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.
Some of us got caught believing the values we grew up learning would stay the same. We grew up with the assurance that a person worked for the same company for 40 years, their income steadily went up, and so did the value of their house. The value of their carefully saved investments increased in value, and if you got sick, you could afford to pay the bill. When the rules got changed without warning, the bottom fell out.
It is more than just that the rules changed. They specifically changed into a "winners and losers" model, where before there was an intention to abide by a the "rising tide lifts all boats" model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Guy997S
I disagree with 2 and 3.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
You disagree with the broader point based on a few outliers?.
Precisely. I think there is a lot of knee-jerk reaction to the presentation of a few problems that some would rather not think about or have addressed, because they don't suffer from those problems themselves, and despite the higher importance of addressing those problems would rather their own, less weighty problems, be addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Guy997S
Some people can make a million a year and still not save a dime!
That doesn't mean that many other people suffer the effects of inadequate wages and inadequate job opportunities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Guy997S
I get aggravated thinking of all the stuff I pay for that my parents never did:
Our economy today relies on consumption. Take the consumption away, and the economy seizes up and more people end up in the streets, starting with those reliant on Social Security, since without today's level of consumption, and its requisite associated employment, the insolvency of Social Security would be greatly accelerated.
The items you list are what is keeping things from getting much worse much faster. That isn't to say that consumption doesn't cause its own set of problems, but bemoaning consumption, without proving definitively that your alternative suggestion (which you haven't really even outlined) would actually do less harm. We're probably in the situation we're in because there actually isn't an alternative suggestion that would do less harm, so it makes no sense to criticize, in the overall, the very things that are the foundation of the best path forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Guy997S
No, I did point out the extreme but in a lot of cases the lack of income isn't the problem, spending is!
No: Spending is not ever a problem. Excessive, unnecessary spending is a problem. The point that we've been pointing out to you is that most of the problem discussed in this thread (probably close to 2/3 of the problems) are totally unrelated to excessive, unnecessary spending.
buu, you are correct , that is what makes us different from the rest of the world , the fact our gdp is based on consumer spending to the tune of 70% of it.
and i will add 1 more , not deploying whatever you do save in an effective manner.
Big one right there. The government currently forces me to save 15.3% of my income. Unfortunately, they "invest" it so poorly and place so many additional demands on it that it's mostly just money down the toilet.
1 I surely don't think short-term thinking is wired into our biology. When did that happen?
Sure it is. The hardest thing in the world is to get humans to think about the long term. Neuroscientists have pretty much confirmed this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubi3
2 It's advertising, and those who fall for it have to belong on the left side of the Bell Curve which is the home for those with less intelligence. When my children were growing up and a commercial played. They were likely as not to ask if it were true? No, sweetie, it's just to get you into their store, or whatever fit the situation. During a program, if an actor appeared to die, they knew he walked off the stage when the camera was off. We visited a place showing movie props and my son was shocked to be able to hold a huge boulder over his head! It was funny.
I agree that advertising plays a big role. But I'd say it merely exaggerates our short term thinking...it magnifies what's already there. You can say that it's only people with low IQs who fall for advertising. That is another half truth...But there are still lots of people with high IQs who handle their money badly. That's because financial management is primarily a psychological and emotional task, not an intellectual one. If we're measuring what I'd term as EQ (emotional intelligence), then I'd agree...that humanity has a very low EQ, which is why we are so easily manipulated. But there are lots of people with high IQs who have low EQs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubi3
Crazy mortgages, credit card debt? Not in a million years. Incredibly stupid. If a young couple complains that their income is limited due to job opportunities, I think they would over spend if their income were 4 times as much.
YOU wouldn't do it in a million years, and neither would I. But, as I said, there are lots of people with high IQs who are bad with money. It's because their emotional intelligence is low. Another way of saying it would be there are a lot of smart people out there with no common sense.
People can now expect that their income will effectively decline every year, with raises being too small to cover the increase in rent, insurance, etc. All the budgeting in the world won't help when there's nothing left to save after the bills have been paid.
This is actually somewhat true. The problem is most people are still living as if tomorrow is going to bring in more money than last year. People have been operating according to a mental program that hasn't been true for a generation. If they changed their mindset and adjusted their expectations accordingly, they would actually do better financially.
But do you have kids? Go on vacation? Go to movies or shows?
Your area must have cheap housing and rent. Some cities are very affordable and others are not. Most couples where I live would not have a comfortable life with a take home pay of 25K a year.
All of those things you listed are lifestyle choices. They aren't requirements or necessities.
I won't answer for LaCerta.
But I spend about 23K per year (on the high end).
I live in a high cost area ($915 per month rent for a small apartment). I go out to eat once or twice a week. I go to movies a few times a year. (With a big screen TV, is this even a necessity?). I fly to the opposite coast once a year (sometimes every other year, I admit).
I do go on short vacations where I stay at my friends' place for free. I just need gas to go visit them (I usually rent a car for the long drive).
The point is, you don't need to do the stuff you list in order to be happy. And you definitely WON'T be happy if you try to have kids, go on vacations, etc. if you aren't making enough money to support all that.
And if you are a couple without kids, it's pretty easy to take home 25K between 2 people.
High cost of living and low salary. Americans spend way too much on transportation (due to lack of public transit), health care (worst system in the world) and most expensive college education in the world. Add to that high cost of rental housing, diminishing return from bank deposits, little return on real estate investment, pathetic salaries, high cost of insurance, unemployment and we have a recipe of disaster.
And you're not raising a family, right? Do you expect workers raising a family to live on that? Anybody single can live on half of that.
So, the moral of the story is....If you only take home 25K, then don't have kids. They aren't a necessity. Isn't that what the pro-choice movement was all about? People have choices. But they often don't want to make any.
As someone who is concerned about worldwide overpopulation, I'm the last person to defend people having more than one child, but what you posted is utter balderdash: If you are limiting people you don't like to just one choice it isn't a choice. The pro-choice movement is about choice, not limiting people only to one choice, you specify, as an expression of economic discrimination against them.
So, the moral of the story is....If you only take home 25K, then don't have kids. They aren't a necessity. Isn't that what the pro-choice movement was all about? People have choices. But they often don't want to make any.
You could make ends meet on $25k/year here with children.
Subsidized rent -- $750-800 month.
$140 in food stamps each month
Eligible for Medi-Cal so health insurance is free.
Fat EITC check every year.
Sure, it won't be glamorous (no Lexus), but there's enough to live well depending on the choices you make.
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.
and i will add 1 more , not deploying whatever you do save in an effective manner.
