MONEY magazine

[Mr._johngalt]

Reading some recent issues in a waiting room yesterday.
Three articles really jumped out at me, maybe because they
impact me directly, but perhaps others will be interested.

First, they chose several American Funds (bonds in my case) in their "Top 50". My fund always gets rated pretty high which makes
me happy especially since I didn't research it much before investing.

Secondly, they had pros and cons vis-a-vis the future of GM and GMAC.
The result is I am now even more comfortable and would load up
if I had any available cash to invest. I MIGHT even buy GM stock.
Looks like a bargain to me.

Third, they did one of those dopey "Best Places to Live' articles,
which takes up a lot of space I guess. As I recall, most of the places
chosen would eat up most of our net worth just to buy an "average"
house. These sorts of rankings are pretty
worthless IMHO.

JG

 

[Spanky]

Secondly, they had pros and cons vis-a-vis the future of GM and GMAC.
The result is I am now even more comfortable and would load up
if I had any available cash to invest. I MIGHT even buy GM stock.
Looks like a bargain to me.

The auto industry is highly competitive. It may take a while before GM recovers.

Third, they did one of those dopey "Best Places to Live' articles,
which takes up a lot of space I guess. As I recall, most of the places
chosen would eat up most of our net worth just to buy an "average"
house. These sorts of rankings are pretty
worthless IMHO.

Their ranking changes every year. It's interesting to read about some of the places to live though. Forbe recently has an article that talks about income requried to live well in major cities. Living well, by their definition, means the standard of living is above that of the middle class. For example, living well in Minnesapolis, MN requires an income of $200K per year. That implies most people are NOT living well. This article seems worthless but amusing.

 

[brewer12345]

FWIW, I think there is a huge difference between GMAC and GM bonds. I'd be comfy with the former, not the latter.

 

[wabmester]

Forbe recently has an article that talks about income requried to live well in major cities.

Seattle is #1!   Woohoo!  Umm, #1 on Forbes list of the most overpriced cities.   High cost of housing and low income growth cited as the main reasons.   Not too surprising given that Seattle was a dot-com epicenter, Microsoft's option compensation is waaay down, and Boeing has pretty much left town.

Interestingly, Money mag listed a Seattle suburb as the second best place to live in the country, and one of the main reasons was proximity to Seattle....

 

[maddythebeagle]

I believe Rochester, MN and Madison, WI both are on those lists. I was just in Rochester for a week and looked at some of the housing and looks like stuff there is fairly affordable and great health care with the mayo clinic. I think Madison has gone up a lot. Maybe they should come up with the FIRE top 10.

 

[wildcat]

According to Forbes...

Seattle, Denver and Portland were all considered to be some of the most overpriced cities (mostly due to job growth and home prices) yet....

All three rank in the top 20 for job growth out of 40 in a recent "Best Cities for Singles" list

Forbes is full of contradictions

 

[unclemick]

Shhhhhh!

Lets not tell anyone about:

Centralia,WA
Trinidad, CO
Slidell, LA
Plattesburg,NY
Dothan,AL
Laurel,MS

Some things - it's best to keep silent about.

This be a tongue in cheek post.

Heh, heh, heh.

 

[brewer12345]

Forbes is full of idiots, as far as I can see.

 

[maddythebeagle]

Forbes is full of .......something.

 

[wildcat]

full of...what? Steve Forbes political reform ideas

 

[maddythebeagle]

Old Stevo likes the flat tax, but what would we do with the
"tax professionals"?

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Keep sending people to Bellingham, Washington. I need my property values to rise more.

Ed

 

[haha]

The auto industry is highly competitive. It may take a while before GM recovers.

Their ranking changes every year. It's interesting to read about some of the places to live though. Forbe recently has an article that talks about income requried to live well in major cities. Living well, by their definition, means the standard of living is above that of the middle class. For example, living well in Minnesapolis, MN requires an income of $200K per year. That implies most people are NOT living well. This article seems worthless but amusing.

They define living well pretty clearly. It is an upper middle class life. Thus, most people in Minneapolis, or almost any other large city are by definition not living well.

It means attractive house in a prestige suburb. It means quality camps and schools and music lessons for your kids, golf and tennis clubs, prestigious cars, generous grooming and clothing options for the wife, distant vacations in top grade hotels. Not big executive stuff, but prosperous doctor, lawyer, middle management.

It also implies at least some shopping at places other than Costco and Wal-Mart.

These are not my criteria, or really those of anyone else on this board I can think of. But they do apply to a great many people's aspirations.

Ha