Posts by mellowraven8

Exactly (so I actually wrote down the store name 🙂 )

I don't quite get the hype behind this trend.

On the plus side, they look sleek and they take up way less desk space than a traditional desktop setup.

Now, the tech nerds will probably point out that laptops offer the same thing, with the only real difference being a larger screen.

The downsides?
Everything that actually matters: they lack raw power, you can't really upgrade the RAM, storage, or optical drives, and they run hot because everything is crammed into such a tight chassis. Because of that, their lifespan is basically stuck at whatever a laptop's would be.

Use it for maybe two or three years, then toss it in the trash.

Everyone knows the Radeon HD 6450 is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff by now, even if it isn't ancient yet, while the XFX AMD Radeon HD 6870 sits firmly in today's mid-range tier.

The user is going to feel that performance gap big time,
and honestly, it’ll probably be even more noticeable than what you see on HWCompare.

silverpilot78 said:......So, I'm looking for a graphics card ...... My budget is a modest $500!

XFX AMD Radeon HD 6870 graphics card, 1GB DDR5, DualDVI, HDMI, miniDP
$428

560W Power Supply, LC POWER Silent Giant GREEN POWER LC6560GP3 V2.3, 140mm fan.
$117

TOTAL:

$545

Portio

I think you'll definitely notice the difference compared to what you're currently running 🙂

The link was working when I first posted it.

Looks like the sale ended; they probably just updated the price. Here's the $33new one

GTX 550 Ti

XFX 450W

stormywolf39 said:That's basically a 560 without the 😁 and it sits right in the same tier as a 6870.

It's also cheaper than the 6870 🙂

Doesn't matter. With his processor, he'd be better off with a weaker card anyway.

Given the CPU you're running, stick with a 550Ti or a 6770... anything stronger is just a waste of money.

Besides, that processor only pulls 65W.

I’d go with the 560Ti if you can stretch your budget a little further. If not, grab a 6850
.
Performance-wise, they’re in the same ballpark, but the 6850 is the more economical choice.

As for your power supply, it isn't great. It might pull through 🙂for a while, but only up to a point.

If you pick the 6850, that’s 130 W right there.
You didn't mention your CPU... let's say 90 W?
The rest of the build probably pulls at least 50 W.

Bottom line: you need a decent 400 W unit, something like an XFX 450W$136 for
.
It’s always smarter to have some headroom in your power supply, so more is better.

If you really need to stick to a strict budget—saving a few bucks while dropping the wattage slightly—consider the 550Ti/6770. Just know that using your current power supply is your own risk.

Whichever one you choose, you'll still have some room to play around.🙂

I might sound blunt here, but let's be real—if someone can't handle this, they aren't going to last long in that role anyway. It’s clearly just not their scene.

That's just how things work in the real world.

Nicole James said:Dammit, some things have to be regulated by law; otherwise, competition laws end up stripping away all worker rights. We have 300,000 unemployed people (and I suspect that number will hit 400,000 soon), and if these kinds of matters were left solely to negotiations between employees and employers, most workers would be forced to choose between working 16 hours a day for minimum wage with no weekends or vacation, or heading back to the unemployment office.

Personally, I wouldn't strictly regulate weekly hours, but rather mandate that anything over 160 hours a month must be paid at double time.

I’m all for higher hourly rates, actually.
If it makes the math stop working for the boss, they should just hire more people.

The real headache is figuring out how to set that rate.

Do you just take the gross salary and divide it by total working hours?

That wouldn't do much good for anyone in the private sector, especially given how many people still get half their pay under the table.

Maybe if the government mandated a minimum overtime rate, it might actually work.

But then you run into the old question: whose time is worth more? That's a debate that never ends.
We'd probably end up basing it on education levels, much like how they set the federal minimum wage.

briskdrifter3 said:So, you see your kids only when they email photos to your office? And you're perfectly fine with that?
You've packed a nine-year-old's life with endless commitments, but do you ever stop to ask when he actually gets to just be a kid—to play without a schedule? Or have you already conditioned him to reject play entirely? If that's the case, you're raising a little monster who will grow up to sit in some corporate corner office, terrorizing decent people who actually value family life over bleeding themselves dry for a company.
You are, quite frankly, a byproduct of this capitalist machine... though I suspect you haven't even realized it...

goldengull3 touched on this already, but I'll add my two cents: I'm raising my kid to value education and hard work. It's high on our list of priorities.

With a schedule like his, he's certainly not out roaming the streets aimlessly all day, which seems to be how some other parents handle things.
Sure, he plays with kids his age, but only after his responsibilities are handled.
For the record, the little guy actually wanted to take German classes and play soccer on top of everything else, but my wife and I said no. We figured it was a bit much for his age.
Once he grows up a bit, maybe we'll look at German. For now, no.

We jump on Skype regularly while I'm at work. Honestly, I think he's happy and proud of what he achieves.
And he's encouraged and motivated to reach those goals. Everything he gets, he earns. He has everything a child could need.
You think it's better to just hand things to him for nothing? I don't. That's how you raise a spoiled brat who can't function in the real world and can't even be bothered to get off his ass.
When I'm on vacation (I get four 38-day stretches a year), we spend as much time together as possible.
That includes hiking, sports, and just talking... so he isn't missing out on anything.

The local mindset here is pretty grim, honestly. Growing up, most of us are taught that we're the best, smartest, and that our country is perfect and everything will always be great while we just lounge under trees.

I subscribe to the Japanese approach: without education and effort, you have nothing.
Then, when we're on vacation, we actually enjoy life and our hobbies.

As for working hours—I've worked in the States from 6 AM to 10 PM when necessary (even while finishing school), and I didn't mind it one bit.

If someone wants to work less, they should find a job that allows it. Four hours or eight hours, whatever.

But trying to pass laws banning any work over 40 hours a week? Total nonsense.

I’m pulling at least 12 hours a day, every single day. That puts me at 84 hours a week, minimum.

The job is high-stakes; there’s zero margin for error.

At my last firm, I was clocking 12 to 18 hours daily—usually hovering around 14.

Then you see people complaining about working 10-hour shifts with weekends and holidays off... it’s almost funny.

Look, I don't mind the grind if the paycheck actually reflects the effort. At least for me.
My oldest is nine, an honor student, hits sports four times a week, takes extra English lessons, and does drama club after school. His schedule is already packed solid.

The younger one is still in preschool, but he’s already motivated, and I expect the same thing for him down the road.

I'm raising both of them to understand one basic truth: nothing comes without hard work.

Signed on behalf of Brian Nelson4 and the crew. I don't have anything else to add.

Betty Perez81 said:Look, I’m originally from Charleston, and honestly, if you’ve only got 60,000 Euros to work with, you’re looking at nothing more than some mediocre starter property 😁

The reason I keep bringing up Charleston is because I think you’ve seriously overestimated what a $350 rent makes sense for an apartment similar to yours:

1. In Charleston, even for a place slightly smaller than yours, the rent sits right around $350 because the market value there is easily 50% higher than what you're describing.

2. Also, if your place is worth twice what it was when you first got it, that implies the rent used to be significantly lower back then—way less than what you're claiming now.

And here’s one more reason why renting might actually be smarter than taking out a massive mortgage and trying to save the difference: by staying flexible, you can just chill and wait for the perfect window where interest rates drop and housing prices finally cool down before you commit to buying!

So now tell me—is this price actually sustainable long-term? Is this actually a good time to buy?

Betty Perez81 said:Look, I’m originally from Charleston, and honestly, if you’ve only got 60,000 Euros to work with, you’re looking at nothing more than some mediocre starter property 😁

The reason I keep bringing up Charleston is because I think you’ve seriously overestimated what a $350 rent makes sense for an apartment similar to yours:

1. In Charleston, even for a place slightly smaller than yours, the rent sits right around $350 because the market value there is easily 50% higher than what you're describing.

2. Also, if your place is worth twice what it was when you first got it, that implies the rent used to be significantly lower back then—way less than what you're claiming now.

And here’s one more reason why renting might actually be smarter than taking out a massive mortgage and trying to save the difference: by staying flexible, you can just chill and wait for the perfect window where interest rates drop and housing prices finally cool down before you commit to buying!

I didn't inflate the rent; if anything, I undershot it.
Honestly, I doubt anyone else would even let a tenant through the door for $833.
It's a top-floor unit: 63 m2 of standard living space, plus an extra 17 m2 I didn't even pay for (lower ceiling, but great for built-ins), 15 m2 of attic space, a 5 m2 balcony, and a 2 m2 storage nook in the hall.

Betty Perez81 said:Look, I’m originally from Charleston, and honestly, if you’ve only got 60,000 Euros to work with, you’re looking at nothing more than some mediocre starter property 😁

The reason I keep bringing up Charleston is because I think you’ve seriously overestimated what a $350 rent makes sense for an apartment similar to yours:

1. In Charleston, even for a place slightly smaller than yours, the rent sits right around $350 because the market value there is easily 50% higher than what you're describing.

2. Also, if your place is worth twice what it was when you first got it, that implies the rent used to be significantly lower back then—way less than what you're claiming now.

And here’s one more reason why renting might actually be smarter than taking out a massive mortgage and trying to save the difference: by staying flexible, you can just chill and wait for the perfect window where interest rates drop and housing prices finally cool down before you commit to buying!

We established a long time ago that rental prices don't move in lockstep with property values.

Betty Perez81 said:Look, I’m originally from Charleston, and honestly, if you’ve only got 60,000 Euros to work with, you’re looking at nothing more than some mediocre starter property 😁

The reason I keep bringing up Charleston is because I think you’ve seriously overestimated what a $350 rent makes sense for an apartment similar to yours:

1. In Charleston, even for a place slightly smaller than yours, the rent sits right around $350 because the market value there is easily 50% higher than what you're describing.

2. Also, if your place is worth twice what it was when you first got it, that implies the rent used to be significantly lower back then—way less than what you're claiming now.

And here’s one more reason why renting might actually be smarter than taking out a massive mortgage and trying to save the difference: by staying flexible, you can just chill and wait for the perfect window where interest rates drop and housing prices finally cool down before you commit to buying!

That isn't always true, but right now, it is.

Betty Perez81 said:mellowraven8,

I’ve got no clue what the rental market looks like in San Diego, but where I’m living, if you're looking at an apartment worth roughly $150,000, you’re looking at monthly rent anywhere from $2,500 to $1000, depending on how nice the place is. So, go ahead—do the math and see what a mortgage payment would actually look like for a spot like that!

The other thing is, which one would actually let you sleep better at night? Living in a place tied to a massive mortgage that you might lose if you hit a rough patch with work, or staying in a rental where you can stash the difference between rent and a mortgage payment into savings? That cushion could give you a few months, maybe even a year, of breathing room depending on how you play it.

The answer is simple: timing isn't always on your side when it comes to investing.

Let's look at the math—say you bought a place for $60,000.

Sophia White said:Check out this data from back in July 2008: "Federal Reserve analysts found that real estate prices in the US shot up by 89.9 percent over the previous decade—with a massive 61.6 percent of that jump happening in just the last four years alone. Compare that to the stretch between 1997 and 2003, where things were way more chill, growing by only about 17.5 percent total."

So, yeah—anyone who pulled the trigger ten years ago is sitting pretty right now. But here’s the real question: are you actually expecting that kind of crazy appreciation over the next five or ten years? Like, does buying right now even qualify as an "investment" if you're looking for those kinds of returns?

And let’s be real for a second—even if someone made a killing selling a place they bought a decade ago, they can only actually pocket that cash if they decide to walk away from owning property altogether. Because if they want to stay in the game and buy another place, the price of that new home has likely climbed right along with their old one. It’s like a shell game where you move from one expensive house to another... so when you crunch the numbers, your actual profit ends up being basically zero.

Growth started picking up here in San Diego around late 2002, eventually hitting its peak in 2008.
Prices shot up by an average of 200-250% in just six years.
From 700–900 up to 1,800–2,000.

Phase one was just the price correcting itself from being way too low back to reality. After that, investors and buyers just let greed take over.

Personally, I’m bracing for prices to bottom out like they did back in 2013 or 2014—we're looking at roughly 60-65% of those 2008 levels.
Somewhere between $1,150 and $1,400.
And that might even be a conservative estimate. It could easily go deeper.

Sophia White said:Check out this data from back in July 2008: "Federal Reserve analysts found that real estate prices in the US shot up by 89.9 percent over the previous decade—with a massive 61.6 percent of that jump happening in just the last four years alone. Compare that to the stretch between 1997 and 2003, where things were way more chill, growing by only about 17.5 percent total."

So, yeah—anyone who pulled the trigger ten years ago is sitting pretty right now. But here’s the real question: are you actually expecting that kind of crazy appreciation over the next five or ten years? Like, does buying right now even qualify as an "investment" if you're looking for those kinds of returns?

And let’s be real for a second—even if someone made a killing selling a place they bought a decade ago, they can only actually pocket that cash if they decide to walk away from owning property altogether. Because if they want to stay in the game and buy another place, the price of that new home has likely climbed right along with their old one. It’s like a shell game where you move from one expensive house to another... so when you crunch the numbers, your actual profit ends up being basically zero.

The answer is right above. Not in six years.
If you bought at the absolute peak, don't expect any real gains anytime soon.
Even if prices crawl back up to exactly what you originally paid, you're still losing.

Sophia White said:Check out this data from back in July 2008: "Federal Reserve analysts found that real estate prices in the US shot up by 89.9 percent over the previous decade—with a massive 61.6 percent of that jump happening in just the last four years alone. Compare that to the stretch between 1997 and 2003, where things were way more chill, growing by only about 17.5 percent total."

So, yeah—anyone who pulled the trigger ten years ago is sitting pretty right now. But here’s the real question: are you actually expecting that kind of crazy appreciation over the next five or ten years? Like, does buying right now even qualify as an "investment" if you're looking for those kinds of returns?

And let’s be real for a second—even if someone made a killing selling a place they bought a decade ago, they can only actually pocket that cash if they decide to walk away from owning property altogether. Because if they want to stay in the game and buy another place, the price of that new home has likely climbed right along with their old one. It’s like a shell game where you move from one expensive house to another... so when you crunch the numbers, your actual profit ends up being basically zero.

Yeah, but...
If neither of them started with anything and this is their only place, then what?

If you buy a place at a lower price, you’re stuck taking out a smaller loan than someone who overpaid. It's basic math.
Cheaper apartments have less downside risk and way more room to grow compared to the high-end stuff.

Buying a place to live can be a total win or a massive mistake. It’s not something you can just brush off.
Look, an investment can be a winner or a total bust. It’s no different from anything else—stocks, mutual funds, even starting your own business. It all goes either way.

mistystag90 said:mellowraven8

You haven't actually banked that $60,000 profit until you sell it for significantly more than your initial buy-in. Take me for example: back in 2007, I held shares that were trading at a massive premium compared to where they are now. But because I sat on them and didn't pull the trigger, I’m nowhere near the level of profit I thought I had back then.

In my opinion, until you cash out at that price point, you're just looking at an unrealized cost. Plus, once you do sell, you still have to deal with reality—you'll need to find somewhere else to live, whether that means buying a new place or renting. If we're talking about a rental property you don't personally occupy, then sure, that's a clear-cut investment.

If (or rather, when) capital gains taxes eventually get implemented, I think it would be a massive blunder to tax the potential gains on a primary residence—the home you actually live in—just because it sells for more than what you originally paid.

I get that, and I'm pretty sure those gains are just going to shrink or at least hit a massive plateau over the next few years.

mistystag90 said:mellowraven8

You haven't actually banked that $60,000 profit until you sell it for significantly more than your initial buy-in. Take me for example: back in 2007, I held shares that were trading at a massive premium compared to where they are now. But because I sat on them and didn't pull the trigger, I’m nowhere near the level of profit I thought I had back then.

In my opinion, until you cash out at that price point, you're just looking at an unrealized cost. Plus, once you do sell, you still have to deal with reality—you'll need to find somewhere else to live, whether that means buying a new place or renting. If we're talking about a rental property you don't personally occupy, then sure, that's a clear-cut investment.

If (or rather, when) capital gains taxes eventually get implemented, I think it would be a massive blunder to tax the potential gains on a primary residence—the home you actually live in—just because it sells for more than what you originally paid.

To be specific, my current mortgage payment is basically the same as what I’d pay in rent
(maybe even slightly less)

So, the cash outflow is roughly the same.

This isn't some hypothetical fantasy or a math exercise; it's a real-world scenario.

And in this particular case, I'm actually in the green so far...

Example 2 (same scenario, but using a mortgage):

Apartment bought in late 2002, fully financed by a bank loan in early 2004 once construction finished.
Purchase price: $51,254 ($753/sq ft)

Loan details: $51,254.26 over 20 years, 5.9% interest, monthly payment of $364.25

Current market value (accounting for past fluctuations): $108,800 ($1,600/sq ft)

Total paid to the bank so far: $28,755
Lost rent (what I’d be paying if I were renting someone else's place): $27,650
Principal paid off to date: $10,805
Remaining principal: $40,449

The breakdown:

Current property value + lost rent = $136,450

Total bank payments + remaining principal = $69,204

Net profit (if I sold today and cleared the debt): $67,246,
and that's without putting any actual cash down upfront.

So, is this an investment or just a massive expense?

Sophia White said:So, where does buying a house—basically just figuring out your living situation—actually fit into all this:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/investment.asp

What is investment
Think of it as grabbing an asset or something specific with the goal of seeing it pay you back later or grow in value down the road. In an economic sense, an investment is basically buying stuff you don't use up right now, but instead use later to build up some serious wealth. When we're talking about things in the financial sense, an investment is a money-based asset you pick up because you expect it to either cough up some income later or jump up in price so you can flip it for a profit.

Investopedia explains investment...
Building out a massive manufacturing plant to churn out products, or even the money you sink into getting a degree at a place like Harvard or a state university, are both classic examples of investments in an economic sense.

In the financial sense, investments include things like picking up bonds, stocks, or Real Estate.

Just a heads-up though—don't go mixing up "making an investment" with just straight-up speculating. Investing usually involves the creation of wealth, whereas speculating is more of a zero-sum game where no new wealth actually gets made. Even if speculators think they've done their homework, most people wouldn't call what they're doing traditional investing.

Example 1 (all numbers are accurate):

Contract signed in '02, purchase finalized in '04 (post-construction),
Price: $55,000 ($750/sq ft)

Current value (accounting for market fluctuations): $117,000 ($1,700/sq ft)

Profit calculation:

Current value - Original price + Saved rent
(what I would’ve spent renting someone else's place)

($117,000-$55,000)+($2,975 x 20 years)= $62,000 + $59,500 = $121,500

That’s a $121,500 gain over 20 years on a $55,000 investment.

Is this an investment or just an expense?

Don't factor in quality of life or comfort.