Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-22-2010, 01:15 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,502,481 times
Reputation: 11081

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
While I agree that women entering the work force brought more money into the home, hence more spending power leading to increasing home values, surviving on one income is doable. My family lives on one income. It's tight, but it wouldn't be if we did not have two cars, two tvs with cable (dh has to have his package with HD and other cr*p), internet, PCs, cell phones and other bullsh*t expenses (wine, beer, eating out, doggy day care lol).
It didn't double the income--it halved it. Instead of one person making $40K a year, you ended up with two people making $20K a year. Employers had twice as many workers available, and could pay less for their labor. A glut of the market--basic economics, really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2010, 01:17 AM
 
30,855 posts, read 36,746,227 times
Reputation: 34384
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExcuses View Post
But that debt is their own fault. People purchase houses they cannot afford and buy automobiles they cannot afford. They live a lifestyle they cannot afford, then blame society because they have no money, lose their house, have their cars repo'd, can't send the kids to private schools, can't keep up with the Joneses.
That's kind of a yes/no answer. Yes, people do that. But the problem is, it creates problems even for frugal people. When the spendthrifts of the world do anything and everything to get into that cherished house, it drives up the cost of living for everyone else, including the frugal people.

We need to get back to a culture that values thrift and living below your means. That was the culture of the post WW2 era that began to erode in the mid 1960s, leading us up to the mess we're in today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 01:29 AM
 
30,855 posts, read 36,746,227 times
Reputation: 34384
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I am really of two minds about this issue. Its a difficult one. However, I have great sympathy today for a young person trying to go to college and establish themselves in a respectable career.

College tuition hasn't just gone up. Its exploded. Young people are not responsible for that debacle. I looked a little bit into this issue and I pretty much knew what I would find out. From 1978 to 2008, the cost of living in America (as measured by the consumer price index) increased by roughly 300% or 3X. Healthcare costs (which everyone says are way out of control) increased by 600% or 6X from 1978 to 2008. During this same period, the average tuition at a public university or college increased by 10X. In 2004, the average student at a public university paid just under $5000 a year for tuition. In 2008, the figure was about $6500. I paid less than $700 a year in tuition when I started school at a public university in 1977. The cost to educate my eighteen year old son (which me, my wife, and my son are sharing) is going to be over $5,000 a year.

Its fine to lecture young people about cutting expenses and some of this talk is clearly justified. There are many things today that would have considered luxuries yesterday (or were simply unavailable) that some young people claim they cannot live without. What has happened to college tuition though is unconscionable and not their fault.

Not all young people to college, but those who do and are truly trying to make something of themselves have a legitimate complaint. Its much harder to pay for higher education and these problems all took place while the Babyboomers and Generation X were on watch.
I agree 99% of what you say here. The only thing I take exception to is the thing about GenX being on watch. Depending on how you define it, the oldest members of GenX were born between 1961 and 1965 (depending on which definition you use). So the older members of GenX are only now beginning to assume key positions of power (ie President Obama). The younger members of GenX were born about 1981, so they will only be turning 30 this year and next.

All this stuff happened while the GI Generation (born between 1901 and 1924), Silent Generation (born between 1925 and 1942), and the Boomers (born between 1943 and 1960) were on watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 07:22 AM
 
19,045 posts, read 25,112,737 times
Reputation: 13484
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
It didn't double the income--it halved it. Instead of one person making $40K a year, you ended up with two people making $20K a year. Employers had twice as many workers available, and could pay less for their labor. A glut of the market--basic economics, really.
In the 70s I do not believe that was the case. Over all inflation does not happen over night. And it's far more complicated than women entering the work force. Simple economics is a misnomer, imo. I don't believe we lost manufacturing jobs because women entered the work force. As far as gluts go, eh, I don't know if this the case across the board either.

What happened with the housing bubble, for example, was far more complicated. Excessive demand, panic (from what I saw), freakish lending and presumptuous economic models played a larger role than a glut. It's now correcting and I don't think that's soley due to unemployment either. The bubble ocurred first and unemployment followed not the other way around. It was anything but simple.

As has been mentioned in this thread, take a look at typical living conditions back in the 60s. Taxes were very high IIRC, which does translate to less money, with an avg salary of 5k, and the standard middle-class home was ~800 sq ft, one car if that, and few toys. Even with the 500% difference between cost of living and salary, the same sitution in 2010 for an employed family with 50-60k is doable. We consume a lot and that plays a signficant role.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Western Washington
8,003 posts, read 11,682,473 times
Reputation: 19539
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
I agree with you. But you are leaving out some important facts. There's a 99% chance that it simply would not have been possible for your parents to be able to go into the kind of debt people go into today.

Credit cards simply weren't marketed or issued to low income people and college students. Same thing for car loans and mortgages. And even if you had a credit card, they weren't accepted everywhere like they are today (certainly not at the grocery stores). Often, the stores were open fewer hours and less likely to be open on Sundays. Now, the stores are open longer and you can buy stuff online 24/7. In short, there was a lot less temptation to overspend back then.

Put your parents as college students in today's environment, and I'm willing to bet they don't come out as well and give into at least some of those temptations.

Tuition was a lot lower then than today (adjusted for inflation). Minimum wages were higher than today (adjusted for inflation).

All that said, I definitely agree, we as a culture, need to find ways to reset our expectations and beat back the consumerism that is degrading the quality of our lives.
It all boils down to this....do you recklessly fall into the trap of that rampant consumerism and "allow" your quality of life to degrade under a mountain of debt?....or do you resist the temptation and go without. Just because credit cards are available, that does NOT mean that you have to give in to the temptation and get one. If you DO have a credit card, no one MAKES you buy things that you can do without! A credit card should only be used in a dire emergency.

We have a credit card, but we have rarely ever used it and we ARE under the $50,000 per year income bracket....AND have 6 people living under our roof. No one is happier than us, or more content. When we buy a piece of furniture, we buy it second hand and refinish it. We repurpose what we can, cook from scratch, do NOT stop at coffee stands, go out to eat at restaurants, etc. We never, ever go without what we need, but definitely have learned to NOT fall into the trap of "keeping up with the Joneses". The problem with the Joneses?... It's a LIE! The Joneses are poorer than the average Joe Blow!...because they've got 2nd (at least) mortgages on everything.....they don't actually OWN anything. If the Joneses lose their income, they lose everything, because they've bought everything on credit. No makee pmts, no havee anything. Good heavens it's all basic math here.

I have no respect for those living all-out on credit, behaving like irresponsible spoiled brats. It's all an illusion and can be snatched away just like THAT. The biggest share of people haven't a clue how to manage their money. They're too busy living for their wants in order to impress someone else. They're too afraid of "looking poor"....again, it's all an illusion. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,594,662 times
Reputation: 9975
25 years ago the interest rates banks are charging now were illegal, and you could deduct the interest from your taxes. As for looking poor, shopping at Slavemart leaves people looking like illegals. It isn't all the bfault of the young, their parents spent them into a hole and now leave them nothing but more debt.

Perhaps if we concentrate on the 40 cents of every dollar that is going to the top 5% we could stop oicking at each other
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 10:14 AM
 
14,302 posts, read 14,095,170 times
Reputation: 45421
It all boils down to this....do you recklessly fall into the trap of that rampant consumerism and "allow" your quality of life to degrade under a mountain of debt?....or do you resist the temptation and go without. Just because credit cards are available, that does NOT mean that you have to give in to the temptation and get one. If you DO have a credit card, no one MAKES you buy things that you can do without! A credit card should only be used in a dire emergency.

We have a credit card, but we have rarely ever used it and we ARE under the $50,000 per year income bracket....AND have 6 people living under our roof. No one is happier than us, or more content. When we buy a piece of furniture, we buy it second hand and refinish it. We repurpose what we can, cook from scratch, do NOT stop at coffee stands, go out to eat at restaurants, etc. We never, ever go without what we need, but definitely have learned to NOT fall into the trap of "keeping up with the Joneses". The problem with the Joneses?... It's a LIE! The Joneses are poorer than the average Joe Blow!...because they've got 2nd (at least) mortgages on everything.....they don't actually OWN anything. If the Joneses lose their income, they lose everything, because they've bought everything on credit. No makee pmts, no havee anything. Good heavens it's all basic math here.

I have no respect for those living all-out on credit, behaving like irresponsible spoiled brats. It's all an illusion and can be snatched away just like THAT. The biggest share of people haven't a clue how to manage their money. They're too busy living for their wants in order to impress someone else. They're too afraid of "looking poor"....again, it's all an illusion. LOL
.................................................. ..........................................

Look, I'm not saying that we should all be spendthrifts and that the type of economizing you are suggesting doesn't make some sense.

I am saying this: While economizing may be good for a family stop and think about what effect it would have on the economy as a whole if every family did all the things you suggest. Buy used furniture and refurnish it? I guess the furniture factories might as well shut down and lay off all their employees. Don't go out and eat at restaurants? I guess all those chains might just as well go out of business and layoff all their cooks, waitresses and hostesses. You didn't say this but I guess the implication is we should all buy used cars too. If this happens, all the automakers might as well shut down 50% of their production and layoff 50% of their employees. Don't buy as much from retail stores like Walmart? I guess 1/2 of retail stores might as well close.

Economists have a term for what you are describing. That term is the "paradox of thrift". Thrift maybe good for an individual. Its not good for a country that depends on the exchange of goods and services.

You think a credit card should only be used in an emergencies. Ok, what is your alternative? Most places won't let you write a check anymore. You could carry around cash in your wallet, but that's sort of risk too. You may lose it or have it stolen. I guess there's the debit card. I'm kind of stubborn there. I think its a device that works well for banks. I'm not convinced it works well for consumers.

Now, let me tell you what I think is a better way to live:

1. Use debt, but use it carefully. Its unrealistic to think you can buy a home without a mortgage. So, I recommend everyone get their credit in shape and get a mortgage at the lowest possible interest rate when they buy a home.

2. Have a credit card and pay it off TWICE a month. In fact, I think the term "credit card" is a bad word. It should be a "convenience card". That way you'll never pay a dime of interest. If you're like me, you also get free roundtrip flights around the country too by using it.

3. Buy a new car, but don't overpay for it. Consult Consumer Reports and other sources. Look for a true deal. We purchased a new Ford Focus for $14,500 about a year ago. New cars come with warranties and the latest safety features. They get better gas economy than older cars do.

4. Sometimes buying new appliances is truly the best option. They get more in the way of energy savings than older appliances do and they will last longer than a used item will. We have the same Maytag washer we purchased new when we got married in 1985.

5. Debt is a not a dirty word. Without debt, we wouldn't have a family income well into the six figure range. The key is using debt appropriately. Use it to buy a house. Use it to build a business. Use it to buy a car. use it to go to school in a field that will generate a decent income. If you look at virtually every person in this country who is a success story (not someone who just inherited money) almost every one of those people had the discipline to use debt wisely.

Debt is not used wisely by some. For that matter, others abuse alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or the right to keep firearms. I daresay the majority are responsible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,502,481 times
Reputation: 11081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
In the 70s I do not believe that was the case. Over all inflation does not happen over night. And it's far more complicated than women entering the work force. Simple economics is a misnomer, imo. I don't believe we lost manufacturing jobs because women entered the work force. As far as gluts go, eh, I don't know if this the case across the board either.

What happened with the housing bubble, for example, was far more complicated. Excessive demand, panic (from what I saw), freakish lending and presumptuous economic models played a larger role than a glut. It's now correcting and I don't think that's soley due to unemployment either. The bubble ocurred first and unemployment followed not the other way around. It was anything but simple.

As has been mentioned in this thread, take a look at typical living conditions back in the 60s. Taxes were very high IIRC, which does translate to less money, with an avg salary of 5k, and the standard middle-class home was ~800 sq ft, one car if that, and few toys. Even with the 500% difference between cost of living and salary, the same sitution in 2010 for an employed family with 50-60k is doable. We consume a lot and that plays a signficant role.
the workforce did not double overnight, and wages did not make a significant drop overnight either; it was gradual, over a period of time for both to occur. However, if tomorrow, it was decided that NO woman would work for pay, then salaries for the remaining men would double--overnight. Men would then be in high demand to perform those jobs now done by both genders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,307 posts, read 38,661,783 times
Reputation: 7184
The original question is interesting. A young, single kid can really get by just fine on about $35K in most parts of the nation. $3,000/month doesn't seem like much of a stretch for a young person who is willing to work hard and with the stripped-down expenses that single twentysomethings have, it's actually fairly high on the hog...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 11:30 AM
 
Location: New York, NY
917 posts, read 2,937,665 times
Reputation: 1044
I'm 25, moved out a week before my 18th birthday to go to college, and never looked back. I didn't even move home during summer break- I worked and paid for my own housing where I worked. After I graduated, I found my own housing, usually with at least 3 other roommates. It wasn't glamorous, but I did it. I make about $20,000 a year and live in NYC, which most people would say is impossible. I just have my priorities straight- rent, food, bills and my toys- cell phone, computer, etc. I lived in a neighborhood I could afford until I could afford better. A lot of people in my generation think they need lots of things when they could be self sufficient if only they didn't need $100 jeans. I don't have a lot of toys, but I am responsible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top