Nail Salon jealously lol

[Mrs.soontobealfonzo]

Thank you so much for explaining it to me. Good thing asschers arent as expensive as other cuts. I''ve had my ring a year and dont plan on upgrading till 2009 ( thats when we are getting married) I love my ring and its beautiful but something so amazing should be larger.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/20/2007 11:31:41 AM
Author: Mrs.soontobealfonzo
Thank you so much for explaining it to me. Good thing asschers arent as expensive as other cuts. I''ve had my ring a year and dont plan on upgrading till 2009 ( thats when we are getting married) I love my ring and its beautiful but something so amazing should be larger.

they aren''t as expensive as other cuts? I thought they were more.

 

[chiefneil]

Date: 4/20/2007 9:39:24 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 4/20/2007 11:31:41 AM

Author: Mrs.soontobealfonzo

Thank you so much for explaining it to me. Good thing asschers arent as expensive as other cuts. I''ve had my ring a year and dont plan on upgrading till 2009 ( thats when we are getting married) I love my ring and its beautiful but something so amazing should be larger.

they aren''t as expensive as other cuts? I thought they were more.

Out of curiousity I did a search on whiteflash and it looks like 3c asschers in the same general quality range as the OP''s 1.5c stone run around 60k. That''s quite a bit more than the 3k upgrade she had talked about getting in an earlier post.

 

[vespergirl]

Hi Cehra,

I noticed when we looked at both RBs and asschers that with similar cut/clarity/color quality we could get a 1.75 carat RB for the same price of a 2 ct asscher. When I asked why, the jeweler told me that ideal cut RBs are more difficult to cut and rarer, and that''s why they''re more expensive. I have no idea whether that''s true - but a lot of folks here on PS would know for sure, but that''s what I was told ... ?

 

[musey]

Date: 4/20/2007 9:39:24 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Date: 4/20/2007 11:31:41 AM

Author: Mrs.soontobealfonzo

Thank you so much for explaining it to me. Good thing asschers arent as expensive as other cuts. I've had my ring a year and dont plan on upgrading till 2009 ( thats when we are getting married) I love my ring and its beautiful but something so amazing should be larger.

they aren't as expensive as other cuts? I thought they were more.

ACTUAL Asschers (as in, Royal Asschers) are more expensive, because they're branded. Non-branded asschers (aka square emeralds) are less (realistically, I would guess it's more about the face that they face up smaller than about well-cut RBs being "rarer").

At least that's what I've seen so far

eta: I wanted to say as another asscher wearer, I understand what soontobe is saying about "something so amazing should be larger." I think that a lot of the fancIER cuts (cushion, asscher, etc.) lose some of their amazingness at smaller weights--but, for me, that threshold is more around the .5 (not the 1.5) mark

The threshold for RBs is much lower (for me) before they lose their "amazingness."

 

[cnkav]

Quick question,
How about emerald cut, does it look smaller than other cuts even it is the same ct weight like others? Thanks

 

[dani13]

Date: 4/21/2007 1:04:52 PM
Author: cnkav
Quick question,
How about emerald cut, does it look smaller than other cuts even it is the same ct weight like others? Thanks

Cnkav-

EC''s definitely look smaller than most other cuts in the same ct wts....they have a little bit better spread than asschers I believe, but defnitely a round of the same ct wt is going to look a lot bigger than an EC....

 

[cnkav]

Thank you so much for your response, now i am debating whether EC or pear will look better on my short and fat finger

 

[dani13]

Date: 4/21/2007 1:25:56 PM
Author: cnkav
Thank you so much for your response, now i am debating whether EC or pear will look better on my short and fat finger

Well, I am biased since I have one, but I absolutely adore EC''s- they are my favorite!!!

 

[vespergirl]

Hi cnkav,

I think that pears, marquises and ovals look the biggest for the carat weght. They also are great for elongated the look of your fingers. My mom''s engagement ring is a 1.5 carat marquise that looks like it''s about 3 times the size of my 2.2 carat asscher, and I think that pears have close the the same face-up size as marquises.

For some beautiful pears, check out this thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/show-me-your-pears.27270/page-2

 

[rainbowtrout]

Woo, just read through a nice chunk of this thread. Made me notice again something I keep seeing on PS--


So, obviously it's generally affluent group of people, loves jewelry, loves to upgrade, etc. Conversely, threads with this tone come up a LOT---young people spend too much, rocks don't equal love, how could X poster justify spending so much, you should put that money towards something else, when I was your age I walked 10 miles in the snow to school, etc.

I have developed a pet theory that comes from looking at other affluent people I know---maybe the very reason *why* the PS crowd can afford their rocks IS that attitude. I.e., rich people are rich because they are darn thrify, or remember a point when they had to be. I've seen a few articles lately in the NYTimes about the dangers of people who have never had any money suddenly coming into a fortune--often they squander it because it didn't *click* that rich people pinch pennies too!


There seems to be a tiiiiny bit more to it which may just be us being good Calvinist Americans and shoving our guilt for consuming/spending onto the occasionaly bratty poster.

Sorry for rambling, it's just something I've noticed repeatedly on PS.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/21/2007 6:19:32 PM
Author: rainbowtrout
Woo, just read through a nice chunk of this thread. Made me notice again something I keep seeing on PS--


So, obviously it''s generally affluent group of people, loves jewelry, loves to upgrade, etc. Conversely, threads with this tone come up a LOT---young people spend too much, rocks don''t equal love, how could X poster justify spending so much, you should put that money towards something else, when I was your age I walked 10 miles in the snow to school, etc.

I have developed a pet theory that comes from looking at other affluent people I know---maybe the very reason *why* the PS crowd can afford their rocks IS that attitude. I.e., rich people are rich because they are darn thrify, or remember a point when they had to be. I''ve seen a few articles lately in the NYTimes about the dangers of people who have never had any money suddenly coming into a fortune--often they squander it because it didn''t *click* that rich people pinch pennies too!


There seems to be a tiiiiny bit more to it which may just be us being good Calvinist Americans and shoving our guilt for consuming/spending onto the occasionaly bratty poster.

Sorry for rambling, it''s just something I''ve noticed repeatedly on PS.

both the points you make made me chuckle and nod - I think you''ve got something LOL

When my husband got out of the military and instantly made about 4x more money, the first thing I did was stop clipping coupons and budget shopping for food. My food bill went crazy but we could afford it and it was a luxury I wanted. Now I look back and think what a freaking idiot I was.... because now we don''t have as much money (relative to outgo and what is put toward savings) just floating around and I *know* I''d be better off clipping coupons and making meal plans, just just for the $ but because I was more organized then and cooking was always easier.... but there''s not *enough* $$ incentive to kick my butt into doing it again... but I still don''t ever plan to buy a brand new car *ever* in my life no matter how much $$ we have when I can buy a 2 year old car for about half the price. We saved over 15k on our last car. That''s a nice diamond!!!

 

[poptart]

Date: 4/21/2007 6:19:32 PM
Author: rainbowtrout
Woo, just read through a nice chunk of this thread. Made me notice again something I keep seeing on PS--



So, obviously it''s generally affluent group of people, loves jewelry, loves to upgrade, etc. Conversely, threads with this tone come up a LOT---young people spend too much, rocks don''t equal love, how could X poster justify spending so much, you should put that money towards something else, when I was your age I walked 10 miles in the snow to school, etc.


I have developed a pet theory that comes from looking at other affluent people I know---maybe the very reason *why* the PS crowd can afford their rocks IS that attitude. I.e., rich people are rich because they are darn thrify, or remember a point when they had to be. I''ve seen a few articles lately in the NYTimes about the dangers of people who have never had any money suddenly coming into a fortune--often they squander it because it didn''t *click* that rich people pinch pennies too!



There seems to be a tiiiiny bit more to it which may just be us being good Calvinist Americans and shoving our guilt for consuming/spending onto the occasionaly bratty poster.


Sorry for rambling, it''s just something I''ve noticed repeatedly on PS.

I think you''re definitely on to something here as well, too. I think as a whole young people do spend too much because we haven''t been very well informed on money management, want everything we want NOW, etc. Learning patience with spending your money is hard, especially when you feel that you have the money now to buy it, but have to think about your future... like starting your IRA and things like that. Goodness knows we''d rather spend that money on frivolities, but at our age the most important thing is getting as financially stable as possible. And like you Rainbow Trout, all of the affluent people I know are in that position because they were extremely wise with their money. My mom has been clipping coupons for as long as I can remember, even though at this point in her career she really doesn''t need to. And as for your last statement... I kind of thought of it in the same way you did. We all give in to those guilty pleasures sometimes for sure. Good post and good point!

*M*

 

[Independent Gal]

That''s a very smart observation, Rainbowtrout! I bet you''re right. I''m one of those thrifty types that puts ''financial house in order'' as priority 1 and ''big shiny sparkly wonderful diamonds'' as priority 2... mabye 10 years from now.

Sooooooo... if what you say is true, then these ladies are no longer my ''spending enablers'' they''re now my ''saving and being sensible enablers''.

When I think about how much I waaaaaant a nice D colour ACA WF 2 ct RB I''ll remind myself: Just LOOK what I''ll be able to get a decade or two from now if I keep being sensible like these ladies were

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/21/2007 6:59:54 PM
Author: Independent Gal
That''s a very smart observation, Rainbowtrout! I bet you''re right. I''m one of those thrifty types that puts ''financial house in order'' as priority 1 and ''big shiny sparkly wonderful diamonds'' as priority 2... mabye 10 years from now.

Sooooooo... if what you say is true, then these ladies are no longer my ''spending enablers'' they''re now my ''saving and being sensible enablers''.

When I think about how much I waaaaaant a nice D colour ACA WF 2 ct RB I''ll remind myself: Just LOOK what I''ll be able to get a decade or two from now if I keep being sensible like these ladies were

I say this to myself when I think of the 15 years I waited.... part of me wanted my ering at 5 years or 10 but I wouldn''t have gotten what I did

 

[Mrs.soontobealfonzo]

I look at it this way to justify my purchases, I''ll admit im a lable whore. If it isnt designer I wont buy it, but you get what you pay for. I work every hard for my money, and I have all my priorities in order. Trust me my parent are very proud me. Just opened up my very first CD with a nice lump some, and it felt amazing. But the truth is money is for spending. Women spend thousands of dollars on plasic surgery to make themself happy. I prefer diamonds lol

You work monday-friday, and should reward yourself. Thats what my parent always told me. If you have it spend it and make yourself happy, because you deserve it. Alex and I are renter right now and are saving for a wedding. We have many goals in the future, but we work on one at a time. We have our heads in the right place and dont gave any children to take care of. So if you got the money spend it and if you dont have the money to spend dont.

Oh and about my upgrade post about have 3k. I went to our jeweler, and he told me that wasnt enough and I didnt know that. so I am going to continue saving for it.

 

[emilina22]

ok sorry to chime in so late but im a bit ticked that young people now have this reputation that its all about size and nt meaning and what ever....were not all like that ko yea sure jealously does strike everynow adn then but reality hits harder...

im 20 and ive been with my bf for 5 years he got my my first diamond when i was 16 adn it was a .10 and yea it was small but i wore it proudly becasue at 18 thats all he could affford...he later decided to ugrade to a .25 and then finally to a .50 because he felt he wanted to do so....not all of us young girls force our guys to get us these rings or anything for that matter.....i love what ever he gives me because i know he took the time and the effort to work hard to pay for it...i dunno im upset taht we young girls are percieved as spoiled and that our rings..especiallly if theyre promise rings dont mean anything more than jsut a look...my promise ring means alot to me not becasue of the size of the status it gives me but becasue its from him and it has so much sentimental meaning.....

im blessed to have a man with an amazing family who has decided to pass down a 3ct almost flawless asscher down to us.... and now i feel that there are some people...people who dont know the whole story that will look down on me becasue of my stone.....

i dunno im just a bit ticked off right now im sorry.........

 

[poptart]

Date: 4/23/2007 1:47:13 PM
Author: emilina22
ok sorry to chime in so late but im a bit ticked that young people now have this reputation that its all about size and nt meaning and what ever....were not all like that ko yea sure jealously does strike everynow adn then but reality hits harder...


im 20 and ive been with my bf for 5 years he got my my first diamond when i was 16 adn it was a .10 and yea it was small but i wore it proudly becasue at 18 thats all he could affford...he later decided to ugrade to a .25 and then finally to a .50 because he felt he wanted to do so....not all of us young girls force our guys to get us these rings or anything for that matter.....i love what ever he gives me because i know he took the time and the effort to work hard to pay for it...i dunno im upset taht we young girls are percieved as spoiled and that our rings..especiallly if theyre promise rings dont mean anything more than jsut a look...my promise ring means alot to me not becasue of the size of the status it gives me but becasue its from him and it has so much sentimental meaning.....


im blessed to have a man with an amazing family who has decided to pass down a 3ct almost flawless asscher down to us.... and now i feel that there are some people...people who dont know the whole story that will look down on me becasue of my stone.....


i dunno im just a bit ticked off right now im sorry.........

I don''t think it was meant as a personal attack, but rather an observation of the age group as a whole. I am also 20, and I really do think that a LOT of people in our age group are preoccupied with their materialistic endeavours because they feel that they should and can have what they want instantaneously. Whether or not they have the money is not an issue to me because I think that eventually this attitude grows and permeates to all aspects of many young people''s lives. Unfortunately many don''t learn until later that life''s not about what you can buy. I think that this majority (or maybe even a well publicized minority) has given a bad stigma to those of us that are both mature and frugal in our spending, and who value our engagement and promise rings as well as other possessions on their sentiment rather than their carat size or cost. Because in the end, it doesn''t really matter what size diamond you''ve worn on your finger, or if you even HAD a diamond. But I understand your frustration and feeling like you are being "looked down upon."

*M*

 

[peridot83]

I felt the urge to stick up for my fellow 20 somethings, sorry to extend this thread any longer!! Please correct me if any of my below assumptions are incorrect!

I think part of the diamond blow-up is due to the fact that while inflation in luxury goods (purses, diamond rings, shoes etc.) isn't that big, homes & education costs in major metropolitan areas have literally doubled & tripled. What does this mean?

No joke, I will need 80,000-100,000 for a downpayment for a home in Los Angeles or SF Bay area. If its a home in a good public school district, this downpayment will be for a 3 bedroom house that's like 1,200 sq feet. with no backyard. This home will most likely be smaller than the ones my parents own, even though I will be in a much better financial position than they were. Worse, while I was in university our tuition went up 30% over 2 years, 30%!!! Saving 100,000, with huge education loans our parents did not have, takes a looong time, even for those of us who are good at delayed gratification.

But you know what? A 1.5 carat diamond ring is 12,000. I can save that in a year and still have the money to set aside for my eventual, 10 yrs away purchase of a home. Diamonds may not have gone up as much in value as they could because of easier access to a greater supply from online venders.

So? While a young persons 20 something salary can afford diamond rings that their parents didn't really conceive of, the sad fact is I'll be lucky if I ever earn enough to live in a house that was the size of my parents FIRST home and it'll cost me WAY more than it cost them to get to that financial point (as in double even after counting for inflation).

And I can't even imagine how much worse this situation looks for people who are earning far far less than what I will be. Now one can say oh "boo-hoo" to you just MOVE to a different state or to the central valley. Or that us Americans are soooo entitled to think we HAVE to own a home. I guess that's true. But I definitely don't think its silly, spoiled or materialism to the extreme in the above context. Its just the prices of some goods have changed while others have stayed more the same.

 

[lumpkin]

Peridot, very interesting perspective. What a well thought out post. And I agree. My mom and dad''s house cost less than $25,000. A house just like it would go for well over a half a million in LA. Here in KS t''s worth 6 or 8 times what it was when they bought it, depending on the market.

 

[musey]

Date: 4/23/2007 1:47:13 PM
Author: emilina22
ok sorry to chime in so late but im a bit ticked that young people now have this reputation that its all about size and nt meaning and what ever....were not all like that ko yea sure jealously does strike everynow adn then but reality hits harder...


im 20 and ive been with my bf for 5 years he got my my first diamond when i was 16 adn it was a .10 and yea it was small but i wore it proudly becasue at 18 thats all he could affford...he later decided to ugrade to a .25 and then finally to a .50 because he felt he wanted to do so....not all of us young girls force our guys to get us these rings or anything for that matter.....i love what ever he gives me because i know he took the time and the effort to work hard to pay for it...i dunno im upset taht we young girls are percieved as spoiled and that our rings..especiallly if theyre promise rings dont mean anything more than jsut a look...my promise ring means alot to me not becasue of the size of the status it gives me but becasue its from him and it has so much sentimental meaning.....


im blessed to have a man with an amazing family who has decided to pass down a 3ct almost flawless asscher down to us.... and now i feel that there are some people...people who dont know the whole story that will look down on me becasue of my stone.....


i dunno im just a bit ticked off right now im sorry.........

I could be way off, but for most of the posters on this thread, I think it's less about "all you young people are focused on size" and more about "I hope that your outlook only comes from your young age." Soontobe's post came off very poorly, whether the meaning was intentional or not, so people blaming it on her age (rather than her general character) is actually a much kinder way to approach any perceived character flaws than to say "you are a materialistic person," etc.

I highly doubt that anyone here would go on to make a blanket statement that "all young people are focused on the size of their rings, not the meaning behind them." They would likely say that younger people are more prone to bouts of materialism, etc. because, honestly, it's true.

That doesn't mean that all young people are materialistic and see no value beyond a price tag. It doesn't mean that every person under 30 is obsessed with what money can buy, it just means that they are more likely to see things that way than their 10, 20, 30 years older counterparts.


Like poptart said, this entire thread was never intended as a personal attack on younger women/people (great post by the way, poptart). I didn't take it personally, either, even though I am young. If the generalization that younger people tend to be more focused on material possessions doesn't apply to you, then that's fantastic. It doesn't apply to me either. But I don't need to set about changing minds based on my own behavior, because one person's behavior proves nothing either way about a group's behavior.

What is it they say about the exception proving the rule?

ETA: There will always be people who judge others based on their rings (or cars, or houses, or waistline, or clothing... you get the idea). Yeah, it sucks. But if you let yourself get hung up on the fact that "there are some people...people who dont know the whole story that will look down on me becasue of my stone....." you'll never be at peace with yourself. If everyone let it bother them what others thought about their lifestyle choices, then we'd either all be suicidally depressed or live in shacks in Montana so we'd never have to see another face. Okay well, that's a major over-exaggeration. Just blame it on my age, we tend to do that

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/23/2007 3:11:45 PM
Author: peridot83
I felt the urge to stick up for my fellow 20 somethings, sorry to extend this thread any longer!! Please correct me if any of my below assumptions are incorrect!

I think part of the diamond blow-up is due to the fact that while inflation in luxury goods (purses, diamond rings, shoes etc.) isn''t that big, homes & education costs in major metropolitan areas have literally doubled & tripled. What does this mean?

No joke, I will need 80,000-100,000 for a downpayment for a home in Los Angeles or SF Bay area. If its a home in a good public school district, this downpayment will be for a 3 bedroom house that''s like 1,200 sq feet. with no backyard. This home will most likely be smaller than the ones my parents own, even though I will be in a much better financial position than they were. Worse, while I was in university our tuition went up 30% over 2 years, 30%!!! Saving 100,000, with huge education loans our parents did not have, takes a looong time, even for those of us who are good at delayed gratification.

But you know what? A 1.5 carat diamond ring is 12,000. I can save that in a year and still have the money to set aside for my eventual, 10 yrs away purchase of a home. Diamonds may not have gone up as much in value as they could because of easier access to a greater supply from online venders.

So? While a young persons 20 something salary can afford diamond rings that their parents didn''t really conceive of, the sad fact is I''ll be lucky if I ever earn enough to live in a house that was the size of my parents FIRST home and it''ll cost me WAY more than it cost them to get to that financial point (as in double even after counting for inflation).

And I can''t even imagine how much worse this situation looks for people who are earning far far less than what I will be. Now one can say oh ''boo-hoo'' to you just MOVE to a different state or to the central valley. Or that us Americans are soooo entitled to think we HAVE to own a home. I guess that''s true. But I definitely don''t think its silly, spoiled or materialism to the extreme in the above context. Its just the prices of some goods have changed while others have stayed more the same.

Totally can relate to this. Well okay not totally. We''re native californans and have been trying to move back for 10 years... saving and investing etc. But I have to ask - have you figured out the compound interest over 10 years on $12k? with a 5% return you have almost 20k and with a 10% return you have almost 33k. If you were a super savvy investor and got 15% return it''s over 50k! Anyway, it''s not like we''ve all fallen off the ark, we''re not THAT old! FTR I wouldn''t move out of CA it''s a b*tch to get back. Really thought it''s just different when you say okay I''ve saved for a year and I have 12k to plunk on a ring and saving for 10 years and plunking a *fraction* of what you have down on the same ring. Or you plunk down a fraction and get a 25k ring

 

[TravelingGal]

I agree with a lot of what you said Musey.

When I was in my early 20''s, I considered myself pretty grounded. If I thought about a ring at all, I dreamed of a 1 carat.

In my 30''s, I dreamed about a 1 carat.

So did I become more frugal as I grew older and more stable by "only" wanting a 1 carat still? Probably not. My guess is that in my 20s, I was a bit nuts for thinking a 1 carat ring should be the norm. in the 90''s, to spend 5000-6000 on a ring (which seemed right to me) was probably ridiculous for someone who only made 26000 a year. I didn''t think it was crazy back then, but as I grew older and made more money, I began to understand there were a lot of places where my money would be better spent. But I still wanted my one carat and people didn''t think I was too off the mark now, because I''m older.

Now we''re in our thirties looking at 20 year olds who think 1.5 -2 carats isn''t too far out of whack. They''ll probably still want rocks like that as they grow into their 30s...at which time there will be 20 year olds who think 3 carats is more the norm. See what I''m saying? I''m sure some women in their 30s when I was 20 thought I was selfish for wanting a 1 carat.

So while I do think that 20 year olds tend to be a bit more focused on material things (and understandably so, since they are just coming into real life responsibilities and have the money to spend), times change and levels of what is reasonable change. I don''t think it''s fair to judge someone who is potentially 15 years younger than I am for not growing up with the ideals that I did.

(Not that I don''t judge from time to time.)

Peridot83, while I think you make a valid point, the point you make is exactly why I think younger 20somethings who live in LA and SF should be MORE frugal with their money. I am more like a 20 something in the sense that we are STILL saving up for our first house because I believe in having a good chunk to put down (100K, as you say). If you live in L.A. I know it''s easy to think, it''s going to take me forever to save up for a downpayment so why not have this instant gratification now? What''s 10K now, big deal? But if you save that 10K NOW you''re just that much closer to your goals. IMHO, high prices and crazy cost of living isn''t a reason to buy luxury goods as a consolation prize...it''s a reason to put your nose to the grind and save.

Don''t get me wrong...I always say life is worth living. 5 years ago, I made the conscious decision to travel (definitely a luxury) and spend about 10K for 4 months of travel. I chose that over saving for a downpayment on a house, thinking I could save after I got back, as I was pretty good at saving. That was in 2002. The housing marketing exploded, and I found a home completely out of reach. If home prices were in the league of what they are now back then, I would have probably foregone the trip and started saving early out of sheer panic. Live and learn.

At least I got myself a husband out of it all.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 4/23/2007 9:50:49 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Peridot83, while I think you make a valid point, the point you make is exactly why I think younger 20somethings who live in LA and SF should be MORE frugal with their money. I am more like a 20 something in the sense that we are STILL saving up for our first house because I believe in having a good chunk to put down (100K, as you say). If you live in L.A. I know it''s easy to think, it''s going to take me forever to save up for a downpayment so why not have this instant gratification now? What''s 10K now, big deal? But if you save that 10K NOW you''re just that much closer to your goals. IMHO, high prices and crazy cost of living isn''t a reason to buy luxury goods as a consolation prize...it''s a reason to put your nose to the grind and save.

VERY well said TravelingGal. As a 20-something myself, I couldn''t agree more on this point.

 

[Mara]

kind of a random aside but i live in the bayarea and yes it's expensive but while my mom paid 60k for her first house back before i was born, she also made waaaaay less then too. honestly this area has always been expensive, and salaries have always not always matched cost of living here at all. when she bought her house it was a struggle but she made it happen and worked 2 jobs to do it.

just like i made way more than my mom did when she bought her first house, our first house was way more expensive than it was for her. in this area to me it's always been exhorbitant and if you want to stay here, you just make it work...or you leave. a lot of people do decide this is not the place for them because you kind of do get so little bang for your buck.

it's funny because a lot of people who don't own are always like 'gosh i can never afford to own' but then they have all these 'luxury' items kind of as TG said consolation prizes or something. when if they just saved their $$ they could get into the tiniest condo ever...which yeah isn't the best but it's something. and you don't have to have 100k down at all. i know a lot of people who saved their pennies and were able to get in for very little, and just kind of kept moving their money and equity into better places. i always tell people who are here in their 20's and have opportunity to buy something, DO IT. get into property here as soon as you possibly can. forgo a ring if you have to, just get into property ownership because the prices here always eventually go up up up. and now is actually a good time to buy around here.

anyway...i definitely don't think 'all people in their 20's' are frivolous or whatever but i DO see more of a sense of entitlement in this generation than in my own generation and definitely more since my parents generation (according to them) or the generation before that. it's kind of interesting and sometimes i wonder how that happened and what happens if it keeps going hehe.

 

[diamondfan]

In simple math, anything you divert from a savings towards something, like a house, puts you that much farther away from the goal. I am not going to make a sweeping comment about young people because I know there are many very hard working and conscientious people who sock it away and are very disciplined. I was NEVER one of those people. I always had money from my family and truth be told I was never a saver. My mom used to laugh that I had allowance and gift money spent well in advance of getting it. I am also blessed now that I have a successful husband who, as generous as he is, is also super responsible and organized. I am much more frivolous and I admit it. He too is a spender and likes luxury, but he also very controlled too. He handles our finances, I would be an utter disaster handling things. I feel, sometimes, you cannot take it with you...so enjoy it. Which we clearly do, but as an adult, with mortages and college and camp and private school and home maintenance, I am glad my hubby IS responsible and detailed. I would lose bills in piles in the house and it would aggravate my hubby so much...he hated that, so I told him to take over. All I am saying is yes, life is uncertain and if you work hard it is great to reward yourself. But with growing financial freedoms comes responsibility (I sound like movie line from Spiderman!) and it is a balancing act, as are most things in life. Have a good idea of savings and what you need, reserves, etc, and then, if you want to, start socking away some money for the treats and goodies. It makes them more worth having, too. When we were in our 20''s, yes we had nice things, often nicer than many of our peers, but yet hubby was always thinking and planning...college funds, investments, retirement packages, etc. I am lucky to sort of have the best of both worlds, but I think sometimes, when some of us who have a bit more experience with finances and living life see younger people focusing on the wrong aspect, we worry. No one says that you cannot treat yourself, but stuff happens, stuff you did not anticipate, and it is best to be prepared...

 

[peridot83]

Hello all, thank you all for your thoughtful replies. Here are my thoughts, again I'm only 23 so correct me on my assumptions. I also apologizing for hijacking this thread to talk savings philosophies! Also, I am aware many people of all generations (including my own) are fiscally irresponsible, however the below is an explanation how a very conservative saver in a major metropolitan area can justfiably want a 1 carat+ diamond ring:

Lets say it was the early 90s you wanted to buy a 300,000 house in the suburbs of SF or LA (probably 4 bedroom with a nice yard). You figure you'll put $60,000 in down and pay the rest off in 20 years. That's a mortgage of about $15,000 a year. A mortgage should be at MOST 30% of your AGI and very conservative would be 20%. That would you mean you should be earning $50,000- $75,000 a year (most lenders won't let you leverage yourself over 30%). So lets assume diamonds cost about the same then, as they do now, and you buy a .5 -.75 carat ring for $3,000. That's 1/5 of your mortgage payment for a year, and 5% of your downpayment. (the mortgage above is modeled vaguely on my parents).

Fastforward to 2006. the same house now costs 900,000 dollars (no joke...can give many real examples). You now want a downpayment of $180,000 and pay the rest off in 30 years. That's a mortgage of about $30,000 a year. Again same AGi, would mean you're earning 100,000 - 150,000 a year. So lets say 1/5 of your mortage payment is $6,000 and 5% of your downpayment is $9,000.

Correct me if i'm wrong....but doesn't those dollar amounts equal out to a 1+ carat diamond? This is what I meant earlier about diamonds not really inflating, but homes/mortages super inflating.

People don't change that drastically from generation to generation, its not like all of a sudden my generation got more conspicuous spenders. IF you live in the LA or SF (or any metropolitan area), and you've noticed that the younger people around you have more bling, its because they have to pay A LOT MORE and EARN A LOT MORE to be in the same position as you. In order to live in the same neighborhood as my parents did, I'd have to be earning DOUBLE of what they earned. This also means I'd have DOUBLE the money to spend on an engagement ring....which means a huge increase in carat size from my parents. I'm not necessarily saying it was right for the previous generation to spend $3,000 on a diamond ring, but I don't think that was unusual for a couple that was earning 50,000 - 70,000 a year.

Also, everyone has their own saving strategies. I think, after taxes, I can realistically expect to gain 7% a year on any investment I make (and this assumes some good investments in order to have a guaranteed return of 7% a year for the next 7-10 years in order to make this relevant to a mortgage). Lets say I want an engagement ring (which I don't think is unreasonable), and I get one that is .5-.75 carats for $3,000. What I really wanted was a 1.2 asscher for $8,000 dollars. I make the "sacrifice" and invest $5,000. (I don't think this is a very big sacrifice if it really got me closer to getting to that mortgage!)

5,000 at 7% interest for lets say 7 years = $6,000. $6,000 = about $100 a month for 7 years. Now some people may say look! you are $6,000 closer to owning your house than if you got that engagement ring. Or if i used that money to travel, that was $6,000 towards your home!

Realistically I'm going to have to save at least $15,000 a year in order to have this downpayment ready in 7 years. (I'm not even trying to get into the same neighborhood/home as my parents!) $6,000 puts me 1/2 a year closer to my goal.
In my mind, i am going to be pinching and scraping every single penny in order to get that money for the mortgage, and have a cushion for emergencies in case I lose my job etc. If I want to use my disposable income, i.e. 100 a month, for an engagement ring instead of on vases for the house, or a cat, or going out to clubs or whatever, I don't think there should be any tsking going on. Basically, my savings/house plan strategy while not the SAME as others, is not in ANYWAY in terms of bank or financial terms irresponsible. Some people think owning a house is important enough that 1/2 a year closer to the downpayment is a big deal and worth the sacrifice of travelling, buying a nice engagement ring, or even having a nice wedding etc.

I understand that other people have other investment and savings strategies. Some even think a house is so important that they'll over leverage themselves in order to buy one, but that's not me. Also, the condominium market at this moment, in Los Angeles, is not the smartest investment in my opinion at the moment. The condo market at least in Los Angeles, is in a very bad state (not quite as bad as Las Vegas, but getting there) they're just not worth the price. $500,000 for a studio is doomed from the start.

Some people also can make $100 stretch for miles on end, and I respect them for it. Others, belive that I'm overly negative, and buying any property would be worth it in the end. Above is just my opinion. However, I would rather justify buying the ring now, when its just me that will have to "suffer" not having a home for 6 months sooner than I wish, then later in life when my financial decisions will effect my husband and family. I apologize for the long post, but I really do enjoy this discussion and I hope others will jump in . However if everyone thinks this topic is closed, I willl now eat some yummy smores and shut up!

Thanks y'all for letting a newbie rant at length.

 

[neatfreak]

Peridot,

I don't mean anything to you by this, but your viewpoint on deserving jewelry because it's so "expensive" to buy a house is exactly what our older counterparts mean by our generation feeling that we have a sense of entitlement.

Now if your priorities are for jewelry (i.e. a 1 carat ring as you put it) then yes, it is perfectly fine to buy it if you can afford it. But by doing so you are prolonging your inability to buy a house. MANY people in our generation are using CREDIT to buy the aforementioned 1 carat ring, which is where that idea of being "entitled" to it begins to go badly.

Inflation (and I do a LOT of economics so we can talk about that all day if you want; big diamonds HAVE inflated a lot and so have salaries) is NOT a justification for buying a diamond. Buy gems because a house has inflated more? I apologize, but there is NO logic in that at all. If the aforementioned gem were an actual investment, then it would make sense. But since it's generally known that small non-collector jewelry items are not investment pieces, it makes no sense to buy jewelry in lieu of saving for a house, UNLESS jewelry is your priority.

Regardless of the amount that it takes to buy a house these days in New York or LA, the more you save, the more house you can buy. The equation is as simple as that.


P.S. If you're willing to move out of NY or LA, you can get a gorgeous 5 bedroom house here in Madison, Wisconsin for $400,000 and a starter home for $80,000!!!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 4/24/2007 4:01:46 AM
Author: peridot83
Hello all, thank you all for your thoughtful replies. Here are my thoughts, again I''m only 23 so correct me on my assumptions. I also apologizing for hijacking this thread to talk savings philosophies! Also, I am aware many people of all generations (including my own) are fiscally irresponsible, however the below is an explanation how a very conservative saver in a major metropolitan area can justfiably want a 1 carat+ diamond ring:

Lets say it was the early 90s you wanted to buy a 300,000 house in the suburbs of SF or LA (probably 4 bedroom with a nice yard). You figure you''ll put $60,000 in down and pay the rest off in 20 years. That''s a mortgage of about $15,000 a year. A mortgage should be at MOST 30% of your AGI and very conservative would be 20%. That would you mean you should be earning $50,000- $75,000 a year (most lenders won''t let you leverage yourself over 30%). So lets assume diamonds cost about the same then, as they do now, and you buy a .5 -.75 carat ring for $3,000. That''s 1/5 of your mortgage payment for a year, and 5% of your downpayment. (the mortgage above is modeled vaguely on my parents).

Fastforward to 2006. the same house now costs 900,000 dollars (no joke...can give many real examples). You now want a downpayment of $180,000 and pay the rest off in 30 years. That''s a mortgage of about $30,000 a year. Again same AGi, would mean you''re earning 100,000 - 150,000 a year. So lets say 1/5 of your mortage payment is $6,000 and 5% of your downpayment is $9,000.

Correct me if i''m wrong....but doesn''t those dollar amounts equal out to a 1+ carat diamond? This is what I meant earlier about diamonds not really inflating, but homes/mortages super inflating.

People don''t change that drastically from generation to generation, its not like all of a sudden my generation got more conspicuous spenders. IF you live in the LA or SF (or any metropolitan area), and you''ve noticed that the younger people around you have more bling, its because they have to pay A LOT MORE and EARN A LOT MORE to be in the same position as you. In order to live in the same neighborhood as my parents did, I''d have to be earning DOUBLE of what they earned. This also means I''d have DOUBLE the money to spend on an engagement ring....which means a huge increase in carat size from my parents. I''m not necessarily saying it was right for the previous generation to spend $3,000 on a diamond ring, but I don''t think that was unusual for a couple that was earning 50,000 - 70,000 a year.

Also, everyone has their own saving strategies. I think, after taxes, I can realistically expect to gain 7% a year on any investment I make (and this assumes some good investments in order to have a guaranteed return of 7% a year for the next 7-10 years in order to make this relevant to a mortgage). Lets say I want an engagement ring (which I don''t think is unreasonable), and I get one that is .5-.75 carats for $3,000. What I really wanted was a 1.2 asscher for $8,000 dollars. I make the ''sacrifice'' and invest $5,000. (I don''t think this is a very big sacrifice if it really got me closer to getting to that mortgage!)

5,000 at 7% interest for lets say 7 years = $6,000. $6,000 = about $100 a month for 7 years. Now some people may say look! you are $6,000 closer to owning your house than if you got that engagement ring. Or if i used that money to travel, that was $6,000 towards your home!

Realistically I''m going to have to save at least $15,000 a year in order to have this downpayment ready in 7 years. (I''m not even trying to get into the same neighborhood/home as my parents!) $6,000 puts me 1/2 a year closer to my goal.
In my mind, i am going to be pinching and scraping every single penny in order to get that money for the mortgage, and have a cushion for emergencies in case I lose my job etc. If I want to use my disposable income, i.e. 100 a month, for an engagement ring instead of on vases for the house, or a cat, or going out to clubs or whatever, I don''t think there should be any tsking going on. Basically, my savings/house plan strategy while not the SAME as others, is not in ANYWAY in terms of bank or financial terms irresponsible. Some people think owning a house is important enough that 1/2 a year closer to the downpayment is a big deal and worth the sacrifice of travelling, buying a nice engagement ring, or even having a nice wedding etc.

I understand that other people have other investment and savings strategies. Some even think a house is so important that they''ll over leverage themselves in order to buy one, but that''s not me. Also, the condominium market at this moment, in Los Angeles, is not the smartest investment in my opinion at the moment. The condo market at least in Los Angeles, is in a very bad state (not quite as bad as Las Vegas, but getting there) they''re just not worth the price. $500,000 for a studio is doomed from the start.

Some people also can make $100 stretch for miles on end, and I respect them for it. Others, belive that I''m overly negative, and buying any property would be worth it in the end. Above is just my opinion. However, I would rather justify buying the ring now, when its just me that will have to ''suffer'' not having a home for 6 months sooner than I wish, then later in life when my financial decisions will effect my husband and family. I apologize for the long post, but I really do enjoy this discussion and I hope others will jump in . However if everyone thinks this topic is closed, I willl now eat some yummy smores and shut up!

Thanks y''all for letting a newbie rant at length.

What you ignore in all of this is that a diamond is an absolutely unnecessary and glorified pebble that you have lengthily justified in giving priority status over a foundation because the foundation is harder to create. Harder to create is all the MORE reason to leave the luxuries for when the foundation is built. Because we all know it isn''t just a diamond, it is often a car or TWO cars and home entertainment centers and dinners out and all of these can be justified for the same reasons you''ve listed above and all of these things would amount to a great deal if saved for just five years or ten years or even fifteen years. And I''m not saying don''t have a TV or don''t have a car or never eat out... I''m saying that for example, the first 10 years of our marriage we had ONE old used car, ONE 20" tv, no surround sound, no crazy spending on anything, no diamond ring. We put ZERO down on a house (VA loan) and after just 15 years of marriage on a SINGLE income not over 6 figures we now own two houses, I''ve just thrown over 20k at a glorified pebble and we hope to throw down over 600k on a house in california next summer. And I still feel a bit guilty blowing a wad on a ring when I know it could have been spent more wisely... spending and saving aren''t just about diamonds, they''re about lifestyles and the lifestyle that provides the above justification could easily provide that same justification to just about any expenditure that is desired.

the way I see it is that you think because everything else at least doubled that justifies at least a double on the ring.... and I see it as an example of why you should spend half or less than half than the generation before BECAUSE it will take that much more work to get to the same point. And wisely invested, that 6k isn''t a half year, it is a full year closer. And a year in the california housing market could seriously mean 10 more years if the price jumps at the wrong time. Using it for travel, using it for a new car payment when an old used car would be fine, using it for a diamond - doesn''t matter.... its either spent or saved. I think poptart (I think it was her) really was right on...

 

[ursulawrite]

The issue with buying in Manhattan is that 90% of the property is co-op, requiring not only a 20% downpayment, but evidence that you have significant savings (usually upwards of $150,000) in your account.

My husband and I saved like hell to buy our NYC apartment. While others spent all their cash on 10 Bottega Veneta handbags a year or bought a Lexus -- and deferred payment of business/law school loans -- we saved significant amounts every month, in large part because my husband paid off his law school loans by the time he was 28. So, it can be done, even if it means shopping in Gap over Barney's, eating out at a 22 Zagat place instead of a 28 etc. Sure, you need to be earning good wages in the first place, but I see so many people in the same age/salary bracket as us who have little else to show for their endeavours above and beyond a nice wardrobe and a honking diamond, and I just don't get it (not that I want to sound judgmental -- I really don't -- I'm just astonished).