"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:25:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
news
On 07 Jun 2004 15:59:45 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If the economy is at rock bottom, unemployment is sky high, and no
one
can
find
work because Bush has personally sent all the jobs, including
manufacturing,
to
India, then how can "...more work than they can handle..." be true?

John H

'Cause when life is the ****z you gotta flush more often?.... :-)

I wasn't talking about plumbers. But, if the situation is as bad as
many
say,
then it would seem like "Porta Jons" would be the business to be in.
Hell,
I
can't even afford a plumber and my wife still has a job!


I had a plumber to my house for a "$49 minimum" house call. (As a
dentist, I
charge $45 for an exam...and I have a lot higher overhead thanks to CDC
and
OSHA regulations). Anyhow...he said I needed a new toilet. $250-300 for
the toilet and $250 to install it. $250 to install a toilet?!?!? It
takes
a 1/2 hour, and the cost of supplies is less than $10. I paid him the
$49
and showed him the door.

I bought a snake, removed the toilet, snaked the drain, and my old toilet
works fine now. Cost? Less than $30 for one wax rim and a Wal-Mart
toilet
snake...and $49 paid to one crooked plumber to misdiagnose my problem.



Who was the plumber? New toilets can be had at Home Depot for around
$50-75.


"Mr. Rooter"

And if you use my wife's logic, a toilet can't be any good if it only costs
$50-75. ;-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

Now, do you have a list of the occupations included in the "mfg. jobs"
section
of the report you noted? I went to the bls website
you referred to, and found a gazillion reports, files, etc etc etc going
back
many years. Can you offer a more definitive link that will demonstrate
that in
spite of the administration's stated intention to reclassify burger
flipping as
a manufacturing job, they have not, in fact, done so? (Or had not done so
in
the time period covered by the report?)

I'd really like to be wrong on this one. It would be better all around if
the
administration wasn't pumping up the number of manufacturing jobs merely
by
expanding the number of job classifications defined as "manufacturing."



Here is the reply I received from the BLS concerning the classification of
fast food jobs-


From: Brown, Harold - BLS
Cc: cesinfo ; Brown, Harold - BLS
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:42 PM
Subject: Question on manufacturing jobs


Thanks for your information request. Data on Eating and Drinking
establishments, formally SIC 58 in Retail Trade, are now included in NAICS
722 (Food Services and Drinking Places) and not classified as
Manufacturing jobs. Information about this NAICS code can be found at the
following link: http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF722.HTM

You can also obtain data on this industry from our survey by accessing the
following link: http://www.bls.gov/ces/cestips.htm

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly
by email or phone.





Harold Brown
Economist
(202)-691-6544

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:25:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
news On 07 Jun 2004 15:59:45 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If the economy is at rock bottom, unemployment is sky high, and no
one
can
find
work because Bush has personally sent all the jobs, including
manufacturing,
to
India, then how can "...more work than they can handle..." be true?

John H

'Cause when life is the ****z you gotta flush more often?.... :-)

I wasn't talking about plumbers. But, if the situation is as bad as
many
say,
then it would seem like "Porta Jons" would be the business to be in.
Hell,
I
can't even afford a plumber and my wife still has a job!


I had a plumber to my house for a "$49 minimum" house call. (As a
dentist, I
charge $45 for an exam...and I have a lot higher overhead thanks to CDC
and
OSHA regulations). Anyhow...he said I needed a new toilet. $250-300
for
the toilet and $250 to install it. $250 to install a toilet?!?!? It
takes
a 1/2 hour, and the cost of supplies is less than $10. I paid him the
$49
and showed him the door.

I bought a snake, removed the toilet, snaked the drain, and my old
toilet
works fine now. Cost? Less than $30 for one wax rim and a Wal-Mart
toilet
snake...and $49 paid to one crooked plumber to misdiagnose my problem.



Who was the plumber? New toilets can be had at Home Depot for around
$50-75.


"Mr. Rooter"

And if you use my wife's logic, a toilet can't be any good if it only
costs
$50-75. ;-)

They work.....after the third of fourth flush :-)

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10
markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Please note that the only rates quoted
with zero points were 1-year ARMs (a sucker bet IMHO), if John H's
daughter got a 15 year mortgage then she's doing just OK, if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.


Not really. The average 30 year fixed rate in most of the east coast
markets is over 6.3%...which is what John H said his daughter was getting.
Plus, that 6.3% is with points.


BTW none of those places are near me... or for that matter, none of them
are in Florida which I'd assume to be a major market...

The national index average is 6.34%. I doubt any specific market would
deviate much from that.

I just closed on a house 6 weeks ago with a 4.25% 5/1 ARM. 95% LTV.
"Interest-only" payment option, jumbo loan. 80% first mortgage. 15% second.
The second is indexed to prime plus 1/4.

I would have locked a 30-year fixed, but I couldn't afford a fully amortized
(interest and principle) 30 year fixed loan at this point in my life. In 5
years, my practice is paid off and I can afford to pay the principle. At
that point, I can either refinance the loan, or let it adjust to the new
rate.

Paying "interest only" is not a great idea unless: 1) housing is
appreciating very rapidly, and 2) your income will be significantly higher
in the near future...at which time you can pay a fully amortized payment
which includes principle.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10
markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Please note that the only rates quoted
with zero points were 1-year ARMs (a sucker bet IMHO), if John H's
daughter got a 15 year mortgage then she's doing just OK, if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.

BTW none of those places are near me... or for that matter, none of them
are in Florida which I'd assume to be a major market...

BTW2 if you want to know something about real economics (ie in the world
outide Bush/Cheney Fantasyland) try reading some of this
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/...cs_primer.html
The title ain't so hot but the material is right on.

If most kids paid attention in high school econ, then there is no new
information in that link. Nevertheless, I bookmarked the page. It may come
in handy to some of the nimwits on usenet who haven't a clue about the basic
workings of economics.

"Joe" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

Now, do you have a list of the occupations included in the "mfg. jobs"
section
of the report you noted? I went to the bls website
you referred to, and found a gazillion reports, files, etc etc etc going
back
many years. Can you offer a more definitive link that will demonstrate
that in
spite of the administration's stated intention to reclassify burger
flipping as
a manufacturing job, they have not, in fact, done so? (Or had not done
so
in
the time period covered by the report?)

I'd really like to be wrong on this one. It would be better all around
if
the
administration wasn't pumping up the number of manufacturing jobs merely
by
expanding the number of job classifications defined as "manufacturing."



Here is the reply I received from the BLS concerning the classification of
fast food jobs-


From: Brown, Harold - BLS
Cc: cesinfo ; Brown, Harold - BLS
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:42 PM
Subject: Question on manufacturing jobs


Thanks for your information request. Data on Eating and Drinking
establishments, formally SIC 58 in Retail Trade, are now included in NAICS
722 (Food Services and Drinking Places) and not classified as
Manufacturing jobs. Information about this NAICS code can be found at the
following link: http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF722.HTM

You can also obtain data on this industry from our survey by accessing the
following link: http://www.bls.gov/ces/cestips.htm

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly
by email or phone.





Harold Brown
Economist
(202)-691-6544




Gulp! Does that mean Gould "lied" when he said that burger flippers *were*
reclassified as manufacturing jobs?

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

Gulp! Does that mean Gould "lied" when he said that burger flippers
*were*
reclassified as manufacturing jobs?

Maybe just gullible.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

Gulp! Does that mean Gould "lied" when he said that burger flippers
*were*
reclassified as manufacturing jobs?

Maybe just gullible.


More precisely, misled by the administration's own recommendation that
fast food jobs should now be considered manufacturing.

(Sort of like "ketchup counts as a vegetable in a school lunch")

Whatever the source of my misinformation, I do hereby admit to being
underinformed and reaching an erroneous conclusion. You guys have to be correct
once in a while, how the heck else could you be called the "right" wing? :-)

Now, if I said that DC hookers were being counted as a "service industry",
*that* would be a lie.

... if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.


NOYB wrote:
Not really. The average 30 year fixed rate in most of the east coast
markets is over 6.3%...which is what John H said his daughter was getting.
Plus, that 6.3% is with points.

I assumed his daughter was also in the DC area, not necessarily a valid
assumption.

In any event, looking at macroeconomic events and doing the math, over
the next 30 years it seems almost a certainty that interest rates will
go up, and stay up, enough to make a 30 year mortgage at current rates
very attractive.



I would have locked a 30-year fixed, but I couldn't afford a fully amortized
(interest and principle) 30 year fixed loan at this point in my life.

Not to get personal, but this suggests you have too much house.

... In 5
years, my practice is paid off and I can afford to pay the principle. At
that point, I can either refinance the loan, or let it adjust to the new
rate.

Paying "interest only" is not a great idea unless: 1) housing is
appreciating very rapidly, and 2) your income will be significantly higher
in the near future...at which time you can pay a fully amortized payment
which includes principle.

Agreed. #2 is not an assumption a real conservative would make, though.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
... if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.


NOYB wrote:
Not really. The average 30 year fixed rate in most of the east coast
markets is over 6.3%...which is what John H said his daughter was
getting.
Plus, that 6.3% is with points.

I assumed his daughter was also in the DC area, not necessarily a valid
assumption.

In any event, looking at macroeconomic events and doing the math, over
the next 30 years it seems almost a certainty that interest rates will
go up, and stay up, enough to make a 30 year mortgage at current rates
very attractive.



I would have locked a 30-year fixed, but I couldn't afford a fully
amortized
(interest and principle) 30 year fixed loan at this point in my life.

Not to get personal, but this suggests you have too much house.

Normally, I would say that I agree with you. However, in my personal
situation, it makes sense. The house in on the water, which is why it is so
expensive. As a boater, I was paying nearly $500/mo. to store 2 boats. I
was also paying another $400/mo in homeowners' association fees for my old
house. I used that "saved" $900/mo towards the mortgage on the new
house...since I don't have association fees and I don't have to pay to store
my boat anymore.



... In 5
years, my practice is paid off and I can afford to pay the principle.
At
that point, I can either refinance the loan, or let it adjust to the new
rate.

Paying "interest only" is not a great idea unless: 1) housing is
appreciating very rapidly, and 2) your income will be significantly
higher
in the near future...at which time you can pay a fully amortized payment
which includes principle.

Agreed. #2 is not an assumption a real conservative would make, though.


It makes sense for me since my business is paid off in 5 years. That frees
up an additional $6000/mo. that flows through to me as income...income that
I can use to pay down the principal if I so desire. That's why it's safe to
assume that my income in 5 years will be significantly higher than it is
today...even with zero growth in my business. I know I won't see the full
$6k due to taxes...but since most of the payment is principal by now, I'm
personally taxed on the 6 thousand *as if* it were income...but never get
the 6 grand since it goes to the bank.

Every year, I pay cash to update my office and equipment, so I won't have to
take out a large loan again when this one is paid off.

Sure, the house is too expensive for me at this point...but I look at it
this way:

I'm effectively renting the place for 5 years with an option to buy it in 5
years at today's price. I'm also getting a nice big mortgage deduction on
my taxes...which plain ol' renting wouldn't give me. With housing on the
water averaging 26%/year appreciation over the last 5 years down here, it's
a no-brainer.

Even if the house goes up only 5%/year, it'll be worth almost 28% more than
I paid for it. I'll have 33% equity in the place without ever paying a
dime towards principal. I can consolidate the first and second and get a 15
year mortgage for 70% of appraised value. By age 57, the house is paid
off...and very likely worth three to four times my purchase price. By then,
the house is paid off and the kids are through college...and I'll retire
with no debt at age 60.

If the value goes up 10%/year (much more realistic for waterfront in
Naples), then in 5 years, the house will be worth 61% more than I paid for
it. I'll have a little over 40% equity in the place...without ever paying
principal.

If you're young enough, foresee a higher income in the near future, and are
buying a house in an area with rapidly appreciating housing values, then
"interest-only" (and maybe even "negative amortization") loans make sense.

If you're older, have a pretty level income for the foreseeable future, and
are buying in a housing market where home values increase very little, then
interest only loans make *no* sense.