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.
I am pointing out what the salary you claim your father made (roughly $46000 in today's dollars) gets you today. It got your family 4 children in an apartment with one working parent. The most I could afford was a bedroom in a 3 bedroom apartment on the same income. I could not have afforded to support a spouse or even a single child, much less 4. Based on your example, YOU are saying it was easier (or roughly equal) to support a family of 6 on that wage than it is for 3 roommates to live together today.
!
What I am saying that I would think that three adults sharing a three-bedroom apartment would have a higher standard of living than my family did, although I could be wrong, of course, as I have no idea what your actual expenses are, and what kind of "extras" (non-essentials) you have, if you even have any extras.
I do think, though, that is very difficult (and borderline foolish) to compare the household expenses of three adults sharing living space to the household expenses of a couple with five young children. (And, btw, I know that my dad brought home $93.00 and change per week in 1963 or 1964 because I saw his paycheck, and it made a lasting impression on my memory. We were living in the apartment I mentioned, and we did not move into that place until 1963. You can believe it or not, but I am not "claiming" anything but the truth.)
I don't want, nor have, a new car or new iPhone. I am required professionally to have access to a smart phone and the internet at home, so I see both as basic utilities like electricity for most people with office jobs.
I am not speaking about better neighborhoods or bigger houses - I am speaking about A neighborhood and A house. As I've posted before, I currently live in a 1 bedroom apartment that is close to $1500 a month. That's an hour from my suburban workplace (closer to an hour and a half to Boston where MOST of the jobs are) but the closest I could comfortably afford while still saving for retirement or emergencies. Sure, I suppose it's a "choice" to save - but is it really? The most I could afford to buy based on the 3x your annual salary rule of thumb are a few 2 bedroom/1 bath condos in dumpy areas, or 1 bed/1 bath condos in less dumpy but still not particularly desirable neighborhoods. That's fine, but it's also a huge difference from past generations.
My job is highly skilled and I have a master's degree. I make well over the average salary for my region. The point most of us are trying to make is that people in these types of roles 50, even 30, years ago had more choices compared to today. People in my general position in their careers (my job didn't exist then) *could* have comfortably bought a house, had a few kids, gone on vacation, had a car or two, and had a shorter commute in both my grandparent's and parent's day. I know because I watched them do it in the very region where I live.
Sure, I made the choice to live in an expensive part of the country, but I also graduated in the recession. I moved across the country for a job because I went where the jobs are. I pivoted my career when some of those extenuating circumstances (cancer) blocked me from my chosen career field so I gained more technical skills and excelled in a different one. Now that I'm here in this region, I'm finding it difficult to get out when most of the jobs in my field are in places equally expensive - if not more so - than where I now live. Go where the jobs are, right?
My quality of living is akin to someone working on a factory floor in the 60s - OK, but not a ton of room for extras. That's fine, but also a bit sad when you think of the years of advanced education, stress of being expected to be responsive at work near 24/7, and level of responsibility required for that lifestyle today.
Unfortunately, with most of the usual suspects here..you are completely wasting your breath trying to get through their immeasurably dense skulls.
No different than an opiate addict. They are addicted to materialism...and, in fact, are doing more harm than some drug addicts as all their selfishness is consuming vast quantities of materials and resources and creating excess pollution.
Maybe if they were truly happy - say, in the Danish Way - they wouldn't need to "fill all the holes" with more stuff. In fact, it's been proven out that this is the case. Their lifestyle is accepted and they would be considered the perfect market.
When the time comes and they need money they will take out a reverse mortgage and sell their stuff.
Doubtful. LOL
They have 6 televisions, 2 of them still in boxes. (They bought them to put in their outdoor space, but never got around to installing them.) She put a post on FB the other day, giving one of them away. I asked why she didn't sell it, and she said it was too much trouble.
I think that this thread truly illustrates the adage about viewing the world from one's own window! And I don't think anyone would deny that the U.S. today is almost a completely different world from what it was 50 or 60 years ago!
And, yes, where one lives does affect to a great extent one's standard of living and one's ability to save -- as does a great many other things, too.
And that stagnation is all about jobs. If you can make good money in the middle of nowhere Ohio, you can live really well. But that making money part isn't that easy. A few cities like NY, LA, San Diego are even further inflated because they are very attractive to young people regardless of jobs.
Actually there are great areas in small/medium cities and their suburbs that have vibrant local economies and not crazy RE prices. It isn't all or nothing.
Yes, young affluent people are inflating values in certain cities. Gentrification really means they want to take over an area for their playground.
Most families can't live on single income anymore because of past and present decisions.
IF at least one spouse had received a good education and/or training for a career with a good earnings, benefits, and a good future; and IF they had decided to postpone starting a family until the main breadwinner had a firm footing in his or her career and they had good savings; and IF decided to forego expensive homes, cars, clothing, and electronics, then most people would be able to afford to have one spouse be a stay-at-home caregiver to any children they would have. (The exceptions would be those cases in which there was a major catastrophe of some kind, such as a major illness or accident.)
Unfortunately, MOST people do not make wise decisions. (And I'm not pointing fingers here, as it wasn't until I reached my mid-50's that my good decisions outnumbered my bad!)
The median wage for a Gen Xer(40ish-55ish) is $53,000.
Do the math to come up w/ how tight this budget is based on your assumptions about what people should be prioritizing.
Fact: MOST Gen Xers STILL would not be financially stable enough to afford children using your assumptions, let alone 15-20 years ago when they're just starting their careers.
$53,000
-15% for retirement
-5% for healthcare
-20% for taxes
-20-30% for housing
-10% for Savings (salary, general repairs, etc)
Now you can do your monthly split for COL.
Transportation, student loans, utilities, OoP healthcare costs, groceries, basic phone bill... and that's just the necessities! Before children! And assuming both people are healthy!
Stop selling this nonsense that the reason people can't afford families is b/c of a $500 TV that they buy every 6-10 years, or $100 in extra phone charges they pay b/c they're not using a flip phone on Boost Mobile. The most basic necessities & money mgmt strategies swallows 95% of the average income for most people, even if they were making sound financial decisions.
The median wage for a Gen Xer(40ish-55ish) is $53,000.
Do the math to come up w/ how tight this budget is based on your assumptions about what people should be prioritizing.
Fact: MOST Gen Xers STILL would not be financially stable enough to afford children using your assumptions, let alone 15-20 years ago when they're just starting their careers.
$53,000
-15% for retirement
-5% for healthcare
-20% for taxes
-20-30% for housing
-10% for Savings (salary, general repairs, etc)
Now you can do your monthly split for COL.
Transportation, student loans, utilities, OoP healthcare costs, groceries, basic phone bill... and that's just the necessities! Before children! And assuming both people are healthy!
Stop selling this nonsense that the reason people can't afford families is b/c of a $500 TV that they buy every 6-10 years, or $100 in extra phone charges they pay b/c they're not using a flip phone on Boost Mobile. The most basic necessities & money mgmt strategies swallows 95% of the average income for most people, even if they were making sound financial decisions.
The root cause has always been wages.
Stop putting words in my mouth. Other people brought up $500 TVs, but I didn't -- I just lumped in electronics as a group -- and the fact is that most people could do with less of them
And as far as finances, each person decides what his or her financial obligations are. Now, things ARE different today -- I am certainly not denying that -- but it is still possible for most families to have one person be a stay-at-home caregiver if they make smart decisions early.
Just to illustrate, my husband and I waited to have children -- we adopted two older kids -- until we were in our early 40's. At that time, my husband did have a high-paying career, we had our own modest home, and so I was able to be a SAHM mom, except that I worked as an educational assistant in the same district my kids attended after they came into our home, so we did not have childcare expenses. We also did not have any debts (except for a small mortgage) because I had always had a good-paying full-time job until the kids came into our home. Those were the decisions we made, and although I am certainly not saying that everyone should make the same decisions we did, the point, again, is that most people do make their own choices, for good or ill.
But, of course, the more money someone makes and the more benefits one has, the better one's life will be, usually.
And that is ALL I am saying.
P.S. And I also willingly admit that we Baby Boomers had it much better in many ways, imo, than the younger generations have it now, and I am truly sorry for that.
Last edited by katharsis; 02-13-2019 at 02:47 PM..
What I am saying that I would think that three adults sharing a three-bedroom apartment would have a higher standard of living than my family did, although I could be wrong, of course, as I have no idea what your actual expenses are, and what kind of "extras" (non-essentials) you have, if you even have any extras.
I do think, though, that is very difficult (and borderline foolish) to compare the household expenses of three adults sharing living space to the household expenses of a couple with five young children. (And, btw, I know that my dad brought home $93.00 and change per week in 1963 or 1964 because I saw his paycheck, and it made a lasting impression on my memory. We were living in the apartment I mentioned, and we did not move into that place until 1963. You can believe it or not, but I am not "claiming" anything but the truth.)
When I was sharing a 3 bedroom/1 bath with 2 roommates, our combined income was $120,000ish, give or take. Now, granted, we only pooled our resources on housing, but we were each making between 40-50K a year, most working office jobs. No vacations, rare eating out/takeout, and few unnecessary extras and only supporting ourselves aside from the shared income. I had several roommates in that place over the years and all had at least a bachelor's degree, several had master's degrees, and I was working toward an MS while working full time (thanks, tuition remission!).
It wasn't a combined household income of adjusted-$46,000 as your family had. That was what we *each* brought to the table to still live a cramped, tense existence.
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.
