World Turned upside down

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]get off it BG, I am not addressing your values but rather society at large’s value. Growing up people I knew didnt have 3 TV’s or eat out every week. My best friend’s father was VP of sales and Marketing for a pretty large international company. They drove 2 simple american cars, lived in 1800 sq ft 2 story home w/ a 1 car garage, never travelled to Europe and rarely travelled anywhere but FLA to visit family. He had a big time job. When he retired, he was one of 2 co-founders of what was the #1 sports memorabilia company in the country and sold out at the peak when they went public for 8 figures and never altered their lifestyle much. Another good friends father was a physician and drove a Dodge dart until the wells fell off. They like most of the people I know lived simple comfortable lives but saved and retired comfortably.

I listen to the lifestyle CAR says she grew up around and wonder how much here and her DH’s parents retired with? I wonder whether they were living beyond their means and not saving much? I don’t know? Maybe she can fill us in?[/quote]

One other note about the way you are looking at things…

You’re thinking longitudinally when determining whether or not today’s families are better off than families were in the 1960s-1980s. Humans measure status/wealth laterally — they compare themselves to their peers at a given point in time.

Technological improvements, more efficient manufacturing/distribution methods, etc. might improve our lives over time; we might have three TVs that cost less than one TV did in the 1960s or 1970s. It doesn’t mean that we are spending a greater portion of our income on “wants” than we were in those earlier decades.

What would be more instructive when talking about wealth would be to compare apples to apples — what were the income/wealth/lifestyle differences between certain occupations in the 1960s-1980s vs. today? What were the lifestyle differences in the 1970s, for instance, between a family of four with a doctor as head-of-household vs. a plumber as head-of-household, and how does that compare to the differences between those households, today? If we analyze these differences between a variety of professions and family types, what would that look like? From everything I’ve seen, the differences between these families has grown significantly over the past few decades. THAT is at the root of many of our problems, IMHO.

[UCGal]

sdr –
I’d like to address a couple of points that you’ve made (fairly aggressively).

Yes – most households have more tv’s today than they did 40 years ago. They probably have FEWER radios. Technology did not stand still. Most households also have computers, which didn’t really become household available till the early 1980’s… you can’t claim it’s because of entitlement attitudes – it’s because technology developed, and over time became affordable. Your parents weren’t posting on message boards when you were growing up because the world wide web didn’t exist. Does that mean you have a sense of entitlement because you may (or may not) have more tv’s (that are less expensive in real dollars) and have computers and have the internet?

Even cable didn’t really exist in it’s current form till the 70’s. And addressable settops – which allow PPV etc, didn’t come along till the 90’s. Life did not stay frozen in the 60’s 70’s world you describe. Some of the things you’re singling out (flat screens, cable) have come about since you were a kid.

Like you, I grew up in an upper middle class, professional neighborhood. (University City when it was new). Lots of UCSD professors, engineers, lawyers, dentists, etc. Like you, I grew up with one tube color tv (because flat tvs didn’t even exist back then.) We also had the black and white tv that the color tv was an upgrade from. No cable because we had line of sight to the towers. The people down in the canyon near us had cable because they couldn’t pick up signal with rabbit ears or roof antennas.

That said we definitely had families in our neighborhood that lived beyond their means. This is not something that happened exclusively in recent times. Like you, I wore hand me downs as the youngest of 3 kids. But most of my friends, in my upper middle class professional neighborhood, got new clothes with designer labels. I was envious. I was also judged (negatively) by those with the new stuff. Wearing hand me downs was definitely a stigma.

You can’t look at tv’s and say people are living less frugrally than you deem they should. And I’m not going to make judgements about whether you’re frugal enough, by some arbitrary standard of morality, because you drink pricey wine and drive a BMW.

[UCGal]

sdr –
I’d like to address a couple of points that you’ve made (fairly aggressively).

Yes – most households have more tv’s today than they did 40 years ago. They probably have FEWER radios. Technology did not stand still. Most households also have computers, which didn’t really become household available till the early 1980’s… you can’t claim it’s because of entitlement attitudes – it’s because technology developed, and over time became affordable. Your parents weren’t posting on message boards when you were growing up because the world wide web didn’t exist. Does that mean you have a sense of entitlement because you may (or may not) have more tv’s (that are less expensive in real dollars) and have computers and have the internet?

Even cable didn’t really exist in it’s current form till the 70’s. And addressable settops – which allow PPV etc, didn’t come along till the 90’s. Life did not stay frozen in the 60’s 70’s world you describe. Some of the things you’re singling out (flat screens, cable) have come about since you were a kid.

Like you, I grew up in an upper middle class, professional neighborhood. (University City when it was new). Lots of UCSD professors, engineers, lawyers, dentists, etc. Like you, I grew up with one tube color tv (because flat tvs didn’t even exist back then.) We also had the black and white tv that the color tv was an upgrade from. No cable because we had line of sight to the towers. The people down in the canyon near us had cable because they couldn’t pick up signal with rabbit ears or roof antennas.

That said we definitely had families in our neighborhood that lived beyond their means. This is not something that happened exclusively in recent times. Like you, I wore hand me downs as the youngest of 3 kids. But most of my friends, in my upper middle class professional neighborhood, got new clothes with designer labels. I was envious. I was also judged (negatively) by those with the new stuff. Wearing hand me downs was definitely a stigma.

You can’t look at tv’s and say people are living less frugrally than you deem they should. And I’m not going to make judgements about whether you’re frugal enough, by some arbitrary standard of morality, because you drink pricey wine and drive a BMW.

[UCGal]

sdr –
I’d like to address a couple of points that you’ve made (fairly aggressively).

Yes – most households have more tv’s today than they did 40 years ago. They probably have FEWER radios. Technology did not stand still. Most households also have computers, which didn’t really become household available till the early 1980’s… you can’t claim it’s because of entitlement attitudes – it’s because technology developed, and over time became affordable. Your parents weren’t posting on message boards when you were growing up because the world wide web didn’t exist. Does that mean you have a sense of entitlement because you may (or may not) have more tv’s (that are less expensive in real dollars) and have computers and have the internet?

Even cable didn’t really exist in it’s current form till the 70’s. And addressable settops – which allow PPV etc, didn’t come along till the 90’s. Life did not stay frozen in the 60’s 70’s world you describe. Some of the things you’re singling out (flat screens, cable) have come about since you were a kid.

Like you, I grew up in an upper middle class, professional neighborhood. (University City when it was new). Lots of UCSD professors, engineers, lawyers, dentists, etc. Like you, I grew up with one tube color tv (because flat tvs didn’t even exist back then.) We also had the black and white tv that the color tv was an upgrade from. No cable because we had line of sight to the towers. The people down in the canyon near us had cable because they couldn’t pick up signal with rabbit ears or roof antennas.

That said we definitely had families in our neighborhood that lived beyond their means. This is not something that happened exclusively in recent times. Like you, I wore hand me downs as the youngest of 3 kids. But most of my friends, in my upper middle class professional neighborhood, got new clothes with designer labels. I was envious. I was also judged (negatively) by those with the new stuff. Wearing hand me downs was definitely a stigma.

You can’t look at tv’s and say people are living less frugrally than you deem they should. And I’m not going to make judgements about whether you’re frugal enough, by some arbitrary standard of morality, because you drink pricey wine and drive a BMW.

[UCGal]

sdr –
I’d like to address a couple of points that you’ve made (fairly aggressively).

Yes – most households have more tv’s today than they did 40 years ago. They probably have FEWER radios. Technology did not stand still. Most households also have computers, which didn’t really become household available till the early 1980’s… you can’t claim it’s because of entitlement attitudes – it’s because technology developed, and over time became affordable. Your parents weren’t posting on message boards when you were growing up because the world wide web didn’t exist. Does that mean you have a sense of entitlement because you may (or may not) have more tv’s (that are less expensive in real dollars) and have computers and have the internet?

Even cable didn’t really exist in it’s current form till the 70’s. And addressable settops – which allow PPV etc, didn’t come along till the 90’s. Life did not stay frozen in the 60’s 70’s world you describe. Some of the things you’re singling out (flat screens, cable) have come about since you were a kid.

Like you, I grew up in an upper middle class, professional neighborhood. (University City when it was new). Lots of UCSD professors, engineers, lawyers, dentists, etc. Like you, I grew up with one tube color tv (because flat tvs didn’t even exist back then.) We also had the black and white tv that the color tv was an upgrade from. No cable because we had line of sight to the towers. The people down in the canyon near us had cable because they couldn’t pick up signal with rabbit ears or roof antennas.

That said we definitely had families in our neighborhood that lived beyond their means. This is not something that happened exclusively in recent times. Like you, I wore hand me downs as the youngest of 3 kids. But most of my friends, in my upper middle class professional neighborhood, got new clothes with designer labels. I was envious. I was also judged (negatively) by those with the new stuff. Wearing hand me downs was definitely a stigma.

You can’t look at tv’s and say people are living less frugrally than you deem they should. And I’m not going to make judgements about whether you’re frugal enough, by some arbitrary standard of morality, because you drink pricey wine and drive a BMW.

[UCGal]

sdr –
I’d like to address a couple of points that you’ve made (fairly aggressively).

Yes – most households have more tv’s today than they did 40 years ago. They probably have FEWER radios. Technology did not stand still. Most households also have computers, which didn’t really become household available till the early 1980’s… you can’t claim it’s because of entitlement attitudes – it’s because technology developed, and over time became affordable. Your parents weren’t posting on message boards when you were growing up because the world wide web didn’t exist. Does that mean you have a sense of entitlement because you may (or may not) have more tv’s (that are less expensive in real dollars) and have computers and have the internet?

Even cable didn’t really exist in it’s current form till the 70’s. And addressable settops – which allow PPV etc, didn’t come along till the 90’s. Life did not stay frozen in the 60’s 70’s world you describe. Some of the things you’re singling out (flat screens, cable) have come about since you were a kid.

Like you, I grew up in an upper middle class, professional neighborhood. (University City when it was new). Lots of UCSD professors, engineers, lawyers, dentists, etc. Like you, I grew up with one tube color tv (because flat tvs didn’t even exist back then.) We also had the black and white tv that the color tv was an upgrade from. No cable because we had line of sight to the towers. The people down in the canyon near us had cable because they couldn’t pick up signal with rabbit ears or roof antennas.

That said we definitely had families in our neighborhood that lived beyond their means. This is not something that happened exclusively in recent times. Like you, I wore hand me downs as the youngest of 3 kids. But most of my friends, in my upper middle class professional neighborhood, got new clothes with designer labels. I was envious. I was also judged (negatively) by those with the new stuff. Wearing hand me downs was definitely a stigma.

You can’t look at tv’s and say people are living less frugrally than you deem they should. And I’m not going to make judgements about whether you’re frugal enough, by some arbitrary standard of morality, because you drink pricey wine and drive a BMW.

[briansd1]

I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That has driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever. Technology and globalization allow us to produce and import more stuff cheaply so we consume a lot more.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.

[briansd1]

I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That has driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever. Technology and globalization allow us to produce and import more stuff cheaply so we consume a lot more.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.

[briansd1]

I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That has driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever. Technology and globalization allow us to produce and import more stuff cheaply so we consume a lot more.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.

[briansd1]

I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That has driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever. Technology and globalization allow us to produce and import more stuff cheaply so we consume a lot more.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.

[briansd1]

I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That has driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever. Technology and globalization allow us to produce and import more stuff cheaply so we consume a lot more.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That had driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.[/quote]

No doubt, cyclical consumption is pushed in certain ways with people following through – whether “keeping up with the jones” is more or less prevalent now than a generation ago is hard to discern. I’d say it probably is – but to any meaningful extent beyond the detrimental changes that were out of their hands, probably not. Shopping does serve a function like it does with alcohol to addicts and if you understand the addict brain – it has zero to do with will power.

Still Elizabeth Warrens presentation was pretty conclusive in the increased uncontrollable expenses and risks to the modern family.

An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That had driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.[/quote]

No doubt, cyclical consumption is pushed in certain ways with people following through – whether “keeping up with the jones” is more or less prevalent now than a generation ago is hard to discern. I’d say it probably is – but to any meaningful extent beyond the detrimental changes that were out of their hands, probably not. Shopping does serve a function like it does with alcohol to addicts and if you understand the addict brain – it has zero to do with will power.

Still Elizabeth Warrens presentation was pretty conclusive in the increased uncontrollable expenses and risks to the modern family.

An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That had driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.[/quote]

No doubt, cyclical consumption is pushed in certain ways with people following through – whether “keeping up with the jones” is more or less prevalent now than a generation ago is hard to discern. I’d say it probably is – but to any meaningful extent beyond the detrimental changes that were out of their hands, probably not. Shopping does serve a function like it does with alcohol to addicts and if you understand the addict brain – it has zero to do with will power.

Still Elizabeth Warrens presentation was pretty conclusive in the increased uncontrollable expenses and risks to the modern family.

An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That had driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.[/quote]

No doubt, cyclical consumption is pushed in certain ways with people following through – whether “keeping up with the jones” is more or less prevalent now than a generation ago is hard to discern. I’d say it probably is – but to any meaningful extent beyond the detrimental changes that were out of their hands, probably not. Shopping does serve a function like it does with alcohol to addicts and if you understand the addict brain – it has zero to do with will power.

Still Elizabeth Warrens presentation was pretty conclusive in the increased uncontrollable expenses and risks to the modern family.

An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.

[Author]

Posts