Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2016, 12:43 PM
 
23,112 posts, read 18,253,423 times
Reputation: 10651

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
Many? Some. The talent market is tight and people are still getting recruited like crazy (esp around here).

And I can't comment on the 80s, but in the 90s in school such scenarios were very very much talked about, we definitely discussed things like what skills and careers would be less outsourceable, the writing was on the wall once we got internet in the libraries. The speed it happened was a surprise though.
Doesn't that kind of contradict itself?


What about those who got their careers started before "the writing was on the wall"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2016, 12:47 PM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,737,208 times
Reputation: 40634
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
No, because people will never be "comfortable" enough even if costs do come more in line with typical wages (going by your rules anyway). Saying that, especially with our economy becoming more service dominated; any decline in middle-class spending will result in even lower middle-class wages. But even back when COL was more reasonable in the 50s and 60s, the average provider could not absorb a significant cut in pay. People have always stretched themselves when having kids, always will.
In the 50s or 60s though you generally had one paycheck earner. Now you have two. If you based your spending on only having one paycheck (and assume it may decrease), and everyone did so (your scenario), housing prices, especially, would plummet, providing more comfort with the second paycheck being something that could be banked to a significant degree. If one of those earners then had a significant cut, the impact on lifestyle would be greatly reduced.

It's absolute insanity to me that people make purchases and non-reverse-able life style choices with the assumption their salaries will increase over time. Insane. I'm not going to have sympathy for those individuals when things don't go according to their plans (I will have sympathy for the children hurt by such risk taking by their parent(s)).

Doesn't really matter though, not everyone will do this, I have to look out for my own financial situation and not play the game of extending myself. Other's will do what they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
Doesn't that kind of contradict itself?
Not a bit


Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
What about those who got their careers started before "the writing was on the wall"?
They, if wise, altered course mid stream. I think most people did and do. People are incredibly adaptable, and bright people often flow between career paths. I can't think of anyone among my brother's peers (except drs/nurses, and teachers) or my own, that have gone to school, started a career, and stayed locked in that industry or career path.

Last edited by timberline742; 12-22-2016 at 01:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2016, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
6,301 posts, read 9,588,263 times
Reputation: 4797
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
It would survive quite fine, especially since so many costs would fall, a new equilibrium would be reached.

Yup, and very few "conservatives" are conservative at all, they just prioritize different things.

Many? Some. The talent market is tight and people are still getting recruited like crazy (esp around here).

And I can't comment on the 80s, but in the 90s in school such scenarios were very very much talked about, we definitely discussed things like what skills and careers would be less outsourceable, the writing was on the wall once we got internet in the libraries. The speed it happened was a surprise though.

And how many IT professionals in their 50s are you acquainted with in Somerville?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2016, 01:15 PM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,737,208 times
Reputation: 40634
Quote:
Originally Posted by 495neighbor View Post
And how many IT professionals in their 50s are you acquainted with in Somerville?
I know several in Cambridge (including two I date for awhile), why? And some that moved away due to COL and/or lifestyle. Including my brother (who is 51). Most got into IT later in life.

What does that have to do with anything?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2016, 01:30 PM
 
23,112 posts, read 18,253,423 times
Reputation: 10651
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
In the 50s or 60s though you generally had one paycheck earner. Now you have two. If you based your spending on only having one paycheck (and assume it may decrease), and everyone did so (your scenario), housing prices, especially, would plummet, providing more comfort with the second paycheck being something that could be banked to a significant degree. If one of those earners then had a significant cut, the impact on lifestyle would be greatly reduced.

When there was one paycheck earner, that's typically how things were budgeted around as well (and not assuming it may decrease). My grandfather would have been devastated by a 40% cut in pay. Was he too much of a risk taker for having kids? I suppose my grandmother could have gone to work, depending on present circumstances. Given that short window in their 20s/early 30s where people can count on starting a family, there are very few in that age bracket who have that much of a cushion in their pay vs. day-to-day living expenses. Your scenario where costs go down, perhaps it may happen eventually. I have my doubts it will be significant, as the lower spending will probably as well result in lower middle-class wages in the long run. But what are we going to do, lose a whole generation while we wait (and hope) things will correct itself? In the meantime, who is going to pay taxes and for your SSI when you retire? And I do agree people spend too much on housing, people are their own worst enemy in that regards (whether they plan on having kids or not). That IS something we have control of, but we decide to become slaves instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
It's absolute insanity to me that people make purchases and non-reverse-able life style choices with the assumption their salaries will increase over time. Insane.

Some unfortunately do, however many feel that what they leave behind is more important than living a life of greater freedom and material comfort. Some are willing to accept a higher level of struggle than others. As long as they are willing to endure it and do not seek handouts, to each their own. I'm not one of them, but thank God many are.

Last edited by massnative71; 12-22-2016 at 01:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2016, 02:43 PM
 
3,268 posts, read 3,301,866 times
Reputation: 2682
I live beneath my means. My husband likes to spend money though...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2016, 06:01 PM
 
1,897 posts, read 1,379,670 times
Reputation: 2264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatsnext75 View Post
I live beneath my means. My husband likes to spend money though...
That's the same thing he said about you!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2016, 06:25 PM
 
Location: East Coast
4,235 posts, read 3,678,634 times
Reputation: 6458
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
In the 50s or 60s though you generally had one paycheck earner. Now you have two. If you based your spending on only having one paycheck (and assume it may decrease), and everyone did so (your scenario), housing prices, especially, would plummet, providing more comfort with the second paycheck being something that could be banked to a significant degree. If one of those earners then had a significant cut, the impact on lifestyle would be greatly reduced.
The problem is that the basic basket of goods that most middle class people need for a middle class lifestyle has changed. And it often takes two paychecks just to make that amount.

I know I've quoted this before, but a while back Bill Maher quoted a study where they determined how much money a family of four needed to make for what's considered an "American dream" type lifestyle -- a decent house in a safe area and decent schools, two decent (not luxury) cars, and a non-luxury vacation each year. It was over 100K -- I think it was 110.

So, an awful lot of people need two people making 50-60K each to get that. Relying on what they could get for just 50K would be a real and significant drag on their lives and their kids lives.

I'm not saying everyone is entitled to this. It's just that this was a whole lot easier to achieve back in the 50s and 60s than it is now. Sure, you could say people could get by with a 2 bedroom apartment, one or no car, and no vacations, ever. (And there are plenty who consider themselves lucky to be barely making it doing this.) But if you're looking at what's been sold as an American middle-class lifestyle, for many people, relying on one paycheck doesn't enable them to do that -- that second paycheck can't be viewed as disposable or bonus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2016, 09:18 PM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,737,208 times
Reputation: 40634
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagoliz View Post
The problem is that the basic basket of goods that most middle class people need for a middle class lifestyle has changed. And it often takes two paychecks just to make that amount.

I know I've quoted this before, but a while back Bill Maher quoted a study where they determined how much money a family of four needed to make for what's considered an "American dream" type lifestyle -- a decent house in a safe area and decent schools, two decent (not luxury) cars, and a non-luxury vacation each year. It was over 100K -- I think it was 110.

So, an awful lot of people need two people making 50-60K each to get that. Relying on what they could get for just 50K would be a real and significant drag on their lives and their kids lives.

I'm not saying everyone is entitled to this. It's just that this was a whole lot easier to achieve back in the 50s and 60s than it is now. Sure, you could say people could get by with a 2 bedroom apartment, one or no car, and no vacations, ever. (And there are plenty who consider themselves lucky to be barely making it doing this.) But if you're looking at what's been sold as an American middle-class lifestyle, for many people, relying on one paycheck doesn't enable them to do that -- that second paycheck can't be viewed as disposable or bonus.

Of course it was easier in the 50s and 60s, that was a unique and artificial economy and set of global circumstances. It wasn't realistic or sustainable, and it definitely shouldn't be used as a measuring stick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2016, 07:34 AM
 
3,268 posts, read 3,301,866 times
Reputation: 2682
So the long and short of it is, life is harder now than it was in 50s and 60s. Life was much simpler back then. We have technology that makes things easier today but what had happened?
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts
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