Monday's Most Active Threads

The first of yesterday's most active threads that I will discuss was titled, "Shocked at how many families in nice DMV neighborhoods are living in relatives' homes" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. The original poster says that she has a child who just finished kindergarten in an upscale DC metropolitan area neighborhood and has met "at least a dozen families" who are living in homes owned by elderly relatives. She has also met families in similar living situations in other upscale area neighborhoods and believes this practice is very widespread in the area. The original poster advises others who may be struggling to save a downpayment or afford childcare and who may wonder how others are doing it, that this is one of the ways. She further alleges that this practice is causing others to be shut out of desirable neighborhoods. The high cost of area housing, particularly in highly-desirable neighborhoods, has long been an issue of debate in the DCUM real estate forum. One factor driving up costs is the limited inventory of houses on the market in these neighborhoods. To the extent that elderly residents providing housing to younger relatives rather than selling their homes further constrains inventory, this would obviously limit the available homes for sale and contribute to price increases. Among those responding, there is a bit of a chicken and the egg phenomenon. While some posters, like the original poster, argue that adult child living in their parents' homes helps drive up prices, others suggest that adult children are encouraged to choose such arrangements due to the high cost of housing. A number of those responding are quite aggravated that these parents provide housing to their adult children rather than selling their homes. They consider this one more way in which "boomers" have made things more difficult for younger generations. Never mind that the exact same boomers are making life easier for the members of younger generations for whom they provide housing. Other posters, perhaps some of whom are among that second group who benefits from this practice, are all in favor of it. They cite a number of advantages from the arrangement, especially when parents continue living in the home. That provides either convenient childcare or eldercare as the case may be. Other posters are aware that adult children living in elderly relatives' homes is common in this area, but their feelings about it are heavily influenced by the attitudes of the adult children who are benefiting from this arrangment. In cases where the children are down to earth and recognize that they can only afford to live in the neighborhood due to their relatives' generosity, posters have no problem with them. But, in many cases, posters say that the adult children act entitled and don't seem to understand their advantages. This creates some animosity. The friction created by those who act snobbish despite not having earned their advantages goes beyond their simply being able to live in a nice neighborhood. Posters also complain about these individuals getting access to popular country clubs, often at a reduced rate. This discussion highlights a clear division between the beneficiaries of generational wealth and those who have had to work and pay their own way for everything they have achieved.

The next most active thread yesterday was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Stanford admissions success stories", the original poster was very brief, asking only what successful applicants to Stanford University have and for what the University is looking. I don't think I have ever in the history of DCUM seen a thread go so completely off the rails so quickly. The first poster to respond addressed the topic perfectly, explaining that her son had been accepted by Stanford, providing his test scores and grade point average, and contributing other information relative to his being accepted. However, the poster concluded by saying that her son had ultimately chosen to go to the University of Virginia instead because Stanford was far too expensive. That was all it took to essentially end this thread as far as addressing the original topic was concerned. The poster might have received less vitriolic responses if she had said her son had chosen to skip college and, instead, concentrate on molesting children. The poster's son was immediately described as a "maroon" which itself provoked a discussion about whether that was a misspelling or a Bugs Bunny reference. Another poster — likely one of the forum's frequent posters who is single-mindedly fixated on yield protection — complained that by not yielding, the poster's son would cause Stanford to take it out on other graduates from the same high school. This contention was disputed by another poster who claimed, "this is not how any of this works". Posters then went though repeated cycles of "it is how it works", "it is not how it works". None of it, of course, helpful to the original poster. Another dispute broke out over the suggestion that Stanford is significantly better than UVA. A Google employee who works with graduates from both schools argued that the top students from both schools succeed equally. This further provoked the Stanford boosters who immediately began mining the Internet for data to prove the poster wrong. If anyone were interested in Stanford's attitude towards yield protection, the quality of Stanford vs UVA, or the meaning of "maroon", this might have been a useful thread. Unfortunately, I am not sure that anyone was interested in any of those things. In contrast, there was interest in arguing about them. As such, as a source of information, the thread is nearly useless. On the other hand, as a medium for getting out your aggression regarding yield protection or Bugs Bunny references, it is pretty good. If your idea of entertainment is watching unnecessary pile-ons, this thread is for you.

Next was a thread titled, "If Biden doesn’t ace the first debate, will he be replaced at the convention?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster posted excerpts from two articles that argue that President Joe Biden is too old and incapacitated to continue as President. The first presidential debate, scheduled for June 27th, was supposed to show that Biden is fully competent and is not going anywhere. Instead, a poor performance — according to these articles — will demonstrate that he should be replaced at the Democratic National Convention. There are a number of problems with this argument. First, I question the original poster's sources. One article was written by a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Likely no spring chicken himself and certainly motivated to provoke concerns among Democrats. The second, an article from the Daily Mail which is always questionable, quotes Mark Penn in the excerpt included by the original poster. Penn, once a Democrat, has long since become a bomb-thrower mostly interested in attacking Democrats. Neither of these pundits has the best interests of Democrats at heart. Quite the contrary in fact. Moreover, there is another wrinkle in the "Biden will be replaced at the convention" theory. The state of Ohio has refused to include any candidate on its ballot who is not the official nominee of their party by the state's ballot deadline. That deadline is August 7, two weeks before the planned nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Therefore, the Democratic National Committee plans to have a "virtual" nomination of Biden before Ohio's deadline. Any change of candidate would have to happen before the virtual nomination and August 7 for the new candidate to appear on Ohio's ballot. I have never believed that Biden would be replaced, but this makes it even more unlikely that it would happen at the convention. By that time, Biden will already be the official nominee. In my opinion, the flood of suggestions that Biden would be replaced come from two sources. The first is Republicans who have an interest in spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt, or FUD, and political reporters who see politics as a game without real world repercussions and simply find this idea fun to write about. Meanwhile, expectations for Biden's debate performance have been lowered through the floor and nearly reaching the bottom of the basement. If he can manage to simply walk on stage, stand for the entire time, and walk off again, Biden will have exceeded expectations to such a degree that he will be the runaway winner of the debate.

The final thread that I will discuss today was originally posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. But, when I saw it just now, I moved it to the "Swimming and Diving" forum where is is more appropriate. Titled, "Frustrated with how our swim team takes over the pool", the original poster outlines how frequently swim and dive teams take over her community swimming pool. If the pool is not closed for a swim or dive event, team members or their families are likely taking up all the tables, using much of the pool, or making a lot of noise with bullhorns. It has become overwhelming and the original poster is very frustrated and wonders if the same is true of other pools. Depending on the poster responding, this is either normal or slightly above normal. Either way, swim teams dominating community pools is not unusual. Many posters are not particularly sympathetic to the original poster and stretched to find reasons to blame her for the situation. Others simply advised that she is not a good fit for the pool and should find another one. On the other hand, some posters suggested talking to the pool manager or the pool's board to see if they could make changes to be more accommodating to families such as the original poster's. The problem with that is that the board mostly consists of swim team families. Other posters advised the original poster to have her kids join the swim team. Some posters, including some swim team parents, explained to the original poster that the swim team activities would be over by the end of July and she should just hold out until then. Other posters argued about the justification for multiple practices a day, provoking a debate between "working families" and families with a stay at home parent. Despite the number of responses, the variety of ideas presented was fairly limited. The original poster understands from the responses that her pool's situation is not unique but is still upset. But her only real options appear to be tolerating the teams until late July or finding a different pool.