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 will come back to the term "cheap junk" later. Let us start with the cost of moving. Have you priced the cost of a cross country move? Moving a couple of rooms of furniture and personal possessions can quickly exceed 5 figures. It can be much cheaper to get rid of the furniture and start over. For someone who is young and expects to move, they should accumulate as little as possible. An antique piece of furniture that is too valuable to throw out is more than a costly nuisance.
There is a lot of decent modern furniture that is not "cheap junk". Not everything comes from Ikea although Ikea level quality might make sense for someone who will be moving soon. The other option is used, but nowhere near antique, furniture. Plenty of people of all ages change out their furniture. Often the reasons have nothing to due with furniture quality or appearance. They just want to redecorate with something new and different. Many of my neighbors seem to do that frequently. There is not much of a market for that used furniture even if it is in good condition. We have collected a bunch of furniture for use in our garage/workshop. Most of it was sitting at the curb waiting for trash pickup. Some of it is in great condition. Plenty of millennial apartments are furnished in used furniture.
That was much of my life in the military. About every other family move overseas was to a "weight restricted" area where we could move no more than 5,000 pounds of household goods, sometimes as little as 2,500 pounds...for the entire family.
So we had accumulated very little by the end of my career. Of course, once we settled somewhere for a few years, it was a wonder how much stuff stacked up...that we had to eliminate when we moved again.
That was much of my life in the military. About every other family move overseas was to a "weight restricted" area where we could move no more than 5,000 pounds of household goods, sometimes as little as 2,500 pounds...for the entire family.
So we had accumulated very little by the end of my career. Of course, once we settled somewhere for a few years, it was a wonder how much stuff stacked up...that we had to eliminate when we moved again.
I am in a similar situation. Luckily, I am provided furniture with my housing. I have the option of bringing my own stuff. I may pick up some stuff piece by piece depending on where I end up throughout my career. By the time I retire I might have a full assortment of furniture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny
There is a lot of decent modern furniture that is not "cheap junk". Not everything comes from Ikea although Ikea level quality might make sense for someone who will be moving soon.
I don't know why Ikea always gets bashed. I've been pretty happy with what I've gotten from them. Their minimalist styling also works better for me than some granny Victorian stuff. They were my go-to place for kitchenware, gadgets, and other non-furniture house things.
Dad of a millennial here. From what I've seen with my daughter and her friends they do go with Ikea. They buy and sell used Ikea pieces on Craigslist. Most of them have at least one antique or older piece of solid wood furniture from their families.
When my daughter got her first apartment I told her she could take anything she wanted. She took one antique piece. A butterfly drop leaf table. Like this one but with rectangular leaves and darker wood. https://www.google.com/search?client...7rZT6rP79I-6M:
Her other furniture is modern but only the bed is Ikea. One of her friends has a solid wood dresser her grandfather made. I think they appreciate some antiques if they suit they're needs and aren't ornate. Nobody wants Victorian furniture. Nobody wants china. Nobody wants figurines. These kids will go for a nice classic piece if they have a use for them. That table weights a lot more than it appears to but it's been in 4 apartments so far. Most of her other stuff keeps getting replaced/upgraded.
As far as who had it worse, baby boomers or millennials, Its always rough when you're first starting out. Back in the 70s the economy was bad. Gas shortage, high unemployment, high inflation, Nixon devalued the dollar. It was a mess back then
Those just starting out then were the ones who couldn't get jobs, had to live with a bunch of friends, etc. I think millennials do have it worse because not only did they have high unemployment but also high levels of student debt that we never faced. Many of the older ones finally have stable employment and are not struggling as much now.
One thing I had hoped the govt would do for millennials was something like the CETA program we had in the late 70s. A business would hire you and CETA would subsidize half your salary for a few months. It gave a foot in the door and many people were hired by those companies after the trial period.
He's not seeking shelter. He's outright admitting he was wrong and slow to respond to what happened in housing due to him falling asleep at the controls.
What he admitted to being wrong about was his one-time pet notion that markets were wise enough to regulate themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
The 2004 to 2006 raising of interest rates is what finally took the wind out of the bubble.
Markets go up and markets go down. It's what they do. Bubbles are a completely different animal, one that has not been seen in these parts in rather a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
Are you a serious person? I feel like I need to pinch myself. You just have your own made up definitions and evonomics and everyone else is wrong.
I'm sure it could seem that way to those without significant education and experience in the field of economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
Just because markets responded as they should at the start of rates going down and at the end when they raised, doesn't mean they weren't left low for too long. By being too low for too long, the cheap money flooded housing and caused misallocatiins of capital....which is what leads to painful corrections. The longer the distortion and missallocatiin, the steeper the decline. And this was the worst since the depression...In order to correct....it had to have been artificially kept up (through both bad fiscal AND monetary policy)
That's a load of Paulist pap. It has all the weight of hysteria over the "NAFTA Superhighway." There was no bubble, pure and simple. It's an excusatory fiction. Put briefly, the Great Recession was brought into being by the highly flawed thinking of cowboy capitalists on Wall Street and laissez-faire regulators in Washington.
Now why not join the fun and tell us what you think about antiques markets for a change. In my own view, the apple does not fall so far from the tree. I expect that -- like generations before them -- an appreciation of articles from bygone days will come to current 20- and 30-somethings as they age. As the current commercial suggests. they'll start turning into their parents at some point.
I am in a similar situation. Luckily, I am provided furniture with my housing. I have the option of bringing my own stuff. I may pick up some stuff piece by piece depending on where I end up throughout my career. By the time I retire I might have a full assortment of furniture.
I don't know why Ikea always gets bashed. I've been pretty happy with what I've gotten from them. Their minimalist styling also works better for me than some granny Victorian stuff. They were my go-to place for kitchenware, gadgets, and other non-furniture house things.
They do sell some cheap pressboard furniture. Although I have to say that my Ethan Allen furniture from the 80s was vinyl covered pressboard. The Ikea version would have been disassembled and the joints would not have been as sturdy.
From reading the posts on this thread one thing seems to be missing....that an antique can have a lot more than investment value and probably does to many people who buy them. If an object is valued by the people who owned or used it it survives. If it survives long enough it becomes "antique". Many people value the beauty of good craftsmanship and design over how much it costs. They also value history, whether its their own family, a region, a culture, or a cultural movement. Value is also very personal. I have a couple of pieces of furniture that were passed down through family. Their value lies in sentimental memories and connections with favorite relatives. They are reminders. They are not "worth" more or less money.
I love antique north American baskets for several reasons. The high level of skill (often it took a lifetime to acquire that skill) it took to make them and the story behind the culture that gave rise to the craft. Most of the cultures that produced them are gone along with the skills, and they won't be back. I love the symmetrical beauty, cleverness and diversity of design. I do not buy them for their monetary value.
I love antique duck decoys. Sophisticated decoy making is a truly American folk art form that began with a merely utilitarian object and ended up a beautiful art form. This doesn't mean I collect every style of decoy or that I buy them because they are worth more $$. If I did maybe I'd buy Mason decoys that seem to sell for high prices. I've never liked the Mason style so they hold no interest for me. I buy the ones that I feel are beautiful and that have unusual histories. Does this mean I am a not a smart investor? No, it means I am selective and buy what I admire regardless what others think.
As for the whole "accumulating clutter and stuff" aspect, I consider my home the place where I can surround myself with beauty and meaning. Every time I come home and see or touch these pieces of history, skill, stories, or tradition it gives me happiness. The monetary value, bragging rights, a chance to show off, or the future nest egg never occurs to me.
Last edited by Parnassia; 07-11-2017 at 02:16 PM..
Dad of a millennial here. From what I've seen with my daughter and her friends they do go with Ikea. They buy and sell used Ikea pieces on Craigslist. Most of them have at least one antique or older piece of solid wood furniture from their families.
When my daughter got her first apartment I told her she could take anything she wanted. She took one antique piece. A butterfly drop leaf table. Like this one but with rectangular leaves and darker wood. https://www.google.com/search?client...7rZT6rP79I-6M:
Her other furniture is modern but only the bed is Ikea. One of her friends has a solid wood dresser her grandfather made. I think they appreciate some antiques if they suit they're needs and aren't ornate. Nobody wants Victorian furniture. Nobody wants china. Nobody wants figurines. These kids will go for a nice classic piece if they have a use for them. That table weights a lot more than it appears to but it's been in 4 apartments so far. Most of her other stuff keeps getting replaced/upgraded.
As far as who had it worse, baby boomers or millennials, Its always rough when you're first starting out. Back in the 70s the economy was bad. Gas shortage, high unemployment, high inflation, Nixon devalued the dollar. It was a mess back then
Those just starting out then were the ones who couldn't get jobs, had to live with a bunch of friends, etc. I think millennials do have it worse because not only did they have high unemployment but also high levels of student debt that we never faced. Many of the older ones finally have stable employment and are not struggling as much now.
One thing I had hoped the govt would do for millennials was something like the CETA program we had in the late 70s. A business would hire you and CETA would subsidize half your salary for a few months. It gave a foot in the door and many people were hired by those companies after the trial period.
The big difference is college costs, and lack of jobs you can get without college. You don't necessarily need a bachelor's degree, but you need a 2-year associate program or SOMEthing beyond high school. High school has become what dropping out of k-12 would have been back then. The cost of community college & technical college has also increased, it just had a lower starting point. Back in your day, unions would have been in charge of these technical training programs. If you got into the union, you got trained. Now, young people have to pay to get trained, and THEN enter the job lottery with no guarantee of a job.
You still need 4-yr college to become something like a teacher, just like back in your day, but college is 4-5x more expensive even in inflation adjusted terms.
Housing is more expensive too... in certain areas. The problem is that the areas with cheap housing usually don't have many jobs either.
I'm only 34, but I am VERY concerned about the cost of college for my little ones. At the rate it's increasing, I will not be able to afford for them what my parents afforded for me.
I don't know why Ikea always gets bashed. I've been pretty happy with what I've gotten from them. Their minimalist styling also works better for me than some granny Victorian stuff. They were my go-to place for kitchenware, gadgets, and other non-furniture house things.
Ikea has lots of cheap stuff, but they also have some pricey higher quality stuff.
The big difference is college costs, and lack of jobs you can get without college. You don't necessarily need a bachelor's degree, but you need a 2-year associate program or SOMEthing beyond high school. High school has become what dropping out of k-12 would have been back then. The cost of community college & technical college has also increased, it just had a lower starting point. Back in your day, unions would have been in charge of these technical training programs. If you got into the union, you got trained. Now, young people have to pay to get trained, and THEN enter the job lottery with no guarantee of a job.
You still need 4-yr college to become something like a teacher, just like back in your day, but college is 4-5x more expensive even in inflation adjusted terms.
Housing is more expensive too... in certain areas. The problem is that the areas with cheap housing usually don't have many jobs either.
I'm only 34, but I am VERY concerned about the cost of college for my little ones. At the rate it's increasing, I will not be able to afford for them what my parents afforded for me.
When I went to college in the early 70s, my tuition at the top state school was $25 per credit hour. My part-time job paid $2.50 an hour. That meant I could pay for a full-load semester tuition with 120 hours of labor...six weeks part-time. Tuition was literally "pay as you go" working part-time.
I have a Millennial daughter, and I know it's darned well not "pay as you go" anymore.
There are some really great mid century design pieces, but a lot of it is ugly, mass-produced junk. IMO
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowonLuck
I must be an old soul, because I am in my 30's and I think mid century modern is extremely ugly.
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.
