College Choices and Marriage

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, zil said:

Hereinafter, "you" is a generic term for the reader, not necessarily a reference to "Latter-Day Marriage".

Look at the houses our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents (depending on your age) grew up in.  The notion that each child needs their own private room, that the family needs 2-3 different rooms in which to sit and do stuff, and that we need a separate space for breakfast vs dining, and lots of bathrooms to go with all that, etc., is nothing more than marketing nonsense.  If past generations can live close together and come out fine, so can current and future generations.

If you're not willing to live within the limits of one income, own it, don't claim it's an impossibility beyond your control.  Whether you choose to live within the limits of one income, or choose two incomes so as to live in greater comfort, you will be a better human for owning and facing the truth of your choice.  (And the world will be better off if you own your choices.)

I didn't say it was impossible, I said pretty much what you said, that you can do it but you won't have the same standard of living as two income families. 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, JoCa said:

The biggest thing is housing; other than that I really can't see anything that is inflated b/c of two-income family.

What it really boils down to is serving Mammon over God, nothing else.  Simply two generations ago a 1500 sqft was a big home; parents raised 4,5,6 kids in a 1500sqft home.  Today 3500sqft isn't big enough for 2 kids.  It comes down to priorities and recognition of what the most important things in life are.  Yeah, I'd love to live in a big house, but not at the sacrifice of my wife being in the workforce.

Plain and simple it is materialism.

When I was a kid, most people didn't have power windows in their cars, now the nearly all do, and power doors and a bunch of other things that used to be luxury features.  Same with a lot of other things.  People living on one income can wind up having to buy more expensive goods simply because the simpler, cheaper versions are not on the market.  Not enough single income families to create the demand for them.

Just because a husband and wife both work doesn't mean they are materialistic, you don't know all their circumstances.

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I didn't say it was impossible, I said pretty much what you said, that you can do it but you won't have the same standard of living as two income families. 

@DoctorLemon was the one that said today's economy is set up for 2 incomes so that it is very hard for single income families to make it.  But I thought you agreed with him.

Standard of living - going from eating 3 squares to starvation is different from going from McMansions to 1,200 sq feet.  One is going from fine to poverty the other is going from luxury to fine.

Edited October 2, 2017 by anatess2

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is just not an economic reality.  Prices are inflated according to what people will willingly pay for it.  If somebody can make it cheaper, people will not buy the expensive ones.  I mean - a large swath of Americans shop at Walmart where you can buy chicken breasts for 99 cents a pound.

And "sacrifices in your lifestyle" is,  in the USA, more of a first world problem... "I have to sacrifice and buy a 3 bedroom house instead of a McMansion".  Or. "I can't afford electricity" while setting the central A/C at 68 degrees all year long in Florida .  I can't afford healthcare for my children" when they are willing to pay healthcare insurance premiums to cover anything including birth control and the common cold, etc. etc.

What people are willing to pay depends on how much disposable income they have.  A two income family has more disposable income, so they are willing to pay more, and prices get set higher as a result.  Also, not everyone buys the cheapest of everything, some people are willing to pay more for higher quality or other factors.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

Just now, anatess2 said:

@DoctorLemon was the one that said today's economy is set up for 2 incomes so that it is very hard for single income families to make it.  But I thought you agreed with him.

I agree that it is hard, I've done it with 6 kids at home and I know it is hard, but I don't say it is impossible. 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

What people are willing to pay depends on how much disposable income they have.  A two income family has more disposable income, so they are willing to pay more, and prices get set higher as a result.  Also, not everyone buys the cheapest of everything, some people are willing to pay more for higher quality or other factors.

This is not how economics work.  People don't go to 2 incomes so they can pay more for the same thing. 

Okay - here's some simplistic economics 101 thing.  Inflation can happen 2 ways - 1.)  Demand inflation occurs when the demand for a basket of goods goes much higher than a society's ability to produce the basket of goods.  This usually happens when the government floods the market with money - e.g. printing money, issuing welfare and grants, etc.  This doesn't come from increase money produced by 2-income households because both income-earners increase production.  2.)  Cost inflation occurs when the cost of production rises.  This usually happens when energy prices go up or there's a minimum wage increase.  This doesn't come from 2-income households either.

Edited October 2, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

When I was a kid, most people didn't have power windows in their cars, now the nearly all do, and power doors and a bunch of other things that used to be luxury features.  Same with a lot of other things.  People living on one income can wind up having to buy more expensive goods simply because the simpler, cheaper versions are not on the market.  Not enough single income families to create the demand for them.

Just because a husband and wife both work doesn't mean they are materialistic, you don't know all their circumstances.

Power windows, etc., causes the cost of a car to rise, yes.  But, it is offset by advances in technology so that a carburator engine car with manual everything is just as affordable 30 years ago as a fuel-injection engine with power everything today.  The cost of living rises not because you have 2 incomes.  The cost of living rises because of inflation (see my post above).

[JoCa]

25 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

When I was a kid, most people didn't have power windows in their cars, now the nearly all do, and power doors and a bunch of other things that used to be luxury features.  Same with a lot of other things.  People living on one income can wind up having to buy more expensive goods simply because the simpler, cheaper versions are not on the market.  Not enough single income families to create the demand for them.

Just because a husband and wife both work doesn't mean they are materialistic, you don't know all their circumstances.

I'd say that's not b/c of dual incomes but because of efficiency improvements; in fact I'd say it goes directly against what you are saying.  I think if you want to live the 1960s standard of living you could do so much, much cheaper today than you could in 1960s. 

No internet, no cable, no cell phone bill just basic land line.  Those three things could cost you easily 200-300/month today.  A basic land line would be 20-30/month.  A good rule of thumb for housing costs would be somewhere around 100/sqft, for a 1200sqft home that is 120k, given today's interest rates easily doable on 50-60k. You can get a decent used car for 3-5k that will last you 10+ years if you take care of it.

No dishwasher, no dryer, wash clothes by hand . . those things aren't necessities . .. they are conveniences and you pay for them.

No, I don't know their circumstance . . .but having recently been involved in a bishop's storehouse case I can tell you more likely than not (not in all cases there are always exceptions) people can live on one income . .. they just don't have the discipline to do so . .. modern conveniences outweigh frugality. 

This individual was spending at least $80/month eating out at lunch every day. I probably make 3x as much as this individual and I don't come close to spending that much eating out.  In the 1950s-1960s people didn't eat out, the wives cooked meals they brought the meals to lunch and saved themselves a bunch of money.  It's much easier to simply go to MacDonald's rather than the wife take the time to prepare and cook a meal . . .it's just easier to do so.  In general people are lazy and given a choice they will take the easiest way out, even if in the long term it is detrimental.

Edited October 2, 2017 by JoCa

[my two cents]

20 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

What people are willing to pay depends on how much disposable income they have. 

No it doesn't. Not with my parents or my husband and I. Hence, how we live below our means.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is not how economics work.  People don't go to 2 incomes so they can pay more for the same thing. 

Okay - here's some simplistic economics 101 thing.  Inflation can happen 2 ways - 1.)  Demand inflation occurs when the demand for a basket of goods goes much higher than a society's ability to produce the basket of goods.  This usually happens when the government floods the market with money - e.g. printing money, issuing welfare and grants, etc.  This doesn't come from increase money produced by 2-income households because both income-earners increase production.  2.)  Cost inflation occurs when the cost of production rises.  This usually happens when energy prices go up or there's a minimum wage increase.  This doesn't come from 2-income households either.

I'm not talking about economic inflation, I'm talking about lifestyle inflation.  People gain more disposable income and they wind up spending more, they don't keep on living as they did when it was one income.  They get more things and they get better quality things.  With two income households dominating the market,  the bigger market demand are for those upper end items that a two income family would be likely to buy.  While you still get supply/demand price fluctuations, it is still around mainly those items that are more in demand.  If there were more single income homes then the market would cater to them instead.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

No internet, no cable, no cell phone bill just basic land line.  Those three things could cost you easily 200-300/month today.  A basic land line would be 20-30/month.  A good rule of thumb for housing costs would be somewhere around 100/sqft, for a 1200sqft home that is 120k, given today's interest rates easily doable on 50-60k. You can get a decent used car for 3-5k that will last you 10+ years if you take care of it.

No dishwasher, no dryer, wash clothes by hand . . those things aren't necessities . .. they are conveniences and you pay for them.

No, I don't know their circumstance . . .but having recently been involved in a bishop's storehouse case I can tell you more likely than not (not in all cases there are always exceptions) people can live on one income . .. they just don't have the discipline to do so . .. modern conveniences outweigh frugality.

Exactly, I said, a family can live on one income but it takes some sacrifice to do so.  If everyone was a one income household, it would affect what was available in the marketplace and how it was priced.  Since single income homes are not as common, the market is not as geared toward meeting their needs.  That doesn't make it impossible to do though.

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I'm not talking about economic inflation, I'm talking about lifestyle inflation.  People gain more disposable income and they wind up spending more, they don't keep on living as they did when it was one income.  They get more things and they get better quality things.  With two income households dominating the market,  the bigger market demand are for those upper end items that a two income family would be likely to buy.  While you still get supply/demand price fluctuations, it is still around mainly those items that are more in demand.  If there were more single income homes then the market would cater to them instead.

This may sound logical but it's not the reality.  Once again... the success of Walmart belies the claim.  It's not hard let alone an almost impossibility to live on a single middle-class income with proper know-how in today's American economy.  People, especially women, simply don't want to and, I'd say, a vast majority of women does't know anymore how to.  Homesteading/Home Economics are required high school courses in the Philippines.  I've never seen it in American curriculum.

Edited October 3, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

40 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I've never seen it in American curriculum.

In its most recent iteration (in my experience), it didn't teach anything useful.  IMO, that's because schools in the US are not about teaching things that are useful¹, they are about training children into cooperative (read submissive) employees.  Those are nothing like the same.

¹ That doesn't mean that students never learn anything useful, just that this isn't the end goal.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

In its most recent iteration (in my experience), it didn't teach anything useful.  IMO, that's because schools in the US are not about teaching things that are useful¹, they are about training children into cooperative (read submissive) employees.  Those are nothing like the same.

¹ That doesn't mean that students never learn anything useful, just that this isn't the end goal.

That should be college though.  High School should be taught without the assumption that a kid will go to college.  I mean, my kid goes to a College Prep High School because he wants to go to college.  My other kid is in an Arts School and that should be taught to stand on its own without further college.  But yeah, they still teach according to how it scores on the SAT.  In the meantime, college has become nothing more useful than ideological re-alignment.

[zil]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That should be college though.  High School should be taught without the assumption that a kid will go to college.  I mean, my kid goes to a College Prep High School because he wants to go to college.  My other kid is in an Arts School and that should be taught to stand on its own without further college.  But yeah, they still teach according to how it scores on the SAT.  In the meantime, college has become nothing more useful than ideological re-alignment.

I'm not convinced the intent of the administrators is really so different.  I'm not talking about job-specific skills per se, I'm talking about behavior, certain attitudes, and trained conformance to / acceptance of certain societal expectations.  It's entirely possible that high school has changed since I was in it (there certainly weren't any "Arts School" options anywhere near me, and I lived in a large city), but I doubt the intent has changed for the better.

Either way, you appear to be strong enough to overrule such influences, which I consider a good thing - necessary even.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, zil said:

I'm not convinced the intent of the administrators is really so different.  I'm not talking about job-specific skills per se, I'm talking about behavior, certain attitudes, and trained conformance to / acceptance of certain societal expectations.  It's entirely possible that high school has changed since I was in it (there certainly weren't any "Arts School" options anywhere near me, and I lived in a large city), but I doubt the intent has changed for the better.

Either way, you appear to be strong enough to overrule such influences, which I consider a good thing - necessary even.

I teach my kids home economics and homesteading myself.  I just hope that whoever they choose to marry will share their outlook on what's of value.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, anatess2 said:

Disagree with the bolded above.

The American economy is not "set up for two-income families".  That's a silly notion.  American families simply chose to be two-income families because... muh feminism.

Feminism is cancer.

I actually think they are right on the money that the US is now geared for a two income family. 

Let's look at housing.  1967 I buy a house for around 5,000 dollars around the San Francisco Bay area.  I go back and look how much that same house is worth today.  Now, according to normal inflation (x2 every 20 years), it should be around 25,000 to 30,000 dollars.  Is it worth that.  No, it's actually worth around 475,000 dollars.

What has happened then to housing.  Even in other places the prices have grown exponentially.  Looking at Provo/Orem area...you may have been able to also buy a  house at that time period for 3,000 to 8,000 Dollars.  Now, instead of 15,000 to 40,000 dollars, you are looking at 120,000 to 400,000 dollars.  That's almost 10x the growth in cost.

People may say that this is due to growth in the US, but that's what normal inflation is for.  One COULD argue it's just the evil of men and their selfishness and greed (I actually may buy that one and agree with it), but many could argue it's the changed economic landscape of which, the two income household is a major part of over the past 50 years.

 

Point blank, this is simply about a NECESSITY...housing.  This isn't about MODERN housing either these are HOUSES BUILT IN THE 60s.  You could live a 60s lifestyle in these, but your cost of doing so is going to be almost 20x that in SF area than that in the 60s, or if we take a more normal area (provo/orem) it is going still be 10x that of what it would have been.  That's not normal economics if everything stayed with a single income household.

Edited October 4, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I actually think they are right on the money that the US is now geared for a two income family. 

 

No pun intended!  

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I actually think they are right on the money that the US is now geared for a two income family. 

Let's look at housing.  1967 I buy a house for around 5,000 dollars around the San Francisco Bay area.  I go back and look how much that same house is worth today.  Now, according to normal inflation (x2 every 20 years), it should be around 25,000 to 30,000 dollars.  Is it worth that.  No, it's actually worth around 475,000 dollars.

What has happened then to housing.  Even in other places the prices have grown exponentially.  Looking at Provo/Orem area...you may have been able to also buy a  house at that time period for 3,000 to 8,000 Dollars.  Now, instead of 15,000 to 40,000 dollars, you are looking at 120,000 to 400,000 dollars.  That's almost 10x the growth in cost.

People may say that this is due to growth in the US, but that's what normal inflation is for.  One COULD argue it's just the evil of men and their selfishness and greed (I actually may buy that one and agree with it), but many could argue it's the changed economic landscape of which, the two income household is a major part of over the past 50 years.

 

Point blank, this is simply about a NECESSITY...housing.  This isn't about MODERN housing either these are HOUSES BUILT IN THE 60s.  You could live a 60s lifestyle in these, but your cost of doing so is going to be almost 20x that in SF area than that in the 60s, or if we take a more normal area (provo/orem) it is going still be 10x that of what it would have been.  That's not normal economics if everything stayed with a single income household.

Property value rises according to income.  Not necessarily 2-income.  Just income.  Income rises according to availability of jobs.  San Francisco Bay area is Silicon valley.  There was no Silicon Valley in 1967.  Surrounding areas rise through urban sprawl.

There are areas in my neck of the woods where you can still buy a 1200 sq foot 3-bedroom house for $60K.  And no, it's not the ghetto either.  It's smack dab middle class.  And it's simply because progress hasn't progressed this far.

[mrmarklin]

I would like to know where in the SF Bay Area one can buy a house for $475k..........

 

please advise. 

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I would like to know where in the SF Bay Area one can buy a house for $475k..........

 

please advise. 

Pay attention, sleepy head.  He said "Worth $475K" not that they're gonna sell it for that low. 

There's this guy who works at Google who lived off of a truck in the Googleplex parking lot... 

[mrmarklin]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Pay attention, sleepy head.  He said "Worth $475K" not that they're gonna sell it for that low. 

There's this guy who works at Google who lived off of a truck in the Googleplex parking lot... 

If a house is worth $475K, the implication is that it could be purchased for that amount. But I’ll rephrase:  I’d like to see a home that’s worth only $475K.

 

I realize that for the vast majority of you the numbers are surreal.  And they are ludicrous. My son just bought a 4&2 of 1400 sq ft for $630K. No, it did not have a large lot. This is a starter home here. 

 

Luckily he makes $300K+ annually.  Payment with taxes insurance etc is $4,000 per month. Yes, it’s expensive here. 

Edited October 13, 2017 by mrmarklin
More info.

[JoCa]

48 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

If a house is worth $475K, the implication is that it could be purchased for that amount. But I’ll rephrase:  I’d like to see a home that’s worth only $475K.

 

I realize that for the vast majority of you the numbers are surreal.  And they are ludicrous. My son just bought a 4&2 of 1400 sq ft for $630K. No, it did not have a large lot. This is a starter home here. 

 

Luckily he makes $300K+ annually.  Payment with taxes insurance etc is $4,000 per month. Yes, it’s expensive here. 

Which is why I will never live in San Fran.  Great my salary would double there, but housing would triple . . .nope not gonna do it.  And if you are really looking at the root cause of why housing in San Fran. is so high you simply need to look at one thing.  The Federal Reserve.

People with access to the money that the Fed. creates will in general have higher incomes which in turn drives higher housing costs.  San. Fran.  how much money is pouring into that area, just by the buckets.  All courtesy of the Federal Reserve system through the commercial banks.  Same with DC; housing is driving by Federal Gov. money.  In fact if you look at just about any city that has extremely high housing costs it is driven by either large capital inflows via commercial banks, large capital inflows via the Fed. Gov., land-locked or geographically challenged areas.

It's also amazing, everyone seems to have forgotten the '08 housing bust and everyone is complaining about housing prices.  Probably time for another crash.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/2017/07/26/2017-update-median-home-price-and-salary-required-in-27-major-cities

If you look though while I believe housing prices are elevated and will crash it's not as though only dual income earners can buy a home;  whoever believes that is just quite simply believing a lie.

Edited October 13, 2017 by JoCa

[anatess2]

48 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

If a house is worth $475K, the implication is that it could be purchased for that amount. But I’ll rephrase:  I’d like to see a home that’s worth only $475K.

 

I realize that for the vast majority of you the numbers are surreal.  And they are ludicrous. My son just bought a 4&2 of 1400 sq ft for $630K. No, it did not have a large lot. This is a starter home here. 

 

Luckily he makes $300K+ annually.  Payment with taxes insurance etc is $4,000 per month. Yes, it’s expensive here. 

Oh I know very well.  Used to live close-by in San Jose.  6 of my friends lived in a one-bedroom apartment in the Bay Area.  All 6 had to share the one bedroom apartment just so their rent won't go more than $500/month apiece.  I told them they were crazy and I moved to Texas.  So they were like, what?  You only make $12/hr?  That's slave wages!  And I'm like, but I got a 2-bedroom apartment all to myself for $600 whereas you have to sleep on the floor.

 

 

[JohnsonJones]

15 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I would like to know where in the SF Bay Area one can buy a house for $475k..........

 

please advise. 

Depends on how far out you extend our SF bay area.  Ours would be around Walnut Creek.  You aren't looking at a massive sized house. 

You'll have to travel a little bit and then probably take 2 hours to get to SF by BART.  Or, if you drive to downtown you could narrow it down somewhat to around 1.75 hours to 2.5 hours depending on how fast you drive, time of day, and construction en route.  Oakland would be quicker...if you consider that part of the Bay.

Most outside of CA consider the entire area part of the SF area.

The 475K was actually based on estimates a few years back.  Who knows if they are more now or not.

Edited October 13, 2017 by JohnsonJones