The snowbird crowd is ageing

TomG2 wrote:
I made a career choice to line up at the government hog trough, and in less than ten years, I have already received four times what I invested. Beat that investment if you can. Fully paid insurance too, since I retired at 59.

I worked for the Department of the Navy from 1964 until 1968 and have squat to show for it, just like any other single enlistment vet. Guess civilians are more important than verterans.

hugemoth wrote:
I find being a snowbird costs about the same as staying at home. Cost of food is the same, cost of heat is cheaper. No mortgage payments at home since it's payed off, camping in Arizona is free. Cost of gas to get here isn't much in my high mileage rig. I can use the small motorcycle to get around where at home I'd have to drive the car because of ice and snow. Can't buy much here because there is no place to put it. Health is better here because I can take a long walk every day instead of being stuck in the house. Phone and internet cost the same.

A couple of my friends have already given up snowbirding due to age and are stuck at home where they sit around watching TV. What kind of life is that?

I'm thinking about heading south in March.

Where do you camp in AZ that's free?

Are you boondocking the entire winter?

Thanks

I find being a snowbird costs about the same as staying at home. Cost of food is the same, cost of heat is cheaper. No mortgage payments at home since it's payed off, camping in Arizona is free. Cost of gas to get here isn't much in my high mileage rig. I can use the small motorcycle to get around where at home I'd have to drive the car because of ice and snow. Can't buy much here because there is no place to put it. Health is better here because I can take a long walk every day instead of being stuck in the house. Phone and internet cost the same.

A couple of my friends have already given up snowbirding due to age and are stuck at home where they sit around watching TV. What kind of life is that?

I am noticing some arrogance being shown by the "haves" as opposed to the "have nots" on here. Reality is that a large percentage of the blowhards in our park either married or inherited their wealth. Job opportunities or the economy in general can make a genius out of the biggest fool or a loser out of some hard working Joe. I made a career choice to line up at the government hog trough, and in less than ten years, I have already received four times what I invested. Beat that investment if you can. Fully paid insurance too, since I retired at 59.

soren wrote:

CKNSLS wrote:

soren wrote:

CKNSLS wrote:

Water-Bug wrote:
Homes are a place to live and not an investment. A lot of people are just now starting to realize that fact. Part of the justification for buying too much house use to be "I can always sell it for more than I paid for it." Not so anymore.

It all depends of what part of the country you live in.

Unfortunately, having a working knowledge of things like lost opportunity cost, true cost of ownership, true cost of money, and other factors tend to be of critical importance when educating yourself as to the real cost and investment value of your personal home. Sadly, most folks don't have a hint of a clue as to any of this. This forum is a great example. One member here was strutting around as he doubled his money, over a twenty year span, in the "hot" market he was in. Bottom line is that it was far a huge win, quite the opposite, but like many, he wasn't going to let any reality interrupt his delusion. He paid $200K in the early 1980s ($468K in today's dollars, BTW) and he doubled his money. That's his story, and he is sticking to it, LOL.

:S It's enough to make your head hurt.

Yes, you can argue at the end of the day all of the above. But at the end of the day-you need a place to live, a place to raise your kids. You can either pay rent and throw money away-or buy a house and sell it and double your money. There isn't absolutely no advantage to paying rent in years past in Southern California when a mortgage would have been the same dollars.

Well, if I didn't have a working knowledge of finance, or some first hand knowledge of the Southern California market of recent past, I might think that you had a good point.

Dear old dad drops $625K, with no down, no doc. "pick a payment", negative amortization paper in about 2006ish, on a nice place in the Newport Beach area. A few months go by, maybe a year, and the "value" climbs to $700K. He is pretty full of himself, and doing some light reno. to bump it higher. A short time later prices start to soften, then start dropping by $10k or more A MONTH! He finds a mark at $575, and after commissions and costs, takes a hit for a bit over 100K, Yea, his is one of hundreds of thousands of wonderful California stories, and it was obviously WAY smarter than renting, eh?

There was a brief period of time when this happened. And high end property was more vulnerable....yes. Your dad had what was nicknamed a "liar loan" (no disrespect intended) and people were getting loans who shouldn't be getting loans, and some (since no income verification was needed) was exaggerating their income to get on the appreciation express. That is impart what started the "burst of the bubble" your dad and others experienced. If you were able to afford what you bought and rode out the "bubble" you did very well. If you know the address of the house go on ZILLOW and you will be very surprised.

Sea Dog wrote:
Save fifty thousand a year for twenty years,
you have a million bucks.
Easy Peasy!

Or save $20K a year for 50 years and the math is the same. Only problem is that 50 years ago, $20K was the cost of a pretty decent home and if you could afford that every year, you were already rich.

qtla9111 wrote:
SS pensions were never meant for living on, they were meant to supplement retirement savings, investments such as having your home paid for by the time you retire.

SS was meant to supplement pensions and provide a safety net for those without. Now that pensions are mostly gone it's largely a safety net and not a supplement.

Save fifty thousand a year for twenty years,
you have a million bucks.
Easy Peasy!

CKNSLS wrote:

soren wrote:

CKNSLS wrote:

Water-Bug wrote:
Homes are a place to live and not an investment. A lot of people are just now starting to realize that fact. Part of the justification for buying too much house use to be "I can always sell it for more than I paid for it." Not so anymore.

It all depends of what part of the country you live in.

Unfortunately, having a working knowledge of things like lost opportunity cost, true cost of ownership, true cost of money, and other factors tend to be of critical importance when educating yourself as to the real cost and investment value of your personal home. Sadly, most folks don't have a hint of a clue as to any of this. This forum is a great example. One member here was strutting around as he doubled his money, over a twenty year span, in the "hot" market he was in. Bottom line is that it was far a huge win, quite the opposite, but like many, he wasn't going to let any reality interrupt his delusion. He paid $200K in the early 1980s ($468K in today's dollars, BTW) and he doubled his money. That's his story, and he is sticking to it, LOL.

:S It's enough to make your head hurt.

Yes, you can argue at the end of the day all of the above. But at the end of the day-you need a place to live, a place to raise your kids. You can either pay rent and throw money away-or buy a house and sell it and double your money. There isn't absolutely no advantage to paying rent in years past in Southern California when a mortgage would have been the same dollars.

Well, if I didn't have a working knowledge of finance, or some first hand knowledge of the Southern California market of recent past, I might think that you had a good point.

Dear old dad drops $625K, with no down, no doc. "pick a payment", negative amortization paper in about 2006ish, on a nice place in the Newport Beach area. A few months go by, maybe a year, and the "value" climbs to $700K. He is pretty full of himself, and doing some light reno. to bump it higher. A short time later prices start to soften, then start dropping by $10k or more A MONTH! He finds a mark at $575, and after commissions and costs, takes a hit for a bit over 100K, Yea, his is one of hundreds of thousands of wonderful California stories, and it was obviously WAY smarter than renting, eh?

soren wrote:

CKNSLS wrote:

Water-Bug wrote:
Homes are a place to live and not an investment. A lot of people are just now starting to realize that fact. Part of the justification for buying too much house use to be "I can always sell it for more than I paid for it." Not so anymore.

It all depends of what part of the country you live in.

Unfortunately, having a working knowledge of things like lost opportunity cost, true cost of ownership, true cost of money, and other factors tend to be of critical importance when educating yourself as to the real cost and investment value of your personal home. Sadly, most folks don't have a hint of a clue as to any of this. This forum is a great example. One member here was strutting around as he doubled his money, over a twenty year span, in the "hot" market he was in. Bottom line is that it was far a huge win, quite the opposite, but like many, he wasn't going to let any reality interrupt his delusion. He paid $200K in the early 1980s ($468K in today's dollars, BTW) and he doubled his money. That's his story, and he is sticking to it, LOL.

:S It's enough to make your head hurt.

Yes, you can argue at the end of the day all of the above. But at the end of the day-you need a place to live, a place to raise your kids. You can either pay rent and throw money away-or buy a house and sell it and double your money. There isn't absolutely no advantage to paying rent in years past in Southern California when a mortgage would have been the same dollars.