Disturbing financial statistics

[DiznEeyore]

It is not costing more to "maintain what we've had in the past." The problem is we have/want way more than we used to.

Wow. I couldn't disagree with this more strongly. This is another example of people on this board not being able to grasp situations that might not be as financially stable as theirs.

It may be the "new normal" to be living beyond your means, but for our family, that is definitely not the case. Due to the depressed Michigan economy (our UE rate is highest in the nation) and many layoffs due to outsourcing, there are a lot of people in my husband's line of work that have seen their incomes decrease year by year for the past 5 or 6 years (if they even have jobs -- we have friends who've been laid off for 2+ years).

For our family personally, our annual income has decreased each year since 1999. And of course, cost of living increases and increases. There is no denying that. We do NOT live in a "McMansion" (ours is a 1941 brick tract house on a crawl that we recently added on to so that we'd have 3 bedrooms and 2 baths and it brought us up to a whopping 1300 sq ft), we do NOT have expensive cars (mine is an '04 Ion and dh's is a '00 Escort ZX2). We pay $500 a month for private health insurance that fights us tooth and nail on every bill. Don't EVER tell me we're not paying more for what we previously had, cuz brother, we sure ARE.

Dh has been officially unemployed for almost 10 months. He has worked his butt off to take care of us and has done brilliantly. He still however doesn't have a permanent job. I have had several temp jobs that have helped as well, but we'll never be keeping up with the Joneses. We're doing OK due to God's providence and my husband's willingness to work 60-80 hours a week for a lot less than he used to make. We have a small emergency fund that we haven't had to touch (but it's nice to know it's there).

So to imply that costs of living haven't increased is ridiculous. And for someone else to imply that people who don't make as much as they do are in that situation because they lack the intelligence or motivation to succeed is equally insulting. But I just consider the source.

 

[TNKBELL]

Amy... I don't think Steve was implying that costs haven't increased, I think he meant that in correlation to our income as a nation on average. There are times when it is difficult and you and your DH are doing everything you can to make ends meet and I have hope it will get better for you, this happened all across the nation after Sept 11th and living in the air capitol of airplane production our city had a horrible setback, but over time it has improved. I don't think everyone can be pigeonholed into a certain category but I think most of the comments have been based on percentages and averages in statistics. In most of the posts I don't see criticism on anyone other than the way we think as a nation about need versus neccessity. I pray that things improve for you.

 

[crisi]

MOST people have average intelligence (by definition) and MOST people will have an average income (by definition).

Just cause I used to do stats... Most people are not average. Usually, when talking sociologically (for things like "average income") we talk median. That means half the people are above the average and half are below - but that doesn't mean most sit at average. The number that happens most frequently is called the mode, but that is the most frequently occurring number, in most populations its a small part of the whole.

Not that I disagree with your point - the median family income in the U.S. is around $60,000. That means half of the people out there make less than $60,000, half make more. 20% make less than $18,500. 5% make more than $157,176,

Here is the quintiles, its really facinating - and honestly kind of scary:

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new05_000.htm

 

[dvcgirl]

Just cause I used to do stats... Most people are not average. Usually, when talking sociologically (for things like "average income") we talk median. That means half the people are above the average and half are below - but that doesn't mean most sit at average. The number that happens most frequently is called the mode, but that is the most frequently occurring number, in most populations its a small part of the whole.

Not that I disagree with your point - the median family income in the U.S. is around $60,000. That means half of the people out there make less than $60,000, half make more. 20% make less than $18,500. 5% make more than $157,176,

Here is the quintiles, its really facinating - and honestly kind of scary:

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new05_000.htm

It really is interesting Crisi. I just read recently that 50% of the wealth in this nation is owned by the top 5% of that income scale. The top 1% owns 30% of the wealth.

I found that last figure very interesting because we do know lots of people who are in that top 5% figure, but I wouldn't really consider any of them "wealthy". Wealth is the stuff that you own, not what you make. And while we know people who make lots of money, I wouldn't consider them wealthy.

Incidentally, it seems that the Roth IRA cutoff always hangs right around that 5% figure. This year if you make 160K you don't qualify.

 

[disneysteve]

I don't see many people arguing with you on this comment.

I just wanted to be clear that the quote you attriibuted to me wasn't mine but was made by another poster.

 

[disneysteve]

Amy... I don't think Steve was implying that costs haven't increased, I think he meant that in correlation to our income as a nation on average.

Thanks for jumping in TNKBELL to defend me while I was sleeping.

Yes, Amy, there are absolutely areas in the country where the economy sucks. And there are specific industries that have been horrendous to be involved with. But it's a big country. As a nation, not as individuals in Michigan or Tennessee or wherever, we are more prosperous than ever before.

Also, I just wanted to point out again, your final paragraph mentions the comments about intelligence and motivation. Most of your post addresses my comments, but those particular comments were NOT made by me. I don't want folks who haven't read the whole thread getting the wrong idea about my opinion.

 

[dvcgirl]

Wow. I couldn't disagree with this more strongly. This is another example of people on this board not being able to grasp situations that might not be as financially stable as theirs.

It may be the "new normal" to be living beyond your means, but for our family, that is definitely not the case. Due to the depressed Michigan economy (our UE rate is highest in the nation) and many layoffs due to outsourcing, there are a lot of people in my husband's line of work that have seen their incomes decrease year by year for the past 5 or 6 years (if they even have jobs -- we have friends who've been laid off for 2+ years).

For our family personally, our annual income has decreased each year since 1999. And of course, cost of living increases and increases. There is no denying that. We do NOT live in a "McMansion" (ours is a 1941 brick tract house on a crawl that we recently added on to so that we'd have 3 bedrooms and 2 baths and it brought us up to a whopping 1300 sq ft), we do NOT have expensive cars (mine is an '04 Ion and dh's is a '00 Escort ZX2). We pay $500 a month for private health insurance that fights us tooth and nail on every bill. Don't EVER tell me we're not paying more for what we previously had, cuz brother, we sure ARE.

Dh has been officially unemployed for almost 10 months. He has worked his butt off to take care of us and has done brilliantly. He still however doesn't have a permanent job. I have had several temp jobs that have helped as well, but we'll never be keeping up with the Joneses. We're doing OK due to God's providence and my husband's willingness to work 60-80 hours a week for a lot less than he used to make. We have a small emergency fund that we haven't had to touch (but it's nice to know it's there).

So to imply that costs of living haven't increased is ridiculous. And for someone else to imply that people who don't make as much as they do are in that situation because they lack the intelligence or motivation to succeed is equally insulting. But I just consider the source.

I did not say that *anyone* lacks intelligence and if they did that this is the reason that they're strugglling. I'm not sure where you came up with that one. But yes, I do believe that there are people who aren't working as hard as they could. People absolutely *do* end up in bad situations because they are lazy...happens all of the time. Not everyone, not you or your husband, but some people do. It's not an all or nothing world. Just because you are struggling and working your butts off, don't think that there are others out there who do the absolute minimum to get by and then blame the entire world for what has happened to them.

A little story. About 10 years ago my DH and I "adopted" a family through a local charity for the holidays. Our job was to provide the fixins for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner and toys for the children for Christmas day. We initially thought that we had a single Mom and her four children. When we met her, she asked if we could provide extra food because there were more people then just she and her children living at the house. She was on welfare, food stamps and was unemployed. And so we show up with TG dinner and find out that there is boyfriend living there, also unemployed. Mind you he appeared to be a 100% healthy adult male. Also living in the home was the woman's older brother (in his 40s), also unemployed....and his young son (20s), you guessed it...unemployed. And so we followed through with our obligation. Bought nice gifts for the kids. Every time we dropped things off we'd find lots of able and healthy men, sitting around the house...doing absolutely nothing. The final straw was in January when the woman got our phone number out of the yellow pages and called us asking if we could pay her electric bill, and that they were out of milk. I dropped off milk on my way home from work and found the usual suspects all hanging around, complaining that they couldn't watch TV and blamed the electric company. We didn't pay that bill... And so don't think that everyone out there is doing the best that they can.

And FWIW, many, many industries have had major cuts, including technology. My DH was laid off from his job back in 2002....he ran the entire division in NJ and had 80 employees...he was the last to go. From 2000 until 2002 we saw his pay drop by 20%, and so we're not strangers to what you are going through.

 

[disneysteve]

I think it is harder for the middle class to hang on to what they have than it was 30-40 years ago. Give me your numbers and source, I would love to be wrong.

The following information was published in a national monthly financial magazine a few years ago. I don't have the sources for the specific data anymore, but you'll have to trust me when I say I did have the sources when I wrote the article. And I realize that this info is now a few years old but I don't believe things have changed much since I published this:

The average home is twice as large as in 1950, but the average family is 13% smaller. Fewer people are demanding much more space.

Purchasing the average new car today requires fewer months' worth of family income than it did in 1950. The number of cars per adult is 50% higher than it was then. Years ago, it was not uncommon for a husband and wife to share one car. Today, both spouses likely have a car and often, licensed children do, too.

In 1960, Americans spent 15% of income on groceries vs. only 7% today. Our real downfall is eating out. In 1990, 42 cents of every food dollar was spent in restaurants, double the amount spent a generation ago.

Every year, more than 16 million Americans visit foreign countries. In 1950, the number was 680,000.

The average American consumes twice as many goods and services as he/she did in 1950 and ten times more than in 1929.

As a nation, our standard of living has continued to rise and that does bring with it added costs. But when we look at our parents' or grandparent's generation and what things cost then, we simply aren't comparing equal lifestyles. If you are willing to live in the manner in which your parents or grandparents lived 50 years ago, you could get by on far less money and direct a lot more of your income to savings.

 

[dvcgirl]

Also, I just wanted to point out again, your final paragraph mentions the comments about intelligence and motivation. Most of your post addresses my comments, but those particular comments were NOT made by me. I don't want folks who haven't read the whole thread getting the wrong idea about my opinion.

No Steve, she was referring to me. I never made a comment about lack of intelligence leading to financial difficulties. I did say that lack of motivation can lead to financial difficulties. And I'll stand by that comment. I'm also not insinuating that hard work always equals financial success. However, the most successful people I know are incredibly hard workers. People like to put words in my mouth because I have strong opinions.

 

[kfeuer]

It is not costing more to "maintain what we've had in the past." The problem is we have/want way more than we used to.

I was talking to my parents about this the other day. In their opinion, families trying to make it on one income definitely have it tougher then when they were starting out. They didn't have to worry about health care costs, which is a huge expense for alot of us. My family's health insurance is average (no huge deductibles, covers all the major stuff), nobody has any major illnesses, but between premiums and copays we'll be spending at least $500/mth next year. That's our second largest bill next to our mortgage.

When my parents were young, they didn't have worry about funding retirement, they were promised a pension and social security. In later years they started investing into a 401K, but it wasn't even a consideration when my sister and I were young.

As far as our overspending as a nation goes, there's a huge area I haven't seen mentioned--KIDS! In the not too distant past, hardly anybody sent their kids to preschool. Now virtually everybody does. I have a friend who sends her 4-year old to a Montessori school that's $600/mth . Parents have their kids in all these after-school activities that cost a small fortune. Everybody wants the best for their kids, and the best is getting more and more expensive. It's insidious, because there's the subtle pressure that your kids are going to be left behind if you don't involve them in a million different enrichment activities. Add that to all the toys, designer clothes and latest gadgets kids think they must have, and it's no wonder that we're overspending as a nation.

 

[DMRick]

When we give names to people to adopt, we know that many times, the situation isn't what it seems. We don't care..the point is to get food and/or presents to the kids. None of us ever give more than our first names, and I'm surprised the agency you went through didn't tell you that. The people who deliver are supposed to deliver just what is on the list, (food for 5, presents for Sue, age 5, etc) and we never give out the personal info about if they are on welfare, food stamps etc. Of course many are poor (some are just alone). We make it very clear that there is to be no judging. Our adopting families are given the info they need through us, and don't meet the family in advance...just at delivery time.
Most of our families (over 300 this year) are deserving and appreciative. We don't ask how many "extras" are in the household, but I'm sure there often are. The kids have no control over that. I get to see the kids after the delivery, and believe me, they are most grateful for the smallest thing. No one is saying there aren't some lazy poor..but I've met my share of lazy rich as well. I hope you don't let this one thing you considered bad, stop you or anyone else from continuing to remember the kids.

A little story. About 10 years ago my DH and I "adopted" a family through a local charity for the holidays. Our job was to provide the fixins for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner and toys for the children for Christmas day. We initially thought that we had a single Mom and her four children. When we met her, she asked if we could provide extra food because there were more people then just she and her children living at the house. She was on welfare, food stamps and was unemployed. And so we show up with TG dinner and find out that there is boyfriend living there, also unemployed. Mind you he appeared to be a 100% healthy adult male. Also living in the home was the woman's older brother (in his 40s), also unemployed....and his young son (20s), you guessed it...unemployed. And so we followed through with our obligation. Bought nice gifts for the kids. Every time we dropped things off we'd find lots of able and healthy men, sitting around the house...doing absolutely nothing. The final straw was in January when the woman got our phone number out of the yellow pages and called us asking if we could pay her electric bill, and that they were out of milk. I dropped off milk on my way home from work and found the usual suspects all hanging around, complaining that they couldn't watch TV and blamed the electric company. We didn't pay that bill... And so don't think that everyone out there is doing the best that they can.

 

[dvcgirl]

The following information was published in a national monthly financial magazine a few years ago. I don't have the sources for the specific data anymore, but you'll have to trust me when I say I did have the sources when I wrote the article. And I realize that this info is now a few years old but I don't believe things have changed much since I published this:

The average home is twice as large as in 1950, but the average family is 13% smaller. Fewer people are demanding much more space.

Purchasing the average new car today requires fewer months' worth of family income than it did in 1950. The number of cars per adult is 50% higher than it was then. Years ago, it was not uncommon for a husband and wife to share one car. Today, both spouses likely have a car and often, licensed children do, too.

In 1960, Americans spent 15% of income on groceries vs. only 7% today. Our real downfall is eating out. In 1990, 42 cents of every food dollar was spent in restaurants, double the amount spent a generation ago.

Every year, more than 16 million Americans visit foreign countries. In 1950, the number was 680,000.

The average American consumes twice as many goods and services as he/she did in 1950 and ten times more than in 1929.

As a nation, our standard of living has continued to rise and that does bring with it added costs. But when we look at our parents' or grandparent's generation and what things cost then, we simply aren't comparing equal lifestyles. If you are willing to live in the manner in which your parents or grandparents lived 50 years ago, you could get by on far less money and direct a lot more of your income to savings.

This is all very interesting. Eating out *is* huge. Think back to when we were kids. The only real "chain" restaurants were McDonalds, Burger King, KFC.....and then came an onslaught of others. Fridays, Red Lobster, Chucky Cheese, and then upscale chain restaurants....on and on and on. We went out for a nice dinner *once* a year when I was a kid....one time. We always ate at home, and of course the occasional lunch at McDonalds on a Saturday, maybe a pizza once every couple of weeks.

And travel...that's another biggie. When I was young we went to the beach for a weekend in the summer. Went to Disney World one time...and drove, stayed at my grandparents house. Today, people making comparable incomes to what my parents made take much more expensive family vacations every year. Sometimes more than that. You see it here all the time....multiple trips to Disney on average salaries. I agree, our standard of living has gone up, and our *expectations* and sense of entitlement has gone up right along with it.

 

[DMRick]

Interesting Steve, and I think I've read this before. I can't remember beyond ordering a pizza, or fries at the local teen hangout eating out with my parents, except for very special occasions (and I'm saying maybe once a year).

The following information was published in a national monthly financial magazine a few years ago. I don't have the sources for the specific data anymore, but you'll have to trust me when I say I did have the sources when I wrote the article. And I realize that this info is now a few years old but I don't believe things have changed much since I published this:

The average home is twice as large as in 1950, but the average family is 13% smaller. Fewer people are demanding much more space.

Purchasing the average new car today requires fewer months' worth of family income than it did in 1950. The number of cars per adult is 50% higher than it was then. Years ago, it was not uncommon for a husband and wife to share one car. Today, both spouses likely have a car and often, licensed children do, too.

In 1960, Americans spent 15% of income on groceries vs. only 7% today. Our real downfall is eating out. In 1990, 42 cents of every food dollar was spent in restaurants, double the amount spent a generation ago.

Every year, more than 16 million Americans visit foreign countries. In 1950, the number was 680,000.

The average American consumes twice as many goods and services as he/she did in 1950 and ten times more than in 1929.

As a nation, our standard of living has continued to rise and that does bring with it added costs. But when we look at our parents' or grandparent's generation and what things cost then, we simply aren't comparing equal lifestyles. If you are willing to live in the manner in which your parents or grandparents lived 50 years ago, you could get by on far less money and direct a lot more of your income to savings.

 

[dvcgirl]

When we give names to people to adopt, we know that many times, the situation isn't what it seems. We don't care..the point is to get food and/or presents to the kids. None of us ever give more than our first names, and I'm surprised the agency you went through didn't tell you that. The people who deliver are supposed to deliver just what is on the list, (food for 5, presents for Sue, age 5, etc) and we never give out the personal info about if they are on welfare, food stamps etc. Of course many are poor (some are just alone). We make it very clear that there is to be no judging. Our adopting families are given the info they need through us, and don't meet the family in advance...just at delivery time.
Most of our families (over 300 this year) are deserving and appreciative. We don't ask how many "extras" are in the household, but I'm sure there often are. The kids have no control over that. I get to see the kids after the delivery, and believe me, they are most grateful for the smallest thing. No one is saying there aren't some lazy poor..but I've met my share of lazy rich as well. I hope you don't let this one thing you considered bad, stop you or anyone else from continuing to remember the kids.

Yeah, well we were younger, and little more naive I guess. Somehow they found out our last names. I just asked DH if he remembered how, and he doesn't either. There was no judging by us initially...none at all. It was over the entire process that yes, we became a little jaded by what we saw. Of course the kids have no control over who is laying around the house...but they're learning from it. FWIW, we do write a nice check to the Salvation Army at this time of the year, but we don't get personally involved because if we did honestly, I'd be afraid we'd see more of the same. I really do give kudos to folks who work in the welfare or employment systems....because I can imagine it is easy to get jaded...real fast.

 

[arminnie]

To assume that the correct path for every person in a lower wage earning job is to 'go to college' or 'work their way up to be the boss' is unrealistic and wrong.
......

I would never put someone down for doing the best they can in this world, regardless of income.

No there isn't one path (college/boss) for people to better themselves, but I think there are SO many people who are not doing the best they can in the world. And I am not putting them down as that is their decision not mine, but they can live with the results not me.

I live in a very poor state (Arkansas). I've seen people with very little education or special talents better themselves by virtue of hard work. The man who cuts yards in the neighborhood makes a very good living. His son just graduated from high school and has joined him.

Some other women in my neighborhood didn't want to work in offices so they started cleaning homes. You can make a lot of money doing that - way more than minimum wage.

And to defend my homegrown Walmart - where do you think they get their managers, supervisers, etc. They are very well known for promoting from within. It's not been that bad of a career move to start at Walmart for a lot of people.

Waiters and waitresses can make good money too. Another woman that I know who had no skills started doing adult "babysitting" through a hospital to help provide unskilled home health care.

And yes there are some people who are challenged to work at any level, but let's not confuse them with those who don't try to improve their financial picture. You can work your butt off in a dead end job, so I am not saying that those are lazy people at all.

People earn money by doing something that someone wants done. Someone who needs to make more money needs to find something to do that people value enough to pay you more. Maybe it's a new skill or maybe it's just a new location or a new employer.

People who are physically or mentally not up to doing more should be the people we are helping with a safety net, not those who choose not to help themselves.

Maybe I'm sensitive to this as I just got back from New Orleans. There are jobs everywhere. They are begging people to come to work. Fast food places are paying $500 a month bonuses and $10 an hour.

And yet I know people that have lived there for years in a certain underclass who are not taking these jobs. One person that I know who is in terrible financial shape took a part time job making $6 somewhere else. And before anyone accuses me of being racist that underclass I am referring to is white. If you assumed I was talking about blacks then that may have been racist on your part.

 

[MrsPete]

I very much agree with this. I guess since I have never had cc debt, it is easy for me to forget about those who are paying for their previous mistakes. We are also blessed to not have any school loans; my parents had a college fund for me I was able to use, and dh worked full time through school and followed a 'pay as you go' strategy. We were very blessed to graduate without those bills. I am working very hard to save so that ds can say the same. IF we had financial aid to pay off, I THINK we could still afford our lifestyle, with the exception that we wouldnt be able to save for ds's college yet.

I graduated from college without debt as well, but I did it 100% on my own -- no college fund from my parents, who were stretched to the financial limit with a houseful of children.

I was blessed to be born with a good brain and a healthy body. From there, it was my own motivation and hard work. I really think that anyone who's healthy and has no dependants can do it. Maybe not in four years (it took me 7 years to earn 2 degrees), maybe not by going straight to a 4-year university. Maybe not while living in a nice apartment and having a good car, but I think paying for college without debt IS within the reach of someone who really wants it.

 

[DisFlan]

Your response certainly doesn't describe life in this part of the country. Around here, I think it is much more common for people to be using credit to look richer than they are and to buy luxury items that they really don't need and can't afford. Sounds like that's a lot different than in your area where, for whatever reason, lots of folks are struggling to get by with only the basics. Although I do still wonder if "basics" in today's world is truly as basic as it was a generation ago.

The median family income in our county is less than $28,000. That's the MEDIAN. There's little left for "luxuries", believe me. We're talking basics. You can only "strip" so much at that level of income. And this is within 45 minutes of the world's largest corporation's home offices in Bentonville, Arkansas - Walmart. Most of the "non-Walmart" counties for a long way in any direction around us are in even worse shape than ours. (So much for the Trickle-down Theory.) Well-paying or high-end jobs are few and far between. The only place people around here see areas like where you live is on TV or in movies.

My DH and I have worked hard, but we're also lucky and we know it. He's an internist. I trained as a clinical microbiologist and ran our office for 15 years. You learn a lot about people in a rural practice - you see their struggles everyday. They work hard and they're proud "hill people", but the opportunities for anything better just aren't here for them. At times it's heartbreaking.

Our family is well into the "top 5th income percentile", but we don't really live much differently than other people around us. We live well enough, but no SubZero fridge, no McMansion, no outrageous cars, no designer clothes. We donate quite a bit to charity and try to help our neighbors. We purchased our DVC points with cash; it's our one splurge. My husband's only "money sponge" addiction is golf. And we love our trips to WDW. The rest we put toward retirement and we're paying for our son's college education. In our world, I suppose we're considered "wealthy"; in your world, we'd probably be seen as "stripping to basics". It's all relative.


DisFlan

 

[crisi]

I was talking to my parents about this the other day. In their opinion, families trying to make it on one income definitely have it tougher then when they were starting out. They didn't have to worry about health care costs, which is a huge expense for alot of us. My family's health insurance is average (no huge deductibles, covers all the major stuff), nobody has any major illnesses, but between premiums and copays we'll be spending at least $500/mth next year. That's our second largest bill next to our mortgage.

When my parents were young, they didn't have worry about funding retirement, they were promised a pension and social security. In later years they started investing into a 401K, but it wasn't even a consideration when my sister and I were young.

My dad on the other hand, always had to fund his own health insurance and never had a pension. He will be 61 this year. He's been a salesman for years, and his rep group has never provided much for benefits. Pre-401ks, my Dad kept a retirement account knowing there was no pension in his business. Health insurance was always a huge expense and my parents only ever had major medical. I remember cracking my shoulder into the wall and my parents doing triage to determine that it "probably wasn't broken, and even if it was they don't cast that - we'll bandage it down." I've had an MRI on that shoulder 30 years later and guess what - broken - though my orthopedist said they did a great job, it was just a hairline crack and the emergency room wouldn't have done any differently. He thinks we have it a lot easier - both my husband and I have medical coverage from work (though my husband's is lousy, he uses mine), our work offers discounts on daycare (not much and we didn't take advantage of it, preferring our center), there is a 401k match (better than nothing), employee stock purchase plans and paid vacations (as a fairly independant sales guy, my dad just got commission - no paid vacations).

 

[crisi]

The median family income in our county is less than $28,000. That's the MEDIAN. There's little left for "luxuries", believe me. We're talking basics. You can only "strip" so much at that level of income. And this is within 45 minutes of the world's largest corporation's home offices in Bentonville, Arkansas - Walmart. Most of the "non-Walmart" counties for a long way in any direction around us are in even worse shape than ours. (So much for the Trickle-down Theory.) Well-paying or high-end jobs are few and far between. The only place people around here see areas like where you live is on TV or in movies.

My DH and I have worked hard, but we're also lucky and we know it. He's an internist. I trained as a clinical microbiologist and ran our office for 15 years. You learn a lot about people in a rural practice - you see their struggles everyday. They work hard and they're proud "hill people", but the opportunities for anything better just aren't here for them. At times it's heartbreaking.

Our family is well into the "top 5th income percentile", but we don't really live much differently than other people around us. We live well enough, but no SubZero fridge, no McMansion, no outrageous cars, no designer clothes. We donate quite a bit to charity and try to help our neighbors. We purchased our DVC points with cash; it's our one splurge. My husband's only "money sponge" addiction is golf. And we love our trips to WDW. The rest we put toward retirement and we're paying for our son's college education. In our world, I suppose we're considered "wealthy"; in your world, we'd probably be seen as "stripping to basics". It's all relative.


DisFlan

No, median household is 60k. The link is earlier in this thread. Its actually $65,093. It isn't a ton of money, but it should be enough for a family of four to live comfortably, without debt, and save for retirement. Except perhaps in very high cost of living areas, but then the median income tends to be higher... (Californias is almost $68,000, Connecticutt and New Jersey are around $86,000-87,000!) Bottom end is Missisippi and New Mexico - around $45,000. And provided they don't have unusual unavoidable expenses (medical bills) or fall into the trap of consumerism.

 

[MrsPete]

The average home is twice as large as in 1950, but the average family is 13% smaller. Fewer people are demanding much more space.

Purchasing the average new car today requires fewer months' worth of family income than it did in 1950. The number of cars per adult is 50% higher than it was then. Years ago, it was not uncommon for a husband and wife to share one car. Today, both spouses likely have a car and often, licensed children do, too.

In 1960, Americans spent 15% of income on groceries vs. only 7% today. Our real downfall is eating out. In 1990, 42 cents of every food dollar was spent in restaurants, double the amount spent a generation ago.

Every year, more than 16 million Americans visit foreign countries. In 1950, the number was 680,000.

The average American consumes twice as many goods and services as he/she did in 1950 and ten times more than in 1929.

As a nation, our standard of living has continued to rise and that does bring with it added costs. But when we look at our parents' or grandparent's generation and what things cost then, we simply aren't comparing equal lifestyles. If you are willing to live in the manner in which your parents or grandparents lived 50 years ago, you could get by on far less money and direct a lot more of your income to savings.

I've seen these statistics (and similar ones), and that's what convinces me that it IS possible to make it as a one-income family IF we're willing to live like people did a generation ago. My dad was a CPA and my mom was a SAHM. Here's what my 1960s-1970s childhood was like:

We lived in a three-bedroom house: 2 girls in one bedroom, 3 boys in another, mom/dad in another. Living room, dining room, kitchen -- no den, no basement, no sun room -- just the basic living areas for a family of 7. We all worked in the garden, and we raised chickens for eggs and meat. Our standard drinks were tea and lemonade; soda was a treat and was usually reserved for birthdays, etc. We hung clothes on the line. I do not remember ever going to the movie theater with my family, and a trip to the mall was a rarity (most often we went in the summer to "soak up the air conditioning", which we didn't have in our own house). In the summer, mom took us to state historical sites (free) and dad took us camping in our own woods. We could go to a pool in my grandmother's subdivision for free; we always packed sandwiches and a jug of Koolaid for lunch. My mom made many of our clothes (especially dresses for us girls). At any given point in time, I owned two pair of shoes: tennis shoes and church shoes. Usually I had plastic flip-flops for summer too. I usually had 3 pairs of school jeans every fall, and they were cut off into shorts the next summer. We went to the library every Tuesday and were allowed to check out as many books as we wanted, but we rarely visited the book store. We had two cars -- both old, not "used" but OLD. We had bikes and a few dolls, but no electronic toys and no toys that requried batteries. We had a coffee can full of crayons, mostly broken nubs -- the Easter bunny brought new ones once a year -- and plenty of paper but store-bought art kits were unknown. A birthday party meant a special meal chosen by the birthday child (probably with the grandparents invited) and a mom-baked cake; I never had a friends-invited, treat-bags given type party. My parents went out to dinner 1-2 times per year. Every summer we rented a house at the beach together with all the cousins; kids had to sleep on the floor.

How many families live like that today? I suspect not many. I don't, and as a result, I pay more than my parents did. If I were to make the same choices they did, I have no doubt that I could make it on one income.