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.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester
True. Lots of kids living in the poor inner city. Lots of families who are poor.
But the American ideal for families tends to be living in a safe, clean, upscale, suburb with good schools, owning a single family home, a couple of SUVs, and shopping at big box stores. It's simply a lot easier to rent a studio, go car free, and bike, take the subway everywhere when you're a single.
The urban, inner city, transit oriented life is for singles. The suburban, car culture, home ownership, single family house, Costco, and SUV driving lifestyle is overwhelmingly for families.
A lot of people like urban living and more diverse neighborhoods but once you have kids the concerns about public schools matter more. I know lots of liberal types who living in outlying areas for that reason.
This post describes two of my relatives to a tee. I think the suburban one is more materialistic. The city one is more snotty. They are both annoying. lol.
Perhaps if the city dweller had more money they would spend it on luxuries available to them in the city but they are not very well off.
I suppose it can be a toss-up, depending on lifestyle but certainly the suburban lifestyle is car dependent and newer suburban homes are pretty large.
Yes, precisely. I find it annoying that people on city data say that the big urban cities of NYC, SF, D.C., and others are less materialistic than the sprawling suburbs of the Sunbelt. When you're a single living in SF, you're broke after paying for the insanely high rent. You simply have no money left to buy a Maserati, no matter how much you want one. All you can afford is a bicycle. That single guy might be dying to drive a Maserati, to get a penthouse on a high rise luxury tower--but all he can afford is to split a fifty year old one bedroom apartment with a roommate and a bicycle or a second hand corolla, at best. But deep inside he is intensely materialisitc--its the insane cost of living that is crushing his dreams.
Compare this to a family in Plano or Frisco, Texas. They might not care in the least about a Maserati. They might in fact have been perfectly happy with just owning a bicycle when they were college kids. But they have five kids and both parents work. So out of necessity, they're buying two cars. And those cars had better be SUVs. They might have been perfectly happy to live in a fifty year old, one bedroom apartment as singles. But with five kids, they want more space, ideally a bedroom for each kid, and a yard for their kids. Maybe a trampoline and a basketball hoop.
As singles, they might have been perfectly happy with walking down to the nearest farmers market for groceries. But now, it makes much more sense to drive their SUV to Costco and buy in bulk.
As singles, they were fine with living in a dingy inner city neighborhood. Now they want a safe, clean neighborhood with great schools and lots of greenery and fresh air for their kids. So they head for an upscale suburb, because surprise, nice neighborhoods cost more than bad ones.
And because Plano is much cheaper than SF, this couple can actually afford two SUVs, a five bedroom house with a yard, in a safe, clean neighborhood with great schools.
Now they may look a lot richer than the materialistic single guy in SF, but only because Plano is much cheaper, and they want a nice place to raise kids. If it were just themselves with no kids, they couldn't care less about possessions and status symbols. It's all about buying a better future for their kids.
A lot of people like urban living and more diverse neighborhoods but once you have kids the concerns about public schools matter more. I know lots of liberal types who living in outlying areas for that reason.
Exactly! Suburban living is often considered wasteful and consumerist when in reality, it's about families whose parents are simply trying to live in an affordable, kid friendly neighborhood with good schools, who want a house with enough bedrooms for their kids, who want a yard for their kids to play in, who want a big SUV to keep their youngsters safe. The parents couldn't care less about status symbols, it's about giving their kids a friendly environment. So stop bashing the suburbs as wasteful, consumerist, and materialistic.
So my question is: do you perceive wanting a big house, big car, an extra car, an address in an upscale suburb, to be materialistic if it's because you have several kids? Are families with several kids inherently more consumerist and therefore materialistic than singles?
Using the language of this post, let's analyze:
When I was a yuppie, I lived by myself in a 460sqft apartment in the city near my workplace. I rode my bike between 1 mile and 15 miles to work. Sometimes I took the subway or a bus. I did buy a compact car but I tried not to drive it except to go snowboard or surf.
Yuppie Me:
Transportation:
1 Person * 30mpg car = 30 person-mile per gallon efficiency
Housing:
460 sqft apartment / 1 Person = 460sqft / person Large Consumer Goods:
1 Computer / Person
1 Television / Person
1 Refridgerator / Person
1 Range / Person
1 Sofa / Person
I married, bought a house and had 2 kids. My household is now 4 people. The house is 1800sqft. I still have the original compact car, but has a quarter-million miles on it and I'm planning to replace it with a 7-seater SUV that is not as fuel efficient.
Family-Friendly Me:
Transportation:
4 People * 20mpg car = 80 person-miles per gallon efficiency
Housing:
1800 sqft house / 4 people = 450sqft/person
Large Consumer Goods:
1 Computer / 4 People = 0.25 Computers per person
2 Televisions / 4 People = 0.5 Televisions per person
2 Refridgerators / 4 People = 0.5 Fridges per person
1 Range / 4 People = 0.25 Ranges per person
2 Sofas / 4 People = 0.5 Sofas per person.
So, clearly the answer is "no". Families are not more materialistic than yuppies, but rather the opposite. My family unit efficiency rose between 5% to 75% compared to my yuppie unit efficiency.
Yuppie me consumed more of everything per capita than my aggregate family does. Yuppie me was the height of consumption/consumerism thus far in my life.
It would be harder to quantify my consumption of food and perishable items, but I do buy in bulk for 4 people, cook for 4 people instead of just 1, launder for 4, and even share restaurant food/coffee/pastries/etc with the family. Other than food scraps, we pretty much never throw anything away or, say, leave a partially-eaten bagel at a cafe. It's clear that the efficiency of such a combined household means less overall consumption per capita than that of 4 yuppies living independently.
Now, 4, 6, 8, yuppies crammed into a small apartment, sharing vehicles/TV's/laundry/etc? Then you might have a "yes" case.
I thought the term "yuppies" died off after the 1980s, but . . .the answer is NO.
Yes, it did die off in the 1980s.
I don't think suburban families are any more or less materialistic than DINKS or anyone else.
Of course if you have two or three kids with even just two after school activities each, you are going to have a bunch of crap and need a big car to haul it around and a big home to store it.
Are families more materialistic than yuppies? Is a family who has two big SUVs, a house with a yard in an upscale, safe, clean leafy suburb with good schools and who shops in bulk at Costco inherently more materialistic than the single yuppie? The single yuppie who rents a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood and doesn't even own a car, just bikes and takes the subway everywhere, and ships.at the bodega or farmers market?
When you're a single yuppie, you crave the urban lifestyle. You don't want a car, you just want to take the subway and bike everywhere. You walk to the bodega or farmers market instead of drive to Walmart or Costco for groceries. As long as you live in a walkable, transit friendly neighborhood that doesn't have an astronomically high crime rate, you're fine. You'll be moving around a lot between different neighborhoods, careers, and cities, so you aren't thinking about buying a big house. You just want a small but comfortable apartment.
Then you get married and have several kids. Now you care a lot more about a neighborhood with a very low crime rate and a good school district. With young kids, you want a big SUV to contain your whole family, especially since big cars tend to be safer than compact cars. You will want at least two cars, one for commuting and another for the other spouse/teenage children.
You will want to settle down, stay in one place, because you don't want to move your kids around different cities too much, then they'll be uprooted from their childhood friends. So you'll turn to home ownership. You'll also want a house, not an apartment, because you now have a spouse and several kids. You want a house with a yard for your kids to play in. You'll buy toys, computers, gadgets to entertain your kids, buy a large TV for the whole family to gather around. You'll drive to Costco in your SUV and buy lots of stuff in bulk. You'll treat your spouse and kids to nice dinners and vacations to celebrate anniversaries, graduations, etc.
And of course, a family friendly suburb that's safe, clean, filled with Costcos, has good schools, and plenty of houses with big yards is going to be more expensive. Nice neighborhoods cost more than bad neighborhoods.
So now suddenly, to single yuppies, your life looks very consumerist and materialistic. Big house, big car, more cars, Costco, gadgets and toys for your kids, living in an upscale suburb... All that seems so materialistic compared to the single yuppie renting a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood, biking and taking the subway everywhere, not even owning a car.
I've noticed that when people on City Data are asked which cities are the most materialistic, they tend to point to some sprawling, low COL city where big houses and big cars are all the rage. But it is these same supposedly materialistic cities that are immensely popular with families seeking for safe, clean suburbs with good schools, and a yard of their own.
So my question is: do you perceive wanting a big house, big car, an extra car, an address in an upscale suburb, to be materialistic if it's because you have several kids? Are families with several kids inherently more consumerist and therefore materialistic than singles?
If I cannot make more than them, I would call them materilistic?? Yuppies cannot own a 10000 sqft lot, 3500 sq ft home in a half a million dollar locality. At best they can rent around downtown. So does that make one materialistic??
Poor people are always told to hate rich people. ( So they dont become one) .
i don't want a big house or a big SUV.
i do want a vehicle that can haul a few larger items for home depot runs that seem to be happening more frequently as a homeowner. bringing home 4x8 sheets in a sedan is getting annoying. good thing I have a passthru for 2x4's.
i like to tinker and build stuff which means I need a workbench, storage for tools.
so I do have a server closet, and a work bench, a bunch of wood working tools, and a shed for outdoor lawn and garden tools.
am I materialistic? I don't know. I have lots of stuff. I buy high quality tools and appliances because it makes doing the work more enjoyable. i'm a buy once cry once type of guy. but my clothes are not name brand, my car is 15 years old, and my house is from the 1950s and on the small side.
I don't think suburban families are any more or less materialistic than DINKS or anyone else.
Of course if you have two or three kids with even just two after school activities each, you are going to have a bunch of crap and need a big car to haul it around and a big home to store it.
This is precisely the point I'm trying to make, but for whatever reason people think that yuppies in SF, for instance, are not materialistic. That's not true, they could be very materialistic, they simply can't afford to buy any goodies when the rent alone breaks the bank for them.
"So my question is: do you perceive wanting a big house, big car, an extra car, an address in an upscale suburb, to be materialistic if it's because you have several kids? Are families with several kids inherently more consumerist and therefore materialistic than singles?"
I think it is materialistic whether you have several kids, or not. But I don't think it makes them inherently more materialistic than singles. Families are more heavily marketed to than singles. And all too often, they fall for the hype of said marketing because, well ... the kids need this or that. There is an image presented that couples who provide it all are more capable and caring than their less materialistic or less wealthy counterparts.
Kids need space and time to grow and develop. They need nutritious food and plenty of space to play. Most of all they need time, attention and love from adults who love and want the best for them. They don't need their own bedroom and bathroom. Nor do they each (in large families) need their own bicycle, soccer ball, iphone, etc.
Last edited by winterbird; 05-13-2020 at 12:59 PM..
Are families more materialistic than yuppies? Is a family who has two big SUVs, a house with a yard in an upscale, safe, clean leafy suburb with good schools and who shops in bulk at Costco inherently more materialistic than the single yuppie? The single yuppie who rents a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood and doesn't even own a car, just bikes and takes the subway everywhere, and ships.at the bodega or farmers market?
When you're a single yuppie, you crave the urban lifestyle. You don't want a car, you just want to take the subway and bike everywhere. You walk to the bodega or farmers market instead of drive to Walmart or Costco for groceries. As long as you live in a walkable, transit friendly neighborhood that doesn't have an astronomically high crime rate, you're fine. You'll be moving around a lot between different neighborhoods, careers, and cities, so you aren't thinking about buying a big house. You just want a small but comfortable apartment.
Then you get married and have several kids. Now you care a lot more about a neighborhood with a very low crime rate and a good school district. With young kids, you want a big SUV to contain your whole family, especially since big cars tend to be safer than compact cars. You will want at least two cars, one for commuting and another for the other spouse/teenage children.
You will want to settle down, stay in one place, because you don't want to move your kids around different cities too much, then they'll be uprooted from their childhood friends. So you'll turn to home ownership. You'll also want a house, not an apartment, because you now have a spouse and several kids. You want a house with a yard for your kids to play in. You'll buy toys, computers, gadgets to entertain your kids, buy a large TV for the whole family to gather around. You'll drive to Costco in your SUV and buy lots of stuff in bulk. You'll treat your spouse and kids to nice dinners and vacations to celebrate anniversaries, graduations, etc.
And of course, a family friendly suburb that's safe, clean, filled with Costcos, has good schools, and plenty of houses with big yards is going to be more expensive. Nice neighborhoods cost more than bad neighborhoods.
So now suddenly, to single yuppies, your life looks very consumerist and materialistic. Big house, big car, more cars, Costco, gadgets and toys for your kids, living in an upscale suburb... All that seems so materialistic compared to the single yuppie renting a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood, biking and taking the subway everywhere, not even owning a car.
I've noticed that when people on City Data are asked which cities are the most materialistic, they tend to point to some sprawling, low COL city where big houses and big cars are all the rage. But it is these same supposedly materialistic cities that are immensely popular with families seeking for safe, clean suburbs with good schools, and a yard of their own.
So my question is: do you perceive wanting a big house, big car, an extra car, an address in an upscale suburb, to be materialistic if it's because you have several kids? Are families with several kids inherently more consumerist and therefore materialistic than singles?
Yes indeed. We love our stuff. Three and four outboards are not uncommon these days. (Those are on boats---for the Democrats here). And I burn no-ethanol gas!
Even the kids in my development wear Rolexes!
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.
