The Secret Shame of Middle Class Americans

[marbel]

My thinking is I don't want to clean all of that!  I found having 1 bathroom not great so I was glad to get more when we bought our house.  But I'm not happy about having to clean more bathrooms.  So one bathroom does have it's major pluses. 

 

And three eating areas!  Again, more to clean!!!

 

There's not necessarily a ton more cleaning.

 

I've never had the luxury of extra bathrooms, but I have known people who have a guest bathroom or "powder room."  The room was reserved for guests unless a family member had an emergency.  They checked the bathroom so it was always company-ready but it didn't need daily cleaning.  They could also be a little more relaxed about the family bathrooms.

 

I used to have a formal dining room. We didn't use it every day so it didn't need frequent cleaning. But it was sure nice when we had large groups of people over.  I  used to host a lot of things like baby and wedding showers, stuff like that.  Thanksgiving for 30 one year!  It was wonderful having that space.  But it wasn't like I was cleaning the dining room every day, because it wasn't used every day.

[Ravin]

Yes as I've repeated many times in this thread, it's fine to buy a new car if you can afford a new car.  Most people who buy new cars can't really afford them because they're spending money on more car and none on savings and retirement.  If you can consistently save for savings and retirement at a reasonable rate and you can afford a new car and want one, then you should buy a new car.  If not, the new car is a bad financial decision unless you have unusually low expenses that make up for it.

 

 

Unless, of course, you need the car tomorrow or you'll have NO JOB, you haven't got even a couple thousand dollars to put towards a car purchase. Then you have to buy the new car.

 

The problem with Ramsey's advice is that it really doesn't apply to everyone in every situation.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Ravin

[Seasider]

There's not necessarily a ton more cleaning.

 

I've never had the luxury of extra bathrooms, but I have known people who have a guest bathroom or "powder room." The room was reserved for guests unless a family member had an emergency. They checked the bathroom so it was always company-ready but it didn't need daily cleaning. They could also be a little more relaxed about the family bathrooms.

 

I used to have a formal dining room. We didn't use it every day so it didn't need frequent cleaning. But it was sure nice when we had large groups of people over. I used to host a lot of things like baby and wedding showers, stuff like that. Thanksgiving for 30 one year! It was wonderful having that space. But it wasn't like I was cleaning the dining room every day, because it wasn't used every day.

Well, we do have that much space, too, and utilize every bit of it since it is a home base for schooling, two adults working out of the house, frequent large family gatherings and children who often like to bring friends home for the weekend (in large batches). Thing is, we don't have all the bells and whistles or top of the line anything, and the house was built mid-century, so it's not brand new. We don't live in a blue ribbon neighborhood. It's nice, but not full of McMansions. We chose the fringe area because we got more space for the money that way. And we opted for a 30 year mortgage, even with a substantial down payment, because it was the right way to cash flow private school and college expenses. I generally agree that people acquire more than they need, but I also don't think it accurate or appropriate to judge another's fiscal morality based on how many bathrooms are under their roof.

[Bluegoat]

Unless, of course, you need the car tomorrow or you'll have NO JOB, you haven't got even a couple thousand dollars to put towards a car purchase.t buy the new car.

 

The problem with Ramsey's advice is that it really doesn't apply to everyone in every situation.

 

It seems like that would be a little much to expect.

[TranquilMind]

Parents, or communities,  paying for weddings is pretty traditional, in most cultures.

 

I think there are good reasons, and nice ones, to do it that way, though when people are older it makes sense to pay themselves.  The real problem is the unrealistic expectations for what the wedding will be like.

 

No, I didn't say that how I meant it.  Of course parents do pay for weddings, but parents of little means (or in trouble) should not do so. 

[Bluegoat]

No, I didn't say that how I meant it.  Of course parents do pay for weddings, but parents of little means (or in trouble) should not do so. 

 

Ah, I see.

 

Well, it would be weird for them to do so if the kids could.

 

But really, weddings can be very cheap if necessary.

[Ravin]

Babies, drugs, drunk driving, and debt  - I teach my kids those are all things that will derail your life. 

 

Seriously? I assume by drugs you actually mean drug abuse/illegal drugs...but babies? You had them. I know if I had waited to have kids until everything was "just right" I'd probably have had to adopt because biological children would no longer have been in the cards.

 

There is a wide, wide margin between "derail your life" and "never actually live your life because you're waiting for everything to be just so."

[MotherGoose]

Seriously? I assume by drugs you actually mean drug abuse/illegal drugs...but babies? You had them. I know if I had waited to have kids until everything was "just right" I'd probably have had to adopt because biological children would no longer have been in the cards.

 

There is a wide, wide margin between "derail your life" and "never actually live your life because you're waiting for everything to be just so."

I took that as unmarried 18 year olds having babies (or something like that). Not we are married and oops we had a baby a bit younger than we planned on but it will work out. I'm not speaking for the poster, of course.

[SparklyUnicorn]

There's not necessarily a ton more cleaning.

 

I've never had the luxury of extra bathrooms, but I have known people who have a guest bathroom or "powder room."  The room was reserved for guests unless a family member had an emergency.  They checked the bathroom so it was always company-ready but it didn't need daily cleaning.  They could also be a little more relaxed about the family bathrooms.

 

I used to have a formal dining room. We didn't use it every day so it didn't need frequent cleaning. But it was sure nice when we had large groups of people over.  I  used to host a lot of things like baby and wedding showers, stuff like that.  Thanksgiving for 30 one year!  It was wonderful having that space.  But it wasn't like I was cleaning the dining room every day, because it wasn't used every day.

 

Cleaning one bathroom is not like cleaning three.  At least not in my book.

 

But yes dining rooms aren't so bad.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I took that as unmarried 18 year olds having babies (or something like that). Not we are married and oops we had a baby a bit younger than we planned on but it will work out. I'm not speaking for the poster, of course.

 

Well who knows.  My parents married at 18 and my mother was pregnant soon after and they struggled financially pretty much always.  I feel conflicted.  I don't think it's fair to tell people without much money that they should not have kids.  It's better to wait until 18 because at least at that point you have more job options, but hey some people may never ever be financially well off. 

 

(I'm not saying you said people without money should not have kids.  I don't know that.  I'm just speaking to this general idea of when it is best to have kids.  For some people that is pretty much never if money is said to be one of the most important factors.)

[hornblower]

These are things I'm telling my teens & YA people.  
Babies change things. We did wait until we had saved up & established careers.  Drugs, drunk driving & debt are are 'never, evers'. The babies are 'when you're really ready'.  

& adoption is a fine option. So is not having children at all if you cannot really afford them. I know people who are childless by choice/financial circumstance. 

[Ravin]

No, I didn't say that how I meant it.  Of course parents do pay for weddings, but parents of little means (or in trouble) should not do so. 

 

Entire cultures of people through history have spent a lot on weddings even though they were of little means. Often, by pooling resources from relatives, who they in turn help pay for a wedding for one of their children down the line.

 

Again, limited means should not automatically mean being deprived of socially and culturally important events in one's life. 

[Murphy101]

I just do not understand the entire mega wedding and honeymoon craze. It's insane. And it is not just the young couples on their first marriage who have parents footing it either.

 

I have personally met three couples on their second marriages who have nearly or already grown children who made no secret of getting a second mortgage on their house to pay for their own second wedding and honeymoon. Not that I think a second wedding is less than, but my point of shock was that you'd think they would be older and wiser and just not likely to fall prey to this wedding insanity.

 

It's mind boggling to me.

 

And they openly spoke of getting upset with family that wasn't willing to be as financially indebted for their wedding. One woman was really hurt and angry that her sister claimed they couldn't afford to leave work and pay for a carribean vacation for their family of 5 to attend the wedding there. She actually tearfully said, "I understand we all struggle with money but for your sisters wedding you'd think she would make it happen anyways!"

 

I have never worked so hard to keep my mouth shut and focus on my knitting in my entire life.

 

Just. What in the world. 😨

 

I don't know how everyone else seems to just fart money to "make it happen". If anyone wants to share some of that money making magic bean soup recipe, I'm interested.

[SparklyUnicorn]

These are things I'm telling my teens & YA people.  

Babies change things. We did wait until we had saved up & established careers.  Drugs, drunk driving & debt are are 'never, evers'. The babies are 'when you're really ready'.  

& adoption is a fine option. So is not having children at all if you cannot really afford them. I know people who are childless by choice/financial circumstance. 

 

It's definitely better.  We had money and established careers before having kids.  However, some people never have much money and never any real established career.  They may work for minimum wage for the rest of their life.  Or they may have a disability such as a mental illness that prevents them from working a lot or trying to take steps to get a better job.  I believe that they still deserve to have a family and by doing so they aren't throwing their life away or whatever.  Stuff like that goes way deeper than money.  For one thing it's probably a drive and desire many humans naturally have. 

 

My sibling opted not to have kids due to her illness and had a tubal when she was 21.  I imagine this was a decision that was extremely hard for her.  Her bigger concern was not wanting to pass on her illness.  Given my background I was taking a pretty huge risk myself.  Oddly that never crossed my mind because a lot of people aren't super pragmatic when it comes to having kids. 

[Ravin]

I took that as unmarried 18 year olds having babies (or something like that). Not we are married and oops we had a baby a bit younger than we planned on but it will work out. I'm not speaking for the poster, of course.

 

I have a sister who, had she not had a baby at 18, would never have been able to have a baby at all because of gyno problems.

 

If someone wants to make the CHOICE not to have children, that's great. But to tell someone "you shouldn't have kids because you're poor" is right up there with eugenics on the list of world's not great ideas. Having children is a fundamental right. And while it may not be the healthiest thing to do when you are a young teen, it is not a life-wrecking event unless the young parent's family and society insist that it be so.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I just do not understand the entire mega wedding and honeymoon craze. It's insane. And it is not just the young couples on their first marriage who have parents footing it either.

 

 

Oh yeah I don't get that either.  I'm cheap though.  We paid about $1000 for our wedding.  While it was nice, a part of me thought after that gee it might have been money better spent on something else.  The whole thing was kind of a blur.  And it's over so quickly.  $1000 bucks to say blah blah I do, eat some food and cake, and then poof it's over. 

[Bluegoat]

I just do not understand the entire mega wedding and honeymoon craze. It's insane. And it is not just the young couples on their first marriage who have parents footing it either.

 

I have personally met three couples on their second marriages who have nearly or already grown children who made no secret of getting a second mortgage on their house to pay for their own second wedding and honeymoon. Not that I think a second wedding is less than, but my point of shock was that you'd think they would be older and wiser and just not likely to fall prey to this wedding insanity.

 

It's mind boggling to me.

 

And they openly spoke of getting upset with family that wasn't willing to be as financially indebted for their wedding. One woman was really hurt and angry that her sister claimed they couldn't afford to leave work and pay for a carribean vacation for their family of 5 to attend the wedding there. She actually tearfully said, "I understand we all struggle with money but for your sisters wedding you'd think she would make it happen anyways!"

 

I have never worked so hard to keep my mouth shut and focus on my knitting in my entire life.

 

Just. What in the world. 😨

 

I don't know how everyone else seems to just fart money to "make it happen". If anyone wants to share some of that money making magic bean soup recipe, I'm interested.

 

I wonder when it is this changed?  In my mothers generation, a lot of people had small church weddings with a reception in a hall or at home, no big dress, etc.  That was in about 1974.  When I got married in 2008, that had become countercultural.

 

I remember going to weddings with hotel receptions, mortgage-worthy dresses,  and a lot of groomsmen and bridesmaids in matching outfits in the 80's, maybe that was when the big wedding thing took off?

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

2. Buy a car certified used from a dealer (more expensive than buying from a private owner but still cheaper than buying new) or ask your local friends for the name of an honest mechanic.  Call the mechanic's shop about appointment times for the mechanic to look at the car for you.  (This is not a very expensive sevice.) Then call the person selling the car and ask them which of those times works for them and have them bring the car there. 

 

 

Actually it's better to by a car from a private owner, someone who has meticulous maintenance records and who bought the car new and who has a good reason for selling it.  You want someone really finicky who changes the oil twice as often as the manual calls for.  You check carfax to see whether it's ever been in an accident.  Obviously no salvage titles.  THEN you take it to a mechanic, and have them look it over.

 

Dealers never have the maintenance records on used cars, and they charge more for them than private parties.

[Ravin]

I just do not understand the entire mega wedding and honeymoon craze. It's insane. And it is not just the young couples on their first marriage who have parents footing it either.

 

I have personally met three couples on their second marriages who have nearly or already grown children who made no secret of getting a second mortgage on their house to pay for their own second wedding and honeymoon. Not that I think a second wedding is less than, but my point of shock was that you'd think they would be older and wiser and just not likely to fall prey to this wedding insanity.

 

It's mind boggling to me.

 

And they openly spoke of getting upset with family that wasn't willing to be as financially indebted for their wedding. One woman was really hurt and angry that her sister claimed they couldn't afford to leave work and pay for a carribean vacation for their family of 5 to attend the wedding there. She actually tearfully said, "I understand we all struggle with money but for your sisters wedding you'd think she would make it happen anyways!"

 

I have never worked so hard to keep my mouth shut and focus on my knitting in my entire life.

 

Just. What in the world. 😨

 

I don't know how everyone else seems to just fart money to "make it happen". If anyone wants to share some of that money making magic bean soup recipe, I'm interested.

 

Again, there is a very large world of difference between "no wedding" and "insanely expensive destination wedding that looks extravagant even when millionaires do it." In the middle there is plenty of room for a reasonable celebration that may require some sacrifices to pull off but is nonetheless worthwhile.

 

Next thing you know, someone is going bring up how poor kids don't deserve birthday cakes, either.

[Bluegoat]

I have a sister who, had she not had a baby at 18, would never have been able to have a baby at all because of gyno problems.

 

If someone wants to make the CHOICE not to have children, that's great. But to tell someone "you shouldn't have kids because you're poor" is right up there with eugenics on the list of world's not great ideas. Having children is a fundamental right. And while it may not be the healthiest thing to do when you are a young teen, it is not a life-wrecking event unless the young parent's family and society insist that it be so.

 

I'm not even sure it's most accurate to call it a right.  I think it is kind of a fact.  Like a lot of biological functions, it's not totally beyond our control, but a lot of the time, it just happens as a consequence of people having sex which is one of the major biological drives. 

 

I think it would be really beneficial if we took a step back as a society and looked at it from that perspective - when we think of it as something very controllable, and a consumer privilege, or that we can put off easily, we lose the ability to accommodate it effectively in society.

[Murphy101]

Again, there is a very large world of difference between "no wedding" and "insanely expensive destination wedding that looks extravagant even when millionaires do it." In the middle there is plenty of room for a reasonable celebration that may require some sacrifices to pull off but is nonetheless worthwhile.

 

Next thing you know, someone is going bring up how poor kids don't deserve birthday cakes, either.

I completely agree.

 

The problem I'm seeing is more and more people don't seem capable of accepting what you and I consider a reasoned traditional middle ground to be good enough. Anything less than that mega wedding insanity seems to be viewed as saying they shouldn't be able to have a wedding at all.

[Scarlett]

Again, there is a very large world of difference between "no wedding" and "insanely expensive destination wedding that looks extravagant even when millionaires do it." In the middle there is plenty of room for a reasonable celebration that may require some sacrifices to pull off but is nonetheless worthwhile.

 

Next thing you know, someone is going bring up how poor kids don't deserve birthday cakes, either.

No one is saying all weddings should stop. What I am seeing being discussed is the excessive spending that people don't actually have.

[Murphy101]

I wonder when it is this changed? In my mothers generation, a lot of people had small church weddings with a reception in a hall or at home, no big dress, etc. That was in about 1974. When I got married in 2008, that had become countercultural.

 

I remember going to weddings with hotel receptions, mortgage-worthy dresses, and a lot of groomsmen and bridesmaids in matching outfits in the 80's, maybe that was when the big wedding thing took off?

Those were happening but mostly only on tv and they weren't the norm. Not even when I got married in '93. My wedding was much smaller than most but still very nice and what we wanted and not completely shamefully out of the norm.

[Ravin]

I completely agree.

 

The problem I'm seeing is more and more people don't seem capable of accepting what you and I consider a reasoned traditional middle ground to be good enough. Anything less than that mega wedding insanity seems to be viewed as saying they shouldn't be able to have a wedding at all.

 

Above, someone said poor parents shouldn't pay for weddings. They didn't say "shouldn't pay for extravagant destination weddings." They said weddings, at all.

[Scarlett]

Above, someone said poor parents shouldn't pay for weddings. They didn't say "shouldn't pay for extravagant destination weddings." They said weddings, at all.

I am too lazy to go back but I am pretty sure she clarified that she meant not paying for weddings they cant afford.

[Bluegoat]

Above, someone said poor parents shouldn't pay for weddings. They didn't say "shouldn't pay for extravagant destination weddings." They said weddings, at all.

 

 

I am too lazy to go back but I am pretty sure she clarified that she meant not paying for weddings they cant afford.

 

Yes, she did. 

[hornblower]

A wedding can be the couple & 2 witnesses attending the ceremony and then having dinner in a modest but nice restaurant. 
Or it can be a backyard bbq or a homecooked sit down meal hosted by the family. 

IMO, people shouldn't be going into debt for a wedding. If you can afford it & still have money left for all the other things, or you've saved up for it because it's important to you, then go for it & it's between the couple & their families who pays for it or how they split the bill. But if you cannot afford it, then for me it's not something to go into debt for. 

I don't agree with the idea that you need to spend wads of money for culture or family tradition.  If anything that's an idea that is trapping people in cycles of poverty and powerlessness. 

[MotherGoose]

I have a sister who, had she not had a baby at 18, would never have been able to have a baby at all because of gyno problems.

 

If someone wants to make the CHOICE not to have children, that's great. But to tell someone "you shouldn't have kids because you're poor" is right up there with eugenics on the list of world's not great ideas. Having children is a fundamental right. And while it may not be the healthiest thing to do when you are a young teen, it is not a life-wrecking event unless the young parent's family and society insist that it be so.

I wasn't saying that. I was saying that it's generally not a great plan for financial and emotional reasons to become pregnant, unmarried, at 16 or 18 or whatever, when you have no resources and no stability. Surely you'd rather your children wait until they were older and established and married? I certainly want mine to wait. Anyway, I'm not trying to derail the thread into some direction of people saying poor people should not have babies. I didn't say that and didn't see anyone else say that either. Not attacking anyone.

[MotherGoose]

I am too lazy to go back but I am pretty sure she clarified that she meant not paying for weddings they cant afford.

My parents are middle class and had savings. They paid for my wedding, but it was a church social hall no booze sandwiches and punch sort of deal. At around the same time, a relative paid $50k ish for a daughters destination wedding. He was seen as really wealthy and such for being able to afford such a thing for her. He was still paying for it 10 years later and the stress of it helped put the nail in the coffin of his marriage (not to her mother). He couldn't afford it, but it was ever so important for him to appear wealthy that he basically bankrupted the family to do it. I guess the only consolation is that the couple are still married.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

I generally agree that people acquire more than they need, but I also don't think it accurate or appropriate to judge another's fiscal morality based on how many bathrooms are under their roof.

 

Love this. 

[tm919]

 

I just do not understand the entire mega wedding and honeymoon craze. It's insane. And it is not just the young couples on their first marriage who have parents footing it either.

I have personally met three couples on their second marriages who have nearly or already grown children who made no secret of getting a second mortgage on their house to pay for their own second wedding and honeymoon. Not that I think a second wedding is less than, but my point of shock was that you'd think they would be older and wiser and just not likely to fall prey to this wedding insanity.

It's mind boggling to me.

On the wedding thing: I talked to a woman on her second marriage about this... I think we must have just stumbled on the conversation (I didn't ask about it), because she is still speaking to me...  She said she got married so young and spineless the first time that she felt all she did was show up to the wedding her Mom planned. Her second wedding was the one that was actually "hers."

 

I've been thinking about this a lot... Most of us spend on some things that look crazy to others. From the outside, it's difficult to know whether 1-2 splurges is financial irresponsibility, or whether a family is OK with sacrificing elsewhere. Example: My 6-year old (same one who feels deprived she doesn't go to Disney) does have 2 underarmour tracksuits for gym. But, she also only has 14 outfits at any time, counting those 2 tracksuits and 2 nicer dresses.

 

I think we have a tendency to make Frankenstein's Monster out of our friends and acquaintances -- like Friend A's awesome vacation, Friend B's awesome house, Neighbor C's 4 bathrooms -- and then compare ourselves to it, which isn't even a real person.

 

Edited: because it's the Monster, not Frankenstein. Not sure why that bothered me when the post as a whole is written so awkwardly.

Edited April 21, 2016 by tm919

[Murphy101]

Love this.

Or how many children they have under their roof...

[Ravin]

I'm not even sure it's most accurate to call it a right.  I think it is kind of a fact.  Like a lot of biological functions, it's not totally beyond our control, but a lot of the time, it just happens as a consequence of people having sex which is one of the major biological drives. 

 

I think it would be really beneficial if we took a step back as a society and looked at it from that perspective - when we think of it as something very controllable, and a consumer privilege, or that we can put off easily, we lose the ability to accommodate it effectively in society.

 

When I call it a right, I'm referring to U.S. Constitutional law.

 

 

 

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (Supreme Court 1972).

 

That was a case about the legalization of birth control--however, the principle applies equally to the choice to have a child as the choice not to.

[Scarlett]

Well, it isn't any one thing. It is just the trend that people in general ( and this board is not typical IMO) people feel like they have to have it all.

 

There doesn't seem to,be balance or compromise. Like the one (balanced) poster who has plenty of space in her home but they didn't go for the most prestigious neghborhood.

 

Most of us here have sacrificed in one way or another.....and I think many people get into trouble because they see no clear guidelines on how to compromise.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Scarlett

[Ravin]

I wasn't saying that. I was saying that it's generally not a great plan for financial and emotional reasons to become pregnant, unmarried, at 16 or 18 or whatever, when you have no resources and no stability. Surely you'd rather your children wait until they were older and established and married? I certainly want mine to wait. Anyway, I'm not trying to derail the thread into some direction of people saying poor people should not have babies. I didn't say that and didn't see anyone else say that either. Not attacking anyone.

 

Seeing as by many people's definitions I am not yet actually established myself--despite my 17 year marriage and two kids--no, I don't think that is a judgment call anyone can make for someone else. Is it more difficult when you have to start being a parent that young? Yes. And it's difficult to be a parent and poor  and single whether you're 17 or 27. That doesn't mean life doesn't go on and people don't live their lives and make the best of it they can.

 

The reality is, my family is one car accident away from disaster. And that's with life insurance. We are going to stay that way, too. Even if we buy a house, even if we have a million dollars in the bank, if something happened to me, or something happened to my DH, or something happened to our GF, our family would be devastated and put in an even more precarious position. But life would go on. Life goes on whether you have debt or not, whether you have money in the bank or not. Whatever rainy day you have prepared for, there's a hailstorm or a tornado that could bring all your preparations to ruin.

 

That doesn't mean people shouldn't try and hedge against the most likely disasters and, if they can, buy a little security. It does mean that if you scrimp and save and do nothing but watch the bottom line for decades, you're going to wind up Ebenezer Scrooge. 

 

Not everyone can be in the middle class. Not everyone is capable of holding down a job that will buy comfort and security for their family. Everyone still deserves to try and find happiness. If I did everything "just so", I might right now be retired from the military, with no kids. Or I might have killed myself because I failed at being the "golden child" my parents expected me to be. I'll take the kids--and the debt, and the years of being poor, because at least I've lived as much as possible along the way.

[Ravin]

Well, it isn't any one thing. It is just the trend that people in general ( and this board is not typical IMO) people feel like they have to have it all.

 

There doesn't seem to,be balance or compromise. Like the one (balanced) poster who has plenty of space in her home but they didn't go for the most prestigious neghborhood.

 

Most of us here have sacrificed in one way or another.....and I think many people get into trouble because they see no clear guidelines on how to compromise.

 

I think people on this board are pretty representative of "most people" actually.

[marbel]

Well, it isn't any one thing. It is just the trend that people in general ( and this board is not typical IMO) people feel like they have to have it all.

 

There doesn't seem to,be balance or compromise. Like the one (balanced) poster who has plenty of space in her home but they didn't go for the most prestigious neghborhood.

 

Most of us here have sacrificed in one way or another.....and I think many people get into trouble because they see no clear guidelines on how to compromise.

 

Even if they had gone for the nicest neighborhood... it's no one else's business.  (I'm not suggesting you are saying it is, Scarlett.)

 

This thread has gotten really interesting in all the tangents.  So many things we're judging other people on. 

 

[Scarlett]

Even if they had gone for the nicest neighborhood... it's no one else's business. (I'm not suggesting you are saying it is, Scarlett.)

 

This thread has gotten really interesting in all the tangents. So many things we're judging other people on.

 

Right. But the discussion isn't about what is our business. The discussion is about why so much of middle America is so broke.

[Scarlett]

I think people on this board are pretty representative of "most people" actually.

I don't.

[Ravin]

I don't.

So you said.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't.

 

Yeah me either, but that would really only be a guess.  I don't know for sure. 

 

Then again, I do think there is a decent variety here.

[raptor_dad]

I think people on this board are pretty representative of "most people" actually.

 

Trying to derail this particular fight... just look at the stats...

 

HSers are 3% of school age kids... 68% white, 8% black, 15% hispanic, 4% asian according to federal dept of education stats... more religious than average... higher median income than average but with more families in the near-poor categories.

 

WTM seems to mirror overall HS stats... so no that doesn't really mirror any statistically reasonable definition of "most people"... "most people I know" maybe but certainly not "most Americans".

[Btervet]

No, back in the 1960s and 1970s 30 year mortgages made sense for some people because job stability was very different than now.  Back in the day people had the same employer for decades.  That's not the norm now-it's the exception.  It's also poor use of money because of the amount of interest being spent.  House resale was better then because markets were more stable than they are now and people couldn't or wouldn't spend their equity before they sold their house.  Now a days, people should get a 15 year if you get one at all. Their housing costs should not exceed 25% of take home pay.  Housing costs are the single most common problem expense for most Americans.  

 

 

 

This just isn't reality for huge portions of the country, especially areas with a high concentration of jobs for the newly graduated.

 

I just looked up homes in my area (NoVA, so HCOL, but the cheapest area of NoVA for DC commuting) that would only cost 25% of take home pay for a 15 year mortgage. The ONLY listing that showed up was for a 1 bed 1 bath 450 sqft condo. But, it had $306/month HOA fees, and that doesn't include a parking spot, which runs in the 20000-30000 range. And our take home pay is above average for our area, edging close to upper middle class.

 

And it's not like renting is an alternative to a 30 year mortgage. To rent a 2 bed apartment, which doesn't include utilities around here, or a parking spot, is a minimum of $1400 a month. This is reality for young couples now. A 15 year mortgage only costing 25% takehome is a dream for even the well off. And you can't just blame it on the area, because the cities are where the jobs are. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Btervet

[Scarlett]

This just isn't reality for huge portions of the country, especially areas with a high concentration of jobs for the newly graduated.

 

I just looked up homes in my area (NoVA, so HCOL, but the cheapest area of NoVA for DC commuting) that would only cost 25% of take home pay for a 15 year mortgage. The ONLY listing that showed up was for a 1 bed 1 bath 450 sqft condo. But, it had $306/month HOA fees, and that doesn't include a parking spot, which runs in the 20000-30000 range. And our take home pay is above average for our area, edging close to upper middle class.

 

And it's not like renting is an alternative to a 30 year mortgage. To rent a 2 bed apartment, which doesn't include utilities around here, or a parking spot, is a minimum of $1400 a month. This is reality for young couples now. A 15 year mortgage only costing 25% takehome is a dream for even the well off. And you can't just blame it on the area, because the cities are where the jobs are.

This just blows my mind. Can we really say they are well off if they can't afford a decent place to live on 25% of their income?

[Btervet]

This just blows my mind. Can we really say they are well off if they can't afford a decent place to live on 25% of their income?

 

 

Well, I guess it depends. I just ran the numbers for a salary of $100,000. I would consider that well off. A 15 year mortgage at 25% of their take home would allow for $200,000 home purchase. (That's not including taxes, insurance, or PMI in their mortgage.) For $200000 they could have a 1 bed 780 sqft condo. But it has $389 in HOA fees, but does include 1 parking spot. And I want to stress this is in one of the least expensive areas to live in and be able to commute to DC. Not the cheapest (that's in MD) but close to it.

 

$100,000 yearly salary sounds well off. I would not consider that able to afford decent housing on a 15 year mortgage no.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Btervet

[Scarlett]

Well, I guess it depends. I just ran the numbers for a salary of $100,000. I would consider that well off. A 15 year mortgage at 25% of their take home would allow for $200,000 home purchase. (That's not including taxes, insurance, or PMI in their mortgage.) For $200000 they could have a 1 bed 780 sqft condo. But it has $389 in HOA fees, but does include 1 parking spot. And I want to stress this is in one of the least expensive areas to live in and be able to commute to DC. Not the cheapest (that's in MD) but close to it.

 

$100,000 yearly salary sounds well off. I would not consider that able to afford decent housing on a 15 year mortgage no.

100k is a good salary for my area. And you could buy a VERY nice home for 200k. So yes here 100k would be well off. Where you are....not so much.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well, I guess it depends. I just ran the numbers for a salary of $100,000. I would consider that well off. A 15 year mortgage at 25% of their take home would allow for $200,000 home purchase. (That's not including taxes, insurance, or PMI in their mortgage.) For $200000 they could have a 1 bed 780 sqft condo. But it has $389 in HOA fees, but does include 1 parking spot. And I want to stress this is in one of the least expensive areas to live in and be able to commute to DC. Not the cheapest (that's in MD) but close to it.

 

$100,000 yearly salary sounds well off. I would not consider that able to afford decent housing on a 15 year mortgage no.

 

Oh good gravy.  That's nuts. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

My only knowledge of Canadian house prices comes from HGTV.  I often wonder if people take out 100 year mortgages or something.  I don't know how they do it. 

[Scarlett]

My only knowledge of Canadian house prices comes from HGTV. I often wonder if people take out 100 year mortgages or something. I don't know how they do it.

IKR! And then they quibble over 10k on a 700k starter home.

[Scarlett]

So you said.

I know I am but what are you. oh wait sorry. I was back in 3rd grade for a minute.

 

 

:).