U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2012, 05:40 PM
 
Location: USA
13,256 posts, read 11,656,960 times
Reputation: 4228

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Yes -- no one is preventing people from getting married at age 20 or so. Nothing stops a married person from taking college classes.

It might be harder - I'm not so sure it is. In the past a young couple didn't have a $150-$200 a month cell phone bill, they didn't have a $600 game player and $100 internet service and $100 cable television bill.

My dad never in his life bought a new car nor have I. A new luxury car costs $60,000 but you can buy a good used car for $2000 and keep it running by doing many of the repairs yourself -- just like people have always done.

People today think they need to eat out at least twice a day or they're deprived - at least $8 for lunch, $20 for dinner -- but you eat at home for much less. At one time families that had one car considered themselves well enough off but now everyone has to own his or her own car, at least one car.
Your clearly out of touch with the wages of the lower class. A person would go broke paying the type of bills your mentioning.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2012, 05:44 PM
 
Location: USA
13,256 posts, read 11,656,960 times
Reputation: 4228
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
I was wrong?

You make over 100K? Well then. I'm assuming you are now a man of character and values because you worked your way up. The fact that you now think we should be subsidizing 20 somethings is a little surprising. Most people who work hard to get someplace know the value of doing things yourself and not getting things handed to you by someone else. They're also usually quite grumpy about being asked to pay for someone else's cable. (I read the Republicans here. They hate Obamacare. They're certainly not going to subsidize someone else's marriage.)

Whatever. This is NO. Total fail. Sorry. Look around you. We have true poverty in this country. If we're going to be helping anyone let's start with helping feed hungry kids. Not helping perfectly healthy Heather and Chuck have nice curtains in their rent-controlled condo.

And who is "forcing" people to delay marriage? You go to City Hall, get your license, get married and go live your life. Easy. Free Country. (If you're straight.) If it's difficult for 20 somethings to live without an iPhone and a really great data plan....they need to go get that helmet. Which they have to pay for themselves.

p.s. Where on earth did you get the idea that life is supposed to be "easy". I'm still thinking you need that skid lid.
You obviously have a "Everyone on their own" mentality. I'd have to remind you however that you didn't get to where your at on your own. You needed help.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 05:54 PM
 
5,458 posts, read 7,430,382 times
Reputation: 4625
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
I was wrong?

You make over 100K? Well then. I'm assuming you are now a man of character and values because you worked your way up. The fact that you now think we should be subsidizing 20 somethings is a little surprising. Most people who work hard to get someplace know the value of doing things yourself and not getting things handed to you by someone else. They're also usually quite grumpy about being asked to pay for someone else's cable. (I read the Republicans here. They hate Obamacare. They're certainly not going to subsidize someone else's marriage.)
Did you read the part in several earlier posts where I had mentioned that I believed younger couples should also be independently self-sustaining? They can't though, because if the current minimum wage had been indexed to inflation over the past few decades (but which it wasn't, of course), they might be making somewhere in the range of $30+ an hour, instead of the current non-indexed $12 - $14 or thereabouts minimum wage? Again, it is actually the opposite of a handout -- society is essentially robbing young people's earning potential and decreasing their standard of living, when it artificially gives CEO's a 300% increase in inflation-adjusted income since the 1970s, but nothing to help or justly-compensate the average worker within the same time period. $15 in 1970 was worth much, much more in real dollars, vs. $15 in 2012, but employers are treating it as the same, artificially. It is not fundamentally right and it is probably not even based on free-market economic theory, for that matter. Many Republicans love to talk about and encourage free-market economics, but do they actually practice, what they preach? If they did and they do, then why isn't the 2012 minimum wage something like $35, right now?

Quote:
Whatever. This is NO. Total fail. Sorry. Look around you. We have true poverty in this country. If we're going to be helping anyone let's start with helping feed hungry kids. Not helping perfectly healthy Heather and Chuck have nice curtains in their rent-controlled condo.
We have working social programs to help the poor and disadvantaged -- Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, SSI, and now Obamacare, etc. -- all of which I fully support and think are very good things. And I am happy to contribute my fair share as a fellow citizen to all of the above, as needed.

Quote:
And who is "forcing" people to delay marriage? You go to City Hall, get your license, get married and go live your life. Easy. Free Country. (If you're straight.) If it's difficult for 20 somethings to live without an iPhone and a really great data plan....they need to go get that helmet. Which they have to pay for themselves.

p.s. Where on earth did you get the idea that life is supposed to be "easy". I'm still thinking you need that skid lid.
I don't have an iPhone, or an iPad, or even an e-book reader. One of the things that I've been trying to emphasize in the thread that you may be missing is, the value of the U.S. dollar is worth radically less than it was in 1970 and earlier, when younger people actually had more financial and social mobility, to marry younger if they wished to. We as a society basically "changed the rules", roughly about post-1970, in a way that hurts young people. Back then, young people could have a stable, financially-sustainable career working manufacturing jobs, without needing a college education. They had considerably more financial pocketbook power and security. That environment simply does not exist today, in 2012. College is practically a must now, in order to have financial security -- in fact, increasingly, even a college bachelor's degree carries the same weight as a high school diploma, in that employers now want graduate or post-graduate degrees. The reality is, the last 30+ years have radically reduced young people's standard of living, and that is neither right nor just. We are talking about apples and oranges here, when we talk about 1970s standard of living vs. 2012 standard of living.

Last edited by Phoenix2017; 11-10-2012 at 06:03 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 06:18 PM
 
4,279 posts, read 4,975,282 times
Reputation: 2361
Is it fair to society to have 20 year old couples thinking society owes them a living?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 07:18 PM
 
5,458 posts, read 7,430,382 times
Reputation: 4625
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
Is it fair to society to have 20 year old couples thinking society owes them a living?
Actually, it is the opposite of being owed a living -- society is vastly underpaying younger workers, through maintaining a non-inflation adjusted minimum wage. If the minimum wage was inflation-adjusted over the past 30-40 years, it would likely be over $30 an hour, today. That has in turn decreased their standard of living. Also please see post #43, for more on how modern young people have had their standard of living lowered over the past several decades.

Therefore, how can we say that young people believe that they are owed a living when they are not even being compensated fairly for their work in the first place? Easy solution is to raise the minimum wage to an inflation-indexed, sustainable living wage. Not just for younger people either, but for all people earning minimum wage as well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 07:30 PM
 
5,458 posts, read 7,430,382 times
Reputation: 4625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
Your clearly out of touch with the wages of the lower class. A person would go broke paying the type of bills your mentioning.
Agreed!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 07:55 PM
 
22,907 posts, read 14,105,744 times
Reputation: 16953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009 View Post
How is a married couple that is 20 years old for example and each making around $20k or less going to be able to sustain themselves financially? Especially in regions with a very high cost of living, such as D.C., NY, Boston, CA, etc., where a single person has to make around at least $100k - $150k or more to even have a shot at a reasonably-comfortable lifestyle? They can't...and so it is an instant marriage-killer...
A very defeatist outlook that will guarantee your last sentence.

They will if they live in a cheap apartment and walk or public transit to work while upgrading their education or look for better jobs.

They will if they forego the instant car with attendant payments. They will if they forego the washer drier financed through HFC. They will if they don't succomb to putting everything on their visa card and then getting the mastercard to make payments on the visa card.

You're looking at this through the prism of the boomers who cashed in on a post war era of plenty and went bat chit crazy by making sure their little Johnny and Judy didn't have to wear hand-me-down jeans and shoes so they allowed, indeed even encouraged their spoiled brats to have a tv in their bedroom their own phone and computer and perhaps even a car to take to college with them.

Problem came when those same kids graduated from school and just assumed they would have all the comforts they grew up with instantly ~ oooopsy! Compensated by using credit to purchase all that stuff and when the stuff wore out they bought more, piling on more credit.

The generations before the boomers couldn't marry without considering where they were going to find affordable housing. They quite often lived with one set of parents for the first few years of marriage. Unlike todays youth they couldn't just start taking a birth control pill at the age of 14 but well into their marriage they had no choice but either abstain for certain times of the month or use what amounted to a raincoat as thick as a Goodyear tire to prevent conception.

They couldn't even think of buying a car until after the necessities of life were provided, like food and shelter. Clothing was often hand made. Things were re-used, NOT recycled to be turned into something else you would throw away but used over and over again until they couldn't be used again THEN they were re-cycled.

It's no different now than it has been before for many generations of people getting married while at a young age.

One difference you haven't taken note of is the average life expectancy of todays youth vastly outranks, by whole decades, those of just a couple of generations ago. They don't have things like the poliomylitis, tuberculosous, consumption, lead poisoning, black lung, diabetis, asthma, among a host of diseases prevelant back then killing them off before they can experience any of lifes simple pleasures.

Youth of today are faced with some challenges but no more than the youth of a couple of generations ago and a visit to the library might glean all the information they need to understand the means by which they can excell.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:04 PM
 
22,907 posts, read 14,105,744 times
Reputation: 16953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight2009 View Post
Actually, it is the opposite of being owed a living -- society is vastly underpaying younger workers, through maintaining a non-inflation adjusted minimum wage. If the minimum wage was inflation-adjusted over the past 30-40 years, it would likely be over $30 an hour, today. That has in turn decreased their standard of living. Also please see post #43, for more on how modern young people have had their standard of living lowered over the past several decades.

Therefore, how can we say that young people believe that they are owed a living when they are not even being compensated fairly for their work in the first place? Easy solution is to raise the minimum wage to an inflation-indexed, sustainable living wage. Not just for younger people either, but for all people earning minimum wage as well.
I don't think you'd like the outcome as the present situation of youth thinking in terms of themselves being unfairly treated is bad enough without creating a whole society of them being made comfortable as non-performers and below average achievers.

Choices should be: work provides the means to an end and more valuable work or smarter work provides better compensation. Sacrificing the instant gratification for longer term reward should be shown to pay dividends.

Guaranteeing all a living wage would be just one more step in the process of creating the lassitude of failure.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 12:39 AM
 
Location: Happy wherever I am - Florida now
3,360 posts, read 11,841,294 times
Reputation: 3898
OK, I did some calculations.
The $60 I made in 1970 comes out to $342.74 a week inflation adjusted = $1290.96 mo
This was the daytime job at 39 hrs which we lived on and comes out to $8.78 an hour.
Current min wage in that state is $7.25 an hour.

I allowed $8 a month for entertainment, $40 for food, and $50 a month for rent in a mobile home (cheaper than an apt).
That would be $55.68 entertainment, $228.40 for food, and $285.62 mobile home lot rent today, same city.

The good thing about working two fulltime jobs was that we didn't have time for tv.
Getting home at 1 am to start the laundry and housework lead to a pretty long day.
The other good thing was that the second job paid twice as much even though it included weekends
as well as nights it allowed for a quicker avenue to build up a nest egg. Meals were often whatever we
could put together from the $2 crate of vegetables just before the store was about to throw them out.
We had room mates for the first 15 years of our marriage who helped pay the rent.
I didn't have a new car till I retired but I did eventually own several commercial properties.

Thought you might find these figures interesting.

One of the things you're seeing these days is the addl expense that I think essential in internet and cell phone costs, and their associated hardware. (I still get these as hand me downs from the kids mostly). Cable tv not so much if you're busy.

The other extreme is the vast variable in regional costs that didn't exist at that time considering the consistency of the min wage across the country. In 1970 you could buy a similar house in San Jose or the LA hills for no more than 10% higher than in a back country small city. I know because I did both. So anyway, here's a bit of history for you.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:23 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top