The real problem is most Americans spend too much and don't save at all

[f_m]

Originally Posted by leftydan6

Yeah, cause leaving a city where you have a job for a city where you don't is REALLY good for your economic situation...and what about the older people who saw the cost of living skyrocket beyond their retirement savings? Cities aren't designed to hold only rich professionals, they would not survive that way. What do you say about the doctor who has his assistant making $35,000 a year? SF has a lot of jobs, problem is, most just don't pay enough. Detroit is cheap to live in, but there are no jobs. See the problem with your little "just move away" plan?

Depends, the Forbes "recession proof" cities list earlier this year has mostly cities that are lower cost of living than California's major cities (aside from 1 CA city it listed).
America's Recession-Proof Cities - Forbes.com

The housing cost in places in the midwest can be significantly cheaper, and housing is the largest cost of a budget.

I didn't imply someone should move and expect to find a job when they get there. I only moved when I had a job at the new location.

[f_m]

When I lived in the LA area and made about that much (mid $30's), I was spending less than what you are listing by keeping a tight budget. If I needed to get more money, then sometimes I would work extra hours on other jobs.

Also, $35k isn't above average for the area, even in 2000 it was higher than that.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/bookof...rage_wage.html

I added my numbers in the brackets.

Originally Posted by leftydan6

How much do you make a year?
In a city like San Diego, a person can make $35,000 a year (which is above average) and still be in pretty bad financial shape. After taxes, that $35,000 is about $24,000, or $2,000 a month. Look below at a hypothetical financially-conservative person living in San Diego:
A 1 bedroom apartment costs at least $1,000 a month, [$800-900 at the time]
Gas and Electric costs an additional $100, [utils ~$60]
add in another $100 for basic cable/internet, [~$70, even now I don't pay $100, this is the first thing to cut in a budget]
Car costs about $200 a month (a crappy car) [this will get you a $5k car over 3 years of payment, not that crappy]
Gas is about $40 a week per person right now, so make that $160 a month [maybe it was around this]
Food for will be about $10 a day, or $300 a month [~$150]
Car Insurance costs $85 a month (CHEAP insurance) [around this much, nearly full coverage]
Medical Insurance costs $100 a month (if company helps cover costs) [company paid]
Right there, without ANYTHING at all frivolous, and most things being conservative estimates, an average San Diego resident will be spending $2,045 while earning $2,000. How can they not go into debt?

So, I was basically doing this for a few years without going into debt. Cable/internet at $100 a month is out if you don't have the money. $300 doesn't have to be spent on food, again, if you're on a budget that has to be controlled.

[f_m]

Originally Posted by GeminiGal

Like I keep saying ... now is not the time to move. Don't move if you do not have a secure, well paying job lined up, and don't think that that job is going to be "secure". Take plenty of cash in case of job loss. Be prepared for all financial ramifications if you move in this economy. I am amazed at the folks that constantly blow me off as if I'm "raining on their parade". Do these folks not realize what is happening right now?

I agree that if you don't have any job prospects somewhere else, you don't just want to move and expect to find something. However, where I live now and where I grew up, the housing costs are about 3x different. That's a huge difference when it comes to budget.

[floridasandy]

Originally Posted by hindsight2020

You're missing the point. Government control of economic vehicles does not automatically equate to increased govt spending, and to be honest, that's the least of your problems as a "citizen". How's the debt-based consumption economy working out for us lately? Not so great. Your cheerleading for Laissez-faire motivated economic escapism fails to address that the government is not your friend NOT because they're inherently evil, they are not your friend because YOUR complacency allowed the private enterprise oligarchy of a few white men smarter than you to monopolize control over the fundamental functions of what the Republic was supposed to do for you. The irony of your self-imposed economic slavery is so clever it actually hurts.

People moan and groan about the paradox of living a more frugal life and the detrimental effect that has for the collective in a service, and more fundamentally, a debt-as-currency based economy. Well, it has to happen, let it go. The finance firms and international bankers do NOT want this to happen; they asked Rockefeller in 2007 what his thoughts were on Ron Paul's assertion that the Fed needed to be abolished and he said he didn't think it was that big of an issue and frankly hadn't even heard of the guy...Hmm, you still believe in Santa too?

So they prey on your visceral fears of civil unrest and general inability to enjoy the "high life" of McMansions and borrowed time and money, to keep you cheerleading for the free-for-them system we currently work under. If I were to tell you the abolition of the Federal Reserve, the centralization of money creation to government and away from private hands, was in fact better for the market and our democratic desires, you'd call me a socialist, as they expect you to. You know who championed that idea? It wasn't Ché Guevara, it was Thomas effing Jefferson my friend.

The service economy needs to die. The transition period will be painful. Unless you're one of the aforementioned members of financial oligarchy, said transition is actually good for you, while current trading markets are NOT. So re-read history until it makes sense to ya, government is not the source of all evil, govt only looks bad to you because it currently does not represent you, but that's not their fault, it's yours for letting those smarter than you hoodwink ya into believing that their self-interest would trickle down to your self-interest. Yes, stop spending on what you don't need anyways. Save money for emergencies. Stop believing in supply-side economics as your moral compass and source of attitudes towards life and your fellow men. Only then we have a snowballs chance to re-take government and have it work for US again. Regulation or de-regulation is irrelevant so long as it works on the current rig. The rig needs resetting, quarreling between those who believe in more govt involvement versus less involvement are missing the point entirely, kinda like the election (and voting under the electoral college for that matter) was an irrelevancy. Government is a great thing when they're actually working for ya instead of against ya (again, YOUR fault).

throughout the entire new deal period unemployment was still in the double digits until the war. the war got us out of the depression, not the government. (i am not advocating a war here!)

[Pug Life]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

throughout the entire new deal period unemployment was still in the double digits until the war. the war got us out of the depression, not the government. (i am not advocating a war here!)

While it's true that the war ended the depression, the New Deal slowed the collapse to the utter destruction of the American economy. The New Deal also paved the way (literally) for our econonmy to boom later. The infrastructure built during the New Deal was the basis of the booming economy post-war. But clearly, this time, a war isn't really helping us. Unless we just send millions of young men (and women) to die in Iran or China just so there are fewer people to take the jobs, which will increase salaries. Or we can start deporting anyone with an IQ lower than 100, that would make our economy more efficient...or even better, just send all the poor people to Mexico and Canada, then we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore!