The average American really is a huge loser. They think that cell phones, big tvs, a nice car or hair or nails are more important that their kids' food or diapers or saving for college or retirement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here and thinking a lot about the issues in this thread. Does anyone else think that the newer rejection of things in favor of experiences is adding to this overspending problem?

When it becomes imperative to go out to the newest expensive restaurant or to go to the most exclusive vacation, isn’t that type of lifestyle more constantly expensive than splurging on a fancy car or handbag? At least once you have the things, that itch is scratched, but the need to go to Minibar and Pineapples and Pearls and Komi etc. never ends.

What is happening is these people with the victim mentality are not thinking. I did not get a passport until I was an adult. I did not get my first car until I bought one with my own money, I was 19. I did not step foot in a plane until i was an adult with a job and I had a business trip. You know where we did family vacations? Anywhere where we could drive and stay with another family member for free. We had ONE car growing up, my parents shared it, my mom dropped my dad off at metro each and every day and then picked him up. That car was a Honda Accord and make it to 250K miles. We lived in a 3BR home, I shared a room with my sister and my brother had his own. We had ONE TV in the house. We had old shag carpet. I never experienced a kitchen remodel, or a bathroom remodel, that simply never happened. We were SOLIDLY middle class and we were a completely NORMAL family and many people lived like us. Going out to dinner or take out simply did not happen. We would go to the Raddison and do Easter buffet brunch, that was our one big outing. When we went on road trips, mom busted out peanut butter and banana sandwiches, we did not even do fast food. There was not a huge variation in income and lifestyle in our community (alexandria). Today if you lived like that, people would be clutching their pearls and would be declaring poverty.

Guess what? My parents have since retired and live modestly still.

I'd like to add that what is considered acceptable square footage and amenities today has contributed to the cost of housing. We hope to retire soon, but live in the same home in Vienna that we moved into in the mid-80's, raised our children in, and will live in until we can't do the stairs. It's a modest house <2000 sq ft on a tiny lot, unfinished basement, some updates, but would definitely be not be considered DCUM-worthy. Probably worth $680-700K (strictly because of location). But it's given us a lot of financial freedom and the ability to live mortgage free for 20 years on one income. Most of our peers, socio-economically speaking, live in homes 2-3 times as large and will carry mortgages into their 60's. While impressive, I wouldn't trade my little shack for their mini-mansions. Sometimes we rent one at the beach for a week though!

Anonymous wrote:NP here and thinking a lot about the issues in this thread. Does anyone else think that the newer rejection of things in favor of experiences is adding to this overspending problem?

When it becomes imperative to go out to the newest expensive restaurant or to go to the most exclusive vacation, isn’t that type of lifestyle more constantly expensive than splurging on a fancy car or handbag? At least once you have the things, that itch is scratched, but the need to go to Minibar and Pineapples and Pearls and Komi etc. never ends.

What is happening is these people with the victim mentality are not thinking. I did not get a passport until I was an adult. I did not get my first car until I bought one with my own money, I was 19. I did not step foot in a plane until i was an adult with a job and I had a business trip. You know where we did family vacations? Anywhere where we could drive and stay with another family member for free. We had ONE car growing up, my parents shared it, my mom dropped my dad off at metro each and every day and then picked him up. That car was a Honda Accord and make it to 250K miles. We lived in a 3BR home, I shared a room with my sister and my brother had his own. We had ONE TV in the house. We had old shag carpet. I never experienced a kitchen remodel, or a bathroom remodel, that simply never happened. We were SOLIDLY middle class and we were a completely NORMAL family and many people lived like us. Going out to dinner or take out simply did not happen. We would go to the Raddison and do Easter buffet brunch, that was our one big outing. When we went on road trips, mom busted out peanut butter and banana sandwiches, we did not even do fast food. There was not a huge variation in income and lifestyle in our community (alexandria). Today if you lived like that, people would be clutching their pearls and would be declaring poverty.

Guess what? My parents have since retired and live modestly still.

Anonymous wrote:Unions!

And yes, people should reject consumerism. It’s stupid. But unions are a way to fix lots of problems.

Not public unions. All they do is bankrupt states.

Anonymous wrote:Do you guys know how much housing and childcare cost around here?

I'm the person who posted in the furlough thread about feeling stupid for. buying 3 pieces of furniture. For context, my living room has had literally only seating i have scavenged from the curb for free for the last 2.5 years. Finally I got tired of living off other people's trash and spent $300 on a used coffee table and 2 chairs. Replacing the trash couch is still too expensive, that will wait. And i still don't have curtains, just cheap blinds.

Meanwhile, I have spent $1500/month on day care during this period, and until I got a federal job this spring i was spending $900/month for family health insurance. But you really think it's consumerism that holds people back from saving? How deeply out of touch and moralistic.

Look at the numbers for retail. People are spending more than ever, or do you just think this is fake news?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy the false bill of goods that Americans would be financially secure if they just skipped designer purses. Republicans have been selling that BS for decades. It’s not true. It’s housing, daycare and healthcare...along with student loan debt.

Unions get workers a fair deal and real security. Bring em back.

And I’m not speaking from envy. My DH and I have good jobs and fight lifestyle inflation. But we’re not willfully blind.

Tucked C is a jerk but his rant had a point. Reform capitalism or watch a socialist tide continue to rise. I’d prefer reformed capitalism myself.

Designer purses are upwards of $3k and the latest iPhone is $1k. $4k actually does go a long way when you live paycheck to paycheck.

Having said that, I agree that wages have stagnated and housing is expensive. But a single, childless low-wage earner can live with roommates. A dual income childless couple can live quite well.

Anonymous wrote:agree with pp who said that this has been studied extensively

It isn't the iphones or fancy purses. It is housing, childcare and medical costs (including insurance).

People have LESS discretionary income now than they did in the 70s and earlier.

It's also having kids out of wedlock and the financial impact of divorce. Tucker Carlson addressed that head on.

Anonymous wrote:Education loans, child care and medical care/insurance costs are a much higher percent of a families gross income today than 30 years ago. Even if you are very thrifty it is very difficult to save a lot unless you are UMC.

Education loans are another factor that must be considered. Sometimes it's wiser to opt for CC to knock out core classes before transferring to state schools. Students should be working PT during the school year and FT during the summer. There are steps that can be taken to avoid graduating with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t buy the false bill of goods that Americans would be financially secure if they just skipped designer purses. Republicans have been selling that BS for decades. It’s not true. It’s housing, daycare and healthcare...along with student loan debt.

Unions get workers a fair deal and real security. Bring em back.

And I’m not speaking from envy. My DH and I have good jobs and fight lifestyle inflation. But we’re not willfully blind.

Tucked C is a jerk but his rant had a point. Reform capitalism or watch a socialist tide continue to rise. I’d prefer reformed capitalism myself.

Exactly.

I don’t buy the false bill of goods that Americans would be financially secure if they just skipped designer purses. Republicans have been selling that BS for decades. It’s not true. It’s housing, daycare and healthcare...along with student loan debt.

Unions get workers a fair deal and real security. Bring em back.

And I’m not speaking from envy. My DH and I have good jobs and fight lifestyle inflation. But we’re not willfully blind.

Tucked C is a jerk but his rant had a point. Reform capitalism or watch a socialist tide continue to rise. I’d prefer reformed capitalism myself.

agree with pp who said that this has been studied extensively

It isn't the iphones or fancy purses. It is housing, childcare and medical costs (including insurance).

People have LESS discretionary income now than they did in the 70s and earlier.

NP here and thinking a lot about the issues in this thread. Does anyone else think that the newer rejection of things in favor of experiences is adding to this overspending problem?

When it becomes imperative to go out to the newest expensive restaurant or to go to the most exclusive vacation, isn’t that type of lifestyle more constantly expensive than splurging on a fancy car or handbag? At least once you have the things, that itch is scratched, but the need to go to Minibar and Pineapples and Pearls and Komi etc. never ends.

Education loans, child care and medical care/insurance costs are a much higher percent of a families gross income today than 30 years ago. Even if you are very thrifty it is very difficult to save a lot unless you are UMC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FFS people. This has been studied extensively. The vast majority of people are in the whole b/c rising housing, education, and medical.

Maybe they could save up $1K by returning to the 90s and forsaking a cell phone for a beeper.

But what happens is they save that $1k, then it is seized for a medical debt. Bought goods are harder to seize, so by spending it, they get to ‘keep’ it.

But they are on the edge to begin with b/c housing, medical, and education.

And I agree, lack of unions goes right along with that.

Real wages have been stagnant since about 1972.

And jobs continue to be replaced by technology. It seems like the goal of every business is to eliminate labor costs. That means the most successful business are the ones that either don't hire people or can get way with paying next to nothing. This is a big part of why wealth is concentrated in the few at the top. It is what caused the crisis in farming and cities that grew out of the auto industry.

So the question is, what happens to the masses of people who used to be that labor and who's lives depended on those jobs? You say 'go into tech,' but the whole point of tech is that it eliminates the need for people, so that answer only works for a small fraction of the people left behind. What about the rest? How do we create livable wage work for people in an age of machines?

Can success be redefined as enterprises that make life livable or even good for the greatest number of humans, instead of enterprises that create one or two multi-billionaires and leave a wake of poverty and distress behind them?

To the PP saying that people are consumed by housing, medical, a college debt: that may be true. But many people still have lifestyle inflation. The "needs" are really not needs. And people are NOT saving enough, which is particularly egregious when you can save.