Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
1) We were keeping all other factors constant and only changing mortgage period.
2) In this scenario, mortgage period only impacts monthly payments of principle.
3) Prepayments are payments of principle above and beyond what is determined by the mortgage period.
4) Accordingly, you want your required principle payments as low as possible because you can also prepay to turn your mortgage period into any mortgage period shorter than your originally contracted period. For instance, I could get a 60 year mortgage and pay it off in 30 years by prepaying every month (it would look identical to a 30 year mortgage)
I hope human life is extended just so that you live long enough to understand this concept.
A. You are forced to pay monthly principle payments of $1000
B. You are forced to pay monthly principle payments of $500 but can also prepay another $500, if you want (depending on alternative investment opportunities).
Option B. allows me to choose between both options, every month. If I choose option A, I am stuck with option A every month. Consequently, a rational person would choose the longest mortgage period possible because they could artificially create ANY shorter mortgage period option through prepayments.
There are big trade-offs to be made between using water and having a more efficient (less polluting) plant.
Sure, until you start considering technologies like NGCC, NGCT, PV, and wind. Might be related to why, in the U.S., that is where the major investment in power is going. . .
assuming some level of rational financial decisions
Assuming income is the same in both situations, if I am not earning higher than 3% on my investments, then why am I not paying off my mortgage with my surplus monthly net cashflow (which is higher in the second scenario)? If I am earning higher than 3% on my investments then I am earning a spread and making easy money, like a bank (I am earning a higher interest rate than I am being charged).
Twice the mortgage period length gives me twice as long an opportunity to take advantage of advantageous investments when they are above 3% (earn a spread), so, all else equal, I am better off financially.
Is this better than letting the water run downstream and be utilized for other purposes? Is this really "water conservation" or "water cost minimization?"
. . . or how some people will try anything including poking a sleeping bear with a stick just to get 15 min of fame . .
Yes. . . you do remember that thing they call the "Internet." Technology is just making the real world more like that. . . You can wish people were different all you want, but, for better or worse, it is what it is. You cannot change human nature. . . best to accept and move on.
NK already kills people all the time for just being human. I think that is a problem with the NK regime, not human nature.
It is simply the new reality we are living in. If NK starts killing people over it, it is only a testament to how out of touch with reality their regime is. . .
Overall, it is hard for me to accept your point that longer, healthier lives will not make people more wealthy. Most mortgages are ~30years. If you double the time period people can work without having to worry about a mortgage, you definitely have improved their financial situation (assuming some level of rational financial decisions).
People are going to retire at 65, and then collect benefits for the next 55 years.
If aging can be postponed, then so can retirement. Also, perhaps work will become more pleasant without the pressure of having to rush and save up for retirement.