[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Definitely. Back when I was in college, my roommates and I rented a 3/2 apartment for $710/mo in a working-class, but decent-enough part of town in L.A. We could swing that rent, even though we all had low-paying jobs. These days, the rent for that apartment would probably run around $1,600-$1,750 (or more). The catch? Wages for the types of jobs we had have gone nowhere in that time. Those wages have gone up *maybe* 40%-60% since then.

So, while everyone is applauding the miracle of house price appreciation (and the rent increases that tend to go with it), the truth is that the working class hasn’t really seen any appreciable wage increases for decades, and their purchasing power has dropped significantly, while the upper-income earners and asset owners have probably seen their “wealth” and/or buying power triple or quadruple since then. The wealth/income gap is now HUGE, and it’s only getting worse.[/quote]

Totally agree, CAR. In our case, the min wage was between about $1.10 and $2.40 hr. That was used for union dues and payroll taxes. We got Blue Cross coverage, once weekly uniform laundry svcs and worksite lockers as “union benefits” plus one free meal per workday and employee discounts as patrons from the house. We actually lived on tips, which were NOT taxed at the time. We stacked our bills and rolled our coin on breaks and stood in line to deposit it in our checking accts once a week to pay bills with. Bought daily needs with cash.

I averaged about $1450 mo income and my rent in 3 different dtn SD apts was $140 to $225 (the latter rent incl panoramic bay/ocean view). All rents covered ALL utils. Cable svc was not avail in that area. I used “rabbit ears” on my TV, lol.

I DO think it was much easier for a young person or couple/young family to live on a “non-professional” income at that time. However, the particular job I performed could be strenuous as it required lifting up to 50-lb trays overhead with an open wine carafe in the middle, often with one arm and up and down one or two steps and an excellent (nearly photographic) memory. The uniforms were starched minidresses and the houses were very particular about how they were worn and the level of grooming of their wait staff. Gender, disability and “appearance” discrimination were completely legal, accepted by employees and practiced everywhere :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Definitely. Back when I was in college, my roommates and I rented a 3/2 apartment for $710/mo in a working-class, but decent-enough part of town in L.A. We could swing that rent, even though we all had low-paying jobs. These days, the rent for that apartment would probably run around $1,600-$1,750 (or more). The catch? Wages for the types of jobs we had have gone nowhere in that time. Those wages have gone up *maybe* 40%-60% since then.

So, while everyone is applauding the miracle of house price appreciation (and the rent increases that tend to go with it), the truth is that the working class hasn’t really seen any appreciable wage increases for decades, and their purchasing power has dropped significantly, while the upper-income earners and asset owners have probably seen their “wealth” and/or buying power triple or quadruple since then. The wealth/income gap is now HUGE, and it’s only getting worse.[/quote]

Totally agree, CAR. In our case, the min wage was between about $1.10 and $2.40 hr. That was used for union dues and payroll taxes. We got Blue Cross coverage, once weekly uniform laundry svcs and worksite lockers as “union benefits” plus one free meal per workday and employee discounts as patrons from the house. We actually lived on tips, which were NOT taxed at the time. We stacked our bills and rolled our coin on breaks and stood in line to deposit it in our checking accts once a week to pay bills with. Bought daily needs with cash.

I averaged about $1450 mo income and my rent in 3 different dtn SD apts was $140 to $225 (the latter rent incl panoramic bay/ocean view). All rents covered ALL utils. Cable svc was not avail in that area. I used “rabbit ears” on my TV, lol.

I DO think it was much easier for a young person or couple/young family to live on a “non-professional” income at that time. However, the particular job I performed could be strenuous as it required lifting up to 50-lb trays overhead with an open wine carafe in the middle, often with one arm and up and down one or two steps and an excellent (nearly photographic) memory. The uniforms were starched minidresses and the houses were very particular about how they were worn and the level of grooming of their wait staff. Gender, disability and “appearance” discrimination were completely legal, accepted by employees and practiced everywhere :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Definitely. Back when I was in college, my roommates and I rented a 3/2 apartment for $710/mo in a working-class, but decent-enough part of town in L.A. We could swing that rent, even though we all had low-paying jobs. These days, the rent for that apartment would probably run around $1,600-$1,750 (or more). The catch? Wages for the types of jobs we had have gone nowhere in that time. Those wages have gone up *maybe* 40%-60% since then.

So, while everyone is applauding the miracle of house price appreciation (and the rent increases that tend to go with it), the truth is that the working class hasn’t really seen any appreciable wage increases for decades, and their purchasing power has dropped significantly, while the upper-income earners and asset owners have probably seen their “wealth” and/or buying power triple or quadruple since then. The wealth/income gap is now HUGE, and it’s only getting worse.[/quote]

Totally agree, CAR. In our case, the min wage was between about $1.10 and $2.40 hr. That was used for union dues and payroll taxes. We got Blue Cross coverage, once weekly uniform laundry svcs and worksite lockers as “union benefits” plus one free meal per workday and employee discounts as patrons from the house. We actually lived on tips, which were NOT taxed at the time. We stacked our bills and rolled our coin on breaks and stood in line to deposit it in our checking accts once a week to pay bills with. Bought daily needs with cash.

I averaged about $1450 mo income and my rent in 3 different dtn SD apts was $140 to $225 (the latter rent incl panoramic bay/ocean view). All rents covered ALL utils. Cable svc was not avail in that area. I used “rabbit ears” on my TV, lol.

I DO think it was much easier for a young person or couple/young family to live on a “non-professional” income at that time. However, the particular job I performed could be strenuous as it required lifting up to 50-lb trays overhead with an open wine carafe in the middle, often with one arm and up and down one or two steps and an excellent (nearly photographic) memory. The uniforms were starched minidresses and the houses were very particular about how they were worn and the level of grooming of their wait staff. Gender, disability and “appearance” discrimination were completely legal, accepted by employees and practiced everywhere :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]…if the rooms empty anyway aren’t the parents being wasteful and nonproductive by nit utilizing a resource?…[/quote]

scaredy, the whole idea of being 59.5+ years old and thus able to tap retirement funds was to be free to leave work at a convenient time after that and downsize to a location you actually want to retire in. This is hard to do with “needy” adult children and possibly grandchildren you don’t want to be on the street living in your home. Often this is a function of your kid marrying and/or having children too young w/o already having a trade or viable work skills/experience.

I see a lot of these adult unemployed kids living with parents, making payments on newer vehicles they purchased AFTER moving “back home” and sporting professional manicures, etc. You have to ask yourself if they will ever be able to save up enough $$ to go out on their own (again). It takes two to tango here… an “enabling” parent and their “self-serving” adult kid. Perhaps some of these parents want to retire in place and need “free” household and landscaping help.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]…if the rooms empty anyway aren’t the parents being wasteful and nonproductive by nit utilizing a resource?…[/quote]

scaredy, the whole idea of being 59.5+ years old and thus able to tap retirement funds was to be free to leave work at a convenient time after that and downsize to a location you actually want to retire in. This is hard to do with “needy” adult children and possibly grandchildren you don’t want to be on the street living in your home. Often this is a function of your kid marrying and/or having children too young w/o already having a trade or viable work skills/experience.

I see a lot of these adult unemployed kids living with parents, making payments on newer vehicles they purchased AFTER moving “back home” and sporting professional manicures, etc. You have to ask yourself if they will ever be able to save up enough $$ to go out on their own (again). It takes two to tango here… an “enabling” parent and their “self-serving” adult kid. Perhaps some of these parents want to retire in place and need “free” household and landscaping help.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]…if the rooms empty anyway aren’t the parents being wasteful and nonproductive by nit utilizing a resource?…[/quote]

scaredy, the whole idea of being 59.5+ years old and thus able to tap retirement funds was to be free to leave work at a convenient time after that and downsize to a location you actually want to retire in. This is hard to do with “needy” adult children and possibly grandchildren you don’t want to be on the street living in your home. Often this is a function of your kid marrying and/or having children too young w/o already having a trade or viable work skills/experience.

I see a lot of these adult unemployed kids living with parents, making payments on newer vehicles they purchased AFTER moving “back home” and sporting professional manicures, etc. You have to ask yourself if they will ever be able to save up enough $$ to go out on their own (again). It takes two to tango here… an “enabling” parent and their “self-serving” adult kid. Perhaps some of these parents want to retire in place and need “free” household and landscaping help.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]…if the rooms empty anyway aren’t the parents being wasteful and nonproductive by nit utilizing a resource?…[/quote]

scaredy, the whole idea of being 59.5+ years old and thus able to tap retirement funds was to be free to leave work at a convenient time after that and downsize to a location you actually want to retire in. This is hard to do with “needy” adult children and possibly grandchildren you don’t want to be on the street living in your home. Often this is a function of your kid marrying and/or having children too young w/o already having a trade or viable work skills/experience.

I see a lot of these adult unemployed kids living with parents, making payments on newer vehicles they purchased AFTER moving “back home” and sporting professional manicures, etc. You have to ask yourself if they will ever be able to save up enough $$ to go out on their own (again). It takes two to tango here… an “enabling” parent and their “self-serving” adult kid. Perhaps some of these parents want to retire in place and need “free” household and landscaping help.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]…if the rooms empty anyway aren’t the parents being wasteful and nonproductive by nit utilizing a resource?…[/quote]

scaredy, the whole idea of being 59.5+ years old and thus able to tap retirement funds was to be free to leave work at a convenient time after that and downsize to a location you actually want to retire in. This is hard to do with “needy” adult children and possibly grandchildren you don’t want to be on the street living in your home. Often this is a function of your kid marrying and/or having children too young w/o already having a trade or viable work skills/experience.

I see a lot of these adult unemployed kids living with parents, making payments on newer vehicles they purchased AFTER moving “back home” and sporting professional manicures, etc. You have to ask yourself if they will ever be able to save up enough $$ to go out on their own (again). It takes two to tango here… an “enabling” parent and their “self-serving” adult kid. Perhaps some of these parents want to retire in place and need “free” household and landscaping help.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I agree w early retirement… there are a lot of kids who aren’t working or going to school and basically need, IMO, a kick in the pants to stop sponging. I have a coworker who can’t figure out how to motivate his daughter into getting a job or getting serious about college. His wife refuss to consider the tough love approach, so they’re enabling her less than productive lifestyle.

And BG – I grew up in coastal San Diego in the 70s… I wasn’t ready for college when I graduated high school… but I got a job and moved out 2 weeks after my 18th birthday… I think it’s more of a generational thing than a geographical thing that is keeping kids at home these days. I see kids lingering at home well into their 20’s back east too.[/quote]

Yes, UCGal, I do think the HS grad urge for independence was somewhat generational. After all, apts in SD were $140-$240 mo back then (some with ocean views). “Granny flats” (with an “alley/dumpster-view,” lol) were less than $100 mo. At that time, SDSU and UCSD fees were less than community college fees today.

HOWEVER, I worked waiting tables in two different nice waterfront (union) restaurants in the years after arriving here. We typically made $65-$100 tips on Friday night and $100+ tips on Saturday night (from which we had to tip the bartender and our “busboy”). The Federal tip tax law was not enacted until 1983 under Pres Reagan so this $$ was entirely “under the table.” MANY of my co-worker waitresses (all women back then) were 25-35 years old and STILL living with parents. Some were recent divorcees and some students but nonetheless, even with the (by current stds) very reasonable rents, they were living in their parents home. Perhaps they were doing housework or landscaping for a busy or disabled parent??

HS Grads in parts of the nation who wanted to escape inclement weather and/or economic hardship and lack of jobs were MUCH more proactive about becoming independent of parents back then. Our HS diploma couldn’t come fast enough as we already had our 1960’s used cars packed for a post-grad “road trip.” California or BUST :=]

Today, we, as baby boomers and even Gen X-ers have made it “too easy” for our kids, enabling them to forgo disrupting the “status quo.” Rampant inflation in rents, utils, everyday commodities and college fees (w/o corresponding min wage increases) haven’t helped this situation, either.

Edit: I personally don’t have any “boomerang kids.” They couldn’t escape to NoCal fast enough. One moved up there and signed a lease while still 17! They’re expected to lay out a futon and put mom up on occasion (along with my dog) :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I agree w early retirement… there are a lot of kids who aren’t working or going to school and basically need, IMO, a kick in the pants to stop sponging. I have a coworker who can’t figure out how to motivate his daughter into getting a job or getting serious about college. His wife refuss to consider the tough love approach, so they’re enabling her less than productive lifestyle.

And BG – I grew up in coastal San Diego in the 70s… I wasn’t ready for college when I graduated high school… but I got a job and moved out 2 weeks after my 18th birthday… I think it’s more of a generational thing than a geographical thing that is keeping kids at home these days. I see kids lingering at home well into their 20’s back east too.[/quote]

Yes, UCGal, I do think the HS grad urge for independence was somewhat generational. After all, apts in SD were $140-$240 mo back then (some with ocean views). “Granny flats” (with an “alley/dumpster-view,” lol) were less than $100 mo. At that time, SDSU and UCSD fees were less than community college fees today.

HOWEVER, I worked waiting tables in two different nice waterfront (union) restaurants in the years after arriving here. We typically made $65-$100 tips on Friday night and $100+ tips on Saturday night (from which we had to tip the bartender and our “busboy”). The Federal tip tax law was not enacted until 1983 under Pres Reagan so this $$ was entirely “under the table.” MANY of my co-worker waitresses (all women back then) were 25-35 years old and STILL living with parents. Some were recent divorcees and some students but nonetheless, even with the (by current stds) very reasonable rents, they were living in their parents home. Perhaps they were doing housework or landscaping for a busy or disabled parent??

HS Grads in parts of the nation who wanted to escape inclement weather and/or economic hardship and lack of jobs were MUCH more proactive about becoming independent of parents back then. Our HS diploma couldn’t come fast enough as we already had our 1960’s used cars packed for a post-grad “road trip.” California or BUST :=]

Today, we, as baby boomers and even Gen X-ers have made it “too easy” for our kids, enabling them to forgo disrupting the “status quo.” Rampant inflation in rents, utils, everyday commodities and college fees (w/o corresponding min wage increases) haven’t helped this situation, either.

Edit: I personally don’t have any “boomerang kids.” They couldn’t escape to NoCal fast enough. One moved up there and signed a lease while still 17! They’re expected to lay out a futon and put mom up on occasion (along with my dog) :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I agree w early retirement… there are a lot of kids who aren’t working or going to school and basically need, IMO, a kick in the pants to stop sponging. I have a coworker who can’t figure out how to motivate his daughter into getting a job or getting serious about college. His wife refuss to consider the tough love approach, so they’re enabling her less than productive lifestyle.

And BG – I grew up in coastal San Diego in the 70s… I wasn’t ready for college when I graduated high school… but I got a job and moved out 2 weeks after my 18th birthday… I think it’s more of a generational thing than a geographical thing that is keeping kids at home these days. I see kids lingering at home well into their 20’s back east too.[/quote]

Yes, UCGal, I do think the HS grad urge for independence was somewhat generational. After all, apts in SD were $140-$240 mo back then (some with ocean views). “Granny flats” (with an “alley/dumpster-view,” lol) were less than $100 mo. At that time, SDSU and UCSD fees were less than community college fees today.

HOWEVER, I worked waiting tables in two different nice waterfront (union) restaurants in the years after arriving here. We typically made $65-$100 tips on Friday night and $100+ tips on Saturday night (from which we had to tip the bartender and our “busboy”). The Federal tip tax law was not enacted until 1983 under Pres Reagan so this $$ was entirely “under the table.” MANY of my co-worker waitresses (all women back then) were 25-35 years old and STILL living with parents. Some were recent divorcees and some students but nonetheless, even with the (by current stds) very reasonable rents, they were living in their parents home. Perhaps they were doing housework or landscaping for a busy or disabled parent??

HS Grads in parts of the nation who wanted to escape inclement weather and/or economic hardship and lack of jobs were MUCH more proactive about becoming independent of parents back then. Our HS diploma couldn’t come fast enough as we already had our 1960’s used cars packed for a post-grad “road trip.” California or BUST :=]

Today, we, as baby boomers and even Gen X-ers have made it “too easy” for our kids, enabling them to forgo disrupting the “status quo.” Rampant inflation in rents, utils, everyday commodities and college fees (w/o corresponding min wage increases) haven’t helped this situation, either.

Edit: I personally don’t have any “boomerang kids.” They couldn’t escape to NoCal fast enough. One moved up there and signed a lease while still 17! They’re expected to lay out a futon and put mom up on occasion (along with my dog) :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I agree w early retirement… there are a lot of kids who aren’t working or going to school and basically need, IMO, a kick in the pants to stop sponging. I have a coworker who can’t figure out how to motivate his daughter into getting a job or getting serious about college. His wife refuss to consider the tough love approach, so they’re enabling her less than productive lifestyle.

And BG – I grew up in coastal San Diego in the 70s… I wasn’t ready for college when I graduated high school… but I got a job and moved out 2 weeks after my 18th birthday… I think it’s more of a generational thing than a geographical thing that is keeping kids at home these days. I see kids lingering at home well into their 20’s back east too.[/quote]

Yes, UCGal, I do think the HS grad urge for independence was somewhat generational. After all, apts in SD were $140-$240 mo back then (some with ocean views). “Granny flats” (with an “alley/dumpster-view,” lol) were less than $100 mo. At that time, SDSU and UCSD fees were less than community college fees today.

HOWEVER, I worked waiting tables in two different nice waterfront (union) restaurants in the years after arriving here. We typically made $65-$100 tips on Friday night and $100+ tips on Saturday night (from which we had to tip the bartender and our “busboy”). The Federal tip tax law was not enacted until 1983 under Pres Reagan so this $$ was entirely “under the table.” MANY of my co-worker waitresses (all women back then) were 25-35 years old and STILL living with parents. Some were recent divorcees and some students but nonetheless, even with the (by current stds) very reasonable rents, they were living in their parents home. Perhaps they were doing housework or landscaping for a busy or disabled parent??

HS Grads in parts of the nation who wanted to escape inclement weather and/or economic hardship and lack of jobs were MUCH more proactive about becoming independent of parents back then. Our HS diploma couldn’t come fast enough as we already had our 1960’s used cars packed for a post-grad “road trip.” California or BUST :=]

Today, we, as baby boomers and even Gen X-ers have made it “too easy” for our kids, enabling them to forgo disrupting the “status quo.” Rampant inflation in rents, utils, everyday commodities and college fees (w/o corresponding min wage increases) haven’t helped this situation, either.

Edit: I personally don’t have any “boomerang kids.” They couldn’t escape to NoCal fast enough. One moved up there and signed a lease while still 17! They’re expected to lay out a futon and put mom up on occasion (along with my dog) :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]I agree w early retirement… there are a lot of kids who aren’t working or going to school and basically need, IMO, a kick in the pants to stop sponging. I have a coworker who can’t figure out how to motivate his daughter into getting a job or getting serious about college. His wife refuss to consider the tough love approach, so they’re enabling her less than productive lifestyle.

And BG – I grew up in coastal San Diego in the 70s… I wasn’t ready for college when I graduated high school… but I got a job and moved out 2 weeks after my 18th birthday… I think it’s more of a generational thing than a geographical thing that is keeping kids at home these days. I see kids lingering at home well into their 20’s back east too.[/quote]

Yes, UCGal, I do think the HS grad urge for independence was somewhat generational. After all, apts in SD were $140-$240 mo back then (some with ocean views). “Granny flats” (with an “alley/dumpster-view,” lol) were less than $100 mo. At that time, SDSU and UCSD fees were less than community college fees today.

HOWEVER, I worked waiting tables in two different nice waterfront (union) restaurants in the years after arriving here. We typically made $65-$100 tips on Friday night and $100+ tips on Saturday night (from which we had to tip the bartender and our “busboy”). The Federal tip tax law was not enacted until 1983 under Pres Reagan so this $$ was entirely “under the table.” MANY of my co-worker waitresses (all women back then) were 25-35 years old and STILL living with parents. Some were recent divorcees and some students but nonetheless, even with the (by current stds) very reasonable rents, they were living in their parents home. Perhaps they were doing housework or landscaping for a busy or disabled parent??

HS Grads in parts of the nation who wanted to escape inclement weather and/or economic hardship and lack of jobs were MUCH more proactive about becoming independent of parents back then. Our HS diploma couldn’t come fast enough as we already had our 1960’s used cars packed for a post-grad “road trip.” California or BUST :=]

Today, we, as baby boomers and even Gen X-ers have made it “too easy” for our kids, enabling them to forgo disrupting the “status quo.” Rampant inflation in rents, utils, everyday commodities and college fees (w/o corresponding min wage increases) haven’t helped this situation, either.

Edit: I personally don’t have any “boomerang kids.” They couldn’t escape to NoCal fast enough. One moved up there and signed a lease while still 17! They’re expected to lay out a futon and put mom up on occasion (along with my dog) :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=bearishgurl]I wouldn’t exactly call living there (in a cheaper house, to wit) the “high life,” lol![/quote]

Hahaha me neither but they seem to like it! I just can’t get over the morality of the whole thing, they’re nice people but it makes me wonder…[/quote]

Due to having no mtg, maybe they now have enough “discretionary” income to “get out of dodge” on the hottest weekends. That’s what I would do if I were in that “situation.”

Remember, every 9th Southwest Airlines RT is FREE! :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=bearishgurl]I wouldn’t exactly call living there (in a cheaper house, to wit) the “high life,” lol![/quote]

Hahaha me neither but they seem to like it! I just can’t get over the morality of the whole thing, they’re nice people but it makes me wonder…[/quote]

Due to having no mtg, maybe they now have enough “discretionary” income to “get out of dodge” on the hottest weekends. That’s what I would do if I were in that “situation.”

Remember, every 9th Southwest Airlines RT is FREE! :=]

[Author]

Posts