S/O....what do you think would happen...living wage

[Joker]

I dunno. I never saw this "living wage" growing up that everyone seems to think was common. There were people with really good jobs and there were families like us that only made it because of a subsistence lifestyle (hunting/fishing).

 

I don't think you could ever support a family on a single entry level salary. Not back then and not today. To reach the level of being able to support a family on one income usually takes 4-5 years of experience at least, with a good employment record.

I never saw it either growing up. We made it because my dad's job came with housing and a work vehicle. My mom's dad had almost the same job with housing and a vehicle included. My dad's parents had different jobs but they both worked (Gma was a teacher). Dh's mom stayed home but fil was military so they had base housing. Dh said they ate horrible, cheap food and he had to get a job when he wanted to do anything outside the home.

 

My mom was able to stay home for a while because of the housing but she eventually needed to work. I'm the first to stay home and be supported entirely by dh's salary with no housing or cars included. It wasn't an entry level job either as it was after college and the military. I worked while he was in the military and until we had children.

[mom2scouts]

Our city's minimum wage is on its way up to $15/hour.

Guess who takes your order at Panera now? An iPad. 

 

A "living wage" would price people out of the work force who don't provide that level of value while increasing the cost of goods. It would mean teens couldn't get part time jobs and develop their employable skills. It would mean much more mechanization.

 

Emily

 

We were just talking about this today. One of my sons works for an international company that produces industrial automation. He said they have products that can replace just about any minimum wage worker. My son said, "People need to stop protesting for $15/hour for unskilled labor because they could easily be replaced." People without education and work skills are very vulnerable right now.

[Tanaqui]

My son said, "People need to stop protesting for $15/hour for unskilled labor because they could easily be replaced."

 

Your son isn't seeing the big picture. Sooner or later, every worker that can be replaced will be, so long as people think cutting costs today means bigger profits tomorrow. (The bigger picture is, as I said upthread, that machines don't do a lot of shopping.)

 

[Reefgazer]

In the same vein, I was reading this article the other day:

 

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/13965/20140601/carls-jr-and-hardees-fast-food-ceo-says-minimum-wage-increases-causes-restaurants-to-close.htm

 

I do agree that the USA needs change regarding COL, wages, and supporting family, and something needs to be done about these problems.  But I don't think most in this country are ready to embrace real solutions because they will require personal, financial, moral, and social searching; in fact, I think we aren't even close to being able to consider what needs to be done.
 

We were just talking about this today. One of my sons works for an international company that produces industrial automation. He said they have products that can replace just about any minimum wage worker. My son said, "People need to stop protesting for $15/hour for unskilled labor because they could easily be replaced." People without education and work skills are very vulnerable right now.

 

[StephanieZ]

One thought I've had about this is that if we pay 15/hr to entry level folks, yes, we'll have fewer employees in low skilled jobs and more mechanization. BUT, that's not necessarily a problem, because, frankly, I'd expect some people to opt to work fewer hours if they were earning more. Folks who now earn 7.50/hr and scrape up 50-60 hr/wk with multiple jobs and their spouse is doing similarly . . . Well, if their hourly wage gets to 15/hr, they can drop back to 40 hr/wk or less. Or one of them might go PT . . .

 

We employ a dozen or so folks, most of whom (maybe 8/12) earn within a couple dollars/hr of minimum wage (albeit our state min wage is 8.75/hr). When we bought our vet hospital nearly 12 years ago, min wage was 5.15/hr IIRC, and lots of staff was earning close to that. As min wage goes up, our wage scale does nudge up but it also compresses. So, we used to have staff making from 5.15-12/hr (with one or two exceptions at maybe 14/hr). Now we have lay staff that makes about 8.75-13/hr, with a couple exceptions that earn around 15-18/hr. Although every increase in minimum wage pinches just a little at payroll time, I always welcome it, not just because philosophically I think it is a good idea, but because that means that my business competitors must now increase their wages . . . and I know we generally pay higher than most and offer more benefits . . . so it helps "even the playing field" just a bit, making it EASIER for me to be a more generous employer. 

 

Another big advantage to me, as a small business owner and employer of fairly low wage staff, is that raising wages will definitely improve my clients' ability to afford the services we offer, and even allow them to even own pets at all . . . So, anyway, those are my thoughts. 

Edited March 28, 2016 by StephanieZ

[mom2scouts]

Your son isn't seeing the big picture. Sooner or later, every worker that can be replaced will be, so long as people think cutting costs today means bigger profits tomorrow. (The bigger picture is, as I said upthread, that machines don't do a lot of shopping.)

 

Oh, we had a big discussion about that too. People who are making low wages already don't do a lot of shopping or they shop second hand. Meanwhile, my son and his coworkers who are highly skilled and highly educated, are already making more than dh and I made when we were both working full time and more than dh has ever made after 30 years in a professional field. It may be a long time before companies miss the workers who are being replaced by machines. Of course I realize that economics is much more complicated and taxes, social services,and other factors come into play, but the effects may be put off long enough that they don't affect those who are making the decisions now.

[Tanaqui]

but the effects may be put off long enough that they don't affect those who are making the decisions now.

 

That's always the problem in our society :P

 

I really, truly think that we've hit the point where greater mechanization is going to stop making more jobs for humans. Our society has got to find another way to distribute resources, or we're going to be in some serious trouble in a few more generations, even if we get everything else under control.

 

I may be wrong. I'd be quite happy to be wrong, though sooner or later I will be right, and I'm sure the post-scarcity economy is going to be awesome. It's the transition period that worries me.

[SKL]

Add me to the list of people who don't believe it was ever that easy to go demand a job with a "living wage."  Especially not if "living" means the standard of living the average American expects to achieve.

 

To answer the question "what would happen" - the remaining US producers would be run out of the market by foreign competition.

[Tanaqui]

the remaining US producers would be run out of the market by foreign competition.

 

We have either the third or the fourth largest population in the world, depending on whether or not you count the EU as one unit.

 

We could, if we wanted, alter our laws and tax codes to penalize this sort of behavior, and reward companies that choose to produce the goods they sell here in the US, or at least to enforce a minimum wage on all companies which wish to trade in America. And they'd ultimately go along with it, because cutting yourself off from an enormous market is just a bad decision all around.

 

But we don't do that. Instead, we set up laws that pretty much reward companies for offshoring labor.

 

The problem isn't minimum wage. The problem is that our government is owned by the corporations.

 

Incidentally, McDonald's says that productivity has gone up since they raised their minimum wage. (That's Fortune, not World Socialist Weekly, btw.) I'm not surprised.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Tanaqui

[SKL]

McD's productivity has gone up?  I heard they recently increased computerization of what used to be a human job.  Productivity is always higher when a job is computerized.  It means fewer paid employee hours for the same amount of output.  Is that the goal?

[SKL]

We have either the third or the fourth largest population in the world, depending on whether or not you count the EU as one unit.

 

We could, if we wanted, alter our laws and tax codes to penalize this sort of behavior, and reward companies that choose to produce the goods they sell here in the US, or at least to enforce a minimum wage on all companies which wish to trade in America. And they'd ultimately go along with it, because cutting yourself off from an enormous market is just a bad decision all around.

 

But we don't do that. Instead, we set up laws that pretty much reward companies for offshoring labor.

 

The problem isn't minimum wage. The problem is that our government is owned by the corporations.

 

Incidentally, McDonald's says that productivity has gone up since they raised their minimum wage. (That's Fortune, not World Socialist Weekly, btw.) I'm not surprised.

 

Propping up non-competitive US producers has been tried.  It is a major cause of the economic problems of the past 3+ decades.  It does not help.

[Arcadia]

Job stability that my dad had was why my mom could work as and when she want to. My dad gets re-assigned to any school that needs teachers so sometimes the commute is long but he doesn't get layoff since part timers get lay off first.

 

My hubby has a living wage but no job stability. We don't spend much and we keep a lookout for jobs.

 

Our city's minimum wage is on its way up to $15/hour.

Guess who takes your order at Panera now? An iPad.

Rents at apartment complexes has gone up too. A SAHM is taking on all babysitting jobs involving her sons' schoolmates to prepare for the rent hike after her one year lease ends. Some complex wants proof that rent is less than 1/3 of monthly income before renting to the person.

 

Safeway deli has a touchscreen taking sandwich orders since a few years ago at some locations.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Arcadia

[LisaKinVA]

I live in an area that has a high minimum wage (and pretty high taxes), and roughly 25% unemployment (this changes the further north you go...and gets a bit worse the further south you go).

 

We have astronomical crime rates mostly burglaries and insurance fraud (which isn't helped by the fact that because the courts are so corrupt it's cheaper to just pay the claim -- even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the accident didn't take place as accused -- such as, car was in a scrap yard, the intersection the accident occurred doesn't exist, and the supposed defendants were not living here).  The police system is mostly a joke.  When issues arise, we have to go through all of the reporting steps -- but no one wants to bother, because we are basically told they won't do anything

 

Many families do have their own chicken and rabbits, the wealthier (and I use that term only to separate those living in tent cities from the family of four living in an apartment across the way, which is a multi-generational series of connected homes, with Nona, daughter's family, son, brother's family, uncle, and grandchildren all in the building).  often have a shared plot with fruit bearing trees, gardening space, and are generous with the produce with their neighbors (including us).

 

There is a huge underground economy.  Labor is cheap, materials and goods are expensive.  A lot of cash flows under the table. Bartering exists, people run cars beyond what most states in the U.S. would allow -- if they can keep them going, they do.  

 

And, there is fear for the future.  This is a common refrain I hear possibly more frequently than anything else, because we have a large family (5 kids).  Most families only have one, a few have two, but it is extremely rare to see a family with 3 or more.  And, this is a country that loves children -- where children aren't a bother or a hindrance.  But, there aren't jobs.

 

Beyond that, the mafia runs this area.  Several bombs (close to our house) have been set (they have gone off at 3am, when no one is at the shop).  The intent was to send a message or destroy a business -- not to kill people.  The mafia is kind of a double-edged sword.  They do offer a certain amount of protection, but they also sponsor quite a bit of crime (drugs, sex slavery/prostitution, and theft -- to much larger enterprises), and uncertainty. 

 

All this is to say, that there are many factors that go into an economy. Minimum wage is just one of them.  Same thing goes for health care.  Many nations have "free" healthcare, but what that actually translates to is very different from country to country and from wealthy cities to poorer, rural areas.

 

I don't think you can really compare what happens in UK, Finland, Germany, etc. to the US on a broad scale -- size and scope, regional culture, demographics, and the local environment all play their part.  If you grow the areas of comparison to the entire EU, you start to get a better sense of how this can play out on a larger scope.

[Tanaqui]

McD's productivity has gone up?  I heard they recently increased computerization of what used to be a human job.  Productivity is always higher when a job is computerized.  It means fewer paid employee hours for the same amount of output.  Is that the goal?

 

Did you read the link, or do you intend to cite your own source?

 

And ultimately, replacing all those workers with computers is going to be the goal. It doesn't matter what the wage is, computers are always going to be cheaper.

[LucyStoner]

Would people also be willing to go back to 1700 sq. ft. track homes, one car, and only buying what they could afford?

 

I see the American dream as skewed now to mean that everyone "NEEDS" to have 3,500 sq. ft. homes, two cars, vacations, and all sorts of other things.

Statistically most of the people buying those mega homes are older than 50.

 

Where I live, even in young families where income is pretty high most people under 40 are living in 1000-1800sf houses, if they are fortunate enough to buy a house at all. Many are unable to afford more than rent. Or the mortgage on a small condo. And I'm not talking about poor people, I'm taking couples pulling in north of 90K who have kids and have to pay daycare rates that are among the highest in the nation. Two of my friends are about to have their first child. They both work and both must work or they couldn't afford their small apartment. How they will manage with a daycare bill, I do not know. Two cars and vacations? They have one twenty year old Corolla and "vacation" by driving an hour north to visit his family when they get time off at the same time. She's been at her new job not very long and isn't eligible for maternity leave. She's planning on returning to work within two weeks of the birth. This is after putting off having a child for years because of financial considerations. They are now at the age where it's pushing into now or never territory. These are not people without educations or with educations in frivolous things. Another couple I am close to live in a 1200 SF concrete block home with two kids. He makes well into the six figures and has a job with round the clock time and travel demands and she works nights. But they have been hit by every tech downturn and their assets have been hit hard and repeatedly between having to fund periods of unemployment in a high cost area with kids with big medical needs. They have debt from helping a 2 relatives avoid homelessness and from having to pay thousands OOP for critical health costs excluded from their insurance...not from buying more consumer crap than they can afford. Stats and more and more anecdotes show that these sorts of scenarios are not rare.

 

I really wish people would stop trashing the first generation of Americans who appear that, in the aggregate, will likely be enjoying a lower standard of living than their parents their entire lives. All consuming jobs with no overtime pay, terrible health care coverage, more expensive college for themselves and their children. It's time people stop equating the TV images from House Hunters and sitcoms and the handful of spendthrifts they know with AN ENTIRE generation of people.

Edited March 28, 2016 by LucyStoner

[lleyubiea]

There were always people who had less even with a parent working full time. 

[DawnM]

Statistically most of the people buying those mega homes are older than 50.

 

Where I live, even in young families where income is pretty high most people under 40 are living in 1000-1800sf houses, if they are fortunate enough to buy a house at all. Many are unable to afford more than rent. Or the mortgage on a small condo. And I'm not talking about poor people, I'm taking couples pulling in north of 90K who have kids and have to pay daycare rates that are among the highest in the nation. Two of my friends are about to have their first child. They both work and both must work or they couldn't afford their small apartment. How they will manage with a daycare bill, I do not know. Two cars and vacations? They have one twenty year old Corolla and "vacation" by driving an hour north to visit his family when they get time off at the same time. She's been at her new job not very long and isn't eligible for maternity leave. She's planning on returning to work within two weeks of the birth. This is after putting off having a child for years because of financial considerations. They are now at the age where it's pushing into now or never territory. These are not people without educations or with educations in frivolous things. Another couple I am close to live in a 1200 SF concrete block home with two kids. He makes well into the six figures and has a job with round the clock time and travel demands and she works nights. But they have been hit by every tech downturn and their assets have been hit hard and repeatedly between having to fund periods of unemployment in a high cost area with kids with big medical needs. They have debt from helping a 2 relatives avoid homelessness and from having to pay thousands OOP for critical health costs excluded from their insurance...not from buying more consumer crap than they can afford. Stats and more and more anecdotes show that these sorts of scenarios are not rare.

 

I really wish people would stop trashing the first generation of Americans who appear that, in the aggregate, will likely be enjoying a lower standard of living than their parents their entire lives. All consuming jobs with no overtime pay, terrible health care coverage, more expensive college for themselves and their children. It's time people stop equating the TV images from House Hunters and sitcoms and the handful of spendthrifts they know with AN ENTIRE generation of people.

 

 

And again, this is anecdotal.  I don't know where you live and I am not asking you to reveal your location, but I can assure you that many, many people younger than 50 are indeed buying homes they can't really afford.  According to the banks they can, but in reality, it is beyond their budget.   Banks used to approve you for roughly 2 to 2.5 times your income for a loan.  Now they approve you for 4-5 times your income.  I know because the last 3 times we have purchased homes, we have been told we qualify for 4-5 times our income.  We are currently getting pre-approval for a loan and we have been told yet again that we can pay a HUGE amount.  We can't, don't want to, and won't.

 

Now, in Southern California, where we moved from, people were indeed spending $400K on a 1200-1500 sq. ft. house, and in some areas, more.  But I think the is different than most of the USA.  Many of these people's incomes were not even 100K.  And yes, they did tell me.  This was 10 years ago.  I don't know what their current incomes are, but I am hoping they have gone up and they have been able to do better than they did 10-20 years ago.

 

I am not trashing an entire generation, but I will tell you that many, many Americans spend more than they should.  Statistics show that savings for retirement is at an all time low.  Now, part of this is because companies don't provide retirement benefits like they used to, but part of it is because people haven't saved.

 

There are many articles on this.  This is one:  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-retirement-idUSKBN0OC23O20150527 But I am sure it isn't conclusive.  

 

I feel like you completely threw me under the bus by quoting me and saying I am so naive to think that the 50s and 60s were idillic and I am so dumb to think that everyone is like House Hunters.  I couldn't be further from that scenario.  I am a realist and I do follow statistics, not anecdotal information.

 

People DID live on less in the 50s.  http://yesiamcheap.com/cost-of-living-1950-compared-to-2011/ 

 

People had one TV, not 4 or 5.   Closets were smaller because people had fewer clothes.  People just didn't buy as much stuff.

 

And I said to go back to 1700 sq. ft.  Apparently, I was wrong.  The average size house was under 1000 sq. ft. compared to today's average of 2300 sq. ft.

[LucyStoner]

Dawn, people spent more on food and clothes previously 2 generations ago. They had fewer electronics and appliances because they were much more expensive per item. Adjusted for inflation, one can buy 3-5 TVs for what a family paid for one in 1950. They also enjoyed stronger pensions, more affordable health care and energy prices were a lower percent of their household budgets. They enjoyed much shorter work weeks and were more likely to get some time off.

 

Average time between when consumers buy new cars now versus 1950 is a way down. People actually upgraded their cars more often 1-2 generations ago. And with two parents working and lagging public transport investment, a second car is not usually a luxury item.

 

Yes, average house size/SF is up. But home prices have simply skyrocketed, especially for those who need to be in a good school district. Also, as I said if you check with the realtor data, the people buying those large homes are in fact more likely to be baby boomers than the young people everyone loves to complain about.

 

Many people are saving less now because, after the basic costs of living, most people just plain have less available to save. Way less. And layoffs cut into people's savings much more often now.

 

Not only do people spend less on clothes now because clothes are cheaper due to globalization, more people rely on used clothes. In my dad's generation the thrift store was for poor people and there was a more broadly accepted cultural bias against shopping there. Yet many high income people buy used now. I know double income professional families who, excepting a few nice things, under wear, socks and shoes, thrift store shop for everything. More people also by used cars, used appliances and used furniture now.

 

If young people in LCOL areas are buying huge homes, skewer them specifically. Don't lump everyone together. A 1200 SF home here, unless it is in rehab condition, sells for north of $300k in my county and much more in certain areas. Most of my friends are not poor- they are in medicine, engineering, IT, teaching, business. Yet I have exactly one friend who lives in a house that is 3000+ SF. Also, they aren't borrowing 5 times their income for a mortgage. With childcare costs being equal to a mortgage payment, they seriously can not afford that. Most make on the low end of 6 figures and they are borrowing ~3x their income. I don't know anyone who has bought for the highest amount they would be approved for. Most states have at least one metro area where housing prices are larger than small towns but people have to live where their job is. And with much expanded hours, parents with long commutes may never see their kids awake during the week, so it makes sense to try to buy closer to your city job.

 

Anecdotes aren't proof but they do illustrate well documented and well backed up trends. It is plain nonsense that young people are living higher on the hog than previous generations. Spending more for basics? Yes. Spending significantly more for extras? Not really. The extras just look different now.

 

This is a good primer on why it is a myth that families are going broke over consumer frivolity. It's childcare, healthcare, housing and basics for the most part. The raw data just doesn't support the narrative of irresponsibility that has been consistently pushed.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907

Edited March 28, 2016 by LucyStoner

[DawnM]

Anecdotes aren't proof but they do illustrate well documented and well backed up trends. It is plain nonsense that young people are living higher on the hog than previous generations.

 

This is a good primer on why it is a myth that families are going broke over consumer frivolity. It's childcare, healthcare, housing and basic for the most part. The frills we have are different than the frills people had in 1950 but each generation had a class with frills. Now it's mobile electronics and in home entertainment. Then it was more likely to be stuff like a new car every 3-4 years and finishing the basement or adding a pool. The raw data just doesn't support the narrative of irresponsibility that has been consistently pushed.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907

 

 

But MY anecdotes are completely opposite of what you are saying and we know many who live just fine, one income, educated, white collar jobs, have saved for retirement, and live in comfortable homes.  So, if we are comparing anecdotes, mine is quite different than most have quoted.

 

And I have read parts of the two income "trap."  I think a lot of it is bunk.  Of course you should do the math, but for those of us who can earn a decent income, there is no "trap."   I made enough to support our family completely for a few years, and we lived with 2 cars, childcare, and healthcare.  

 

The book says that between childcare, extra clothing, and eating out, you will spend all of your 2nd income and wont' have any leftover.  This just isn't true for many, many people.  We still did cook, and I was able to wear business casual and didn't spend a lot on clothing.  Childcare was expensive, but not astronomical compared to my income.  Healthcare was included in my job and was very good.

 

During those years, my DH went to grad school.  We were NOT living on student loans.  We were living on my income.  Once DH went back to work, we did quite well.  I only stayed home because I have a special needs child who needed me.  

 

Once we went to one income, that is when we really had to cut back.  Although we were never hurting.  

 

Now we are in a situation where I am trying to get back into the workforce after an 11 year hiatus and it is tough with no work experience for 11 years.  I don't regret staying home with my son who needed me, but there are twinges of "I wish I hadn't had to stop working."  I don't know if I will get a job or not, but if I do, it will open up the options for my kids' college choices as I plan to use the money for their college for the next 8-10 years.  It will also add to our retirement account.

 

Now, I KNOW my situation is ONE story, one anecdote, but since you said they count.......

 

Dawn

 

PS:  And it is irresponsible to spend more than you make.....on anything.

Edited March 28, 2016 by DawnM

[lynn]

I believe a living wage is good but when this does happen will some employees be worst off because the government benefits will be reduced or go away all together or will those benefits need to be adjusted? To many that living wage may now cover rent and electric comfortably but still come short in other areas of food or insurance. Will some loose the child credit(?) they count on each year?

[DawnM]

Boomers are buying the big homes, but they arent the only ones living there. In my area, the common way to get the housing cost down is to have the senior own the home. That qualifies the home for a 50% property tax reduction.. app $7500 on the typical 2300 sq ft new construction on at least 1.5 acre, and gets the gc into a wealthy school district. Yes, the senior has a room or apt in the home, but often they are traveling or at the second home.

 

I haven't heard of this in my area at all.  Interesting.

 

It is hard to get 1.5 acres anywhere near the city, but further out it is doable.  However, our area is growing so rapidly that it is harder and harder, even in the suburbs.

 

and what is what is app $7500 ????

[LucyStoner]

But MY anecdotes are completely opposite of what you are saying and we know many who live just fine, one income, educated, white collar jobs, have saved for retirement, and live in comfortable homes. So, if we are comparing anecdotes, mine is quite different than most have quoted.

 

And I have read parts of the two income "trap." I think a lot of it is bunk. Of course you should do the math, but for those of us who can earn a decent income, there is no "trap." I made enough to support our family completely for a few years, and we lived with 2 cars, childcare, and healthcare.

 

The book says that between childcare, extra clothing, and eating out, you will spend all of your 2nd income and wont' have any leftover. This just isn't true for many, many people. We still did cook, and I was able to wear business casual and didn't spend a lot on clothing. Childcare was expensive, but not astronomical compared to my incomel. Healthcare was included in my job and was very good.

 

During those years, my DH went to grad school. We were NOT living on student loans. We were living on my income. Once DH went back to work, we did quite well. I only stayed home because I have a special needs child who needed me.

 

Once we went to one income, that is when we really had to cut back. Although we were never hurting.

 

Now we are in a situation where I am trying to get back into the workforce after an 11 year hiatus and it is tough with no work experience for 11 years. I don't regret staying home with my son who needed me, but there are twinges of "I wish I hadn't had to stop working." I don't know if I will get a job or not, but if I do, it will open up the options for my kids' college choices as I plan to use the money for their college for the next 8-10 years. It will also add to our retirement account.

 

Now, I KNOW my situation is ONE story, one anecdote, but since you said they count.......

 

Dawn

 

PS: And it is irresponsible to spend more than you make.....on anything.

This is why people in HCOL areas and LCOLs are living in different worlds.

 

The people I know are every bit as responsible as you describle yourself as being. But for the most part they do not have access to the privileges that people starting out in previous decades did at the same stage in life. And regardless of if you believe that book or not, the data is solid and it's hardly the only source of such information. Your take away summary from partially reading it doesn't completely match what is in the book.

 

Also, if you are over 45 or in a lower cost of living area, you and I aren't talking about the same demographic or group of people. This can not be stressed enough. My friends who are right around 50, for the most part, have a much easier time of it. They benefited from cheaper college and cheaper houses relative to income levels at the time. Many have been grandfathered into better retirement and healthcare plans at their jobs than the newer hires get. When they bought there were nice homes in nice areas here that were 2-3x the median income. And if you are in a LCOL area, is can be hard to understand what it is like living where buying a house at all requires a top quintile level income or a much larger than 20% downpayment.

 

There are now not many livable houses for sale (and by livable, I mean a house with an intact roof, not a fancy, large or remodeled home) in my general area of any size which cost 2 or 2.5 times the median household income. The few you will find are in very far out neighborhoods, and often ones with drug and gang activity. Seriously, I've seen dilapidated tiny houses on tiny lots with seriously inadequate roofs selling for north of 400k simply because of the school it was zoned for.

 

I reckon we could move but then I hear folks with my kids therapy needs from small towns or rural areas talking about how their kids just don't get the help their doctor recommends, I feel more of a responsibility to my family than to the idea of low housing costs. I've even looked up possible HCPs and found that some of the other places we have thought about living just don't have even vaguely comparable health care providers. They also tend to have much lower wages that wouldn't necessarily put us ahead.

 

As for the idea that it is irresponsible to spend more than you make on anything ever, it's a nice thought. Truly. And one we have been fortunate enough to follow. But when people's kids need medical care that must be paid for OOP because insurance won't cover it, they do what they have to do for their kids. Even if, as in my friend's case, it meant dealing with credit card balances they had to pay off slowly.

 

We have larger retirement savings than friends older than us. We are very frugal. We don't have student loan debt that we can't pay off within a year or two of when my husband graduates, in part due to employer reimbursement and in part because he chose a very cheap school. But we can't say or imply that it's like this for us because we are better or wiser or smarter...we have that because we've never has long periods of primary wage earner unemployment (actually my husband has never lost a job, which is a very rare thing in our peer group because of the boom and bust of certain professions here) and we put money away when very young. Also, we both went to college the first time on scholarships and grants (me) or scholarships and family money (him). That we have never needed to drain assets to stay afloat isn't a mark of superiority to our friends who have. In the place and time we inhabit it simply makes us very fortunate.

Edited March 28, 2016 by LucyStoner

[creekland]

I think many of our anecdotes are different due to COL in our specific areas.  Those of us who live in lower COL areas know many who work at Wally World who are perfectly satisfied and doing just fine.  Whole Foods doesn't exist near us.  I doubt folks would keep them in business because even the literal millionaires I know wouldn't shop there.  They pinch pennies and expect a good deal on everyday purchases.

 

Otherwise...

 

My parents have both worked for as long as I can remember.

 

My paternal grandmother had to leave school after 4th grade to start working for her family.  She washed dishes at an Italian restaurant, then later moved on to a shoe factory, and even later she cut hair.  She was still cutting hair when I knew her.  Her final job was working managing a church thrift shop.  She never stopped working until her death.

 

My maternal grandmother was a farmer's wife - definitely working doing all things "farm" though she was preparing the meal for the workers rather than putting up hay and such things.

 

I can't fathom a life without working, though I'm lazier than my predecessors and prefer part time to full.  In our lower COL area, one can exist fine on a single income if they don't want too many toys.  There are still oodles of job openings too and higher than minimum wage at that for many of those jobs.  When I looked up our county's unemployment rate it's 4%.  Minimum wage is still mainly for unskilled labor and then for those just starting on the job.  Kids at school tell me their pay raises fairly frequently if they stick with a job.

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Boomers are buying the big homes, but they arent the only ones living there. In my area, the common way to get the housing cost down is to have the senior own the home. That qualifies the home for a 50% property tax reduction.. app $7500 on the typical 2300 sq ft new construction on at least 1.5 acre, and gets the gc into a wealthy school district. Yes, the senior has a room or apt in the home, but often they are traveling or at the second home.

Here, there is no such thing. New construction homes or homes with a high value do not have a senior exemption. Also, our real estate taxes are probably a lot less than your area based on what you have said before. Senior tax discounts here are essentially only available to seniors who are living in their longtime homes and have a low fixed income. 50% senior discounts on all property taxes are not especially common as far as I know.

[DawnM]

Approximately $7500 is the annual savings on property taxes due to the senior exemption. As exemptions increase, the burden shifts to those not exempted. Thats why col here is high...many have exemptions, but use a lot in services.

 

The other common way to cut housing costs for a family that doesnt have a senior is to purchase the home jointly with another family.

 

 

Oh wow.  $15K on property taxes?  Are you in NJ?  You don't have to answer that.

 

Our property taxes are much lower in NC and were much lower even in SoCal, particularly if you bought a home prior to 2004.

[DawnM]

I think many of our anecdotes are different due to COL in our specific areas.  Those of us who live in lower COL areas know many who work at Wally World who are perfectly satisfied and doing just fine.  Whole Foods doesn't exist near us.  I doubt folks would keep them in business because even the literal millionaires I know wouldn't shop there.  They pinch pennies and expect a good deal on everyday purchases.

 

Otherwise...

 

My parents have both worked for as long as I can remember.

 

My paternal grandmother had to leave school after 4th grade to start working for her family.  She washed dishes at an Italian restaurant, then later moved on to a shoe factory, and even later she cut hair.  She was still cutting hair when I knew her.  Her final job was working managing a church thrift shop.  She never stopped working until her death.

 

My maternal grandmother was a farmer's wife - definitely working doing all things "farm" though she was preparing the meal for the workers rather than putting up hay and such things.

 

I can't fathom a life without working, though I'm lazier than my predecessors and prefer part time to full.  In our lower COL area, one can exist fine on a single income if they don't want too many toys.  There are still oodles of job openings too and higher than minimum wage at that for many of those jobs.  When I looked up our county's unemployment rate it's 4%.  Minimum wage is still mainly for unskilled labor and then for those just starting on the job.  Kids at school tell me their pay raises fairly frequently if they stick with a job.

 

 

I think our anecdotes are also different because this is a rather diverse group.

 

My mother did not work, but had a college education.  Her mother worked odd jobs and was on welfare because her husband died and she had 6 kids.  She had not even graduated from high school.

 

My father's mother was a nurse and worked as a nurse.  I am not sure about her mother's profession but I know that she did have a college education.

 

So, even within my own family, it is very diverse.

[Carrie12345]

In a spin off on the SS thread, what do you think would happen if employers paid a living wage again? One where one parent working full time could support a spouse, a few children , have housing , a car, etc?

 

 

 

Well, I don't know that I define "living wage" quite that way, and I don't believe that's really the way it was.  I do believe in raising the minimum wage so people who are working 40-50 hours/wk don't need government assistance to *survive*.  

 

A spouse, a few children, a house, and a car are all very vague concepts with widely varying price tags.  Even at a hypothetical $15/hr, a lot of choices would have to be made.  In some areas, really big choices.  For my family, that $15/hr. wouldn't fully cover our food and housing (mtg, re tax, homeowners, electric.)  And our home isn't exactly special.  With two $15/hr jobs we could add a car, hopefully two in order to send two people to work, taxes, some clothing.  If our children were younger and needed daycare (instead of school and older kids babysitting after school,) we'd need fewer of them and different housing.

[LucyStoner]

While senior exemptioms may not be common in your area, other exemptions may be. We also have ag, vet, religious...long list that translates to a lot of expense put on the homeowner for services not consumed. Every state, even region is different. A living wage here would be enough to make $1200 in rent money available, and that would be a 1 bedroom.....outermost commutable distance to big city. There will continue to be scarcity in housing until sufficient water becomes available to allow construction of higher density housing.

They are not really a factor here. There are some credits for agriculture of course but that applies to very few in a big, highly developed, county. Again, our property taxes are on the low side and we don't have a partcular large tax that most states rely on so they really don't go passing out exemptions. The people in the larger houses aren't pulling any exemption loopholes. A $15,000 tax bill would be for a home that was well over 1 million here.

Edited March 28, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Carrie12345]

They are not reallu a factor here. There are some credits for agriculture of course but that applies to very few in a big, highly developed, county. Again, our property taxes are on the low side and we don't have a partcular large tax that most states rely on so they really don't go passing out exemptions. The people in the larger houses aren't pulling any exemption loopholes. A $15,000 tax bill would be for a home that was well over 1 million here.

 

I still don't understand how taxes work here.  If I move down the street, to a house with one more bedroom and an extra half bath (same land size), with an asking price just $20k more than I paid for mine, my taxes would jump from $3500 to $7000.  For a home under $200,000.  It's a major factor in our housing options.

[creekland]

Wow...  We only pay a little over $5,000 in property tax on our place now....  

 

Ours are around $3500.  I'll admit to liking living in a low COL area, esp since we're near enough to big cities to go there if we desire.  We don't desire it often.

 

I prefer the slower pace, knowing my neighbors, hardly any traffic, and low costs.  It's definitely not for everyone and some of the trade offs are fewer places to eat/shop, but since those aren't high on my needs, it works out well for us.

[DawnM]

Our taxes are roughly 1% of your home's value.  That includes state and city taxes.  So, here, if you pay $3,500, your home value would roughly be $350K.

 

This area used to be considered low COL, but I think it is in the mid-range now.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by DawnM

[Lanny]

I still don't understand how taxes work here.  If I move down the street, to a house with one more bedroom and an extra half bath (same land size), with an asking price just $20k more than I paid for mine, my taxes would jump from $3500 to $7000.  For a home under $200,000.  It's a major factor in our housing options.

 

Many homes are appraised at incorrect values. One can dispute the appraisal and frequently one can win. There is an "Extra" about that (we see "Extras" when viewers in the USA are shown commercials).  The process varies, from state to state and possibly from county to county, but as I recall, a large percentage of properties are  appraised incorrectly.   That may account for the differential in 2 houses you mentioned, where the tax bill is double.

[Carrie12345]

Many homes are appraised at incorrect values. One can dispute the appraisal and frequently one can win. There is an "Extra" about that (we see "Extras" when viewers in the USA are shown commercials).  The process varies, from state to state and possibly from county to county, but as I recall, a large percentage of properties are  appraised incorrectly.   That may account for the differential in 2 houses you mentioned, where the tax bill is double.

 

Well that's a whole OTHER thing I don't understand, lol.  What is an assessment assessing, really?  Because mine is assessed at $20k, and the other is assessed at $40k.  Double, yes.  Actual values?  Um... no!  I just don't get it.

 

I have been told that appeals generally go in the other direction around here. :-/

[Lady Florida.]

I live in an area that has a high minimum wage (and pretty high taxes), and roughly 25% unemployment (this changes the further north you go...and gets a bit worse the further south you go).

 

We have astronomical crime rates mostly burglaries  The police system is mostly a joke.  When issues arise, we have to go through all of the reporting steps -- but no one wants to bother, because we are basically told they won't do anything

 

Many families do have their own chicken and rabbits, the wealthier (and I use that term only to separate those living in tent cities from the family of four living in an apartment across the way, which is a multi-generational series of connected homes, with Nona, daughter's family, son, brother's family, uncle, and grandchildren all in the building).  often have a shared plot with fruit bearing trees, gardening space, and are generous with the produce with their neighbors (including us).

 

There is a huge underground economy.  Labor is cheap, materials and goods are expensive.  A lot of cash flows under the table. Bartering exists, people run cars beyond what most states in the U.S. would allow -- if they can keep them going, they do.  

 

And, there is fear for the future.  This is a common refrain I hear possibly more frequently than anything else, because we have a large family (5 kids).  Most families only have one, a few have two, but it is extremely rare to see a family with 3 or more.  And, this is a country that loves children -- where children aren't a bother or a hindrance.  But, there aren't jobs.

 

Beyond that, the mafia runs this area.  Several bombs (close to our house) have been set (they have gone off at 3am, when no one is at the shop).  The intent was to send a message or destroy a business -- not to kill people.  The mafia is kind of a double-edged sword.  They do offer a certain amount of protection, but they also sponsor quite a bit of crime (drugs, sex slavery/prostitution, and theft -- to much larger enterprises), and uncertainty. 

 

 

 

You live in the Naples area, right? None of what I quoted from your post is new. My mother's family is from Avellino and what you posted is part of why they left - in 1888. 

 

ETA: Except for the part about running cars into the ground. :) Maybe they ran their buggies (and sadly their horses) into the ground.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Lady Florida

[LucyStoner]

Here in Seattle the minimum wage workers are saying they were better off before they got $15/hour. Employers have cut back on benefits/perks to offset the cost. No more free meals, no free parking, less vacation, they are paying more for their health insurance etc. the other big hit is a lot of them no longer qualify for housing assistance or other govt programs.

I am in the area, have not heard that. Also, someone making $15/hr in Seattle certainly still qualifies for a variety of assistance, especially if they have any children and most (but not all) housing assistance here is for seniors, families with children, disabled people or single people who are very poor/under the minimum wage.

 

Plus, no employer is required to pay $15 yet. The phase in is not rapid. While I don't doubt you have heard this, I am wondering if in some cases perceptions and worries get ahead of reality and get repeated as fact. I've heard some people saying that might happen on the radio or that they are worried about it but I'm not hearing it from people I know. It could change with the phase in of course.

 

The highest min. wage right now that anyone is subject to is $13 (schedule one employers with more than 500 people on payroll who do not contribute towards healthcare) and that goes down to $10.50 for the time being for many employers. And that went into effect all of 3 months ago. It was less last year. So not really a ton of time to see changes in healthcare plans for many.

 

$15 an hour will not be phased in for all employers until 2021. Another consideration is that tips, piece rate and health contributions count towards compliance with the minimum.

 

The law sounds better than it is to some employees because the effective minimum wage in Seattle for jobs many people think of as being minimum wage jobs have already been north of $12/hr for awhile, especially for tipped jobs. And it sounds scarier than it is to some employers because they can meet it with tips and other compensation. In fact some restaurants are exploring ending tips and paying everyone $15+, optionally on their own accord, years before they will need to be in compliance with $15.

 

Like most minimum wage bumps, over time, it will likely have a nearly zero net impact. I'm not opposed per say to hiking the minimum wage but I am a skeptic as to its efficacy in achieving the desired outcome. Similarly, I am a skeptic as its supposed direness. There are some slight gains and slight losses with min. wage hikes. It's more a political fist fight than anything else so that one side can claim they are "pro-worker" and the other can claim to be "pro business". I wish they would set the debate aside and instead focus on real, actually significant solutions to poverty. Truly the main winners in this are the pundits who get to claim doomsday and the affluent politicians and political activists who get to feel they helped the poor. At least that's my general take on it. Maybe people are suprised I am not a huge supporter of minimum wage hikes, but there you have it. ;)

 

Hiring is pretty brisk too so $15 or the threat of $15 is not cutting off hiring thus far. There are help wanted signs up sooooo many places. More than a couple of big stores regularly have job booths set up to recruit customers to apply. It actually feels as brisk as it was in 2000 when anyone with a pulse and all their front teeth could get a job. I've also noticed (not due to the wage hike, but the economy in general) that it seems easier in the last ~6 months than before for teens to even get jobs. I have several friends with older teens who have been hired after a long time looking. While often people say that higher minimum wages lead to significant inflation, WA state has long had the highest minimum wage in the country plus our area has many service worker unions and I really don't note that we save an appreciable amount of money on many consumer items like groceries, out food or whatever else we might buy while traveling to states with low minimum wages or no unions. In fact, I swear it costs me more to fill my cart while camping in Idaho but that may be because I don't buy camp food at home, lol. Still items I do buy both places? Same or even a bit higher there.

Edited March 28, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Many homes are appraised at incorrect values. One can dispute the appraisal and frequently one can win. There is an "Extra" about that (we see "Extras" when viewers in the USA are shown commercials). The process varies, from state to state and possibly from county to county, but as I recall, a large percentage of properties are appraised incorrectly. That may account for the differential in 2 houses you mentioned, where the tax bill is double.

I know of people here who disputed and got a hike. Not related to this thread but disputing it doesn't always get you what you want and may cost you more. :P

 

When the bubble burst here though, a lot of people saw their taxes go way down. Now they are climbing again, but we are in a hopping sellers market right now.

[Entropymama]

Another factor in the housing debate is the fact that standards have changed a lot in the last 50-60 years. My grandparents raised their six kids in military housing, often 2-3 bedrooms for all 8 of them. Four years ago we moved into a condo so we could save money to buy a house. We rented a 3 bedroom, 1400 square foot place and had 5 kids at the time. It was fine, a bit cramped but not a big deal, but the only reason we got into it was the landlord was nice and let us leave one of our kids off the application. Occupancy laws state you can only have 2 people per bedroom in a rental. Our landlord told stories about sleeping in the bathtub as a kid because they had 7 or 8 kids in a little house, so he didn't care. This kind of thing puts a real crunch on larger families who may already be struggling with higher food and clothing costs. We make too much for section 8 or any other kind of assistance, but if we'd had to rent a bigger place we couldn't have saved for a down payment and bought a place, and when you're renting you're subject to increases, which means whatever you're saving can be gone next year. And the vicious cycle continues. 

 

Another interesting thought - I looked up the income requirements in my state to receive aid, and my dh could make $25/hour and still qualify with our family size. At $15/hour (the supposed living wage) a family of four would still qualify for assistance. So is $15/hour even a livable wage? 

[Danestress]

In the great state of North Carolina, when many of us were growing up, hundreds of thousands of people lived without indoor plumbing. High school graduation rates were abysmal. Many people live with daily anxiety about food. Educational and employment opportunity were limited for African Americans especially.

 

I don't think there was a general 'living wage' for most people, certainly if a lving wage included not just adequate food, but adequate housing with plumbing and electricity, medical care, and security after retirement.

 

I am not saying that isn't something we should strive for and make a goal. But I do not think we can look, broadly, to the past for a picture of living standard we want to emulate - certainly not if that picture includes a full range of communities dealing with rural poverty, racism, illiteracy, lack of medical care, lack of access to transportation, etc.

 

I also think that we've experienced a major change in our economy. Even when my parents were growing up, children regularly contributed to their families' economic survival. Having a child could mean having help - many children assisted their parents many hours a week on their farms, in their stores, or by quitting school and going to work in a mill. Most of us today do not expect our children to contribute to us economically, except maybe in our old age. Chores, sure. But we don't see them as money makers. Instead, we try our hardest to be able to help them with college and with all the costs associated with the late entry into the workforce while they graduate from high school and go to college.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Danestress

[SKL]

People talk about the upcoming generation not living as well as their parents. What if we adjusted for the fact that the parents, on average, were living off an unsustainable amount of borrowed money?  What would those generations' lifestyles be like if there were no credit extended for things that weren't necessary, if there were no bankruptcy relief or other bail-outs for poor financial decisions?

 

We as a society are crying with a loaf of bread under our arms.  With few exceptions, we have food and shelter - we have *enough.*  How much more than "enough" must a person have in order to feel content?

[SKL]

I guess I should be glad that, due to my lifestyle choices, my kids won't feel cheated out of a lifestyle as luxurious as their mom's.  :P

[SKL]

I really don't think the middle class is "vanishing."  More that people are re-defining the word "middle class" and coming up with unscientific projections.

[Mergath]

I really don't think the middle class is "vanishing."  More that people are re-defining the word "middle class" and coming up with unscientific projections.

 

So when economists and other experts in this kind of thing say very definitively that the middle class is disappearing, you think they're just making things up?

[DawnM]

In the great state of North Carolina, when many of us were growing us, hundreds of thousands of people lived without indoor plumbing. High school graduation rates abysmal. Many people live with daily anxiety about food. Educational and opportunity were limited for African Americans especially.

 

I don't think there was a general 'living wage' for most people, certainly if a lving wage included not just adequate food, but adequate housing with plumbing and electricity, medical care, and security after retirement.

 

I am saying that isn't something we should strive for and make a goal. But I do not think we can look, broadly, to the past for a picture of living standard we want to emulate - certainly not if that picture includes a full range of communities dealing with rural poverty, racism, illiteracy, lack of medical care, lack of access to transportation, etc.

 

I also think that we've experienced a major change in our economy. Even when my parents were growing up, children regularly contributed to their families' economic survival. Having a child could mean having help - many children assisted their parents many hours a week on their farms, in their stores, or by quitting school and going to work in a mill. Most of us today do not expect our children to contribute to us economically, except maybe in our old age. Chores, sure. But we don't see them as money makers. Instead, we try our hardest to be able to help them with college and with all the costs associated with the late entry into the workforce while they graduate from high school and go to college.

 

My mother grew up in SC without indoor plumbing for a great deal of her childhood.  At 16 she moved in with my aunt in GA and she had indoor plumbing.  They were not AA.

[vonfirmath]

Would people also be willing to go back to 1700 sq. ft. track homes, one car, and only buying what they could afford?

 

I see the American dream as skewed now to mean that everyone "NEEDS" to have 3,500 sq. ft. homes, two cars, vacations, and all sorts of other things.  

 

...1700 sq ft house? That's bigger than we have currently! DId you mean 700 sq ft? I know the house my mother grew up in was about 1100 sq ft, 1 bathroom, and had 6 people in it. (She shared a bedroom with her sister and her grandmother her entire life)

[Lady Florida.]

I also think that we've experienced a major change in our economy. Even when my parents were growing up, children regularly contributed to their families' economic survival. Having a child could mean having help - many children assisted their parents many hours a week on their farms, in their stores, or by quitting school and going to work in a mill. Most of us today do not expect our children to contribute to us economically, except maybe in our old age. Chores, sure. But we don't see them as money makers. Instead, we try our hardest to be able to help them with college and with all the costs associated with the late entry into the workforce while they graduate from high school and go to college.

 

The reason my mother only had an 8th grade education is because as the oldest child she was required to work and contribute to the family finances as soon as she was old enough. Back in her time you got your "working papers" at age 14. Her dropping out of high school on the first day of 9th grade so she could get a job allowed her two sisters to complete high school. She didn't get to do that simply because she was born first.

 

This was not in a rural area. My mother's family (both sides) came through Ellis Island and stayed in the NYC area. My grandparents moved to NJ, but still stayed in a large city. 

 

When I wanted to get a job as a teen so I could buy myself things we couldn't afford my mother did her best to talk me out of it. She knew how hard it was to work as a teen. We compromised and I got my first job (aside from babysitting) when I was a senior in high school. I'm the first on her side of the family to get a college degree. The fact that my father died when I was 14 and left enough life insurance for me to go to college helped, but I would have found a way anyway. 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Lady Florida

[SKL]

And skl, your choice to not advocate that public schools be funded enough to offer equal opportunity to all to achieve at a high level does what for your privately schooled children?

 

I don't remember making any comments on public school funding.  I pay lots of taxes, fund scholarships, and always support reasonable-sounding school levies.

 

Public school funding is not the reason why competitive wages are not as generous as some would like.

 

[Reefgazer]

We had this experience, as well.  The bank told us we could afford much more than we were comfortable with and the realtor knew that and kept pushing us to look at homes above what we were willing to pay.  We wanted a home where the mortgage could be paid on DH's military pension alone, in case one or both of us lost our job.  The realtor looked at us in disbelief when we refused to look at homes above what we decided was affordable.  Even so, the things I have and my standard of living at 30 was and is far above anything my parents had or were willing to go into debt for.  What's even more astounding is that we live in a neighborhood where people have far more "stuff" than we do because we live very frugally.  I am amazed and grateful for everything I have.

And again, this is anecdotal.  I don't know where you live and I am not asking you to reveal your location, but I can assure you that many, many people younger than 50 are indeed buying homes they can't really afford.  According to the banks they can, but in reality, it is beyond their budget.   Banks used to approve you for roughly 2 to 2.5 times your income for a loan.  Now they approve you for 4-5 times your income.  I know because the last 3 times we have purchased homes, we have been told we qualify for 4-5 times our income.  We are currently getting pre-approval for a loan and we have been told yet again that we can pay a HUGE amount.  We can't, don't want to, and won't.

 

Now, in Southern California, where we moved from, people were indeed spending $400K on a 1200-1500 sq. ft. house, and in some areas, more.  But I think the is different than most of the USA.  Many of these people's incomes were not even 100K.  And yes, they did tell me.  This was 10 years ago.  I don't know what their current incomes are, but I am hoping they have gone up and they have been able to do better than they did 10-20 years ago.

 

I am not trashing an entire generation, but I will tell you that many, many Americans spend more than they should.  Statistics show that savings for retirement is at an all time low.  Now, part of this is because companies don't provide retirement benefits like they used to, but part of it is because people haven't saved.

 

There are many articles on this.  This is one:  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-retirement-idUSKBN0OC23O20150527 But I am sure it isn't conclusive.  

 

I feel like you completely threw me under the bus by quoting me and saying I am so naive to think that the 50s and 60s were idillic and I am so dumb to think that everyone is like House Hunters.  I couldn't be further from that scenario.  I am a realist and I do follow statistics, not anecdotal information.

 

People DID live on less in the 50s.  http://yesiamcheap.com/cost-of-living-1950-compared-to-2011/ 

 

People had one TV, not 4 or 5.   Closets were smaller because people had fewer clothes.  People just didn't buy as much stuff.

 

And I said to go back to 1700 sq. ft.  Apparently, I was wrong.  The average size house was under 1000 sq. ft. compared to today's average of 2300 sq. ft.

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by reefgazer

[SKL]

Not sure exactly where public school funding came into this conversation, but the US has historically spent a lot per capita on public schooling, with little to no traceable result to higher achievement for low-income kids.  This has been going on for decades.  When I was a kid, I was chosen to attend a brief public school magnet program (I was in private school).  I remember gushing to my mom about how wonderful the public school facilities were compared to my private school.  In those days our city's public school achievement levels were among the great embarrassments of the USA, and things haven't changed much since then.  School funding does not equal opportunity.

Edited March 28, 2016 by SKL

[Lady Florida.]

The seniors I know define the sol as 2 homes, pension plus SS, and excellent medical thru the former or current employer, with retirement after 25 years. they obviously arent interested in providing that for the children or granchildren, as they have done away with those opportunities. Now a kid is on his parents medical to age 25 while not making high enough wages to rent on his own, no pension, no medical in retirement if they didnt win the musical chairs game for a good govt job.

 

 

I am one of those seniors being disparaged in this thread. I'm 60, dh is 62. Yes, we had the benefit of lower college costs. Some of us but not all, had decent health care coverage and pensions. My brother who is 5 years younger (so still a boomer) worked in a field that offered no benefits and no pension. Some people, like BIL, were forced into early retirement when they weren't financially prepared for the surprise. SIL is still working so they can have insurance, and he has had an extremely difficult time starting over at 58 (his age at the time of forced retirement). Some boomers lost their pensions in the 2008 crash and had to work longer because of that. Some who should have been able to retire because they did work hard for 30, 40, or 50 years, are still working because their retirement funds went up in smoke.

 

I do know my 38 yo stepson and 18 yo son have it harder in many ways than dh and I did. Growing up they had it easier, but as adults it's harder financially on them. However, I don't like being told that my generation doesn't give two sh1ts about their children and grandchildren. That is simply untrue.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Lady Florida

[vonfirmath]

Our taxes are roughly 1% of your home's value.  That includes state and city taxes.  So, here, if you pay $3,500, your home value would roughly be $350K.

 

This area used to be considered low COL, but I think it is in the mid-range now.

 

We're paying 2.9% of our home's value in property taxes.  So $3500 in property taxes would equate to a home value of $121K