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.
NoExcuses,
I'm going to address something else I saw above. It was a comment about the "cost of living vs wages". Hourly wages were low enough, and the cost of living was high enough, that 20-30 years ago, I was working 2 jobs to make ends meet and have a little left over!! The thing is....I worked TWO jobs and didn't "waste" money on frivolous junk that I didn't need. I also grew a large garden and canned much of my own food, so that I had money to put away for emergencies and frills like new tires on my car, car breakdowns, rent if one of the jobs was slow. So many people want to work a "straight 8" and think they need all of that free time. When you're young (some older here...not excluding anyone), you want to have plenty of free/play time. Free/play time = more time to spend/waste money!! If you're working all of the time PLANNING for the future, you don't have TIME to waste money! In our "free time", my family and I did fun things too....made picnic lunches and took the 4-wheel drive out to cut, split, and stack firewood. It's what my kids grew up doing. We had a blast!...laughing, carrying on, sweating together....the kids being thrilled because it was a PICNIC....and we had potato chips and soda pop and storebought cookies....what a treat!! We laughed all the way to the bank, because we knew that our electric bills would be $40 per month instead of $300 per month. Family time, fun, and saving money...all in one shot! So many people don't get that now-a-days! There are so many folks who don't get a lot of things...like my little ones being thrilled to come down to the garden and help mommy...AND pick snacks out of the garden to munch on, or gather the vegetables for our meal....dig a hill of new potatoes if the time was right, etc. Too many people miss those little things in life, but it's THOSE things that my grown kids remember with such fond memories!
As for the stuff that people end up going to college for....these youngsters are looking at careers that make the MOST money. Many of them don't think twice about running up student loans and living off of their parents so that they can make the most money per hour....even if it means being stuck in a job that they will end up hating later. I tell everyone who asks..."Go into something that you feel passionate about which has a decent living wage.....pinch your pennies, make lists of wants/needs and buy second-hand as much as possible. Do NOT run up credit cards. If you don't have the money to buy it, then save up until you DO!"
The simple answer is that women entered the workforce doubling the supply of workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman
Bingo. That pushed up the cost of housing substantially. As a result, the typical 2-earner family today is no better off than a single-earner family in 1970. Worse off, actually, if you look at levels of savings and debt relative to income.
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).
We probably spend 5-600/mo on this boloney when it could be going into the 401k. But, living expenses since the early 70's have gone up 1000% and wages have only gone up 400%. OTOH, at my job it seems that 50% of our workers are foreign born. It doesn't seem like the market in my industry is saturated with Americans (women or men), so that's a consideration to take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachmel
Too many people want things they don't need. Too many young people leave the nesting wanting all of the "luxuries" that their parents have, without realizing just how long it took their parents to get what they have. The sense of entitlement in this country is appalling.
Agreed. One of my first apartments in the 80's was around 3-400/mo. I was making $6.50/hr and I was surviving. In the 90's at one point I was making around 25k/yr and had a basement apartment for $550/mo. I survived both pretty easily. But, as mentioned, I didn't have the expenses noted above. Back then, I didn't TV or even a home phone, let alone a cell phone, and it really wasn't considered odd. I just used the pay phone down the block and wrote letters lol.
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.
Student loans should be repaid with a surcharge on the student's income tax for the rest of their working life.]
This is an excellent idea. If universities are used primarily by those who use their education to become wealthy, let them pay for it according to how wealthy they become.
Mysticaltyger has it right. Yesterday's luxuries are today's necessities. Then add usurious college loan interest to exorbitant loans and a recent graduate is pretty much screwed into living very frugally for about a decade. This is a great reward for the time, effort and money for a college degree.
IMHO
The government should hire graduates that cannot find other employment. There are lots of things that need doing that cannot be done at a profit.
Student loans should be repaid with a surcharge on the student's income tax for the rest of their working life. The excess should be used to fund the next generation's education. Private sector banks are not needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
This is an excellent idea. If universities are used primarily by those who use their education to become wealthy, let them pay for it according to how wealthy they become.
I'm not sure I'm understanding this. What's the difference given progressive tax? If I am understanding, it looks like a recipe to further the disparity gap.
This is an excellent idea. If universities are used primarily by those who use their education to become wealthy, let them pay for it according to how wealthy they become.
I can see that for some jobs.
However, I think college education should be completely paid for, for specific jobs.
Like teachers, and general practitioner doctors, and other jobs where money isn't the main factor, its more of a calling, and a public service.
If someone wants to make millions being a oncologist specialist, or a high profile trial lawyer, then they should have to pay for their own education.
What it says to me is that the rich, who do not need to take out student loans, wouldn't be paying the surcharge, but those in the middle and lower classes that work their way up. That sounds off.
Wrong. Wages were very low. People just did what they had to to survive instead of buying toys and thinking everybody owes them.
People who make excuses that it's more difficult these days are enabling the young to feel sorry for themselves and make them believe that they have it so hard.
You obviously are not in tune with reality. People work two jobs these days save up their money and still are not able to make enough to live on. Expenses have gone up all over and wages have stayed the same. You are not taking in account the economy and other factors.
My parents lived in a tiny dingy 1 bedroom apartment when my dad was in college. They had the bedroom, my bed was the couch. They had one old car and one blurry black and white tv. They lived in a strict budget. No going out to eat, no vacations, no partying, no living on credit until my dad got out of college and landed a better paying job.
If young people were willing to live the same way until they got their feet off the ground.....they could support themselves. Even in this economy.
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.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 02-22-2010 at 12:32 AM..
Bingo. That pushed up the cost of housing substantially. As a result, the typical 2-earner family today is no better off than a single-earner family in 1970. Worse off, actually, if you look at levels of savings and debt relative to income.
I agree. The authors of The Two Income Trap said the same thing.
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.
