- This topic has 1,076 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
markmax33.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 22, 2011 at 2:03 PM #723854August 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM #722696
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
August 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM #722788Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
August 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM #723385Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
August 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM #723536Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
August 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM #723899Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1]
Lower compared to what? .[/quote]
Lower compared to generation ago, markedly. Remember, the thread that CAR posted Elizabeth Warren’s presentation. I’ll add, they are a hell of a lot sicker, in aggregate, as well…
In my estimation, which admittedly could be wrong, there will be a lower standard of living imposed that took 40 years before, in a matter of 10(2005-2015). So, what we should see is an acceleration of lower and lower standards of living for the aggregate of Americans. I bet social health will trend the same way, in an accelerating fashion.
The housing bubble collapse was a good wallop to the head of the middle class. Another one, could really put them down for the count.[/quote]
Arraya, I enjoy reading all your well-thought-out posts. I, too, finally saw Warren’s presentation at Berkeley, after CAR and I discussed her here:
http://piggington.com/shadow_inventory_finally_being_released?page=2
In a nutshell, the era “a generation(+) ago,” cannot really be compared to the present day because the (mostly boomers) who were raising children then had different expectations than the current crop of young parents. I WILL concede, however, that although there are more mothers in the workforce today (primarily due to welfare reform) and that it is far more difficult today to find an employer who will offer health insurance (or enough hours to be eligible for coverage).
In the ’70’s and ’80’s, far more mothers used home daycare providers (licensed individual home) than daycare centers, which costs far less $$. Limited Montessori was available but only a fraction of (professional) mothers used it (expensive and often required an early afternoon pickup). The FMLA had not yet been passed. In CA, if a new mother didn’t return to her job within six weeks (+ whatever leave they had saved up), they were terminated. I worked with professionals, para-professionals and high school grads/GED holders in white-collar jobs. Nearly ALL of these “co-workers” sought housing (rental or purchase) in or near the area where they grew up or near to where other family members resided. We/they paid no regard to age of property and little regard to condition (as long as it was “livable” and conveniently located). There were few *new* tracts being built and what was tended to be located on the fringes or out of the SD-metro area and thus would have been a hardship to commute to/from for a downtown SD worker. The freeway system wasn’t what it is today. I don’t recall if there were actually “API school scores” available to “study” but I never heard them mentioned by any parents I worked with. Most had their kids enrolled in their old school or an adjacent one. We furnished our homes with hand-me-downs and garage sale items and replaced them as needed, one or two pieces at a time.
And, we all know there wasn’t the cost and distraction back then of all the electronic items (and their subscriptions) as are available today (more income hoggers). And there were few who had student loans to pay off (avg of $4K).
Warren even stated in her video that it is actually the parents who are driving up their OWN cost of housing by all flocking to the same properties on the market which are situated in a particular school attendance area. They are driving up their OWN COST OF LIVING by bidding off one another for the few available properties and rentals in these particular school boundaries. She also stated that some mothers of young and school-age children are currently working (who otherwise wouldn’t) JUST to pay the additional housing costs for a property in a particular school attendance area or private school tuition.
Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).
August 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM #722701briansd1
Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
[/quote]I know what Arraya would say and I agree:
Because marketers, and consumer society in general, bombard us with messages that we are worthless if we don’t buy “the best for our family.”A lot of anxiety and stress is self-induced.
You know what, Arraya? If people can’t even reject the messages of the marketing machine, how in the world will they gain the consciousness to “wake up and say hey wtf?”
August 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM #722793Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
[/quote]I know what Arraya would say and I agree:
Because marketers, and consumer society in general, bombard us with messages that we are worthless if we don’t buy “the best for our family.”A lot of anxiety and stress is self-induced.
You know what, Arraya? If people can’t even reject the messages of the marketing machine, how in the world will they gain the consciousness to “wake up and say hey wtf?”
August 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM #723389Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
[/quote]I know what Arraya would say and I agree:
Because marketers, and consumer society in general, bombard us with messages that we are worthless if we don’t buy “the best for our family.”A lot of anxiety and stress is self-induced.
You know what, Arraya? If people can’t even reject the messages of the marketing machine, how in the world will they gain the consciousness to “wake up and say hey wtf?”
August 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM #723541Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
[/quote]I know what Arraya would say and I agree:
Because marketers, and consumer society in general, bombard us with messages that we are worthless if we don’t buy “the best for our family.”A lot of anxiety and stress is self-induced.
You know what, Arraya? If people can’t even reject the messages of the marketing machine, how in the world will they gain the consciousness to “wake up and say hey wtf?”
August 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM #723904Guest[quote=bearishgurl]
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
[/quote]I know what Arraya would say and I agree:
Because marketers, and consumer society in general, bombard us with messages that we are worthless if we don’t buy “the best for our family.”A lot of anxiety and stress is self-induced.
You know what, Arraya? If people can’t even reject the messages of the marketing machine, how in the world will they gain the consciousness to “wake up and say hey wtf?”
August 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM #722706jpinpb
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).[/quote]
BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.
I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.
August 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM #722798Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).[/quote]
BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.
I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.
August 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM #723394Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).[/quote]
BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.
I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.
August 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM #723546Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Are there any Piggs born between approx 1965 and 1985 who can answer these questions? Did YOUR parents use MOST or ALL of their monthly income just to purchase a property in a particular school-attendance area? Did your family have more than two vehicles, and if so, were they both late-model vehicles (newer than 6-7 yrs)? How many square feet did your family live in and how many of you were there??
In short, Warren stated that the “two-income” family of late systematically and deliberately GREW into the second income VERY quickly due to their insatiable appetites for MORE, NEWER and FASTER. This second income DID NOT increase their savings or improve their quality of life. In many cases where there were 2+ children, it only caused the parents to be more stressed, frenetic and in deeper debt.
I’m all for both parents working and sharing in child care. But if that extra income is going to $1000+ month daycare for ONE child, to purchase a gas-guzzling SUV, boat or other toy and/or to an exorbitant MR/HOA combination, then what’s the point? Why not just live on one income in a cheaper home and area, like your parents likely did, and be happy??
The properties located in a lot of these “coveted” school attendance areas are NOT better designed, better built or more conveniently located than those located in closer-in established areas. Nor are the properties in established areas as heavily encumbered due to high HOA/MR. A good portion are situated on “substandard lots.” I think a lot of “middle class” families today did it to themselves in their quest to appear “upper middle-class.” The were enabled by easy credit. If some of these families DO end up being forced to adopt a much lower standard of living in the future, it will come as a shock to many (who have never had to economize in their lives).[/quote]
BG – We lived in a single family home. My dad was very old school and mom was to stay at home, cook, clean, take care of the house and kids. Only one car. We did not live any extravagant life. Very simple. We went to private school for a few years. But my dad was not able to continue that on his income. We ended up moving to Italy for a few years for many reasons, but one of them was b/c he felt we would get a better education there than public schools here. When I attended high school here in California, I noticed I knew much more than most kids here.
I have to say that both parents working just allowed for them to buy more stuff, not really needs. I also agree that many people I know that live in the new neighborhoods, like 4S Ranch, have an image that they are trying to uphold. I’m not sure if it’s advancing “quality” of life, as they spend a lot of time working and commuting to maintain their image of a good life.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.