Did you read this entry on Dave Ramsey's blog?

[Scarlett]

So much of this is just how we choose to live our lives. When dh and I bought this house we had what most people in our income bracket would consider to be a HUGE down payment. Most would have put it down on a nice house and had a mortgage. We chose to buy a fixer and have no mortgage. We also have no car payment....but dh's truck is getting pretty iffy and so I wouldn't rule out having to finance a vehicle someday because a vehicle is an absolute necessity in our part of the country.

[Miss Marple]

This is part of my problem with DM in general. I mean, I think the principles are sound and I like the step by step process. But I don't want to live like a crazy person with no enjoyment AT ALL until all my debt is paid. If it was just me I could see it...but I want my kids to have the enjoyment of going out for ice cream after mid week worship. If that 10 bucks slows down my snowball so be it.

 

I agree with the enjoyment idea (have no particular opinion of Dave Ramsey).  My parents had 9th grade educations, they worked hard to provide for us when my dad only made $5000 per year due to a work injury.  But we never felt poor.  They always made a way to have fun with us.  That didn't always mean spending money - and mostly anything we did was free.  But there was some pleasure in life.  I know that they experienced plenty of stress wondering how they would feed, clothe, and shelter all of us.  

 

Today, my dh is working an average of 90 hours per week (every other week he adds a second job for 84 hours on top of his regular job which is about 50 hours per week).  If we don't spend a little of that money on something frivolous, we would not be able to cope with the stress.  We feel blessed/lucky to have the opportunity for the second job, but at the same time it comes with sacrifices.  But the sacrifices now will enable us to pay for our kids' college (at a reasonably priced school).  It also allows us to travel with my parents who have always wanted to travel but could not afford it.

 

I worry about people being hyper focused on being debt free.  In fact, my nephew and his wife are working towards this and I'm seeing problems arise in their marriage and with their young children that are the result of being hyper focused on being DF.  Some debt may be necessary in order to survive.  It's the over accumulation of debt on items that really are not necessary that seems to be the problem with many people.  

[SKL]

I think you are conflating high income with wealthy. The high income people I know are just like you wrote. The wealthy people that I know are down to earth, kind, and often incredibly generous. They also do have several of the "habits" on Alessandra's list. This may be regional, but I think it has more to do with conflating high income with wealthy. Only the top 10% of Americans have income over $114,000. Those people are statistically high income, but they are not wealthy, IMO. This feels a bit like a pissing contest, so I'm not sure I want to continue this conversation. But I do think it is an important distinction. (p.s. This is not to say that there aren't outliers: wealthy people who appear from the outside to be just like everybody else. But IME, they are true outliers.)

 

I agree that I have been switching back and forth between the words "high income" and "wealthy" and I do know the difference.  However, it doesn't take long for a high-income person to become wealthy, assuming no really foolish spending habits.  And most wealthy people have a high income.  So the distinction isn't that important here IMO.

 

I would not consider $114,000 to be high income (for a family), by the way.  I would consider that to be well within the range of middle class.  To me, high income would be closer to $200K, and this is in an area with a modest cost of living.  With that much income, one can put aside a chunk of savings / equity every year to build up their wealth.

 

I agree there may be regional differences.  I will say that every time I've been to New York City, I feel people looking down at me because I do not look "sharp."  Even the clerks look sharper than I look in NYC.  To me, it's just not important, but then, I am lucky enough to live in a place where people really don't care.  People here actually feel more comfortable with folks who look and act "down to earth."  A spa day is for rejuvenation, not spiffing up.  The exceptions stand out, and not always in a good way.

[Miss Marple]

Never heard of Dave Ramsey when I was having my financial crisis, but from what I've heard, his solutions sound similar to mine.  The thing is, everyone thinks they can have a treat "just this once," but actually "just this once" is never "just this once" unless the person is a strict budgeter.  You can budget for a treat here and there, yes.  But you can't stray from your budget if you expect the end of debt to ever come.  (And some people are OK with that.)

 

Years ago I observed that the recent generation has somehow been convinced - probably by marketing ploys - that they "deserve" all kinds of things they have not earned.  I used to get all this stuff in the mail "you deserve a fancy vacation, just charge it on your credit card!"  "You deserve a better car, a bigger house."  Nonsense.  I thought (and still think) that was unconscionable.  I am also amazed at how many people fell for it.  I had a clerk-level subordinate with a blue-collar spouse (and no children) buy a 5-bedroom house!  This was pretty much the norm in those days.  I was very uncomfortable and was not at all surprised when the $h!t hit the fan.

 

For me, being raised poor was probably what made the difference.  I had a different view of what I needed, wanted, and could wait for.  I chose to wait for most things that could be waited for.  Granted, it was a lot easier for me because I was childless.  But if I'd had kids, I'd have fallen back to what my mom did, rather than be buried in debt for my whole life.

 

I don't know whether Ramsey (or anyone else) has some similar programs for young people, but I think it is needed.  Life would be a lot simpler if people didn't start out thinking they "deserved" stuff they had not yet earned.

This is precisely what we saw with others who graduated with us.  They felt that having that MD after their name meant they should be able to drive the BMW, buy the big house, start having children, etc. all before they went through residency.  That meant they could not live on their residency incomes (which at the time were below $20,000 per year).  Dh and I were both raised with the idea that you don't buy something if you don't have the money for it.  So we drove old beater cars, rented a duplex, and delayed having children until he actually finished residency.  I worked and finished my degree during that time.  

 

The families that decided to live like doctors before having the income of a doctor are the ones that came out deeply in debt and many of them have not recovered from it.  In fact, the attitude of wanting bigger and better just seems to go up in proportion to their income.

[Pawz4me]

I think you are conflating high income with wealthy. The high income people I know are just like you wrote. The wealthy people that I know are down to earth, kind, and often incredibly generous. They also do have several of the "habits" on Alessandra's list. This may be regional, but I think it has more to do with conflating high income with wealthy. Only the top 10% of Americans have income over $114,000. Those people are statistically high income, but they are not wealthy, IMO. This feels a bit like a pissing contest, so I'm not sure I want to continue this conversation. But I do think it is an important distinction. (p.s. This is not to say that there aren't outliers: wealthy people who appear from the outside to be just like everybody else. But IME, they are true outliers.)

 

I agree that wealth and income are totally different things.  Some people with very high incomes have little to no wealth.  They spend it all on a lavish lifestyle with little to nothing to show for it in terms of net worth.  Conversely, people with relatively small incomes can be wealthy due to making good investment choices, inheritance, etc.

 

wealthy in my eyes is being debt free and money in the bank.  people can make a lot and still be "house poor" if you live beyond your means.  that's why some people with big bucks go bankrupt.

 

Everyone is certainly entitled to define "wealth" however they want.  But this is one of the areas where I think DR does a disservice to people who aren't very financially literate.  Wealthy people know how to use debt to their advantage.  They know "good" debt isn't the horrid evil thing that DR makes it out to be, and that having a singular financial focus on being debt free can be like cutting your nose off to spite your face.  But then I totally realize that wealthy people, or people who are highly financially literate, aren't the audience he's after.  But IMO his "debt is always evil" approach is extremely simplistic.

[mytwomonkeys]

I agree that wealth and income are totally different things.  Some people with very high incomes have little to no wealth.  They spend it all on a lavish lifestyle with little to nothing to show for it in terms of net worth.  Conversely, people with relatively small incomes can be wealthy due to making good investment choices, inheritance, etc.

 

 

Everyone is certainly entitled to define "wealth" however they want.  But this is one of the areas where I think DR does a disservice to people who aren't very financially literate.  Wealthy people know how to use debt to their advantage.  They do not always view it as a bad thing to be completely avoided.

 

i don't mean to imply all wealthy people must be debt free. i do mean to imply "wealthy people" (by my definition) do live within their means.  

[Alessandra]

 

The point is that you can share the habits of Group X, and make it motivating and uplifting, without making unfavorable comparisons to Group Y.  Group Y knows their circumstances, and they know what they're doing/not doing.  They don't need to be shamed.  

 

I'm not personally offended by this DR post.  We're doing very well financially.  I can read something like this and take it or leave it.  But we were asked for our thoughts on this post, and my take is that this post is condescending, lacking in substance, and ultimately unhelpful. 

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

If Dr had approached the subject differently, it would make a world of difference in my opinion. How about '12 Habits of the Wealthy That You Can Do for Free (or almost free)?' or something like that. (Similar to those articles on how to get a designer look in fashion for minimum $.)

 

For example -- 5 exercise from personal trainers that you can do at home. Explian what interval training is, boot camps, etc, a point being that even 5 minutes of intense exercise helps a lot.

 

For example -- a quick review of under $25 mp3 players (like Sansas), how to download audio from a public library. 

 

For example -- tips on setting up to do and goal lists

 

For example -- a chart showing that 2L of soda = x packages of frozen veggies, etc. 

 

Ok, I realize this is a bit simplistic, and I am not great at writing  -- or giving -- lifestyle advice, lol. But if DR's attitude were more of the 'you can do it,' *I* would have felt better about his post. I would still, however, have big questions about his sample and data, etc. But that is a different story.

[SKL]

 

 

 

(Source)  And if you really want to geek out, go to OECD.

 

I am intrigued by the fact that folks who had relatively *more* income in 1968 ended up seeing no growth over the following years.  And those who had relatively less income in 1968 ended up much better off.  What was it about those 95th %ile people that kept their growth curve so consistent while others' dropped off?  Hmm.

 

 

[Alessandra]

You might be interested that the social mobility figures for the US are amongst the worst in the Western world.  I came across this interesting fact when I was researching whether the UK was still the hidebound, class-based society of reputation.  I was pretty surprised to find the UK and the US right next to each other on the charts.  It's interesting the stories that countries tell about themselves and about other countries.

 

L

 

:iagree:

 

I remember reading about this a while back and being both shocked and not shocked. Shocked, because we (in U.S.) were brought up to think that hard work would propel someone upwards, while in the U.K. you would be held back forever by a non-U accent. So those statistics were a surprise. But not a complete surprise, because there has been so much written about the super-rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the middle class shrinking. The studies that show executive salaries as a multiple of worker salaries in the U.S. and is Europe are especially disturbing.

 

ETA Not equating social mobility with financial status, just making a loose connection.

[Laura Corin]

I am intrigued by the fact that folks who had relatively *more* income in 1968 ended up seeing no growth over the following years.  And those who had relatively less income in 1968 ended up much better off.  What was it about those 95th %ile people that kept their growth curve so consistent while others' dropped off?  Hmm.

 

 

 

If those figures were for the UK, I would say that people in manufacturing were doing well, then the bottom dropped out of their industry.  Meanwhile, people who were in professions that had always been well respected but perhaps not excessively highly paid (doctor, lawyer, banker) saw their salaries increase enormously.

 

I don't know if this makes sense in a US context.

 

L

[SKL]

:iagree:

 

If Dr had approached the subject differently, it would make a world of difference in my opinion. How about '12 Habits of the Wealthy That You Can Do for Free (or almost free)?' or something like that. (Similar to those articles on how to get a designer look in fashion for minimum $.)

...

Ok, I realize this is a bit simplistic, and I am not great at writing  -- or giving -- lifestyle advice, lol. But if DR's attitude were more of the 'you can do it,' *I* would have felt better about his post. I would still, however, have big questions about his sample and data, etc. But that is a different story.

 

Well, you have the minor issue that DR did not actually write the post.  He simply provide access to someone else's post.

 

I don't see anything wrong with providing access to the information for people to see and use as they see fit.  If it weren't for this post on WTM, most of us would never have seen that and obviously never had the opportunity to be offended if we happened to be poor.

 

I don't see that this is any worse than linking a study comparing standardized test results of homeschooled vs. non-homeschooled kids.  Or the one someone linked recently, that showed homeschoolers are slimmer or some such.  You can say "well WTM is mainly for homeschoolers so too bad if you aren't one," but DR could say the same thing - this site is for people who are interested in learning what choices can impact their wealth.  Homeschooling itself doesn't make kids skinny, and reading itself doesn't make people rich.  But what is wrong with acknowledging a correlation?

[Alessandra]

Well, you have the minor issue that DR did not actually write the post.  He simply provide access to someone else's post.

 

I don't see anything wrong with providing access to the information for people to see and use as they see fit.  If it weren't for this post on WTM, most of us would never have seen that and obviously never had the opportunity to be offended if we happened to be poor.

 

I don't see that this is any worse than linking a study comparing standardized test results of homeschooled vs. non-homeschooled kids.  Or the one someone linked recently, that showed homeschoolers are slimmer or some such.  You can say "well WTM is mainly for homeschoolers so too bad if you aren't one," but DR could say the same thing - this site is for people who are interested in learning what choices can impact their wealth.  Homeschooling itself doesn't make kids skinny, and reading itself doesn't make people rich.  But what is wrong with acknowledging a correlation?

 

Bolded: nothing is wrong! OP asked for "thoughts," and I gave mine -- 'in my opinion' and '*I* would have felt better if....' Those are my thoughts, not a pronouncement.

[SKL]

Bolded: nothing is wrong! OP asked for "thoughts," and I gave mine -- 'in my opinion' and '*I* would have felt better if....' Those are my thoughts, not a pronouncement.

 

Fair enough, but this thread has grown to 5 pages long because some people think something is very wrong with DR's decision.  And I just wanted to point out that DR didn't have the option of editing the other person's post to make it more PC.

[Tutor]

I need to talk to my kids about giving me a raise since DR thinks I should be wealthy.

[Alessandra]

If those figures were for the UK, I would say that people in manufacturing were doing well, then the bottom dropped out of their industry.  Meanwhile, people who were in professions that had always been well respected but perhaps not excessively highly paid (doctor, lawyer, banker) saw their salaries increase enormously.

 

I don't know if this makes sense in a US context.

 

L

 

In the U.S., the average doctor has a lot of financial constraints -- student loans, escalating malpractice insurance payments and cost containment/cutting by health insurance providers. Average lawyers in small local firms don't often see the giant incomes that partners in top-level large firms get. Bankers -- I presume you are not talking about VPs in small , local banks. Investment bankers in Wall Street firms tend to get astronomical pay. And, on the top of the heap are corporate CEO's, who seem to get $$$$$$$ whatever kind of job they do.

 

You might enjoy this documentary (if the link works in the U.K.) -- Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream.

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/park-avenue-money-power-american-dream/

[Carrie12345]

I worry about people being hyper focused on being debt free.  In fact, my nephew and his wife are working towards this and I'm seeing problems arise in their marriage and with their young children that are the result of being hyper focused on being DF.  Some debt may be necessary in order to survive.  It's the over accumulation of debt on items that really are not necessary that seems to be the problem with many people.

There's definitely a wide range of "acceptable" and different circumstances. For us, our monthly debt payments had already made it difficult to afford things on that line between need and want. Willingly sacrificing for a relatively short while made it so that we can now enjoy quite a few wants without worrying about it.

I doubt we could have stuck with it if it would have taken a very long time.

[Miss Marple]

There's definitely a wide range of "acceptable" and different circumstances. For us, our monthly debt payments had already made it difficult to afford things on that line between need and want. Willingly sacrificing for a relatively short while made it so that we can now enjoy quite a few wants without worrying about it.

I doubt we could have stuck with it if it would have taken a very long time.

I think it's paramount for both parties to be in agreement on the whole DF thing.  In the case of my nephew and wife, I don't think they have truly come to a common agreement of what "working to be DF" looks like.  So there is frustration on both sides with identifying needs and wants.  It seems that the needs of one are considered wants by the other.  If both parties are gung-ho for DF and can come to agreement on the budget I'd say it's a good thing :)

[Catwoman]

And I just wanted to point out that DR didn't have the option of editing the other person's post to make it more PC.

That's true, but he did have the option of not posting it on his blog, so one would have to assume that he agrees with the content.

[SKL]

That's true, but he did have the option of not posting it on his blog, so one would have to assume that he agrees with the content.

 

I assume that he agrees with it in general (as do I in general).  He may or may not agree with every individual statistic or how it was worded and organized.  Chances are, given the exact same data, 200 different people would have come up with 200 different ways to present it.

 

The fact is that he was not free to reorganize or re-word the post.

 

Chances are that if this type of information just outright offends you, you probably aren't a well-meaning reader of DR's website in the first place.

[SKL]

It seems that the needs of one are considered wants by the other. 

 

Hey, that sounds like my mom and dad - and a lot of other married couples.  ;)

 

I think I read that the #1 or #2 reason for divorce is money disagreements.

 

Yet another reason to get one's finances in order while young and, if possible, before marriage!

[Catwoman]

I assume that he agrees with it in general (as do I in general). He may or may not agree with every individual statistic or how it was worded and organized. Chances are, given the exact same data, 200 different people would have come up with 200 different ways to present it.

 

The fact is that he was not free to reoganize or re-word the post.

 

Chances are that if this type of information just outright offends you, you probably aren't a reader of DR's website in the first place.

Actually, "the fact is" that he could have very easily added a bit of commentary before or after the article, to clarify any parts of the article that he questioned or disagreed with. He didn't, so the logical assumption is that he agreed with it.

 

And who here has said that they were "outright offended?" I think you're being a bit dramatic. Some of us thought the list was silly, stupid, ridiculous, or statistically invalid, but I don't think anyone was "outright offended."

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually, "the fact is" that he could have very easily added a bit of commentary before or after the article, to clarify any parts of the article that he questioned or disagreed with. He didn't, so the logical assumption is that he agreed with it.

 

And who here has said that they were "outright offended?" I think you're being a bit dramatic. Some of us thought the list was silly, stupid, ridiculous, or statistically invalid, but I don't think anyone was "outright offended."

 

I am stuck at statistically invalid.  The sample of both groups is too small and there is no evidence presented to show how the sampling was conducted.

[LucyStoner]

Let's spell it out. Thinking something is incorrect or overly simplistic is not the same thing as being offended. I disagree with this drivel because my life experiences and studies have given me a different paradigm and because it fails the sniff test. The stats that back it lack a verifiable methodology and because it falls into a trap over correlation and causation. It is overly simplistic to state that people who disagree with this are highly offended. I see disagreement written off as someone being over sensitive and taking offense far too often. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss anything someone says that one personally disagrees with as them being overly sensitive. People usually have more nuanced reasons behind their perspectives.

[SKL]

I agree that there is a difference between disagreement and taking offense.  Absolutely.  The language of some of the posts above imply disagreement.  The language of others imply offense.

 

I personally don't agree with the implied messages 100%.  I stated that from my first post.

[Pawz4me]

Let's spell it out. Thinking something is incorrect or overly simplistic is not the same thing as being offended. I disagree with this drivel because my life experiences and studies have given me a different paradigm and because it fails the sniff test. The stats that back it lack a verifiable methodology and because it falls into a trap over correlation and causation. It is overly simplistic to state that people who disagree with this are highly offended. I see disagreement written off as someone being over sensitive and taking offense far too often. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss anything someone says that one personally disagrees with as them being overly sensitive. People usually have more nuanced reasons behind their perspectives.

 

Agreed.

 

FWIW . . . I am not poor.  I have never been remotely close to being anywhere near poor.  I am not financially illiterate.  I am not DR's target audience. And I find the implications of the blog post irritating and overly simplistic.  I also believe that by reposting it w/o commenting otherwise, it is logical to assume that DR agrees with it.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I am intrigued by the fact that folks who had relatively *more* income in 1968 ended up seeing no growth over the following years.  And those who had relatively less income in 1968 ended up much better off.  What was it about those 95th %ile people that kept their growth curve so consistent while others' dropped off?  Hmm.

 

 

 

An economist could lay it out better than I, but the suspected factors could include the decline in union membership, globalized outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing, relaxation of banking and cap gains tax laws, Reaganomics, NAFTA, changeover to a service and info economy, etc., etc.  It could also be that the bump in WWII GI Bill grads and large public works projects is what kept the bottom line closer to the top line, up until that workforce cruised past its peak earning years.

 

A trend that large and pronounced has to have a host of interlinked causes, most of which lay beyond the control of all but a sliver of the populace.

[Woodhaven]

I wonder why people are so resistant to the idea that maybe rich / financially successful people work hard too.

 

I've noticed that as well, but it seems have become a much stronger trend in the last several years. 

 

My family was poor.  My dad worked very hard and long hours.  We often didn't have enough food to last the week. We lived in a 1 bedroom basement apartment (the 5 of us).  My parents taught us to study hard and work hard. That if we were diligent we were more likely to meet our goals than if were were lax.

 

I believe that most people who have achieved financial comfort (no or little debt and some security) work hard.  That doesn't mean that poor people don't work hard.  But I would never blame those who have worked hard and managed to have a comfortable life for my lack of success in the same.  True, it doesn't always work out.  But that is no reason to blame those for whom it does work out.  Blaming the wealthy for their success and our lack thereof is just warped.

 

Waiting for the flames....

[Joanne]

I've noticed that as well, but it seems have become a much stronger trend in the last several years.

 

My family was poor. My dad worked very hard and long hours. We often didn't have enough food to last the week. We lived in a 1 bedroom basement apartment (the 5 of us). My parents taught us to study hard and work hard. That if we were diligent we were more likely to meet our goals than if were were lax.

 

I believe that most people who have achieved financial comfort (no or little debt and some security) work hard. That doesn't mean that poor people don't work hard. But I would never blame those who have worked hard and managed to have a comfortable life for my lack of success in the same. True, it doesn't always work out. But that is no reason to blame those for whom it does work out. Blaming the wealthy for their success and our lack thereof is just warped.

 

Waiting for the flames....

 

Who is blaming the wealthy?

 

Who is asserting that most wealthy don't work hard?

[SKL]

An economist could lay it out better than I, but the suspected factors could include the decline in union membership, globalized outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing, relaxation of banking and cap gains tax laws, Reaganomics, NAFTA, changeover to a service and info economy, etc., etc.  It could also be that the bump in WWII GI Bill grads and large public works projects is what kept the bottom line closer to the top line, up until that workforce cruised past its peak earning years.

 

A trend that large and pronounced has to have a host of interlinked causes, most of which lay beyond the control of all but a sliver of the populace.

 

True, some of the folks had their income propped up by protectionism for a while.

[LucyStoner]

I've noticed that as well, but it seems have become a much stronger trend in the last several years.

 

My family was poor. My dad worked very hard and long hours. We often didn't have enough food to last the week. We lived in a 1 bedroom basement apartment (the 5 of us). My parents taught us to study hard and work hard. That if we were diligent we were more likely to meet our goals than if were were lax.

 

I believe that most people who have achieved financial comfort (no or little debt and some security) work hard. That doesn't mean that poor people don't work hard. But I would never blame those who have worked hard and managed to have a comfortable life for my lack of success in the same. True, it doesn't always work out. But that is no reason to blame those for whom it does work out. Blaming the wealthy for their success and our lack thereof is just warped.

 

Waiting for the flames....

You are waiting for flames that don't exist. Would someone please give a specific example of rich people being blamed for their success on this thread? Would someone please back of the idea that rich people (shall I say "people of means"?!) are being attacked in any way here? Stating something that is in defense of or supportive of poor people is not attacking any other sort of person. I grow weary of this idea.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I've noticed that as well, but it seems have become a much stronger trend in the last several years. 

 

It's tied to an increasing suspicion that the deck is already stacked, the game already rigged.  Entrepreneurs still abound, and always will.  What's taking longer to work it's way into our collective noodles is that it's quite likely you can NOT follow your parent(s)' career path, such as starting out in junior sales at Xerox, and retire as CFO 40 years later...with a pension.

 

It's possible that you might have to go back to dustbowl farmers giving it all up to go into the factories to find similar circumstances, or maybe the industrial revolution?  All those look like single events in history, but living through them was probably not fun for all.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

True, some of the folks had their income propped up by protectionism for a while.

 

Warren Buffet says they still do.

[SKL]

You are waiting for flames that don't exist. Would someone please give a specific example of rich people being blamed for their success on this thread? Would someone please back of the idea that rich people (shall I say "people of means"?!) are being attacked in any way here? Stating something that is in defense of or supportive of poor people is not attacking any other sort of person. I grow weary of this idea.

 

Sure.  There was a long list of supposed bad habits of the rich, followed by an addendum list including "having underpaid workers to care for your kids and clean your house."  Then there is the implication that just by admitting a link between certain habits and financial health, people in financial health are "poor-shaming," or at the very least benefiting unfairly from good habits nobody else can afford (allegedly).  And then there is the subtle implication in the oft-repeated statement that poor people all work so doggedly hard compared to everyone else.

 

Of course these are mild compared to some of the other stuff we've read in WTM posts.

[SKL]

It's tied to an increasing suspicion that the deck is already stacked, the game already rigged.  Entrepreneurs still abound, and always will.  What's taking longer to work it's way into our collective noodles is that it's quite likely you can NOT follow your parent(s)' career path, such as starting out in junior sales at Xerox, and retire as CFO 40 years later...with a pension.

 

It's possible that you might have to go back to dustbowl farmers giving it all up to go into the factories to find similar circumstances, or maybe the industrial revolution?  All those look like single events in history, but living through them was probably not fun for all.

 

Surely our parents didn't follow their parents' career paths either, generally?  Isn't that kind of a silly expectation, assuming anyone still holds it?  And besides, most of our parents didn't have a cushy life.  I guess I'm wondering where that myth even came from.  Never for one minute did my parents want me to follow in their footsteps, nor did I want that for myself.

 

[SKL]

Warren Buffet says they still do.

 

Those who retired with a pension that was not renegotiated, yes.

 

Those who still enjoy some wage inflation (less than before), yes.

 

Those who have a job because the government bribed companies to not relocate operations, yes.

[LucyStoner]

SKL, the workers clean your house thing was a joke based on another thread. Ironic that you accuse people in every 4th post of being offended*. I am not seeing your examples or any specific things here. You seem to be reading a lot between the lines.

 

*joke. And made up statistic.

 

FWIW, I paid my cleaning guy $20 an hour. And that was a cheap one.

[TechWife]

Thank you for the lecture. You'll be pleased to know our street is merely neighborly and not at all icky or presumptuous, so thankfully we won't have to up sticks any time soon. Jeez. Enough already.

 

Giving judgemental financial advice to a stranger is what's icky.

 

You're welcome!

 

FWIW, I don't and never have given financial advice to strangers, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. 

[SKL]

SKL, the workers clean your house thing was a joke based on another thread. Ironic that you accuse people in every 4th post of being offended*. I am not seeing your examples or any specific things here. You seem to be reading a lot between the lines.

 

*joke. And made up statistic.

 

FWIW, I paid my cleaning guy $20 an hour. And that was a cheap one.

 

You kept asking what people were talking about, so I told you.  I never understand why people get trashed for answering other people's questions.  If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.

And now I am wondering why I needed to know what you pay your cleaning guy....

[SKL]

I'm disappointed. This thread could have been an Interesting exploration of the factors that create both wealth and poverty.....

 

That's the whole point.  Apparently it is un-PC to talk about the above, at least at an individual level.

[TechWife]

That's the whole point.  Apparently it is un-PC to talk about the above, at least at an individual level.

 

PC has nothing to do with it, it is a matter of common courtesy to not pry into someone else's personal financial matters. 

[LucyStoner]

That's the whole point. Apparently it is un-PC to talk about the above, at least at an individual level.

Has anyone called you unPC on this thread? Again, is there a specific example you can point to or is this just your interpretation of having people merely disagree with you?

[LucyStoner]

PC has nothing to do with it, it is a matter of common courtesy to not pry into someone else's personal financial matters.

 

This is actually very much a cultural difference. In some cultures it is quite normal to talk more openly about money.

[Wheres Toto]

Well, the town where my oldest went to high school (my town has a send/receive relationship), is known to have mostly wealthy inhabitants.  How do you know?  The 8,000 square foot houses, the Mercedes SUV's and the Jaguars, the holiday displays that probably run in the $10,000 range.  These aren't people making $200,000 to $300,000.  These are the CEO's making $800,000 to $1 million salaries.

 

The less wealthy who are trying to get their kids into what is a great school district aren't buying in that town at all.  They are purchasing in my town, which has some million dollar homes but also some bungalows, and a lot in between.  In some cases they are buying a tiny house for the address (that they rent out), and continuing to live in a normal size house in a neighboring town.

 

I grew up in the - one medical bill or car break-down affected life for months (years?), not always enough food on the table, not always heat in the winter - poor bracket.  I spent a little bit of time there again when I first divorced.  We are currently in the - struggling but showing signs of pulling out of it soon- bracket, hopefully on our way up to the -comfortable but not wealthy- bracket.  

 

From the outside, we probably appear worse off than we are - our house is tiny and crappy looking, one of our cars is on it's last legs, no meals out, no vacations, no designer anything.  But, we have heat, a roof that we're not worried about losing, transportation that's reliable but nothing special, food on the table, and fairly decent health insurance.  

[Elfknitter.#]

PC has nothing to do with it, it is a matter of common courtesy to not pry into someone else's personal financial matters. 

 

I must have missed something.  Who is has been prying into whom's personal financial matters? Most I just see discussion over what constitutes wealthy... :confused1:

[Dandelion]

OP - what are your thoughts?  You started this, so you must have an opinion on this post.  Time to join the fray.   ;)

[SKL]

Has anyone called you unPC on this thread? Again, is there a specific example you can point to or is this just your interpretation of having people merely disagree with you?

 

No, that was not about me personally, I was just saying that discussions about individual factors affecting income are always going to get shut down or derailed by the PC police.

[LucyStoner]

Would the PC police please stand up and raise your hand? Anyone? You in the back there? No? Ok.

[*Lulu*]

Would the PC police please stand up and raise your hand? Anyone? You in the back there? No? Ok.

Sorry, I'm too busy sporting my black and white striped shirt and official *mom* whistle to carry a badge, too.

[Catwoman]

OP - what are your thoughts?  You started this, so you must have an opinion on this post.  Time to join the fray.   ;)

She's probably hiding. ;)

 

I'm not sure the thread is turning out as nicely as she'd hoped...

[*Lulu*]

She's probably hiding. ;)

 

I'm not sure the thread is turning out as nicely as she'd hoped...

We've been sweetness and light though!