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.
Hell on my dinner date last night my wine bill was $435.
Next date my girlfriends turn to pay her liquor bill will be much more for The 66 Glenlivet I'm going to
guzzle.
When you're out spending $1000 for an Iphone, $300 for Jordans and leasing a Beamer on a normal salary
you lucky you can save a nickel a month.
Live like a normal frugal person and not try to impress the Jones or look like a Rap star and you'll have a lot more than $400 saved in liquid cash
Hell on my dinner date last night my wine bill was $435.
Next date my girlfriends turn to pay her liquor bill will be much more for The 66 Glenlivet I'm going to
guzzle.
When you're out spending $1000 for an Iphone, $300 for Jordans and leasing a Beamer on a normal salary
you lucky you can save a nickel a month.
Live like a normal frugal person and not try to impress the Jones or look like a Rap star and you'll have a lot more than $400 saved in liquid cash
NO, it's absolutely stupid. As Ohiogirl81 said, people change. Your background check will reveal nothing about what a person will do in the future, a criminal history only indicates that they haven't been convicted that does not mean that they aren't a criminal.
You can have a great credit score, no criminal history and a spotless employment record and still walk out on your family and take the family savings with you, I know that describes my exhusband to a T.
First of all, I am all for giving people chances. I am actually a big supporter to abolish background check entirely. We should not hold that over people's heads for life - either they have paid their debt or they have not. But given the current system is just a revolving door and 80% of crimes are committed by ex-cons, I'd be very careful about that. Go marry whoever you want. Ex-con is not my cup of tea.
I know a guy who graduated from top school, went to be a diplomat, but one day, he came home, murdered all his children and wife, and disappeared into the ether.
Point being, one extreme case doesn't prove the general rule is wrong. Statistically, people obey the laws in the past will continue to obey the laws in most of the time.
To get all this info you their SSN. Are you asking it before dating? Because if someone will ask for my SSN without being in LTR with me, he will get a "huh?".
Not necessarily at all. Given nowadays everybody's SSN is available online, it's not an issue anymore, but even in the old days, it's not that hard.
I just asked them. In most cases, people are fairly honest about their past.
Employment history one can find easily with just a name.
Criminal record needs just a name and birthday, and readily available online
Only bank record would need SSN.
However, if you pay $200, you get everything you want.
Hell on my dinner date last night my wine bill was $435.
Next date my girlfriends turn to pay her liquor bill will be much more for The 66 Glenlivet I'm going to
guzzle.
When you're out spending $1000 for an Iphone, $300 for Jordans and leasing a Beamer on a normal salary
you lucky you can save a nickel a month.
Live like a normal frugal person and not try to impress the Jones or look like a Rap star and you'll have a lot more than $400 saved in liquid cash
I can afford $435 for dinner an iPhone, a Beamer and still save and invest, no problem but no matter how good the dinner was I couldn't say I would enjoy spending that much nor am I interested in a Beamer, guilty on the iPhone though. Today may be good times but tomorrow can be very different. Living in Manhattan, your cost of living is crazy, you never know when you local gov't is going to want to dig even deeper in your pocket. Either way, your post is confusing, one min your talking about spending $435 on dinner then next your telling people to be frugal.
I can afford $435 for dinner an iPhone, a Beamer and still save and invest, no problem but no matter how good the dinner was I couldn't say I would enjoy spending that much nor am I interested in a Beamer, guilty on the iPhone though. Today may be good times but tomorrow can be very different. Living in Manhattan, your cost of living is crazy, you never know when you local gov't is going to want to dig even deeper in your pocket. Either way, your post is confusing, one min your talking about spending $435 on dinner then next your telling people to be frugal.
When we were carrying corp cards we'd spend 1500 a night on dinner and most of it was booze for the group
I can afford $435 for dinner an iPhone, a Beamer and still save and invest, no problem but no matter how good the dinner was I couldn't say I would enjoy spending that much nor am I interested in a Beamer, guilty on the iPhone though. Today may be good times but tomorrow can be very different. Living in Manhattan, your cost of living is crazy, you never know when you local gov't is going to want to dig even deeper in your pocket. Either way, your post is confusing, one min your talking about spending $435 on dinner then next your telling people to be frugal.
Not confusing at all. Live within your means and you'll be able to save or invest for a rainy day.
I live within my means; which for me means being able to afford a $600 dinner date ($435 for for just the wine) and buy not lease a track Hawk ect.. and still have plenty of liquid cash and maintain a healthy investment portfolio that thanks to Trump's economic policies has doubled in value.MAGA
There seems to be a pervasive stereotype that the reason many Americans struggle today, is because most are less frugal and more extravagant than previous generations. Sure, that is certainly the case for some, but I truly don't think most Americans really fall into that category.
Consider this:
Since the early 1960s, with the exception of the top quintile of earners, middle, working and lower class Americans have had pretty much stagnant wages when adjusted for inflation, but, even with inflation taken into account, our expenses are greater than they were in the early 1960s.
For instance, in January 1963, the average price of a newly built home was$17200. Adjusted for inflation, that is just over $140,000. Considering the average new house that year was 1450sqft, inflation adjusted that is $96/sqft.
This past March however, the average newly built house price was $335,400. While median square footage isn't in yet, in the final quarter of 2017, the median square footage of a new house was 2371sqft, so let's go with that. That works out at just over $141/sqft, almost $50 more per square foot than in 1963. Even the average price of existing home sales in the U.S in March was $238,700, so again, significantly higher than the cost of a brand new home half a century ago.
Coupled with the rising cost of college and subsequent student debt, it is much harder for a family to get ahead now than in the past.
For further comparison, a brand new car in 1963 was $3233 or $26,323 adjusted for inflation. This past January, the average new car cost was $36,270 according to the KBB- almost $10,000 greater.
Nowadays, having a cell phone and internet at home is almost 'mandatory', with the way things are and employer expectations. These are additional costs not incurred by the average family of just a few generations ago.
Excellent Post.
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.
