Yeah well if you spend all of your income and then some on doodads you're going to have a "high standard of living" measured in the moment. Until you finally hit the wall and crash that is, in most cases these days without a pension.
Wise people, or those with wise guidance, starting in their 20s would be well advised to be socking away 15,000 or more a year for the future. Not spending it on a "high standard of living". This might mean no restaurant meals and driving a used car. keep in mind that there are parts of the world just being able to eat on each day of the entire month and have a bicycle would be considered desirable.
Steve in MA
of MA
@
Sep 15, 2009 04:06:00 AM
A buncha horse shit
So how is it better that it takes 2 incomes to raise a family? If raising a "family" is the goal? 20 and 30 year olds have it better than their parents because they don't have to get married to have sex. Pro choice means you get to choose who you have sex with and when and how and whether to deal with the results. The only thing this younger generation has cheaper and better access to is porn. On the Iphone- on the computer - on the TeeVeee -- back in the good old days we had to make it ourselves. Let's stop the generational and gender warfare that is the template of old journalism. You know the dead tree journalism... magazines and daily papers that waste trees and ink and the gas to deliver them. With all of their old battles we let them rest.
Stephen Reeed
of IL
@
Aug 26, 2009 23:35:30 PM
great comments
These are such great comments, thank you. I agree, Melby, financial security has more value than many of our material comforts, and as for Veronica's point, perhaps one of our challenges today is to turn some of those things back into wants, not needs.
Kimberly Palmer
of DC
@
Aug 26, 2009 13:11:45 PM
Thank you, Melby (below)
Your post is very thoughtful.
As for the article above, I have a hard time believing the outlook for average people in America is as positive going forward as Terry Fitzgerald would have you believe. Right now, EXCEPT for the emergency money printing by the Treasury and the Fed, we would be diving into world depression because of the activities of corporations.
If we want to improve the lives of our children and grandchildren, we will restore very high income taxes at the highest end of the income curve. There are many activities of man that should be avoided.
High tax rates can help with that. How much better off might we all be, for instance, if we could have skipped the 1999 tech stock bubble/scam, the 2006 residential real estate bubble/scam and the 2008 oil futures bubble/scam? (Consider that it is STILL predicted that half of all people with mortages will end up "upside down"--owing more than the house is worth.)
All three of those bubble/scams were engineered by Wall Streeters (think Goldman Sachs) lured by the prospect of billion dollar personal incomes with low taxes, especially on the capital gains.
If you had an 80% - 90% tax rate on incomes over $10 (or $50, you pick) million, your nation could have skipped a lot of pain. Once upon a time, we HAD such rates and the sky did not fall. In fact, the sun shined.
As it is, your government is broke, half the homeowners are--or will be-- under water, and you're still wondering what happened. I know what happened. You need to know. Go looking and see what you find out.
Muser
of NM
@
Aug 26, 2009 12:49:43 PM
nicer things don't equal better
actually if anything those nicer things are ADDED expenses into our daily lifestyle. somehow cable TV turned into a need and not a want. cell phones became a need and not a want. the internet became a need and not a want. central air became a need and not a want. i imagine without cable. cell phones, HD TVs and all the other gizmos and gadgets that drain the family budget, we'd have MORE disposable income to use on memories (such as vacations and nights at a broadway show) instead of some darn gadget that will break in a year or two.
sure we benefit from safer cars, but they also COST MORE. we benefit from scientific advances in healthcare, which made healthcare more expensive. those two things are a wash...
veronica
of NH
@
Aug 26, 2009 12:28:30 PM
Definitely, much better
I am much better off than my parents were at my age, financially speaking.
While my parents purchased a home at an earlier age than I, they were restricted to a neighborhood they could afford, rather than one they loved. They were able to send three children to private school on one salary, but that sacrifice required them to make do with one car, one phone line, a vacation every other year (if lucky) and a house with one bathroom (and no central A/C) for a family of five. We did have cable TV but always the basic package and our computers were top-of-the-line, two years before we bought them.
I definitely have more material comforts than my parents but they had a sense of job security I will never know and the comfort of a pension waiting for them in retirement I can only dream of.
After the last few rough months economically speaking, I would trade my central A/C and bi-yearly vacation for my parents' economically secure, though coupon-clipping, lifestyle in a minute.
Kimberly Palmer, senior editor for U.S. News & World Report, writes about how to save money, avoid scams, manage debt, and be a savvy shopper. Send your personal finance questions to her for expert money advice.
Steve in MA of MA @ Sep 15, 2009 04:06:00 AM
Stephen Reeed of IL @ Aug 26, 2009 23:35:30 PM
Kimberly Palmer of DC @ Aug 26, 2009 13:11:45 PM
Muser of NM @ Aug 26, 2009 12:49:43 PM
veronica of NH @ Aug 26, 2009 12:28:30 PM
Melby of DE @ Aug 26, 2009 12:22:28 PM
Back to blog