Washington Post Article is Bugging Me (Leesburg, Herndon: student loans, home, neighborhood)

[ChristineVA]

Originally Posted by becwells

I agree!


I don't find that this family was particularly frivolous in their spending. They were simply spending at a level that matched their incomes. Yes, people earning in the mid-$100's should be able to get a pedicure every so often. Yes, they should be able to drive a nice car. Yes, they should be able to afford fresh shrimp instead of frozen. Maybe they didn't need all that stuff, but there's no reason why they shouldn't enjoy some of the smaller, finer pleasures of life if they can afford it. Now they're finding they can't afford it as often, so they're scaling back.

I'm actually suprised at the level of outrage surrounding this article. This seems, to me, to be a normal family, making decent money, who are realizing they need to cut back on some "fun" spending. I don't feel sorry for them, but I don't think that's the author's intent. I think it's a very real story that shows what a lot of people are dealing with. Not everyone is suffering at the magnitude the media seems to always portray. It's not all doom and gloom, "I've lost everything I own". Some of us are just making little adjustments here and there.

I guess this is where I disagree. I make what this family is making. There is NO WAY in heck I would be even attempting a mortgage of $550,000. If, for some reason, I did, it would be totally irresponsible of me to purchase an Acura MDX SUV as cute as I think they are. Sure, you're correct, I *can* be qualified to buy all the things that they did. If so, I would totally be living on the edge. That is unless I did not have my children who are affectionately named Mercedes and BMW! I just find their lifestyle to be very irresponsible.

I actually didn't get that they were complaining or whining either. I was just more aghast at their entitlement mentality to things that, I believe, take a much higher income to comfortably and responsibly achieve. They are nowhere near that and should live accordingly.

The worst part is--I think the article didn't even touch on how bad off they really are. I'm betting their credit debt is very high. It would have to be for them to be able to do what they have been doing for the past 2-3 years.

[Yankeesfan]

My daughter's weekly gymnastics class costs $60 a month. If they really wanted their daughter to have that, these people could afford it by eliminating the manicures as well as the pedicures (but oh, the horror of going cold-turkey on salon nail care ...). Just saying, it would be a case of having healthier priorities.

[becwells]

Originally Posted by ChristineVA

I guess this is where I disagree. I make what this family is making. There is NO WAY in heck I would be even attempting a mortgage of $550,000. If, for some reason, I did, it would be totally irresponsible of me to purchase an Acura MDX SUV as cute as I think they are. Sure, you're correct, I *can* be qualified to buy all the things that they did. If so, I would totally be living on the edge. That is unless I did not have my children who are affectionately named Mercedes and BMW! I just find their lifestyle to be very irresponsible.

I actually didn't get that they were complaining or whining either. I was just more aghast at their entitlement mentality to things that, I believe, take a much higher income to comfortably and responsibly achieve. They are nowhere near that and should live accordingly.

The worst part is--I think the article didn't even touch on how bad off they really are. I'm betting their credit debt is very high. It would have to be for them to be able to do what they have been doing for the past 2-3 years.

That's fine...I see where you're coming from.

I don't know...I think it's very easy for us all to sit back and judge how someone is living their life based on an article in a newspaper. It's easy to look at someone else and say, "I would never do that! How irresponsible!" - Lord knows I've done it. There's no way to win - you try to "keep up with the Joneses", and those who live more frugally judge you. You try to be more "financially responsible", the Joneses judge you. And don't give me the whole, who cares what other people think - live the way you need to, spiel. It's not always that easy.

I must admit, I'm getting a little tired of all the people who, in the midst of a financial crisis, are coming across as being all high and mighty because they've made some better decisions than others. Honestly, I am happy for those of you who are doing ok and not struggling. I mean that in all seriousness - I never like to see people struggling, and I'm glad that you have your sh** together. Congratulations on being so "responsible" and wise, but I don't see the need for all the "I told you so's". Gosh. It's getting a little too preachy for my liking.

This family knows they've made some not-so-great financial decisions. They're admitting their faults, and everyone's tearing them apart instead of looking at what they're doing to change.

[ChristineVA]

I guess I just didn't get that from the article. My take on it was that they STILL don't realize that they've made some irresponsible decisions. Even their attempts seem too little, too little or not a big deal. What I would have like to have seen was them actually ask for a little help or for some debt/spending counseling. They really need this.

As for the "I told you so" attitude. Part of that, from people including myself, comes from really trying your best to do the right thing and then watching people stand by and behave irresponsibly and then cry for help. Now, these people did not do that, but they are living the lifestyle that could put them there. It's hard to watch. Now, would I ever get in their face and be mean, certainly not, but I don't have a problem doing it in general terms on the internet. That couple is a lesson to learn from.

[becwells]

Originally Posted by ChristineVA

I guess I just didn't get that from the article. My take on it was that they STILL don't realize that they've made some irresponsible decisions. Even their attempts seem too little, too little or not a big deal. What I would have like to have seen was them actually ask for a little help or for some debt/spending counseling. They really need this.

I think you're making too many assumptions. It's just an article in a (crappy) newspaper - there's much more to their situation than what's printed. They might be sitting down every night, going over their budget. They might be researching ways to save more. They might me on the Frugal Living message board, looking for advice. We don't know, and we shouldn't be so quick to judge. They've got to start somewhere.

As for the "I told you so" attitude. Part of that, from people including myself, comes from really trying your best to do the right thing and then watching people stand by and behave irresponsibly and then cry for help. Now, these people did not do that, but they are living the lifestyle that could put them there. It's hard to watch. Now, would I ever get in their face and be mean, certainly not, but I don't have a problem doing it in general terms on the internet. That couple is a lesson to learn from.

I absolutely agree - it's hard to watch people living above their means and not say anything. I even find myself biting my tongue a lot, and I know I'm one of those people who made some unwise financial decisions. But I don't think the blame rests solely with their irresponsibility. This way of life is ingrained in our culture. We're a consumer society and people just don't know any better. We're constantly reminded of some pinnacle standard of living that we're supposed to attain - a big home, nice clothes, big cars, new appliances. We're told that to be successful we need to grow and prosper, and to prosper means to have all this "stuff". Sad, but true. How can we expect everyone to know that they don't need all that, when they're constantly told that they do?

And no, I'm not saying they should blame society and that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions - they absolutely should. I just don't think we can blame it all on irresponsibility, when they haven't known any other way of life.

[Samara11]

I love Juicy Couture (the perfume, the clothes are awful and IMO 'overpriced'). The perfume is my favorite and that is one of the few luxuries I allow myself to indulge in . However, I buy mine from the outlet (at $20 discount) and once found 2 bottles in Marshalls for $50 each . Bought both immediately and still haven't run out of my supply (Sorry, just rambling)

The article was actually an eye-opener for me, now I know how people end up in debt up to their necks (used to wonder). No judging here, they can chose how they spend their money but its not a good lesson for their kids, they will end up as spoiled brats.

[ChristineVA]

Originally Posted by becwells

I absolutely agree - it's hard to watch people living above their means and not say anything. I even find myself biting my tongue a lot, and I know I'm one of those people who made some unwise financial decisions. But I don't think the blame rests solely with their irresponsibility. This way of life is ingrained in our culture. We're a consumer society and people just don't know any better. We're constantly reminded of some pinnacle standard of living that we're supposed to attain - a big home, nice clothes, big cars, new appliances. We're told that to be successful we need to grow and prosper, and to prosper means to have all this "stuff". Sad, but true. How can we expect everyone to know that they don't need all that, when they're constantly told that they do?

And no, I'm not saying they should blame society and that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions - they absolutely should. I just don't think we can blame it all on irresponsibility, when they haven't known any other way of life.

I guess. Maybe it is a generational thing. I'm in my mid-40s, as are most of my friends and acquaintances. I don't know anyone who feels that there is this pinnacle standard of living that they must get to. I do see it in the younger generation (20s and 30s) and I certainly see it in my kids but I *hope* that is immaturity. I guess I find that pie-in-the-sky attitude/living distasteful in someone in their 30s with a family. It just smacks of not growing up.

But I do think that there are probably many people pointing the finger at my waste too! For instance, I live much more "recklessly" than my parents would probably based on my experiences in the world. Did a ton of stupid things when I was 20 years old. But even when I bought my first home, I *knew* in my gut that the mortgage people were trying to get me to buy more than I could. Some people just don't seem to get it.

[Skapov]

Originally Posted by HereinVA

Wow...I'll bet their neighbors will love them after they see she said "Stacey: Everyone puts on airs. I call this the neighborhood of the Stepford Wives. Everyone's keeping up with the Joneses; no one wants to say, "We're in trouble."

I thought it was kind of dumb for them to say they can't afford to go to the zoo in DC anymore...go to the zoo, you don't need to buy pizza, coffee, and hot chocolate pack a picnic and enjoy the FREE zoo, your only expense will be parking! And hey, if your 9 year old skips getting her nails done (what 9 year old NEEDS to get their nails done, anyway?) you'll have plenty of money to pay for the parking! But, everyone has their priorities I guess... A 9 year old with fancy nails is not a choice I would make over a family outing to the zoo.

HA HA, I read that article and instantly thought of the City Data forums and what people always say about Ashburn (i.e. the land of "Stepford Wives" where everyone "trys to keep up with the Joneses"! I could not believe that their 8y/o was accustomed to getting Manicures/Pedicures! People like this make me mildly happy to know that we are in a recession, because Americans need to stop being so shallow and entitled, and realize that employed a House Cleaner and giving your kids Ice Skating lessons etc., are not entitlements.

Oh, and the husband paints cars for a living, but they actually would have considered paying $1200 to hire someone to paint their house had times been good?! Ridiculous.

[slduvall]

Originally Posted by Denton56

Scanbarre,
No one adopts because there are no children under 10 available for adoption. There are some older, sibling, groups, and some children in their teens with delinquency problems, and some children with very severe handicaps who you might adopt someday, but there are not very young children.

Most people would like a baby to adopt, but there are only 7,000 infants in the entire US who are relinquished for adoption each year. Your chances of being chosen by a birth mother to adopt one of those babies is very, very, slim.

If you choose to go overseas to adopt a younger child, expect to pay $50,000 or more, IF you can find an available child. Many countries have closed adoptions to those outside their country.

Perhaps now you can understand why people choose to have their own children, rather than adopt. It's not prejudice against adoption, but the reality of the adoption pool.

Hope this helps!

Not sure where you got these numbers from and admittingly this is way OT.. but international adoptions can vary depending on the country. China for instance is in the $25,000 - $30,000 range, depending on different issues. Some other countries are more...some less. AND there are tax credits for adoption that are about $11,000. It is true that many countries are closing their doors, for various reasons. Some due to corruption, some due to changing policies and culture (China)

As far as the 7,000 number....not sure about that...but you seem very sure...yet uninformed on other issue.

And...the comment that people CHOOSE to have their own children rather than adopt...way off base. The majority of people who adopt are unable to have their own. Not all, but most. Some of course want a particular child to complete their family...etc.

I don't disagree with all your comments, but to state them as such fact, makes me tend to dismiss it all. When in fact if stated differently you could stress just how difficult it is to adopt domestically and how sad that there are so many non adoptable children in our foster care system...or perhaps that US adoption laws should be Federally regulated rather than vary from state to state...

And sorry for the way OT post...but as a parent of an adopted child...I couldn't resist.

[Skapov]

Originally Posted by Denton56

Scanbarre,
No one adopts because there are no children under 10 available for adoption. There are some older, sibling, groups, and some children in their teens with delinquency problems, and some children with very severe handicaps who you might adopt someday, but there are not very young children.

Most people would like a baby to adopt, but there are only 7,000 infants in the entire US who are relinquished for adoption each year. Your chances of being chosen by a birth mother to adopt one of those babies is very, very, slim.

If you choose to go overseas to adopt a younger child, expect to pay $50,000 or more, IF you can find an available child. Many countries have closed adoptions to those outside their country.

Perhaps now you can understand why people choose to have their own children, rather than adopt. It's not prejudice against adoption, but the reality of the adoption pool.

Hope this helps!

Great explanation of the reality about Adoptions! Look, even Madonna couldn't adopt that little Malawian girl, and for Middle-Class people it's actually incredibly hard to adopt due to the high expense of international adoption. And of course w/in the USA, most unwanted pregnancies are terminated (1 million abortions each year), and adoptable children tend to be African-American pre-teens or teenagers, many with behavioral/emotional and/or severe disabilities. My husband & I would love to Foster Parent and adopt a child to add to our family, but we realize it may not be feasible.