not 230 000 after the first month.
It gets smaller with each payment.
Too many to read. I'm skipping the cowards.
you are most definitely correct, I missed the "especially"; that's embarassing.
but I can say that with my own investments over the years, even down to simple GICs, ten year commitments has gotten me far more than 5%. Even my current mutual funds seem to get me 10% per year -- 20% this past year, not that I have enough invested to make much of a difference.
you've taken small counter-arguments directed at specific earlier-arguments and are treating them as whole concepts out of context. that's not the original debate.
counting is not math. math is a shortcut to counting because counting takes longer and more effort, sometimes unreasonably so.
keep reading, throughout I've said "for my situation, for me, with my numbers, do your own". but if you're paying off your mortgages in 5 years, then you're agreeing with me. we're not talking about the piece of paper than reduces your options. we're talking about the real-world, real-time, number of years for which you have and are paying for your mortgage. no one cares what the paper says.
Dude, my mortgage also "says" 30 years.
Nice try. Again, as I've commented elsewhere, only your second mortgages are worse rates than the first. My second mortgages aren't. Playing with money later comes with greater intelligence (as in intel), it's fore-sight, and it's retro-actively psychic. If you believe that your first mortgage rate is the best rate you'll ever get, and the current stock rate is the best it'll ever be, then you've made the right choice by the definition of your expectations for the future. And the bank is very happy about that.
Inconceivable!
asked and answered elsewhere. read around.
Heh, I read "socks" the first time. I was very confused!
I have friends doing exactly what you're saying, 2014-750 to 2024-1500, absolutely. And you can watch them struggle to stretch every month of life, and you can watch it affect their marriage, and their children, and none of that has anything to do with the "financial" benefits. Except that it ripples.
When the struggle is too far (and that's the stretch part) an additional loan throws things off of the plan. And that still doesn't alter the financial "decision".
But in 2024, they don't get 1.5M in cash in their pocket. They never actually get the benefits of that appreciation until they sell the house and don't buy another -- so they'd need to down-size to see any of that financial benefit in the first place. Which they won't do.
But I'll let you in on a little secret. In order to make that "stretch", as you call it, you need to work harder at your job, to make more money, to afford the payments. In practical terms, this means that you are working for your house -- as in your house is paying you to work harder.
But if you work at your job, you pay income taxes. Those taxes don't go into your house.
If, instead, you trade in those working hours for DIY projects, you can physically work for your house directly. That work is "unpaid", and hence it is untaxed. If you're not an idiot, you can learn to do a lot of the house upgrades that very quickly increase the value of your house -- far more than appreciation -- at very minimal cost.
So you've asked me to list 2 more things into which you could invest for return. I'm going to say into your house and into your land. Gardening, floors, counters, cabinets, paint, furniture, driveways, even brick-work are all very easy to learn and to do and don't require any certification or licencing or dangerous efforts or safety concerns.
Right now, if I want to spend 200 hours doing something, I could work as an employee for a month and get a typical $10K income, which is really only $7K bottom-line. As a typical small-business owner, that's closer to $9K. Or I could finish my basement and increase my house's value by about $50K over what I'd spend on lumber, drywall, paint, and an electrician and a plumber.
5% wasn't "5%", it was referencing the "5% these days", which is different. The 67% referenced a sustained 5% over 10 years.
If you're getting 5% on an investment today, I'm saying there's nothing terrible about that. If you're expecting to get 5% per year for the next 10 years, that sucks because with that kind of long-term, you ought to be getting way more than 67%. You ought to be able to double your money quite easily.
On top of all of that, I'm personally expecting what's-considered-good-these-days to grow over the next ten years.
I'm upset because many here seem to thing that 5% per year is the same as 67% after ten years but it's not. One is an ever-changing current rate, the other is a hind-sight result.
You'll need to read more of my comments to see that your confusion has been dealth with three times.
The "paying it off in 10 years" wasn't my conclusion. That was the given. I also didn't say that I'm paying 3.5% per year, only you said that, and I didn't include lots of other things. So I'll tell you the same: stop using math, start using counting. You'll find that math yields mathematical approximations requiring a spherical frog in the proverbial microwave.
Talk to me again when you actually cash out. Because you likely won't. You'll run the same gambit that you're running now. Most people never cash out. It's also never free to cash out a house. Cradle-to-grave, then tell me. You sound perfectly competant, I just honestly don't believe that you'll cash out. Most people who enjoy the pleasures of profiting from financial decisions never stop doing so, and so they never actually posses the profits.
read harder.
the 5% being referenced was said by you with a "these days" qualifier. 10 years is not the same as "these days". Stop debating the words used in the Nth comment of a long conversation. If you want to debate something, debate the original position as supported by the subsequent comments. Don't debate the comments themselves -- they aren't whole.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I think you've got your threads mixed up. So I'll answer you again over here.
No one ever forced you to work for a company. And no one ever forced you to be trained in anything. If your 4-year degree is a means to work for a company or to get trained, you don't need either so you don't need it.
I'm not counting it wrong. I'm not doing math. You're the one doing math with interest and inflation and six other dynamic figures.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm counting. I took a calendar, I went through every month for thirty years. I wrote down every income dollar and every expense dollar and every expected problem and every expected winfall. I'm telling you that for me, and for anyone even remotely like me, my way works out better by many many many dollars.
Comparing apples and oranges is incredibly easy in this conversation. They have retail costs, they have growing costs, and they have market costs too.
Stop using math. Start using counting.
Moron. You can't tell me that owners can't find employees on the same day that you need a dregree to compete with countless applicants in HR.
Pick one. If you believe that there aren't enough employees to be an owner, than it's easy to get a job. rsilvergun said that there aren't enough jobs for all of the employees. If he's correct, then you won't have any trouble finding your privates.
Read, then think harder.
Yes, you don't understand compound interest. First, it's 3.5% on the every-shrinking balance from the 230'000. If it were linear, that would mean exactly half. In this case it's not linear, but for this comment it's close enough.
And second, it's not just ANY mortgage. This is MY mortage. I said "I'll have paid it off in 10 years". That wasn't a calculation, that was a promise. I make an additional $10'000 per year, and use it to pay down my mortgage. I also have a retirement fund of $40K -- which I'll use to zero-out my mortgage at the end. In ten years, between everything, I'll have paid off the mortgage.
So, after 10 years, I'll have paid back the $230'000 loan, plus $12'000 of interest.
Like I said, and this is my entire point here and always, don't use math to approximate life when you can use counting. My money, my house, my mortgage, my income, my life, my problems = $12'000 of interest on my $450'000 house. I'll pay 2.67% interest on my house. For that, either I'll be able to live in it 10 years earlier than I otherwise would have, or I'll have a house twice as big as I could have otherwise afforded -- depending on which perspective you prefer.
For the record, I'm currently three-years in.
first, that means I'm the same holophrastic as I was three comments ago. I don't know if you're the same coward or a different coward.
second, you do know that's my real name right? As in, I pay federal and provincial and property taxes under that name. I applied for my mortgage under that name. you're not in any position to authenticate "holophrastic" as being my name or not. I don't know why you'd assume that it isn't. Nice presumption. totally incorrect.
think harder.
learn to learn. you mean 5% per year. I said 67%. Totally different. 5% per year isn't bad. 67% sucks.
refinancing is an application process, takes days or weeks, and you can be turned down.
borrowing against my equity is optional, controllable, and can be done for short-term efforts.
if it's exactly the same, in your opinion, then take the control, don't force yourself to be tied to your initial decision for 30 years!
it's also not the same, because being able to change things and control things is being able to use intelligence, and that's an input.
put your name to your argument, or it has no value. you can decide to what that pronoun refers.