But I'm saying that if what they're saying is right, then think may 50-60% or more of that income on housing. If it's a problem, in what is otherwise genuinely a crooked field of bankers and lenders. I don't think it was a hardship that one family in the 50s could afford only BW and the other the new color tv, any more than someone was an early adopter of VHS when decks ran maybe $1000 (or more?), and others were not. But I do think that the difference between the same house - the same house - if its likely cost was 35K in 1955 and is now 600K in 2005 is a far greater increase than the likely increase in salary of the sole breadwinner for the household, 1950s again, but having recently purchased such a property.
Instead, my sense is, regardless of the article, that both parents HAVE to work, in most cases, because their costs are out of control. It's not that they live extravagantly, which is I think your complaint. It's that they are trying to provide a bare minimum which unarguably is hampered by government taxation, regulation, and by corrupt banking practices and greed, and also arguably seems to have come much easily for many families 40 years ago, with the benefits I mentioned. And you didn't comment on that, either.
Why on earth would someone put 50-60 percent of their income on housing? That is beyond stupid and no wonder they go broke. Very bad money management.
But I do think that the difference between the same house - the same house - if its likely cost was 35K in 1955 and is now 600K in 2005 is a far greater increase than the likely increase in salary of the sole breadwinner for the household, 1950s again, but having recently purchased such a property.
Where are you getting those figures? Besides you are comparing apples to oranges because of location. If the city has expanded and the house is now closer to certain things then the price will go up because the location is no longer the same.
Instead, my sense is, regardless of the article, that both parents HAVE to work, in most cases, because their costs are out of control.
And my knowledge is that if you sit down and figure out what it costs to have both parents working that the end result is pretty much null.
It's not that they live extravagantly, which is I think your complaint.
My complaint is that many people live beyond their income. It does not matter what size that income is if you live beyond it. Please see all the people who were once fabulously wealthy are are now flat broke. They had high incomes but had no idea of how to manage it.
There is no such thing as a living wage when you persist in spending beyond your income.
It's that they are trying to provide a bare minimum which unarguably is hampered by government taxation, regulation, and by corrupt banking practices and greed,
Yes, the greed of the consumer to spend more then they have.
and also arguably seems to have come much easily for many families 40 years ago, with the benefits I mentioned.
Go read this.
http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/003994.php
I will not argue with you that taxes are high but things were tougher 40 years ago. Not easier. People want more.
Bare minimum! Please.
"But I do think that the difference between the same house - the same house - if its likely cost was 35K in 1955 and is now 600K in 2005 is a far greater increase than the likely increase in salary of the sole breadwinner for the household, 1950s again, but having recently purchased such a property." Time to move to somewhere less expensive:
http://www.livingchoices.com/home/homedetail.aspx?refer=lycos&mid=0920&hid=534281779
http://www.livingchoices.com/home/homedetail.aspx?refer=lycos&mid=0920&hid=533972198
http://www.livingchoices.com/home/homedetail.aspx?refer=lycos&mid=0920&hid=534280978
http://www.millenniummortgagemississippi.lenderhost.com