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.
Personally one way I have able to keep my head above water is never marrying and having kids. I take care of myself, only need worry about myself. I make enough to keep up a certain quality of life for myself, although the world is getting more and more expensive. Can't imagine having to support a family.
Then again if it ever gets too bad, I have no ties, I could just re-locate to another country if I wanted to.
But what if that standard of living was in excess to start with?
I remember in my youth, having elders tell me that if you wanted to buy a house, you needed 10% down in cash, a good credit history, and that your housing cost should be roughly a single weeks pay check as a rule of thumb.
At the time, not everyone had a credit card and I recall my mother reluctant to ever use hers and viewed it as something to be used in an emergency and if something couldn't be afforded to be purchased, it was put on layaway. People saved up for things they wanted and they saved up for the 10% down payment on a house for years.
Quote:
The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world's fossil fuel resources--burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world's natural gas. As of 2003, the U.S. had more private cars than licensed drivers, and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles were among the best-selling vehicles. New houses in the U.S. were 38 % bigger in 2002 than in 1975, despite having fewer people per household on average.[v] According to an article in Scientific American, if the rest of the world were to rise to the same level of consumption as that of the United States it would require the resources of four more planet Earths.
The era of easy, fast and loose credit is nearing its end. Gross consumption that has fueled our national existence through the 1980s, 90's, and beyond is coming to a close. For those folks who are older, I suspect they will better adapt and return to a manner of living more like that of their earlier years, but the folks who are in their 20's,30's, and their 40's are in for a real shock.
But what if that standard of living was in excess to start with?
I remember in my youth, having elders tell me that if you wanted to buy a house, you needed 10% down in cash, a good credit history, and that your housing cost should be roughly a single weeks pay check as a rule of thumb.
At the time, not everyone had a credit card and I recall my mother reluctant to ever use hers and viewed it as something to be used in an emergency and if something couldn't be afforded to be purchased, it was put on layaway. People saved up for things they wanted and they saved up for the 10% down payment on a house for years.
The era of easy, fast and loose credit is nearing its end. Gross consumption that has fueled our national existence through the 1980s, 90's, and beyond is coming to a close. For those folks who are older, I suspect they will better adapt and return to a manner of living more like that of their earlier years, but the folks who are in their 20's,30's, and their 40's are in for a real shock.
Welcome to the new world of humble living.
That may be the only really good thing that comes from all of this--people have to change, and it's a myth that overspending is a "liberal" thing. We live like that. We started with basically nothing (young and in debt up to our ears in student loans) but we worked our backsides off, lived simply, saved everything we could, and we're where we are today because of it--zero personal debt, except for a little left on our house, and fully funded retirement and college tuition for 5 kids. My DH has a great career, and we've been very lucky, but we still invest every dime we can, live fairly simply, and focus more on experiences like travel vs. accumulating stuff. We bought a huge old fixer upper farmhouse vs. a McMansion, remodeled it ourselves, and pretty much furnished it through estate sales, craigslist and Grandma's attic--it's lovely now. We take good care of our vehicles, and drive them into the ground. The funny part--many of our old republican friends thought we were nuts. Debt isn't a liberal thing--it's an American thing. I know just as many Republicans as Dem's who are underwater financially. Keeping up with the Jones has killed this country.
But what if that standard of living was in excess to start with?
The era of easy, fast and loose credit is nearing its end.
...Welcome to the new world of humble living.
Exactly! The standard of living will slide because A LOT of people were living well beyond their financial means via easy money, housing bubble blowing lending policies.
Upper limit of each fifth (dollars)
Households as of March of the following year. Income in current and 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars
Number (thousands)
Lowest:
1979 - 80776
2009 - 117538
(Approximately a 46% increase)
Depending on how you measure "standard of living", it can mean different things. I would not rely upon money as a measure - because "Dollar bills" are a variable, not a constant, and that makes it a poor measure or standard.
If we take the standard to mean how much labor it takes to achieve a goal, thanks to labor saving technology, automation and mass production, it takes very little labor. On the other hand if the standard is a measure of how much fuel was consumed to achieve a goal, then it turns upside down. Labor intensive, but fuel saving technology would be superior.
Based on human nature, the labor saving mode is preferred.
The next step is to consider how we can do more, with less fuel, so that more can enjoy the benefits of our production.
Take the example of housing. It's not the size of the house, but how much fuel is consumed in its maintenance and climate control, that should be of concern. Also, the longevity of its components should be considered, as well. Current "rules" enforce minimal quality and minimum durability, as well as planned obsolescence and a pre-designed consumption rate. Superinsulation could remedy many of the problems with the current standard.
Ditto for transportation. For example, the automobile, whether petroleum fueled or electric, is far more wasteful than rail transport, by all measures. As populations grow, the roads become increasingly clogged, because the system is not as scalable as is rail transport. (By some estimates, one track has the equivalent carrying capacity of nine lanes of superhighway)
If America could transfer 80% of its long haul shipping to rail, rebuild electric urban rail mass transit, and remove 60% of the automobile volume from its cities, a tremendous savings would result... not to mention, the improvement of air quality.
And a parallel transition to population consolidation development served by rail would also boost the standard of living while reducing fuel consumption. Mixed use development where people and shopping, services, and other needs are close at hand would also boost the standard of living.
In short, we need a new vision to define what America can become, so that our "standard" level of consumption of fuel drops while we can enjoy more goods and services... the true measure of prosperity.
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.
