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.
Wages not matching costs.
People want too much stuff.
And I'm beginning to wonder if stuff costs more bc families are expected to have 2 incomes rather than the other way around.
I grew up in the 80s. No one was supporting a family on one minimum wage income.
Now I know people who make 100k in ok COL cities but their spouses still work bc they want to "get ahead" or have more stuff.
Saying it's not partly choice driven is disingenuous.
Let's say I've worked really hard for 40 years, lived frugally...well beneath my means, and invested wisely.
So, now I have $2,000,000 invested. I invest it very conservatively to make a measly 3% return...$60,000/year. That $60,000 is unearned income. I can live comfortably on that because I have zero debt, and remain frugal.
Does this make me evil in your opinion?
LOL, most people wish they were in this position but are unwilling to make the sacrifices to achieve it, so they view people who have achieved this as evil and they consider themselves righteous in demanding that they get a cut of the pie.
Wow, i wasn´t expecting this much engagement. Very cool, i think this is important stuff to discuss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Wages haven't kept up with the cost of living.
I haven´t read everything on the thread so far (i´ll try to), but i think this is true, cost of living keeps rising meanwhile wages are steady. Why is this happenning? Who to blame? Unchecked capitalism? Socialism, government intervention? High taxes? Corruption? All of this maybe.
I support Trump. I agree with him and I am on his side on most issues, whether social, cultural, immigration, I believe the media is very unbiased to him and his supporters. Interestingly, based on his approval on the issues the economy is where he has the biggest approval and constantly a net positive https://news.gallup.com/poll/1726/pr...-approval.aspx.
I´m not in the US so i´m not sure of the positive impact he is having on the economy but looks like at least he´s doing something better than his predecessors and improving the situation for the middle class. But I attribute this much more to Trump than to the establishment, both the GOP and Dems which i found as culprits of the current economy situation of so many US families and for the steady wages and rising cost of living. Things may be getting better but still in the past one middle-class family with only one income, usually men working and the women staying home, 7/8 kids still managed to make a living and people as we heard were a lot poorer then how with much more wealth a family of two without kids with both working sometimes can barely make a living or if they live in a high cost city/state like California even worse. I also think "low-skilled" immigration (not meritocratically based) has a bad impact because contributes to lowering the wages. There is also the problem of the national debt, got much worse under Obama for example.
See this videos from Tucker Carlson (i know people on the left probably don´t like him but make an effort) to understand a bit where i´m coming from, that made me think a bit more about this stuff:
Both unchecked capitalism and socialism seem to have a negative impact on these issues. I don´t think we will solve this problems with socialism. I understand people like Sanders and his concerns about this problems but i don´t think he has the solutions. I don´t support some kind of economy revolution. I think that even with this problems it´s the best system we have. Still there is a lot to fix inside this system for it to serve better american families (and as i said in the opening post, it´s not only an american problem also in europe for example).
LOL, most people wish they were in this position but are unwilling to make the sacrifices to achieve it, so they view people who have achieved this as evil and they consider themselves righteous in demanding that they get a cut of the pie.
LOL, most people wish they were in this position but are unwilling to make the sacrifices to achieve it, so they view people who have achieved this as evil and they consider themselves righteous in demanding that they get a cut of the pie.
It doesn't make one evil, but if they worked hard and smart for 40 years they should - by most measures - have a lot more than 60K a year to live on.
So it does make one....sorta....clueless in terms of investing and saving.
$500 a month into investments for that length of time at market averages is 3 Million....and that doesn't include the IRA, Pension, SS, excess value in larger houses (many people downsize when kids move out) potential inheritances and much more.
Heck, that "evil" person should have FOUR million dollars and be getting 200K per year minimum!
If they invested with Buffet they'd have THIRTY million dollars. Lost opportunity...some people would call that "not smart", but it's not evil. It's the perception that lack of risk to the extreme is beneficial (it is not).
It's impossible for wages to keep up if everyone is so materialistic! So many young adults are so focused on having the latest smartphone and an unlimited data plan to go with that gadget. And every household, no matter how poor they are has to have a giant tv screen and a cable plan to go with it. Women spend stupid amounts of money on makeup, nails and hair stylings. PLUS the poorer and less wealthy a family is, the more children they have... and the poorer families contribute the least amount of property taxes which fund our public school systems.
And from looking at the personal histories of those who win lotteries and also those who become professional athletes, poor people fail at personal finances. So giving them higher wages would solve any of our social problems. Poor people given money will just go out and spend it trying to live large like their favorite celebrities.
IMO humans will never have the chance to evolve further as long as we don't recognize the folly of an increasing human population. We REALLY need to turn start shrinking the number of humans on our planet ASAP. At half our current numbers, we'd have a chance of not using up all of our planet's resources and having a better quality of life for all globally. But tragically, humans are extremely selfish and thoughtless, so personally I think that our planet is doomed to be overwhelmed by humans followed by a massive die-off almost every living creature. The planet will hold up well enough for my remaining years, but I feel very sorry for my nieces and nephews.
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.
NY State does have something like that. It's called the STAR program.
It doesn't make one evil, but if they worked hard and smart for 40 years they should - by most measures - have a lot more than 60K a year to live on.
And that would come from which sources? The very same unearned investment income about which another poster is complaining?
Quote:
So it does make one....sorta....clueless in terms of investing and saving.
$500 a month into investments for that length of time at market averages is 3 Million....and that doesn't include the IRA, Pension, SS, excess value in larger houses (many people downsize when kids move out) potential inheritances and much more.
Heck, that "evil" person should have FOUR million dollars and be getting 200K per year minimum!
If they invested with Buffet they'd have THIRTY million dollars. Lost opportunity...some people would call that "not smart", but it's not evil. It's the perception that lack of risk to the extreme is beneficial (it is not).
That's, in part, because Warren Buffet did the Burger King tax inversion so that BK's global income is no longer subject to US tax. Canada, baby... Restaurant Brands International.
If I had dollar for every time some new poster came in saying "the latest smartphone"...I'd have a lot of dollars.
Does anyone think this is adding something new 40 pages into the thread? And seriously, as obsessed as millenials are with their phones, aging get off my lawners seem equally obsessed with telling everyone economic times are tough because of the cost of smartphones.
Income distribution. The most unbalanced it's been since the gilded age. Correction of some kind is forthcoming. If only the powers that be would realize they can't soak us for everything or they soak themselves too. But they only worry about today.
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.
