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.
$500 jeans was nothing but an exaggeration and should be seen as such, and a mature discussion w9uld move on and address the salient points.
I went to school in Lee's, with the two leather patches on the back pocket and back belt loop. I think nowadays they're called Lee Riders. My mom bought them at Penny's for about a buck and a half a pair, which is in today's dollars, about half of what they cost now. She rolled the cuffs up twice, so I could get at least two years out of them, and put them in the washer after a week, at which point the cuffs were full of gravel. I had two pairs, one to wear and one in the wash.
I want to repeat the crucial words that I mentioned earlier. My dad made enough for the family to live WITH RESPECT AND DIGNITY, even though I had only two pairs of pants, and he had only grade 4 education and an unskilled job. Respect and dignity are a lot more important than $500 jeans , and one man working one job earned enough to afford respect and dignity.
All things being relative, as they so often are, there is something you need to keep in mind about the 50s. Most middle aged moms and dads in the 50s had grown up during the depression, when there really desperation and hardship, and then the war, when Americans were really called upon to make sacrifices, and in the 50s, things seemed damned good to them, comparatively speaking.
every generation had its expensive indulges. being an audiophile .i owned the first cd player ever sold. it was a magnavox player and it cost me 1,000 bucks. there were about a few dozen cd's available when i bought the player.. i could easily spend 3 or 4 months income on stereo equipment in those days. the point is so what? there were always items available to all generations that were quite pricey for their day .
anyone who is not worried about government debt simply does not understand the issue. anyone who is not worried about government debt simply does not understand the issue.
Wether one worries about personal finances or governement finances it is still worry....a dis-empowering place to hang out. Worry is also a big contributor to dis-ease that eventually manifests on the physical level. Rather than hanging out in a state of worry/concern about anything, once you become aware that you are indeed worrying ( focusing on an unwanted outcome ), consciously shift your focus to the outcome that you prefer. Used in this manner, worry becomes an ally rather than a cause of stress/dis-ease.
anyone who is not worried about government debt simply does not understand the issue. anyone who is not worried about government debt simply does not understand the issue.
Wether one worries about personal finances or governement finances it is still worry....a dis-empowering place to hang out. Worry is also a big contributor to dis-ease that eventually manifests on the physical level. Rather than hanging out in a state of worry/concern about anything, once you become aware that you are indeed worrying ( focusing on an unwanted outcome ), consciously shift your focus to the outcome that you prefer. Used in this manner, worry becomes an ally rather than a cause of stress/dis-ease.
Fear can also be a great motivator, Jerry Jones often comments on what a motivation the fear of going broke has been to him and he has 2 billion dollars.
In my life, I have found complacency to be far more dangerous than worry. Of course this is dependent on personality type, to some people fear and worry is a motivator and others freeze up and become overwhelmed. Perhaps that is the rub between the cheerleaders and the doomers on this board. Some people see bad news as motivating, and others see good news as motivating.
All things being relative, as they so often are, there is something you need to keep in mind about the 50s. Most middle aged moms and dads in the 50s had grown up during the depression, when there really desperation and hardship, and then the war, when Americans were really called upon to make sacrifices, and in the 50s, things seemed damned good to them, comparatively speaking.
This is so true. You have to take a look back at where THEY were coming from. Nothing today can compare to what they endured during the depression. After the depression came the war -- it all resulted in a giddy, happy, grateful time, a time to heal the hurt and create simple, happy lives with family.
The women went willingly back into the home from the factories and their jobs went back to the men. Not that the women really liked their newly found isolation in the home for very long............but for a while it was a fun novelty.
Quote:
The movies I saw on cable last night had no more realism than Roy Rogers. I don't know a single family that lives like the ones I saw on HBO last night, ranging from superheroes in non-stop shootouts and chase scenes, to New York City psychobabble talkfests. Reality then was Lassie and The Cleavers, who were just like nearly all families I knew.
At lest in the '55 Chevy, which occasionally crashed, there was affordable medical treatment for the victims. And kids could stand up in the back seat asking questions about the outside world, and maybe learning something. I know more people now than I did then, who are suffering the effects of car crashes.
Camels have just been replaced by alcohol and meth and vicoden. The corporate empires are pushing salt/sugar/grease food and OTC remedies with the same immunity and comparable or worse health consequences.
-----------------------------------------------end quote
So the '50s were simpler, less complicated times and most people never even bothered to look beneath the surface. After the depression, the war, just let us relax and enjoy!!!!
Evils like McCarthyism flourished, a witch hunt by a few who decided to ruin lives by accusing innocent people of being communists. Segregation, zero opportunities for women, conformity. In many ways the 50s were stifling.
The '60s were liberating--can't say enough about the 60s. Rebellion against our parents' 1950s materialism-the house in the boring suburbs, the station wagon and wanna be Cadillac, being the first on the block for anything, be it an air conditioner, a color tv, wall to wall carpeting--for kids it was materialism too and conforming and keeping up with the other kids. It just didn't cost as much as it does today--hula hoops, white buck shoes, 3 speed bicycles, Sassy Walker doll (which MY parents couldn't afford!), felt skirts, penny loafers, and on and on. The 50s were very materialistic and show-off, keep up with the Joneses--it's just that you didn't have to go bankrupt to do it.
Skipping most of the 60s--we did get organic gardening a good start, we worked against the Viet Nam War, we strove to get more opportunities for women, we drove frugal VWs instead of our parents' ostentatious, long chrome cars with fins, we experimented with communal living or at least we bought small, economical houses while our parents were still outdoing the Joneses by buying bigger, more "prestigious" homes.
The 70s were a dead loss. What a let down. And we got Nixon in the white house somehow. I think a lot of boomers just gave up during the 70s. Maybe that's when some of them became materialistic just like their parents? I never knew anyone who bought into this materialism, we all kept our simple jobs and lifestyle. It helps today if you were frugal back then -- nothing new to learn.
The 80s? Things seemed to get better and there was a lot of money floating around out there. I remember people were getting government grants for just about anything you could think of. Kind of wasteful, actually. I was scared when Reagan got elected--it felt like a fake sense of security.
The 90s? Where I live, house prices crashed. There was another recession, not as severe as the 70s, but it was hard to get a job. We lost money on the house and relocated for jobs.
hmmm, the original question? Life WAS simpler and easier in the 1950s. It was boring too, very mundane. Fit in, conform, be just like your neighbor or a little bit "better." Restrictive. Don't dare to be different or to think outside the box. Have the greenest lawn on the block. Sputnik=American kids have to study more math and science (has that changed?) We all had money to live on and only Dad had to work. (If a woman worked she was trying to be like a man.) TV was a million times better, maybe a ZILLION times better and it was free. There was always something good to watch as a family. Families were close, discipline was tough, schools and teachers were respected-that was good.
Who knows whether I'd get more than I'd put in? Why would that be a factor, some people live to be 55 and some live to be 105, what are you proposing you can receive benefits until the amount you receive exceeds what you put in then you are cut off?
Whether someone is retired in another country is also completely irrelevant, social security is a benefit one earns and contributes to thruout their working career. I can't believe you want a government that can regulate how you spend your money.
this isn't an issue of regulating how your earned money is spent, but rather how you could spend other people's money. we are only talking hypothetically about benefits BEYOND what you would have earned.
what i am saying is that there is no money in the social security trust fund: (from the trustee report)
“Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.”
in other words, the fund is broke and now paying out more than it takes in, and payouts will need to involve some combination of the above.
i think it is fair to say that a lot of americans are not going to want to see their own taxes raised, other government services cut, or more borrowing so that some people could retire in other countries. i would think you would agree that at least the retirement money distributed within the united states helps the economy of the united states.
how many people are now choosing to retire early because their jobs have disappeared/been outsourced and they are having a hard time finding work as they age? as people take early retirement, that means even less money put into the fund and more money taken out.
social security should be seen as a safety net available for all who need it.
we already have a precedent regarding where government money can be spent - with medicare (generally) not covering health care outside of the united states. i would think that most americans are okay with that.
i would like to add that we have a spiraling disability problem in addition to the social security retirement issue. last year we had 2,935,798 disability claims in this country and currently have 8,232,151 people collecting disability in this country.
i agree that this really isn't an issue of "worry" but rather of motivation-by understanding what we are really up against and then tackling it head-on.
we all need to be out there brainstorming to come up with ideas to improve the system as much as we can.
Last edited by floridasandy; 02-06-2011 at 08:44 PM..
i would like to add that we have a spiraling disability problem in addition to the social security retirement issue. last year we had 2,935,798 disability claims in this country and currently have 8,232,151 people collecting disability in this country.
source:Disabled-worker statistics i agree that this really isn't an issue of "worry" but rather of motivation-by understanding what we are really up against and then tackling it head-on.
we all need to be out there brainstorming to come up with ideas to improve the system as much as we can.
You might be interested in a thread I started in the Great Debates Forum about Social Security disability payments. It is currently an inactive thread near the top of page 3 in that forum, entitled something like, "Social Security Disability - where do you stand?" There were quite a few responses before it became inactive, many centered around the issue of whether most of the claims were legitimate, and the sad plight of the people whose claims are legitimate.
this isn't an issue of regulating how your earned money is spent, but rather how you could spend other people's money. we are only talking hypothetically about benefits BEYOND what you would have earned.
Sure it is. You are saying it is my money to spend as I please as long as I live in the US, otherwise it isn't. That is certainly regulating how I spend it, you are basing what I can spend on what geographical location I reside.
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.
