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.
Generalizations are useless. The latter half of the boomers -- now between 45 and 55 -- faced double-digit unemployment, rampant inflation, shuttering factories and a shifting and contracting economy when we left school and our parents' homes. My first job paid $4 an hour, and I was laid off after four months when my employer could no longer afford full-time staff. Our parents -- born during the Great Depression -- if they had jobs in manufacturing, either white collar or blue collar, were losing their jobs.
Times then were just as uncertain as they are now. It's all cyclical.
We've all had it tough at one point or another, no matter which generation you've been born into. I was brought up to believe that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. And you know what ... it's so true.
Sure, if you live in the same house you bought in your early 30s -- incidentally, most people of my age waited until then to purchase their first home, until they'd saved enough money on their own to afford the down payment and the expenses that go along with home ownership. I relocated and purchased my second home in 2005. It's now worth about $10,000 less than it was when I bought it. That's the risk you take when you buy real estate.
Again, where is it guaranteed that you will not, or should not, struggle during your life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3N1TH 0N3
While you bring up some valid points, I believe the son/daughter should at least contribute to some of the added household expenses (utilities, groceries,etc.), especially if he/she is making a good living. Maybe it's just my mindset, but I absolutely detest the idea of my parents struggling to survive. I have even considered the possibility of sending money their way in the event that they encounter dire financial straits. Perhaps that is a reflection of how much I love them. Not that this hypothetical character doesn't love his parents, but sometimes we can let "me" get in the way of showing our love and affection for those we care about.
Forget about what your co-workers think (don't tell them). I think Jayson should continue living at home but put in for groceries and maybe help pay some of the utilities. Live at home as long as possible so that he can save up money to buy house, etc. I think a girl would understand if Jayson had a plan. If a girl didn't understand then she's not for him and he can move on from her.
What I'm telling you is that "the kids" aren't going through anything previous generations have not experienced. So you can spare us all the drama and get to work improving your "woe is me" lives.
Sigh They are. Read this post closely and than watch Elizabeth Warren's talk when you have time. You obviously don't understand these issues. Read this post and watch the video. You only have to wathch from 8 min on.
Once again this post is appropriate to get to the bottom of the situation being discussed here. Specifically, grown adult children in their 20's to 30's who can not afford to live on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero it doesnt
its becoming harder to afford many things for all people
a personal example...I make about 3 times what my father made at his highest level...and it is tougher for me to make ends meet that it was for him
look at the price of a car...a midsize chevy (say the nova) in 1970 was $2200.....today a midsize chevy is 20k or more
the value of the dollar is in the toilet
Yep!!!!! And going lower. Wait till QE3 LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Also the wages aren't there and if you compare that with inflation it just doesn't work.
In 1980, I had an entry level job as a sound engineer with a local independent TV station earning $5.00 per hour.One paycheck paid my rent and utilities and auto insurance and the other 3 paycheckseach month were disposable income.
An entry level job today pays $8.50 to $10 per hour and even at $10 per hour it takes 2 paychecks to cover the cost of rent, utilities and auto insurance (and don't forget in 1980 $10 -- or two hours of work -- paid for 2 tickets to the cinema show, a tank full of gasoline and something to eat after the movie -- the cost of two movie tickets now is over $20).
GuyNTexas says IT ALL Here!!!!
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
No. I'm really disagreeing with .. not missing your point. And those numbers don't tell a very accurate story, and the proof is demonstrated by the drop in net worth of middle income earners as their debt has increased significantly, while earnings have declined relative to inflation.
By most measurable data points, the middle income class has been dying a very slow, incremental death for 4 decades because the costs on high ticket items have increased more rapidly than the either the inflation rate or rates of increases in income. To further compound the problem, average income levels have failed to keep pace with the inflation rate itself. Much of this goes unnoticed because of it's slow incremental nature (like growing old). But if you are old enough, and still maintain your mental faculties, you can't be bull $hted into believing what you are trying to say here.
As just one example, in 1977, I bought a brand new Pontiac Trans Am for $5200. And since it was my first car purchase, I suspect I was clubbed like a baby seal (paid full MSRP), as I simply asked how much, and said OK (later I learned the error of this way to purchase automobiles )
Now today, that car is no longer available, but a comparable car "Chevy Camero SS" is. And a similarly configured model is around $35,000 MSRP. Which is almost double the adjusted for inflation number of $18,700 that Camero should cost relative to the $5200 Trans Am of 1977.
My income back then was 14,000 or just shy of 3 times what the car cost ... if you apply that same formula to the $35,000 Camero today, I'd have to earn roughly $100,000 per year to maintain the same standard (drive the same car) as my $14,000 income provided then. I was not wealthy then .. I was a 20 year oldworking in a warehouse driving a forklift. And I don't think there are many 6 figure forklift drivers around today ...I would say, the 40-50K range would be the upper limit ... or roughly the same as my $14,000 would be, adjusted for inflation.
This is one example, and almost any big item ... car, house, etc. works out to be the same. Some other items like Healthcare have dramatically exceeded those rates exponentially compared to 1977 where mine was absolutely free and first rate, including dental.
Now, add to this the higher taxes, social security withholding, and medicare ... all of which have exceeded the inflation rate (and don't let anyone BS you into believing it hasn't), means that the net spending power of your income has declined dramatically over the past 30+ years. (See video below she documents ALL this IN DETAIL)
Now around about that same time frame, my step father worked for one of the US Government agencies earning roughly in the 50-60K range, and at the time, that was very good money, but not even close to RICH & Wealthy .... but adjusted for inflation, that comes out to around $200+K now. The house he purchased then at $50,000 appraised for $480,000 in 2004-5 even though the adjusted for inflation value would have only dictated a $155,000 figure ... 3 times the inflation rate!! By the time he retired in the late 90's, his income may have doubled, yet his house increased by 6-8 fold. What does that tell you?
Now if you are following me here ... this is where it gets real hairy ... if you take a Quarter ... 25 cents ... from say 1964 (the last 90% silver Quarter) that 25 cents equates to $1.76 in 2010 value. But guess what? Today's melt value of that sliver quarter is about $3.70 which is again more than double the published inflation rate ....
So what does that all mean? It means very simply, that the value of your money is worth about half of what it's claimed to be worth, even after being adjusted for inflation .... and all it takes is to actually look at the historical costs of items like cars, and houses and health care costs from the late 60's to today, and also the median incomes. You see that the purchasing power has indeed declined. And this is a result of the devaluation of the currency (a hidden tax).
So when it comes to buying power, there has been a continuous decline that doubles the the inflation rates admitted .. which is why the middle class really doesn't exist for all practical purposes today.
There are the ultra wealthy, and the rest. The $250kers are just at the higher end of that rest of us, and they are the last of the upper middle class, and the next in line to fall ... apparently, much to delight of many who think that they are members of the Wealthy Club, and must fall for the sake of everyone.
I suppose this proves that indeed, misery loves company.
I think he's taking advantage of a good opportunity. Sure people might call him lazy and crap like that, but this is becoming the new norm in our country. And I personally think its a good idea IF USED TO YOUR ADVANTAGE. I would do it because like everybody said if you save your money you'll be banking and be in a good finacial standing when compared to other people your age. Plus it would give me enough money to start a business or work on business related things. Can't go wrong nowadays especially with the way things are now.
Sigh They are. Read this post closely and than watch Elizabeth Warren's talk when you have time. You obviously don't understand these issues. Read this post and watch the video. You only have to wathch from 8 min on.
Once again this post is appropriate to get to the bottom of the situation being discussed here. Specifically, grown adult children in their 20's to 30's who can not afford to live on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero it doesnt
its becoming harder to afford many things for all people
a personal example...I make about 3 times what my father made at his highest level...and it is tougher for me to make ends meet that it was for him
look at the price of a car...a midsize chevy (say the nova) in 1970 was $2200.....today a midsize chevy is 20k or more
the value of the dollar is in the toilet
Yep!!!!! And going lower. Wait till QE3 LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Also the wages aren't there and if you compare that with inflation it just doesn't work.
In 1980, I had an entry level job as a sound engineer with a local independent TV station earning $5.00 per hour.One paycheck paid my rent and utilities and auto insurance and the other 3 paycheckseach month were disposable income.
An entry level job today pays $8.50 to $10 per hour and even at $10 per hour it takes 2 paychecks to cover the cost of rent, utilities and auto insurance (and don't forget in 1980 $10 -- or two hours of work -- paid for 2 tickets to the cinema show, a tank full of gasoline and something to eat after the movie -- the cost of two movie tickets now is over $20).
GuyNTexas says IT ALL Here!!!!
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
No. I'm really disagreeing with .. not missing your point. And those numbers don't tell a very accurate story, and the proof is demonstrated by the drop in net worth of middle income earners as their debt has increased significantly, while earnings have declined relative to inflation.
By most measurable data points, the middle income class has been dying a very slow, incremental death for 4 decades because the costs on high ticket items have increased more rapidly than the either the inflation rate or rates of increases in income. To further compound the problem, average income levels have failed to keep pace with the inflation rate itself. Much of this goes unnoticed because of it's slow incremental nature (like growing old). But if you are old enough, and still maintain your mental faculties, you can't be bull $hted into believing what you are trying to say here.
As just one example, in 1977, I bought a brand new Pontiac Trans Am for $5200. And since it was my first car purchase, I suspect I was clubbed like a baby seal (paid full MSRP), as I simply asked how much, and said OK (later I learned the error of this way to purchase automobiles )
Now today, that car is no longer available, but a comparable car "Chevy Camero SS" is. And a similarly configured model is around $35,000 MSRP. Which is almost double the adjusted for inflation number of $18,700 that Camero should cost relative to the $5200 Trans Am of 1977.
My income back then was 14,000 or just shy of 3 times what the car cost ... if you apply that same formula to the $35,000 Camero today, I'd have to earn roughly $100,000 per year to maintain the same standard (drive the same car) as my $14,000 income provided then. I was not wealthy then .. I was a 20 year oldworking in a warehouse driving a forklift. And I don't think there are many 6 figure forklift drivers around today ...I would say, the 40-50K range would be the upper limit ... or roughly the same as my $14,000 would be, adjusted for inflation.
This is one example, and almost any big item ... car, house, etc. works out to be the same. Some other items like Healthcare have dramatically exceeded those rates exponentially compared to 1977 where mine was absolutely free and first rate, including dental.
Now, add to this the higher taxes, social security withholding, and medicare ... all of which have exceeded the inflation rate (and don't let anyone BS you into believing it hasn't), means that the net spending power of your income has declined dramatically over the past 30+ years. (See video below she documents ALL this IN DETAIL)
Now around about that same time frame, my step father worked for one of the US Government agencies earning roughly in the 50-60K range, and at the time, that was very good money, but not even close to RICH & Wealthy .... but adjusted for inflation, that comes out to around $200+K now. The house he purchased then at $50,000 appraised for $480,000 in 2004-5 even though the adjusted for inflation value would have only dictated a $155,000 figure ... 3 times the inflation rate!! By the time he retired in the late 90's, his income may have doubled, yet his house increased by 6-8 fold. What does that tell you?
Now if you are following me here ... this is where it gets real hairy ... if you take a Quarter ... 25 cents ... from say 1964 (the last 90% silver Quarter) that 25 cents equates to $1.76 in 2010 value. But guess what? Today's melt value of that sliver quarter is about $3.70 which is again more than double the published inflation rate ....
So what does that all mean? It means very simply, that the value of your money is worth about half of what it's claimed to be worth, even after being adjusted for inflation .... and all it takes is to actually look at the historical costs of items like cars, and houses and health care costs from the late 60's to today, and also the median incomes. You see that the purchasing power has indeed declined. And this is a result of the devaluation of the currency (a hidden tax).
So when it comes to buying power, there has been a continuous decline that doubles the the inflation rates admitted .. which is why the middle class really doesn't exist for all practical purposes today.
There are the ultra wealthy, and the rest. The $250kers are just at the higher end of that rest of us, and they are the last of the upper middle class, and the next in line to fall ... apparently, much to delight of many who think that they are members of the Wealthy Club, and must fall for the sake of everyone.
I suppose this proves that indeed, misery loves company.
Excellent!!! Unfortunately, there are a lot of thick headed old people on here who will refute this argument until the day they die. It boils down to pride. They were the best. The rest of us are lazy and entitled.
Now is a good time to convert your dollars into gold or nuismatic coins that TSA cant tell the difference, they look like change in the x ray machine and dogs dont sniff for gold or change so you can easily get way over 10k out of the country.
Buy a copy of rosetta stone and spend some of your free time learning a lanugage you think will be the next great nation (both in terms of economy AND human rights, which rules out china). I think germany. Maybe australia or new zealand and you dont need to learn a new launguage.
I think the gen xers can ride it out and live ok if you are extremely shrewd and smart about what your doing but any babys that are born now better make sure they are bilingual in german or some other laungaue of a nation that has a chance to rise up and be great (not china lol).
I spend my money doing what I want to do now because the USD is going to be worthless toilet paper in 5-10 years unless there are some earth shattering changes in this nation. Maybe we should elect someone in to sieze there pensions and accounts of these boomers and spread the pie around if they want to keep bad mouthing us.
That is true. But the purchasing power of our parents' dollars also has declined. So, again, to get back to the point: Why should anyone earning a reasonable living burden their parents with their living expenses?
This post apparently came from the twilight zone, at least compared with my family. My mom LOVES having me at home (unemployed) and would be burdened to see me leave - even if I found a good-paying job in another state. She doesn't view me as a "burden" at all, and neither would my dad if he was still alive.
Living with your parents has major societal advantages, too. For one thing, it cuts down on pre-marital sex. In societies where people live with their parents until they marry, you usually have to sneak off to a motel, and that can get expensive. It also cuts down dramatically on pre-marital cohabitation. In our culture, with the rising cost of living, it often seems natural to move in with your loved one, even though you are not married or even engaged. Living with roommates is regarded as an inferior option, and living with your parents - your other loved ones - is not accepted.
This post apparently came from the twilight zone, at least compared with my family. My mom LOVES having me at home (unemployed) and would be burdened to see me leave - even if I found a good-paying job in another state. She doesn't view me as a "burden" at all, and neither would my dad if he was still alive.
Living with your parents has major societal advantages, too. For one thing, it cuts down on pre-marital sex. In societies where people live with their parents until they marry, you usually have to sneak off to a motel, and that can get expensive. It also cuts down dramatically on pre-marital cohabitation. In our culture, with the rising cost of living, it often seems natural to move in with your loved one, even though you are not married or even engaged. Living with roommates is regarded as an inferior option, and living with your parents - your other loved ones - is not accepted.
Excellent post! Yeah, I don't understand the logic of raising your children to the best of your ability, loving them with all of your heart and then... kicking them to the curb when they turn 18? That makes no sense at all. Families should enjoy spending their time together... and you only have one mom and one dad. But, yet, it is somehow more accepted in our culture to live with your current boyfriend or girlfriend, only then to break up and then proceed to shack up with your next "significant other"... rinse and repeat. Isn't it much better to have your family as roommates?
Well, it's a good idea for him to stay at home if he's financially unable to rent his own place, as long as he's saving up some money, or his parents are in need for the upkeep of the house.
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.
They are. Read this post closely and than watch Elizabeth Warren's talk when you have time. You obviously don't understand these issues. Read this post and watch the video. You only have to wathch from 8 min on.
) 
And I don't think there are many 6 figure forklift drivers around today ...
I would say, the 40-50K range would be the upper limit ... or roughly the same as my $14,000 would be, adjusted for inflation.
