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 got to thinking about this the other day after a conversation with a co-worker.
He said that most people of my generation can't support themselves, and that we are living off of our parents and our government. I really disagree with this. I do see a lot of my old freinds who are losers, who don't support themselves, but many of them work hard, and just can't make ends meet all of the time.
Is this their fault, or is there a bigger problem? After all, back in the 60's and 70's, most households were single worker families. I mean that Dad worked, mom stayed home with the kids. This is virtually gone in the middle class today. I can't count on one hand the number of couples I know that only have one of them working.
So since most people have to have at least two folks working just to make ends meet, is it really the fault of singles that can't make a go of it. No one wants to live in public housing, but rent in many areas outside of the slummy part of tow is outrageous. Forget buying a house without at least 20,000 dollars down now-a-days.
Whats the problem with our society? Is it a matter of we expect to high of a standard of living? Is it that inflation has reached a point where single workers can't make it on their own? Is it a since of entitlement? Is it the government giving to many hand outs?
I believe it could be a little of A and B, yes it is harder to support famalies on one, middle class-ish income due to wages not always matching inflation, but this generation does have a higher level of want then it's predecessors. There is more to covet, therefor more to spend. I don't think kids that turned 18 in 1950 had 300 credit card solicitations sent to there email/mailboxes at home like we do now. My grandma who is now 86 and still very sharp and fiesty always said, if we couldn't afford it now, we didn't buy it. Which obviously wasn't completely true, as they financed their house and cars and what not, but she has a point. We want want want, and are sub-par savers. I myself try to buck this trend, like you OP, try to live with fiscal responsibility, but we are not the norm for this generation. I am 26 and know several people I went to high school with that have already had homes forclosed, very sad.
I think part of it is the 'expectations' of society and the way the housing industry and industry in general panders to that expectation. Most new houses built nowadays are as big as a motel used to be. These houses cost way more to buy, maintain, heat, cool, etc. Everything about them is geared to squeeze top dollar out of the home owner. That in itself is not really the problem--the problem is that it has come to the point where that's all that is available. You have a couple living in a 3000 sq ft home. How silly is that? It's fine if that's what you want, but that is largely the way everyone is being pushed. Many cities have regulations against building small, efficient, cheap-to-live-in homes.
Fifty years ago, it was common to see a family in a 600 sq ft home. My aunt and uncle raised their three kids in a home that couldn't have been any more than 500 or 550 sq ft. Nowadays, we've all been conditioned to think 'big.' That's okay if you want it and can afford it, but living 'big' takes big money. A heating bill of $300 a month for a huge home would be $30 for a small one.
So, this puts many folks back into apartments. But the apartment owners see what the huge houses cost per month to own and base the rent on that. People have no choice but to either go 'big' or pay nearly as much for a dinky little apartment. I think it all goes back to something you mentioned: we have been conditioned to live a largely wasteful and 'overexpecting' life. And in the end, that wasteful life simply fills someone's pockets while denying those who can't afford or don't want huge mcmansions. In my opinion, we need to see small, efficient, smart small homes. I'm not saying get rid of the big ones, but I'll bet if the option were there, many people would choose it over wasteful castles that contain thousands of square feet that are largely unused.
its like every generation ;its comes down to chopices thatoften are made pretty early in life.Once the person makes bad chioces amny are very heard to overcome.;once they get to ewhere they have to support them,sleves. ist not so muich how hard they woirk as it is what the values is to society of what they do and hiow many can do it.My father always sid that there are too way to learn;either you learn form being told the rersults of bad choices by others. or you learn by making them. The second is much harder to learn and correcting them is often even harder.
I have been asking this for years on boards like this. Nobody has an answer.
In the 40s and 50s, a family of five lived on the earnings of one man with a fulltime job. Today, a family of three can barely get by on the earnings of two adults with fulltime jobs.
Why has a fulltime wage been lowered from the living costs of five people, down to the living costs of less than two people? Or, why has the cost of living per person risen from 1/5 of a fulltime wage to almost a whole fulltime wage? Without the quality of life getting any better.
I have been asking this for years on boards like this. Nobody has an answer.
In the 40s and 50s, a family of five lived on the earnings of one man with a fulltime job. Today, a family of three can barely get by on the earnings of two adults with fulltime jobs.
Why has a fulltime wage been lowered from the living costs of five people, down to the living costs of less than two people? Or, why has the cost of living per person risen from 1/5 of a fulltime wage to almost a whole fulltime wage? Without the quality of life getting any better.
I'll take a shot at it, as I don't think it is really all that complicated.
It is because the average American Joe-Schmo is getting a much smaller piece of the total economic pie than was the case 50 years ago. So the real question is - where are the dollars that used to end up in the pocket of Joe Schmo going?
The simple answer - to the obscenely wealthy, who today get a much larger piece of the pie - paid for by guess who? And, they are going overseas, whereas 50 years ago most of them stayed in America and were recirculated to the hands of middle class Americans.
Bit by bit, the great standard of living we enjoyed in the 50s and 60s has been stolen from us from soulless corporations and, to this day, we are doing very little about it.
As a life-long conservative, it breaks my heart to see what "conservatism" has become today in the minds of many. I almost never see another conservative break ranks and hold corporate America accountable for the pillaging of this nation that has brought us to our knees and left us with a future that is shaky and uncertain at best.
The simple answer is that women entered the workforce doubling the supply of workers.
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.
