Advice and Support from Thousands of Users Just Like You

Reply
Page 6 of 14 « First 4 5 6 7 8 Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
saulgoode saulgoode is offline
saulgoode's Avatar

Unregistered

Join Date: Oct 2008

Posts: 1,310

See profile

Wonderwoman402 wrote :
Your father's standard of living did not include internet, microwave ovens, big screen TVs, cell phones, and lots of other things that are considered normal parts of the standard of living today. Back then (at least in my father's age) few people had health insurance, and certainly not dental insurance. Most houses did not have dishwashers, and if a family owned a car at all, it was only one, not one for each driver.

All things considered, you probably are living at a higher standard of living than your father did. Considering ONLY the cost of housing is not a true reflection of the standard of living.

Also, a lot of your standard of living is dependent on where you choose to live. You live in a very expensive part of the country. From the generalities you've given, I suspect my income is very close to yours. I live in a $190,000 suburban house ( 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2000 SF, 2 car garage) in an excellent school district, amongst educated neighbors. I support 3 people on my salary, plus pay my mortgage and all other expenses... including health insurance for my kids.

My folks' house was bigger and nicer than mine, but all things considered I think my standard of living is equal to or better than what they had. I would not be able to replicate this standard of living if I were to choose to live where you do.
"A house is just a box with a top on it, where you keep all your stuff."

George Carlin, paraphrased. I think...

I live very similarly to you, my wonderous wonder of all wonderwomen.

And I live well.


- Saul
- November 6th, 2009, 04:58 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#51   Reply With Quote
Wonderwoman402 Wonderwoman402 is offline
Wonderwoman402's Avatar

Veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009

Posts: 1,311

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
That is a good post, but (and it will be full of very big buts) …

Big TV does not cost any more than small TV did 20 years ago, in real terms (and $500 TV every 15 years is so meaningless compared to five-figure annual property tax) – but you know that.

Cell phone (only) is less than he paid for POTS – but you know that. And $244 / year mobile phone is far less than five-figure property tax (at 7.1% CAGR in NJ.) – but you know that.

I am confident (not having the data though) my father had far better health cover than employers offer today. Not to mention the ridiculous 6%+ CAGR heath inflation – but you know that.

I don’t choose where I live, my employer does (I would move in an instant if I could.)

And we haven’t even begun to talk about longer work weeks for lesser security, no pension, etc – but you know that.

Fact is, men have lost real wages in the US. Full stop.
Your big screen TV affords a high quality of living than your father's 20" black & white.

Your cell phone affords a higher quality of living than your father's land line.

Don't know about your father's health plan (and apparently neither do you). My father did not have any, and had 4 kids to keep healthy

You could choose to work for someone else, somewhere else You could move if you wanted. You don't want to. Your choice, but you pay for it in your standard of living.

My father had no pension. I do (and I know I am quite fortunate in that regard). He was self employed, so had no security. If he didn't win the bids, he didn't work. He worked far more hours per week than I ever will.

I still maintain you have a HIGHER quality of life than your father did. I'll bet if you asked him (if he is still with us, mine is not) he would agree.
- November 6th, 2009, 05:01 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#52   Reply With Quote
neardc neardc is offline
neardc's Avatar

neardc What year is it again?

Volunteer Community Leader

Join Date: Jun 2008

Posts: 5,474

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
Cost of housing, the largest expense for most people.
Yes; and you are grossly miscalculating the level of income needed to afford a $600k house (which is closer to $150k).

An income that nets you $500k will leave you with over $400k leftover to spend on non-housing expenses annually.

$60k in 1982 (25 years ago) is the equivalent to @$134k in 2009 dollars. In other words, very similar to a salary of @$150 today (or a little above, depending on your tax situation).

So, it would seem that a salary of @$150-160k would be roughly equivalent to your father's situation 25 years ago.
- November 6th, 2009, 05:01 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#53   Reply With Quote
cardguy cardguy is online now
cardguy's Avatar

Enthusiast

Join Date: Aug 2009

Posts: 784

See profile

Your post assumes that you have no choice in your employer. Now that may be true in the short run (especially in this economic climate), but it's not true over the long term.

Certainly the stagnation in real wages is a frustrating thing, but that doesn't change that fact that you're spending much more on housing than you need to. Nothing wrong with that, so do I (even though I'm renting a house with two other people, I could save at least $100-150/month by accepting a less desirable housing situation, like an apartment).

It's important to recognize, however, that there's a difference between "the amount of money I spend on necessities that is truly necessary" and "the amount of discretionary money I spend on necessity categories because I desire a those things in higher quality". To claim that you have no room at all in your budget when a significant amount of money is going to the second kind of 'necessity spending' simply isn't accurate.
- November 6th, 2009, 05:02 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#54   Reply With Quote
Wonderwoman402 Wonderwoman402 is offline
Wonderwoman402's Avatar

Veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009

Posts: 1,311

See profile

saulgoode wrote :
"A house is just a box with a top on it, where you keep all your stuff."

George Carlin, paraphrased. I think...

I live very similarly to you, my wonderous wonder of all wonderwomen.

And I live well.


- Saul

Love George Carlin, rest his soul!

Family Guy dog is tops, too!
- November 6th, 2009, 05:02 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#55   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

peg099 peg099 is offline
peg099's Avatar

peg099 has fallen and he landed beside me :)

Sage

Join Date: Sep 2008

Posts: 11,943

See profile

LizziePooh wrote :
Now that everyone is getting along, maybe I should not stir up the nest but here goes...

This is just an observation I have made over the years - take it as you may...

I work in the health industry. There is a federal mandate that child support agencies may send a Qualified Medical Child Support Order (QMSCO) to an employer. These QMCSOs are issued to an employer giving the employer the authority to add a child unto a health plan and take any necessary deductions out of an employee's paycheck without authorization from the employee. These are issued when an employee has a court order to provide health coverage for their child but they fail to do so.

So these QMCSOs are issued because "deadbeat" parents are not fulfilling their obligation as issued by the court.

Here is the part that is just an observation so take it how you may...

I have seen hundreds of these QMSCOs and out of all them, only one has been issued on a female employee.

With that, you can draw a few conclusions and I am not really sure how accurate they are.

Conclusion one - Men are more often responsible to cover their children under their health plans.

Conclusion two - Men more often shirk their responsibility of covering their children under their health plans.

Conclusion three - In my observation, QMSCOs are more likely issued on people making a lower wage than average and typically these employees have been male due to the industry/work (at least for the plans I administer) and that is why there seems to be a slant towards men appearing as "deadbeat" parents.

(Modified - My money is on a combination of conclusion one and conclusion three.)
I agree with neardc that men are more likely to have jobs that provide health coverage.

I would expect that the court would also be more likely to order the parent with the higher income to provide health coverage, and since men typically earn more, they would more often be responsible forthis expense.

Also, I suspect that these orders are generally issued on the parent that doesn't have primary custody. This is a bit of a guess based on human nature - the parent who has their children the bulk of the time is more likely to be taking them to the doctor and would be more incliuned to make sure coverage was ensured. And while men increasingly share in the custody, the woman is still more likely to have the kids a larger percentage of the time.
- November 6th, 2009, 05:04 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#56   Reply With Quote
D_Lion D_Lion is online now
D_Lion's Avatar

D_Lion - Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Join Date: Aug 2008

Posts: 14,307

See profile

Actually, not. I keep hearing nostalgia for days gone by (from women too, though women have it so much better today.)

Seriously, what?! I buy a TV almost 20 years ago for $200 and replace him 2 years ago ... that is $20 / year (exclusive of TVM.) Any agrument you can make about a TV is so swamped by salary, taxes and housing, that I can fly to Monoco on a private jet charter to watch the race for less money!

I am trying to find a job out of this welare state - trying!

I call you for making a self-employed analogy. You know people had pensions, more trustworthy employment and benefits a generation ago.
- November 6th, 2009, 05:11 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#57   Reply With Quote
D_Lion D_Lion is online now
D_Lion's Avatar

D_Lion - Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Join Date: Aug 2008

Posts: 14,307

See profile

neardc wrote :
So, it would seem that a salary of @$150-160k would be roughly equivalent to your father's situation 25 years ago.

I won't bore you to remind you the CPI has not in it owner-occupied housing, which inflates faster than CPI.

And again, I face regional data, not national data.

And customary credit terms for mortgage is housing cost (principal, interest, tax, and homeowner's premium ought to be at or under 28% of salary - at least, before the current economic quagmire got rolling.)
- November 6th, 2009, 05:15 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#58   Reply With Quote
Wonderwoman402 Wonderwoman402 is offline
Wonderwoman402's Avatar

Veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009

Posts: 1,311

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
I am trying to find a job out of this welare state - trying!
So you agree a great deal of your standard of living has to do with where you choose to live.
- November 6th, 2009, 05:20 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#59   Reply With Quote
neardc neardc is offline
neardc's Avatar

neardc What year is it again?

Volunteer Community Leader

Join Date: Jun 2008

Posts: 5,474

See profile

D_Lion wrote :
I won't bore you to remind you the CPI has not in it owner-occupied housing, which inflates faster than CPI.

And again, I face regional data, not national data.

And customary credit terms for mortgage is housing cost (principal, interest, tax, and homeowner's premium ought to be at or under 28% of salary - at least, before the current economic quagmire got rolling.)
Whether I base the calculation on what salary is needed to afford the $600k home, or on an inflation adjustment to the salary, the result is the same: @$150-160k/year. Up it to $175 or $200k if you wish to adjust for different assumptions; it's still nowhere near a net salary of over $500k.
- November 6th, 2009, 05:21 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#60   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Reply
Page 6 of 14 « First 4 5 6 7 8 Last »

Bookmarks

« Have to share :-) | Array | POLL: End of the world imminent -- how would you change your life? »
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Women in late 30's/early 40's who say they want kids Mayne About You 71 November 24th, 2009 04:10 pm

Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“Le sigh Andi. I'm green with envy. So glad you had a good date. Looking forward to hearing about good date # 5 ” – SweetKatieA

Join the “Saturday Night Date” discussion

“I was actually surprised but this quiz got me down exactly right!  The patient pleaser” – kate5md

Join the “Take Our Quiz: Are you High Maintenance?” discussion

“I learned right off the bat that I needed to thicken up my skin in a hurry, yet somehow not harden my heart in that process. I learned that no matter how I feel at various times about my ... ” – brneyedangel

Join the “What lessons have you learned from online dating?” discussion

“Hrmm, thanks for the advice here, people. Much appreciated. I see now why some people can take it the wrong way, so I just changed my MH/CS list to other things that I want, don't want in a ... ” – listererik

Join the “Must Have/Can't Stand Mistake?” discussion

“Crcbonjour amazing post! I'm not going to copy it all because it's (I forget her name, but she posts very long posts) worthy. However, you bring up alot of good points. Everything but love can be ... ” – SweetKatieA

Join the “Income Levels: Important or Not?” discussion

“Don't be too hard on yourself. Dating is a learned skill. You'll get better with time. And I am a big believer that if you do meet the right person, a few mistakes are not going to stop them from ... ” – suzyblueeyes

Join the “Rough Start” discussion

“ No, that means everyday. ” – MicMan

Join the “free weekend coming up” discussion

“Well if everything else was "perfect" it would be a lot easier to give something up unless it's major, but even then weighed in the balances it might not seem as bad. It's difficult to say without ... ” – Nanette

Join the “Dacrifice” discussion



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:12 pm.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0