"Live within your means": a loaded phrase that seems to be biased in the favor of those more well-off? (creditors, lawyer)
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.
(Referring to bolded portion above.) That's one possible way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the poor and even the middle class to a certain extent have become so economically-impoverished over the past several decades with the drastic reduction in the real value of the dollar that their economic situation is almost akin to financial indentured servanthood, or a re-establishing of sorts of feudal society where the wealthy owned everything and the average person had no real net worth to speak of.
And on top of that the American poor don't live better than the poor in other industrialized countries.
Furthermore to mention the word 'character' in the context that the post you are referring to was written implies that a hard working American that doesn't earn a ton of money has no character.
After 30 years and/ or after sacrificing quite a bit of money.
Or in my case after 12 years. I bought a house I could afford, financed it for 15 years, and any windfall income on the way went into retiring the principal. Now I have a free place to live, which is one hell of a fine ROI. I also recovered 40% of the purchase price by a small logging project in 2013. I don't feel very sacrificed.
And on top of that the American poor don't live better than the poor in other industrialized countries.
Furthermore to mention the word 'character' in the context that the post you are referring to was written implies that a hard working American that doesn't earn a ton of money has no character.
I reject that implication wholeheartedly.
The living standard has been better in other industrialized countries for at least the last 20 years, a fact that has been obscured by the "greatest country in the world" drum beat of the propaganda machine. The poor in other countries not only live better than the poor in the US, but the middle class does substantially better there too. I think the USA now ranks somewhere around 17th among industrialized nations for living standard.
There are still opportunities to get ahead, but it requires substantial personal sacrifice. If you sit around and expect our current corporate government overlords to "play fair", you will live and die for a promise you will never see.
Attitudes like the OP's are why this country is in so much trouble.
^^
The OP and his generation think that college degree is a magic wand and the very next day they are awarded a $200,000 a year job, with a million dollar house, new car, and all the things their parents worked 40 years to acquire.
The OP and his generation think that college degree is a magic wand and the very next day they are awarded a $200,000 a year job, with a million dollar house, new car, and all the things their parents worked 40 years to acquire.
You, madame, are merely wholly generalizing, and using stereotypes here -- please see post #7 in this thread, for a true and accurate accounting of my hard work and efforts, to pull myself up and earn my own keep, over the years Further, as I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread, I happen to be a member of Gen X, not Gen Y / the Milllennial Generation.
You and the person whose post you had lauded above are people that the Tea Party, in their own misguided efforts to play to their corporate masters' whims and marginalize anyone not already independently wealthy, would wholeheartedly applaud. We need more Keynesians and more people who are the exact opposite economically than what the Tea Party stands for and espouses, to make this country more equitable, fair, and just to poor- and average-income households, once again
Last edited by Phoenix2017; 02-24-2015 at 11:18 AM..
Reason: Fixed typo
Or in my case after 12 years. I bought a house I could afford, financed it for 15 years, and any windfall income on the way went into retiring the principal. Now I have a free place to live, which is one hell of a fine ROI. I also recovered 40% of the purchase price by a small logging project in 2013. I don't feel very sacrificed.
Actually, for most folks it's probably better to buy a house. It's a forced savings plan. Plus there are non-monetary advantages such as living in a "community", the psychic satisfaction of owning, etc.
Strictly using a monetary comparison, though, it would seldom pay to buy rather than rent the same house or condo or whatever if the difference is invested over the long run. House ownership comes with many expenses also and also the possible inflexibiity of moving at the drop of a hat. And if you buy at a high and have to move within several years, that can be a big negative also.
Owning a home free and clear also may prohibit someone from accumulating a pile of cash/investment money that can be used for a variety of things. Having a house paid off, but not having other monies, isn't necessarily a good thing.
I'm just trying to provide some balance here. Owning a house is not the perfect solution necessarily and is overrated in my opinion for many folks.
You, madame, are merely wholly generalizing, and using stereotypes here -- please see post #7 in this thread, for a true and accurate accounting of my hard work and efforts, to pull myself up and earn my own keep, over the years Further, as I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread, I happen to be a member of Gen X, not Gen Y / the Milllennial Generation.
You and the person whose post you had lauded above are people that the Tea Party, in their own misguided efforts to play to their corporate masters' whims and marginalize anyone not already independently wealthy, would wholeheartedly applaud. We need more Keynesians and more people who are the exact opposite economically than what the Tea Party stands for and espouses, to make this country more equitable, fair, and just to poor- and average-income households, once again
We don't "need" more governmental control. We need more freedom of governmental control so everyone has a chance to prosper. Governmental control didn't work too well in Eastern Europe, the Old Soviet Union, Cambodia, etc. It's working pretty well in North Korea though for their Dear Leader!
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.
Further, as I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread, I happen to be a member of Gen X, not Gen Y / the Milllennial Generation.
