‘What Was I Thinking?’ The Big-Ticket Items People Regret
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,766,859 (+1.43%)       Melbourne $1,057,987 (+0.39%)       Brisbane $1,163,157 (+0.28%)       Adelaide $1,009,467 (-0.01%)       Perth $1,020,350 (+0.19%)       Hobart $791,751 (-1.26%)       Darwin $858,973 (-1.15%)       Canberra $977,332 (+0.59%)       National $1,153,623 (+0.63%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $799,653 (-0.43%)       Melbourne $527,118 (-0.21%)       Brisbane $750,759 (+2.47%)       Adelaide $572,120 (-0.11%)       Perth $584,687 (+3.51%)       Hobart $537,541 (+0.78%)       Darwin $464,817 (+5.17%)       Canberra $479,787 (-2.83%)       National $611,752 (+0.90%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 11,234 (-975)       Melbourne 13,637 (+555)       Brisbane 7,179 (-18)       Adelaide 2,226 (-10)       Perth 5,278 (+91)       Hobart 845 (+12)       Darwin 149 (+4)       Canberra 953 (+13)       National 41,501 (-328)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,137 (+7)       Melbourne 6,987 (+129)       Brisbane 1,327 (-19)       Adelaide 346 (-4)       Perth 1,153 (-22)       Hobart 162 (-11)       Darwin 241 (+1)       Canberra 1,132 (+2)       National 20,485 (+83)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 ($0)       Melbourne $580 ($0)       Brisbane $670 ($0)       Adelaide $630 (+$5)       Perth $700 ($0)       Hobart $600 ($0)       Darwin $775 (+$25)       Canberra $700 (+$5)       National $690 (+$5)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $750 ($0)       Melbourne $595 ($0)       Brisbane $660 ($0)       Adelaide $545 (+$15)       Perth $650 (-$10)       Hobart $473 (-$8)       Darwin $600 ($0)       Canberra $570 (+$5)       National $615 (+$)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,382 (+1)       Melbourne 7,710 (-16)       Brisbane 3,999 (+82)       Adelaide 1,520 (-4)       Perth 2,404 (+80)       Hobart 171 (+18)       Darwin 81 (-2)       Canberra 420 (-23)       National 21,687 (+136)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 7,614 (-242)       Melbourne 5,976 (+59)       Brisbane 2,021 (+30)       Adelaide 407 (+7)       Perth 754 (+55)       Hobart 66 (+3)       Darwin 153 (+4)       Canberra 669 (-18)       National 17,660 (-102)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.35% (↓)       Melbourne 2.85% (↓)       Brisbane 3.00% (↓)     Adelaide 3.25% (↑)        Perth 3.57% (↓)     Hobart 3.94% (↑)      Darwin 4.69% (↑)      Canberra 3.72% (↑)      National 3.11% (↑)             UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 4.88% (↑)      Melbourne 5.87% (↑)        Brisbane 4.57% (↓)     Adelaide 4.95% (↑)        Perth 5.78% (↓)       Hobart 4.57% (↓)       Darwin 6.71% (↓)     Canberra 6.18% (↑)        National 5.23% (↓)            HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 2.0% (↑)      Melbourne 1.9% (↑)      Brisbane 1.4% (↑)      Adelaide 1.3% (↑)      Perth 1.2% (↑)      Hobart 1.0% (↑)      Darwin 1.6% (↑)      Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National 1.7% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 2.4% (↑)      Melbourne 3.8% (↑)      Brisbane 2.0% (↑)      Adelaide 1.1% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.4% (↑)      Darwin 2.8% (↑)      Canberra 2.9% (↑)      National 2.2% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND         Sydney 26.8 (↓)     Melbourne 27.3 (↑)        Brisbane 28.3 (↓)     Adelaide 24.6 (↑)      Perth 34.2 (↑)      Hobart 27.2 (↑)      Darwin 25.9 (↑)        Canberra 25.8 (↓)     National 27.5 (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND       Sydney 26.7 (↑)      Melbourne 27.8 (↑)        Brisbane 27.9 (↓)       Adelaide 24.9 (↓)     Perth 33.9 (↑)        Hobart 25.8 (↓)     Darwin 26.7 (↑)      Canberra 37.3 (↑)      National 28.9 (↑)            
Share Button

‘What Was I Thinking?’ The Big-Ticket Items People Regret

People spend a lot of money on all sorts of things, only to later ask themselves: Why?

By BETH DECARBO
Tue, May 21, 2024 9:01amGrey Clock 5 min

While it may be true that money can’t buy happiness, that doesn’t stop people from trying.

And then wishing they hadn’t.

Many of us have had a big-ticket expenditure that we later come to regret. Maybe it’s something meant to convey status, which we realise later did nothing of the sort. Maybe it was to fulfil dreams of a luxury lifestyle, only to discover that we’ve bought a bottomless money pit.

We asked Wall Street Journal readers to share their stories of pricey purchases that ultimately led to disappointment. Below are some of their stories and reflections—with some free advice to their younger selves.

The wristwatch of his dreams

“It was back in day of wingtip shoes, white shirts and red ties,” says Bryan Desloge, who began his career at IBM in 1984. And like many rookie employees, Desloge wanted to fit in. “I bought suits. I took my earring out. I cut my hair and I registered in the Republican Party,” he says. To complete the look, he paid over $7,000 for the wristwatch of his dreams—a Rolex Submariner. It was a hefty sum, considering he was making roughly $18,000 a year.

Now 64 and retired, Desloge says his younger self saw the stainless-steel watch as a status symbol. “The older guys had nice dress watches already, while I wore a Casio or a Timex.” Just two years after buying the Rolex, however, Desloge realised the timepiece was impractical for him. “The Rolex is great, but I don’t want to look at a clock face,” he says, “and the glow-in-the-dark hands are hard to read at night.”

Desloge, who lives in Tallahassee, Fla., recently tried to give the Rolex to his son, who turned him down. So it remains tucked away in favor of a Garmin smartwatch, which has a fitness tracker, alerts and email, among other features. Purchased for about $500, the Garmin can multitask in ways his Rolex cannot. “I will probably wear that watch for the rest of my life,” Desloge says.

Cabin fever

The family called it “the little brown house,” says Michael Kotas of his vacation cabin in the mountains overlooking Tucson, Ariz. In 2005, Kotas and his wife paid $120,000 for the 1950s cabin, and it needed a lot of work.

“We bought it from an older couple, who had dark rugs and wood paneling,” says Kotas, who is now in his mid-60s and retired from a job in technology sales. He redid the cabin “with a cool Manhattan vibe,” updated the electrical wiring and corrected a flooding issue in the basement. In all, Kotas estimates he spent $60,000 in upgrades.

But his financial headaches were far from over.

Even though Kotas owned the cabin, the federal government owned the land it sat on, since it was located within the Coronado National Forest. Leasing the land cost $800 a year when the cabin was purchased, but eventually grew to $3,600 a year by the time it sold.

During that time, two fires came within 100 yards of the cabin, jacking up Kotas’s fire-insurance premiums. Then, a species of bark beetle attacked ponderosa pines there, and the Forest Service required cabin owners to remove infested trees around their property, costing $1,000 to $1,200 a pop. “I counted all my trees around my house and thought, ‘I can’t afford this.’ ”

Over time, Kotas’s children didn’t want to go to the cabin anymore, saying “there was nothing to do,” he says. “We ended up spending about five nights a year there for the last several years.” Kotas, whose year-round home also is in Tucson, came to the realisation that he wasn’t getting his money’s worth. “It became an albatross,” he says.

The tipping point came when a man parked his truck just 100 feet from the cabin and lived out of his vehicle on the side of the road. Kotas sold the cabin in 2022 for $195,000.

“I would probably never buy a vacation home again,” he says. “It was a tough lesson to learn. I wish the [new] buyers well, but all I can say is, ‘Good riddance!’ ”

RV to nowhere

After retiring from a career in ophthalmology, Gordon Preecs bought a large pickup truck in 2013 and a 22-foot travel trailer in 2017 with the dream that he and his wife, Connie Preecs, would visit national parks around the country. Combined, the new vehicles cost around $50,000.

Living in Seattle at the time, the couple started out by taking the RV on short trips, such as an event for woodcarvers in Washington state. It didn’t take long for them to feel pinched in a 120-square-foot RV. “I thought we’d have our own hotel” with an RV, says Preecs, who is now 75 and living in Round Rock, Texas. “But we had to just shove things in there. The kitchen counter was hand’s breadth wide, and the bathroom was like a phone-booth shower. If I dropped the soap, I couldn’t pick it up.”

Three years after purchasing the trailer, Preecs and his wife relocated to Texas to be closer to their grandchildren. Still, they were able to visit Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks in the Northwest. That’s when they felt the financial pinch of RV ownership.

“At 6 miles per gallon and $60 to $80 a night at RV parks, the expenses really added up,” he says. “We found it was an inefficient way to travel.” Some of the RV parks are located in funky, backwater places, he says. And setup and breakdown at every stop became a hassle. “You want to be free, but you’re not.”

In 2020, they sold the trailer, which had less than 5,000 miles of use, and the pickup for a combined $32,000. With the proceeds, Preecs bought a Tesla.

Outfitted and outwitted

As a vintner in California, much of Pam Starr’s work takes place outside among the grape vines. “I live in jeans and winemaker vests, T-shirts and sometimes boots,” says the 63-year-old. “So I can tear my clothes on a vine or get barrel slime on me” and it doesn’t really matter.

A few years ago, a well-heeled friend with an eye for fashion convinced Starr, who lives in Napa, to join her in San Francisco for a meeting with her couturier—a person who creates luxury clothing to the client’s specifications. The friend had told Starr that she wouldn’t have to buy anything, but this particular couturier was very persuasive, Starr recalls.

For example, the couturier held up a gauzy swimsuit coverup with white sequins and said, “You have to wear this swimsuit coverup by the pool.” Starr paid $1,800 for a custom coverup, but later it hit her: “I don’t wear a coverup when I’m at the pool because I’m actually in the pool.” To this day, it has never been worn. Starr says she spent another $1,800 for an off-the-shoulder silk shirt with three-quarter length sleeves.

The quality of the clothing was low, Starr says. “That silk shirt turned out to be my most disappointing piece,” she says. It didn’t clean well, and hasn’t retained its shape. Many of the pieces she purchased haven’t held up well, she says, even though she rarely wears them. “Out of the 15 items I had made for me, I loved maybe three,” Starr says. “That’s more than $20,000 worth of clothes, and I should have gotten more out of them.”

If she could go back in time, Starr says, she would say to herself, “ ‘Listen, Pam. Pick two things and start slowly. If you like them, you can expand into other things.’ ” Also, she would pause to ask herself how often she would actually wear the clothing.

“Because of a friend, I ended up in a couture shop,” Starr says. “In that world, it’s uncharted territory for me. The couturier pulls you in really hard.” Knowing what she knows now, Starr says, “if I needed someone to design a gown for me, I wouldn’t go back there. I would go to a seamstress locally.”



MOST POPULAR

A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.

A 30-metre masterpiece unveiled in Monaco brings Lamborghini’s supercar drama to the high seas, powered by 7,600 horsepower and unmistakable Italian design.

Related Stories
Money
In a Sea of Tech Talent, Companies Can’t Find the Workers They Want
By CALLUM BORCHERS 02/10/2025
Lifestyle
LAMBORGHINI TAKES TO THE WATER WITH TECNOMAR 101FT SUPERYACHT
By Jeni O'Dowd 24/09/2025
Lifestyle
Amanoi Unveils First Ocean Pool Residence in Vietnam
By Staff Writer 18/09/2025
In a Sea of Tech Talent, Companies Can’t Find the Workers They Want

A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.

By CALLUM BORCHERS
Thu, Oct 2, 2025 4 min

There has rarely, if ever, been so much tech talent available in the job market. Yet many tech companies say good help is hard to find.

What gives?

U.S. colleges more than doubled the number of computer-science degrees awarded from 2013 to 2022, according to federal data. Then came round after round of layoffs at Google, Meta, Amazon, and others.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts businesses will employ 6% fewer computer programmers in 2034 than they did last year.

All of this should, in theory, mean there is an ample supply of eager, capable engineers ready for hire.

But in their feverish pursuit of artificial-intelligence supremacy, employers say there aren’t enough people with the most in-demand skills. The few perceived as AI savants can command multimillion-dollar pay packages. On a second tier of AI savvy, workers can rake in close to $1 million a year .

Landing a job is tough for most everyone else.

Frustrated job seekers contend businesses could expand the AI talent pipeline with a little imagination. The argument is companies should accept that relatively few people have AI-specific experience because the technology is so new. They ought to focus on identifying candidates with transferable skills and let those people learn on the job.

Often, though, companies seem to hold out for dream candidates with deep backgrounds in machine learning. Many AI-related roles go unfilled for weeks or months—or get taken off job boards only to be reposted soon after.

Playing a different game

It is difficult to define what makes an AI all-star, but I’m sorry to report that it’s probably not whatever you’re doing.

Maybe you’re learning how to work more efficiently with the aid of ChatGPT and its robotic brethren. Perhaps you’re taking one of those innumerable AI certificate courses.

You might as well be playing pickup basketball at your local YMCA in hopes of being signed by the Los Angeles Lakers. The AI minds that companies truly covet are almost as rare as professional athletes.

“We’re talking about hundreds of people in the world, at the most,” says Cristóbal Valenzuela, chief executive of Runway, which makes AI image and video tools.

He describes it like this: Picture an AI model as a machine with 1,000 dials. The goal is to train the machine to detect patterns and predict outcomes. To do this, you have to feed it reams of data and know which dials to adjust—and by how much.

The universe of people with the right touch is confined to those with uncanny intuition, genius-level smarts or the foresight (possibly luck) to go into AI many years ago, before it was all the rage.

As a venture-backed startup with about 120 employees, Runway doesn’t necessarily vie with Silicon Valley giants for the AI job market’s version of LeBron James. But when I spoke with Valenzuela recently, his company was advertising base salaries of up to $440,000 for an engineering manager and $490,000 for a director of machine learning.

A job listing like one of these might attract 2,000 applicants in a week, Valenzuela says, and there is a decent chance he won’t pick any of them. A lot of people who claim to be AI literate merely produce “workslop”—generic, low-quality material. He spends a lot of time reading academic journals and browsing GitHub portfolios, and recruiting people whose work impresses him.

In addition to an uncommon skill set, companies trying to win in the hypercompetitive AI arena are scouting for commitment bordering on fanaticism .

Daniel Park is seeking three new members for his nine-person startup. He says he will wait a year or longer if that’s what it takes to fill roles with advertised base salaries of up to $500,000.

He’s looking for “prodigies” willing to work seven days a week. Much of the team lives together in a six-bedroom house in San Francisco.

If this sounds like a lonely existence, Park’s team members may be able to solve their own problem. His company, Pickle, aims to develop personalised AI companions akin to Tony Stark’s Jarvis in “Iron Man.”

Overlooked

James Strawn wasn’t an AI early adopter, and the father of two teenagers doesn’t want to sacrifice his personal life for a job. He is beginning to wonder whether there is still a place for people like him in the tech sector.

He was laid off over the summer after 25 years at Adobe , where he was a senior software quality-assurance engineer. Strawn, 55, started as a contractor and recalls his hiring as a leap of faith by the company.

He had been an artist and graphic designer. The managers who interviewed him figured he could use that background to help make Illustrator and other Adobe software more user-friendly.

Looking for work now, he doesn’t see the same willingness by companies to take a chance on someone whose résumé isn’t a perfect match to the job description. He’s had one interview since his layoff.

“I always thought my years of experience at a high-profile company would at least be enough to get me interviews where I could explain how I could contribute,” says Strawn, who is taking foundational AI courses. “It’s just not like that.”

The trouble for people starting out in AI—whether recent grads or job switchers like Strawn—is that companies see them as a dime a dozen.

“There’s this AI arms race, and the fact of the matter is entry-level people aren’t going to help you win it,” says Matt Massucci, CEO of the tech recruiting firm Hirewell. “There’s this concept of the 10x engineer—the one engineer who can do the work of 10. That’s what companies are really leaning into and paying for.”

He adds that companies can automate some low-level engineering tasks, which frees up more money to throw at high-end talent.

It’s a dynamic that creates a few handsomely paid haves and a lot more have-nots.

MOST POPULAR

In the remote waters of Indonesia’s Anambas Islands, Bawah Reserve is redefining what it means to blend barefoot luxury with environmental stewardship.

With two waterfronts, bushland surrounds and a $35 million price tag, this Belongil Beach retreat could become Byron’s most expensive home ever.

Related Stories
Property
THE WORLD’S MOST EXPENSIVE AIRBNBS REVEALED & AUSTRALIA’S SURPRISE ENTRY
By Staff Writer 08/09/2025
Property
DWINDLING SUPPLY WILL DRIVE PREMIUM CBD RENTS
By Jeni O'Dowd 22/09/2025
Lifestyle
DIVE INTO LUXURY WITH FIJI’S CORAL GARDENER EXPERIENCE
By Jeni O'Dowd 02/09/2025
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop