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 living below your means. The problem is some want to live like they are rich when they aren't. Others want to live like the middle class and rich but don't want to put forth the same effort.
For some years now, I have been advocating shanty towns are precisely the vehicle by which the new poor can live below their means.
But the non-poor refuse to allow them.
People who refuse to allow poor people to live in housing below their means, have no moral standing to say that poor people need to live below their means.
The book did show me how out of touch I am with both the upper and the lower class.
I'll offer here the observation that having middle class values without the income to enjoy a middle class lifestyle leads to great angst.
Which leads to a question: Could the lower class mindset be a psychological defense mechanism against the cognitive dissonance poor people would experience if they had middle class thinking?
Jobs for native-born Americans are becoming scarcer. Wages are being forced down. 70% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck; the fact that so many have nice cars, premium cable, live in a house, etc., is a facade, an illusion, as so many of them are drowning in debt. The young adults are "hiding out" in the educational system, praying that the economy will improve by the time they get their 2nd Master. Do you really think we can keep this up for another 20 years? The party will come to an end at some point.
I disagree with the shanty town future. Living beyond ones means is hurting a great deal of America, personal decisions. Some circumstances are unavoidable for some, many of those can be traced back to an earlier decision they made, but not all.
I actually think many of them are looking forward to a "purge"....or tribulation that will cleanse this nation of undesirables. Everything is relative, though. Purging those currently seen as undesirables might make many of those who are currently wanting a purge....the new undesirables. Be careful of what you wish for.
The 'purge' has been engineered by the Left. They lack the ability to anticipate the consequences of their beliefs and actions.
We will definitely continue losing the middle class as long as we keep up the charade of "helping" the poor through tax and spending.
if the rich ones used their money to create firms and jobs (as once they used to do) instead of gambling (financial speculation) we wouldn't need so much tax and spending...
I will ask my public library if they have a copy I can borrow. It sounds interesting.
Micera - I have a couple of questions. What do you think would be the state of our economy if most people actually lived within their means and only borrowed for the big expenses such as a house?
What would happen if the governments paid off their debts and taxed for current expenses?
Where would the workers put their savings and how much would they get in interest?
Where would the banks loan all the deposits in order to afford to pay interest for the deposits?
OP - Have you looked at some I=of the inner ring early suburbs lately. I mean the ones established by the rail and trolley transport as well as the early car suburbs. They are not being gentrified like the inner city housing areas.
if the rich ones used their money to create firms and jobs (as once they used to do) instead of gambling (financial speculation) we wouldn't need so much tax and spending...
The right-wing ethic is explicitly self-motivated. So creation of firms and jobs is not consistent with their intentions, even though they may try to claim it is. Instead, the main criteria is that the investment is likely to provide the very best possible return on investment. In context, there is nothing wrong with that. A reasonable system could be structured so that each individual within it behaves in a strictly selfish manner, like the right-wingers do, but with the system regulating each individual's activities such that every individual in the system has sufficient access to the opportunity to the resources necessary to pay one's own way and secure one's own future. If people are given license to behave in a strictly amoral manner, then it is incumbent on the system to ensure it is not exploited in an amoral manner. When the system is made to abrogate that responsibility, injustice is inevitable simply because of the nature of money and power.
The problem with the right-wing perspective is that they want to act in an amoral manner individually, and they want the system to not only allow but facilitate the injustice engendered by the amoral exploitation and callous disregard they wish to practice with impunity. A great way to see the indefensibly malevolent nature of right-wing perspective is to demand a response to the question of what should become of the least fortunate in society. The answer will either be a childish evasion ("not my problem"), begging the question ("they should get more money"), or patently immoral (various euphemisms for letting poor people live short, sickly and miserable lives).
So many people are duped by right-wing media into thinking that this is an economic matter. It isn't. It's a matter of morality. Right-wingers try to "cover" morality with references to dogma rather than the practice of compassion and caring for others. The right-wing has spent billions and billions of dollars duping weak-minded sycophants into buying into the cynical claptrap devoid of humane principles. And the right-wing plans to continue to buy elections, with plans to do so by spending billions and billions of dollars more, to promote the tens and tens of billions that the most affluent gain from such antisocial approaches.
I'm glad I can agree with both of you at the same time. Though, a little debt isn't bad as long as you have the ability to pay it off at any time.
Petch, yep. Just because you make $1,200/month doesn't mean you need to act cool and lease a 7 Series BMW for $1,000/month. Saving your income for the future doesn't make you any less well-off in the present.
Anecdotally, I work for a company that employs people who make nearly minimum wage and those who make $250,000+. We all park in the same lot when we arrive for work. Those who make the least often drive far more valuable vehicles than those who are making more than them. That is reality.
Wow...about 1/4 the cars in our parking lot are BMW's. none of which are being driven by the cleaning staff. While I admit, I am not driving one either, your reality doesn't match what I see at all.
Different companies I suppose.
(Seriously there is literally about over 1,000 or so BMW's in our parking lot. Its amazing.
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.
