The Secret Shame of Middle Class Americans

[creekland]

We also lucked out that my hubby's commute is from upstairs to downstairs.  Mine takes me 8 minutes.

 

We used to play the rat race game and got tired of it quickly.  That's when we brainstormed and found this area to live in (20 years ago now).

 

We wouldn't be in our position now if we hadn't made that move too.

 

We lucked out and made quite a few good "gambling" decisions (gambling because we didn't 100% know how they would turn out - we just went with our best educated guess).

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well and then there are some things I can't really avoid paying for that are in some ways "extras", but I still consider necessary.  For example, I think it is fair that my husband wants to visit his family in Germany once in awhile.  It always hurts to spend the money, but I can't imagine moving to another country and then never ever getting to go back and visit.  As it is now we live near no family.  That's not fun all the time. 

 

 

[Scarlett]

The house payment portion of my mortgage is about $400. So if paid off I'd have an extra $400 a month, but not now. Not for say 15 years if I paid it off sooner. That's not huge. Some people pay more than that for their car. (Also, keep in mind that property taxes here are very high.)

 

So what I have is a very low rent payment with all of the money going towards what benefits me rather than a landlord.

 

I guess I don't think "bottom line" thinking always makes the most sense. I'll have more money in 15 years simply because in 15 years I won't have children living at home. So is there any real point to stretching myself now when I need more money now?

Yes. I see your reasoning and don't disagree. We do need more money while raising kids.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's also very difficult for me to operate with the mindset that I'm going to live to an old age.  I know, how morbid, but my mother died at 49.  So I always think I want to live NOW because that is all I know for sure that I have.

 

My grandmother (mother's mother) was extremely frugal.  Despite spending her final years in a very expensive nursing home, she died leaving a lot of wealth.  When alive though, she lived like she was dirt poor.  I guess I don't quite understand this way of doing things.

 

 

[JustEm]

For us, investing while also paying down our mortgage makes the most sense. 15% of dh's pay goes to investing. Then we pay our bills, neccessities and have a reasonable entertainment budget. Anything left over goes to the mortgage. We weren't able to take advantage of lower rates due to not being able to refinance so we're stuck at 5.75%. Not terrible but not great. We also are lower income and will likely remain that way so lowering our monthly expenses will be necessary for retiring when we want to.

 

If our interest rate were significantly lower then our plan would change. But this is what works for us with what we want from life. Not everyone's plans are going to look good for other people but as long as they are well aware of their plan and accomplish it they're likely to come out OK. But I don't have as much faith as other posters that most people actually have a plan or even a good concept of all things money.

Edited April 21, 2016 by hjffkj

[creekland]

It's also very difficult for me to operate with the mindset that I'm going to live to an old age.  I know, how morbid, but my mother died at 49.  So I always think I want to live NOW because that is all I know for sure that I have.

 

My grandmother (mother's mother) was extremely frugal.  Despite spending her final years in a very expensive nursing home, she died leaving a lot of wealth.  When alive though, she lived like she was dirt poor.  I guess I don't quite understand this way of doing things.

 

I'm with you on this.  My mom is enjoying her retirement.  I tell her she'll have been ultimately successful if she passes away with a dollar left in the bank.

 

We've planned for retirement, but we could end up short pending life circumstances.  My guys ensure us that they'll assist if needed because they know (and appreciate) that we spent so much on/with them during the years when we could.  We keep them well aware of our finances at this point.

[Bluegoat]

If only we had that stuff we are supposed to have to explain why a teacher's / educator's salary going up by all of 20% has magically made it impossible to buy a house that has increased in price tenfold over the same time period.

 

Can I please have my Hawaiian vacation and Xbox please? Because all I got was a husband leaving me and that's it.

 

Can I have all my new clothes, because my clothes expenditure over the past five years has been $200 for three people and I'm a working professional. Everything else has been "coupons": rewards, or Goodwill.

 

So, so tired of hearing that I'm not saving because I have cable and Netflix. Can I please have that? Where's my cable?

 

I don't think Ravin said that everyone who is living on a short budget is over-spending on stuff - lower salaries was also something she specifically mentioned.

 

People can make genereralizations that don't apply to every individual case, but are quite true in terms of the group.

[Bluegoat]

The house payment portion of my mortgage is about $400.  So if paid off I'd have an extra $400 a month, but not now.  Not for say 15 years if I paid it off sooner.  That's not huge.  Some people pay more than that for their car.  (Also, keep in mind that property taxes here are very high.)

 

So what I have is a very low rent payment with all of the money going towards what benefits me rather than a landlord. 

 

I guess I don't think "bottom line" thinking always makes the most sense.  I'll have more money in 15 years simply because in 15 years I won't have children living at home.  So is there any real point to stretching myself now when I need more money now?

 

There isn't necessarily, and you're right, the extra responsibilities now may mean you can't reasonably pay more.

 

But if people can pay down a mortgage faster, it's worthwhile to look at it I think.  Just like, if you could buy the house for cash, its worth considering - it just doesn't apply to many people.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Bluegoat

[hornblower]

I'm with you on this.  My mom is enjoying her retirement.  I tell her she'll have been ultimately successful if she passes away with a dollar left in the bank.

That's a big cultural issue too though, isn't it? In many cultures, parents want to leave an inheritance to their children & grand children (or, in countries with estate taxes, they transfer wealth ahead of time to avoid the taxes..) 

[creekland]

That's a big cultural issue too though, isn't it? In many cultures, parents want to leave an inheritance to their children & grand children (or, in countries with estate taxes, they transfer wealth ahead of time to avoid the taxes..) 

 

I agree - and it's our way of letting her know (nicely) that we'd rather see her enjoy her money.  She worked for it.

 

She's using it partially on/with us anyway.  Many of our trips include her and she certainly pays for more than her fair share.  She's also very liberal with her presents at Christmas.  Those things (esp the trips) are far more fun/rewarding than any inheritance would be.

[MistyMountain]

Dave Ramsey cannot save the middle class. I do not know that the people in the article are the best representation of the strain on the middle class. The extreme wealth disparity and the rising cost of inflation while wages for the middle class are not going up to make up for it is the problem.

 

There will always be middle class jobs out there in many areas where you cannot afford housing or the cost of living for the area. Sure people have more house nowadays but even smaller dwellings and rental places are expensive. The average income and average housing cost do not allow everyone to get 15% mortgages. In some areas renting costs more then owning. Not everyone can have housing costs a certain percentage of their income.

 

Sure there are things that some individuals can do like go into certain fields and move to more affordable areas but not everyone can do that. There are lots of people who are strained and not just because they chose to buy lots of stuff or live in big houses which does occur but because jobs that used to provide a decent living no longer do.

Edited April 21, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Btervet]

I know a lot of places are more expensive.  My friends live in Fredericksburg, VA.  Her husband commutes to DC.  They purchased their 2,400 sq. ft, 4 bedroom home for $160K 17 years ago.  She said it was last appraised last year at $340K.  

 

So, I would imagine you could indeed find something in the $200K-$250K range for smaller that would not be a 1 bedroom condo.

 

But I also am not opposed to 30 year mortgages, which would allow someone making $100K to purchase a $340K house.  Sometimes it is just necessary.  And the hope is that you will make more down the road, particularly if you are under age 40 when you purchase.

 

 

He commutes from Fredericksburg?!? That's easily a 2hr commute most days, I wouldn't consider that commuting distance. Having to spend 3-4hrs per day in a car just seems absurd.

[Ravin]

If only we had that stuff we are supposed to have to explain why a teacher's / educator's salary going up by all of 20% has magically made it impossible to buy a house that has increased in price tenfold over the same time period.

 

Can I please have my Hawaiian vacation and Xbox please? Because all I got was a husband leaving me and that's it.

 

Can I have all my new clothes, because my clothes expenditure over the past five years has been $200 for three people and I'm a working professional. Everything else has been "coupons": rewards, or Goodwill.

 

So, so tired of hearing that I'm not saving because I have cable and Netflix. Can I please have that? Where's my cable?

 

Wages have not followed the same trajector as inflation in the price of consumer goods and real property.

 

See household income information here: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php

 

See this article. In particular, the "two income trap" factor. http://www.mybudget360.com/cost-of-living-1938-to-2013-inflation-history-cost-of-goods-inflation/

[bettyandbob]

People regularly commute 3-4 hours a day where I am - they can't afford to buy a home anywhere within striking distance of a highly centralized job market. 

 

 

3-4 hours. Have they added up what they are spending on gas, vehicle maintenance and wear and tear. That's a huge cost too. 

 

Perhaps 3 hours daily on bus or train would be OK. I know people who are quite efficient with bus/train time. 

[Ravin]

3-4 hours. Have they added up what they are spending on gas, vehicle maintenance and wear and tear. That's a huge cost too. 

 

Perhaps 3 hours daily on bus or train would be OK. I know people who are quite efficient with bus/train time. 

 

I currently work 250 miles from home. I could move my family closer, but the closest I could get them would be a 90 minute drive each way. The wear and tear on my vehicle would be greater.

[bettyandbob]

Mostly the longer commutes are by train. However, 1-2 hours in the car each day is probably pretty average in my city. 

 

I am quite sure they have done the sums. People don't generally choose such a long commute if they have a choice in the matter.

 

Where I live people are choosing longer commutes for the house size. I live in a townhouse and have a tiny greenspace in front that is my yard. We might have chosen smaller if we'd known about some of the things that ended up happening to us, but there is a limit to how small you can go. That said, I never understood the long drive to a bigger house/yard and family you can't spend time with because you are commuting to pay for it all. 

[flyingiguana]

A friend of mine just told me she's selling her house to move into an apartment.  She can't afford the upkeep on the house anymore.

 

Buying a house doesn't always work out financially for everyone.

[Guest]

Where I live people are choosing longer commutes for the house size. I live in a townhouse and have a tiny greenspace in front that is my yard. We might have chosen smaller if we'd known about some of the things that ended up happening to us, but there is a limit to how small you can go. That said, I never understood the long drive to a bigger house/yard and family you can't spend time with because you are commuting to pay for it all.

It just depends. If it is a one income family, the person working isnt the only one to take into consideration. I am hopeful for our next move...that dh and i both get what we need...but i am telling you what: if we have to take another townhouse (hate) with no usable yard again, so that he is close enough to work, i swear i will scream. I CAN NOT deal with another place where my kids cant just go outside. I cant. Weve already agreed that if he has to drive longer so that our growing kids can get enough outside time and exercise without it taking up *all* of my day, because i have to actively go with them everywhere here, then so freaking be it!

 

So, again, it just plumb depends on individual circumstances. DH seeing the kids as much as possible is only one thing for us to take into account, and with this next job (military--so i do know this isnt the kind of situation youre referring to) he will see them more in one year than he has in the past 6 put together...so, other things are at the forefront now.

 

But i imagine there are plenty of families who want, for various reasons, their kids to be able to just go outside like human animals. Plus, ps parents take school districts into heavy consideration.

[flyingiguana]

 

I feel for anyone who has to drive an aging, unreliable car, and I can't imagine why anyone recommends driving one as a good financial strategy.

 

 

Well, it only works for us because we live fairly close to work.  It would take more time than we have, but we could walk if we really had to.  And there's a grocery store and library within walking distance.  So we have a couple geriatric cars that may give up the ghost at any moment and it wouldn't be a huge disaster if they did.  So it's a way to save money.  (Although there's got to be some magic age of car where it didn't cost too much to buy and yet still doesn't need costly repairs every few months...)

 

But I imagine we're in a fairly small minority. 

 

And the big problem with this, unfortunately, is what do you do if your car dies and the places that sell decent cars are miles and miles away?  I guess then you depend on friends with cars.

 

Public transit around here is time consuming, not very good, and often fairly expensive compared to gas.

[bettyandbob]

It just depends. If it is a one income family, the person working isnt the only one to take into consideration. I am hopeful for our next move...that dh and i both get what we need...but i am telling you what: if we have to take another townhouse (hate) with no usable yard again, so that he is close enough to work, i swear i will scream. I CAN NOT deal with another place where my kids cant just go outside. I cant. Weve already agreed that if he has to drive longer so that our growing kids can get enough outside time and exercise without it taking up *all* of my day, because i have to actively go with them everywhere here, then so freaking be it!

 

So, again, it just plumb depends on individual circumstances. DH seeing the kids as much as possible is only one thing for us to take into account, and with this next job (military--so i do know this isnt the kind of situation youre referring to) he will see them more in one year than he has in the past 6 put together...so, other things are at the forefront now.

 

But i imagine there are plenty of families who want, for various reasons, their kids to be able to just go outside like human animals. Plus, ps parents take school districts into heavy consideration.

 

My kids go outside. If we lived in an apartment they would go outside. They go to nearby parks. We go places in the community. I've never limited "go outside" to property I own. I actually appreciated the fact that as the kids grew there were places nearby to go to and they could get their first experiences of going someplace (pool, basketball court), as they aged that expanded to things like library and convenience store. But my feelings on "outside" also overlap ideas of what and when kids should do independently. So, don't want to derail the thread on a tangent. 

 

When ds was 4 he did go outside to our "yard". He dug big giant holes in that tiny patch of ground and loved that activity. Some of my neighbors were not impressed with our landscaping at the time, but he grew out of that stage eventually. 

 

I understand what you are saying about the needs of other family members. One of our needs was having dh home sooner. 

[Bluegoat]

Dave Ramsey cannot save the middle class. I do not know that the people in the article are the best representation of the strain on the middle class. The extreme wealth disparity and the rising cost of inflation while wages for the middle class are not going up to make up for it is the problem.

 

There will always be middle class jobs out there in many areas where you cannot afford housing or the cost of living for the area. Sure people have more house nowadays but even smaller dwellings and rental places are expensive. The average income and average housing cost do not allow everyone to get 15% mortgages. In some areas renting costs more then owning. Not everyone can have housing costs a certain percentage of their income.

 

Sure there are things that some individuals can do like go into certain fields and move to more affordable areas but not everyone can do that. There are lots of people who are strained and not just because they chose to buy lots of stuff or live in big houses which does occur but because jobs that used to provide a decent living no longer do.

 

There are some pretty significant systematic issues at play in many expensive areas, especially in cities.  Poor city planning, and city-wide gentrification is one.  Lack of investment in affordable housing.

 

Even changes in expectations of living arrangements.  To some extent it is a good thing - many building regulations like ones that say every unit needs access to its own washroom or kitchen facility were intended to prevent slums.  On the other hand, as soon as we have more requitrements in place, the costs of new "affordable" units goes up.

 

There is something really wrong when the cost to live in a place is so high it impoverishes people, but they are willing to do it because they can't get a job elsewhere, and companies comtinue to choose to locate in those places even when they could often do as well in a somewhat smaller center - they could pay more reasonable wages and many people who don't like commuting over an hour just to afford a place would jump at the opportunity to do something different. (And to be fair some large companies have realized this - particularly ones that employ younger people.)

 

When economic development is being totally concentrated into a few small regions, there is something amiss.

[Bluegoat]

3-4 hours. Have they added up what they are spending on gas, vehicle maintenance and wear and tear. That's a huge cost too. 

 

Perhaps 3 hours daily on bus or train would be OK. I know people who are quite efficient with bus/train time. 

 

Sometimes it doesn't matter about the commuting costs.  They can get a mortgage for the cheaper house, but not the more expensive one.

[Guest]

My kids go outside. If we lived in an apartment they would go outside. They go to nearby parks. We go places in the community. I've never limited "go outside" to property I own. I actually appreciated the fact that as the kids grew there were places nearby to go to and they could get their first experiences of going someplace (pool, basketball court), as they aged that expanded to things like library and convenience store. But my feelings on "outside" also overlap ideas of what and when kids should do independently. So, don't want to derail the thread on a tangent.

 

When ds was 4 he did go outside to our "yard". He dug big giant holes in that tiny patch of ground and loved that activity. Some of my neighbors were not impressed with our landscaping at the time, but he grew out of that stage eventually.

 

I understand what you are saying about the needs of other family members. One of our needs was having dh home sooner.

All of this is neighborhood dependent. And child-dependent, to some extent. One of my children is distractable to the point of following other people home and getting lost. This has happened. So, to give them the outside time--and freedom-- we believe they should have, i have to be present and alert every day for hours. Its worth it, but i have other stuff to do too!

 

As we have almost no say in the locality we live in, having a choice of home (and we dont...if there is mil housing we have to take it) is like a prize. This go around we will be choosing yard over commute 100%.

[Guest]

He commutes from Fredericksburg?!? That's easily a 2hr commute most days, I wouldn't consider that commuting distance. Having to spend 3-4hrs per day in a car just seems absurd.

I know people doing this.

[Bluegoat]

It just depends. If it is a one income family, the person working isnt the only one to take into consideration. I am hopeful for our next move...that dh and i both get what we need...but i am telling you what: if we have to take another townhouse (hate) with no usable yard again, so that he is close enough to work, i swear i will scream. I CAN NOT deal with another place where my kids cant just go outside. I cant. Weve already agreed that if he has to drive longer so that our growing kids can get enough outside time and exercise without it taking up *all* of my day, because i have to actively go with them everywhere here, then so freaking be it!

 

So, again, it just plumb depends on individual circumstances. DH seeing the kids as much as possible is only one thing for us to take into account, and with this next job (military--so i do know this isnt the kind of situation youre referring to) he will see them more in one year than he has in the past 6 put together...so, other things are at the forefront now.

 

But i imagine there are plenty of families who want, for various reasons, their kids to be able to just go outside like human animals. Plus, ps parents take school districts into heavy consideration.

 

Even when outside isn't an issue size can be a problem.  I would consider moving downtown if I could afford it, even without much of a yard.  Kids are safe to walk around there and play in the parks and such, I can get an allotment, and so on.

 

But it's tricky to find a place suited for a family of five or six - especially one where most of us are home all day.  Most of the newer places are really quite small.

[flyingiguana]

Just as an aside, I drove by a tiny home I sold some time ago to a family.  There was a for-rent sign in the yard, to my surprise.  So, of course I looked it up online, having owned several homes in the area.  The rent for this tiny place was $1,300!  I own a larger, nicer house down the road on which the mortgage payment is less than half that. 

 

I couldn't believe it.   

 

In some places the rental market is extremely tight - probably in part because there are a lot more people who can't buy.

 

Or, it may never rent at that price.  I see a lot of rentals asking $600 over what I'd consider to be the going rate.  And they sit on the market for a very long time. 

 

I'm seeing people renting out their houses (because they had to move) and basing the rent on the mortgage they're paying.  Depending on when they bought the house and the interest rate they were able to get, the payment on the house might be a lot more than the going rental rates.  But they may not have figured that out yet.  There are a lot of clueless new landlords out there.

 

Actually, someone bought the house next door to us and is renovating.  They've added a 2nd floor, ripped out the entire inside of what was there.  It's been going on for months, with teams of workers there every single day.  They think they're going to rent the place out.  They seem not to have figured out that the amount they're spending on it is not going to be returned as rent given the current rates.  The mortgage/taxes/ins on the original purchase would barely be covered by rent, let alone covering all the costs of what they're putting into it.

 

[Guest]

There are some pretty significant systematic issues at play in many expensive areas, especially in cities. Poor city planning, and city-wide gentrification is one. Lack of investment in affordable housing.

 

Even changes in expectations of living arrangements. To some extent it is a good thing - many building regulations like ones that say every unit needs access to its own washroom or kitchen facility were intended to prevent slums. On the other hand, as soon as we have more requitrements in place, the costs of new "affordable" units goes up.

 

There is something really wrong when the cost to live in a place is so high it impoverishes people, but they are willing to do it because they can't get a job elsewhere, and companies comtinue to choose to locate in those places even when they could often do as well in a somewhat smaller center - they could pay more reasonable wages and many people who don't like commuting over an hour just to afford a place would jump at the opportunity to do something different. (And to be fair some large companies have realized this - particularly ones that employ younger people.)

 

When economic development is being totally concentrated into a few small regions, there is something amiss.

Dh studied urban planning in college, and I read all of his books...so interesting! The average person does NOT realize what a huge effect poor city planning has on their lives! Commutes, car upkeepp cost, greenspace...all these things we are talking about here are, in theory, completely mallaeble things that COULD be better, for everyone. But they arent because most of our economic centers are thrown together piecemeal.

[Guest]

There are some pretty significant systematic issues at play in many expensive areas, especially in cities. Poor city planning, and city-wide gentrification is one. Lack of investment in affordable housing.

 

Even changes in expectations of living arrangements. To some extent it is a good thing - many building regulations like ones that say every unit needs access to its own washroom or kitchen facility were intended to prevent slums. On the other hand, as soon as we have more requitrements in place, the costs of new "affordable" units goes up.

 

There is something really wrong when the cost to live in a place is so high it impoverishes people, but they are willing to do it because they can't get a job elsewhere, and companies comtinue to choose to locate in those places even when they could often do as well in a somewhat smaller center - they could pay more reasonable wages and many people who don't like commuting over an hour just to afford a place would jump at the opportunity to do something different. (And to be fair some large companies have realized this - particularly ones that employ younger people.)

 

When economic development is being totally concentrated into a few small regions, there is something amiss.

Dh studied urban planning in college, and I read all of his books...so interesting! The average person does NOT realize what a huge effect poor city planning has on their lives! Commutes, car upkeepp cost, greenspace...all these things we are talking about here are, in theory, completely mallaeble things that COULD be better, for everyone. But they arent because most of our economic centers are thrown together piecemeal.

[bettyandbob]

All of this is neighborhood dependent. And child-dependent, to some extent. One of my children is distractable to the point of following other people home and getting lost. This has happened. So, to give them the outside time--and freedom-- we believe they should have, i have to be present and alert every day for hours. Its worth it, but i have other stuff to do too!

 

As we have almost no say in the locality we live in, having a choice of home (and we dont...if there is mil housing we have to take it) is like a prize. This go around we will be choosing yard over commute 100%.

 

Yes, neighborhood dependent. And it was my oldest who was permitted to dig holes in the front yard while I worked in the kitchen and could see him. My dd I never would have let out without me. Even in a fenced yard. She would have gotten out. She got out of bolted doors. She required constant vigilance. She was always seeking new things, usually something involving danger. From the time she could walk. I know a fenced yard would not have helped with her. I still would have gotten nothing done. (Thankfully, her need to seek out "excitement" toned down tremendously around 9. The years leading up were quite aging for me)

 

Perhaps some of it is making the house work for the parenting stage you are in. Whatever house, where ever your dh's next assignment is. I think when you move frequently it can be harder to get the match you need and see how to make it work. 

[regentrude]

Dh studied urban planning in college, and I read all of his books...so interesting! The average person does NOT realize what a huge effect poor city planning has on their lives! Commutes, car upkeepp cost, greenspace...all these things we are talking about here are, in theory, completely mallaeble things that COULD be better, for everyone. But they arent because most of our economic centers are thrown together piecemeal.

 

And because people want single family homes with large yards instead of apartments in multi-family buildings that would allow denser urban environments more conducive to walking. Owning a single family house is seen as a hallmark of the American dream, renting is stigmatized - with a footprint like this, walkable cities are illusionary.

And then the NIMBY! Our city built a walking and cycling path that is wildly popular - but oh, the protests of the people whose properties border the city property that has the path. (The path went in and has not created any problems, and houses are pretty far back and not directly bordering the path, but the outcry over their perceived loss of privacy was ridiculous.)

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by regentrude

[Guest]

toned down tremendously around 9. The years leading up were quite aging for me)

 

 

My wanderer is turning 9 this year, so Im going to assume what was true for you will be true for me and call that excellent news :-D

[marbel]

Re: long commutes, 4 hours/day...

 

I know people doing this.

 

I used to as well.  When we lived in Silicon Valley, it wasn't too uncommon for people to drive long distances. I particularly remember one of my coworkers in particular; she and her husband loaded their kids into the car at about 4am, drove into town, dropped them at day care or their private school, and then went to work.   I remember it being really hard on the kids, with regard to friendships.  I'm sure it was hard on everyone, but they really wanted to own a house, and they couldn't afford anything closer in. That is the most extreme example but there were others who drove 3-4 hours a day.  This was in the mid-1990s. Can't imagine it's gotten any better in that area.

[Guest]

And because people want single family homes with large yards instead of apartments in multi-family buildings that would allow denser urban environments more conducive to walking. Owning a single family house is seen as a hallmark of the American dream, renting is stigmatized - with a footprint like this, walkable cities are illusionary.

And then the NIMBY! Our city put in a walking and cycling path that is wildly popular - but oh, the complaints and protests of the people whose properties border the city property that has the path. (The path went in and has not created any problems, and houses are pretty far back and not directly bordering the path, but the outcry over their perceived loss of privacy was ridiculous.)

 

True. And it is harder to retrofit than to start from the get go with paths and greenspace and public transport and common-sense layouts.

 

We lived briefly is a VERY family friendly small city with open spaces and walk/bike paths etc. It was bliss. If all small cities were like that, sprawling, soul-devouring suburbs would not be a thing. In fact, suburbs started out to BE like that...but now instead we have just ulgh gross, enormous expanses of place that no one wants to spend time in. And rightfully so.

[Bluegoat]

And because people want single family homes with large yards instead of apartments in multi-family buildings that would allow denser urban environments more conducive to walking. Owning a single family house is seen as a hallmark of the American dream, renting is stigmatized - with a footprint like this, walkable cities are illusionary.

 

 

It's a tricky balance though, density can be done badly.  And its trendy in city planning at the moment, because of money, which is often a bad motivator.  And among millennials it tends to be preferred to suburban settings.  In some cities there has actually been a reversal - gentrification of urban areas and suburban areas becoming ghettos, with a total flip of property values.

 

At the moment quite a few cities seem to be going for the high-tower approach, particularly in the urban core or other designated corridors.  They don't in many cases seem great for family life, you feel like you are walking around in a tunnel, there are big shadows and wind tunnels.  Even when they talk about "low-rise" density it seems to be these huge blocks of seven story buildings.

 

THe enjoyable dense areas I've lived in may have a few places like that, but usually were mostly mixed  flats, some single houses, duplexes and triplexes, and small walk up style buildings of two or three stories, with 8, 12, even 20 units.  Most of the buildings didn't much go above the height of the taller single family homes.

 

It's still completely silly - my city has a new central library with great views of the harbor and the fort, it's won international awards for design.  But they've knocked down the buildings across the street and are putting up towers considerably taller than the library.

 

An awful lot, both in suburban and urban design, seems to come down to what makes money for developers.

[DawnM]

He commutes from Fredericksburg?!? That's easily a 2hr commute most days, I wouldn't consider that commuting distance. Having to spend 3-4hrs per day in a car just seems absurd.

 

Yes, he does.  He goes in around 6am and it takes about an hour to an hour and 15.  He leaves around 4pm.  So, the commute is 2 hours per day, sometimes 2.5 hours per day.

[SparklyUnicorn]

And because people want single family homes with large yards instead of apartments in multi-family buildings that would allow denser urban environments more conducive to walking. Owning a single family house is seen as a hallmark of the American dream, renting is stigmatized - with a footprint like this, walkable cities are illusionary.

And then the NIMBY! Our city built a walking and cycling path that is wildly popular - but oh, the protests of the people whose properties border the city property that has the path. (The path went in and has not created any problems, and houses are pretty far back and not directly bordering the path, but the outcry over their perceived loss of privacy was ridiculous.)

 

 

Although there are areas like that and the microscopic apartments are INSANELY expensive. 

[regentrude]

It's a tricky balance though, density can be done badly.  And its trendy in city planning at the moment, because of money, which is often a bad motivator.  And among millennials it tends to be preferred to suburban settings.  In some cities there has actually been a reversal - gentrification of urban areas and suburban areas becoming ghettos, with a total flip of property values.

 

At the moment quite a few cities seem to be going for the high-tower approach, particularly in the urban core or other designated corridors.  They don't in many cases seem great for family life, you feel like you are walking around in a tunnel, there are big shadows and wind tunnels.  Even when they talk about "low-rise" density it seems to be these huge blocks of seven story buildings.

 

THe enjoyable dense areas I've lived in may have a few places like that, but usually were mostly mixed  flats, some single houses, duplexes and triplexes, and small walk up style buildings of two or three stories, with 8, 12, even 20 units.  Most of the buildings didn't much go above the height of the taller single family homes.

 

It's still completely silly - my city has a new central library with great views of the harbor and the fort, it's won international awards for design.  But they've knocked down the buildings across the street and are putting up towers considerably taller than the library.

 

An awful lot, both in suburban and urban design, seems to come down to what makes money for developers.

 

Completely agree. I was not talking about towers and huge blocks. I was thinking of the very livable neighborhoods I know from home, 4 story buildings that house 8-12 families, shared yard - a sufficient population density to have amenities like grocery stores, bakeries and parks in walking distance,  (which is impossible in a low density  of 1 family-per-half acre), but not so dense that it is suffocating.

 

[SKL]

The cultural changes concerning letting kids outside have been costly too.  You have to hire paid child care for every minute you aren't with your kid for ~5 years longer than ever used to be considered necessary.  (Or you could opt out and risk having the cops called and having a case opened on you for neglect.)  Then, you have to figure out their physical and life skills education, which they wouldn't have needed if they had been out in the neighborhood for those 5 years.  :p

 

The micromanagement of kids' lives from dawn to dusk (and even through the night) has cost the middle class in many ways.

 

My kids are getting old enough to be on their own for some time, but now it's a question of pulling them out of activities they've been enjoying for years, and away from friendships they can't easily keep up on their own.  I would if I had to, but I'd regret it.

Edited April 21, 2016 by SKL

[MistyMountain]

Dh studied urban planning in college, and I read all of his books...so interesting! The average person does NOT realize what a huge effect poor city planning has on their lives! Commutes, car upkeepp cost, greenspace...all these things we are talking about here are, in theory, completely mallaeble things that COULD be better, for everyone. But they arent because most of our economic centers are thrown together piecemeal.

I studied urban planning in college too. It really is disheartening to see how this country is designed. It is not sustainable for the long run. We could have designed cities better but it did not happen. Another thing that is sad is how ghettos were formed by housing loan practices that blacklisted neighborhoods, highways that cut these neighborhoods off from jobs and middle class people and civic organizations subsequently fleeing these neighborhoods. Mixed use development where you can get around without needing a car is better planning but instead neighborhoods got planned around highway building with no broader plan on how it fit together.

Edited April 21, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Bluegoat]

Completely agree. I was not talking about towers and huge blocks. I was thinking of the very livable neighborhoods I know from home, 4 story buildings that house 8-12 families, shared yard - a sufficient population density to have amenities like grocery stores, bakeries and parks in walking distance,  (which is impossible in a low density  of 1 family-per-half acre), but not so dense that it is suffocating.

 

I've wondered if larger cities have played a part as well.

 

It seems to me - and I have to say this is largely an impression - that there used to be more of a balance between smaller cities, rural areas where people ook care of things like agriculre and forestry, often serviced by villages, and then some people on the fringes of cities or in the villages on small properties, who seemed both to live in relation to the city and rural life.  For example, I'm in an area that was once a farming village, but close to town - the little farms tended to be ones that catered to the daily needs of the city - things like dairy and fresh veg.  And some of these farm people also made money as tradesmen, farmhands on larger farms, or their wives worked in domestic service.

 

Well now, even in a province that is more rural than most, our small towns are dying, the villages that were centers for farmers and rural people are dying, and the city is getting them all.  Living rurally or in outer suburbs that used to be towns and villages is actually less efficient because they have to come into the city.  But also, if we densified the whole of the city today it would be a much larger block of people than it would have been in the past. 

 

And I think even with the city, once is gets very large it can become less efficient - people can end up commuting long distances even within the city, which makes no sense to me - not to mention that it can be harder to mitigate the environmental impact of the city when it is larger.

[marbel]

The cultural changes concerning letting kids outside have been costly too.  You have to hire paid child care for every minute you aren't with your kid for ~5 years longer than ever used to be considered necessary.  (Or you could opt out and risk having the cops called and having a case opened on you for neglect.)  Then, you have to figure out their physical and life skills education, which they wouldn't have needed if they had been out in the neighborhood for those 5 years.  :p

 

The micromanagement of kids' lives from dawn to dusk (and even through the night) has cost the middle class in many ways.

 

My kids are getting old enough to be on their own for some time, but now it's a question of pulling them out of activities they've been enjoying for years, and away from friendships they can't easily keep up on their own.  I would if I had to, but I'd regret it.

 

Right.  When I lived outside of Portland, there were a few communities going up that were very nice - small houses close together, little patio/courtyards (not lawns), a 'town center' with grocery store and a few other shops, and public open space with playground for the kids.  Oh, waking distance to public transportation. 

 

But!  We still wanted a yard for our kids.  We wanted them to be able to go outside without a parent.  We wanted them to be able to dig holes in the backyard, grow some flowers and pumpkins and such, and just have some outdoor privacy. 

 

Maybe I was a bad mom and a bad citizen, but I didn't want to have to be outside all the time that my kids were outside.  So, we chose the house with the yard and we had to drive everywhere.  Nice to have the choice, though.

 

[EmseB]

Even when outside isn't an issue size can be a problem. I would consider moving downtown if I could afford it, even without much of a yard. Kids are safe to walk around there and play in the parks and such, I can get an allotment, and so on.

 

But it's tricky to find a place suited for a family of five or six - especially one where most of us are home all day. Most of the newer places are really quite small.

What I ran into was this exact thing. Urban living was barely financially feasible, but we would have been on top of each other. And then, "country" living was either something old and run down or huge with more than we really needed. There was precious little middle ground. And on top of that, even urban living didn't make for a shorter commute time-wise, it was slightly easier in that dh could take the train, but it didn't save time that could be spent with the family. The only urban areas that provided a time saving commute were crime ridden and impoverished or WAY out of our budget. No in between. Edited April 21, 2016 by JodiSue

[Julie Smith]

Dh studied urban planning in college, and I read all of his books...so interesting! The average person does NOT realize what a huge effect poor city planning has on their lives! Commutes, car upkeepp cost, greenspace...all these things we are talking about here are, in theory, completely mallaeble things that COULD be better, for everyone. But they arent because most of our economic centers are thrown together piecemeal.

 

Part of the reason Dh took the job he did was we got to move to a city with good urban planning that is only getting better. It does mean we are the farthest we have ever been from family. But it is such a well planned city. 

 

I think this is one of the books I once read about Urban sprawl.

http://www.amazon.com/Suburban-Nation-Sprawl-Decline-American/dp/0865477507/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1461281791&sr=8-2&keywords=Urban+Sprawl

[Seasider]

It depends on how much you have to stretch to pay it off quickly. I assume my expenses now are much higher than they will be 15 years from now. I need more money now.

Cash flow is a real consideration.

[Murphy101]

He commutes from Fredericksburg?!? That's easily a 2hr commute most days, I wouldn't consider that commuting distance. Having to spend 3-4hrs per day in a car just seems absurd.

I completely agree but it is what it is.

 

My dh not only has to work in another state 5-6 days a week, he STILL has a 2 hour commute into work there every day. Bc that's where the most affordable housing arrangement is. And it still isn't affordable for us to join him there.

 

It sucks rotten eggs.

 

But it still sucks less than having the family house here foreclosed on for lack of income.

 

As soon as we can change this, we will. But so far we don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

We know lots of people with 1.5-3 hour daily commutes. It's insane. Especially considering these are places that offer little to no reliable public transport either.

[Murphy101]

Lolololololol

 

People do not rent to large families. When we were pregnant with our fourth in a 3 bdrm rental, our landlord made it clear she wouldn't be renewing if we had more. A four bdrm house here usually means the landlord is willing to rent to a couple + 3 kids. Despite leaving every place we rented better than when we moved in, landlords just presume a large family will ruin the place. It's not fair, but that's the way it is here. People just won't find a place to rent if they have more than 4 kids unless they get really lucky. Or can afford to rent a huge house.

 

We didn't buy a house until we absolutely had to. We stayed in the smallest place until family increase mandates a change. Did the same with vehicles.

[Joker]

Just as an aside, I drove by a tiny home I sold some time ago to a family. There was a for-rent sign in the yard, to my surprise. So, of course I looked it up online, having owned several homes in the area. The rent for this tiny place was $1,300! I own a larger, nicer house down the road on which the mortgage payment is less than half that.

 

I couldn't believe it.

We rented our tiny 1000 sq ft home out for $1300/month in a matter of days. The rental market is that tight. It may be more than our mortgage payment but we also pay for monthly lawn service (home is in HOA), quarterly pest control (don't trust tenants to do so), and our property managers fee (since we now live in a different state). It all adds up.

[LisaKinVA]

My husband commuted from Fredericksburg to DC from 2002-2013.  Our commuting costs were nearly zero.  He commuted via van pool, which was mostly covered by a gov't program to encourage public transportation.  My father commuted to DC from Fredericksburg from 1993 until Dec. 31 2016 (he just retired).  His commuting costs were nearly zero (over the years, he used a combination of commuter bus, ride sharing with me, train/metro, and slug line).  I also commuted to DC from Fredericksburg from 1991-1997.  When I commuted, I worked my commute hours around traffic (left at 0500, home by 7pm, I also worked out in the morning before work).  While the commute was not my dh's favorite, he quickly learned that in big cities, a distance of 15 miles could have the same travel time as living 45 miles out -- big cities are not small towns.   We could not have lived closer to DC and afforded to live in anything.  We had contemplated moving to PGC, but commuting options actually decrease the closer in you live.  So -- it really WAS cheaper for us to live that far out (housing, transportation, taxes...you name it).  Also, with more and more DC agencies allowing telework, DH was able to work from home half-time!  Yes, the days he had to commute, he was leaving home at 5:15 and getting home at 6:30 (unless it was snowing, or a bad accident, or some other issue).  But, it was well worth it.

 

He's currently spoiled by having a 30 minute commute to work on most days.  We just replaced the 1999 Alpha Romeo (gas) with a 2007 Opel Zafira (diesel), we had to take out a loan for the car, but it will be paid off next year.  DH was going to get another $3,000 car -- but since my van is 15 years old and has nearly 250,000 miles on it, I insisted on buying another 7-passenger car just in case.  Our fuel costs have already dropped nearly 50% with this one change.  And, I have some piece of mind that if something should happen to my van, we aren't out the one car that can fit our family.

 

When we return to VA (assuming that's where we go), the commuting situation in Norfolk/VA Beach is horrible compared to Fredericksburg.  Renting is more expensive than buying (by far), and throw in the 4+ kids issue, and a dog?  We'll have to buy.  The only way we can afford to buy is a 30-year mortgage.  Go look for a house in VA beach/Norfolk for $200,000 or less...you can find some fixer uppers, and some that should be considered fixer-uppers, and some that should have been condemned.  Not saying we won't get a fixer-upper (in fact, it's likely), but because of the cash-needed to do the fixer-upper, a 30-year mortgage will still be necessary for cash-flow reasons.  During the majority of the time we owned a home, we always made one extra house payment a year, so we were paying it off early.  Unless my husband changes jobs, our reality is a COL more expensive than Fredericksburg, with a pay-scale lower than we had in DC.    

 

Always/never statements are rarely true for every situation.  I can often (through my dad's retirement program), buy a new car for less than a 2-year old used car.  I'm still driving the last new car we purchased (it's 15 years old).  We purchased it for more than $10,000 below sticker (we get to combine sales incentives, with our special pricing).  The Alpha beater we purchased for $2500 we never should have gotten.  In the two years we owned it, we spent nearly that much in repairs.  When you factor in towing costs and other major inconveniences, it was a very BAD choice.  

 

There are numerous financial situations we wish we could have gone back and re-made.  Some decisions we received very bad advice -- such as *never touch your retirement savings*  We were in our late-20's at the time.  We had nearly $100,000 in retirement.  We could have taken out $20,000 and paid off all of our debt.  Instead, dh was convinced (by others), we just needed a consolidation loan.  i should have fought.  The short term loss in retirement could have been made up (hind-sight in this case came back with a whopper, our retirement accounts tanked with the dot-bomb, that $100,000 was turned into $20,000 with a few pen-strokes -- BUT, we still had the consolidation loan!!).  No, those funds never bounced back.  That one decision had additional ramifications when we had to sell our first house, which then impacted other future decisions.  

 

This is simply to say that there are no cut-and-dry "always" or "nevers."  There are both short-term and long-term repercussions.  The one major advice would be to avoid debt whenever possible, but that sometimes a car loan or a 30-year mortgage, or even some school debt is the best decision both short-term and long-term.  

 

My two oldest kids are heavily looking at college and career paths right now, so these discussions are happening with increasing frequency with lots of "if-then" scenarios.  IF they get the grades/scores/scholarships to attend school free, THEN dh and I will be more able able to assist them with other options (transportation, car, incidentals).  IF they don't have to take out loans for college, THEN, they will have more flexibility regarding job/living after.  I have often taken my oldest through the costs involved in simply living on his own.  Google is your friend in this regard ;)

 

[bettyandbob]

Lisa, I'm going to point out that many jobs won't fit your zero cost work commute, because many jobs do not allow for the predictable hours that get you in a van pool. Aside from private jobs, there are government jobs that do not allow that predictability. Additionally, wheny dh had a government job he often was in his office 7am 7pm. Then add a commute to that. He was never in a position to flex his schedule. And never in a position to leave work earlier even if he arrived earlier. The same was true with private employers.

 

Additionally, if you are in private industry, you are less likely to get subsidies for vanpool, metro, or other mass transit. Zero cost commute is not available to everyone.

[amy g.]

I guess it depends on the industry. For the last 15 years, my husband has utilized a subsidized van pool to get to and from work. This has been in 3 different locations with 2 different employers. He does have flexibility to work at various hours and from various locations. I do realize that is not an option for everyone.

 

For myself, I'm not really sure that I could give up having a yard. Maybe it is cultural. I'm a Texan after all.

 

At our new house, Dh will have a 30 minute commute. It is the shortest he has ever had in our marriage. Other times it has been 1 hour or more. He doesn't mind so long he isn't the one driving and can sleep in the van.

 

A long commute does mean that he has more hours away from the rest of us each day, but the most important thing to him is making sure that we are happy and have everything we need at home while he is gone.

 

I can understand one spouse saying that they don't think they could be happy with a long commute just like I can imagine the other saying that they don't think they can be happy without a freestanding house with a yard. That is a challenging situation because I can think of a few locations where you would be very hard pressed to find both.

Edited April 24, 2016 by amy g.