Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents: Just Being Middle Class Is Becoming out of Reach

By Nan Mooney, Beacon Press. Posted May 20, 2008.


Why does it take two incomes to support a middle-class lifestyle that used to require one?
picture2
nan mooney
Advertisement

The following is an excerpt from "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" by Nan Mooney (Beacon, 2007).

Since the 1950s, what we've considered the American experience -- be it sock-hopping, suburban living, or SUV buying -- has been largely dictated by the professional middle class. In her 1989 social critique, Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class, Barbara Ehrenreich defined this mainstream population in terms of education, occupation, lifestyle and tastes, but also in terms of income. "Middle class couples," she wrote, "earn enough for home ownership in a neighborhood inhabited by other members of their class; college educations for the children; and such enriching experiences as vacation trips, psychotherapy, fitness training, summer camp and the consumption of 'culture' in various forms."

This thriving middle class didn't develop by accident. It emerged with the introduction of government and social policies designed to lift the country out of the Great Depression and sustain economic health in the postwar era. By the 1950s, a combination of social programs including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the GI Bill, and federal housing loans helped middle class salaries stretch. Employers supplied health insurance and pensions. A surge in suburban building made housing widely accessible. You no longer had to be a doctor or a businessman to afford a two-story Colonial with a dishwasher and a color TV. For a white male supporting a family -- the typical middle class profile at the time -- it was possible to work in an array of professions whereby you didn't necessarily get rich, but you could count on being fairly comfortable. A house, a job, a car or two in the garage, a fun summer vacation, these were absolute indicators of middle class success.

Economic realities have undergone seismic shifts since our parents' and grandparents' generations. Education and housing cost more. Incomes have leveled off for all but a small minority. Employers and the government supply few social safety nets, cutting health insurance and pensions and replacing them with new "benefits" like 401(k)s and health savings plans that benefit only those with income to set aside. But many of those middle class expectations set in place back in the '50s still hold.

Alongside our schooling in philosophy and economics, today's college-educated professionals have been conditioned to see ourselves as among the financially stable, mainstream haves. Many of us attended what are considered strong academic institutions. Others come from families with comfortable financial backgrounds. Our childhood friends, our college roommates, the couple we met at that holiday party are those same lawyers and financiers who've hit the financial jackpot, driving multiple Mercedeses and buying $2 million starter homes. We know we aren't like them. We've aspired to different career and financial goals, those more rooted in education, the arts or public service. But, given our often-similar backgrounds and educations, it's clear we aren't entirely unlike them either. This rising and dramatic economic inequality among college-educated professionals, leaving so many of us to struggle while a select few enter the strata of the "super rich," was not supposed to be part of the package.

When we read about the middle class squeeze, we tend to think blue collar -- the machinist who used to make $25 an hour now making $15, the vocationally trained worker whose job just got cut. But what about the social worker who makes $30,000 a year, the environmental scientist who makes $40,000, the college professor who makes $50,000? The rules of the game have changed. The educated professional middle class experience no longer guarantees two cars in every driveway, or even the driveway itself. Instead we face relatively low-paying jobs in fields requiring a high-cost education, increasing mortgages, student-loan and credit card debt, less employer or government help with health care, retirement, education and child care, and an overall higher cost of living. As the gap between the rich and the middle class widens, a huge segment of that once-comfortable center section is finding that reality means plummeting financial and emotional security and lack of control over our lives.

Difficult times


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: nan mooney, (not keeping up with our

"(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" by Nan Mooney (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't I know it
Posted by: taisamarie on May 20, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have an MA degree and my husband a BA. We struggle to make ends meet every month and we live with credit cards. The only 'credit' we have is one car loan on a Ford Focus and my student loan payments of $500 a month.
My parent's had a modest house and we had a comfortable but not extravagent lifestyle. Together we make just as much as they did, yet because the cost of living keeps rising we can only afford a house half the size of the one I grew up in (our house is only 800 sq ft).
So much for moving up in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: Hovey
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: taisamarie
» atleast you have a house... Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: atleast you have a house... Posted by: taisamarie
Simple ... Reaganomics and Fudged Stats
Posted by: mmckinl on May 20, 2008 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan broke the unions, began the outsourcing of jobs and the privatization of the public sector. The Democrats played along and all this went into hyperdrive once Bush was elected with a Republican Congress.

Less known, but just as important were the doctoring of all our economic measures. Both the inflation figures and the unemployment figures have been bogus for years. The Fed has stopped reporting several very important figures altogether including M3.

By some estimates inflation has been so underreported that SSI benefits are 40% lower today than they would have been had the inflation measures stayed the same.

Alternet just had a great article on this:

Washington's Great Inflation Hoax

It's simple really ... the American public has been scammed by the usual suspects; the corporatocracy, the main stream media and the political elites of both parties, to line their own pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soon it will take three incomes for a household to have a sense of financial stability.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on May 20, 2008 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because duplication of fixed housing expenses like initial construction costs, monthly utility services, daily commuting for work etc. burdens the environment and its limited resources. The more economically productive people aggregate in a single household, the more efficient that household is, at least in general.

The frills of middle-class life, including suburban homes, multiple vehicles, vacations, and frivolous consumption, have had a hideous effect on the natural world, and they need to be curtailed anyway. Economic forcing, via increasing financial stress, might be the only way to achieve this.

Still, economic insecurity is hell to live with, especially when it is dire enough that a person can see the specter of homelessness looming on the horizon if something simple goes wrong, like the car dies or someone gets sick and misses work. The best that people can do is to keep trying, while reassessing their expectations in order to be prepared if personal catastrophe does occur.

Political change can help the situation, but it's always uncertain whether such change will come and who it will impact, and at this point in time, it will still take years at least - if not decades - to reorganize our economy such that ordinary people can feel secure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's why it's called "nonprofit"
Posted by: Capitalist Pig on May 20, 2008 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard Nan Mooney on NPR yesterday. She bemoans the fact that "teaching, social work, and careers in the nonprofit sector" don't pay very well.

Of course they don't pay well, that's why it's called nonprofit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is just the beginning....
Posted by: xi_people on May 20, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American "middle-class" is history. Not only won't this generation be able to keep up with their parents, but the entire class is going to disappear. With the advent of Peak Oil, and perhaps Climate Change, the factors that have enabled the concept of a more equitable distribution of wealth (mainly cheap oil) are being obliterated.

These are the "good old days" that people will reminisce about for decades to come. Better enjoy them while you can!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real question
Posted by: warpspasm on May 20, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shouldn't the question be whether or not the "middle class" lifestyle of days gone by is a good thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The real question Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: The real question Posted by: fatbradley
» What are you prepared to do? Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: The real question Posted by: Logic's Edge
Hard Choices and Welcome to Reality
Posted by: terradea42 on May 20, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The middle class needs to wake up. Options for this family include abortion and defaulting on student loans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hard Choices and Welcome to Reality Posted by: world traveler
» What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: pdxstudent
» An Even Better Reason To Foster! Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: world traveler
» RE: What A Pathetic System Posted by: FoonTheElder
Katrina Victims are our future
Posted by: fred_53_99 on May 20, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The victims of the ninth ward, the victims of Katrina they are our future. "po" not poor. most of them had jobs but they were still poor. Th ejobs they have could pay enough to live. Now it seem neither can most of the middle class. By next year ten percent of Americans will be on food stamps.Thats 23 million. But we're not bitter,The rich are supposed to screw us,that's how they got rich. Break out the industrial sized jar of vasoline, we're about to really get the big one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having trouble feeling sorry...
Posted by: Farasien on May 20, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...for the couple described in the article. They both have sub-standard jobs, for professionals. They were dumb enough to buy a house they couldn't afford, then compounding the issue, were dumb enough to have a kid they couldn't afford. Not once, but TWICE. She then opened her own practice instead of finding a more stable job, taking on MORE debt they couldn't afford...

Is it just me, or is it just a bit patheric that people like the dolts in this story, clearly victims of their own stupidity, are bitching? One of the reasons the boomer generation is doing better than the current one (of which, I'm disgusted to say, I'm a member) is that they had some sense of financial wisdom. THEIR parents bothered to teach them a touch of responsibility and common sense whereas the dipshits of my generation think they can do the procession of stupid shit described in the article (or even worse, in some circumstances) without having to pay for it. Unlike most of my generation, apparently, I learned how to conduct myself and my finances in a manner that resembles sanity. I'm married, happily child-free, I own my own (sane-sized and priced) house which I renovate continuously on my (not credit) money, 2 cars (both paid off), have a job that, while not saving the world provides me a lower-middle class lifestyle. I'm out of consumer debt and have been for the last 2 or so years. I'm saving an appreciable amount for retirement and am going to school on MY dime in my free time to learn a trade I love (CNC machining) in case my science job takes a permanent vacation in China. I do this in spite of both myself and my wife having (manageable) health issues and a mortgage. If we can do this with my and my wife's pittances of salaries, its damn hard to feel sorry for dolts like the ones in this article or others like them. If you want to be stupid in life, you should damn well be ready to pay the price for it. A little wisdom and discipline goes a hell of a long way, and contrary to the whining you might hear from what passes for parents these days, isn't too hard to teach or learn. I guess its just not fashionable to be intelligent these days.

Too bad for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's the sense of entitlement Posted by: suprmark
» It is JUST YOU! Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: It is JUST YOU! Posted by: Knot_Rich
» Read it again Posted by: Farasien
» Why Do You Think That? Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Credit the hippies Posted by: westomoon
» Solving and Blaming Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Some people need leaders Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Overcoming PSYOPS Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Greedy Sellers and Greedy Buyers Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
There Really Were "Good Old Days"
Posted by: Liberty G on May 20, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I approach the age of 70, I believe I have a good perspective on the societal history during my lifetime. I am no dreamer in rose-colored glasses when I look back - but by every concrete measure, the 1950s through the 1970s were vastly better for the majority of people. Certainly there were serious problems, and the wealth and civil rights were never shared equally. But the cost of living and quality of life were far superior to today for those not in the corporate, political or academic elite. I remember living in NYC in the early '60s with a salary of $60 a week - which was exactly the rent of the apartment in Brooklyn Heights I inhabited. Today, that apartment could never be mine, even with a job paying far more.

In particular, I have often pointed out to people the fact that needing two incomes to raise a family is not an improvement over being able to do it with only one. Thanks for speaking my mind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't worked in 2 years, I live on $800 a month in one of the most expensive areas of the U.S.
Posted by: blogbooks on May 20, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop spending more money than you make. It isn't hard. I haven't worked in 2 years. Kind of a temporary retirement.

You simply have to change the way you think about money. Stop thinking there is an unlimited money supply you have access to via loans and credit cards and start looking at how much money you actually have in your accounts and in your pocket.

I'm sorry but if you can't live comfortably on a combined income of nearly 80 grand a year then your sense of entitlement is simply too grandiose to ever be satisfied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: i would love to konw how you do this!! Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
dave580b
Posted by: ed580b on May 20, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clue bus... cut up the credit cards. Shop with cash. Ask yourself if you can do without on every puchase until you are debtfree. That's how your parents made it to middle class status.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go again...
Posted by: grokked on May 20, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The willful self delusion in these discussions never fails to amaze me.

Oh, woe to the middle and working classes!! Victims of vast economic forces beyond far their ability to combat.

Actually, what they are, is victims of their own stupidity.

The truth is that the "ownership class" would never win a single election on the strength of their own numbers.

But, nevertheless, they do win election after election after election. Thanks, almost entirely, to millions of faithful middle and working class morons who continue to vote republican, despite seeing the cronic disintegration of their personal fortunes and lifestyles.

I see it constantly, even among my own family and friends. It seems that there is no degree of persuasion or connect-the-dots that will cause them to open their eyes to the republican bait-n-switch tactics. Vote for the "good christian man" (people who always make me itch), and get instead corpratocracy, free-market fundamentalism (a.k.a. offshored jobs), and "relaxed" work rules (a.k.a. shut up or you can be replaced).

The middle and working classes in this country have the government that they have repeatedly chosen. If it sucks, they have no one to blame but themselves.

In my uniquely uncharitable and unlefty way, I have taken to calling them the "christian stupids".

May their mindless holier-than-thou corpses rot in the sun. Soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go again... Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: You got it absolutely right Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: Taught to "believe" Posted by: Sushi
Not the number of incomes
Posted by: fdgsr on May 20, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I often wonder why we only count the number of incomes without noting the number of productive incomes. I wonder why we fret about the number of family incomes, and not so much about the number of non-productive people we support with those incomes.

When a number of working hours are spent on non-productive activities, the total cost to the economy is higher than when more of the incomes pay for production.

I have compared the cost in dollars adjusted for inflation for basics, such as flour, sugar, fat, and energy in the '30s with the same costs in adjusted dollars today. The cost of these things is lower today than then adjusted for inflation. So where do we spend the additional income?

If the cost of food is half what it was in 1935, the extra income can be used for technology and education. Eight grades of school was common as a max in 1935, while twelve grades are expected today. Jobs that went to high school grads in 1935 now go to college grads.

The fact that food costs half what it did in 1935 in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, means that half the man hours needed to produce all the food consumed can now be employed in other services and products. Still we want more. None of us had health insurance in 1935, yet a visit to a doctor cost $2.00 and the medicine he prescribed cost less than a dollar. Dentists could pull a tooth for $3.00 and there were no psychologists to deal with the stresses of the great depression. Only the rich, like the doctor and dentist who charged $2.00 per visit, could afford to go to a psychiatrist, who was also a medical doctor.

My doctor drove a new Buick every three or four years and my father drove a used Nash or Chevy. State sales tax was 2% and there was no income tax on the income of ordinary workers. Property tax was less than $20 per year on our 80 acres. It included enough to run the local school and to transport a couple of high school kids to town five days a week for their 'advanced' education. College was out of the question for most of us. Farmers could get all the labor they needed for $1.00 a day. At harvest time, they could double the pay to get more on a temporary basis.

If the work force worked as hard today and was as productive as they were in 1935 added to the production due to technology and machines, there would be no economic problems and enough left over to fund health care, dentistry, and mental treatment of the few who could not adjust to that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not the number of incomes Posted by: JERSEYDAN
Rev Wright caused all the decline of the middle class
Posted by: fred_53_99 on May 20, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know Rev Wright is the real cause of the middle class melt down. So lets have a Bud and make John McCain's wife richer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we get real here?
Posted by: LeslieGem on May 20, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every few months we have an article on this theme, and it's the same unrealistic attitude.

Let's get real here -- my grandfather and father supported their families in a middle class lifestyle while their wives stayed home, but they weren't working their "dream job." They were working the job they needed to work to earn the money they needed to to support their family. My generation, on the other hand, seems to think that they are entitled to work their low-paying "dream job" and still earn an income at a certain level to support a certain lifestyle that they are "entitled" to.

It doesn't work that way. If you CHOOSE to work a job that pays "x" dollars, they you have to adjust your lifestyle accordingly. If you can't tolerate the lifestyle your income provides, then you are going to have to suck it up like our fathers and grandfathers did, and work in a higher paying field that doesn't fit your dream of "what you want to be when you grow up."

Work hard, spend wisely, save your money, and make a career change to your "dream job" when you can afford it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What career change? Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» Too Funny! Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: Dream job? Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Dream job? Posted by: HoboHomo
» (Eerie shiver) Posted by: westomoon
Keeping up with the Jonesesisum will keep you BROKE
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters on May 20, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get out the Northeast/Illinois of California

This reminds me of the Spitzer Side Girl and the sob story the media tried to give her and I got reminded quickly living in Boston, MA these are some very high cost of living cities. Gawd forbid you pack up the Volvo and move to "the Midwest or Southern States" pay down some of the credit Card debt oh and I forgot, staying home and cooking is so 1980's. That apartment you got in the trendy loft: You are paying for that address because gwad forbid we live in the getto, despite tha hood an't all that bad (well in Boston or DC) however you can pay another 1000 for that crap hole). Student Loans, that was the investment you placed in YOURSELF! You should of worked on that jump shot if you wanted to attend "very expensive private school" that most of is probably never herd of anyway. No one mention how you over drawn the max on your student loans for "drinking money" because you did not wanna work during college. I can keep going on and on however I have to go to a job for some side money because I live in Boston now however I'm packing up and getting the (bleep) out of here for greener pastures ells were. Americans have been doing this for years, so what are you doing other than blaming politics... oh wait, thats what Liberals do. No matter what happens in Washington or Beacon Hill I'm do what I need to do to live and be happy. Thats conservatives for ya, Reagan would be proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» something to aim for Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
The Rest of the Story
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 20, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of the 'Middle Class' abandoned active political support of Unions and increasingly supported Republicans. Otherwise, they contributed to their own demise through their own delusion.

The next time someone tells you elections do not have consequences punch them in the face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Rest of the Story Posted by: VZEQICVA
I KNOW, YOUVE' HEARD THIS BEFORE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 20, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who came up at the end of the depression didn't need much to feel blessed. A modest house, job, enough to raise a family. There basis for comparison was different from young adults today. They never heard of a 'dream job' or a home equity loan'. They were happy with less than people are today because they had so much more than their parents. It is all relative. Now it's the other way around. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Depression... Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: home equity loan Posted by: Sushi
fight back with your spending behavior, don't support publicly traded companies
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on May 20, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If 2/3 of our GDP is based on consumer spending and most of which is done at anti-union, anti-benefit, pro-cost cutting corporations that pay their execs huge amounts of money and the people that actually run the corporation very little. Not to mention the stock holders get all the extra money that could go to the employees. If you want a middle class then......

Dont support it.

The shareholders and execs (who are big share holders) get all the money. Not the employees.

Boycott all publicly traded companies listed on stock exchanges that put shareholders before employees.
It will change how business is structured to make profit.
Support a pro-employee aka pro citizen government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wealth distribution is political, wealth is relative
Posted by: ischindl on May 20, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both empirical evidence and theoretical studies show that the distribution of wealth in a country is a political decision. For example 3 of the wealthiest men in the world are Indians, yet there are many very poor people in India with full time jobs. The culture accepts working poor.

When everyone makes the same amount of money, there is no growth. People seem to need "getting ahead" in order to work hard. This situation can arise when left wingers start distributing all the wealth "equally" or when right wingers become corrupt (as in the US) and a small group controles all the wealth by essentially cheating.

Remember that wealth is relative. I started my masters degree at the age of 30 at UC Irvine in 1986. Our family which ballooned to 4 before I got my PhD in 1992 survived on $12,000/year. Until our second child was born, I felt absolutely rich! I had spent the previous 8 years as a homeless tennis bum traveling the world (fantastic years). A teaching assistant job at UCI enabled me to pay rent for the first time in my life!

After getting my PhD, we moved to France. We still live on one salary: 31,000 euros or (wow has the dollar dropped) $47,000 per year. The biggest tip on living cheap is to avoid buying a car. Cars are ugly, polluting, dangerous, and expensive. Cars are for women and cripples, real men ride bicycles. I'm 52, I ride 5,000 km / year and I don't even have a French drivers licence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Chill Out Dude Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» Ayn Rand lives Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Ayn Rand lives Posted by: CatDad
» 'Twasn't always thus Posted by: westomoon
It's A New World
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 20, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a new and different world out there than previous generations have known. People will either adapt or not. You won't see anything really change until sanity prevails and government is no longer run by the corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Corporations or Big Media? Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» *EHNNNNT*! Guess again! Posted by: westomoon
» nock nock McFly Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: nock nock McFly Posted by: westomoon
» RE: nock nock McFly Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: nock nock McFly Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Changing Paradigms
Posted by: Urstrly on May 20, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the sixties when I was in college, the government itself loaned you money for your education at low interest rates. Unfortunately, under our "ownership society," the government turned them over to banks. And they gave the banks free reign over interest rates and terms. Rather than seeing student loans as an investment in citizens who will be productive, banks see students as consumers.

Anyone who gets a Ph.D. in psychology is a good student and an asset to her community, IMO. Two educated people should be able to manage an 800 square foot house; it's not extravagant (Have you seen a Toll Bros. house lately?)But the rush to the suburbs after World War II and the ensuing white flight of the sixties has left us with communities that are untenable in our energy-challenged environment. This couple is caught up in that, and the solution is not just to pay them more but to address some of the root causes of their financial woes: lack of affordable child care, lack of viable public transportation, expensive student loans that do not take into account that people in helping professions make less.

To those people who wondered why this woman didn't seek an abortion, I would just say that Cincinnati is a VERY conservative town, and even if the woman isn't Catholic, getting one could be very sticky. We forget how much the religious right has polluted public consciousness about both birth control and abortion over the last decade or so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cvtemptor
Posted by: cvtemptor on May 20, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have to be as careful with your life as you should be when posting here. Know....not konw.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Climbing Down the Ladder
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on May 20, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't any wonder, after reading this article, that many Americans feel trapped by economic uncertainty? A dual income means we're all caught in a trap by forces held hostage to a changing market. A hundred thousand dollar salary doesn't buy what it once did an era ago. That's not enough to live on in Los Angeles, believe it or not.
The "fabulous" fifties is used by some who base the rise of a middle class lifestyle when it was possible for people sans a college degree to buy a home and put children through college.
Now it seems today's families are finding out how cruel of a game life is, with so much pressure, faced with having children and living with only the basics. A two-car family looks like it's ancient history. Want to live in Los Angeles, where the average home costs $500,000 and up? Better start playing the lottery. Forget about winning money on "Wheel of Fortune."
I wonder what the future holds for children and college grads who will earn their diplomas this week. We know that having a degree is no guarantee of instant wealth.
Why do we think collegiate athletes are eager to become professionals? You do the math. We're climbing down the ladder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Diliemma of What Was Better Or Worse...
Posted by: dbatterman on May 20, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On one hand...
My grandfather worked for the city of Los Angeles in the Animal Control department. He also fixed TV's in his spare time. I remember the brick wall that ran alongside their house in Montebello, and my dad telling me that Grandpa bought just a few bricks at a time when he could afford it, to build that wall to completion. They didn't have luxury, but they were able to go on vacations, albeit to places where they knew people to stay with. My grandfather got a good pension from the city after he retired, and had no problems financially in his old age because of that.
On the other hand....
I am single, have no kids and have ten years professional experience. After some corporate "restructuring" I'm looking for jobs and see a lot of positions that require 5 to 10 year experience, but have starting salaries in the low to mid 20K. And these jobs keep getting posted again and again and again, because they're just hoping someone will come along who's desperate enough to take a salary that barely covers rent here in Atlanta.
Unfortunately, I think what we're seeing here is capitalism, like all economic systems, showing it's penultimate goal: To pay employees as little as possible for the most amount of productivity to increase the company's bottom line. I'm not saying that our system is any better or worse than anyone elses, but I think it is the nature of the beast, and unfortunately, we're seeing the bad side of that nature, as opposed to earlier generations, which caught more of a benevolent face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two reasons: women and immigration
Posted by: Bobsays on May 20, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bringing women into the workplace basically took the middle class income down by half. Suddenly, the nation's work could be done by twice as many people. The other factor pushing wages down is immigration. By allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the labour market places a downward pressure on salaries.

In order to get back to a situation where a single income could support a stay-at-home mum and kids, there would have to be a massive increase in American productivity and wealth. Right now, America is broke and owes more to other nations, than the other way around. Save more, and stop borrowing so much money, and you would see the country's wealth go back up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two reasons: women and immigration Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» employers set the salaries Posted by: e rice
» RE: employers set the salaries Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» Some Logic Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Some Logic Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» One of the 50,000 or 70,000? Posted by: pdxstudent
I thought we had problems
Posted by: zorba1 on May 20, 2008 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 62, we live in a 3,100 sq foot home on 2 1/2 acres in Southern Calif.
We have two vehicles paid in full, a 1,000 sq ft garage i do odd jobs in and generaly try to stay away from the wife when possible(hide).
I do all the repairs including carpentry, masonary, painting, roofing, landscaping, appliances etc as we cannot afford the $85 an hour service charges and i can do the work.
We bought this place in foreclosure ten years ago during the last reccession for 180k with 50k down from the sale of our second home.
It reached an astounding 960k two years ago but has since dropped to 650k.
Guess what, We are both disabled and have lived on disability the last 21 years, our current income is $1,700 a month. Thats it, total.
We are making it, but i admit things are a bit tight.
Our late Mothers and Fathers taught us responsibility, waste not, want not was driven home repeatedly.
Do not count your chickens untill they hatch, a bird in hand is better than two in the tree.
We did not "get" allowances we earned money cutting the lawn, shoveling snow, plowing, discing, harrowing, castrating, butchering pigs, a steer or two for the freezer etc.
We knew outhouses, kerosine lamps, galvinized wash tubs for bathing, no electricity, wood burning kitchen stoves, making our own soap, butter, ice cream, growing our food, putting up for winter cutting cordwood.
We never asked what can we do.
The frugality we learned as kids serve us well now.
Our first home was in a lousy nieghborhood, we fixed it up and made 15k on it after 5 yrs.
Our next home was in a blue collar nieghborhood, we bought the worst home and fixed it up selling it for a 50k profit after 15 yrs.
My wife has been totally blind since eight yrs of age. She has never worked.
I worked as a mechanic in the oil industry then the city and am a journeymen Carpenter.
I have a college degree in cultural anthropology but happily never got a job in that low paying field, the interviewers looked down on me when i told them my past jobs were farmer, carpenter and mechanic. I worked while going to school and paid for the education. Those were seventeen hour days school and work.
I made $28 an hour in carpentry and $25 an hour as a master ase mechanic.
I had worried becuase we ran up 3k in debts.
We still pay the mortgage, but after reading this article we feel real good.
These people are not living within thier means, they did not sacifice when going to school. God! if i could make 75k a year we would be in fat city.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» dear sir Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
Page missing?
Posted by: Badger1492 on May 20, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, not really, but it feels like it. Don't we already know all of t