Jump to content

Menu

Do you ever think the economy will recover?


Recommended Posts

Exactly.

 

For some students, taking out loans is the correct financial decision. For others, it is NOT the correct decision.

 

This "new reality" mantra I keep reading where every kid needs to go to CC and live at home until 30 is not the case for everyone.

 

Well I'll go against the grain here and say that not all of us have bred geniuses that are spewing latin and taking advanced calc. I hate the way this board can come across as a place of the elite with no room for the ordinary child. My kids range from average to a bit above but they are normal in the sense that when they reach 18 they will most likely not know what they want to be when they grow up and I refuse to pay out the yahoo while the figure it out. They can "find" themselves right here locally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And this is why when I see people who continue to carry on with life...college loans with the expectation of going off into the work world and getting wealthy...I cringe. It is not that way anymore. Expensive 4 year schools make no sense to me. Shipping them out the door to try and wade through the muck and mire makes no sense. I sincerely feel like we owe it to our kids to keep them close and work as a family to get through this time. It makes more sense to have them here contributing to the family and house then going out to try and juggle a car loan and rent. Why is it that the idea of extended family seems so much more appealing in these times?

 

I'll massively overreact with you.

 

We are hoping for the best. It would great if things turn around, but we are also preparing the worst.

 

We don't like to buy things we don't need. My husband drives a beat up old station wagon while his colleagues drive cars that cost $250,000 I never even knew cars COULD cost that much.

 

Our kids can live at home, for college, and they can go to any school that we can afford, paying cash.

 

We are adding an additional 600 sq ft to our house (slowly, doing the work ourselves) so that we can have a big comfortable house in case our adult children or grandchildren need to live here.

 

We have a big garden, meat and dairy animals, and everything we need to support a large extended family.

 

I do believe that our children's generation will have fewer choices than we had, but we can give them the advantage of an intact, stable family, no students loans, no rent, or food bills, and a solid work ethic.

 

I can not control the economy, but I can prepare my own family to weather the storm together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll massively overreact with you.

 

We are hoping for the best. It would great if things turn around, but we are also preparing the worst.

 

We don't like to buy things we don't need. My husband drives a beat up old station wagon while his colleagues drive cars that cost $250,000 I never even knew cars COULD cost that much.

 

Our kids can live at home, for college, and they can go to any school that we can afford, paying cash.

 

We are adding an additional 600 sq ft to our house (slowly, doing the work ourselves) so that we can have a big comfortable house in case our adult children or grandchildren need to live here.

 

We have a big garden, meat and dairy animals, and everything we need to support a large extended family.

 

I do believe that our children's generation will have fewer choices than we had, but we can give them the advantage of an intact, stable family, no students loans, no rent, or food bills, and a solid work ethic.

 

I can not control the economy, but I can prepare my own family to weather the storm together.

 

Thanks for swimming with me. I am not an alarmist but it seems that so much seems to be pointing in the direction that screams "BE PRUDENT AND FRUGAL"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just petty, vindictive scapegoating.

 

I understand people are angry and upset, but the 99% of those working for those firms at the time who were NOT involved in the mortgage mess are angry and upset too.

 

A significant portion of the innocent employees subsequently got caught up in one (or more) of the many rounds of layoffs that these firms have gone through over the past 5 years. I think my DH's employer had 7 or 8 rounds between fall 2007 and summer 2009 and then another 2 or 3 since this spring. Making a lot of (honest) money for the firm's bottom line didn't save my DH from twice having his position eliminated during all the turmoil.

 

Those involved in the mortgage mess were fired at the very beginning and did not receive any bonus money (and rightly so).

 

Excuse me but "petty" is name calling and rude.

 

A lot of people lost their jobs due to this crisis. I do blame the firms for being irresponsible and their lack of oversight. I am not blaming all their employees, I am blaming the companies.

 

It isn't "scapegoating" to be appalled. People all over the country lost jobs, their homes, their security and their retirement.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me but "petty" is name calling and rude.

 

A lot of people lost their jobs due to this crisis. I do blame the firms for being irresponsible and their lack of oversight. I am not blaming all their employees, I am blaming the companies.

 

It isn't "scapegoating" to be appalled. People all over the country lost jobs, their homes, their security and their retirement.

 

It is petty to say that NO ONE should have received a bonus. Wells Fargo has more than 270,000 employees--not a single one of them deserved any kind of bonus? Even if they personally had a record best year and earned the company millions? How does that make sense.

 

The bonus structure in Wall Street is different than most other places. It in the contract and almost always based on personal or division performance not the performance of the whole firm. It is exactly like commission. You make a certain amount of sales? Reach certain set benchmarks, you get paid. Its like telling a lawyer who has billed 2400 hours that there won't be any bonuses right before Christmas. The firm can reduce pay going forward; they can say no bonuses next year but they shouldn't take away compensation that had already been earned.

 

The financial planner who works a couple buildings away from DH is no more to blame for the financial crisis than the real estate agent who lives down the street from us--maybe even less to blame.

Edited by ChristineW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...pointing in the direction that screams "BE PRUDENT AND FRUGAL"

 

Call me kookie, but I have ALWAYS felt that way, and I got it by leaving home at 16 and fending for myself. Prudent is never out of style. Nor is frugal. I am not "changing" in response to the economy, except that after being very conservative in investing in the early 2000s, I've upped my investments. Buy low, you know.

 

So, I guess I'm confused on how imprudent and spendthrift got to be your direction, such that you are having to trim sail and turn to prudent and frugal. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With upcoming election I just keep wondering if the outcome will really effect the economy all that much, or is this just a storm we have to weather? Can we fix this mess?:confused:

 

I sincerely hope the economy will recover, but I don't think the election will have a direct or long-lasting effect on any swings.

 

I fear a 'recovery' won't happen for a couple of decades, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me kookie, but I have ALWAYS felt that way, and I got it by leaving home at 16 and fending for myself. Prudent is never out of style. Nor is frugal.

 

 

I'll be kookie with you. I don't really know any other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be woefully undereducated on the realities of food distribution both the US and N. America.

 

Crop loss affects the entire distribution chain, not just your special little corner of it.

 

The drought in North America will control prices worldwide, even in areas that are not dependent on importing American foods. New Zealand produces a lot of the foods we need & much of the rest is imported from Australia. But the catch is that the price we pay at the check-out here in NZ is determined by the international market (i.e. we pay international export prices for NZ lamb :confused: ) Also, as the US dollar loses value, the NZ$ gains value. This is makes imported goods cheaper, but our exports bring in much, much less due to the exchange rate. There are no substudies for primary industries here as there are in the States.

 

Food prices have always been heaps more expensive here when compared to what my family pays back in Vermont, but the past 2 years has seen my average grocery bill jump from $200/week up to $300/week & this does not include treats, only basic foods to prepare homecooked meals. As a comparison the cheapest (quality & price) ground beef is $6.99/kg on special. Normal price for the same meat is $12.99+/kg. Food is still quite cheap in the States, when you compare it to prices around the world.

 

JMHO,

Edited by Deb in NZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me kookie, but I have ALWAYS felt that way, and I got it by leaving home at 16 and fending for myself. Prudent is never out of style. Nor is frugal. I am not "changing" in response to the economy, except that after being very conservative in investing in the early 2000s, I've upped my investments. Buy low, you know.

 

So, I guess I'm confused on how imprudent and spendthrift got to be your direction, such that you are having to trim sail and turn to prudent and frugal. :confused:

 

Well I have never been Imprudent and a spendthrift...but I can say there have been times where we have thrown caution to the wind and lived beyond our means, kwim? Having 6 kids it is easy to do. What I more mean is that we tend to more second guess our consumption of goods and really make tougher choices. For instance, we have never paid off a car and driven it to death. I am terrified of being stranded with a clunker and car full of kids. That comes from having clunkers when I was younger and being stranded several times. DH commutes 50 miles into DC and needs reliability. We took our chances and have driven his Altima which is paid off and now has 124K miles on it. Very reliable car by the way. Now oldest DS needs a car. Normally we would have just gone out, gotten a new one for DH right away, and then given DS the older car. This time we are waiting a bit more since although he really wants a car he doesn't NEED a car right now.

I have and always will use coupons, shop sales, and resell the kids clothes to fund the new ones. Do I love a cute Coach purse? Heck yes:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have friends who own an ice cream/fudge shop in Annapolis, MD and they are doing so well that they are opening up another location.

 

The economy over here in the DC area (Maryland side anyways) really doesn't seem that bad to me. I mean, houses are a bit cheaper, but that's about it. New neighborhoods are still being built, new stores are opening and there are "Help Wanted" signs everywhere.

 

I'm excited b/c our little corner of suburbia is getting a new Town Center and they already put in a Target and are building a movie theater (with IMAX!!!), Wegman's, Bonefish Grill and lots of other shops and restaurants. Can't wait for that theater to open!! It will be open in time for The Hobbit :)

 

Yes here in Northern VA the housing market really took a big hit and that effected us but we will manage since we don't need to sell any time soon. If we did...that would be another story. They stopped a lot of construction in the area but the huge wal-mart/kohls shopping center is almost done now in Haymarket and the wal-mart nearby just finished expansion, the movie theater close by is packed on the weekends, the restaurants......things seem to be picking up in that respect. BUT the food pantry is struggling and is out of meat for the first time ever. Those are the things that tell me that we are still far, far away from being ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have friends who own an ice cream/fudge shop in Annapolis, MD and they are doing so well that they are opening up another location.

 

The economy over here in the DC area (Maryland side anyways) really doesn't seem that bad to me. I mean, houses are a bit cheaper, but that's about it. New neighborhoods are still being built, new stores are opening and there are "Help Wanted" signs everywhere.

 

I'm excited b/c our little corner of suburbia is getting a new Town Center and they already put in a Target and are building a movie theater (with IMAX!!!), Wegman's, Bonefish Grill and lots of other shops and restaurants. Can't wait for that theater to open!! It will be open in time for The Hobbit :)

 

It's great that you are seeing signs of economic health! Here in the midwest we are still experiencing more and more houses in repossession, record numbers of businesses failing, austerity measures by county governments, food pantries that are empty, families that should qualify for food stamps being turned away because the state program is bust, teachers being fired and classroom sizes growing to 40-45 students...local kindergarten will be 40 children per room with NO teachers or student aides :001_huh:, insurance premiums rising astronomically - we dropped a car from our insurance policy, have made no claims in six years, have perfect driving records, and do not carry collision on one of the two cars remaining on the policy, and our insurance just jumped $1200.00 per year and it's the cheapest we can find in the state, county hospital closing making the nearest ER a 45 minute drive so the community is desperately looking for funds just to keep the ER open even if the rest of the facility is closed, higher than normal suicide rate (typical when a depression hits), unemployment at 15 -19% for the state (the state officially reports it as lower, but that's because they no longer count everyone whose benefits have expired but still haven't found a job so the numbers put out by U of M economists are considered more accurate) and 21% for our county, Detroit turning into a ghost town, etc.

 

So, I think recovery is hitting some areas and others aren't experiencing it or are getting worse. For our pocket of the U.S. I believe things will get worse before they get better. I think the economic problems, unlike the Great Depression, are more regional than across the entire country.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The drought in North America will control prices worldwide, even in areas that are not dependent on importing American foods. New Zealand produces a lot of the foods we need & much of the rest is imported from Australia. But the catch is that the price we pay at the check-out here in NZ is determined by the international market (i.e. we pay international export prices for NZ lamb :confused: ) Also, as the US dollar loses value, the NZ$ gains value. This is makes imported goods cheaper, but our exports bring in much, much less due to the exchange rate. There are no substudies for primary industries here as there are in the States.

 

Food prices have always been heaps more expensive here when compared to what my family pays back in Vermont, but the past 2 years has seen my average grocery bill jump from $200/week up to $300/week & this does not include treats, only basic foods to prepare homecooked meals. As a comparison the cheapest (quality & price) ground beef is $6.99/kg on special. Normal price for the same meat is $12.99+/kg. Food is still quite cheap in the States, when you compare it to prices around the world.

 

JMHO,

 

I understand that a a dought would increase food prices, but food prices have been up for years now. If it were just a drought causing the increase, then it would be temporary, right?

 

I watched a documentary that spoke about China's "industrial revolution" (China Rising) and how their new demand on soy is affecting food prices. With the size of China, if they desire to be consumers in the way the U.S. has (and why wouldn't they?), there simply are not enough resources for that to happen.

 

I don't think our economy will ever be the same. There are more demands for resources as a whole globally and we have been living on imaginary money as others have said. Eventually, we will have to live more realistically, which I am okay with. It's always hard to reduce your standard of living and go backward, though.

 

I am of the mind that civilizations rise and fall and that ours has already peaked. I'd love to be wrong, though!

 

Lisa

Edited by LisaTheresa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is so hard to know. I don't think any of the people we have on the ballot can fix it, but maybe it is possible for us as Americans to learn new habits, take charge of what is within our control and fix it without them. That is my hope.

 

:iagree:

 

Although, paying off the debt isn't really with our control (politicians must do that), but we all need a lesson in money management and frugality.

 

I also agree that businesses are waiting to see who wins. Regular people are also waiting. They're not buying as much as usual, or repairing as much as usual.

 

While I agree that the president doesn't have total control over the economy, his or her job should be to reduce the debt, protect our interests and promote those of our citizens. I don't feel the last few have done that. Instead, they have run up a crazy debt and are putting other countries' interests over our own for their own reasons.

 

It's odd for any president to NOT be a firm supporter of US growth and independence.

Edited by cdrumm4448
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that a a dought would increase food prices, but food prices have been up for years now. If it were just a drought causing the increase, then it would be temporary, right?

 

I watched a documentary that spoke about China's "industrial revolution" (China Rising) and how their new demand on soy is affecting food prices. With the size of China, if they desire to be consumers in the way the U.S. has (and why wouldn't they?), there simply are not enough resources for that to happen.

 

I don't think our economy will ever be the same. There are more demands for resources as a whole globally and we have been living on imaginary money as others have said. Eventually, we will have to live more realistically, which I am okay with. It's always hard to reduce your standard of living and go backward, though.

 

I am of the mind that civilizations rise and fall and that ours has already peaked. I'd love to be wrong, though!

 

Lisa

 

We haven't yet been hit by the full effect of the drought on food prices. That will happen, I believe, when harvest time comes & there isn't the supply we normally expect. Add to that the fact that fuel prices are rising again ($2.23/litre here last week :-O ) We will be paying more for most of what is in our grocery cart.

 

After reading Faithmanor's post about the 21% unemployment in her area, I'm thinking that the 10% unemployment in our provience isn't quite so bad. I just thank the Lord that my ds#1 was lucky enough to get an apprenticeship this year & that dd already has been offered a cadetship for after she finishes her degree this November. They are both set for the next 18 months-3years. It would be wonderful if dh could find full-time work, but at 62yo we accept that is not likely. We count our blessings every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll massively overreact with you.

 

We are hoping for the best. It would great if things turn around, but we are also preparing the worst.

 

We don't like to buy things we don't need. My husband drives a beat up old station wagon while his colleagues drive cars that cost $250,000 I never even knew cars COULD cost that much.

 

Our kids can live at home, for college, and they can go to any school that we can afford, paying cash.

 

We are adding an additional 600 sq ft to our house (slowly, doing the work ourselves) so that we can have a big comfortable house in case our adult children or grandchildren need to live here.

 

We have a big garden, meat and dairy animals, and everything we need to support a large extended family.

 

I do believe that our children's generation will have fewer choices than we had, but we can give them the advantage of an intact, stable family, no students loans, no rent, or food bills, and a solid work ethic.

 

I can not control the economy, but I can prepare my own family to weather the storm together.

 

Can you adopt me?

 

I am trying to put together a plan for what to do if the economy does collapse. I would like to be self-supportive with animals, etc- but that's just not feasible where I am now. I do have family where it would be possible to be self-supportive... I need to visit more and show how useful I am. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The business owners we know are holding their collective breath (and wallets) until Nov.

 

If the right person wins, the wallets will open.

 

This is ALL we talk about.

 

If not, we are going to have to get out with our skin on.

 

People in my area are concerned an hope for what they think is the "right" candidate winning. (It's split on who is the right candidate...)

 

I think it's already improving. I think my right candidate will make things slightly better, and my wrong candidate will make things slightly worse. I am going to give raises this month. It's been 4 years for my core staff since their last raise. I'm starting to feel like my head is above water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do blame the firms for being irresponsible and their lack of oversight. I am not blaming all their employees, I am blaming the companies.

 

You were calling for those innocent employees to not receive the deferred compensation that they were expecting based on their performance during the first 8.5 months of the year (don't forget that the financial crisis didn't start until mid-September). How is that not scapegoating the employees for bad decisions made by individuals in completely unrelated divisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is petty to say that NO ONE should have received a bonus. Wells Fargo has more than 270,000 employees--not a single one of them deserved any kind of bonus? Even if they personally had a record best year and earned the company millions? How does that make sense.

 

The bonus structure in Wall Street is different than most other places. It in the contract and almost always based on personal or division performance not the performance of the whole firm. It is exactly like commission. You make a certain amount of sales? Reach certain set benchmarks, you get paid. Its like telling a lawyer who has billed 2400 hours that there won't be any bonuses right before Christmas. The firm can reduce pay going forward; they can say no bonuses next year but they shouldn't take away compensation that had already been earned.

 

The financial planner who works a couple buildings away from DH is no more to blame for the financial crisis than the real estate agent who lives down the street from us--maybe even less to blame.

 

One thought I had on that, is, a lot of the wealth being raked in by these companies is fictitious wealth. And huge bonuses were paid on the fictitious wealth. (Homeowners also enjoyed fictitious gains in the prices of their real estate. The ones who sold at peak actually RECEIVED the wealth. Many others ended up underwater; and now many banks have severely devalued properties on their books, if not exactly on their "balance sheets" just yet)

 

So, while it may not be the fault of someone in "another division" -- my point is the ENTIRE COMPENSATION STRUCTURE is faulty because money was being made in ways that is unsustainable, and in the case of the housing market, not even valid. It's like when the Enron employees lost gazillions in stock ownership. The stock wasn't really worth what it appeared to be. Sure they lost, but many lost what they THOUGHT they had, but never really had at all. (unless they were able to sell before everything imploded, of course)

 

I agree this is unfair to the employees who did what they were supposed to do and made money for the company doing it, and then suddenly discovered they were not getting what they were promised. Unfortunately, this is collateral damage of some of these firms' business model, which is to wring every last penny of profit out of an investment no matter how damaging the PROCESS is to people individually, or the economy as a whole.

 

Put simply, I believe the guys AT THE TOP of these firms would gladly put half of Americans out of work or out of business if it meant their own personal firm did stunningly well and everyone got double the usual bonus. I am not being facetious when I say that.

 

My brother works for a Wall Street Firm, and he is sickened to watch his own company ship a large percentage of the company's mid-level jobs to India. He is trying to help people salvage their jobs but his own position is dicey. (I tell him he should just quit and get away from the evil, but he has to line up another job before he can do that, and the economy frankly stinks for those in the financial profession)

 

I think the workers who failed to get their bonuses are collateral damage in the same way that many American homeowners are. Many are underwater, with no expectation when they bought that the housing market would tank, in part due to the actions of many of these firms shelling out the sub-prime loans to barely breathing customers who were never in a position to repay.

 

Where's the fairness in that? In a way, we're all victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you adopt me?

 

I am trying to put together a plan for what to do if the economy does collapse. I would like to be self-supportive with animals, etc- but that's just not feasible where I am now. I do have family where it would be possible to be self-supportive... I need to visit more and show how useful I am. ;)

 

Useful is good.

 

We always have more work than we have hours in the day to do it. I'd be thrilled to have more family who wanted to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The *firm* should have been aware. I never said all of them should. No, I don't think a single person in those firms should have received bonuses.

 

A firm isn't a thing. It's a group of people. If you want the "firm" to be aware, that means all the employees. If the employees aren't supposed to know what's happening, then what is "the firm" you refer to? The board (of individual people)? The stockholders (many, many individual people)? Who do you consider "the firm"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me kookie, but I have ALWAYS felt that way, and I got it by leaving home at 16 and fending for myself. Prudent is never out of style. Nor is frugal. I am not "changing" in response to the economy, except that after being very conservative in investing in the early 2000s, I've upped my investments. Buy low, you know.

 

So, I guess I'm confused on how imprudent and spendthrift got to be your direction, such that you are having to trim sail and turn to prudent and frugal. :confused:

 

:iagree:

 

It's great that you are seeing signs of economic health! Here in the midwest we are still experiencing more and more houses in repossession, record numbers of businesses failing, austerity measures by county governments, food pantries that are empty, families that should qualify for food stamps being turned away because the state program is bust, teachers being fired and classroom sizes growing to 40-45 students...local kindergarten will be 40 children per room with NO teachers or student aides :001_huh:, insurance premiums rising astronomically - we dropped a car from our insurance policy, have made no claims in six years, have perfect driving records, and do not carry collision on one of the two cars remaining on the policy, and our insurance just jumped $1200.00 per year and it's the cheapest we can find in the state, county hospital closing making the nearest ER a 45 minute drive so the community is desperately looking for funds just to keep the ER open even if the rest of the facility is closed, higher than normal suicide rate (typical when a depression hits), unemployment at 15 -19% for the state (the state officially reports it as lower, but that's because they no longer count everyone whose benefits have expired but still haven't found a job so the numbers put out by U of M economists are considered more accurate) and 21% for our county, Detroit turning into a ghost town, etc.

 

So, I think recovery is hitting some areas and others aren't experiencing it or are getting worse. For our pocket of the U.S. I believe things will get worse before they get better. I think the economic problems, unlike the Great Depression, are more regional than across the entire country.

 

Faith

 

Faith, your area in Michigan is certainly hurting but it is worth noting that Western Michigan is not as dire. Further, Michigan's problems predate the current recession. (My best friend is a teacher in West Michigan--cuts in education have been painful.) Unemployment in Grand Rapids is 9%. Ohio is turning around too although I don't think this is true for every region or industry.

 

Personally I do not believe that an economy based on consumption is sustainable so I don't want to return to what I consider delusional thinking. But I do believe in paying living wages which is why I choose to buy less but pay more for American made where possible. I give my dollars to local farmers and fishermen and cut out the middleman.

 

This is part of what I consider prudent spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for starters I'd say unemployment in the 4-5% range rather than 10-11% range. California's unemployment rate in July 2006 was 4.8%. In July 2012 it was 10.7%.

 

4% is unlikely, and is well below the target number most economists would like to see.

Barring a major system shock, my projection is for the US economy to fall back to the 5.5-6%-ish level of unemployment sometime around 2015-2016. Right now we are about where I thought we would be after the collapse in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We haven't yet been hit by the full effect of the drought on food prices. That will happen, I believe, when harvest time comes & there isn't the supply we normally expect. Add to that the fact that fuel prices are rising again ($2.23/litre here last week :-O ) We will be paying more for most of what is in our grocery cart.

 

 

Also, about the corn, isn't it a Gvmnt mandate that a percentage of the corn go to Ethanol production? So that would affect food prices, too. And they wouldn't roll back that requirement for this drought, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4% is unlikely, and is well below the target number most economists would like to see.

 

I can remember hearing economic arguments back in college in favor of 3.5% as being the "ideal" rate (during the 1950's the unemployment rate was in the 2.5-3% range and the overall economy did well). So between 4-5% seems reasonable IMHO. Low enough so that most folks don't have difficulty finding and keeping jobs, but not so low that it causes inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll massively overreact with you.

 

We are hoping for the best. It would great if things turn around, but we are also preparing the worst.

 

We don't like to buy things we don't need. My husband drives a beat up old station wagon while his colleagues drive cars that cost $250,000 I never even knew cars COULD cost that much.

 

Our kids can live at home, for college, and they can go to any school that we can afford, paying cash.

 

We are adding an additional 600 sq ft to our house (slowly, doing the work ourselves) so that we can have a big comfortable house in case our adult children or grandchildren need to live here.

 

We have a big garden, meat and dairy animals, and everything we need to support a large extended family.

 

I do believe that our children's generation will have fewer choices than we had, but we can give them the advantage of an intact, stable family, no students loans, no rent, or food bills, and a solid work ethic.

 

I can not control the economy, but I can prepare my own family to weather the storm together.

 

This is us. We saved and bought this huge house because we felt that we're going to have hold many generations in it. I've been turning the lawns into a garden, and I've got an artisan well in the basement and farms within walking distance that I can get meats and milk from.

 

We know how to make things, build things, sew things, hunt, make soap...part of this is because I was brought up by depression era grandparents.

 

We drive our vehicles into the ground, we don't buy anything unless we absolutely need it. We'd never buy a new car. We don't go on vacation.

 

We've weathered what has come well because we've always saved and lived without debt, but this is getting long, and business has not grown, and the basics are getting more and more expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can remember hearing economic arguments back in college in favor of 3.5% as being the "ideal" rate (during the 1950's the unemployment rate was in the 2.5-3% range and the overall economy did well). So between 4-5% seems reasonable IMHO. Low enough so that most folks don't have difficulty finding and keeping jobs, but not so low that it causes inflation.

 

There is a some debate on the topic, but I fall squarely on the side of natural employment in the US being between 4.5-5.5%. 6% is not a cause of concern, and the economy still exhibits consistent growth at that level. The majority of economists flirt with the 5% level, with some outliers pushing for 3.5% as the ideal, and a smaller group believing that the number is 6%.

 

Using the 50s as an example for growth or unemployment is generally a poor idea, as the 50s were an unusual time for the world economy. A large portion of the world was rebuilding still and was trying to gets its feet under its industrial base, giving the US a tremendous edge during that time period. Looking at forward a bit into the 60s, you can see the effects on the US as the rest of the world got back into the game, and there is an argument that the hangover from that effect lasted until the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...