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've been saying for years that college and health care are killing us slowly but surely. None of us are going to like the reckoning when it comes due.
I'm in complete agreement on this. Both have been outpacing inflation for 40+ years.
College costs are unnecessarily bloated, and even some liberal educators have said as much, including people like Elizabeth Warren...so that that in a book she wrote back in 2004. There are lots of ways to reform that, but given how the government never seems to reform anything, I don't have a lot of hope for that--other than fewer people going to college and/or fewer people taking majors that don't pay. But those are admittedly, only partial solutions to the tuition crisis.
The health care issue is actually a lot more solvable. But most of the solution has a lot to do with lifestyle engineering. Right now, America is engineered for obesity. Some relatively low cost, low tech solutions can turn that around over time. And people who are self aware don't have to wait. The healthy habits you need ot take for a longer, disability, chronic disease free life are already well known. It turns out the world's healthiest populations don't use a lot of drugs or health care.
The themes that drove financial stress were pretty repetitive: 1) income loss, 2) medical crisis, 3) college education costs, generally in that order but #2 often caused #1. I found it ironic that the bankruptcy lawyer guest said that most of her older clients had some combination of #2 and then went over the edge trying to help their kids, generally to pay for college.
I've been saying for years that college and health care are killing us slowly but surely. None of us are going to like the reckoning when it comes due.
The college cost problem is largely because of the income stagnation problem - people feel they have to go or else they won't get good jobs.* So ALL of these problems are related.
*Before any of you start with "But, the trades!" Yes I know. I know many tradesman as my area was ground zero for the housing boom. You don't have to start with that crap, I know how that business works. Those jobs are heavily dependent on the housing market. I knew dozens of guys who got laid off after 2008 and did not work for 2-4 years. If you want a real, stable manufacturing job - you need some college, typically at least community college. My father-in-law is also an electrician. Again, you need community college at least to get beyond the bottom rungs, preferably a bachelor's.
I grew up on a farm. Heck, even in agriculture you need a college degree if you don't inherit major property and want to be more than a few steps from the bottom. In fact with where agriculture is going, it's more important now than in the past.
Agree that to get a good job today more than a high school diploma is needed, and more needs to be done to address college cost, but that's unlikely to happen anytime soon since most Americans still consider college a choice, not a necessity.
Some of the statistics make you really stop and think.
I suppose simpletons might actually take it seriously, but the statistics are so much bunk, and largely propaganda and disinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
"Almost 80% of Americans say they live from paycheck to paycheck, many not knowing how big their next one will be."
That's a personal choice. Those people choose to live like that, satisfying every infantile urge as quickly as the urge arises, exercising zero financial discipline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
"The typical American worker now earns around $44,500 a year, not much more than what the typical worker earned in 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation."
Reputable people wouldn't adjust for "Inflation."
Demand-pull Inflation serves a very useful purpose, preventing the depletion, overuse or over-consumption of resources, goods and services.
Adjusting wages to match Demand-pull Inflation is utterly stupid, because it does nothing but encourage and accelerate the depletion, overuse or over-consumption of resources, goods and services.
The only thing that happens is that prices rise at an even faster rate, and the incompetents respond by demanding even higher wages, which again does nothing but encourage and accelerate the depletion, overuse or over-consumption of resources, goods and services.
It's a vicious cycle, and there's possible way to win.
If consumers can't afford certain items, then Demand-pull Inflation is doing exactly what it's designed to do: stop consumption to prevent the depletion, overuse or over-consumption of resources, goods and services.
You're free to attempt to increase Supply to match or exceed Demand and halt Demand-pull Inflation, but increasing Supply is not always an option. Even when it is an option, there are often delays as much as 5 years, or the rate of increase of Supply does is still far less than the increase in the rate of Demand.
And more often than not, the cost to increase Supply results in losses, so you have to wait until the price rises high enough to permit a profit.
Would you buy 1,000 acres of land and start farming to increase the Supply of food and lower prices, taking a loss year after year after year?
No, you wouldn't, and if you're not willing to fall on the sword, it's folly to expect or demand other to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
"Add to this the fact that the richest 10% of Americans own about 80% of all shares of stock (the top 1% owns about 40%), and you get a broader picture of how and why inequality has widened so dramatically."
There's nothing that prevents you from cancelling your cable/satellite TV and use the money to buy start buying stocks and bonds, except your attitude.
That Wealth is not cash. Those people are not going through McDonald's drive-thru and tearing off the corner of a stock certificate to pay for their meal.
You want everyone to start selling stocks to convert to cash? That would result in stock prices plummeting to $0.03/share, making the stocks worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
"The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009, and is now about where it was in 1950 when adjusted for inflation."
Again, reputable people don't adjust for "Inflation." The only people who adjust for "Inflation" are those seeking to spread propaganda and disinformation.
Worse than that, the federal minimum wage is irrelevant. The Cost-of-Living varies so greatly from State-to-State and even county-to-county within a State, that there is no possible way for the federal government to set a minimum wage. It's best left to the States.
It's rather ironic, as well as proof of incompetence, that parts of the federal government recognize the huge disparity in Cost-of-Living, while others ignore it.
In some places in the US, a single person earning $14,401 earns too much money to qualify for HUD Section 8, yet HUD allows people living in other areas of the US to earn as much as $56,000 annually and still qualify for HUD Section 8.
Hmmm...I wouldn't be able to live below my means either if my entire paycheck went to rent, utilites, and food. To live below their means, which would you like them to cut back on?
While I think you're wrong about most people having a fairly high income, I like to focus on the lower 40% because those are the ones who will cost the country the most in social services if they run into a spate of bad luck, like a medical emergency or a job loss. Those are also the ones with the most capability of moving up and paying more in taxes with a higher salary, benefiting the community and everyone who lives there. They're also the ones who have the least chance of advancing.
This isn't a question just for you, Malloric, but for anyone who cares to answer:
I understand that there are some things people do to put themselves in that position. But if you had someone in front of you, working two low wage jobs to support a family, living paycheck to paycheck (never mind how they got in that position), and you knew no one was going to step in with extra money, what, exactly, would you tell him or her to do first? Whatever you tell them to do, remember money still has to come in so this family can eat and have a roof over their heads.
Really can't give much suggestion without knowing more about the person and his or her family's situation. The only thing I can think of is tell him or her to try develop a good reading habit if he or she doesn't have one.
Some of the statistics make you really stop and think.
"Almost 80% of Americans say they live from paycheck to paycheck, many not knowing how big their next one will be."
"The typical American worker now earns around $44,500 a year, not much more than what the typical worker earned in 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation."
"Add to this the fact that the richest 10% of Americans own about 80% of all shares of stock (the top 1% owns about 40%), and you get a broader picture of how and why inequality has widened so dramatically."
"The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009, and is now about where it was in 1950 when adjusted for inflation."
Do you think your future is secure? Are you worried about what will happen if you have a setback? Are you concerned for the future of your children?
not many of us stay in the same position for a life time .
why should the wages of say a picker packer change for that job slot except for inflation adjusting ?
it is the same job today as it was 40 years ago . maybe even less valuable as robotics can pick orders .
many of us move up the ladder from our kiddy level jobs and that is where we see wage growth. unions artificially propped up quite a few low level jobs at times until markets leveled out those jobs to what markets value them at ala zenith .
No need to pay more, the workers can simply collect public assistance as a supplement.
I know a few people that are life long low earners, think stockers at Walmart, gas station cashier, etc, and they get food stamps, section 8, medicaid, etc. Heck, a few of them turn down promotions or work less hours so they won't lose their subsidies.
Um...not trying to contradict you, but where in the country can a single person earn that much and be able to buy a house in the same town or city?
I mean the average person. We know that people working for tech companies in the Bay Area get paid quite a bit, but for your average person there, the wages aren't quite as good.
Sounds like you have fallen prey to the misinformation about decent jobs only being found on the west coast.
Let's take Ohio. We just sold a nice 3 bedroom, 2 bath ranch in a great school district for $119,000. There are many other nice homes for sale for as low as $85,000 in the same area. You wouldn't need much more than $35,000 income to qualify for a decent home here.
Salaries for Ohio teachers average around $50,000. In my old district, they got up to $84,000.
the company i worked for has a location in ohio . it is crazy when you see the difference in pay for the same job positions . but the cost of living is a fraction of long island .
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.
