jackstar7
Lifer
Right. And context remains important. Not surprising you avoid it all costs.Yes, perfect. Thanks for proving the point. The "Experienced College Graduate" salary for Philosophy is in the bottom 10% of all others listed. Thanks 😉
Right. And context remains important. Not surprising you avoid it all costs.Yes, perfect. Thanks for proving the point. The "Experienced College Graduate" salary for Philosophy is in the bottom 10% of all others listed. Thanks 😉
I think it’s a mixture of two things - first yes, Democrats are just more fiscally responsible than Republicans. (See the ACA as compared to anything passed under Republican one party rule). The other is that Republicans rediscover their fiscal conservatism under democratic presidents as part of a cynical ploy to prevent social welfare spending.
Yes, perfect. Thanks for proving the point. The "Experienced College Graduate" salary for Philosophy is in the bottom 10% of all others listed. Thanks 😉
In this same article she was approved for a car (of unknown costs) and a $119,000 house. On a $16 an hour salary.
It shouldn't take much mental math for a credit agency and lender to go "Oh, this income to debt ratio is bad" and deny the loan. It has nothing to do with drugs or whatever else. It's three numbers.
Lenders don't care.
TBH, both parties are at fault. But, it's more her fault because no one is putting a gun to her head telling her to sign on the dotted line.
The ignorance of finding it acceptable that an educated citizen can't be responsible for anything they sign for really shows how fucking dumb you guys really are.Please. The people lending her money understand her financial position better than she does. That's right. They'll push the limits of their instructions from on high to make that loan. Back in the heyday of the ownership society fiasco their instructions were to let 'er rip. It was all perfectly legal, too. The ratings agencies would rubber stamp any paper sent their way, and chump investors were dying for more. Until the whole thing fell down & screwed millions of people out of their jobs, their homes, you name it.
The GOP wants to make it that way, always. Let the business cycle run wild on those dumb plebe's asses. The Rich love buying distressed assets. Steve Mnuchin made his fortune forging a deal to buy Indymac for a song from the FDIC & then beating the cash out of distressed & suckered homeowners. Oh, and out of all the investor vehicles that they serviced, too.
While I 100% agree with you, marketing does everything it can to get people to spend like crazy. And marketing companies spend billions on research to better manipulate people.People should learn to live within their means. And avoid borrowing money for unneeded things.
The ignorance of finding it acceptable that an educated citizen can't be responsible for anything they sign for really shows how fucking dumb you guys really are.
Is it really that confusing? Or are you inciting that the people that do so are fucking dumb? The government has literally made laws that say you have to be given specific forms that break down your expected costs for each month - and they also force escrow on most buyers, which means they break it down with insurance, taxes, and mip. How much more can we dumb it the fuck down for it to be acceptable for people?
You're really just getting to the point where you're calling all Americans retarded - including the one here that you claim is a victim at the same time.
While I 100% agree with you, marketing does everything it can to get people to spend like crazy. And marketing companies spend billions on research to better manipulate people.
The Stanford marshmallow experiment was a series of studies on delayed gratification in the late 1960s and early 1970s led by psychologist Walter Mischel, then a professor at Stanford University.[1] In these studies, a child was offered a choice between one small reward provided immediately or two small rewards if they waited for a short period, approximately 15 minutes, during which the tester left the room and then returned. (The reward was sometimes a marshmallow, but often a cookie or a pretzel.) In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores,[2] educational attainment,[3] body mass index (BMI),[4] and other life measures.[5]
In follow-up studies, Mischel found unexpected correlations between the results of the marshmallow test and the success of the children many years later.[5] The first follow-up study, in 1988, showed that "preschool children who delayed gratification longer in the self-imposed delay paradigm, were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who were significantly more competent."[citation needed]
A second follow-up study, in 1990, showed that the ability to delay gratification also correlated with higher SAT scores.[5]
A 2006 paper to which Mischel contributed reports a similar experiment, this time relating ability to delay in order to receive a cookie (at age 4) and reaction time on a go/no go task.[8]
A 2011 brain imaging study of a sample from the original Stanford participants when they reached mid-life showed key differences between those with high delay times and those with low delay times in two areas: the prefrontal cortex (more active in high delayers) and the ventral striatum, (more active in low delayers) when they were trying to control their responses to alluring temptations
There's a very interesting risk/reward in that link. "Safe" professions have a decent starting floor, but little ceiling height. Healthcare, engineering, IT professions, ect fit in that category. Other more abstract degrees like "philosophy" and "math" have a much higher ceiling. My guess is that things like philosophy can go on to do things like patent law and ethics offices and make serious bank on the consulting and in big pharma and corporate circles.
While I 100% agree with you, marketing does everything it can to get people to spend like crazy. And marketing companies spend billions on research to better manipulate people.
This is an important thing to note. We have industries spending billions each year on how to manipulate human psychology in order to get them to buy things. When they are successful what do we do? We don’t blame the person who set out to trick people, we blame the victims for not seeing through it.
Except that the debt ratio isn't bad. On the $119k house, the DTI is about 32% including PITI + FHA MIP. Assume a $300/mo car payment and the back end is an acceptable 42% with about $1,635/mo residual.In this same article she was approved for a car (of unknown costs) and a $119,000 house. On a $16 an hour salary.
It shouldn't take much mental math for a credit agency and lender to go "Oh, this income to debt ratio is bad" and deny the loan. It has nothing to do with drugs or whatever else. It's three numbers.
I think the argument here is the semantics between "can make the payment" and "can afford this".
I don't disagree that there is enough income to cover the payments. I argue that ratios as they currently are, are one bad home repair or hospital bill away from not being able to cover those payments. There's little room for savings either for emergency or long term under those thresholds.
For that see my prior argument - prevalence of easy money just makes prices higher. Housing went bonkers when dual incomes started being a thing and people were willing to pay more. Same for easy money with mortgages and college tuition. Comparing rent to owning in like for like is never a winning bet on month to month. But when you rent you aren't on the hook for $10k if your furnace craps out, or $1500 if a water heater goes out. All of that is baked into renting costs and not a mortgage.
Except that the debt ratio isn't bad. On the $119k house, the DTI is about 32% including PITI + FHA MIP. Assume a $300/mo car payment and the back end is an acceptable 42% with about $1,635/mo residual.
The actual math:
Income at $16.47/hr and 40 hours/week = (16.47*40*52)/12 = $2,854.80/mo.
FHA mortgage payment for a $119,000 house after min 3.5% down, loan amount of $114,835 plus 2.25% FHA funding fee is $117,419 @ today's 30 year fixed FHA of 4.75%, P&I is $612.51 plus monthly MIP $83.17 plus estimated taxes and insurance of $225/mo for a total payment of $920.68/mo. DTI = 920.68/2854.8 = 32.25%.
Throw on another $300/mo car payment and back end DTI is $1220.68/2854.8 = 42.76%.
Assuming good credit and a stable employment history, I do this every day. 🙂