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 am a 50's-60's person,life then on $1.00 per hour easier than now retired on combined income of $35000.I started with Telco at $1.00 and when min. wage was raised to $1.25 I got that increase.We got nothing in benefits until after 18 months,never maternity and very tight on sick time which could not accumulate.We paid $2.50 per wk for Bluecross Ins.,taxes and S.S. minimal.As time went on we could get S.S. deduction paid by June or July.We had low rent housing available at $35 per month and then medium available at $75,all liveable but as time went on unliveable and torn down with a Walmart in its place,whose fault,when we lived there we had pride.We bought our first home for $12500,had to have 20 percent down,we fudged on this,we had $100,2 parties loaned money and lied to bank,loan cost $60 per month,electric every oyhr month $30,water 6 months $15.We paid both parties off in a short time.We had to have co-signer for furniture,in store credit,no credit cards then.You might have had to wiggle and squirm but I would take that way over the mess that has been created today.You could buy car for $1500 up etc.Life today way out of proportion,no balance.Also we had children over time and wife never worked.
Last edited by DanBev; 12-11-2009 at 11:25 AM..
Reason: add wife never worked
I disagree that single people can't support themselves. I'm 29 years old, single and I own my house, 2 vehicles, and enjoy my life. I know many other single people who are living well off of their own salary and not relying on parents or the government.
Some singles might have a problem with going out too much and spending a quarter of their daily earnings on food and entertainment instead of trying to save that money. It all depends on what type of lifestyle you lead and how much income you make that supports that lifestyle. If you're single and making less than $30K/ year, it might be difficult to get a head in life because of paying everything on your own instead of having a spouse that contributes. I manage my money wisely, invest it, and it has paid off considerably. I also don't spend ech night in a bar frittering away my money.
There are dual income households who make over $100K/ year and are up to their eyeballs in debt. The nice thing about being single is that you don't really aspire to have the 4 bed/ 4 bath suburban house on an acre of land, many singles are happier in a smaller home or condo which costs considerably less to maintain.
It all depends on how you live your life.
But we don't know how much you make. You may make 3 to 4 times the national average..
. . . and when you make the decision to live that way. The average American would not be able to quit his job if he won a million dollars in the lottery. The payout would be 50K a year, but Mr. Everyman already makes $45K and is in debt, so he is spending over $50K a year and just getting by, and has already committed himelf to that cost of living. Once you have a house and a few cars and kids, you cant back out. He will make 2-million working, and can't afford the pay cut to mere millionaire status.
My neighbor is a 25-yo woman, gone back to school to upgrade to a BN degree. She'll make, let's say, $50K a year. If she lives like she does now, and like I do, she can live on a quarter of that, and save half of what she earns, and still have spending money. So at the age of 50, she can have a half a million dollars in the bank. Or, she can daycare for squawling grandchildren while their single mom is telemarketing. Her call, but she has to make it soon.
But we don't know how much you make. You may make 3 to 4 times the national average..
I'm not going to say what I make on a public forum, but I will say that the national household income is around $50K correct? I do make more than that, but I can guarantee you it is not 3 or 4 times that.
Quote:
nd when you make the decision to live that way. The average American would not be able to quit his job if he won a million dollars in the lotter. The payout would be 50K a year, but Mr. Everyman already makes $45K and is in debt, so he is spending over $50K a year and just getting by, and has already committed himelf to that cost of living. Once you have a house and a few cars and kids, you cant back out.
I'd agree with you, a million dollars is not much anymore. It may seem like a large amount, but it can be gone as you as you get it. I don't think the average American could afford to completely quit their job even if they won a few million in the lottery, they may be able to drive a nicer car to work though .
. . . and when you make the decision to live that way. The average American would not be able to quit his job if he won a million dollars in the lottery. The payout would be 50K a year, but Mr. Everyman already makes $45K and is in debt, so he is spending over $50K a year and just getting by, and has already committed himelf to that cost of living. Once you have a house and a few cars and kids, you cant back out. He will make 2-million working, and can't afford the pay cut to mere millionaire status.
My neighbor is a 25-yo woman, gone back to school to upgrade to a BN degree. She'll make, let's say, $50K a year. If she lives like she does now, and like I do, she can live on a quarter of that, and save half of what she earns, and still have spending money. So at the age of 50, she can have a half a million dollars in the bank. Or, she can daycare for squawling grandchildren while their single mom is telemarketing. Her call, but she has to make it soon.
I thought you had the option to take lump sum or incremental? Not that it is super relevant to what we are talking about, but I was pretty sure. That could vary state to state I guess.
all of my friends are on their own not mooching off their parents--some doing better than others--I've been on my own since 20 and have not had a problem--neither my husband or I have high level jobs but we live quite comfortably. I think a big thing is where you live--here in Indiana you can get a nice home for 100k try that in California--starter homes are 5 times the cost but people AREN'T making 5 times the income (even though they may make more).
Also people of my generation are spoiled--most people could make it by one one income for a family if they lived frugally--location vacations, small home where the kids share a room, generic home cooked meals--older cars not the gimme gimme gimme of today.
Its a complicated problem because I think there is alot of fault to go around.
When I was in college, the minimum wage was about $3.30 an hour. This was enough for me to pay rent in an old home I shared with 2 roomates, pay my share of utilities, buy gas for my car, buy food, and it still left me with a little extra for entertainment. I think today, a poor student trying to do that today on minimum wage couldn't succeed. That I can't blame young people for. Housing, fuel, and other costs are a higher percentage of income than they should be.
Here's where it gets complicated: There is more for young people to buy today and more items that are considered "necessities" than there were 30 years ago. They have to have a computer, a cell phone, satellite or cable t.v., high speed internet access (hell, I still use dial up), an IPOD etc. and it goes on on and on. I don't think these items ought to be treated like necessities and I think that young people who want them shouldn't expect them as some sort of "right".
The next problem is the attitude I'm seeing in this country towards education. There are just too many people who remain unconvinced that college and higher education is necessary to have a reasonable chance at succeeding in life. Sometimes a college degree is not enough to get you a good job. However, the statistics are clear that the earnings of the average college graduate with a BS and/or MS degree are much higher over a lifetime than someone who only completes high school. Even so, people will deny it. They'll rely on anecdotal evidence to justify not making the effort to attend college or to not feel guilty about refusing to help their kids get through college. Its sad because the jobs open to high school graduates in this modern world are limited and low paying. Worse still, the people in the developing countries of the world DO see education as critical to success and are willing to sacrifice everything to get an education. Its hard to compete with people that motivated. Yet we have no choice.
So, the answer to your question is that it is young people's fault. Its also the fault of the rest of us for allowing the minimum wage to deteriorate to such a shockingly low level. Its the fault of every parent that didn't stress the importance of higher education and make some sort of plan with their kids to get it. Finally, its the fault of this "consumption-oriented culture" that encourages people to have endless wants for cheap electronics and other gadgets that are not "necessities".
I'm not going to say what I make on a public forum, but I will say that the national household income is around $50K correct? I do make more than that, but I can guarantee you it is not 3 or 4 times that.
I myself make over the 50,000 mark. I live in a good neighborhood, and am supporting two other people on my income. I have a nice truck, a boat, and I don't worry about bills to much.
That being said, I'm generally the exception. I got an outstanding job right out of college, and they pay well. I also made a name for myself, and got several raises along the way.
I have freinds who I went to school with, who are making half of what I make. Their grades were close to mine, its just the chances weren't there for them. They need help with down payments for everything big they buy. Thats with a college education. You can forget it if you just have a high school diploma. Be ready to work in a factory, and barely make it by.
Not only can they not support themselves, the norm is becoming that they AND their parents don't expect them to.
At age 19, one child in our family was just dropped from our insurance. He is finally working in construction, which is not steady work. He is not academically talented, so school was not an option. He gets no benefits, and with his low income, he cannot afford health insurance. This is bad, as he is accident-prone and makes unusually frequent visits to the ER.
The other child is still in school full-time, but she will graduate soon. With economics being what they are, she is considering getting married sooner that she would like, so that she can get on her boyfriend's (would-be husband's) insurance. He was lucky enough to get an entry-level position just a week after graduation with excellent salary and benefits, but he suspects that he may be let go due to budget cuts. So he is saving his money, paying off his student loans, and keeping an eye on his future.
I make less than $50K, and my spouse was laid off a year ago. Even when there is some contract work , it provides only a small fraction of that former paycheck. So here is how we cope: I drive a 12-year-old car and live in a tiny house with no garage. We buy food on sale, damaged, reduced for quick sale, and we use coupons. I buy our clothes and shoes at a local salvage store for half price or less. We don't go out to eat, even fast food, for months at a time. We don't see the dentist or the doctor unless there is an emergency--no dental insurance and medical co-pays that are not affordable. There is no room in the budget for emergencies, though, and we just paid off one of the 8-10 medical bills for emergencies in the last year. The rest take $20-$50 EACH per month.
We've told our son that we will not sign for any medical care for him, but we are reluctant to kick him out of the house because there is literally nowhere for him to go. Most of his friends are in the same situation--young adults, 18-25 years old, who in a good economy would be building houses and businesses, and living together in bachelor pads. But instead they are all mostly unemployed or working part-time, and they all live with their parents. Many of my daughter's friends are planning to continue in graduate and professional schools, so real life is still removed from their short-term futures. Others just move home after graduation.
Sadly, many of the parents don't really want their children to grow up, so they don't mind. I, on the other hand, made plans about 20 years ago to move on to the empty nest stage with gusto, and I'm not happy that things are clearly NOT going to work out that way.
Being able to support oneself is not just a function of having the appropriate training and skills. If there are no jobs across the skills spectrum, as we see in the current economic crisis, then there is no way that a young, single person can expect to beat out an older, wiser, more desperate job applicant who is willing to work for low wages (in comparison) because he has a family to support. Day care and college cost about the same, and food, clothing, and school expenses, medical and dental care, mortgage and car payments are less discretionary than the expenses that young single people face. I know that I would take a job at less than I deserve if it were the only way I could feed my family. If I were an employer, I would prefer experienced workers who would work for less to an inexperienced worker who may not be as highly motivated to do a good job. So the young people are out of luck, unless they are in a field where the employers prefer cheap, inexperienced laborers.
Part of the situation also arises because the norms changed in the 20th century. As in Europe, most young people used to live at home until they married, and they tended to marry young. By the time I came along, there was the expectation that by age 18, you were on your own if you were not in college, and if you were in college, you never really expected to move back home after graduation. We may be on the verge of returning to an earlier norm.
I also agree with jtur88 that the entry of women into the job market changed the employment dynamic. Too bad we didn't see that one coming. It's the law of unintended consequences.
I need to add that the addition of illegal immigrants also factors into the equation. In my region, there are whole industries where the vast majority of the workforce are immigrants, many of whom have questionable immigration status. They do labor that is grueling or dangerous, and they are usually exposed to extreme weather conditions. The common wisdom says that they do work that Americans won't do, but I disagree.
Americans won't do dirty jobs for slave wages, but those employers would likely pay more if they did not have such a ready supply of people willing to work for sub-minimum wages. Most parents would do whatever job it took to provide for their children.
Which leads to another factor: government subsidies for poverty remove the need for mothers and fathers to provide for their children. As long as the mother has children, she can receive enough money to support a few more non-working adults at a subsistence level.
It is a double-edged sword to get the poor off welfare. It may drive salaries down further, while increasing the number of unemployed people not looking for jobs may limit the labor pool to the point where salaries begin to rise again.
Economics is complicated by the impossible number of variables, and the fact that reality rarely shadows theory. I submit that I am no economist.
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.
.
