Re: Today's woman - no husband, no house

In article <1135976324.198219.130410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> PolishKnight wrote:
> > Society wrote:
> > > "Thunderchild" <thunderchild40@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1135243066.802516.255920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Heidi Graw wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Thunderchild wrote...
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Heidi wrote:
> > > >> >>And yet single women are the second most likely,
> > > >> >>other than couples, to buy a house or a condo.
> > > >> >>Why aren't single men buying real-estate?
> > >
> > > Uh, 'cause single men are paying the alimony to
> > > Ms. Single-Woman that she uses to buy a house?
> >
> > I find myself in disagreement with Society. It's so much fun! :-)
> >
> > Hello Society,
> >
> > I disagree with you. I don't dispute this one-sided money transfer
> > you mention helps some women to buy homes, but alimony is
> > primarily need based and banks don't like to loan money to
> > needy people.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, Mark, if alimony is factored into a woman's income,
> combined with whatever she's making on her own, she's less likely to be
> regarded as "needy". In addition, there are FHA loans that are
> specifically designed for those that might not be able to obtain
> conventional ones.

In theory, yes. But unless the woman has really
"sacrificed" (in Parg's terms), and given up a career
as a waitress to play tennis all day as a doctor's
wife, she probably won't get enough alimony combined
with income to qualify.

I don't doubt some women do quality, but especially
in this bubble market it's either highly unlikely
she'll get something worth living in _OR_ she'll
get some crappy IO loan that won't build equity anyway.

> Lenders will make FHA loans based on FHA's insurance of repayment, and
> the buyer will pay these insurance premiums as part of the costs
> associated with the mortgage.
>
> I'm going to guess that this bubble in the number of single women
> buying homes, to the extent that it really exists (and isn't yet
> another "women are strong and good; men are weak and bad" puff piece)
> is largely due to the availability of FHA and other programs.
>
> High-achieving single men, engineers and computer programmers and
> entertainers/athletes and the like, are probably buying bigger homes
> with conventional loans.
>
>
> > Women just dig houses. They love them. They hate being
> > renters and not being able to mark their territory. Single women also
> > tend to move less and thus makes sense for them to
> > settle down faster than men. Men will usually relocate
> > while women will think twice before leaving her community.
>
>
> There's a lot of truth to this, as well. My last home was a nice condo
> in Pasadena, but when I got the axe from my employer - due, in part, to
> the bursting of the Los Angeles real estate bubble in the 1990's - the
> mortgage and costs associated with the mortgage (taxes, PMI, etc.)
> became a headache.
>
> I've realized, ever since then, that home ownership can be a curse, as
> well as a blessing and that renting generally leaves you with more
> flexibility.

$970 a month in a nice neighborhood, all utilities included
with a patio and golf course and driving range across
the street.

To even THINK about buying something like this in Northern Virginia
I would have to put up at least $240K plus 100 mil taxes.

> So yeah, while owning your own home might be regarded as a badge of
> success (which is why stories of single women buying homes fits so well
> into the "women are strong and good; men are weak and bad" mindset),
> one might continue to rent, as a means of maintaing that flexibility,
> which men might prize more highly than women, as you say.

I have to laugh that the symbol of women's liberation
in the 90's was owning a rock. When blowing their own money
on the diamond firms lost it's glamour, real estate
became the new Mary Tyler Moore badge of independence.

> > I wonder if the current real estate bubble and feminism are
> > interrelated? :-)
>
> Are you saying something good about feminism? Tsk-tsk.

Just the opposite: The RE bubble has been a huge ball and
chain on the economy as the cost of business has gone up
along with money being drained out of other industries
as homeowners blow $20K for marble countertops. The sooner
it's gone, the better.

The homeowners that get out of this mess in one piece
will be those who bought before the bubble and just
let their paper profits go back to the ether from
whence they sprang. If a career woman bought a McMansion
2 years ago, she would have been better off putting
all the money down a stripper's G-string like Parg's
nephew did.

regards,
PolishKnight
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: > Sleazy Democrats OWN the Wall Street Debacle!
    ... and a bunch of average homes. ... loans to poor people that caused the bubble. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: > Sleazy Democrats OWN the Wall Street Debacle!
    ... and a bunch of average homes. ... loans to poor people that caused the bubble. ... Lenders who SOLD THEM to Insurers. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: OT: Time to dust off the bomb shelter!
    ... money, incentives to loan, and guaranteed lenders against loss. ... if the loans were mostly good loans to people who could pay, ... help this bubble grow and collapse, but bubbles have grown and popped ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: buying stupid in the USA
    ... paying crazy prices for homes. ... trying to get people to think before they throw away money. ... All well and good, but paying insane prices for real estate is a "bubble" and when the bubble bursts, the -ENTIRE- country gets hurt...even maroons in Holland Michigan. ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: OT: This is global warming, says environmental chief
    ... > 1) If the dollars didn't trickle down, how did they buy those homes? ... Ever heard of the term "mortgaged to the hilt"? ... Interest only loans? ... Bubble? ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)