"Live within your means": a loaded phrase that seems to be biased in the favor of those more well-off? (responsible, education)

[bobtn]

freemkt, Moving even as a boarder from high COL is the prudent move for those w/o marketable skills.

[Phoenix2017]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Burden of proof is upon you to justify your claim that you are entitled to a given specific Standard of Living.

Most of you waste money on disposable things. Living a disposable Life-Style costs a lot of money.

Live within your means.

You come across here sometimes on C-D as a complete Social Darwinist with extremely little human compassion or mercy or kindheartedness for others, do you know that? That is why, among other things, and as I mentioned before on the thread, when individuals such as yourself say "Live within your means", that really more often than not serves as code and a euphemism for "live in poverty". For persons of your apparent worldview, blessed be the rich and wealthy who are already successful and rolling in money, and woe be to the poor soul who is middle class, lower class, or is struggling financially or who is suffering, through no inherent fault of his or her own. Instead of seeking to alleviate poverty, you would demonize those who are less-fortunate economically (i.e., kicking a dog when they're down, and rubbing salt into the wounds), and instead glorify and exalt the wealthy. What are we supposed to with everyone who is suffering financially, during these very challenging economic times, when even those who want to work are hard-pressed to find a viable job? Just let them go homeless, or the street, starving and penniless, all the while blaming them for their misfortune? Just let them die? Or be merciful, have a human heart, and actually try to help them?

Which kind of Inflation?

Cost-push Inflation is caused by you demanding government regulation at multiple levels of government from the township/city to county to State to the national government-masquerading-as-a-federal-government.

So....let me get this straight...you demand that the prices of goods and services rise, and then you demand to be paid more to cover the cost increases that you demanded?

.

But government regulation has nothing to do that gasoline that used to cost as low as a dollar or less in the 1980's (and in 1980's dollars), that has now risen to near-astronomical proportions (almost $5, as of only a few years ago right?). That's on big business, not the goverment...

Demand-pull Inflation?

When any commodity is consumed to excess, the Laws of Economics kick in and drive up the price so that consumption is reduced in order to preserve or conserve the commodity that is stressed by over-consumption.

You consume like a locust, and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...and then when prices rise, you cry and want higher wages to continue to consume like a locust,...

How then do you explain the fact that a desktop computer that cost around $3000 in 1994 can be purchased today in 2015 for approximately $400 - $800, and given the fact that more computers are produced and bought today than they were in 1994?

There has been no Monetary Deflation or Monetary Inflation.

Quantify and Qualify your "Standard of Living" objectively in no uncertain terms.

It's simple: the dollar is worth much less (some would say as much as 90% less) than it was in the 1970's. The reduced value of the dollar in 2015 vs. what it used to be worth in previous decades is in theory a source of inflation/deflation, correct?

That's because you were murdering and oppressing the rest of the world to steal their wealth and profits and resources.

It's a proven fact you attempted to overthrow the Syrian government (but failed) in 1958, because Syria refused to sign a military assistance agreement and purchase $100 Millions in US military equipment so that Americans could have jobs.

It's also a proven fact that LBJ illegally overthrew the Greek government in 1967, installing a dictatorship called "The Colonels"

8,000 Greek people died in the first month after the coup, but hey....who cares....the Colonels bought $Billions worth of F-104 Starfighters, F-4 Phantoms, A-7 Corsairs, and all manner of field artillery and missiles and armored vehicles and destroyers and frigates so that Americans could have jobs and buy Zenith console TVs and RCA console stereos and lots of furniture.

I'm confused....is murdering and oppressing other peoples by interfering in their domestic, political, economics and social affairs a Christian thing, or is that a Liberal thing?

Civilians are hardly responsible for the military choices of the leaders of their government. Non-military U.S. civilians did not kill anyone, in any of the examples you had cited above. Period.

You have highlighted two different forms of Inflation: Demand-pull --- which I already discussed-- and Interest Inflation.

When you artificially suppress interest rates for mortgages, and then you flood the housing sector with Capital --- in the form of cash/credit for housing loans, and then you have a government that is bankrolling the whole thing by insuring mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...

...you get high housing prices.

I thought that the purpose of Fannie and Freddie was that they were supposed to *help*, not hurt Americans to be able to afford a home? To make housing more, rather than less affordable?

Grow up and get over it already.

This ain't the 1950s when you had no global competition.

This ain't the 1960s when your only global competition was Taiwan.

This ain't the 1970s when your only global competition was Taiwan and Japan.

This ain't the 1980s when your only global competition was Taiwan and Japan and Korea.

This ain't the 1990s when your only global competition was Taiwan and Japan and Korea and Indonesia and Thailand and Malaysia.

This is the 21st Century. Your competition is the aforementioned plus 1.5 Billion screaming Chinese.

Soon to be 1.5 Billion screaming Chinese and 1 Billion screaming Indians.

Soon to be 1.5 Billion screaming Chinese, 1 Billion screaming Indians and 1 Billion Eastern Europeans & Central Asians.

Followed by 1 Billion sub-Saharan Africans.

Figure it out yet?

Why does everything have to be a zero-sum game though? Why Chinese VS. USA? Why can't both countries win at the same time, without having to beat or hurt each other economically to do it? Why can't we have a win-win situation, rather than win-lose?

But I can afford it, because I'm not throwing away $86/month on Cable TV or Satellite TV (but then I don't have a TV either). I have pay-as-you-go cell-phone, so I save $40+ a month on that. I don't have anything disposable, so I save $1,000s every year. How important are designer clothing labels to you? To me, they aren't important, but I have lots of designer clothing I got from thrift stores.

Designer clothes have no importance to me. I currently buy extremely low-cost and discounted clothes from places like Macy's, but I definitely do not buy high-end or expensive clothes. My cell phone is basic-issue, non-smartphone. I admittedly have a cable TV subscription, but it is the lowest-cost option.

I've only bought one new car in my entire life. I was in the military at the time. All other times, I have used cars, since I couldn't afford a car payment and a boat payment at the same time, and the boat is far more important. I keep it docked near Vama Veche and sail down the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea to my favorite all-time Greek restaurant.

Same here -- I've only ever bought 1 new car so far in my life; all the others were used and in good condition.

You people need to learn how to prioritize and set goals to achieve what you want, and no, DVDs and iPhones and iPods are not priorities, because pissing and moaning about what you don't got and about what everyone else has, is going to leave you with nothing.

As I had alluded to in an earlier post in this thread, if priorities and what is thought of as necessities didn't change fluidly over time, people would still be using horses and buggies today in 2015, instead of cars. There was a time, after all, when only the wealthy could afford to purchase cars, yes? Most reasonable people in 2015 would agree, however, that having at least one car per family is, in fact, a modern necessity. And FWIW, I currently only have a very basic, non-smartphone, and a much-older model, 7 or 8-year old iPod.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by StarPaladin

I thought that the purpose of Fannie and Freddie was that they were supposed to *help*, not hurt Americans to be able to afford a home? To make housing more, rather than less affordable?

Intent and outcome are not necessarily the same. Offering such generous mortgage lending may get more people into houses in the short term, but only makes future housing crises worse because people bought houses and stretched themselves too thin, or worse yet, put less than 10% down and have negative equity (after accounting for realtor commissions and moving costs).

[bg7]

Originally Posted by StarPaladin

You come across here sometimes on C-D as a complete Social Darwinist with extremely little human compassion or mercy or kindheartedness for others, do you know that? That is why, among other things, and as I mentioned before on the thread, when individuals such as yourself say "Live within your means", that really more often than not serves as code and a euphemism for "live in poverty". For persons of your apparent worldview, blessed be the rich and wealthy who are already successful and rolling in money, and woe be to the poor soul who is middle class, lower class, or is struggling financially or who is suffering, through no inherent fault of his or her own. Instead of seeking to alleviate poverty, you would demonize those who are less-fortunate economically (i.e., kicking a dog when they're down, and rubbing salt into the wounds), and instead glorify and exalt the wealthy. What are we supposed to with everyone who is suffering financially, during these very challenging economic times, when even those who want to work are hard-pressed to find a viable job? Just let them go homeless, or the street, starving and penniless, all the while blaming them for their misfortune? Just let them die? Or be merciful, have a human heart, and actually try to help them?



But government regulation has nothing to do that gasoline that used to cost as low as a dollar or less in the 1980's (and in 1980's dollars), that has now risen to near-astronomical proportions (almost $5, as of only a few years ago right?). That's on big business, not the goverment...



How then do you explain the fact that a desktop computer that cost around $3000 in 1994 can be purchased today in 2015 for approximately $400 - $800, and given the fact that more computers are produced and bought today than they were in 1994?



It's simple: the dollar is worth much less (some would say as much as 90% less) than it was in the 1970's. The reduced value of the dollar in 2015 vs. what it used to be worth in previous decades is in theory a source of inflation/deflation, correct?



Civilians are hardly responsible for the military choices of the leaders of their government. Non-military U.S. civilians did not kill anyone, in any of the examples you had cited above. Period.




I thought that the purpose of Fannie and Freddie was that they were supposed to *help*, not hurt Americans to be able to afford a home? To make housing more, rather than less affordable?



Why does everything have to be a zero-sum game though? Why Chinese VS. USA? Why can't both countries win at the same time, without having to beat or hurt each other economically to do it? Why can't we have a win-win situation, rather than win-lose?



Designer clothes have no importance to me. I currently buy extremely low-cost and discounted clothes from places like Macy's, but I definitely do not buy high-end or expensive clothes. My cell phone is basic-issue, non-smartphone. I admittedly have a cable TV subscription, but it is the lowest-cost option.



Same here -- I've only ever bought 1 new car so far in my life; all the others were used and in good condition.



As I had alluded to in an earlier post in this thread, if priorities and what is thought of as necessities didn't change fluidly over time, people would still be using horses and buggies today in 2015, instead of cars. There was a time, after all, when only the wealthy could afford to purchase cars, yes? Most reasonable people in 2015 would agree, however, that having at least one car per family is, in fact, a modern necessity. And FWIW, I currently only have a very basic, non-smartphone, and a much-older model, 7 or 8-year old iPod.

That's just moronic. How does "live within your means" equate with "don't increase your means"?

Live within your means is plain common sense. If you go outside of your means - you'll likely just make someone else, usually a creditor, richer. "Living within your means" is no way an exhortation to not increase your means. Huge logic fail.

Sounds like some agenda is driving your posts.

[otterhere]

Wow; if some people worked as hard at a j-o-b as they do at justifying not being able to survive on what they make/have, they'd have a much easier time surviving on what they make/have.

There's something to be said for social Darwinism, I always say...

[VJDAY81445]

Many people refuse to live within their means and proof of that was all the home owners who kept using the equity in their house as an ATM machine.

One should realize if their income isn't covering their lifestyle you are living beyond your means.

[Phoenix2017]

Originally Posted by bg7

That's just moronic. How does "live within your means" equate with "don't increase your means"?

Live within your means is plain common sense. If you go outside of your means - you'll likely just make someone else, usually a creditor, richer. "Living within your means" is no way an exhortation to not increase your means. Huge logic fail.

Sounds like some agenda is driving your posts.

No agenda. Plain and simple, wages have not been sufficiently inflation-adjusted since about the 1970's. There are actual economists out there who predict that if it had, in fact, been adequately adjusted for inflation, then the minimum wage would have been somewhere between $30 - $35 an hour today. A pre-1970's dollar had so much more value than a 2015 dollar does today. That represents a large *decrease* in the means by which one lives, vs. previous decades, and why I say that since the goal posts by which one lives have been moved from where they were in the past and overall standard of living for the non-wealthy has gone down rather up, "live within your means" = euphemism for "live in poverty".

[Phoenix2017]

Originally Posted by otterhere

Wow; if some people worked as hard at a j-o-b as they do at justifying not being able to survive on what they make/have, they'd have a much easier time surviving on what they make/have.

I have a job (as described earlier in the thread). Where exactly did you get as a takeway that I did not?

There's something to be said for social Darwinism, I always say...

Oh ye of little compassion... If that was your mother, your father, your brother or sister, who was suffering to make ends meet financially, would you really feel the same way?

[Aredhel]

Originally Posted by StarPaladin

No agenda. Plain and simple, wages have not been sufficiently inflation-adjusted since about the 1970's.

And how does living above your means change that? Wait, it doesn't! It just puts you into debt.

"live within your means" = euphemism for "live in poverty".

If you're earning poverty-level wages, yes. What other choice do you have in that case? Taking out loans (which is the only alternative to living within your means) doesn't make the poverty go away. It only offers an illusion of prosperity, which eventually ends in bankruptcy court.

Borrowed money isn't earnings or savings. Pretending that it is is folly.

[otterhere]

My family doesn't "suffer" financially because we were all raised to be fiscally responsible. Get an education, get a job, get up and go to it every day; it's not fun, but it's also not rocket science. And then don't spend it all and then some. Live below your means (full circle)...