Posted on 10/20/2006 8:53:42 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
Amen. You read my mind. In fact, it seems like just the opposite is often true. The more we have, the more we want!
 |
"Well, sure, the Frinkiac-7 looks impressive (don't touch it!), but I predict that within 100 years, computers will be TWICE as powerful, TEN THOUSAND times LARGER, and SO expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them." |
One of the big lies in my view. I am over 50% on my Taxes local and federal mandated state taxes and me and my wife are both self employed and pay the full vig (14%) on social security.
They are not adding in the lost quality in education - I have to send my daughter to private Catholic school as the local schools are so bad.(+$7,000) Kinda of a hidden tax as I have to pay extra to maintain quality.
$14,500 for my not so great medical IRA a year
Cost of living is high. Day to day I am not sure that we are better off, there is allot of misc that people do not count.
"median price of a home in the US"
For 2004 it was $221,000.
http://therealreturns.blogspot.com/2005/08/us-median-house-price.html
a few bucks put away?..sure.....
but we will have NO retirement medical benefits and the only pension we will get is from the Pension Guarentee Board.......
thanks to greedy and immoral corportate raiders.....
so all in all, I would agree that life in the 50's and 60's was easier, and the money went farther, and you could actually trust your company not to screw you ......
That's right. Something might be wrong with the theory. Agriculture, mining, and manufacture are taken to be where wealth is created, but something else is apparently going on.
I remember 1967 very well too. We had a machine gun nest in front of our house and a tank on the corner.
President Johnson ordered the Army into Detroit to stop a riot that burned 25 square miles of Detroit to the ground.
I think things are better now...
It doesn't say the equity is $450K. It says the net worth of the household -- which includes equity in your home, savings, 401k, pension value, etc.
Feel better now ?
A good rule of thumb for net worth is to dive the household's income by 10 and multiply by the average age of you and your spouse. If your net worth is above that, then you might be able to avoid a diet of dogfood in retirement.
University of Missouri tuition is less than $7,000 today. You must be thinking of the "total cost" including room, board, and books, when you think of $14,000.
http://www.missouristate.edu/registrar/capit/faq.htm#Standard_Tuition_Plan
The only difference is that it takes 2 incomes to have the same lifestyle that one income would provide in the 1960's.
1967: I was a college student but had a summer job in a car plant, made the same wage as the UAW guys on the line, $2.73/hour - that was GOOD money.
Bought a new 67 Chevy II with a 327 & 4 speed for $2300, gas was around 30 cents a gallon, sometimes 27 with a "gas war", LOL
McDonalds was 15 cents for the burger, can't remember how much @ White Castle.
great memories, but we are WAY better off now
and yes the Motown riots were horrible, the city has never really recovered from that
I still find it hard to believe. I think the median balance in a 401k is less than $50,000. Some defined benefit pensions, however, are worth a lot -- but how can they be valued by the average household. People only know approximately what they will get a month in retirement. They don't know the net present value of their future benefit.
My defined benefit pension plan always gives me a statement every year that shows its CURRENT cash value. If you have been with a company long enough (~ five years) for your pension to be vested, I think they are required to tell you how much you will get in a lump sum if you leave the company -- not just if you wait until 65 or whatever.
Also, the annual limits for 401k contributions are now up to $15K each year. Mutual funds contain most of the 401k money, and they should mimic the overall stock market over long periods -- ie, 10% per year and growing tax-deferred.
So the 45 million baby boomers probably average 50 years old at this point, have been saving in 401k and IRA plans for the last 15-20 years, and own a home that has seen its equity triple in value over the past 15 years.
I think this group skews the averages up more than the really wealthy people do.
I know I've heard a lot of doom and gloom about people spending every dime they make and saving nothing. I just don't think those people are "typical". Then again, maybe those people are Democrats and their panic about their own irresponsible lack of savings is what drives them to want a Nanny-state. Ya think ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.