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 think a major problem is because there is not enough jobs to keep up with the population growth, especially in this last decade. You have the older generation getting laid off and looking for jobs to make ends meet and then an outpour of recently college graduates trying to look for a job to start their single life.
Also, generally speaking, the younger generations we have now are just ill-equipped to tackle on society. We all heard from our parents how they worked when they were 16, 17, etc and basically independent by 18. Yet a chunk of the 18 year olds nowadays are still dependent on their parents. Could be due to parenting or the shift in expectations of our children.
Finally, I think a lot of the younger generations take longer to mature than the older generations, for some strange reason...
IMHO the problem with single income families has been created by the economic and financial policies set by the collusion of Washington and Wall Street to enhance short term profit by increasing low end taxes (Social Security etc.) and driving down low end wages with a combination of automation, outsourcing and legalized Union busting. This started with Nixon, reached its stride with Raygun and was continued by the Bushes. The sucess of these policies has resulted in the two tier economy most of America faces on a daily basis.
I am very much in tune with reality and the economy has been taken into consideration.
It is completely possible to live within the means of a wage if a person decides to. It is astounding to realize just what people can do without. Most things are not NECESSARY, but desired.
Two people can live on $20,000/yr. or less. One can live on less.
A person can if they want to live check to check where missing one day of work can make them homeless. You also would have to live in a run down area on so little because those are the places where rent is affordable. You can not live on minimum wage with how much prices have gone up.
I am very much in tune with reality and the economy has been taken into consideration.
It is completely possible to live within the means of a wage if a person decides to. It is astounding to realize just what people can do without. Most things are not NECESSARY, but desired.
Two people can live on $20,000/yr. or less. One can live on less.
Certainly not every where in the US. And that's surviving, not thriving.
Certainly not every where in the US. And that's surviving, not thriving.
Ah...yes my friend, but are we comparing these standards of living to "American" perspectives or other countries' perspectives. For argument's sake, are we talking about the American perception of thriving, or on a worldly level. What many Americans consider "just surviving", is actually considered "thriving" by many other countries' standards of living.
Even in our own household, we have very little debt...$1,500, if you don't consider the property taxes we'll be paying next month and our utilities due next month as well. Our home is paid off and we are not paying off any of our vehicles. In my opinion, our family is thriving, and we are in the "under $50k" income bracket....feeding and housing 6 people. Again, it's all a matter of expectations and perspective.
Ah...yes my friend, but are we comparing these standards of living to "American" perspectives or other countries' perspectives. For argument's sake, are we talking about the American perception of thriving, or on a worldly level. What many Americans consider "just surviving", is actually considered "thriving" by many other countries' standards of living.
Indeed. The fact that we live in the west is a huge opportunity. I say, take advantage to the best of your ability. I've lived on less than 20/yr and yes, it's doable, but things were different. Food is a big one, which is sad. I couldn't afford organic and I couldn't grow a garden (didn't have any land). While we survive on one income in my home, it's much more than 20k, we eat very well and have all the space we need to grow.
[/quote]Even in our own household, we have very little debt...$1,500, if you don't consider the property taxes we'll be paying next month and our utilities due next month as well. Our home is paid off and we are not paying off any of our vehicles. In my opinion, our family is thriving, and we are in the "under $50k" income bracket....feeding and housing 6 people. Again, it's all a matter of expectations and perspective. [/quote]
You're in a sweet situation with your home paid off! *jealous*
Why does a home that cost $6,000.00 in 1960 cost $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 today?
I think that is a big part of the problem.
this is so true, I have a friend who bought a standard 3 bedroom, 1.5 bath, 1,100 sq foot ranch home about 15 years ago for $90,000 dollars,
financed it with 15% interest and put $15,000 down = that's 17% down.
nowadays people hardly put anything down on their houses and even if they can afford $15,000 down it's only about 5-7% of the value of their house instead of 15-20%. Many people are not even paying off the principle and only paying interest for several years b/c they put so little down.
the great thing about interest rates is they do go down and you can always re-finance -- you can never re-pay less for the home you paid too much for.
if the media had an article every time for how high real estate prices had gotten comensurate with how low interest rates had gotten maybe people wouldn't have beenn so keen on buying. what's the point of buying a house with 5% interest if that house has gone up 40-60% in value? have you really saved that much money? And how much will that house that's gone so far up in value appreciate in the future?
it's great to finance with only 5% but you'll never be able to refinance with less a per cent and the rediculously high inflation of home prices takes away all that advantage.
today that house is worth alot more money but buying today is much tougher.
I love it when people end all conversations of moral injustice by pointing to other countries that are more oppressive. It's as though the concept of taking justice into our own hands as citizens is completely and utterly impossible; it's not even considered. We just accept that we are relative pawns and point to governments and standards of living as though they are foreign entities.
Giving people just barely enough to sustain on under the guise of a free market is the single greatest approach to holding control in the history of the human species. It works much better than flat-rate oppression. The United States Model proves this. Give the dopes a few crumbs and show them pictures of starving Africans, they'll shut up.
A person can if they want to live check to check where missing one day of work can make them homeless. You also would have to live in a run down area on so little because those are the places where rent is affordable. You can not live on minimum wage with how much prices have gone up.
I disagree with the bolded.
The check to check thing is also applicable to those who live beyond their means yet make thousands more than meager wages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Certainly not every where in the US. And that's surviving, not thriving.
But it IS possible to survive on very little. Thriving is in the eye of the beholder.
How much income you need depends a lot on how efficiently you buy stuff. If you pay full price to live in a trendy neighborhood, just have to have a NEW car every X years, eat out a lot, etc. it takes a lot of income.
But if you get a deal on housing in a non-trendy but still safe and servicable neighborhood, pay cash for fully-depreciated but sound cars, cook a lot from scratch you can have what to me is a *better* quality of life for less.
I like the car analogy - a big heavy bluff SUV needs a lot of power to be able to get out of it's own way, but something like a Lotus Elise can go much faster with less power (and get better mileage, and be more fun, in the process).
My point is any idiot with a line of credit can spend like a rock star. It takes brains and experience to do more with less.
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.
15% interest and put $15,000 down = that's 17% down. 
