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.
It's a relative collapse that cannot be measured accurately through a circumscribed methodology of fake data (like what the US government says is the rate of inflation, for example).
However, the collapse of wages becomes glaringly obvious when measured comparatively against the rise in costs of healthcare, college, tax, energy, food, insurance, transportation, daycare, et al.
You know, the stuff that most people can't do without without risking homelessness, illness, death, etc....
The stuff that can't be budgeted away even if in some cases they can be somewhat mitigated (read: roommates).
I think it's your pride keeping you from seeing the truth. It seems to me that you would rather feel superior to others that haven't been as lucky as you have than to see the truth.
Too much like a conspiracy theory, and full of unsupported assertions.
Appealing to "pride preventing me from seeing the truth" is an appeal to motive fallacy and not a successful case.
Too much like a conspiracy theory, and full of unsupported assertions.
Appealing to "pride preventing me from seeing the truth" is an appeal to motive fallacy and not a successful case.
It's absolutely supported. All one has to do is look at the cost of healthcare, food, transportation, college, energy, housing, taxes, etc.... and compare those costs with what the government claims the inflation rate is.
This isn't rocket science. It's right in front of you.
As to my 'appeal to motive' I wasn't making an argument, just an observation.
Emotion isn't needed as a tool in this debate when the numbers are so glaringly obvious.
What you say about today's technology trends may be technically true, but it may also miss the bigger picture. The reason is because today's technological needs are very different than they were, circa 1950. Today in 2015 (as opposed to 1955, for instance), Internet access has become a *need*, for obvious reasons. Cell phones have similarly become a need. Cars are definitely and unquestionably a need. Techology and technology needs change, with the times.
Yet another example: if we try to apply the logic you use below in comparing 1950 to 2015, why is that in 1950, people weren't still being encouraged to use horses and buggies, vs. cars? The answer is simple: cars were then (and as they are now) a need. Horses and buggies were no longer sufficient solutions in 1950, for addressing people's basic fundamental needs. The same reasoning is true of Internet and cell phones, today.
FWIW, I don't have an iPad, or a Kindle. I don't even use a laptop (as I have a super-powerful workstation desktop whose hardware specs laptops and smartphones simply can't match). I own an iPod, but it is a much older 2004-ish model. I don't even own a smartphone, still using a conventional flip cell phone. My home residence that is assessed at $700k, is not at all or in any way a McMansion, it is a simple, modest and average split-level home that just happens to be in a very high-COL geographical area...
Quote:
Originally Posted by katykat01
I disagree. People's standards of living have changed drastically. My grandparents earned very little and yet managed to save to put their kids through school and for retirement, but they prioritized their spending and managed to do without a lot of the things that they wanted. Of course, they didn't spend money on cable TV, internet, or cell phones, which currently eats up a huge portion of discretionary income these days. They also rarely ate out. Home size has also drastically changed for the average American - look at the McMansion phenomenon that helped send us into the last recession. People decided it was more important to buy huge homes to impress people than to put that money towards retirement or their kids' college savings plans. Instead, they bought huge homes to furnish, heat, cool, and maintain. HUGE expense there!
What about TVs? People tend to have multiple flat screen TVs through their homes. Think that's cheap? Or manicures and pedicures? Or highlights? Women today spend much more on appearances. How about the gas guzzlers we drive? People didn't always drive such enormous vehicles. How many CDs or DVDs to you own? What about gadgets like iPads, Kindles, etc.? All these items didn't exist in the '50s, 60s, and 70s, so now that they do, everyone expects to have one. Modern American life is designed to drain your pockets. Look at the food prices for packaged/processed foods - foods that were created for working families. I can eat much healthier and cheaper when I make my own food instead of buying that garbage.
It's important to look at the whole picture when making a statement as loaded as the one you posed. The story is in the details. Then again, there have always been people who have lived beyond their means and never saved, regardless of era and income. Hearing my grandparents' stories have taught me that and reading centuries of literature have taught me that.
Oh, and by the way, I can speak from experience too. I earned very little while living in NYC and made many, many sacrifices in order to save to put myself through school and buy a home. It wasn't easy and it certainly wasn't fun, but I did it and watched as all my friends and even non-friends spent like there was no tomorrow. While I own a nice home and have a nice retirement account, they owe a lot of credit card debt and have nothing to show for all the hours they've worked. There is much to be said for living BELOW one's means.
It's absolutely supported. All one has to do is look at the cost of healthcare, food, transportation, college, energy, housing, taxes, etc.... and compare those costs with what the government claims the inflation rate is.
This isn't rocket science. It's right in front of you.
As to my 'appeal to motive' I wasn't making an argument, just an observation.
Emotion isn't needed as a tool in this debate when the numbers are so glaringly obvious.
But the very things you list are the things used to calculate the CPI. Where are you getting your data?
Home ownership is still over 60% of the US population, and 30% of those homes are owned free and clear with no mortgage. Then add in the number of people who just prefer to rent, or move to often to make home ownership practical. That leaves about 20% of people who can't afford it.
Rents are rising because people are still responding to the mortgage crisis. They got the idea into their heads that home ownership is a bad deal, and there it sticks. In fact, home ownership has always been cheaper than renting, because it locks in your housing costs and gets you out of the inflation rat race.
??? ??? ???
There are N people in this country (N1 homeowners and N2 renters) and I'll call the supply of housing Y, comprised of two subsets Y1 (owner-occupied) and Y2 (rental).
The aggregate supply is Y and demand is N. If people don't want to buy homes, N1 falls and N2 rises. Y1 falls and Y2 rises. Aggregate demand remains the same, how does that cause rents to rise? Landlords are buying up those 'unwanted' formerly owner-occupied houses.
I agree with katy. Learn to live below your means. Okay, next to impossible when you're minimum wage. I've gone from minimum wage, to middle, to high. I didn't save much but didn't spend more than I made when I was earning minimum wage. I learned good habits then and now I save/invest 75% of what I earn.
IMO, today in 2015, "living below one's means" = the same thing as having to "voluntarily [or is it involutarily?] reducing and minimizing one's standard of living".
If society can successfully raise the minimum wage to say $30 - $35 an hour, so that lower- and average-income earners are fairly compensated and have a true living wage, I am all for living below one's means. Until then, that is virtually the same as living in poverty (or borderline-poverty) conditions, in today's economic reality.
What you say about today's technology trends may be technically true, but it may also miss the bigger picture. The reason is because today's technological needs are very different than they were, circa 1950. Today in 2015 (as opposed to 1955, for instance), Internet access has become a *need*, for obvious reasons. Cell phones have similarly become a need. Cars are definitely and unquestionably a need. Techology and technology needs change, with the times.
Yet another example: if we try to apply the logic you use below in comparing 1950 to 2015, why is that in 1950, people weren't still being encouraged to use horses and buggies, vs. cars? The answer is simple: cars were then (and as they are now) a need. Horses and buggies were no longer sufficient solutions in 1950, for addressing people's basic fundamental needs. The same reasoning is true of Internet and cell phones, today.
I'm glad you brought this up. One of my somewhat unrelated peeves is when people are quick to judge a low income/poor household by saying, "Whatever, they all claim to be so poor and yet every one of them has a cell phone! They have the internet!" Never mind that prepaid phones exist and that there are charities that assist with providing them.
A shift occurred in society that made certain technology indispensable and in many ways necessary to increase your odds of lifting yourself out of poverty by providing you access to opportunities that someone without that technology wouldn't have.
Be honest. Take two unemployed people actively seeking work. All else being equal, which one do you think will be more successful?
The one with internet service at home who can sit there filling out applications all night, work on his resume and print copies (more technology), research job markets, take classes towards a certification that may help, even do work online to make a little money in the interim.
And has a dedicated mobile so potential employers and leads can contact him at any time, anywhere and he doesn't have to worry about hoping someone else was home to get a message or waiting until he gets home to check them himself assuming he has an answering machine (more technology).
Or
The one who has to pay per minute to use a computer at the nearest Kinkos or internet cafe or drive to the nearest library, which has an hour limit for computer use and charges ten cents per page printed and closes at 6 or otherwise go to a friend/relative's house and feel like they're putting them out because they want to do so much but their friend/relative needs the computer and plus it's getting late.
And who has to put their friend/relative's number on applications and go through weird explanations when you finally do land interest and the employer wants to do a phone interview and doesn't understand why you have to see if someone else will be home at that time first...
All I'm saying is some luxuries make up for themselves in what they provide and that should be taken into account. Plus, if you really get down to it, most things people spend money on are luxuries.
It's easy to point a finger at someone living in a McMansion with all the trimmings because you live in a quaint little one bedroom, half bath with an itty bitty yard, but don't forget that somewhere on Earth, someone is living in a makeshift hut they put together with debris pointing the same finger at you for being so ostentatious lol
Money is tight AFTER paying executive pay. Walmart and Home Depot both pay their executives over 10 million in compensation and they are retail companies. The problem is because of that, they cannot pay the people who make the products or sell the services the company actually offers.
Totally false, typical, liberal drivel. They just raised the wages of the worker bees. And as a company, they can pay their execs what they want. If you disagree with it, shop elsewhere and encourage all your friends to do the same. That's what a market is all about. Exec pay has very little to nothing at all to do with how much the other workers are paid. Actually, if exec pay is reduced, on average, the company wouldn't be attracting talent to run it and the company would fold or not be as competitive causing layoffs or even closure of the company.
Totally false, typical, liberal drivel. They just raised the wages of the worker bees. And as a company, they can pay their execs what they want. If you disagree with it, shop elsewhere and encourage all your friends to do the same. That's what a market is all about. Exec pay has very little to nothing at all to do with how much the other workers are paid. Actually, if exec pay is reduced, on average, the company wouldn't be attracting talent to run it and the company would fold or not be as competitive causing layoffs or even closure of the company.
When corporations are allowed to buy politicians and create a monopoly for themselves (which is supposed to be against the law), consumers and workers are left without choices.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem that your post fails to address.
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.
