Free Shutters!

Free is a price I really like - when it's really free.

We were driving by the club hotel in the golf cart and went by the dumpster.  There, leaning against the fence were a collection of shutters from a recent renovation.  We asked around and the boss-man said "Yea, you can take them!" So we did.

Mark has wanted plantation or Bahama shutters on the front of the house for some time.  We even called a guy in Jacksonville and he told us it would cost close to $5000 to have them made in aluminum (!!) and we took a pass.  But now, we have more than enough to do the project, and they were the exact right size, without cutting.  I removed the hinges, put them at the top, and then used some Bahama shutter hardware we bought in Key West a decade ago, to secure them at the bottom.   We may take them down and run them through the table saw to remove the hinge indents - and give them a coat of paint.

It just looks more relaxing....

There were taller shutters and we did run those through the table saw and painted them with two coats of exterior trim paint.  They now make a privacy curtain around the hot tub in the front screen room.   We previously had a plastic roll-up blind there, but it was several years old and starting to look ratty, particularly after the last hurricane.

We also installed them in the new guest room.   We had the guest room in the front of the house and thought guests would enjoy the sliding glass door into the screen porch.  They didn't.  People are weird about privacy and women in particular are convinced the neighborhood peeping Tom just can't wait to get a glance at their vagina.   So they close the curtains tight, convinced that someone is looking in on them.  But nobody is, other than deer, raccoons, and the occasional possum.  City folks, go figure.

They let light in, but also can provide privacy.   Bitch to paint, though.

So we figured why not make the office in the front, where there is light and the breezes come in from the screen room, and the guests and sit in the dark in the back room next to the air conditioner.   And with these shutters, they can block out all the light -  as well as lookies from the vagina peeper.

We have a few more shutters left over - and the remodeling at the club is not nearly over.   But I am not sure we need to do more - we don't want to turn into the "shutter house".  Besides, painting shutters is a royal pain-in-the-ass, which is why I let Mark do it.  It seems there are eight sides to a shutter, and they are nearly impossible to paint with a brush.  Wooden shutters will sit there all day and soak up paint from an paintgun, and still look like raw wood.

So I will call my policeman friend and donate them to him.  He sells things like that and donates the money to veterans charities.

Good Articles from USA Today (!?!) on Reverse Mortgages

A reverse mortgage is God's way of saying you need to sell your home.

I have written before about reverse mortgages.  And again, and, again, and again,  and again.  Well, here's one more.

For the most part, they have an odious reputation, which is probably well-deserved.  The reverse-mortgage industry has used a number of famous and trustworthy pitchmen to sell their services.  Michael Douglas did a parody of one of these pitches in the Netflix series The Kominsky Method, which was almost a word-for-word rendition of the actual ad done by Tom Selleck (or is it Tom Sell-out?).

I get e-mails all the time from people wanting to do "guest posts" or wanting me to write about a topic in a manner favorable to their company.  A lot of these requests relate to reverse mortgages.

Are reverse mortgages a ripoff?  Before you delve into the pros and cons and crunch numbers (a path that could easily distract you from the overall picture) consider how these things are marketed.  Again, having general principles in life is helpful in evaluating any transaction from 100 paces.  And having such general guidelines in life can help you avoid a lot of pitfalls.

For example, when we started investing in real estate, we wrote down a dozen principles we had for investing.   Number one was, "we will not buy any property we ourselves would not live in."  - this prevented us from becoming slumlords and also from investing in bad neighborhoods.   When someone would offer us a "bargain" property, we would look at it and then decide not to buy because frankly, the neighborhood scared us.

Does this mean we walked away from what could have been good deals?  Yes.  But there were better deals out there - less risky deals as well.  And moreover, you don't have to invest in every goddamn thing that comes down the pike, just because it might be a good deal.   It might not, too.

But one general principle I have as a consumer, is to be very, very skeptical and walk away from things that are marketed deceptively, loudly, and sound too-good-to-be-true.   A telemarketer calls you, spoofing the phone number on caller ID to make you think you are getting a call from a neighbor or friend.   The mere act of calling you is a violation of the Do-Not-Call act.   Before you have even picked up the phone, these people have lied to you twice and broken the law.   Do you think the free vacation they are offering is going to be a good deal?    When you enter into any business transaction, predicated on a lie - even a trivial one - it can only go downhill from there.

Reverse mortgages are sold on the lie that you are "cashing out" the "equity" in your home, when in fact, you are actually borrowing money on onerous terms - under conditions which could result in you losing your house.   And like most shitty financial deals, they target the poor and ill-informed, and as a result, a lot of poor people (which includes a disproportionate number of black folks) end up losing their homes.

So without even bothering to crank the numbers, do an analysis, research, and whatever, I can tell a reverse mortgage is a shitty deal by the lies and deceptions - no matter how trivial - used to sell them.   The fact they want to SPAM my blog and trade on my goodwill tells me all I need to know.  The deceptive ads with feel-good elderly white-male celebrities tell me the rest.   Trust me - I come into your living room every week.  Would I lie to you?  Of course they would.

Recently, USA Today - the "McPaper" published two articles back-to-back about reverse mortgages. The first is a pretty balanced and informative piece describing what they are and how they work.  Pretty value-neutral, although it spells out the pitfalls of foreclosure.  If you are late on your tax payment, insurance payment, or even forget to return a postcard the mortgage company mails to you once a year to prove you are resident, foreclosure is imminent.  They don't mess around with warning letters or grace periods.   You forget, you are toast.  And once foreclosure begins, late fees and fines accumulate, and it can be hard to claw your way back.

The second piece is more to the point - illustrating how poor people can lose their homes to reverse mortgages.  People whose finances are thin to begin with, can end up losing it all to a reverse mortgage.   Property taxes and homeowners insurance seem pretty cheap, when you pay them as part of your monthly mortgage payment - a few hundred a month, perhaps.   But when you get that bill all at once - $2000 for insurance and maybe another $3000 for property taxes - you might find it difficult to pay, if you aren't very good with your finances.  And "not very good with finances" often describes reverse-mortgage customers, which is why they end up with reverse mortgages in the first place.

It is interesting that USA Today published these articles.   You see, the problem with the media is that they don't want to piss off advertisers.  So they tend not to say outright that something is a raw deal.  Oh, sure, they might put up an article that is "balanced" but it really more of a cheer-leading piece for reverse mortgages (or whatever else is being sold).   The only thing I can think is that a reverse-mortgage company pulled their ads from USA Today, and this is their way of getting back at them - by finally publishing some unvarnished truths.

The big problem with a reverse mortgage is that it is a loan, and you are trading off a huge portion of your net worth for a pittance of money now, and paying interest for this privilege.  Many folks hope they can get "something-for-nothing" and thus get an annuity from the mortgage company for life, and end up dying in their home and stiffing the reverse-mortgage company for the balance.   But these mortgage companies are not fools - they have actuarial tables and calculators that can crank out compound interest.  They know far more than you and I do, which makes this an asymmetrical transaction, in terms of power and knowledge.

The easiest way to cut through the fog of a reverse mortgage (or any mortgage) is to look at the overall effect on your net worth - not monthly payments or whatnot.  If you own a home worth $500,000 and take out a reverse mortgage for $250,000, you have to pay back that amount, with interest.   If you spend that $250,000, your net worth has dropped by that amount, plus the interest you have to pay to repay the loan. 

And you will have to repay the loan.  According to the FHA, most people who take out reverse mortgages don't "die in the home" and stiff the mortgage company.  Rather, they leave before then, and the house has to be sold off to pay off the balance on the mortgage.   And often this means the homeowner gave away a huge portion of their net worth to a bank.

Another one of my principles and mantras is The more complicated you can make any financial transaction, the easier it is to rip off the consumer.   The most basic financial transaction is the bartering of goods for cash.  Anything beyond that, is suspect.  When a dealer offers to take a trade-in, finance your car, or lease it, they add layers of complexity to the deal, and pad a little money in the deal, for themselves, with each layer.

A reverse mortgage is a complex financial transaction, and as such, people have a hard time seeing how it can be disadvantageous to them.  "I'm cashing out the equity in my home!" they crow, "look at this big check I got!" they say.   They can't see the downside in the deal, because the deal is complicated, and like most raw deals today (7-year car loans, 20-year Boat and RV loans, lifetime student loans, payday loans, etc.) they are based on the concept of time-shifting money.   I give you a pittance now, you owe me a pile later on.

Consider Cicily (not her real name) who had a reverse mortgage on her house here on the Island.  She used the money to remodel the home, and lived there for many years.  But eventually, it was too much to keep up the house and dementia set in, along with a broken hip.  So off to "assisted living" she goes and the house is sold for about $380,000, the proceeds of which go to the bank.  Cicily gets nothing out of the deal.  She borrowed $200,000 initially for her remodeling.  The remainder of the "equity" in the house went to interest payments and fees.

Now, some folks might argue that Cicily got what she wanted - a remodeled house and a chance to "stay in her home" for another few years.   And I suppose there is merit to that argument.  But it doesn't seem like an economical way to live, spending nearly $2 for every dollar in remodeling expenses.   In fact, borrowing money to remodel or repair your home is probably a good sign you own too much home.

One of the victims profiled in the second USA Today article did just that.  He needed money to repair his home and used a reverse mortgage to do this.   When you can't afford to repair your home without encumbering it further with more mortgage, something is definitely wrong.  To me, that is a sign you need to buy a smaller or cheaper home, or just rent.

Owning a home is just a series of repairs.

We are in the middle of a home renovation, and are paying cash as we go.   We bought some engineered hardwood flooring at a discount wholesale outlet.  They were happy to be rid of it, as it was in their warehouse for nearly a decade.  We are repainting the interior of the house, one room at a time, and installing the flooring in the bedrooms, which were covered with the cheapest carpet imaginable when we bought it, 15 years ago.  We also repainted the ceiling and trim, the latter of which was painted with a flat white and showed dirt badly.  And yes, I put two coats of wax on the engineered hardwood, as that stuff has its limitations.

But that is what owning a home is - a series of repairs.  Things wear out over time and have to be replaced.  There is no such thing as an "unexpected repair bill" if you are an astute homeowner.  Owning less house is one way to avoid this problem, and one thing I plan on doing when I get older.

One reader writes that downsizing makes no sense at all, as in some markets, buying a condo would cost as much as a house.   I am not sure how to parse this, as yes, indeed, in almost any market, you can find a condo that costs more than your house, if you want to look hard enough.   But there are also places to live that are cheaper - and moving to a cheaper place to live is one alternative.

Some older folks like to move closer to their children so they can "see the grands!" - women in particular seem to crave this second bite at the parenting apple.  And in some markets, you'll pay a lot of money for even a small house or condo (or apartment) and property taxes can be high.   But that is a conscious choice they made, and the value to them is being near their kids.

To me, it makes no sense.  I would rather have less as I get older.   I can sell this house and pocket $500,000, tax-free and live off that for a decade or more and move into the condo I already own (or buy another (hotel) condo here on the island, using a Starker deferred-exchange).   The nice thing about the latter approach is that the hotel-condo rents out the place when I'm not there, so if I want to travel or explore, I need only lock the door and not only is everything taken care of while I'm gone, I make a little money renting out the place, with no intervention on my part.  No lawns to mow, no repairs to make.

One reason we sold the vacation home on the lake in Central New York was that we found ourselves doing repairs and maintenance on the home, rather than enjoying the Finger Lakes and Erie Canal and the Adirondacks.  We have seen more of that region since we sold the house, exploring by RV.  When we owned a home there, it seemed the lawn always needed mowing, the roof needed repair, or something needed an overhaul or upgrade.  And that was a pretty new house, too - not some falling-down shack.   We learned that a house is just a thing, a possession, and possessions can be a form of slavery.

I would much rather sell the home I live in, and downsize to even a park-model trailer, and be able to live and enjoy life, than to trade half the equity in the most expensive thing I own, so I can "stay in the home" and watch it fall down around me.   Remodeling is sort of fun, but it gets harder and harder as you get older.  And hiring people to do repairs on your home is, well, expensive.  And it gets more expensive every year.   Older people are prime targets for contractor scams - every year, you hear the sob stories of an old couple who gave a pile of money to a sketchy contractor who guts their home and then walks off the job.

Given all that, why on earth would anyone want to own a home at age 70?  Or worse, age 80?  90?

And yet, I see this, firsthand, here on retirement island - a front-row seat and first-rate education in how getting old works out.  Old people rattling around in four-bedroom homes, unable to even garner the energy to clean them - or clean themselves.   The luckier ones - the ones who still have money - can afford a "caregiver" at $18 an hour or more.  The unluckier ones are found dead - after several days, when neighbors notice the flies and smell.

No, "staying in the home" has no appeal for me.  And reverse mortgages make no sense, whatsoever.

Help! My Thermostat Is Smarter Than I Am!

Do you really need a smart thermostat?

The boys finished putting in the air conditioning system, which was not the most expensive system in the world, but it seems to work well.  I noticed it's a pretty popular unit, having seen a number around the island.   Being made in Mexico, these things are incredibly cheap these days - well, until the Donald decides we need to put tariffs on them.  While the efficiency might not be very high, it's more efficient than the unit we had, and moreover it seems to work properly.  The old unit was one of the last R-22 units, and it was leaking refrigerant.

By the way, while people may tell you that you can't buy R-22 anymore, it is freely available on eBay.  I have a ten-pound tank sitting next to me as I type.   And we wonder why the ozone hole is getting larger again.  But I digress.

The unit came with a Honeywell T6 smart thermostat, which I did not request.  The salesman said it came with the unit and was no additional charge.  I asked him if he would reduce the price by leaving the thermostat off, and he said there really wouldn't be any difference.  I kind of wonder if Honeywell doesn't give away these thermostats in exchange for access into my home.  Maybe it has a microphone and is "phoning home" whatever it overhears.  Or perhaps the temperature in our house is vital marketing data to someone.

For the most part, the thermostat seems to work okay.  However it keeps displaying an alert message - a triangle with an exclamation point in it - which would seem to indicate something's wrong with the system.  When you press on the alert button it says we should go online to register for an outdoor temperature sensor.   The thermostat uses the term "alert!" like Fox News does - in other words, it cries wolf a lot.

An outdoor temperature sensor is useful with a heat pump, as it will switch the heat pump over from heat pump mode to resistive heating mode, when the temperature drops below about 40 degrees or so.  Below that temperature, heat pumps are not very efficient and will run all day without pumping any heat from the outside, as there isn't a lot of heat out there to begin with.  So below about that temperature, it is better to switch to backup or "emergency" heat mode.

But we live in the South, and there's not a lot of days when the temperatures are so low, so we don't have an outside temperature sensor installed - most people don't.  For some reason the technician, when he installed the unit, set the outside temperature sensor setting to "internet."  I only found this out after going through the installer's handbook which he fortuitously left behind.  There are about 50 different parameters you can set on this thermostat, for everything from filter change reminder intervals, to ultraviolet lamp bulb changing intervals, to outside air circulation damper control, and so forth and so on.   Most of these were esoteric settings for hardware which isn't commonly used in most homes.

One of the settings is for the outdoor temperature sensor.  Since many homes are not wired for this, Honeywell offers the option of figuring out your outdoor temperature by using the Internet (I guess they scrape this data from the Weather Channel or something).  Since we don't have full-time WiFi anymore (we use our phones now for Internet access) the thermostat bombed out, and created this error message.  The only way to reset it was to go online to the "app" and "dismiss" the message.  But of course, it would reappear at 12:01 AM the next day, lighting up the thermostat, which was annoying as it tended to wake me up in the middle of the night.

The error message is quixotic.  It says "register online" for an outdoor temperature sensor.  I didn't know if it wanted me to register online for a free sensor or whether it wanted me to buy a sensor from Honeywell or whether somehow the system would detect outdoor temperature through the internet.  So it was puzzling and annoying to keep getting this message.  Every time I tried to reset the system, it would shut off the A/C for five minutes at a time.  I just love technology.

The only reason I went along with this thermostat as it probably is the only choice these days and moreover it seems that people like this sort of crap.  Someday we'll sell our house and somebody will want to have a smart thermostat.  I probably should have just stuck with the old thermostat which was basically an on-off type switch.

What was really annoying, was when I searched online for a solution to this problem, all I got was page after page of ads for Honeywell Corporation on Google.  Google really has gone down the tubes lately and promotes pages of paid advertisements before real search data.  So, instead of a solution to the problem all I got were ads for Honeywell thermostats and links to Honeywell pages.  None of these describe how to fix the problem where the error message was "register online for outdoor temperature sensor."

So finally, I broke down and read the freaking manual or RTFM as they say.  And I realized that the thermostat was configured for a virtual internet temperature sensor which it couldn't access. By entering contractor mode (by pressing the menu button for 5 seconds) I was able to scroll through the various settings and reset the outdoor temperature sensor setting from "internet" to "off."  I can understand why they don't want homeowners playing with this, as there are over 50 different settings and you could really screw the thing up by saying they are two levels of compressor stages or what not, when there are in fact only one.

Honeywell has come a long way from the Henry Dreyfuss designed round T87 thermostat of 1953.  When you get right down to it, despite all the potential functions this Honeywell has, I am only using the basic on/off function than that original tstat had.

This is really all I needed.

In theory these modern thermostats are amazing things. You can set a radius ("geofence") around your house and if you have the thermostat app running on your phone, when you get within a certain radius of your home the system will detect that and then start turning on the cooling or heating so the house will be the correct temperature when you get there.  Sounds pretty keen, eh?

Say, for example, you set a radius of ten miles. and you're on your way home from work when you hit the 10-mile mark, the thermostat will recognize this and kick on the heating or cooling as necessary so when you step through the door, the house will be the perfect temperature.

Of course your pets might not appreciate this, having to freeze or sweat while you're gone. Also, it seems kind of short-sighted. I never understood the advantage of having temperature programming on thermostats.  We had a programmable thermostat back in Virginia and never used the programming feature.    We tried it a few times, but we were always hitting the "bypass" button as the programming never seemed to mesh with our lifestyle.  Plus, back then, you lost power, you often lost the programming, if the battery backup went dead.   But more than that, it seemed that it wasn't saving energy.   You can let the house get up to 85 Degrees during the day and then you'll spend twice as much energy trying to pull it down to 72 or 75 by the time you get home.

________________ 

Electronic devices have to be so intuitive that they work like falling off a log.   Failing that, the need for them has to be so compelling that the hassle of setting them up and learning how to use them is worthwhile for the features and functions you get in return.    Internet thermostats fail both tests. 

______________

It almost seems like it would be easier just to set the temperature at 75 and leave it there, and let it cold soak the house.  Of course, since I'm retired and I'm home most of the time, this sort of time- shifting doesn't make any sense for me, as I no longer commute.  And yes, the new Honeywell has a programmable feature (in addition to geofencing) and yes, we don't use that, either.

It also has a vacation setting so you can set it to a certain temperature when you go away on vacation, just by pressing one button.  Of course, if you go on vacation, it takes two seconds to just set the thermostat when you leave to the temperature you desire - the old-fashioned way.  But since this is an internet-enabled device, you can just go onto the app on your phone and set the temperature anywhere you want to.  I suppose that's handy.

Oddly enough, the one feature that people in the South seem to like is missing.  Many folks install a humidistat, which will turn on the A/C even if the temperature is below the cooling set point, if the humidity is high.  This prevents mold and mildew from forming, which can occur even if it is cool out, but it is humid in the house.  If it is cool out, the A/C might not come on, and as a result, the humidity in the house is high and mold forms.  A humidistat prevents this problem.  It is one feature this gee-whiz-bang thermostat is missing.

There have been reports that people have hacked into these thermostats, but I'm not sure why.  I guess you could really wreak havoc with somebody's house by setting the temperature really low or really high and running up their energy bill and melting the candles in  the dining room.  Since we are not using the internet features, this isn't an issue for us.

And I suppose it would be handy when you're on vacation to be able to log into your thermostat and see what the temperature is in the house.   I tried this, and it is cool - being able to monitor temperature and set temperature from your cell phone (no need to leave your easy chair!).   But it was an interesting novelty, that's all.   If the temperature has gone over a certain limit, you would call a neighbor or friend and have them let in the contractor to repair the system.  And I supposed too, the system probably automatically phones home when something does go wrong so that you can know when the air conditioning isn't working, or there is an error message like "register online for an outdoor temperature sensor!"

Or you can do like we do, and have a neighbor with an extra key stop by once in a while to flush the toilets and check the house and make sure everything's okay.  We do the same thing for them so it works out.  Plus, you get to know your neighbors this way.  I suspect, however, in modern America where no one knows their neighbors in these antiseptic townhouse neighborhoods, that such arrangements are much harder to work out.  We have these electronic watchers instead, including doorbell cameras and security systems, so you can get a video of the porch pirate who steals your next piece of electronic trash from Amazon.

But so far, the smart thermostat seems to be pretty useless to me.  It is kind of interesting tech, but annoying when it doesn't work right - like pretty much all technology these days.  And when it does work right, it provides services and functions that you don't really need or want that desperately.  It is the fitbit of thermostats, although I doubt it will end up in a drawer, somewhere. 

Electronic devices have to be so intuitive that they work like falling off a log.   Failing that, the need for them has to be so compelling that the hassle of setting them up and learning how to use them is worthwhile for the features and functions you get in return.    I think internet thermostats fail both tests.  They are difficult to set up and learn how to use, and the payoff just isn't there.   You can set your house temperature from your cell phone.  Big freakin' whoopee.

Sometimes simpler is better - and cheaper.  I should have saved the old thermostat when they were throwing it away.  I kick myself for not doing that.  And I should have talked the salesman out of the internet thermostat and got him to know a few bucks off the install cost.   Because while the internet thermostat is nice and all, I am not sure it is something I really needed or wanted, or whose vaunted features I will actually use.

And I am sure it was not worth the hassle and difficulty involved in setting it up and debugging it.

UPDATE:  We deactivated the Internet capability of the thermostat and it works well as a typical thermostat.  Once nice feature is "circulate" which turns the fan on for five minutes every hour.  This keeps the air evenly circulated in the house and when we are gone, helps prevent mold and mildew from forming.  With the new hotspot, I suppose I could re-engage the internet aspect of it, but we take the hotspot with us, so it would be of no use.  Besides, how many times have you said, "Gosh, I wish I could set the thermostat at my house while I'm on vacation!"  Answer: NONE.

Wealth Inequality Versus Overall Wealth

Which would you rather have, wealth equality where everyone has the same level of poverty, or wealth inequality, but be wealthier overall?

North and South Korea are an interesting experiment in Capitalism versus Communism.   Both started from similar initial conditions after World War II - being devastated by the war.   The North chose the path of Communism, with a venerated "dear leader" and a cult of personality, as well as the authoritarian state - the inevitable result of Communism or indeed, even Socialism.   South Korea embarked on a path of unfettered Capitalism - a form not even seen in the United States - where a few powerful families ended up controlling a huge portion of the nation's wealth.  The rest, as they say, is history. 

Perhaps there isn't a lot of wealth inequality in North Korea - everyone is pretty much dirt poor, with the exception of a few leaders who live in fabulous luxury.   A recent book release details the life of the "dear leader" and his many palaces and mansions.  His personal Japanese sushi chef (who has no doubt since faced a firing squad) detailed the excesses of the Kim family dynasty.  Now some apologists for Communism might argue that the economic conditions in the North are due to US and International sanctions, and that the authoritarian regime is a natural response to Western attempts to destabilize the country.   But that is overstating the case a wee bit.  While we might not trade directly with North Korea, other countries do.  The cry of "Yankee Imperialism" has been used by every petty dictator around the world to excuse their miserable failures in economics and government leadership.

South Korea has its share of faults - corruption in the government and the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few.   And while there is great wealth inequality in that country, overall, people are far wealthier than those in the North, or indeed in many other countries around the world.  You have to ask yourself, which is better - being wealthier, even if "someone else" is fabulously wealthier than your are, or being dirt poor but "equal" to every other "comrade" except the dear leader?

In the United States as of late, the hue and cry has been that wealth inequality is a bad thing and moreover is a sign of our moral decay.   And maybe this is true, maybe not.  But it is interesting that in one of the world's wealthiest countries - where ordinary people enjoy a standard of living envied by the rest of the world - we are told how awful we have it, and how put-upon we are.   The problem with this narrative is that in addition to being untrue, it is wholly dangerous.

While there are news stories aplenty about how awful some poor person has it (having a crappy car and only basic cable channels) or how "unlucky" drug-abusing homeless people are (as they shit on your lawn and break into your car) we don't hear a lot about the legions of middle-class people in this country.   Get in an airplane and fly over America sometime, and look on in marvel at the endless suburbs, with house after house, each with a garage and two, sometimes three or more cars.   These are hardly "put-upon" people, and they number in the hundreds of millions.   Sure, you can argue that our suburbs are bland, boring, safe, and unimaginative.   But no one is starving there.

We tend to forget how lucky we are, and it is easy to ignore how good the hamburger is on your plate, when the fellow down the table is having filet mignon.   But as I have harped on in the past, worrying about what other people are doing isn't going to help your own bottom line.   Pining for social change as a means of achieving personal success is a flawed plan in life.  Not only is the social change not likely to happen, it may very well happen in a manner that does not work to your advantage.

I mentioned above that this talk of wealth inequality is dangerous, and you may have wondered why. It is easy to rail against the wealthy and argue that their money should be "redistributed" to the "less-fortunate" such as yourself.  But what might surprise you is that those "wealthy bastards" might include you, and the money they are talking about taking away is yours.

We are told we are put-upon in America because someone has it much better.   The premise is, if only we took away wealth from the richest people, the rest of us could be so much better off.  After all, the combined wealth of the five richest people in the USA is equal to 2% of our GDP, right?   Oh, wait, why are they comparing wealth (assets) with gross domestic product (revenue or income)?    That's like saying my wealth is thirty-four times the median income in the United States!  Clearly Alahambra Orlando-Cortex needs to take my money away!

But it is a common mistake among those ignorant about money (and "Business Insider" falls into this class).   Even "business journalists" often conflate revenue (gross receipts) with income (net profit) and then conflate annual income (your pay) with wealth (your savings) - often in the same article.  The only thing worse that that are people who think a Billion is a million-million (which they do in the UK - no wonder The Guardian is so alarmed!) and not a thousand-million, which it is.

But let's assume that at least they have their numbers right, and these five wealthiest guys have $415 billion between them.  Let's divide that up and give it to the Pee-Pul, who obviously deserve it, right?  I mean, just by dint of not being Billionaires.  In a nation of 300 million people, that would give everyone a one-time payment of $1,383.33   Yea, that's enough to turn their lives around.  Problem is, that would be it - a one-time payment.

Well, OK, that's just those five guys.  If we lined them up against the wall when the revolution comes, we could all have a nice small payday.  Presuming that Ms. Alexis Oratio-Corona doesn't decide - like most Communist Dictators do - to just keep all that swag for herself.   Maybe she could get one of those bourgeois garbage disposals or something.

This article from (surprise, surprise) The Seattle Times, argues that some folks are getting "more slices of the pie" than they are entitled to, or more than their "ideal number" of slices.  They argue that the top 20% of people in the USA own 90% of the nation's wealth:

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America — 90 slices of pie! That’s exactly 4½ slices per person, nearly triple their “ideal” share according to Norton and Ariely’s survey* respondents. Their average net worth? $3 million.

That leaves just 10 percent of the pie for the remaining 80 percent of the populace. The next 20 percent of households (average net worth: $273,600) help themselves to eight slices, while the middle 20 percent ($81,700 net worth, on average) split a measly two slices.

You can see where this is going.  We all sent out for pizza, and someone hogged all the good slices!  What is appalling about this article, in addition to the idea that people are all "entitled" to the same amount of "slices" regardless of how hard they work (or if they work at all) is that the folks being castigated here have a measly average wealth of only $3 million dollars.   This is enough money to retire on these days at a middle-class living standard.   And I know this, as a retiree, trying to survive with far less than $3 Million.   But according to The Seattle Times, I am the problem, and I should just slit my wrists now, and hand over my money to the nearest sainted homeless person - who obviously deserves it more than I did.  After all, he's been panhandling hard for several years now - not goofing off and working for over 40 as I did.   What was I thinking?  Bougie!

Problem is, even people who have managed to barely save up enough to retire are deemed to be "hogging" too many slices of pizza:

There’s the top 1 percent, gobbling up an astonishing 40 slices of American pie. The next 4 percent split 27 slices between them, while the next 5 percent take another 12 slices (a little over two slices per person). The bottom 10 percent of the top 20 percent get, on average, one slice of pie each. But don’t feel too bad for them: Their net worth is, on average, about $740,800.

Read that last part again.   If you use the 4% rule for retirement, $740,800 works out to an income of  less than $30,000 a year.   These are the selfish people stealing all the pizza?   But of course, the entire premise of the article is flawed - the idea that the wealth of a country is a finite amount, and what remains to be done is to divvy this wealth up "fairly" rather than creating more wealth.  And the people creating the least amount of wealth or in fact creating no wealth at all by dint of not working, are deserving of a greater "slice" of this finite pie.   Oh, and by-the-way, the idea that wealth is the incentive to work has no value whatsoever.  People are not motivated to work because of incentives or punishments, right?   That is the underlying assumption - slipped right by us in articles like this.

That is the problem with this class-warfare thing.  It sounds like a neat idea to "take from the rich and give to the poor" when you think they are talking about someone else when they mention "rich".  But the reality is, the folks pushing these agendas are talking about you.  Yes you.  If you own a computer, and are on the Internet and reading this, odds are, you are in the top 20% of households in this country for wealth - and probably in the top 1-2% for the planet.   While there are not a lot of desperately poor people in the United States, there are in other parts of the world - in fact, most parts.

So before  you sign on to this idea that we need to "redistribute the wealth" bear in mind that the wealth they are talking about is at least in part, yours.   Revolutions sound fine and all.  But bear in mind that many revolutionaries are the first to be lined up against the wall and shot, once the purges start.   At least that's how it worked out for Trotsky.

Wealth inequality doesn't bother me all that much, only because overall, as a country, we are wealthier than the rest of the world.   Even our poor are the fattest and wealthiest poor in the world.  A "poor" person in America has a place to live, a refrigerator, a microwave, air conditioning, and possibly a car (although not a very good one, but with killer rims).   The idea that we need to make life more comfortable for the poor by taking away from others is flawed.  It is not as though people are starving here.  There are others in the world more worthy of our largess.

And perhaps one reason our country is so wealthy is that we have the incentive of wealth, which encourages people to achieve and succeed.  Take away that incentive and focus instead on divvying up the "pie" and you may find yourself running out of pie in short order, as the bakers decide to stop baking and instead stand in line for their free slice.

Granted, the recent tax cuts might not have been a good idea, and the idea of eliminating the gifts and estate tax is flawed.  But that isn't what the Left is talking about - they are pandering to a younger generation who has yet to earn their wealth, many of whom feel burdened by student loans that in a decade or two will seem trivial in amount (even if in the six figures).  They are pandering to these young people by offering (often literally) free lunches.  The problem with free lunches is that someone has to pay for them, eventually, and these folks signing onto these freebie deals today may find themselves in a bit of a pickle down the road when "redistributing the wealth" leads to its inevitable end - with everyone at the same level of poverty.

Bugs!

Mankind has been at constant war with bugs for eons.

Sometimes I don't think human beings were meant to live in the South.  Without air conditioning and pest control, the South would become largely uninhabitable.  If electricity somehow disappeared overnight, there be a mass migration of people from the South of the United States to the more temperate Northern regions.  At least up there, you could harvest ice in the winter.

Indeed, when I was a kid, very few people lived in the South, compared to the Northeast, which was the industrialized portion of the country.  Air conditioning was still relatively a recent invention and very expensive and only affordable by a few wealthy people.  It didn't become affordable to the everyman until the mid-1960's and 1970's.  At that point, the baby boom generation were all graduating from college and looking for job opportunities, which were lacking in what became the rustbelt the Northeast.  Mass migration took place, and many of these young people moved to the Southwest, the Southeast, Colorado, and California, searching for jobs. And in many of these locales, air conditioning was the only thing that made it possible to survive the hot summers.

But the cold winters of the Northeast have another effect - they tended to keep bug populations in check.  Sub-zero freezing weather tends to kill off insects pretty regularly, although this didn't stop populations of black flies from eating you alive in the Adirondacks or Maine, at least during one month of the year.

In the cold environs of the North, you had a few months respite from the bugs every year when the freezing weather forces them to burrow underground lay eggs for next year.  In the South, bugs are a year-round phenomenon.  And without regular application of chemicals, bugs can overwhelm your house and your life.

No one likes to use chemicals, of course, and many people try to resort to herbal remedies and whatnot to repel insects. Unfortunately, insects in the South are more than just a nuisance. They can literally tear down your house over time.  They can also make you sick or even kill you.

When we built Mark's studio, we were forced to have termite treatment done on the foundation to prevent termites from eating down the building.  We were required to do this in order to get our building permit.  We had the house treated for termites and as part of that treatment, they gave us a 10-year warranty, which requires yearly updates.  In Virginia, the house foundation had been treated with Chlordane, which is now illegal to use.  But apparently it pretty much kills off termites around your house - forever.

We also have the pest control company come every few months to spray around the house. After each spraying we realize how many bugs are living with us, as they literally come crawling out of the woodwork and die in the middle of the living room floor.  This grosses Mark out, and I have to pick them up with a tissue and bury them at sea by flushing them down the toilet.

In the South, they don't call them cockroaches but palmetto bugs which sounds so terribly colorful and Southern.  But they appear to be identical to their Northern cousins, which infest apartment buildings in that region.  We also get sugar ants which are attracted to any kind of spilled food, and sometimes what are called drain flies which will fly out of empty drains and are a darn nuisance to get rid of.

Outdoors, the bugs seem to come in their own seasons. Early in the spring we have mosquitoes followed by the no-see-ums.  The no-see-ums are particularly annoying as you can't see them, as the name implies. You can be outside and everything is fine, but as soon as you step onto the grass, they rise up in an angry horde and sting you all over.  I'm told that their stinging is actually some sort of chemical they excrete, which irritates the skin.  But the no-see-ums are nothing compared to the next menace, which are the deer flies.

Years ago, it seemed the deer flies were less numerous, but then again so were the deer.  As the deer population increased on the island, the number of flies and ticks has increased.  But more about ticks, later. The deer flies initially were very slow and lethargic and it was fun to actually swat them and kill them before they could bite you.  However, if you were standing motionless they would land on you and bite you, and by I "bite you"  I mean they would actually eat a chunk of your flesh and digest it. This would leave a gaping wound in your skin which would fester for weeks.

In recent years, it seems these flies have become more numerous and much less lethargic.  As a result they're getting harder to kill and getting more adept at biting humans. 

But ticks are a real issue, and they seem to proliferate year-round.  If you get off the beaten path, chances are you will end up with ticks, and they will bite into your skin, burying their heads.  You might not notice them for several hours, or even days.  The wound they leave behind usually becomes infected, and can take weeks, if not months to heal.  And of course, they can end up giving you a tick-borne illness, which you might not notice for weeks, or months, if ever.

And of course, there are common houseflies and other insects.  We would come back to our house in New York every spring to find hundreds of dead lady bugs in the top floor bedroom.   Where they came from and why they died there, remains a mystery.  But every year, they came, they saw, and they died.

How do bugs get into your house?   It is hard to keep them out.   No matter how "tight" your house is, any tiny little crack or hole can let insects in.   Many brick houses have "weep holes" in the masonry to let air circulate and water out.   Wasps love to build nests in these and they are a super-highway for other insects.   Roaches (excuse me, Palmetto Bugs) can come into your house in cartons and boxes from the grocery store or wholesale club.   In an apartment, you can kill them all and set off gas canisters - they just move in from next door.

Bath tubs can be a point of entry.   While a built-in bathtub (as opposed to the freestanding kind) may look all sealed up from the outside, from underneath, there are a plethora of holes that allow bugs to sneak in.   We removed some sheetrock from the guest room to install the new HVAC lines and this exposed the back-side of the bath tub from the guest bath.   What a mess in there - fifty years of dust, and bugs.   The drain line for the tub goes into a large hole in the foundation and then out to connect to the main sewer line.   We always saw dead bugs in the guest bath, particularly after the bug spray lady was here.  Now we know why.

I cleaned the area and sprayed it with a lot of bug spray.  Dead soldiers were everywhere the next day.  Ugh.   I plan on installing an access panel (there is already one on the other tub) so the bug people can spray in there regularly.  I will also try to seal the hole in the foundation with some foam or something.

It is tempting to think you can vanquish these bugs with home-made herbal remedies, such as cloves or garlic or other herbs.  Maybe they will help, but a sure way to get rid of sugar ants is ant traps from the dollar tree.   The worker ants find the sugar in the trap (mixed with boric acid) and take it back to the queen.  You can almost see the scene, as it plays out in the ant mound:

Guard Ant:  "Where do you think you're going, buddy?" 

Worker Ant:  "Out of my way, I have a gift for the queen!  Fine sugar and borax!" 

Queen Ant:  "What a lovely gift, and so sweet....... Arrrrrgh!" 

Guard Ant:  "Assassin!  Get him!" 

Worker Ant:  "Hey wait a minute, guys, I was just doing my job!"

Maybe it wasn't quite that way, but after some dollar-tree ant traps were placed around, no more ants.

I am not sure what the point of this is, other than you should factor in the cost of bug control into your home ownership costs.  In the South, a regular contract with a bug control company is probably a necessity - in addition to spot application of sprays and traps that you do yourself.   Termite control is also de rigeur, although some people rely on "traps" and monitoring.  Myself, I am all for the toxic chemicals - kill those little buggers, before they proliferate.

But as we learned from our tree service guy, once you kill off the termites, the carpenter ants take over.   We may view nature as some peaceful bucolic scene, but beneath the surface (often quite literally) there is war going on.  In fact, it seems like one part of nature is trying to kill off another part, in one form or another.   You eat someone else for lunch and someone else in turn eats you.

People aren't much different.