What budget? Why worry? How do people do it?

[pixiechick]

I think you're at the very low end of the grocery price increases then. I can't compare my personal grocery budget now vs 10 years ago because that's just apples to oranges - we had an infant and a preschooler then, and now we've got a teenage boy (aka bottomless pit), tween, and preschooler, and I've shifted to growing a lot more of our produce over that time.

But I do know that many of the items I buy at the grocery store have gone up more than 20% just in the last year or two. I used to get milk on sale regularly for $2/gal; now I count myself lucky to find it for $2.50 and often pay $3. I used to buy bread at the bakery outlet for 66¢/loaf; now that same variety is $1.25. Peanut butter is up 25% over just the last year. The ice cream brand that I like has held prices constant but reduced the package size from 1/2 gal to 1.5qt which is just a hidden price hike. And don't even get me started on coffee; we're paying $2 more per lb than we were two years ago. Just about every item we buy at the grocery store has gone up markedly over the last two years and high gas prices promise to continue to push those prices even higher.

Time ran an article about this just last week that is worth a read IMO - http://business.time.com/2012/03/12...ucers-consumers-battle-over-high-food-prices/.

This has been our experience too. I keep a close eye on my food budget. We are spending close to $40 more each week compared to last summer. It seems as if every product has increased by a dollar or two, or has decreased in size by a third.

 

[crisi]

The money we all gave was anonymous, through our church.

Let me ask this.

Does anyone think that the fact that someone who would need to swallow their pride to ask for help is a bad thing?

Yes, one of my Girl Scouts has suffered a LOT because Dad wouldn't swallow his pride and ask for help. She and her brother now live with Grandma, but Grandma had to stage an intervention after four years of him not being able to feed the kids decently. (He didn't get government help either.)

Does anyone think that with the government taking care of everything, makes people more likely to take advantage?

The government doesn't take care of everything. I had friends who lived on welfare when it was much more generous, and if you think a diet of bulgar wheat and government cheese and a Section 8 apartment is something you want, think again.

If you knew that you were depending on the kindness of friends to help you out, would you be more likely to try to not depend on anyone?

I've never been dependent on anyone since I left my parents care. But if I needed to be dependent on someone, after all the taxes I've paid, I HOPE its the government and not my friends.

I believe that every penny donated to families in need without the government involved is very well spent.

I've been hit up for rent money for someone who bought shoes with hers. And someone who decided he didn't like his job anymore. I've watched people hold charitable fundraisers for friends who have decided being a musician is more fun than holding a job. I know a lot of musicians, writers, artists. Heck, my CHURCH hosts them. I don't share your innocence.

I believe that every tax dollar we pay towards welfare is not wisely spent.

Certainly not. Its a huge red tape bureaucracy, those are never efficient and perfect at spending money.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

My income is pretty much at the median. 10 years ago, we purchased a (reasonable cost) house. It costs about $200/month to heat in the winter. Fast forward 10 years and it suddenly cost $800 to heat. That's an increase of 400%. My income increase is about 10% for those 10 years.

Gas was about $1.30/gallon when I bought my house. It is now over $4 some places and very near $4 everywhere else. That is a 300% increase. Again, income increase was about 10%.

We spent about $300/month in groceries back then. Today, as I said, we spend about $1000. A 330% increase. Income increased by 10%.

My electric bill was maybe $50/month. Today, $125. 250% increase. Income 10% increase.

A new car cost about $200-250/month. A good used car, about $5000, or $100 if you financed. A crappy junk car that could be driven a few years before it fell apart for $500. Today, $350/month barely gets you in a new car, a good used car is barely less than a new car, and the junk car to drive a few years before it falls apart is about $2000. Call that 150% increase for new and good used car and 400% for a piece of crap. Again, 10% income increase.

All while median income rises about 10%, the people running the companies that have increased the purchase cost of items have increased nearly just as substantially as the products their companies are producing along with the record breaking profits of these companies.


You have 1000 people making $1 and 10 people making $10 running companies selling a product to the 1000 people When the income of those people increase by 10% and through the greed of the companies, the product purchase price increases by 400%, a majority of the 1000 people no longer purchase the product. The 10 people whom has increased their income along with the product cost are now making $40 and are the only ones who can purchase the product. They are making less product because they are selling less product not to others but mostly to themselves and they no longer need many of the 1000 people to work for them to make the products. A good chunk of the 1000 people are now out of a job, therefore buy even less of the products. That is where we are today.


10 years ago, a regular job was $10/hour, a good job was $20/hour, and a really good job was $30/hour. Fast forward, those same jobs are paying the same wages, but the cost of everything is increased 200-400%. That makes the regular job now a really crappy job, the good job a not quite as crappy job, and the really good job just something to get by on.

After doing our taxes this year and wondering where all our money went, I pulled out some old budget spreadsheets and found the same thing. When we bought our house 9 years ago, I didn't work. Now I do. So, I am thankful that we can afford all these increases, but frustrated that we cannot save like we had planned. Our plan was to bank all of my income when I went back to work. Not happening.

I get frustrated with all the "mcmansion" comments and assumptions. We had no problem paying for our home when we bought it. We bought below what our lender was suggesting we could afford. DH has basically the same job (but for a different company) and his income has increased. When we moved here, we had emergency funds and we still do. So we were/are not dipping into savings to live. Yet, we now need a second income to live basically the same lifestyle.

I am extremely annoyed by the fact that my DH needs (yes, needs not wants) a newer full size pickup truck and buying one will completely bust the budget. A gas sipping beater will not haul the generator, tools, and equipment his job requires. If his current truck keeps breaking down, his employer is going to get fed up, and we have sunk over $4K in it in the last year and a half and still can't keep it running. I'm sure someone else will see his new truck and think "must be nice..." Yes, we love spending $500/mo to fill the gas tank, too. It is all so very nice.

 

[cats mom]

I know I'm taking this in a slightly different direction, but I wanted to respond to this comment re: my housing rant.

I think location has a lot to do with perception of the housing mess. We know a LOT of people who have lost homes to foreclosure. Most bought houses that cost around 100K on conventional or FHA mortgages; for years, the main reason people moved to our community was the unusual combination of affordable homes and excellent schools. For a lot of us (we bought our first house in '01), buying worked out to be cheaper than renting. Then came 2008 and the market in our area fell by about 65% at the same time as the job losses started to pile up. I just can't see directing anger or blame at the folks I see around me, who are underwater on homes worth less than half what they paid and trying to get by on wages that are often not much more than half what they were making when they bought.

As someone who opted to sit out the madness in the RE market, even though I would have liked to buy again instead of renting, I admit I felt some degree of schadenfreude when the bubble began to deflate.

Given that "innovative affordability products" (translation: ways to get people into houses they had no way of legitimately affording) originated in my area, and I watched prices bid up to insane levels because of said products, it was hard not to feel some sense of "I told you so" when things began to implode.

I honestly feel I'm past that now (at least for the most part) and my rage and incredulity is now directed at government programs that claim to help struggling homeowners when they mainly reward the irresponsible.

Just a couple of points:

What do renters do when faced with stagnant or declining wages? If they can't make rent, they get booted to the curb and they find housing they can afford.

What makes "homeowners" more worthy to stay in houses they can no longer, or in many cases never could, afford?

Along those lines, maybe we need to make a distinction between homeowners and loan owners.

A homeowner has equity in the property; whether from downpayment, paying down the loan, a combination, whatever... they have skin in the game.

Someone with no equity in the property really owns nothing but the loan. Their name is on the title, but calling them a homeowner is a stretch. Yes, some of them just had really poor timing. But I'd wager the majority of them overborrowed.

The thing is most homeowners and even loan owners who borrowed responsibly, whether currently underwater or not, can still afford their payments. (Those who suffered job losses likely qualified for the first round of loan mods.) Yet many of the above are screaming for principle reductions.

I don't remember outrage from homeowners when prices were going up and they were free to access all that equity via re-fi's and/or HELOC.

I really hate the idea of privatized profits and socialized losses, in any form.

This is why I love Gail Vaz-Oxlaide's show "Til Debt Do Us Part". You see how people who earn $25K up to $150K end up in trouble and how you can get out and retire with $. Her other show "Princess" shows how family and friends can be enablers and enable the princess to live well above their means. I highly recommend these two shows.

I haven't seen Princess, but I've watched a few episodes of Til Debt Do Us Part and I was amazed at how clueless some of the couples were about finances.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I know I'm taking this in a slightly different direction, but I wanted to respond to this comment re: my housing rant.

Just a couple of points:

What do renters do when faced with stagnant or declining wages? If they can't make rent, they get booted to the curb and they find housing they can afford. Correct. Renters only loose the monthly rental payments they would be loosing whenever they chose to leave anyway. Being in property management, I see people break leases all the time with absolutely no repercussions. Some live for "free" for as many months as they can get away with until the landlord kicks them out. At which point, they are so ready to just be rid of the tenant they cut their losses and pursue nothing. Of course, some renters are able to finish out the short term of their lease and leave on good terms. In which case, no one really loses anything. The renter moves on to a place they can afford and the landlord finds someone who can afford the rent. A lease is typically a much shorter term commitment than a mortgage.

What makes "homeowners" more worthy to stay in houses they can no longer, or in many cases never could, afford? Not saying they are "more worthy", but I think a home is much harder to walk away from without damaging your credit. So with the same thinking, if those homeowners never could really afford their homes, those renters in this situation were in an apartment they really couldn't afford....

Along those lines, maybe we need to make a distinction between homeowners and loan owners.

A homeowner has equity in the property; whether from downpayment, paying down the loan, a combination, whatever... they have skin in the game.Agreed. If I were to need to move out of my house right now, I would lose the $80K I put down and the money I spent in additional upgrades.

Someone with no equity in the property really owns nothing but the loan. Their name is on the title, but calling them a homeowner is a stretch. Yes, some of them just had really poor timing. But I'd wager the majority of them overborrowed.Possibly, but I am with Colleen27 on this one....this is not the case with people I know. Interest rates were low and rent was high. No one knew they were going to lose their job and that it would be so hard to find a new one. Many of the people I know of already had substantial savings and were moving up in their careers believing they would have even higher earning potential.

The thing is most homeowners and even loan owners who borrowed responsibly, whether currently underwater or not, can still afford their payments. (Those who suffered job losses likely qualified for the first round of loan mods.) Yet many of the above are screaming for principle reductions. Honestly don't know who is or isn't screaming for principal reductions. But, since current interest rates are about 2% lower than when I bought my house, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a lender to modify a mortgage to match the "going rate" given the current economic crisis.

I don't remember outrage from homeowners when prices were going up and they were free to access all that equity via re-fi's and/or HELOC.There are certainly people who overborrowed for stupid reasons. I also have a friend who borrowed against her house to go back to college and landed a great job afterward. Not everyone did it to finance extravagant trips and such. I know some people used the opportunity to borrow to pay off medical bills that were hanging over their heads. Stupid, I guess, but they thought they were "doing the right thing".

I really hate the idea of privatized profits and socialized losses, in any form.



I haven't seen Princess, but I've watched a few episodes of Til Debt Do Us Part and I was amazed at how clueless some of the couples were about finances.

(my comments are above in red) Guess my view is different from yours based on the people I know and the situations I see.

 

[Colleen27]

The thing is most homeowners and even loan owners who borrowed responsibly, whether currently underwater or not, can still afford their payments. (Those who suffered job losses likely qualified for the first round of loan mods.) Yet many of the above are screaming for principle reductions.

I don't think this is true. We've yet to meet someone who has successfully modified their loan and we know dozens of families who have tried. The process is nearly as difficult as qualifying for a new loan and people who have experienced job losses and/or pay cuts frequently don't meet the standards. From where I'm sitting, in the middle of the "rust belt", those modification programs were for the people who took on risky and ridiculous loans to buy more than they could afford. Homeowners who have the same job that they did when they took on a 5 year interest only mortgage get help converting to a traditional fixed rate product when they can't make their balloon payment at the end, but those who bought within their means on a conventional loan only to lose a job don't qualify for help because of insufficient time on the job, unfavorable LTV ratios, bad credit, etc.

 

[cats mom]

(my comments are above in red) Guess my view is different from yours based on the people I know and the situations I see.

Correct. Renters only loose the monthly rental payments they would be loosing whenever they chose to leave anyway. Being in property management, I see people break leases all the time with absolutely no repercussions. Some live for "free" for as many months as they can get away with until the landlord kicks them out. At which point, they are so ready to just be rid of the tenant they cut their losses and pursue nothing. Of course, some renters are able to finish out the short term of their lease and leave on good terms. In which case, no one really loses anything. The renter moves on to a place they can afford and the landlord finds someone who can afford the rent. A lease is typically a much shorter term commitment than a mortgage.

I live in an area where basic tract homes, on tiny lots, in solidly middle class neighborhoods, sold for well over a million dollars at the height of the frenzy and I guarantee most middle class families did not have the savings and/or incomes to justify those high purchase prices.

Do you realize the average time from first missed payment to repossession on those high end loans was 792 days last year?

Hmm, do you know any renters who were able to live for "free" for 2+ years? Because I can give you examples of homeowners who game the system and live payment free for far longer than that.

If it's OK for a renter to move on to a place they can afford so the landlord can find someone else who can afford the rent.... why is the same not true for homeowners?

Not saying they are "more worthy", but I think a home is much harder to walk away from without damaging your credit. So with the same thinking, if those homeowners never could really afford their homes, those renters in this situation were in an apartment they really couldn't afford.....

I think you might be surprised at how little damage a short sale or foreclosure actually does in today's economic climate.

" Wynn Bloch’s house in Palm Springs, CA sold at foreclosure auction in March 2010. As a result of the foreclosure, her credit score fell just 45 points – from 780 to 735. “It didn’t hurt me really at all,” Bloch stated, “In fact, I was foreclosed upon last March and just bought a new house in December!”

and

“Eighty-one percent of our clients (You Walk Away) have experienced no issues renting after a foreclosure or short sale. Only 18% were asked to provide a slightly larger deposit.”

Truth be told, if you want to ease the burden on overextended homeowners / loan owners, foreclosure will do that. But everyone seems intent on finding a solution that allows people who borrowed excessively to stay in their homes. And of course no matter how you try to go about that, it will require unbelievable amounts of taxpayer money.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the comment I took the liberty of bolding above, or what difference it makes.

My point was, when someone can no longer afford where they're living; whether they're a homeowner, loan owner, or renter, and whether they originally could or not... the logical conclusion is to find something they can afford.

Yes, I understand that's incredibly difficult emotionally, but it's almost always the best option financially.

Honestly don't know who is or isn't screaming for principal reductions. But, since current interest rates are about 2% lower than when I bought my house, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a lender to modify a mortgage to match the "going rate" given the current economic crisis.

I have no problem with that if you can get the lender to agree to it, and it would probably be good business for them to do so. But did the contract you signed when you bought the house provide for that?

Because what I do have a problem with is politicians mandating programs that force contracts to be broken, and I have a problem with people demanding / expecting the same like it's some kind of entitlement. JMHO

I don't think this is true. We've yet to meet someone who has successfully modified their loan and we know dozens of families who have tried. The process is nearly as difficult as qualifying for a new loan and people who have experienced job losses and/or pay cuts frequently don't meet the standards. From where I'm sitting, in the middle of the "rust belt", those modification programs were for the people who took on risky and ridiculous loans to buy more than they could afford. Homeowners who have the same job that they did when they took on a 5 year interest only mortgage get help converting to a traditional fixed rate product when they can't make their balloon payment at the end, but those who bought within their means on a conventional loan only to lose a job don't qualify for help because of insufficient time on the job, unfavorable LTV ratios, bad credit, etc.

Maybe this is regional as well because I personally know 4 families just on my street who have gotten loan mods. In fact one of them is on their 2nd trial period because they re-defaulted after their 1st mod.

The GSE's alone have completed 1.1 million mods, so someone is getting them.

Of course after closely looking at the terms on some of the modification programs, what I said above about foreclosure being the answer to excessive housing debt, not the problem, definitely stands.

 

[nunzia]

I do disagree!

Yes, I think it is bad that people have to swallow their pride to ask for help. It keeps many from asking for help that they truly and often urgently need and can cause much unnecessary suffering.

Let me ask you this - you think the government takes care of everything - why are YOU not taking advantage of it? Why don't I? I'm sure there are several reasons, but the reality is that most people don't. Some people do, but their numbers are few, and I suspect they would take advantage of other programs (and yes, charities, churches, etc. are OFTEN defrauded).

I strongly disagree that money spent on people in need by charities, churches, etc. is always well spent!! Here's why: most charities, foundations, churches, have their own "projects" or agendas they want to fund. Maybe they only provide money for Jewish families (so the non-religious family is out of luck) or they only donate food (so the family that needs diapers or money for medication or home repairs to make their house safe is out of luck) or they provide money for housing only if they live in a certain area (so the single mother whose divorce decree requires her to live in the same area as her ex-husband is out of luck). People working with poor families spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to make the family fit into what the charity wants the money spent on. And yes, the money gets wasted or at least is not spent on what the family's most urgent needs are. Thank goodness there are government programs that don't have these restrictions but can be directed to meet the family's needs.

The other thing that happens with many (not all, and I only know about my province) government programs is education, counselling, etc. A church may give a family food; if a family is referred to family and children's services they can get food vouchers PLUS counselling to help them learn to manage money better, find cheaper housing, get treatment for mental health problems, find work, etc. It's the "giving a fish" or "teaching someone how to fish" story.

Teresa

I agree with some of this..in some ways it is is good for people to feel ashamed they need help...as soon as they don't they start gaming the system..I see it every day as I work at a church and about 70% of the calls and walk ins we get are people asking for aid..for valid reasons or not. They have no shame at all..they feel entitled and many get angry if not 'helped'. On the other hand ,we know some who truly need help and will not ask, and in those cases we send food food vouchers, pay propane, etc annonymously. Our church doesn't have an agenda..we help whoever for whatever at the discretion of the Associate Pastor who has that ministry. Many times we know we're being played but also, if there are kids involved we still help (and we caught a guy who was borrowing a kid..) Counseling is also given here if they are receptive..I am telling you that many game the system..they are also on every type of government aid known to man and still want more. Some people really do enjoy getting all they can from anyone they can...many do not, but it can't be denied that those who have no hesitation about expecting others to pay for their existense is rising.

 

[DawnM]

Yes, but the poster claimed her groceries have jumped about 350%.

From $300 to $1,000 for the exact same products is not what ANYONE I have ever met has claimed.

Milk didn't go from $2 to $7. Bread didn't go from $1 to $3.50 for the same loaf.

Dawn

I think you're at the very low end of the grocery price increases then. I can't compare my personal grocery budget now vs 10 years ago because that's just apples to oranges - we had an infant and a preschooler then, and now we've got a teenage boy (aka bottomless pit), tween, and preschooler, and I've shifted to growing a lot more of our produce over that time.

But I do know that many of the items I buy at the grocery store have gone up more than 20% just in the last year or two. I used to get milk on sale regularly for $2/gal; now I count myself lucky to find it for $2.50 and often pay $3. I used to buy bread at the bakery outlet for 66¢/loaf; now that same variety is $1.25. Peanut butter is up 25% over just the last year. The ice cream brand that I like has held prices constant but reduced the package size from 1/2 gal to 1.5qt which is just a hidden price hike. And don't even get me started on coffee; we're paying $2 more per lb than we were two years ago. Just about every item we buy at the grocery store has gone up markedly over the last two years and high gas prices promise to continue to push those prices even higher.

Time ran an article about this just last week that is worth a read IMO - http://business.time.com/2012/03/12...ucers-consumers-battle-over-high-food-prices/.

 

[leahjade]

Reminds me of a personal situation years ago when we loaned friends money so they wouldn't lose their house, and they proceeded to go on a week long vacation the next month! When I said something to her, she said "my kids are entitled to a vacation just like anyone else's." Well, no they are not! My kids didn't get a vacation a lot of years when money was scarce in our house. Needless to say we never saw that money again. I see this kind of mentality in many families nowadays. No matter how in debt they are, they feel they are entitled to vacations, new cars, Iphones etc.

 

[DawnM]

Well, if credit weren't so easy to get, it wouldn't foster such an entitlement feeling.

When you had to put down 20% min. on a house and your loan could not exceed 2 to 2.5 times your income, and there weren't credit cards, etc.....people lived far better within their means.

I honestly don't have a problem with people getting a break if they are low income (lower electric bills or lower internet cost) if they are paying something and living within their means.

We had a family the church gave a large amount of $$ to when the husband lost his job. Several months later they went on a cruise and posted pics all over FB with people saying, "You deserve it!" He still didn't have a job.

I have never been on a cruise. I don't feel I deserve it.

Sigh.

Dawn

Reminds me of a personal situation years ago when we loaned friends money so they wouldn't lose their house, and they proceeded to go on a week long vacation the next month! When I said something to her, she said "my kids are entitled to a vacation just like anyone else's." Well, no they are not! My kids didn't get a vacation a lot of years when money was scarce in our house. Needless to say we never saw that money again. I see this kind of mentality in many families nowadays. No matter how in debt they are, they feel they are entitled to vacations, new cars, Iphones etc.

 

[dvcgirl]

This is a great thread. It's nice to see DisneySteve too! And great points by Colleen27, Eliza 61, Crisi, Muushka, Mrs Pete and others.

I really used to get as fired up at the OP and I still do from time to time. But I really do think that the horse is out of the barn, and it's going to be tough to round him up and put him back in.

I'm not really talking about people "milking the system", but Americans in general living beyond their means and the implications that will have on our society moving forward.

The access of easy and ample credit to all came at a terrible time in our nation's history. It came along just as the "Great Risk Shift" was beginning. The Employers, in an ever increasing drive for shareholder profits, began shutting down their defined benefit plans (traditional pensions) in favor of 401K plans. And more and more of the cost of healthcare was on the employee, not the employer.

Now we're seeing results of this shift, and it's not pretty. The oldest boomers are reaching retirement age, and they're in no way prepared. 25% of the those age 60-65 years old have saved enough to maintain their previous lifestyle in retirement. And that's including Social Security and any other pensions they may have. The other 75% don't have enough....they've got to keep working.

A lot of people want to blame the 401K for this. They want to blame the market swings and poor investment choices. But the reality is that given the choice of spending or saving, Americans will spend. When they run out of their own money to spend, Americans will borrow. It's not the 401K's fault....Americans never saved enough.

And of of *this* hits our society as the government is in no way prepared to fund current entitlement programs let alone handle the growing number of Americans who are going to rely upon them.

Faced with all of this, Americans will still spend. A couple of years into the recent financial crisis we started to hear the phrase "Frugal Fatigue". We saw the savings rate go up a bit...I think it hit 6% or so at it's recent peak, but since then it's plunged again. I've heard Clark Howard talk excitedly about how for the first time in years and years, the amount of Credit Card debt that Americans hold is falling. That's not because they're paying it down....they're defaulting. That's why that number is falling.

So, like I said, tough to get this horse back in the barn. In the era of easy credit, Americans, especially the middle class, got used to a higher standard of living. And they're not going to want to give that up.

 

[disneysteve]

This is a great thread. It's nice to see DisneySteve too!

Hi. Good to "see" you too!

 

[crisi]

Now we're seeing results of this shift, and it's not pretty. The oldest boomers are reaching retirement age, and they're in no way prepared. 25% of the those age 60-65 years old have saved enough to maintain their previous lifestyle in retirement. And that's including Social Security and any other pensions they may have. The other 75% don't have enough....they've got to keep working.

And, of course, there is a problem with that. There aren't enough jobs. It can be hard to find work when you are 70. But at the other end, if you manage to hang onto your good job into your 70s, that job isn't there for someone else to step into.

We stared aghast at the low retirement age in parts of Europe, but it was part of their employment program. Rather than have people in their 60s work while people in their late 20s who wanted to start families (or had them) were unemployed, they moved the retirement age forward. It actually isn't a horrible idea, if it can be properly funded.

I'm reading To Kill A Mockingbird aloud to my daughter right now. A book published in 1960 (written in the 1950s) about the 1930s. And you always have Ewells. You did in 1935, in 1958 when the book was written, you do now, and you will in 20 years. But you will always have Cunninghams and Finchs as well.

 

[dvcgirl]

And, of course, there is a problem with that. There aren't enough jobs. It can be hard to find work when you are 70. But at the other end, if you manage to hang onto your good job into your 70s, that job isn't there for someone else to step into.

This is going to be a big problem going forward. Not enough jobs...or as Colleen27 has pointed out, not enough *good* jobs for the population. And we may see a higher number of unemployment for those under 25 years of age.

Yes, unemployment will fall, but what kind of jobs are we creating? Even when unemployment was 4.5% last decade, we got that low by creating a lot of low paying retail and service jobs.

I hear a log of talk about "manufacturing coming back". Sure, we may see a mini-manufacturing boom, but not many jobs will be created. Thirty years ago there were thousands of people working in an auto manufacturing plant or auto parts plant. Now, so much of it is automated that there just aren't that many positions created.

 

[eliza61]

This is going to be a big problem going forward. Not enough jobs...or as Colleen27 has pointed out, not enough *good* jobs for the population. And we may see a higher number of unemployment for those under 25 years of age.

Yes, unemployment will fall, but what kind of jobs are we creating? Even when unemployment was 4.5% last decade, we got that low by creating a lot of low paying retail and service jobs.

I hear a log of talk about "manufacturing coming back". Sure, we may see a mini-manufacturing boom, but not many jobs will be created. Thirty years ago there were thousands of people working in an auto manufacturing plant or auto parts plant. Now, so much of it is automated that there just aren't that many positions created.

My other concern DVCG is that as a society I do think we still have this unsustainable "expectations". For example my company did well over the recession in that we managed not to have any layoffs but every year I get this profit objectives of 20-30% we constantly shake our heads and wonder "who the heck is coming up with these numbers"

Also like you said, as a rule we like to spend. I'm in Southern NJ and even after the housing crash a supposedly "starter" home is considered 3000 square feet.

My big concern of course is for my generation, the tail end of baby boomers. My sons have a 1/2 chance because they have age on their side but those of my age are caught between a rock and a hard place even if we did do the right thing (which I can't claim totally). many of us have elderly parents to deal with, college kids to pay for and still have the mortgage.

I'm just as guilty, there are some days when I say "I deserve a vacation" or "I work hard I should have XYZ".

The average age of my division is I believe 53 and it will continue to go up because no one I know is thinking of retiring any time soon.

 

[surrealrain]

Very well said!

I love your vent, it's the same thing that's always aggrivated me. When you're on the high tax bracket end of things, then you see how unfair it is to work so hard and pay so much taxes while you're surrounded by people who honestly think welfare is a way of life, and not just a temporary form of help for those who fall on a hard time. In all honesty it scares me to think about the future of our country if the rate of people who take from the system continues to grow faster than the rate of people who pay into the system.

My husband and I are 26 and 27 and our only debt is our house. We have a much higher than average income, and live well below our means and will have our mortgage paid off in less than 4 years. We are constantly amazed at our friends and relatives spending habits, and the amount of people we know who take a government handout every chance they get and yet book nice vacations with their earned income tax credit every year, which should be used to buy food for the next year instead of expecting taxpayers to provide the neccessities.


It's not that people are bad, but for whatever reason we have become a society that feels entitled, and as long as we continue to subsidized irresponsible behaviour, then we will get more of it.

Here's a quote I love "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." ~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers

 

[reginaastralis]

I wanted to comment on the yahoo article, because I live in Tampa, and that article really pissed me off.

I'm currently enrolled in community college here in Tampa ... there is only one community college here. I spent $2800(ish) for the fall and spring semester ... and $300-500 in books. The author states that between the two kids she spent $15000 for the year. Seriously I don't know if she just pulled these numbers out of her hiney ... but they just do not make sense. Because of that major transgression ... I have serious doubts on the rest of her numbers ...

 

[nunzia]

Very well said!

I love your vent, it's the same thing that's always aggrivated me. When you're on the high tax bracket end of things, then you see how unfair it is to work so hard and pay so much taxes while you're surrounded by people who honestly think welfare is a way of life, and not just a temporary form of help for those who fall on a hard time. In all honesty it scares me to think about the future of our country if the rate of people who take from the system continues to grow faster than the rate of people who pay into the system.

My husband and I are 26 and 27 and our only debt is our house. We have a much higher than average income, and live well below our means and will have our mortgage paid off in less than 4 years. We are constantly amazed at our friends and relatives spending habits, and the amount of people we know who take a government handout every chance they get and yet book nice vacations with their earned income tax credit every year, which should be used to buy food for the next year instead of expecting taxpayers to provide the neccessities.


It's not that people are bad, but for whatever reason we have become a society that feels entitled, and as long as we continue to subsidized irresponsible behaviour, then we will get more of it.

Here's a quote I love "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." ~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers

Love that...

 

[Acklander]

Very well said!

I love your vent, it's the same thing that's always aggrivated me. When you're on the high tax bracket end of things, then you see how unfair it is to work so hard and pay so much taxes while you're surrounded by people who honestly think welfare is a way of life, and not just a temporary form of help for those who fall on a hard time. In all honesty it scares me to think about the future of our country if the rate of people who take from the system continues to grow faster than the rate of people who pay into the system.

Rogers

High tax bracket end of things??? Taxes for the high end are at a historical low. For the last 10 years there has been tax cut upon tax cut upon tax cut. Maybe instead of cutting taxes for the "job creators" they should pay the taxes and those funds should used to actually create jobs - then you won't have to worry about people sitting around on a lifetime of welfare, but instead can offer jobs with living wages.
People aren't looking to be lesligated into prosperity, the just want a fair wage in which they can support their family. Nothing wrong with that.