THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Seriously, some of these folks feeling sorry for themselves ought to go visit some third world countries or even some really poverty-stricken areas of this country.

I’ve never understood comments like this.  This same exact comment could be said about everything that depresses or upsets people in this country.  Depressed over finances?  Go visit a 3rd world country.  Depressed about losing your wife in a hurricane?  Go visit New Orleans.  Upset over your favorite team losing?  Go visit a 3rd world country.  Upset that you have the flu?  Go visit a 3rd world country.  I hate it when people say things like that.  Nothing could be more inconsiderate.  I don’t have any sympathy for the people in this article, but I’m not about to suggest they go visit 3rd world countries either.

Much worse than that though is that you spend time assuming they are complaining and even insult them and then finally add at the very end, “We really don’t know that they are complaining.” It seems like you are assuming that they are.

I think it is perfectly appropriate for all of us to consider how privileged we are.  I strongly disagree with your sentiment on that.  And the reason I added the last sentence was EXACTLY what you are complaining about, so your beef makes no sense.  That is like if someone were to say, “Just to be clear, I have no problem with so-and-so” and then you complain and say, “Why do you have a problem with so-and-so?” That just makes no sense to me at all.  The very last thing I said was that, “I have little problem with these people - it is the article that I take issue with!” Where in the article do I “spend time assuming that they are complaining?” Other than the “third world country” statement, which implies that they are feeling sorry for themselves, which is a correct assumption, to some extent, since they presumably allowed themselves to be interviewed and were quoted in the article several times, “complaining” about their plight…

"I don’t have any sympathy for the people in this article...”

So you agree with the entire premise of my post, but somehow you spent 5 minutes of your time bashing my post.  That also makes no sense to me.

Nothing could be more inconsiderate.  Absolutely nothing.  I could push an old lady off a seat on a crowded train and that would pale by comparison. 

I am with MGL on this. 
Periodically comparing my life to that in 3rd world countries is a source of great comfort.  When I start to think, “I need nicer clothes,” I just think again, “Well, at least I have clothes!” and I feel much better.  Thank you, 3rd world people, for making me feel everything is going to be OK!

I agree too.  Thank goodness for third world countries and their very humbling poor starving people.

Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-06-04-foreclose-mortgage-seniors_N.htm
There is a huge contrast between the statistics in the article, which do in fact depict serious problems for seniors with minimal savings who relied unduly on the real estate market continuing to rise to fund their retirements, and the anecdotal examples chosen.  I think MGL’s reaction to the article will be typical of many, who will be turned off by the sense of entitlement of some relatively well-off retirees, and miss some of the salient points that the statistics show.  For that, I entirely blame the journalist.  It wouldn’t be hard to find a senior in more modest circumstances equally flummoxed by the fall in real estate prices and willing to talk on the record.

Anyone else find humor in the fact that the first poster was “David” and the second non-administrator was “Bowie”?

What are the odds.

I don’t feel sorry for anybody that age who doesn’t have their mortgage paid off.  If you take out a 30 year loan when you are starting a family in your 20s/30s, and pay on time this should be no trouble.

You need a bigger house at some point?  Fine, but when you do you use the equity from your first home and take out only a 15-20 year mortgage.  Can’t afford that?  Then stay in your first home.

These people play move-up every year, or buy multiple properties and try to be mini-real estate moguls.  Leveraged to the hilt.  That’s fine if you want to try, but you play with fire and sometimes it burns.  If so, take it like an adult.  It’s beyond pathetic to complain about it.

I didn’t want to say anything, but I gotta also go with Rally on this one.  Many of these unfortunate folks who were hurt or even devastated by the real estate market have no one to blame but themselves. My parents bought a house in SD 23 years ago for around $100,000.  They have since paid off the mortgage.  The house at one point was worth $500,000. Now it is worth $350,000.  They are not complaining or starving or anything like that.  Had they mortgaged (refinanced) it to the hilt when the market was at its peak, and spent all the money, then they would be in the same situation that many of these “unfortunate” people are in now.

I’m sure there are plenty of seniors who are in a bad state through no fault of their own.  The author of the article did a terrible job of introducing us to them.

I think we could all agree with mgl’s points, but do we really need to denegrate the people in third world countries with comments like “[They] ought to go visit some third world countries...”.

I’m sorry, MGL, but your argument is the equivalent of someone saying “I disagree that Willie Bloomquist is a bad player, because I saw him play once where he had a game-winning hit.” My uncle is 83, has no mortgage, but can’t move out of the house where he raised his children because he had the misfortune to have bought his home not in San Diego, but in suburban Detroit, where it’s been on the market three years and he hasn’t had a single offer.  You and Rally would apparently blame him for picking the wrong place to live.  Watch out if you tell it to his face, he’d cold cock you.

The economic demographics might also have changed. Forty years ago you might have bought a house. You also most likely stayed with the same company for those forty years. These days, people are downsized, laid off, go through mid-career crisies and all manner of life changes. People these days are lucky to stay with their company for 10 years, much less 30 years. On top of that, social security/welfare/medicare/medicaid just does not cover as much as it used to, further stressing any retirement savings that were built up. In addition, raising a family gets more expensive as parents need to pay ever-increasing tuition costs for their children, and supply them with items like computers that weren’t needed half a century ago.  Then, if you factor in how many people since 2001 have seen their 401k go ito the toilet, things just become that much harder.

To assume the fault lies with some mistake that senior citizens made when there is less job security these days and less ability to adequately save for retirement is not entirely fair.

The last story in the article is sad though - a couple took equity from their home to pay for their son’s medical treatments before he died.  We don’t know their entire financial story, but having to work until you’re 80 to pay for a child’s death is the kind of thing you hear about in the developing world.

The whole thing about “feeling sorry for a person” or not can be a real conundrum.  On the spectrum of possibly feeling sorry for someone, the ends are easy.  But in the middle are, for example, people that could have but didn’t save a lot of money their whole lives (they made decent money but spent it on things) and then had a financial set back later on in life.  Do we feel sorry for them or not?  I really have no idea.  There are many other scenarios that are in that gray area.  The couple that spent their life savings, for example, on their sick and dying son.  What if their life savings was $50,000 but they made plenty of money in their lifetime and could have saved $300,000 but instead chose to live a nice lifestyle without saving much?  What about the couple in the article who helped their unemployed son and then had no money for themselves when they needed it?  Should we feel sorry for them?  I have no idea. Should they have helped their unemployed son?  Isn’t that his responsibility?  Were they enabling an irresponsible adult?  Again, we have no idea.  It is really not a simple matter trying to figure out who to feel sorry for (not that it really matters), but more importantly, and more pragmatically, who to “help” as a society.  Should GM and other companies who failed because they were not run well (presumably) be bailed out?  Should a person who overextended himself on his house and mortgage be helped by the taxpayers (you and I}?  I have no idea.  So and and so forth.  It is nice to have questions with straightforward answers, like whether to let a pitcher bat in a tie game in the 7th inning with the bases loaded and 2 outs, but many important questions do not have easy answers, and it is not always easy to frame the questions either…