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 thought that since we've lost the bulk of our manufacturing jobs that have been 'globalized' and 'off-shored' and unions have been mostly dismantled, that there is a big lack of reasonably paid manufacturing and skilled trade jobs such as machinists...
Not everyone can or wants to become an attorney, a doctor or an executive. Some want to work with their hands--and build things. And we were great at this.
These days, service jobs in the food or retail industry just don't pay a living wage.
My opinion? We need to create some new manufacturing and skilled trade jobs again--on our shores. To replace what we've lost over the past few decades.
Maybe a new green industry will spring up? If it or something else doesn't develop--and soon--I fear we're the next third world country as China's, South America's and India's stars rise and ours sets...
What do we do now, what do we have now, that will create a new middle class of fairly paid blue collar trade workers? Where's the job creation??
The plumber and auto mechanic among others, are fairly well paid. There are jobs in construction that anyone could get into--by starting at the bottom--if they want to work with their hands.
Many posters refer to the bygone eras (like 40s or 50s), but in relation to this thread topic, was it much easier for a single person at that time to survive? Could everyone who just started out afford to move out on their own back then?
I'd say less so than today. If you were a woman, you had not much chance to move out of your parents house until you got married to move in with your husband. Whereas today, you have options to live by yourself as a woman, travel, start your own business and not have to wait for someone to marry you to provide your living or be stuck forever in your parents home.
Maybe, as a man you had options, live alone or have a family, as a woman unless you are a widow inheriting your husbands money or divorcee getting alimony you had less chance to support yourself than today. Anyone who says it was easier back then for a single income person to survive is ignoring the entire half of the population and that is a pretty one-sided argument.
Many posters refer to the bygone eras (like 40s or 50s), but in relation to this thread topic, was it much easier for a single person at that time to survive? Could everyone who just started out afford to move out on their own back then?
I'd say less so than today. If you were a woman, you had not much chance to move out of your parents house until you got married to move in with your husband. Whereas today, you have options to live by yourself as a woman, travel, start your own business and not have to wait for someone to marry you to provide your living or be stuck forever in your parents home.
Maybe, as a man you had options, live alone or have a family, as a woman unless you are a widow inheriting your husbands money or divorcee getting alimony you had less chance to support yourself than today. Anyone who says it was easier back then for a single income person to survive is ignoring the entire half of the population and that is a pretty one-sided argument.
You've just described one of the luxuries that is demanded by our modern society, which has hugelyinflated the overall cost of living. In earlier times, single people did not presume they had the right to occupy a fully furnished dwelling all by themselves. An unmarried working man or woman would live in the home of their parents, or if moved away, would typically just take a sleeping room in a boarding house. In most countries of the world, even industrialized ones, that is still the case.
Fifty years ago, it was common to see a family in a 600 sq ft home. My aunt and uncle raised their three kids in a home that couldn't have been any more than 500 or 550 sq ft. Nowadays, we've all been conditioned to think 'big.' That's okay if you want it and can afford it, but living 'big' takes big money. A heating bill of $300 a month for a huge home would be $30 for a small one.
I find this very hard to believe. I used to live in a row-home built in the late 19th century for poor workers (this was a poor area back then, now it's super expensive). it was a 2 bedroom house with over 900 sq. ft. Most of these little historical row homes are much bigger than 500 sq. ft, even smaller ones are at least 800 sq.ft with 2 bedroom, and this was housing for the poor workers, not middle class or upper middle class.
Who do you think lived in all these huge Victorian and brownstone homes that are so abundant in older parts of our older cities? Some of these homes are larger than the starter home in the burbs (which usually are under 2000 sq.ft). Just because many of these are in ghetto inner city areas now and are split into apartments doesn't indicate that this is how people of the past used to live, they must have been single family residences of those with middle class income probably back then, there are just too many of them and they aren't the grand stone mansions of the past, to suggest they were homes for the rich.
Saying that a family can have a great quality of life in 500-600 sq.ft home and suggesting that this was a norm is a bit too far fetched. Maybe in 3rd world countries or in very poor rural areas or in extermely poor industrial areas where people started out in work-houses. But saying that our middle class should be happy with the standard of living of the very very poor of the past or those from the impoverished countries is just going backwards on all that America stands for. IMO, as an immigrant.
The construction industry and most of the building trades are in the toilet right now..don't know when construction will ramp up again. Meanwhile, workers in most of those building trades are having a rough time of it..many are going the 'handyman' route and finding any work they can to tide them over...
You've just described one of the luxuries that is demanded by our modern society, which has hugelyinflated the overall cost of living. In earlier times, single people did not presume they had the right to occupy a fully furnished dwelling all by themselves. An unmarried working man or woman would live in the home of their parents, or if moved away, would typically just take a sleeping room in a boarding house. In most countries of the world, even industrialized ones, that is still the case.
Well, you don't have to tell me that, I actually experienced this first hand being from another country. Even now, this is the case in many developing countries and even in Western Europe where young people in their 20s usually move out when they find a significant other to share housing costs with.
On the other hand, in most of our high cost cities, young people are rooming together anyway with a few able to afford their own apartment on one income salary. This was the case back in the early 90s when I came here and is the case now.
I find this very hard to believe. I used to live in a row-home built in the late 19th century for poor workers (this was a poor area back then, now it's super expensive). it was a 2 bedroom house with over 900 sq. ft. Most of these little historical row homes are much bigger than 500 sq. ft, even smaller ones are at least 800 sq.ft with 2 bedroom, and this was housing for the poor workers, not middle class or upper middle class.
Who do you think lived in all these huge Victorian and brownstone homes that are so abundant in older parts of our older cities? Some of these homes are larger than the starter home in the burbs (which usually are under 2000 sq.ft). Just because many of these are in ghetto inner city areas now and are split into apartments doesn't indicate that this is how people of the past used to live, they must have been single family residences of those with middle class income probably back then, there are just too many of them and they aren't the grand stone mansions of the past, to suggest they were homes for the rich.
Saying that a family can have a great quality of life in 500-600 sq.ft home and suggesting that this was a norm is a bit too far fetched. Maybe in 3rd world countries or in very poor rural areas or in extermely poor industrial areas where people started out in work-houses. But saying that our middle class should be happy with the standard of living of the very very poor of the past or those from the impoverished countries is just going backwards on all that America stands for. IMO, as an immigrant.
And how many people lived in a single room? That's what the Mexicans do here in Florida. There will be three families living in a so-called single family home.
And how many people lived in a single room? That's what the Mexicans do here in Florida. There will be three families living in a so-called single family home.
You are comparing the poorest layer of society (marginal layer I must add as these are illegal immigrants) to the families of the past. You are also ignoring that illegal immigrants would view their situation as temporary, not aspiring to live like this for the rest of their lives. In the past there were group work-houses that accommodated the industrial age youth (many of whom used to be orphans anyway and had no place to go). But the row-houses, brownstones and victorians I am referring to were built as single family residences, they were later split into the apartments.
What I am trying to say, is that people of the past used to have various lifestyles, it's not like all of them lived in tiny-tini holes or crammed apartments and ate bread and pasta all day. Saying we should follow example of our ancestors is ignoring that they also had problems which we may not want to face in our modern society today.
Saying that our middle class should aspire to the lifestyle of the poorest layers of the society of the past or the poorest country residents is wrong, IMO. There is a healthy balance, no need to embrace extremes. We were on one end of the extreme with super-consumption and 3000 sq.ft homes for a family of 4 and multiple new cars and crazy debt accumulation. Easing from it doesn't mean we have to scramble along with a family of 4 stuck in a 500 sq. ft hole (a size of an average studio).
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?
I think it's all of the above to some extent, but not any specific problem in particular. Current unemployment rates rising I think would directly contribute to the fact that single people just entering job market would have a tougher time even with college degrees.
Expecting higher standard of living? Some people do and others don't. I made do by myself and have supported my family at a very young age before going to college, making minimum wage, so actually for me, moving out was much luxury as I had to make sure my family would be able to pay the rent without my contribution.
I know singles who wouldn't move out unless they have their own house or a separate apartments while others are willing to share studios just to get their own independence. I think, this is a personal choice. I hear singles in high COL area complain about this all the time, but I could say the same thing back in the 90s.
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.
