One thing I don't actually see mentioned anywhere here is that around 1/3 of the U.S. housing market is now owned by large corporations, with rental prices spiking. I make 'good' money.... But I could not afford to live on my own regardless of how 'good' that money is, because a half-decent place that isn't an hour away from my job is well over $1500 a month, which is already half of my own take-home. This does not account for electricity rates going up either, or grocery bills, or daycare expenses for those with children.
It's also a requirement to have a cellphone and internet connection now. If you lack either, you will have a significantly harder time finding a job, and in most of the U.S. public transportation is unreliable and nonexistent, which means a car is a requirement along with all of the bills that come along with it. A significant amount of jobs now also require a bachelors degree- any bachelors- in order to land an interview.
Currently the median U.S. household income is about 67,500. Mind, this includes people making 6-7/8 figures' worth of salary and salaries are going to be higher in states with higher costs of living so this income varies in effectiveness significantly between families. You cannot equate one individual experience to the experience of the rest of the U.S. 67,500 is fine in most of Michigan. It's one step from homelessness on its own in California.
Not to mention that a single significant medical event can ruin someone. If I myself become significantly injured at work and lose my income, we will lose our home.
I do not envy those who are lucky to have supportive parents and households that make great efforts to set their children up for success later in live. That is, however, not the norm for many others, including myself. We are doing the best that we are able to in this very uncertain economy and saving what we can, but it only really takes one thing to set us right back to baseline, and we do not spend excess.... Life where I'm from is just expensive, and moving is not an option.
Somewhat personally, I find the 'just scrimp and sacrifice' to be lacking in empathy in a culture that demands so much both out of our minds and bodies. People are not machines, and comes off as declaring that having financial struggles to be 'that person's' fault, rather than the fault of the economic and social system. It is also not the fault of the people born into economically disadvantageous situations that they were, or the people who have a significant financial event occur, or anyone in between. The system should be fair to everyone, no exceptions, and it isn't in its current state.
-
Anyway,
In terms of recreation spending: It's a lot harder to find any third space to go to with friends or family with reasonable expenses. Disney is one of these that's usually put under the microscope as to how unaffordable recreation and tourism is for families. It's not just Disney nickel-and-diming its customers... it's everywhere, including the way the economy itself is running. Part of the issue with recreation spending is due to travel and supply expenses. Not everyone has reasonable access to parks or other outdoor areas without a vehicle, for example.
With Disney specifically, since it's still regarded as a family oriented, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity trip (the marketing is genius here), it means that people will be inclined not only to spend the extra on hotels, food, and every other expense imaginable to make their one big trip the best that it could possibly be in their perception.... it also means that Disney can charge out the nose for services and products that are found significantly cheaper elsewhere for that same reason. If regular recreation and travel is already expensive.... why not spend more on a once-in-a-lifetime trip at that point? That's the mindset that I've been seeing as I explore around various communities trying to gauge how my own 'once-in-a-lifetime' trip should look like.
Why wouldn't they charge more if people are going to spend more?
