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.
Before buying my house my average monthly cost to live was right around $900. That included everything. Rent. Car insurance, & MX. Food. Clothes. Cell phone. Utilities. Everything. I saved the rest. This was with a "roommate", my girlfriend at the time, splitting housing, utils, food, etc.
I make a lot more now (just got done working two days of over time for $1500) but yeah, I saved everything I could.
After I got my SS report back after filing taxes last year I did the math. Added up all my W-2's and divided by years. Averaged out to around $15/hr. I didn't have the money I have now back then (both my retirement accounts doubled since then) but here are the numbers.
$29,000/year average ($15/hr). Six years. Assuming the 15% loss in taxes (that's probably right) minus $10,800 for cost to live ~$14k/yr in savings. Times 6 years ~ $80k in savings total. Of course I had stuff I bought and it was a few thousand less than that but there you have it. In the past year the market has been good and I was able to save more, so it's increased significantly. But it wouldn't have increased had I not saved initially and put it in the market.
Not trying to nit pick, but that's an unbalanced offering. Not a single mx item on the aforementioned vehicle (brakes: 300 A/C compressor: 900 et al), not a single travel emergency (n/a for you with jumpseat priviledges, but still), not a single medical visit (assuming uninsured for the whole time)? In six years? Come on. Good luck isn't financial planning. Downpayment on that house? $900 a month is pretty skosh to live on. Anything below $20/day on food for two and you're straight up missing the trees for the forest (ramen noodles style food budgeting for 6 years will straight up kill your physical conditioning). That alone would be 400/mo for two. I can see it done if everybody had the benefit of boomerang parenting, which in America is translated into "roomating", since the classical western-european/south american social construct of two generations to a household is still viewed pejoratively here, though not for long . But, with the pervasive condition of job nomadism in this country, the median simply doesn't have the benefit of friendly familiar faces to subsidize their housing and sustenance costs everywhere they move.
Yeah I got close to that standard back in college, but six years of that post-college? That's not merely cutting coupons and doing without an unlimited cell phone plan, that's-20-mexicans-to-a-house-and-pray-you-don't-get-a-bad-cold-this-winter living. What's 80K in the bank worth to you? Also, 6 years of continuous employment is not typical in private America, I'm afraid. A single 6-month stint of unemployment would *********r averages up.
The point of my reply is not to disprove your personal experience (good on ya for being able to accrue a healthy emergency savings ) but to highlight its non-typical AND subsidized nature. Throwing out that you averaged 30K/yr is a misleading attempt at asserting everybody making below median individual income should be capable of saving 80K in the bank. Your example was possible under the subsidy of non-standard conditions. Mexicans living 20 to a house save over 70% of their net income, which leave your savings percentiles in the dust, but they got nothing to show for it. In physics we call that work= force* displacement. You can apply all your energy until it consumes you, but if the displacement equals zero (i.e. mexican living 20 to a house//americans rooming with perma-stranger "acquaintances" aka not meeting safety needs) then work= zero. I'm not even tackling the notion that you have seen increases in wage between year one and year six. We all assume this happens naturally, but that is far from a guarantee. Which is why when you place that tap-out salary at the levels you had in the beginning, which would be the case for the perma-sub-median wage earner, now you're effectively suggesting the $900/mo standard for the rest of your life. 14K * 30 years (yes 30, gen y ain't getting a job 'til mid 20s as a collective, nobody is making full up money at 22) = 420K. Big whoop. I'm not even going to dignify the casino element (invest in the market mantra); so by the time you're 80 you were able to live the same duplex standard for 30 years without having to toil like a mexican, as you did in the 30 prior. Completely facetious of a proposition. Nobody does that, you, me or the other guy. You'd never propose your 6-year example with a straight face if you were faced with the reality of having to live on 900/mo for the rest of your productive life, scenario which can easily be attained by stints of unemployment, lack of parental or "roomate" COL subsidy, addition of children and real-life contingencies such as yearly emergencies, medical complications et al. All within the realm of possibilities for the 25% to 75% percentile of the population.
At some point you're gonna have to tap into that 80K to self-fulfill. I'm not ashamed of saying that I seek more than subsistence out of my life, and that invariably, that monetized labor value will have to go into non-essentials in order for me to achieve the mental state necessary to justify doing all the labor required to pay for food and housing. Simply stated, attaining the monetized labor value necessary to JUST attain food and housing is NOT motivation enough to pursue it in the first place (which means I become unproductive, since it doesn't get me what I want out of life). This is the REAL poverty me and people like randomdude allude to. Furthermore, attempting to equate the notion of self-actualization to a frivolous purchase of a proverbial iphone is merely deflecting the point.
If 20 to a house is what awaits the american society to attain debt-free food shelter and clothing, let's just say so. Let's not pretend that there is a synergistic effect of simpleton frugality as the multiplying and reedeming quality to a life of stagnant wages and increase income disparity between the capital holding class and the proletariat.
Just sayin'....
(The same is true of suggesting everybody work consistently harder to attain the "duplex standard". Your numbers prove the thesis I've posted about before on here that America is on its way to becoming Brazil.
Not trying to nit pick, but that's an unbalanced offering. Not a single mx item on the aforementioned vehicle (brakes: 300 A/C compressor: 900 et al),
Did 'em myself, (brakes, a/c, etc.) drove both cars without a/c and when I moved into a house with garage put a new compressor/drier/expan valve in my wife's Jetta for around $350 including the recharge at a shop. Average yearly cost in car mx for each car runs sub-$250/yr. These are 12 and 15 year old vehicles. Mine needs a transmission, I bought a car with a bad engine for $250 and will be swapping the tranny out. It's basically free after parting out the car.
Quote:
not a single travel emergency (n/a for you with jumpseat priviledges, but still),
True, however working in the industry also has negatives. I pack my food for 4 days at a time (breakfast, lunch, dinner). When most business people travel they'll spend $10-$20 per meal, I spend that on 4 days away from home.
Quote:
not a single medical visit (assuming uninsured for the whole time)? In six years?
I had insurance for 4 years of that. Never used it too much but it was good, $15 co-pays. When I didn't have insurance I had an in-grown toenail that was removed for $180. We did spend $2k last year on my dog though.
Quote:
Anything below $20/day on food for two and you're straight up missing the trees for the forest (ramen noodles style food budgeting for 6 years will straight up kill your physical conditioning).
We used to eat on around $100/month for both of us. Lots of pasta and sauce. When you're only making $17k/yr as I was you can't spend that much money on food, you do what you have to. Long term it will kill you but short term, what alternative is there?
Quote:
Your example was possible under the subsidy of non-standard conditions. Mexicans living 20 to a house save over 70% of their net income, which leave your savings percentiles in the dust, but they got nothing to show for it.
I'm not sure I follow. How is it subsidized? I lived with my girlfriend who is now my wife. Hardly 20 folks in an apartment.
Mexicans can do that for a year or two, pool their money, and buy a small apartment or 4-plex. Or buy equipment for a lawn care company. I've seen both when I was in Florida. They know its temporary.
Quote:
I'm not even tackling the notion that you have seen increases in wage between year one and year six. We all assume this happens naturally, but that is far from a guarantee.
Well sure both most college educated people don't make $7500 their first year out, or $17k their second year, and even $27k their third year, or $30k their 4th year, etc. etc. That is my salary progression. I didn't make crap for money. It's easy to go up when you are so low to start.
Quote:
Which is why when you place that tap-out salary at the levels you had in the beginning, which would be the case for the perma-sub-median wage earner, now you're effectively suggesting the $900/mo standard for the rest of your life. 14K * 30 years (yes 30, gen y ain't getting a job 'til mid 20s as a collective, nobody is making full up money at 22) = 420K. Big whoop.
Some big words but I think I understand what you are saying. If I were going to make that my entire life I probably wouldn't live like I did - you might be right to an extent. I don't know.
Quote:
You'd never propose your 6-year example with a straight face if you were faced with the reality of having to live on 900/mo for the rest of your productive life, scenario which can easily be attained by stints of unemployment, lack of parental or "roomate" COL subsidy, addition of children and real-life contingencies such as yearly emergencies, medical complications et al. All within the realm of possibilities for the 25% to 75% percentile of the population.
Well considering being forced to live on $900/month means an hourly wage of around $6.50 before taxes I don't see why someone making that money would be having kids, wouldn't live with at least one roommate (probably more like 2 or 3) etc. They will get free medical care. I limited myself to the $900/month. Plus lets be honest people making $6.50/hr for their entire life...really? My sister just graduated college, took her 5.5 years, almost failed out twice, and graduated last year into a crap job market making $25k as an admin.
Quote:
At some point you're gonna have to tap into that 80K to self-fulfill.
For me it was a means to an end. That money allows me to buy a house. It allows me a safety net. I've stopped saving as much and starting buying. I still work my butt off though, I'll sleep at home 4 days this month. I'll work 14+ hour days sleeping less than 8 in between. I'm young(ish), it'll pay dividends down the road, and I hope to advance further in the industry. To do that it meant going from 19 days off to commuting to just 12 (so really like 8). But to get there I'll make a ton of sacrifices most folks with college degrees wouldn't wish on their worst enemy.
Quote:
This is the REAL poverty me and people like randomdude allude to. Furthermore, attempting to equate the notion of self-actualization to a frivolous purchase of a proverbial iphone is merely deflecting the point.
Seriously? That is real poverty? I hope you are joking.
Before buying my house my average monthly cost to live was right around $900. That included everything. Rent. Car insurance, & MX. Food. Clothes. Cell phone. Utilities. Everything. I saved the rest. This was with a "roommate", my girlfriend at the time, splitting housing, utils, food, etc.
So, what you are saying is you, for practical purposes, had a dual income household for 6 years. You realize that roommate situations are rarely that stable dont you? My ex-wife was just in a "roommate" situation, and left it 30k in debt. Why? Because the people on the lease with her didnt pay for anything, ate her food, etc. Beyond things like this, you have to worry about roommates just randomly leaving if they arent on the lease, stealing your ****, doing damage to your property or the building you are responsible for, killing you in your sleep, etc.
In addition, I was going to go in to similiar points that hindsight made, but I think he addressed them well.
Suggesting that living "20 Mexicans to a house", is outright ludicrous. The US has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the whole world. There is absolutely no reason why our poor, and lower middle classes should be forced in to abysmal living conditions, so that the rich can have more off our backs.
Whats next? We cant afford to live 20 to a house in an apartment, we should start living 20 to a tin roof shanty in order to "save"?
So, what you are saying is you, for practical purposes, had a dual income household for 6 years. You realize that roommate situations are rarely that stable dont you? My ex-wife was just in a "roommate" situation, and left it 30k in debt. Why? Because the people on the lease with her didnt pay for anything, ate her food, etc. Beyond things like this, you have to worry about roommates just randomly leaving if they arent on the lease, stealing your ****, doing damage to your property or the building you are responsible for, killing you in your sleep, etc.
No I don't believe what you are saying. There is no way a roommate will leave you $30k in debt unless you put the rent on your CC or take out a loan for it and let it go on for several years. You will long be evicted before it ever gets to that point. I guess I work with folks that are more mature than you. Plus you won't ever get screwed if you rent a room vs. putting your name on the lease. If your name is on the lease you get to live for free or significantly reduced rent, I thought that was the unwritten rule. It is in my industry.
Dual income yes BUT we had separate accounts. All the money I saved was my money (at the time...now it's hers ). In the same way two roommates who have a dual income house. It was no different. Except she made less than me so I had to subsidize her for things like student loans, uninsured medical costs, etc.
One guy I know bought an RV and lives in it, $200/month in lot rent and the RV was $6k I believe. No roommates to worry about.
Quote:
Suggesting that living "20 Mexicans to a house", is outright ludicrous. The US has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the whole world. There is absolutely no reason why our poor, and lower middle classes should be forced in to abysmal living conditions, so that the rich can have more off our backs.
Whats next? We cant afford to live 20 to a house in an apartment, we should start living 20 to a tin roof shanty in order to "save"?
Well I never suggested that, ask the other guy he is the one who suggested it.
A lot of the rich did what I did for a long time, made sacrifices, and plowed their money into their businesses. The poor just spend it on things like iPhones and $200 shoes, or $500 purses. I see it every day on the employee bus. True story, there is an F/A her who at most makes around $18,000/year driving a new Ford Mustang. How much sense does that make? She thinks I am poor because I have a 15 year old station wagon...
We used to eat on around $100/month for both of us. Lots of pasta and sauce. When you're only making $17k/yr as I was you can't spend that much money on food, you do what you have to. Long term it will kill you but short term, what alternative is there?
What kind of an answer is that? So, if you are poor, it should be expected that you suffer a diet of poor nutrition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
I'm not sure I follow. How is it subsidized? I lived with my girlfriend who is now my wife. Hardly 20 folks in an apartment.
I think hindsight was pointing out that your living expenses were subsidized by adding more people to share in the total expenses. This significantly decreases standard of living as the trade off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Mexicans can do that for a year or two, pool their money, and buy a small apartment or 4-plex. Or buy equipment for a lawn care company. I've seen both when I was in Florida. They know its temporary.
Yeah, because all Mexicans living 20 to a house own thriving lawn care businesses, and only stay in that condition 2 years. The truth is, most immigrants to this country are poor years and decades after they arrive here. They do not all build service companies that they turn in to multimillion dollar enterprises by the sweat of their brow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Well sure both most college educated people don't make $7500 their first year out, or $17k their second year, and even $27k their third year, or $30k their 4th year, etc. etc. That is my salary progression. I didn't make crap for money. It's easy to go up when you are so low to start.
Actually, that seems very similiar to my salary progression. The odd thing is, if you made these totals your first four years, you would have had to average over 46k your 5th and 6th years to average 29k, as you said. Thats about 10k more then I make a year, hardly "similiar to what I make". So, which lie do you want to fess up to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Seriously? That is real poverty? I hope you are joking.
Poverty is relative to the society. If your country has a GDP per capita of $2,000, then, poverty would probably be living 35 to a shanty with no clean water. If its near 50k, like the US, poverty is living multiple families to a single family dwelling, or not having access to adequatley nutritious food.
As I always said, I would be happier living in a shack, if my boss only had a stucco one bedroom house, then living in a one bedroom apartment with a roommate, while my boss has 6 houses, and a car that costs more then Ill make in 3 years.
What kind of an answer is that? So, if you are poor, it should be expected that you suffer a diet of poor nutrition?
Yep. Or grow your own food. Whatever you need to do. You're poor, you have to live that lifestyle. That is one motivation for not being poor.
Quote:
I think hindsight was pointing out that your living expenses were subsidized by adding more people to share in the total expenses. This significantly decreases standard of living as the trade off.
OK....and? You're poor, you have to do what you have to do. Seriously I don't see your point here.
Quote:
Yeah, because all Mexicans living 20 to a house own thriving lawn care businesses, and only stay in that condition 2 years. The truth is, most immigrants to this country are poor years and decades after they arrive here. They do not all build service companies that they turn in to multimillion dollar enterprises by the sweat of their brow.
I have no idea how many go on to run their own businesses. But the business owner rate for immigrants is much higher than for American born citizens, I would suspect.
Quote:
Actually, that seems very similiar to my salary progression. The odd thing is, if you made these totals your first four years, you would have had to average over 46k your 5th and 6th years to average 29k, as you said. Thats about 10k more then I make a year, hardly "similiar to what I make". So, which lie do you want to fess up to?
Dude it's on average. AVERAGE. I thought you were an accountant?
Whether someone makes $29k for 6 years or $7500 $17000 $27000 $30000 $38000 $55000 for 6 years what is the difference? FWIW 2009 was much less because I took a large paycut. It's all the same amount of money in the end. In fact it's less because you lose a lot more to taxes.
Quote:
As I always said, I would be happier living in a shack, if my boss only had a stucco one bedroom house, then living in a one bedroom apartment with a roommate, while my boss has 6 houses, and a car that costs more then Ill make in 3 years.
Yeah and my 6 bosses/owners made half a billion two years ago on a stock deal. Cry me a river.
No I don't believe what you are saying. There is no way a roommate will leave you $30k in debt unless you put the rent on your CC or take out a loan for it and let it go on for several years.
This is what happens when you make $8.15 an hour for less then 40 hours a week, have no medical insurance, and live with 3 roommates who were supposed to "subsidize" the expenses, and didnt. How much do you think, about, it takes for 4 people to live in a given year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
You will long be evicted before it ever gets to that point.
You will only be evicted if you dont pay the rent. The landlord doesnt care how you come up with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
If your name is on the lease you get to live for free or significantly reduced rent, I thought that was the unwritten rule. It is in my industry.
Have you ever actually dealt with a tenant that isnt practically related to you? You really have no clue how it works do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Dual income yes BUT we had separate accounts. All the money I saved was my money (at the time...now it's hers ). In the same way two roommates who have a dual income house. It was no different. Except she made less than me so I had to subsidize her for things like student loans, uninsured medical costs, etc.
Its actually a lot different. Please do not try to equate staying with a significant other to a roommate who you probably barely know. I lived with my g/f, now fiance, for the better part of two years, and I know for a fact how we cover each others backs is FAR closer to a married team, then I would ever be with any stranger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
One guy I know bought an RV and lives in it, $200/month in lot rent and the RV was $6k I believe. No roommates to worry about.
Again, suggesting substandard housing as an alternative to being paid a living wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Well I never suggested that, ask the other guy he is the one who suggested it.
Yes you did. You suggested picking up roommates as a way to save on living expenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
A lot of the rich did what I did for a long time, made sacrifices, and plowed their money into their businesses. The poor just spend it on things like iPhones and $200 shoes, or $500 purses. I see it every day on the employee bus.
Actually, most of the rich, came from rich backgrounds. They had good connections, the best education, and ready investors. The people who you know who started poor, and are rich, either are very old, and came from a different generation (most of them are dead), or, they are just a tiny microscopic fraction of those who were born poor. Seventy percent of all people born in the first income quintile (the lowest), never get past the second quintile (the second lowest), in their complete life time. Most of the rest of the 30% end up in the third quintile, which is just solid middle class.
As for the poor spending it on Iphones and $200 shoes, my Mom grew up poor in upstate redneck New York, and never had anything new until she moved out at age 16. She shared the same pants with her brother, and frequently had nothing to eat or utilities.
My dad grew up poor on a farm, and he had a slightly better situation, but not much different.
My brother, sister and I, grew up very low middle class, and my mother made most of our clothes up until about age 10. We got one pair of shoes per year, and they were always from the discount rack at Kmart.
I have been poor or very low middle class since I graduated college and moved out, and Ive already shared with you my life.
So, I think thats pretty stereotypical. The poor are not just wasting every free dollar on frivolous things, they are actually struggling to get by.
Yep. Or grow your own food. Whatever you need to do. You're poor, you have to live that lifestyle. That is one motivation for not being poor.
I always thought growing food required land and tools.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
OK....and? You're poor, you have to do what you have to do. Seriously I don't see your point here.
Because it shouldnt be neccessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Dude it's on average. AVERAGE. I thought you were an accountant?
Whether someone makes $29k for 6 years or $7500 $17000 $27000 $30000 $38000 $55000 for 6 years what is the difference? FWIW 2009 was much less because I took a large paycut. It's all the same amount of money in the end. In fact it's less because you lose a lot more to taxes.
Well, the difference is you were comparing your "average" to my top income. The difference is better then 25k over the six years. In addition, income placement is also important. If you were placing, X percent of your income in the stock market, a person who made a bigger bulk of their money in 2008, would be better off then someone who had the same amount distributed over the whole 6 years.
You don't feel like you're getting your fair share? That's so sad for you. What are you going to do about it? Wallowing in self pity and whining endlessly on C-D isn't going to get you anywhere. Take all that pent-up anger and put it toward figuring out your next steps, which should include positioning yourself for a promotion or at least proving you're worth more money to your employer. You've got the living under your means thing down pat, which makes for a good start. It's your cocky and dismissive attitude that's holding you back.
You hit the nail on the head fc!
Randomdude...IMO, you are one of the smartest people posting on city data forums. Additionally, you are very well spoken. I enjoy rading your posts becasue you make many good points that make alot of sense to me. BUT...you are going to stay poor until you change your attitude and stop the whining. You got so much going for you. Cop to it and rise above your self imposed poverty rut!
This is what happens when you make $8.15 an hour for less then 40 hours a week, have no medical insurance, and live with 3 roommates who were supposed to "subsidize" the expenses, and didnt. How much do you think, about, it takes for 4 people to live in a given year?
I'm done with this debate. You obviously have no backbone and will let people run over you, and live for free while you pay for everything. I can't make you see the light and change your personality. Sorry bro.
Good luck, hope your situation improves.
BTW the guy living in an RV is making in the neighborhood of $75k-$85k/yr.
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.
. But, with the pervasive condition of job nomadism in this country, the median simply doesn't have the benefit of friendly familiar faces to subsidize their housing and sustenance costs everywhere they move.
) but to highlight its non-typical AND subsidized nature. Throwing out that you averaged 30K/yr is a misleading attempt at asserting everybody making below median individual income should be capable of saving 80K in the bank. Your example was possible under the subsidy of non-standard conditions. Mexicans living 20 to a house save over 70% of their net income, which leave your savings percentiles in the dust, but they got nothing to show for it. In physics we call that work= force* displacement. You can apply all your energy until it consumes you, but if the displacement equals zero (i.e. mexican living 20 to a house//americans rooming with perma-stranger "acquaintances" aka not meeting safety needs) then work= zero. I'm not even tackling the notion that you have seen increases in wage between year one and year six. We all assume this happens naturally, but that is far from a guarantee. Which is why when you place that tap-out salary at the levels you had in the beginning, which would be the case for the perma-sub-median wage earner, now you're effectively suggesting the $900/mo standard for the rest of your life. 14K * 30 years (yes 30, gen y ain't getting a job 'til mid 20s as a collective, nobody is making full up money at 22) = 420K. Big whoop. I'm not even going to dignify the casino element (invest in the market mantra); so by the time you're 80 you were able to live the same duplex standard for 30 years without having to toil like a mexican, as you did in the 30 prior. Completely facetious of a proposition. Nobody does that, you, me or the other guy. You'd never propose your 6-year example with a straight face if you were faced with the reality of having to live on 900/mo for the rest of your productive life, scenario which can easily be attained by stints of unemployment, lack of parental or "roomate" COL subsidy, addition of children and real-life contingencies such as yearly emergencies, medical complications et al. All within the realm of possibilities for the 25% to 75% percentile of the population. 
). In the same way two roommates who have a dual income house. It was no different. Except she made less than me so I had to subsidize her for things like student loans, uninsured medical costs, etc.
