U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2009, 10:07 PM
 
18,353 posts, read 16,319,830 times
Reputation: 7154

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof Woof! View Post
Hi Folks,

I've been tracking my living expenses for a while and I've paid off most of my debt. Now I need to think ahead about how I can afford to live through this horrible economic downturn.

After I finish paying off my car, I'd like to get my total monthly expenses down to $1,000 a month including rent. I'm thinking I may have to relocate to someplace in North or South Carolina, but I'll do what I have to. I looked and I can get an apartment there for $500 a month.

So, my question is, how much do you spend each month (I know it's tough because some of you have families or spouses)? And do you have any suggestions for where I can live and how I can reduce my budget?

I'm in survival mode here, so I have to do what I have to do. I'm a single woman so maybe I should get married? If so, I need to move to a place where there's eligible bachelors.

Thanks for any input,

Woofers

P.S. I'm currently in the Northeast and rents are too expensive here.
Hi WWW,

I agree with another comment. I would not go on the defensive, consider mobility. I used low rent and a month to month lease while I gained experience. Then I moved to the highest income. The low cost was nice but it was the mobility that was key. It worked as planned. Use your mobility to find work. Low cost of living tends to correlate with a dead local economy. The reason why prices are low is no one has money to where you are going including paying your salary. Young and broke should go on offense not defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2009, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
17,031 posts, read 27,572,882 times
Reputation: 16212
I'd look at Texas, very affordable and there are usually jobs. You didnt mention your field, that would help on an area. It is cheaper to live in the south than the NE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 09:50 AM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,849 posts, read 31,223,135 times
Reputation: 22436
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf View Post
Move to the South or the Midwest where the cost of living is lower. You'll be bored to death, but at least you won't starve. Come to think of it, boredom is an offshoot of affluence. 500 to 1000 years ago, our ancestors didn't have the luxury of being bored. They worked till they dropped dead - at a young age at that.
This is a common misconception. The truth is that while the average life expectancy has increased, the human life span has not changed for more than 20,000 years. The lower life expectancy of previous decades was primarily due to a much higher infant death mortality rate. 100 years ago, for instance, it was very common to lose one or more children to disease before their 5th birthday. In fact, many families lost several infants or children.

Statistically, and proportionately, there were just as many old people alive per capital 100 - 75 - 50 years ago as they are today. So the concept that people are living longer is really a well-publicized myth.

20yrsinBranson

Last edited by 20yrsinBranson; 01-11-2009 at 10:01 AM.. Reason: fix typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 10:15 AM
 
4,182 posts, read 5,915,817 times
Reputation: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson View Post
\

This is a common misconception. The truth is that while the average life expectancy has increase, the human life span has not changed for more than 20,000 years. The lower life expectancy of previous decades was primarily due to a much higher infant death mortality rate. 100 years ago, for instance, it was very common to lose one or more children to disease before their 5th birthday. In fact, many families lost several infants or children.

Statistically, and proportionately, there were just as many old people alive per capital 100 - 75 - 50 years ago as they are today. So the concept that people are living longer is really a well-publicized myth.

20yrsinBranson
It's not a myth. The human life expectancy has been increasing. In 1900, the life expectancy was 47 years. Currently, it is 77 years. Life Expectancy: Scientific American

The reduction in infant mortality rate means more babies are surviving into adulthood and reproducing, hence the increase in population. That's one end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is that people in their post-reproductive years are surviving longer into their 60s, 70s, and 80s thanks to advances in health care. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...9/rp99-111.pdf In 1911, 63% of people died before age 60. In 1999, only 12% of people died before age 60. That means the number of old people per capita has increased.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 10:57 AM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,849 posts, read 31,223,135 times
Reputation: 22436
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf View Post
It's not a myth. The human life expectancy has been increasing. In 1900, the life expectancy was 47 years. Currently, it is 77 years. Life Expectancy: Scientific American

The reduction in infant mortality rate means more babies are surviving into adulthood and reproducing, hence the increase in population. That's one end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is that people in their post-reproductive years are surviving longer into their 60s, 70s, and 80s thanks to advances in health care. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...9/rp99-111.pdf In 1911, 63% of people died before age 60. In 1999, only 12% of people died before age 60. That means the number of old people per capita has increased.
Human life expectancy has increased. Human life span has not.

Let's say that you have 100 people. Half of them are over 60 and half of them under.

The older 50 percent ultimately dies off, . The younger 50 percent ages to 60 years of age (or older). But, there have been no births (they are Shakers), now the percentage of the generation that is over 60 is now 100 PERCENT, yet, they they may not be any older than the previous generation.

How does this example show that the life span is increasing?

In 1911 there were almost 94,000,000 people in the United States. Now there are more than 350,000,000. How does a higher percentage increase in the population of people over 60 prove that the life expectancy is increasing? It does not.

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Some place very cold
5,500 posts, read 20,511,944 times
Reputation: 4244
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson View Post
Human life expectancy has increased. Human life span has not.
Hi Branson!

Thanks for sharing all this info. Have you put together how much you'll need to spend each month to make it through this long life span of yours?

Woofers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 12:11 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,849 posts, read 31,223,135 times
Reputation: 22436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof Woof Woof! View Post
Hi Branson!

Thanks for sharing all this info. Have you put together how much you'll need to spend each month to make it through this long life span of yours?

Woofers
We live very comfortably on $12,000 a year. In fact, our "adjusted gross income" on our income tax last year was just $8,000! But most people would not be "satisfied" with my frugal lifestyle.

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 12:32 PM
 
4,182 posts, read 5,915,817 times
Reputation: 1726
Quote:
=20yrsinBranson;6945526]Human life expectancy has increased. Human life span has not
.

Explain the difference between life expectancy and life span.

Quote:
Let's say that you have 100 people. Half of them are over 60 and half of them under.

The older 50 percent ultimately dies off, . The younger 50 percent ages to 60 years of age (or older). But, there have been no births (they are Shakers), now the percentage of the generation that is over 60 is now 100 PERCENT, yet, they they may not be any older than the previous generation.

How does this example show that the life span is increasing?
Your reasoning is convoluted and specious. Your scenario above is also incomplete. The 50% cohort who replaced the prior 50% may have a younger or older median age at death than the original cohort. If the 1st group's median age at death was 60, and the 2nd group's median age at death is 70, then yeah...you can say life expectancy has increased for the latter group. The opposite is true if the numbers were reversed. But your hypothetical scenario isn't what the actual demographics show.

You really don't need to complicate matters for yourself. When the median age of a population increases, that means the population is getting older. If in 1911, 63% of the population died before the age of 60 but in 1999, only 13% died before the age of 60, that can only mean more people are getting older and proportionally comprise a greater percentage of the total population. That pushes the median age upwards.

If in 1911 the life expectancy was 47 years, that means 47 years is the age at which most people were expected to die. In 1999, people were expected to die at age 77. There's no other explanation for this other than that more people in 1999 were living longer into their 70s and 80s.

Quote:
In 1911 there were almost 94,000,000 people in the United States. Now there are more than 350,000,000. How does a higher percentage increase in the population of people over 60 prove that the life expectancy is increasing? It does not.

20yrsinBranson
There's more people living in the US today than in 1911. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/United_States/Population_and_Social_ConditionsThe (broken link) median age in the US in 1911 was 22.8 years. Half of the 91 million Americans in 1911was younger than 22.8, the other half was older. Today, the median age is 36 yrs. Half of 350 million is younger than 36, while half is older than 36.

No matter how you cut it, whether in relative or absolute terms...whether you look at median age or life expectancy....the US population is getting older. Here's more from the Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/08s0098.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Some place very cold
5,500 posts, read 20,511,944 times
Reputation: 4244
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf View Post
No matter how you cut it, whether in relative or absolute terms...whether you look at median age or life expectancy....the US population is getting older. Here's more from the Census Bureau
ndfmnlf:

Interesting statistics and you've certainly done your fair share of research! This might be a good topic for a new thread.

But I started this thread to get an idea of how much people need to spend each month to live. Do you think could share some of that info instead?

Thanks!

Woofers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2009, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Some place very cold
5,500 posts, read 20,511,944 times
Reputation: 4244
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson View Post
We live very comfortably on $12,000 a year. In fact, our "adjusted gross income" on our income tax last year was just $8,000! But most people would not be "satisfied" with my frugal lifestyle.

20yrsinBranson
Branson,

This is very impressive! How do you manage to live on $12K a year? Are you sure that is all you spend?

I think I could learn a thing or two from someone like you. How do you manage?

Wx3
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top