Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm thinking this isn't going to come out right but let me give it a whack...for instance: the middle class jobs used to be in manufacturing. A person could work at the factory for GM and make a very good living wage. That person could support a family, have health care, live in a good neighborhood, drive a decent car, even go on vacations!
The whole idea of money gives me a headache...especially when it is tied to education, health care, quality of life.
One of the problems, and I may be in the minority here is that too many people are going to college. The "establishment" (including our President) keep telling us that education is the key and we need to make college more affordable. Time magazine, a pub I normally despise, has an excellent article now that writes about a new look at vocational education, which almost disappeared for 30 years. There are many thousands of high paying jobs right now that do not require a college education but the jobs are unfilled because of a lack of skilled candidates.
We don't need more people borrowing $$$$ to go to college earning art history, English, or many other degrees that are not demanded by employers. That same person could go from high school to learn to be a machinist and be making $50K+ now. Graduating with a history degree, $100K in debt, and a $20K per year job is no path to middle class comfort.
The middle class you speak of (UAW worker) had nothing to do with an 18 year old person "chasing their dream" or "doing what they are passionate about" like so many people say is the right thing to do. Just because someone likes poetry doesn't mean they get to burden society with the cost of fulfilling their dream. The UAW worker didn't grow up dreaming of using a pneumatic tool to fasten the same bolt on a car 1000 times a day. That UAW worker put in the hours so he could get a decent living.
On the topic of this very long thread. There have always been rich people. And some spend their money in auspicious ways. We notice them more. Many rich people on the other hand are rather modest and don't need to show everyone how much money they have. Those people who have $1M homes pay $30K per year in property taxes. They are helping fund public education, build roads, pay for policemen. And their Mercedes doesn't cause any more road wear than the pickup driven by someone in a $200K home. That person in the $200K home only pays $3000 per year in property taxes - yet their two kids in school cost $9K per student per year.
I sort of agree, well...I mostly agree, in concept, but I also know that "eating right" costs more, and so it's understandably that you won't see many food stamp shoppers at whole foods. Instead, they are filling their basket at HEB with rotgut, high calorie junk food. Also, having less money is stressful and thus a lot of the prepackaged food becomes somewhat of a comfort drug for many poor people, which is why they are disproportionately fat and unhealthy compared to middle/upper income people.
I also agree that a determined lower income family can help their kids achieve academic success. But it isn't easy. When my oldest struggled in Algebra I simply signed her up at Mathnasium and that took care of that real quick. What's a single mom with a GED and no extra funds to do? I know, there are things we could think of (free after school tutoring maybe), but I'm just saying that I don't think I can judge that as being as easy to do as it is to say.
Steve
Steve, I see your point, but having more money doesn't mean that you will have less stress. I think people at any income level worry about money and comfort eating is an American malady that covers all income classes. People make poor eating choices not due to money but due to just making poor choices. Food stamps gives you the buying power to buy fruits and vegetables and whole grains, and sure the fruits and veggies aren't coming from Whole Paycheck, but they still provide nutrients. Kids eating junk food again is a society problem that affects many of nation's youth.
Also, you'd be surprised at what single parents can do if they have the will. My single divorced mother, on an executive secretary's paycheck (in New York City no less), provided me with afterschool tutoring, etc. Maybe I didn't go to each and every extracurricular there was, but I lacked for nothing. Digressing here, but I was accepted to the same universities that kids from the upper classes were accepted to and it wasn't due to them needing to meet any quotas. I do admit that having extra money allows kids to have extra luxuries...but that is what they are, luxuries. I do like having extra money, but just wanted to throw this out there...that financial security doesn't mean that we are more/less stressful or somehow better (for lack of a better word at the moment). We were content when we made less money and still feel the same level of contentment making more money.
One of the problems, and I may be in the minority here is that too many people are going to college. The "establishment" (including our President) keep telling us that education is the key and we need to make college more affordable. Time magazine, a pub I normally despise, has an excellent article now that writes about a new look at vocational education, which almost disappeared for 30 years. There are many thousands of high paying jobs right now that do not require a college education but the jobs are unfilled because of a lack of skilled candidates.
We don't need more people borrowing $$$$ to go to college earning art history, English, or many other degrees that are not demanded by employers. That same person could go from high school to learn to be a machinist and be making $50K+ now. Graduating with a history degree, $100K in debt, and a $20K per year job is no path to middle class comfort.
The middle class you speak of (UAW worker) had nothing to do with an 18 year old person "chasing their dream" or "doing what they are passionate about" like so many people say is the right thing to do. Just because someone likes poetry doesn't mean they get to burden society with the cost of fulfilling their dream. The UAW worker didn't grow up dreaming of using a pneumatic tool to fasten the same bolt on a car 1000 times a day. That UAW worker put in the hours so he could get a decent living.
On the topic of this very long thread. There have always been rich people. And some spend their money in auspicious ways. We notice them more. Many rich people on the other hand are rather modest and don't need to show everyone how much money they have. Those people who have $1M homes pay $30K per year in property taxes. They are helping fund public education, build roads, pay for policemen. And their Mercedes doesn't cause any more road wear than the pickup driven by someone in a $200K home. That person in the $200K home only pays $3000 per year in property taxes - yet their two kids in school cost $9K per student per year.
I very much agree with your sentiment, hoffdano. I was one of those people who would have finished with a fine arts degree and would have been in massive debt and making roughly $20K per year. I have my regrets for not finishing, but surprisingly it isn't because I hate what I currently do for a living. If anything, I have a new respect for what I do, because I am a skilled worker. There will always be a demand, wherever, for what I do, especially someone who is senior level and has worked in "big law". Of course, my dream wasn't to be what I am now. Truth was, my dream wasn't going to pay dividends for a while, while my "silver medal" occupation has paid much (it enabled me to own real estate, travel, etc.) I intend to pursue my love of writing, but as a hobby now on my nickel.
No, I have not tasked myself with judging others. I make no assumptions about the character of people who live in big houses. I just said that I like that piece of Navajo culture. It makes me think. I identify very much like Oldtoilet's message. I look at gigantic places, and feel that they are wasteful, but I don't say anything because it is all relative; some people could look at my way of life and say I'm wasteful, and they would be right. I don't know where the "bar" should be set for living our lives. Everyone has to make that judgement themselves. I know (sort of) where my own bar is, and I am often short. I notice that while you are accusing me of judging, you are also judging me. I imagine neither of us should be doing that.
You didn't read my post closely - I specifically said :
So, if you inherited an $800K home free and clear, you'd cut the utilities and let the County Foreclose on it?
If I inherited an $800k home, I would probably sell it and purchase a second home or two with the money. I'd prefer two $400k homes over one $800k one.
If that happened to me, I would sell it as quick as I could and buy a small house that didn't cost a fortune to maintain. My boss has a house valued at $1.5 mil here and he pays hundreds per month in utilities, landscaping, cleaning service etc. Believe it or not, a few of us wouldn't choose that lifestyle if you gave it to us.
I think steves point is why is the limit that you decided the right limit? There are a billion people in other countries that live in shacks. Until you give everything you own until you are iiving at their level, you have luxuries that other people will be envious of.
Why do you need more than one room?
Why do you need running water?
why do you need air conditioning?
Why do you need a car?
Im sure you can come up with reasons for why you have to have all those things, but they boil down to convenience, not life or death. They are luxuries as much as a 1M house is a luxury.
You are attacking a strawman because you don't have an argument. You are saying that by our logic that everyone should live in poverty and both you and I both know the flaws in your logic.
I have the same ivy league quality education as them and yes I have the same earning potential as them. There were many points in my life that were decisions between family and career and I always chose family. So my income is not as high as the 1M+ crowd, but it's because of quality of life decisions I've made over my life.
The difference is I want to make a difference in the world and not consume, consume, consume. I don't buy into the "you must keep upgrading your lifestyle as you gain greater income". Instead, I believe that we each need to decide what we really need in life and our lifestyle should fit that. I've already obtained the house and lifestyle I've always wanted since I was a child, so there's no need to keep getting a bigger house because I know I wouldn't be happy with the extra responsibilities that such a monstrosity has. I personally view such homes as chains and shackles, there's always something going on with those homes, it really is a money pit in many ways, you always have something to attend to.
I think Warren Buffett's approach to riches probably best represents mine. I believe I read he has a $750k house somewhere. It probably is a nice liveable home, not some sterilized McMansion. He typifies a philosophy more in line with mine.
You are attacking a strawman because you don't have an argument. You are saying that by our logic that everyone should live in poverty and both you and I both know the flaws in your logic.
I have the same ivy league quality education as them and yes I have the same earning potential as them. There were many points in my life that were decisions between family and career and I always chose family. So my income is not as high as the 1M+ crowd, but it's because of quality of life decisions I've made over my life.
The difference is I want to make a difference in the world and not consume, consume, consume. I don't buy into the "you must keep upgrading your lifestyle as you gain greater income". Instead, I believe that we each need to decide what we really need in life and our lifestyle should fit that. I've already obtained the house and lifestyle I've always wanted since I was a child, so there's no need to keep getting a bigger house because I know I wouldn't be happy with the extra responsibilities that such a monstrosity has. I personally view such homes as chains and shackles, there's always something going on with those homes, it really is a money pit in many ways, you always have something to attend to.
I think Warren Buffett's approach to riches probably best represents mine. I believe I read he has a $750k house somewhere. It probably is a nice liveable home, not some sterilized McMansion. He typifies a philosophy more in line with mine.
Nope, not a strawman. And he didnt suggest everyone should live in poverty. What he did suggest is that this is all relative. If someone earns $1M+/year, has substantial savings, contributes substantially through taxes and charity to society, owning a $800k-1.2MM house is not necessarily irresponsible, excessive, "comsuming consuming consuming" as you suggest.
This reminds me of the hypocrisy of the vegetarian crowd, walking around in the their leather shoes...or the environmental crowd eating their hamburgers. Cows put off more methane and destructive properties for the environment than anything else.
My point is, it's easy to "create a cause" for the sake of creating one... a sort of philisophical elitism...but the reality is the the argument falls apart based on relativism. I too tend to follow the Dave Ramsey/Warren Buffet way of life, but neither live in huts either.
What do Ivy League schools have to do with this? And speaking of false logic, implied in your post is that one cannot have a rich family balanced life and also make a bunch of money... the two dont have to be mutually exclusive, and in many cases arent.
The difference is I want to make a difference in the world and not consume, consume, consume. I don't buy into the "you must keep upgrading your lifestyle as you gain greater income". Instead, I believe that we each need to decide what we really need in life and our lifestyle should fit that. I've already obtained the house and lifestyle I've always wanted since I was a child, so there's no need to keep getting a bigger house because I know I wouldn't be happy with the extra responsibilities that such a monstrosity has. I personally view such homes as chains and shackles, there's always something going on with those homes, it really is a money pit in many ways, you always have something to attend to.
I think Warren Buffett's approach to riches probably best represents mine. I believe I read he has a $750k house somewhere. It probably is a nice liveable home, not some sterilized McMansion. He typifies a philosophy more in line with mine.
Many people with relatively expensive homes have not upgraded their lifestyle and -- like Warren Buffet -- simply have residences that have appreciated in value due to their location.
For example, I know someone who has a half-acre lot two-miles west of the Capitol that has been in the family for close to 90-years. That piece of land alone is worth $800,000. The home on that land is a whopping 1,700 square feet. Please explain to me how this is a "monstrosity" or "sterilized McMansion". For all you know, this person consumes less than you yet contributes multiple times the property taxes to our city, county, schools, and health district. If this is the case -- and assuming an equal level of charity and volunteerism -- I can easily argue that this individual is making more of a "difference in the world" (at least at the local-level) than you are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You didn't read my post closely - I specifically said :
