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.
While I agree with some of the replies above, I'd like to add, that fall of communism, more accurately - disintegration of USSR, and fall of the socialism in eastern Europe in 1989 was another major factor.
Look:
The west (USA, Canada, western Europe...) had to keep their workers comfortable to avoid potential revolution in their countries. If the workers were struggling, then the USSR block would be gaining a critical prestige, because the possibility of socialist revolution in western countries would be increased.
By disintegrating USSR and its satelites, and subsequently by going from socialism to capitalism in eastern Europe, we gained the end of the cold war. However, we lost important political balance in the world. The balance (USSR block versus the west) was causing to keep the working class in the west in a good shape. Without this balance, it is easier (safer) to exploit the western working class.
I think we have a more spoiled generation coming into the work force and they expect to be handed a job rather than work for a job. I'm not saying all people are like this but there is a way to work your way up to the top and younger people want to be handed those positions simply because they went to college. That's not the way it works. So laziness would be my answer.
I got to thinking about this the other day after a conversation with a co-worker.
He said that most people of my generation can't support themselves, and that we are living off of our parents and our government. I really disagree with this. I do see a lot of my old freinds who are losers, who don't support themselves, but many of them work hard, and just can't make ends meet all of the time.
Is this their fault, or is there a bigger problem? After all, back in the 60's and 70's, most households were single worker families. I mean that Dad worked, mom stayed home with the kids. This is virtually gone in the middle class today. I can't count on one hand the number of couples I know that only have one of them working.
So since most people have to have at least two folks working just to make ends meet, is it really the fault of singles that can't make a go of it. No one wants to live in public housing, but rent in many areas outside of the slummy part of tow is outrageous. Forget buying a house without at least 20,000 dollars down now-a-days.
Whats the problem with our society? Is it a matter of we expect to high of a standard of living? Is it that inflation has reached a point where single workers can't make it on their own? Is it a since of entitlement? Is it the government giving to many hand outs?
What say y'all?
Well... in the majority of households, you have two people working. So the majority have two incomes. Whenever you have more money as a whole, the prices simply raise (inflation) to reflect that. I tend to think that had we remained a society of single-income families, prices would reflect that.
What I'm saying is that the presence of two-income households has become so prevalent in our society that the purchasing power of those two incomes has become the same as the purchasing power of one income before the shift.
That is not wholly to blame, either. People willing to use credit to buy more than they could afford also drives up demand for goods, increasing prices.
I think it may have more to do with "easy" credit than two income families, but it is a little of both.
People are expected to live off of two incomes now, so employers don't pay most people enough to support a family on one income. It's kind of ironic, when women first started working, many were paid less because it was assumed they had a man to support them making the "real money" - now that most women work too, both sexes are paid less, and singles or one-income families have trouble affording even the necessities.
An even worse problem is the overuse of credit, combined with consumer culture. People feel like they have to have the newest, biggest, and best, and will charge things they cannot afford in order to compete with everyone else or to have the things they see advertised. So many young people start working with a ton of credit card debt, student loans, and a huge car payment, and then struggle to afford housing, groceries, etc on top of all those bills.
Also, a lot of people have never learned to survive on the basics - you can save a ton of money cooking at home, buying clothes that will last without being super-trendy [or even shopping sales or thrift shops], and not spending tons on the all-inclusive cable package and biggest flat-screen TV, but when all most people know is eating out or buying over-priced prepackaged foods, wearing the latest name-brand clothes and replacing them each season, and always having instant entertainment, it won't occur to them that there are other ways to live.
No, you all missed the key element. Entertainment. Any American family can live with the comfort and dignity and wellbeing of the 1950s, on the wages of one fulltime worker. The difference is entertainment.
The entertainment expense for a family in 1950 was a Zenith radio, a Brownie box camera, a black landline phone, and a new board game every Christmas. The morning paper was delivered for a nickel, and a movie a week cost a quarter. Team bowling on Wednesday night. The big family vacation trip was a tank of gas to drive the only car to an adjacent state to visit relatives. People owned enough clothing to get them from Monday to Monday. The words 'fast' and 'food' were never in the same sentence. Nobody complained, and nobody got bored.
Do a line-item analysis of your family budget to see how much you pay for entertainment or to save time, in order to have more time to work. My cable bill is higher than my heating/cooling, electricity, and water all put together.
I got to thinking about this the other day after a conversation with a co-worker.
He said that most people of my generation can't support themselves, and that we are living off of our parents and our government. I really disagree with this. I do see a lot of my old freinds who are losers, who don't support themselves, but many of them work hard, and just can't make ends meet all of the time.
Is this their fault, or is there a bigger problem? After all, back in the 60's and 70's, most households were single worker families. I mean that Dad worked, mom stayed home with the kids. This is virtually gone in the middle class today. I can't count on one hand the number of couples I know that only have one of them working.
So since most people have to have at least two folks working just to make ends meet, is it really the fault of singles that can't make a go of it. No one wants to live in public housing, but rent in many areas outside of the slummy part of tow is outrageous. Forget buying a house without at least 20,000 dollars down now-a-days.
Whats the problem with our society? Is it a matter of we expect to high of a standard of living? Is it that inflation has reached a point where single workers can't make it on their own? Is it a since of entitlement? Is it the government giving to many hand outs?
What say y'all?
When Reagan said: The American people will just have to work harder for less, he was not jacking around. And so we have. Once upon a time you could get a degree and get hired in many fields. Not so anymore. Those days are over.
Rent in many places is slummy and has the price jacked up in "good areas". Really, I am at the point that if it is not owned by a company then I am not so sure that I want anything to do with it.
I think that there are many more people that are opting for living single then with others. Frankly, they don't want to lose what little they have and they don't want to put up with other people's behavior.
I don't want to say all or the majority but there are those that do not want to acquire their own things. For example:
All of the things that people take for granted in their parents house, they will have to buy. Cans do not open themselves, you know? This is a stage that a lot of folk go through. Have to. That means leaving the comfort zone and spending money on things you don't want to. This requires little thought: make a list of all the things that you take for granted and ...........buy them.
Salt and pepper shakers, pots and pans, silverware, toaster, blender etc.
There are also a lot of people that do not bother to go to college or any other type of training and that is bad. Operating with a high school diploma or GED is not enough. Hell, a degree is not enough. However, in the area that I live in there are many people who take that path and work at 5 and hour jobs until they realize that they they need something.
No, you all missed the key element. Entertainment. Any American family can live with the comfort and dignity and wellbeing of the 1950s, on the wages of one fulltime worker. The difference is entertainment.
The entertainment expense for a family in 1950 was a Zenith radio, a Brownie box camera, a black landline phone, and a new board game every Christmas. The morning paper was delivered for a nickel, and a movie a week cost a quarter. Team bowling on Wednesday night. The big family vacation trip was a tank of gas to drive the only car to an adjacent state to visit relatives. People owned enough clothing to get them from Monday to Monday. The words 'fast' and 'food' were never in the same sentence. Nobody complained, and nobody got bored.
Do a line-item analysis of your family budget to see how much you pay for entertainment or to save time, in order to have more time to work. My cable bill is higher than my heating/cooling, electricity, and water all put together.
True. And not only entertaiment. People love to spend money on anything that pleases their eyes, no matter whether they need it or not.
I think, it is possible to live decently with a moderate income if people don't make shopping a hobby.
I disagree that single people can't support themselves. I'm 29 years old, single and I own my house, 2 vehicles, and enjoy my life. I know many other single people who are living well off of their own salary and not relying on parents or the government.
Some singles might have a problem with going out too much and spending a quarter of their daily earnings on food and entertainment instead of trying to save that money. It all depends on what type of lifestyle you lead and how much income you make that supports that lifestyle. If you're single and making less than $30K/ year, it might be difficult to get a head in life because of paying everything on your own instead of having a spouse that contributes. I manage my money wisely, invest it, and it has paid off considerably. I also don't spend ech night in a bar frittering away my money.
There are dual income households who make over $100K/ year and are up to their eyeballs in debt. The nice thing about being single is that you don't really aspire to have the 4 bed/ 4 bath suburban house on an acre of land, many singles are happier in a smaller home or condo which costs considerably less to maintain.
It all depends on how you live your life.
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.
