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.
This question is not specific to the US, but if capitalism brings so much wealth (and it does) why can´t families survive on a single income anymore like in the past when usually only men worked and women were not in the workforce?
Because they feel that they *have* to have things or do things before they can actually afford to do them. We've turned into a big consumer society and think we must have what everyone else has, and if we are the first, well, that makes us better than everyone else!
Bigger homes.
More cars.
More technology - your computer or cell phone or tablet is 2 years old? Garbage! Get a new one, right now!
Everyone wants to be a world traveler, or a vlogger, or some type of YouTube celebrity so they spend their money on expensive equipment and trips and dining out - and then beg for money via Patreon - because they can't afford to do it on their own, and they aren't good enough to be sponsored.
Looks - plastic surgery, cosmetic surgery, high end clothes, shoes, bags, etc all so they can get on their Instagram or (again) YouTube 'fashion' channel and do the latest "clothes haul" that they can't afford so they have to beg their viewers to support their shopping habits via Patreon.
Spending 4 years in college with a huge student loan that they use not just for school, but living a very comfortable lifestyle for that 4 years only to graduate with a useless degree that will get them the job of Wal Mart greeter or waiter, instead of working while going to college and saving themselves a lot of money.
Because so many people think that they *need* more than they actually do.
They have to have convenience and quick - which costs a lot more than if you do it yourself, or put a little effort into it.
Given that wages have not remotely kept up with inflation that is simply not the case. Reality shows that is not the case.
You're missing the fact that those closest to retirement age, which is arbitrary now, are clinging to their higher-paying jobs, shutting out anyone younger, which is what you said you wanted: "Get a job."
Quote:
My premise is simply being realistic. Right or wrong it's the truth- the system is not beneficial for most and is not sustainable for society.
Explain how higher income earners clinging to their jobs longer is more sustainable. All that achieves is older generations pricing younger generations out of the higher COL the older generations have driven with their extra income earned from staying in their high-paying jobs longer.
It's quite evident you didn't think through your position.
more women enter workforce
1965 immigration act, more immigrants
offshoring
higher standards required for employment
inflation outpaces wage increase
job automation
stagnation of real wages since 1970s
emphasis on college means fewer blue collar workers
Gas consumption is highly variable. The reduced cost offsets the membership fee for some but not for others.
Still trying to validate the insane and blatantly false concept that a $60 membership fee somehow negates the savings advantage of shopping at Costco? What does one get out perpetuating something so hopelessly false? To put up some check mark in an internet scorecard? Kinda like the whole "no one was killed by being run over by James Fields" Charlottesville fiasco someone was allowed to perpetuate here. Just because people eventually stop wasting their time arguing with you doesn't mean you've won anything
You're missing the fact that those closest to retirement age, which is arbitrary now, are clinging to their higher-paying jobs, shutting out anyone younger, which is what you said you wanted: "Get a job."
What jobs are those, exactly? If anything, what I see in corporate America, at least in big Pharma, is a boat load of ageism. I see ageism all over the place. These people aren't clinging. They cannot cling. I've seen one too many ousted. And I do know a few that need to retire because they're out of touch. It's definitely a young wo/mans game.
And this brings me to plans of retirement year careers and what that can look like for older people. At least it's something I think about.
Quote:
Explain how higher income earners clinging to their jobs longer is more sustainable.
Don't be obtuse. You know I am not speaking about earners. I'm speaking of those who do not work.
Quote:
All that achieves is older generations pricing younger generations out of the higher COL the older generations have driven with their extra income earned from staying in their high-paying jobs longer.
It's quite evident you didn't think through your position.
I have thought through my position quite well. If an elder person has something of value to offer, especially in light of experience, I think it's ill-thought to replace that person with someone who is young just because they are young. It's when a person's mind becomes stale that is the issue. With that said, almost half of seniors are dependent on social security. They are not pricing out anyone. Given how much time you have to research and think about all this junk, and your age and supposed experience, I am surprised this is a shocker for you. I am not saying anything novel here.
I don’t know why people send their children to expensive universities they can’t afford.
A flagship in-state public university usually costs much less then a private university or an out of state university.
Not always. It was less expensive for me to attend an out-of-state private school than it was to attend an in-state state-supported school. That was in 1977, and without scholarships, grants or loans, but the possibility still exists when you consider the funding packages offered to students. My niece right now is considering three schools: out-of-state private, out-of-state public, and in-state public. On paper, the in-state public school is the least expensive, but when the financial aid packages come in, that may not continue to be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Now everyone in the family has to have their own smart phone that needs to be upgraded every two years.
[snip]
Laptops.....same story.
[snip]
Electronics aren't the only factor of course, but the addiction to and reliance on technology these days definitely puts a big dent in a part of the family budget that didn't even used to exist.
In the 1870s in-home electricity didn't exist for Ma and Pa Ingalls, so what's your point?
Electronics and in-home technology are a way of life now, whether we like it or not. Kids communicate with their teachers via e-mail, submit class assignments, learn their test scores and final grades all via computer and internet. The laptop has to be up to date to accommodate the latest mandated classroom software (nevermind that laptops don't last more than 4 or 5 years anyway). Employers require their employees to have internet access and a smart phone (nevermind that they rarely last longer than 2 or 3 years).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spottednikes
This...everyone needs a smartphone, cable, flat screen tvs in every room, 2 cars, x boxes, eating out at restaurants, etc.
I know no one who has or does all those things. But if you have two wage earners, you have two cars unless the couple works in the same place at the same hours - how common is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont
Back in the 1950s, people 'survived' on one or zero cars. They had one TV, one vacuum cleaner, sometimes a phone. They didn't eat out much. There wasn't any fast food. They often rented. Their homes were small.
Today's poorest person would consider the 1950s' standard of living as third-world.
That's ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae
And baby boomers should not be retiring. Not by a long shot.
I won't be able to afford do - I'll be working until at least 75.
You're missing the fact that those closest to retirement age, which is arbitrary now, are clinging to their higher-paying jobs, shutting out anyone younger, which is what you said you wanted: "Get a job."
Explain how higher income earners clinging to their jobs longer is more sustainable. All that achieves is older generations pricing younger generations out of the higher COL the older generations have driven with their extra income earned from staying in their high-paying jobs longer.
It's quite evident you didn't think through your position.
How about the fact that because of public school systems being funded through property taxes means high property tax bills for homeowners, even when they never had children, but because of those high property taxes, older Americans can't afford to retire from their "high paying jobs". Maybe if after the age of 55, a homeowner could have their property tax bills frozen plus giving them a discount on those taxes once they reach the age of 65, then senior citizens could actually be able to truly retire from working.
I would love to be able to retire in five years, but not with my property taxes always increasing.
I also know more than a few older people who can't afford to retire, because they have to help out their adult children with their grandchildren financially.
How about the fact that because of public school systems being funded through property taxes means high property tax bills for homeowners, even when they never had children, but because of those high property taxes, older Americans can't afford to retire from their "high paying jobs". Maybe if after the age of 55, a homeowner could have their property tax bills frozen plus giving them a discount on those taxes once they reach the age of 65, then senior citizens could actually be able to truly retire from working.
I would love to be able to retire in five years, but not with my property taxes always increasing.
My mom has her property taxes frozen. I think that’s reasonable for seniors at whatever income level that makes sense. Obviously for MA residents it’s going to be higher than the national level. Although some in this thread will just tell you to move. I would like to head up to N.H. in the white mts when the time comes
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.
