The Depressing Fall of the Middle Class

[Seamster]

Daily I notice brand-new $60k pickup trucks speeding past me going 90 on the highway, rushing home to their 3-car garages in $450k McMansions, as their owners slave away for 40 years, >40 hours a week, just to pay for these things.* They blindly believe they're getting 25 MPG.** I work with these people. I used to use them as a reminder of what not to do. Now, I feel sorry for them when they can't afford to go out to lunch on Fridays. In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors. We are slaves. I'm cheap so I'm fine, but I'm depressed because not only do I see people suffering, and not only is the suffering due to things they bought that they don't need, but because they argue with me about it!

First, let's look at how we got here. I'll use General Motors and Telsa as examples, as I'm in the industry. GM went bankrupt in 2009. The middle class is still paying for that bailout in the form of price inflation (the US Fed just created the money out of thin air). Why did the government agree to bail out GM? Because GM is legally able to bribe government officials.# These officials are not public servants in a capitalist economy: they are employees of the giant corporations (currently USA is a corporatocracy: a society controlled by corporations). And, our current monetary system, championed by the likes of Bernie Sanders, is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). This says that the government can just print as much money without repercussions. Tesla: the company is not profitable on its own. However, since saving the planet is now political, Tesla is given carbon credits from the government, which Tesla then sells to Ford, who is basically buying the privilege to pollute (making Tesla profitable).## But Ford need not worry about spending this money or, doing anything right, because, just like all the big lenders who failed (Fannie Mae, Leeman Brothers, etc) and were bailed out by the middle class in 2009, Ford has an implied government bailout guarantee.

Conclusion: the above is the government's fault for letting the corporations takeover. We cannot 100% blame the corporations for trying to make a profit. If the product they are making is dangerous and kills people, but if it's legal to sell, then we need to blame regulators. But the regulators are essentially employees of these same corporations. Individuals of the middle class are the ones struggling, yet I feel we need to take some responsibility for ourselves here:

• Ignorance - the corporations/government want us to work 40 hours a week and drive 1 hour back and forth to work to a house that costs only $300k where we can afford to live on our $80k salary. Why? Because we stay ignorant. But, how can we study economics and politics when we're gone 12 hours a day?
• Inflation (i.e. tax)- Most people think prices are going up because of shipping shortages, COVID, etc. Wrong: the currency supply has been inflated. That's the ONLY reason, by definition. 90% of this "free" money goes to the giant corporations. Yet, due to ignorance, we were all so happy with our stimulus checks, which, since everyone got the same amount, means that everyone got exactly $0.00. (US govt reports 7% inflation but they don't include the extra appx 7% increase on food and energy.)
• Status - From my own studies, I believe that status-seeking is driving approximately 50% of our economy. Don't believe me? Add up the sales of Cadillac, Lincoln, Audi, Lexus, Infinity, Acura and compare to those of Chevy, Ford, VW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda. Add up the cost of money spent on median priced houses (varies by city) vs the average price of houses minus median. Around here, you can live in a nice house for $150k only 45 min from the outskirts of the city and drive a $23k Honda Civic to get there. But no, we want to live 20 min away in a $400k house and drive a $50k car to get there. And we want the $1800 Apple computer, not the $500 one at Best Buy.
• Influence - the big corporations run the media. Why do you think you see the Kardashians and other flashy things all over TV? It's advertising! You think celebrities went out and bought that iWatch? No, companies send them that stuff for free. And here we are thinking we need to have that $1200 phone too; and a new one each year! And they totally have us convinced on housing too. Interest rates used to be around 13% in the 80s, so people could only afford 1200 sq ft. Now rates are 3-4%, so we can all buy 5000 sq ft homes. And we did! With a camper and jetski to match. Bought on credit, of course, convincing yourself that somehow it costs nothing because you get credit card points.  Now we must really slave away as to not get fired so we can afford those payments.

I see this daily. I hear how broke people are. How much of their own fault is it? It's hard to believe that I've had several highly intelligent individuals try to convince me that a $45k Tesla is cheaper and better for the earth than a $23k car. And let's not forget how much the average person spends on Amazon. This is a classic case of people being so brainwashed, in so many ways, that we are actually handing our hard-earned money over to, and sticking up for, the same exact companies that oppress us! And beyond all this we're only bringing home less than 70% of what we make. Then there's property taxes, gas tax for the roads, cigarette taxes, then all the charges on your phone bill or AirBNB, etc. It's safe to say that we're already paying 50% of our money in taxes. But that's still not enough for our corporate masters, because the Fed inflating our currency supply is the biggest tax of all: the US Dollar has already lost 90% of its value since inception. It's lost 50-75% in just 40 years. And. No. One. Is. Talking. About. It.

So, buy silver. Buy Bitcoin. Start a business. Move to Thailand. Don't be depressed. Don't start a revolt (though I think someone in our lifetimes will). But definitely, get the word out that corporations control the middle class like this: middle class spends money > corporation gets rich > corporation buys politician > politician lies to get votes > middle class votes for politician > politician prints money and gives to corporation > middle class pays for it through inflation and pollution > middle class continues spending money at the same corporations that stole from us (yes, you driving that Grand Cherokee by bankrupt Chryster are part of the problem!!). And for God's sake, remind people of the dangers of the phrase: "Buying that will save me money." Buying anything will almost never save you money. Especially status items. Don't be a part of the system!


* Contrary to common belief, most people driving $50k+ vehicles are not wealthy
** Most pickup trucks, even if they're new and V6, don't average more than 18-19 MPG.  Most aren't even tested and when they are it's not in real-world conditions.
# Thanks, Reagan
## Electric cars cost double, use more rare earth elements, require mining in countries that abuse child labor and pollute the area, run >80% on fossil fuels anyway, don't pay road tax like gas cars do, have horrible resale value, have no one who can fix (Tesla won't release the data to mechanics), weigh 25-100% more, burn through tires faster, require $5000-20,000 battery replacements eventually, only get 75% of the stated range because of lying, only get 75% of that range because you're not supposed to charge past 90% and not let go below 20%....

[thesis]

This smacks heavily of the "In a world of sheep, I am a wolf" meme.

So there are bad things in the world. What are you going to do about it? The FIRE "movement," if you could call it that, is very much a reaction to consumerism, waste, and misplaced values. There are plenty of people on these forums who live very happy lives, so thinking that the world is some giant conspiracy is short-sighted and simplistic. As time goes on, more and more people are taking notice of the environment, too, and are actively fighting pollution, for example.

Power always has and always will be a tricky subject, but that doesn't mean that everybody in politics and government is evil, it simply means there will always be conflicts of interest. But again: what are you going to do about it? Venting on a forum is one thing, and fine to some extent, but now you have to ask yourself what sort of positive impact you hope to make in the world.

And you're wrong: plenty of people are talking about inflation. But I, personally, think it's silly to assume this is the most pressing issue of our time. Inflation is not something governments have perfect control over, and it's often the lesser of several evils. Having an inflation target is based on a philosophical assumption that an increase in the value of currencies discourages spending, and this is generally bad for an economy the needs to keep money flowing, therefore, a little inflation is better than a little deflation. Of course, too much inflation can be a very bad thing, but I woke up this morning and life is pretty good, so it's pretty low on my radar. Or am I supposed to be freaked about the macroeconomy on a regular basis?

Also, I just finished drinking an expensive caffeinated beverage. I guess some evil corporation got $3.50 from me, but I really don't care.

[Morning Glory]

"In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors".

Yes economic inequality is worse now by some measures, but I was able to do all of those things just recently, and I'm not even a man :P. I had the normal-est job you can imagine and was still able to save enough to retire by 40. Three cars, two kids, non-working spouse, big color TV, like you mentioned, even some mistakes like a too-big house. Tons of people on this board have retired early or have a non-working spouse.

Why do you think it's not possible, and why are you saying it to a bunch of people who have done it?

[GuitarStv]

"In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors".

Yes economic inequality is worse now by some measures, but I was able to do all of those things just recently, and I'm not even a man :P. I had the normal-est job you can imagine and was still able to save enough to retire by 40. Three cars, two kids, non-working spouse, big color TV, like you mentioned, even some mistakes like a too-big house. Tons of people on this board have retired early or have a non-working spouse.

Why do you think it's not possible, and why are you saying it to a bunch of people who have done it?

I'd also like to point out that those rosy '60s really sucked if you weren't white.  Or male.  Or straight.  Any of which could prevent you from providing for a family.

[Morning Glory]

"In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors".

Yes economic inequality is worse now by some measures, but I was able to do all of those things just recently, and I'm not even a man :P. I had the normal-est job you can imagine and was still able to save enough to retire by 40. Three cars, two kids, non-working spouse, big color TV, like you mentioned, even some mistakes like a too-big house. Tons of people on this board have retired early or have a non-working spouse.

Why do you think it's not possible, and why are you saying it to a bunch of people who have done it?

I'd also like to point out that those rosy '60s really sucked if you weren't white.  Or male.  Or straight.  Any of which could prevent you from providing for a family.

Yep up until 1971 I could have gotten fired from.my job just for getting pregnant.  That would make supporting a family pretty difficult.

[mm1970]

"In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors".

Yes economic inequality is worse now by some measures, but I was able to do all of those things just recently, and I'm not even a man :P. I had the normal-est job you can imagine and was still able to save enough to retire by 40. Three cars, two kids, non-working spouse, big color TV, like you mentioned, even some mistakes like a too-big house. Tons of people on this board have retired early or have a non-working spouse.

Why do you think it's not possible, and why are you saying it to a bunch of people who have done it?

I'd also like to point out that those rosy '60s really sucked if you weren't white.  Or male.  Or straight.  Any of which could prevent you from providing for a family.

Yup.  And also:

Daily I notice brand-new $60k pickup trucks speeding past me going 90 on the highway, rushing home to their 3-car garages in $450k McMansions, as their owners slave away for 40 years, >40 hours a week, just to pay for these things.* They blindly believe they're getting 25 MPG.** I work with these people. I used to use them as a reminder of what not to do.

Unless you are trolling, you are the same dude who drives 90 miles *each way* to work and buys lunch out every day.  So, Pot - meet kettle.

[ixtap]

They have McMansions and big pick ups, so they are worse off than someone who had a normal house and a normal car 60 years ago?

Inequality is real, but it isn't what you are talking about.

And if you have the choice to leave your job and change your lifestyle, you aren't a slave. If you choose to live it up and need to work to pay for that, still not a slave.

[PDXTabs]

So, buy silver. Buy Bitcoin. Start a business. Move to Thailand. Don't be depressed. Don't start a revolt (though I think someone in our lifetimes will). But definitely, get the word out that corporations control the middle class like this: middle class spends money > corporation gets rich > corporation buys politician > politician lies to get votes > middle class votes for politician > politician prints money and gives to corporation > middle class pays for it through inflation and pollution > middle class continues spending money at the same corporations that stole from us (yes, you driving that Grand Cherokee by bankrupt Chryster are part of the problem!!). And for God's sake, remind people of the dangers of the phrase: "Buying that will save me money." Buying anything will almost never save you money. Especially status items. Don't be a part of the system!

I think that your flowchart makes it clear I should buy shares of corporations.

[Kris]

"In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors".

Yes economic inequality is worse now by some measures, but I was able to do all of those things just recently, and I'm not even a man :P. I had the normal-est job you can imagine and was still able to save enough to retire by 40. Three cars, two kids, non-working spouse, big color TV, like you mentioned, even some mistakes like a too-big house. Tons of people on this board have retired early or have a non-working spouse.

Why do you think it's not possible, and why are you saying it to a bunch of people who have done it?

I'd also like to point out that those rosy '60s really sucked if you weren't white.  Or male.  Or straight.  Any of which could prevent you from providing for a family.

Exactly. My life would have sucked super, super bad if I had been a 20- or 30-something back then. Like, I probably would have been suicidal.

[roomtempmayo]

@Seamster You might find Elizabeth Warren's old book The Two Income Trap useful for understanding why prosperity has remained elusive: https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907

The gist is that as a society we've failed to make the stuff people really want (single family homes in good school districts in close proximity to good jobs) abundant, and so there's a bidding war over a fixed set of goods, and society has become zero sum.  Go from a one income house to a two income house as the social norm and prosperity doesn't increase, it mostly just goes to bid up housing and other fixed assets.  We can't be prosperous because we haven't created the conditions for mass prosperity.

The "sucker" behavior you describe, like long commutes, is an individual effort to break the zero sum dynamic by adding additional housing stock in good school districts and deferring much of the cost to the public (infrastructure, air quality, climate).

When you get tired of mulling this stuff over in your own head, this this book might help explain how what appears as a set of moral failings has a set of structural motivations.

[bmjohnson35]

I understand your insights, but macroeconomics and society as a whole is a complex system and simple generalizations of it probably can't capture the many variables involved. I don't know about other countries, but here in the US, we also have a tendency to romanticize our post WWII decades.  As others have already mentioned, this is especially true for middle to upper class white males from that time period.  I'm not sure what you mean by suffering, but there are consequences for our choices.

If you choose to take a more positive view, I think this is one of the best times to live in history, regardless of your race or gender.  I am one of those fortunate enough to retire at a relatively young age.  I wasn't born rich, didn't win the lottery and I didn't receive some windfall inheritance.  I was fortunate that I am a white male who was raised in a stable family environment and had parents who supported and encouraged me. 

I have also witnessed family and friends choose the consumerist approach over prudent financial planning.  I choose not to waste my energy worrying about the choices or perceptions of others. If typing out your thoughts gives you some form of relief to move on, that's fine, but chronic negativity isn't healthy or productive. 

[maisymouser]

"In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors".

Yes economic inequality is worse now by some measures, but I was able to do all of those things just recently, and I'm not even a man :P. I had the normal-est job you can imagine and was still able to save enough to retire by 40. Three cars, two kids, non-working spouse, big color TV, like you mentioned, even some mistakes like a too-big house. Tons of people on this board have retired early or have a non-working spouse.

Why do you think it's not possible, and why are you saying it to a bunch of people who have done it?

I'd also like to point out that those rosy '60s really sucked if you weren't white.  Or male.  Or straight.  Any of which could prevent you from providing for a family.

Yup.  And also:

Daily I notice brand-new $60k pickup trucks speeding past me going 90 on the highway, rushing home to their 3-car garages in $450k McMansions, as their owners slave away for 40 years, >40 hours a week, just to pay for these things.* They blindly believe they're getting 25 MPG.** I work with these people. I used to use them as a reminder of what not to do.

Unless you are trolling, you are the same dude who drives 90 miles *each way* to work and buys lunch out every day.  So, Pot - meet kettle.

Yeah, wtf? It's kind of mind blowing to me that you are sitting on some sort of high horse when you supposedly commute 180 miles per workday while also being anti-electric car and eat out all the time (20 times per month, per your other post).

I agree with the sentiment of your anti-consumerism rant, but you end it literally by saying:

And for God's sake, remind people of the dangers of the phrase: "Buying that will save me money." Buying anything will almost never save you money.

How do you possibly reconcile what you're saying with your typical work day? On this forum, of all places? I would really like to think you are being sincere and not trolling the forum. An answer to this question would be immensely helpful for me to understand what exactly brings you here.

[bacchi]

It's hard to believe that I've had several highly intelligent individuals try to convince me that a $45k Tesla is cheaper and better for the earth than a $23k car.

For most of the US population, a $45k Tesla is better for the earth than a $23k ICE car.

The latest Union of Concerned Scientists report explains,

Share of US population living in a region rated “Best” for EVs (>50 mpg equivalent)                       94%
Share of electricity grid regions where an EV has lower emissions than a 50 mpg gasoline vehicle    85%

Obviously, the EV has to exist longer than 6 months (or longer, depending on the grid power) and, ideally, not everyone would buy a 300 mile range EV commuting car.

[herbgeek]

In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV

I was a child in the 60s, and we had only one black and white TV.  And so did all of the neighbors.  Most of the neighbors only had one car, like we did.  It wasn't until the 70s we got the color TV and the second car, when my parents were in their 40's.  We had one phone for the household.   We went on one vacation each year that we drove to.  My parents were pretty proud of the fact they had a big house- at 1600 square feet, which now-a-days qualifies as quite small.   We ate out maybe once a year, to the Chicken Coop where meals were under $3 each.   Takeout wasn't even a thing yet.   No gyms, cable or streaming subscriptions, spa days, salon nails.  We had maybe a dozen outfits each.  No jammed walk in closets.  I got toys at Christmas and my birthday, just a few.  We were middle class and living similar lives to others in our neighborhood.  Some folks like to wax nostalgic for a past that never was.    Yes, there was typically one earner but the life we let was no where near as luxurious as it is today.   Things that folks consider necessities today weren't even in our wildest dreams.

Now, my husband and I have 2 TVs, multiple computers/devices/phones, in the same size house for just 2 people, have 2 cars and we both retired early-ish, him at 60, me at 58.  I fail to see any depressing fall of the middle class.  Most folks I see are living way better lives (from a material perspective) than we did in the 60s.

[ChpBstrd]

IDK, I think the OP has a point when they say

Individuals of the middle class are the ones struggling, yet I feel we need to take some responsibility for ourselves here:

The reason people are living wastefully is because they were influenced by advertising and each other. The reason people vote for clowns is the same.

If people thought more independently about what is worth working for, what their values are, and whether the things everyone else wants should be the things they want, then we'd live in a different world. Step 1 is probably turning off the TV, uninstalling all your cell phone apps, and taking a day or two to enjoy reality and the people in it. Step 2 is to ask oneself "WTF should I care what my peers/neighbors think of me. They'll all be dead one day just like me, and if impressing them was all I accomplished, then it won't have mattered that I lived."

The irony is that everyone today thinks of themselves as a lone wolf in a world of sheep. It's the popular thing to think that one thinks independently. It's a lot harder to realize we're all sheep. We all fail at critical thinking. We didn't come up with our own values, assumptions, beliefs, life direction, or behaviors. Somebody else did, whether that somebody was our parents, a book author, or some entertainer on a screen. In my opinion, the good life is the steady unravelling of this illusion.

In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors.

Our household has one wage-earner with a normal job, 3 people and a dog, in a normal/nice-ish neighborhood with a 15y mortgage, with TWO normal cars, and one color TV. Oh yea, and a million dollars in the bank. But we also live in a non-trendy LCOL state most people shun so they can live in the land of $500k McMansions and hour-long commutes.

Regarding the government bailouts of the auto companies in 2009, IIRC that was one of the best investments ever made. GM paid back the loans with interest and continued to generate economic activity that no doubt led to hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes for local, state, and federal governments over the years. Imagine the alternative - being completely dependent upon imports, having vast de-industrialized economic wastelands around the old factories, etc.

I for one, don't regret not getting to live through a second Great Depression, and I appreciate Ben Bernanke for being the right person in the right place at the right time. No one should kid themselves and say a full-on depression was not what we were looking at in 2008 and again in 2020.

middle class spends money > corporation gets rich > corporation buys politician > politician lies to get votes > middle class votes for politician > politician prints money and gives to corporation > middle class pays for it through inflation and pollution > middle class continues spending money at the same corporations that stole from us

The middle class is always blaming the politicians and the corporations, but look at who this whole process flow hinges on!

If people refused to be swayed by the political ads - or better yet didn't spend so much time being fed ads by their screens - how many problems would be resolved?

[Morning Glory]

Everyone thinks they are middle class and that "rich" and "poor" are not adjectives that apply to them. The very term is so loaded with emotion as to be meaningless.

[CodingHare]

Everyone thinks they are middle class and that "rich" and "poor" are not adjectives that apply to them. The very term is so loaded with emotion as to be meaningless.

This.  My parents think my SO and I are middle class.  We have a house, 2 cars, and a dog, and don't live beyond our means. In reality, we are upper class by money.  We're in the top 19% of earners in the US.  Retiring early is basically a certainty (barring unforseen medical issues).  To comfortably live that "American Dream" of home ownership in the Seattle metro area is taking two software engineers working full time and choosing not to have kids.  That's what the shrinking middle class means--the trappings of upper middle class are still available, but the income needed to make it has steadily been increasing far past one income that comfortably raises a family.

[PDXTabs]

Everyone thinks they are middle class and that "rich" and "poor" are not adjectives that apply to them. The very term is so loaded with emotion as to be meaningless.

This.  My parents think my SO and I are middle class.  We have a house, 2 cars, and a dog, and don't live beyond our means. In reality, we are upper class by money.  We're in the top 19% of earners in the US.  Retiring early is basically a certainty (barring unforseen medical issues).  To comfortably live that "American Dream" of home ownership in the Seattle metro area is taking two software engineers working full time and choosing not to have kids.  That's what the shrinking middle class means--the trappings of upper middle class are still available, but the income needed to make it has steadily been increasing far past one income that comfortably raises a family.

Middle class is not median class. The middle class descended from the merchant class in Europe. It was the class between the aristocracy and the peasants. Part of the American dream is that you don't need to be a shop owner or a lawyer or an engineer to join this class.

[PDXTabs]

I was a child in the 60s, and we had only one black and white TV.  And so did all of the neighbors.  Most of the neighbors only had one car, like we did.  It wasn't until the 70s we got the color TV and the second car, when my parents were in their 40's.  We had one phone for the household.   We went on one vacation each year that we drove to.  My parents were pretty proud of the fact they had a big house- at 1600 square feet, which now-a-days qualifies as quite small.   We ate out maybe once a year, to the Chicken Coop where meals were under $3 each.   Takeout wasn't even a thing yet.   No gyms, cable or streaming subscriptions, spa days, salon nails.  We had maybe a dozen outfits each.  No jammed walk in closets.  I got toys at Christmas and my birthday, just a few.  We were middle class and living similar lives to others in our neighborhood.  Some folks like to wax nostalgic for a past that never was.    Yes, there was typically one earner but the life we let was no where near as luxurious as it is today.   Things that folks consider necessities today weren't even in our wildest dreams.

If you are a minimalist or an environmentalist that sounds awesome.

[GuitarStv]

I was a child in the 60s, and we had only one black and white TV.  And so did all of the neighbors.  Most of the neighbors only had one car, like we did.  It wasn't until the 70s we got the color TV and the second car, when my parents were in their 40's.  We had one phone for the household.   We went on one vacation each year that we drove to.  My parents were pretty proud of the fact they had a big house- at 1600 square feet, which now-a-days qualifies as quite small.  We ate out maybe once a year, to the Chicken Coop where meals were under $3 each.   Takeout wasn't even a thing yet.   No gyms, cable or streaming subscriptions, spa days, salon nails.  We had maybe a dozen outfits each.  No jammed walk in closets.  I got toys at Christmas and my birthday, just a few.  We were middle class and living similar lives to others in our neighborhood.

I was born in '81, and this pretty much sums up my childhood.  Only major difference - we got a colour TV in the '90s (no cable though, only 1 channel - but it was awesome to watch movies from the library on it) and mid-90s I got a Nintendo for Christmas.  Other than that, it all checks out.

[SunnyDays]

I was a child in the 60s, and we had only one black and white TV.  And so did all of the neighbors.  Most of the neighbors only had one car, like we did.  It wasn't until the 70s we got the color TV and the second car, when my parents were in their 40's.  We had one phone for the household.   We went on one vacation each year that we drove to.  My parents were pretty proud of the fact they had a big house- at 1600 square feet, which now-a-days qualifies as quite small.  We ate out maybe once a year, to the Chicken Coop where meals were under $3 each.   Takeout wasn't even a thing yet.   No gyms, cable or streaming subscriptions, spa days, salon nails.  We had maybe a dozen outfits each.  No jammed walk in closets.  I got toys at Christmas and my birthday, just a few.  We were middle class and living similar lives to others in our neighborhood.

I was born in '81, and this pretty much sums up my childhood.  Only major difference - we got a colour TV in the '90s (no cable though, only 1 channel - but it was awesome to watch movies from the library on it) and mid-90s I got a Nintendo for Christmas.  Other than that, it all checks out.

Yup, me too.  I was also a kid in the 60's and my life was just as @herbgeek describes it.  Except we never had a second car and the house for a family of 4 was just over 1000 sq ft.  The vast majority of my small city lived that way, except for the executive class (doctors, lawyers, etc) and the "poor" which didn't have all that much less than us.

Compare that version of middle class with today's and the current one can easily be described as upper class.  People only believe the middle class is falling because their expectations have become so inflated.

My own definition of poor is people who must rely on government services/charity to meet their basic needs (food, clothes, shelter).  Working class people are those who are able to meet their basic needs themselves, but have nothing/very little left over.  Middle class are those who meet their own needs and have enough left over to indulge in many wants.  Upper class are those whose incomes leave large amounts left over to indulge their pretty much all their wants.  By these definitions, how many people are actually poor, or even working class that used to be middle class?

[nereo]

OP - I’m enjoying the thoughtful responses but I’m not sure what you expect to get from starting this thread. What exactly are you hoping for here?

[charis]

I was a child in the 60s, and we had only one black and white TV.  And so did all of the neighbors.  Most of the neighbors only had one car, like we did.  It wasn't until the 70s we got the color TV and the second car, when my parents were in their 40's.  We had one phone for the household.   We went on one vacation each year that we drove to.  My parents were pretty proud of the fact they had a big house- at 1600 square feet, which now-a-days qualifies as quite small.  We ate out maybe once a year, to the Chicken Coop where meals were under $3 each.   Takeout wasn't even a thing yet.   No gyms, cable or streaming subscriptions, spa days, salon nails.  We had maybe a dozen outfits each.  No jammed walk in closets.  I got toys at Christmas and my birthday, just a few.  We were middle class and living similar lives to others in our neighborhood.

I was born in '81, and this pretty much sums up my childhood.  Only major difference - we got a colour TV in the '90s (no cable though, only 1 channel - but it was awesome to watch movies fro


m the library on it) and mid-90s I got a Nintendo for Christmas.  Other than that, it all checks out.

Same here as 80's child. Black and white TV for a while, no cable, old cars, rarely ate out, vacation was road trips to a cabin/camping, didn't get a cordless phone or answering machine until middle/high school. And that's with two working parents. My parents still live in their 1300 sq. starter home. So I'm always baffled when people talk about how much more our parents and grandparents could do with their money.

[Ron Scott]

OP - I’m enjoying the thoughtful responses but I’m not sure what you expect to get from starting this thread. What exactly are you hoping for here?

I assume the point is to generate thoughtful responses from those more interested in critiquing ideas than people.

I believe the notion that “big corporate and their government lackys” are rigging the system is simplistic, naive, tired old ‘60s horseshit, and basically incorrect.

The deterioration of the mid-century American middle class and the rise in economic inequality is occurring at a time in which dire poverty throughout the world is rapidly receding, the price of labor is determined more in a global market, and productivity through technology is rapidly advancing. During the next 25 years major classes of jobs will be eliminated due to technology.

The last person in the world to complain about business-and-government is going to be an uneducated American on an unemployment line…

[poxpower]

I wrote this: https://www.thepoxbox.com/posts/the-true-cost-of-education
It might interest people on this forum in general to understand what kind of wealth is being spent on "educating" kids.

It's just one of the many government holes in the tub of our collective wealth.
Of course there's wars, corporatism, inflation, central banking, licensing, zoning, wars on drugs, sin taxes, carbon taxes, infinite red tape ( the amount of hours wasted on doing taxes... )

It's one thing if people make bad choices like buying a luxury home but another entirely when 13 000$ a year is forcibly spent on you to produce basically not a whole lot.

What I know about home schooling data so far is that self-directed education lets kids catch up to public school kids really quickly if they're interested. They'll skip years. Imagine where society would be today if everyone got just 4 more years of economic productivity or say 30 000$ dollars to spend however they want? Even if you spend it on something dumb like a luxury sedan, it'll drive innovation at least in automotive whereas education spending has pretty much driven REGRESSION or at best stagnation since classrooms in 2022 are almost the same as 1922.

[Cranky]

The key word there is “interested” which is just not a given.

But education spending between the 1960s and the present is another thing that’s an apple to oranges comparison.

In *my* 1960s elementary school, class sizes averaged 35 students, and not infrequently veered into 40+ sizes. There was no PE or art teacher. There was a music teacher who traveled among several schools.

And there was no special education, which is a very expensive part of today’s education budget.

In general, I agree that people are fondly imagining that living standards 60 years ago were exactly comparable to today. My childhood home was small, with one phone and no air conditioning. We absolutely were middle class - my dad was an engineer at a big aerospace company and my mom was a teacher. In fact, we were pretty well off because my mom went back to work in 1964. We then had a second (used) car, and a second small tv. Pretty fancy!

[clarkfan1979]

Daily I notice brand-new $60k pickup trucks speeding past me going 90 on the highway, rushing home to their 3-car garages in $450k McMansions, as their owners slave away for 40 years, >40 hours a week, just to pay for these things.* They blindly believe they're getting 25 MPG.** I work with these people. I used to use them as a reminder of what not to do. Now, I feel sorry for them when they can't afford to go out to lunch on Fridays. In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV. Today, the same is not possible, due to several factors. We are slaves. I'm cheap so I'm fine, but I'm depressed because not only do I see people suffering, and not only is the suffering due to things they bought that they don't need, but because they argue with me about it!

First, let's look at how we got here. I'll use General Motors and Telsa as examples, as I'm in the industry. GM went bankrupt in 2009. The middle class is still paying for that bailout in the form of price inflation (the US Fed just created the money out of thin air). Why did the government agree to bail out GM? Because GM is legally able to bribe government officials.# These officials are not public servants in a capitalist economy: they are employees of the giant corporations (currently USA is a corporatocracy: a society controlled by corporations). And, our current monetary system, championed by the likes of Bernie Sanders, is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). This says that the government can just print as much money without repercussions. Tesla: the company is not profitable on its own. However, since saving the planet is now political, Tesla is given carbon credits from the government, which Tesla then sells to Ford, who is basically buying the privilege to pollute (making Tesla profitable).## But Ford need not worry about spending this money or, doing anything right, because, just like all the big lenders who failed (Fannie Mae, Leeman Brothers, etc) and were bailed out by the middle class in 2009, Ford has an implied government bailout guarantee.

Conclusion: the above is the government's fault for letting the corporations takeover. We cannot 100% blame the corporations for trying to make a profit. If the product they are making is dangerous and kills people, but if it's legal to sell, then we need to blame regulators. But the regulators are essentially employees of these same corporations. Individuals of the middle class are the ones struggling, yet I feel we need to take some responsibility for ourselves here:

• Ignorance - the corporations/government want us to work 40 hours a week and drive 1 hour back and forth to work to a house that costs only $300k where we can afford to live on our $80k salary. Why? Because we stay ignorant. But, how can we study economics and politics when we're gone 12 hours a day?
• Inflation (i.e. tax)- Most people think prices are going up because of shipping shortages, COVID, etc. Wrong: the currency supply has been inflated. That's the ONLY reason, by definition. 90% of this "free" money goes to the giant corporations. Yet, due to ignorance, we were all so happy with our stimulus checks, which, since everyone got the same amount, means that everyone got exactly $0.00. (US govt reports 7% inflation but they don't include the extra appx 7% increase on food and energy.)
• Status - From my own studies, I believe that status-seeking is driving approximately 50% of our economy. Don't believe me? Add up the sales of Cadillac, Lincoln, Audi, Lexus, Infinity, Acura and compare to those of Chevy, Ford, VW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda. Add up the cost of money spent on median priced houses (varies by city) vs the average price of houses minus median. Around here, you can live in a nice house for $150k only 45 min from the outskirts of the city and drive a $23k Honda Civic to get there. But no, we want to live 20 min away in a $400k house and drive a $50k car to get there. And we want the $1800 Apple computer, not the $500 one at Best Buy.
• Influence - the big corporations run the media. Why do you think you see the Kardashians and other flashy things all over TV? It's advertising! You think celebrities went out and bought that iWatch? No, companies send them that stuff for free. And here we are thinking we need to have that $1200 phone too; and a new one each year! And they totally have us convinced on housing too. Interest rates used to be around 13% in the 80s, so people could only afford 1200 sq ft. Now rates are 3-4%, so we can all buy 5000 sq ft homes. And we did! With a camper and jetski to match. Bought on credit, of course, convincing yourself that somehow it costs nothing because you get credit card points.  Now we must really slave away as to not get fired so we can afford those payments.

I see this daily. I hear how broke people are. How much of their own fault is it? It's hard to believe that I've had several highly intelligent individuals try to convince me that a $45k Tesla is cheaper and better for the earth than a $23k car. And let's not forget how much the average person spends on Amazon. This is a classic case of people being so brainwashed, in so many ways, that we are actually handing our hard-earned money over to, and sticking up for, the same exact companies that oppress us! And beyond all this we're only bringing home less than 70% of what we make. Then there's property taxes, gas tax for the roads, cigarette taxes, then all the charges on your phone bill or AirBNB, etc. It's safe to say that we're already paying 50% of our money in taxes. But that's still not enough for our corporate masters, because the Fed inflating our currency supply is the biggest tax of all: the US Dollar has already lost 90% of its value since inception. It's lost 50-75% in just 40 years. And. No. One. Is. Talking. About. It.

So, buy silver. Buy Bitcoin. Start a business. Move to Thailand. Don't be depressed. Don't start a revolt (though I think someone in our lifetimes will). But definitely, get the word out that corporations control the middle class like this: middle class spends money > corporation gets rich > corporation buys politician > politician lies to get votes > middle class votes for politician > politician prints money and gives to corporation > middle class pays for it through inflation and pollution > middle class continues spending money at the same corporations that stole from us (yes, you driving that Grand Cherokee by bankrupt Chryster are part of the problem!!). And for God's sake, remind people of the dangers of the phrase: "Buying that will save me money." Buying anything will almost never save you money. Especially status items. Don't be a part of the system!


* Contrary to common belief, most people driving $50k+ vehicles are not wealthy
** Most pickup trucks, even if they're new and V6, don't average more than 18-19 MPG.  Most aren't even tested and when they are it's not in real-world conditions.
# Thanks, Reagan
## Electric cars cost double, use more rare earth elements, require mining in countries that abuse child labor and pollute the area, run >80% on fossil fuels anyway, don't pay road tax like gas cars do, have horrible resale value, have no one who can fix (Tesla won't release the data to mechanics), weigh 25-100% more, burn through tires faster, require $5000-20,000 battery replacements eventually, only get 75% of the stated range because of lying, only get 75% of that range because you're not supposed to charge past 90% and not let go below 20%....

This reads very similar to my conspiracy theory family members. If you are not happy with your life, hopefully you can learn from the blog and from the people on this forum.

If you are trying to build wealth, stocks and real estate are going to be more helpful than silver.

I wished we had better measures for quality of life that made it into these conversations. It seems like most of the focus is on income, which isn't a great measure of "success." I can think of many people that have a higher income than me but also have a much lower quality of life.

Education tends to be correlated with quality of life. 

 

[nessness]

Interesting analysis @poxpower , but you glossed over a lot of important points:

- The $13k/student is not distributed equally - kids with special needs, in particular, cost a lot more.
- Younger kids need supervision. In most cases, homeschooling requires a stay at home parent.
- What job can a six-year-old realistically and humanely do? Are you wanting to repeal child labor laws and go back to the days of the industrial revolution?
- Kids require socialization if they're going to be able to live in society. This aspect of school is just as important as the academic education.
- The learning loss that took place over the pandemic indicates that homeschooling/distance learning don't work as well as in-person school for a LOT of kids

[American GenX]

• Inflation (i.e. tax)- Most people think prices are going up because of shipping shortages, COVID, etc. Wrong: the currency supply has been inflated. That's the ONLY reason, by definition. 90% of this "free" money goes to the giant corporations. Yet, due to ignorance, we were all so happy with our stimulus checks, which, since everyone got the same amount, means that everyone got exactly $0.00. (US govt reports 7% inflation but they don't include the extra appx 7% increase on food and energy.)

Prices were always going up, they're just going up a lot faster now, and if inflation levels drop to 3% or so in a few years, that doesn't mean prices will drop or level off, it will mean prices will continue to rise, just not as quickly as they are under current soaring inflation levels.  And higher wages are feeding into it as well with people not wanting to work, increased minimum wages again this year, etc.  Don't expect it to get any better.  As far as your topic, inflation is the most depressing thing to me.

We can't go back in time, so we will just have to remember the good ole days.  I don't really remember much from the 60's, so we have to deal with the crappy cards we have been dealt.

[poxpower]

- The $13k/student is not distributed equally - kids with special needs, in particular, cost a lot more.

Fair point, I just don't know what proportion that is but I can't imagine it's that big or that the money is well spent on these kids anyway so on average you have the same waste. But I don't know.

- Younger kids need supervision. In most cases, homeschooling requires a stay at home parent.

If you got 13k per year per kid I think you'd find solutions that are likely cheaper than 13k and don't involve quitting your job.
At worst you can park them back in school and get no money.

- What job can a six-year-old realistically and humanely do? Are you wanting to repeal child labor laws and go back to the days of the industrial revolution?

Child labor is not a product of bad parents, it's a product of poverty. Parents who earn enough money in poorer countries send their children to school ASAP.
If you then say "well some parents...." that isn't a new problem or a problem unique to this scenario. There's bad parents.

As far as making kids work, that's more of a thought experiment to show the power of compound interest. If you look at poor countries or more primitive societies you see that very young
children can help out their parents and certainly around 10-12 there's a lot of things they could be doing that someone would pay for.

Again the point is to think about where you could be in life. K-12 is an extremely rigid and nonsensical education model with a very very very low "skills learned per hour invested" ratio.
Imagine if your child ends up a carpenter and how far ahead he'd be if he started apprenticing at 12 or 14. He'd be 10 years ahead of where he'd be in our current system.

Education should be highly flexible.

- Kids require socialization if they're going to be able to live in society. This aspect of school is just as important as the academic education.

Home schooled kids are better socialized ( and less bullied ) than K-12 kids. This shocks most people when they learn it but when you look at how home schoolers live you find out that they
do all sorts of stuff with other kids constantly, and kids of all different ages as well as adults.

- The learning loss that took place over the pandemic indicates that homeschooling/distance learning don't work as well as in-person school for a LOT of kids

The brief answer to that is that when kids want/need to learn something, they catch up really fast and when they don't need the knowledge anymore, they forget it equally as fast.
You have likely forgotten 90% of what you learned in school and 90-95% of what you use to earn an income/navigate life, you didn't learn in school.

[Tyson]

If you look at the data over time the middle class is definitely smaller now than in the past.  Part of it is because some people that were lower middle class have fallen into poverty.  But an equal number of people have moved from upper middle class to 'rich'.  So the 'shrinkage' comes from both directions. 

[poxpower]

If you look at the data over time the middle class is definitely smaller now than in the past.  Part of it is because some people that were lower middle class have fallen into poverty.  But an equal number of people have moved from upper middle class to 'rich'.  So the 'shrinkage' comes from both directions.

Important to remember that "classes" are political terms. A "middle class" person in 2022 lives better than any member of royalty did in 1820.

Even when you compare housing, which has increased relative to wages ( because of artificially restricted supply ) you aren't comparing the same houses. A house built in 2020 is better than a house build in 1970. Same goes for cars. I don't know a lot about cars but I think the average luxury car from 1970 is likely a huge pile of crap compared to any low/mid tier car built in the last year.

Safer, cheaper, better fuel economy, more tech, more long-lasting etc.

That said I think if something was 10% of your income in 1950 and it's still 10% of your income in 2020, something in that sector of the economy has probably gone horribly wrong.
Post-secondary education in the USA is probably one of the best examples in the world of something that went way up in price, stayed about the same in quality and dropped in value. Hard not to feel bad for those kids honestly.

[Tyson]

If you look at the data over time the middle class is definitely smaller now than in the past.  Part of it is because some people that were lower middle class have fallen into poverty.  But an equal number of people have moved from upper middle class to 'rich'.  So the 'shrinkage' comes from both directions.

Important to remember that "classes" are political terms. A "middle class" person in 2022 lives better than any member of royalty did in 1820.

Even when you compare housing, which has increased relative to wages ( because of artificially restricted supply ) you aren't comparing the same houses. A house built in 2020 is better than a house build in 1970. Same goes for cars. I don't know a lot about cars but I think the average luxury car from 1970 is likely a huge pile of crap compared to any low/mid tier car built in the last year.

Safer, cheaper, better fuel economy, more tech, more long-lasting etc.

That said I think if something was 10% of your income in 1950 and it's still 10% of your income in 2020, something in that sector of the economy has probably gone horribly wrong.
Post-secondary education in the USA is probably one of the best examples in the world of something that went way up in price, stayed about the same in quality and dropped in value. Hard not to feel bad for those kids honestly.

Oh no doubt, even if you are poor, life is much better overall than at any time in the past.  Even when measured in today's dollars, you can see that absolute poverty has steadily declined, for as far back as we can measure it. 

I'm one of those optimists that thinks we are living in the best time in all history.

And, as a side note, if you look at the data in the graph, the middle class is hollowed out as much by people becoming wealthy (at the top end) as by people becoming poor (at the low end).  Well, guess who is a major part of that 'becoming rich' population?  US!!!!  WE ARE A MAJOR CAUSE OF THE HOLLOWING OUT OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. 

To me, it's a bit miserly and hypocritical for the people on this forum to bemoan the losses to the middle class, especially since at least half of that 'hollowing out' is a direct result of our actions to reach FI. 

[Just Joe]

In the 60s, a man with a normal job was able to provide for a family of 4, in a normal neighborhood, owning a normal car, with a color TV

I was a child in the 60s, and we had only one black and white TV.  And so did all of the neighbors.  Most of the neighbors only had one car, like we did.  It wasn't until the 70s we got the color TV and the second car, when my parents were in their 40's.  We had one phone for the household.   We went on one vacation each year that we drove to.  My parents were pretty proud of the fact they had a big house- at 1600 square feet, which now-a-days qualifies as quite small.   We ate out maybe once a year, to the Chicken Coop where meals were under $3 each.   Takeout wasn't even a thing yet.   No gyms, cable or streaming subscriptions, spa days, salon nails.  We had maybe a dozen outfits each.  No jammed walk in closets.  I got toys at Christmas and my birthday, just a few.  We were middle class and living similar lives to others in our neighborhood.  Some folks like to wax nostalgic for a past that never was.    Yes, there was typically one earner but the life we let was no where near as luxurious as it is today.   Things that folks consider necessities today weren't even in our wildest dreams.

Now, my husband and I have 2 TVs, multiple computers/devices/phones, in the same size house for just 2 people, have 2 cars and we both retired early-ish, him at 60, me at 58.  I fail to see any depressing fall of the middle class.  Most folks I see are living way better lives (from a material perspective) than we did in the 60s.

Thank you. You just described my grandparents. I know a little about their money numbers and they had a modest income and a modest lifestyle. They lived simple and good lives.

[herbgeek]

You just described my grandparents.

I feel old.  :D

[snowball]

- Kids require socialization if they're going to be able to live in society. This aspect of school is just as important as the academic education.

Home schooled kids are better socialized ( and less bullied ) than K-12 kids. This shocks most people when they learn it but when you look at how home schoolers live you find out that they
do all sorts of stuff with other kids constantly, and kids of all different ages as well as adults.

That's...a very broad statement, and not supported by my experience.

I was homeschooled for most of my childhood, as were my siblings.  I could talk a lot about the damage that did to all of us and the ways it still reverberates through my adult siblings' lives, but I'll skip over that and just say that I disapprove of homeschooling in general.  It's certainly no panacea.  I will grant that I've seen individual cases where it's clearly being done well, by parents who are actually conscientious and competent, and don't just have a high opinion of themselves.  It can be made to work.  But...so can public school.

This isn't me assuming "the grass is greener" on the other side because I haven't experienced it;  I spent some miserable time in public school too and got bullied there.  I am quite well aware of the possible failure modes on both sides of this coin.

So sure, both homeschooling and public school can be implemented poorly.  But you can design much better systems and failsafes into public school, and - assuming you do allocate appropriate resources to it as a society - then I strongly believe that public school is an inherently better approach for most people.

[poxpower]

So sure, both homeschooling and public school can be implemented poorly.  But you can design much better systems and failsafes into public school, and - assuming you do allocate appropriate resources to it as a society - then I strongly believe that public school is an inherently better approach for most people.

That's why you need competition. Nothing gets better when it has a monopoly.
Give people the choice of where to spend the money and you'll see rapid improvements.

Btw teacher's unions in most countries I know of fight school choice tooth and nail. They want the cash. That's all they're interested in, not the parents and not the kids. Do whatever you want with/to your kid, but don't you dare touch their money.

[PDXTabs]

Inflation (i.e. tax)- Most people think prices are going up because of shipping shortages, COVID, etc. Wrong: the currency supply has been inflated. That's the ONLY reason, by definition. 90% of this "free" money goes to the giant corporations. Yet, due to ignorance, we were all so happy with our stimulus checks, which, since everyone got the same amount, means that everyone got exactly $0.00. (US govt reports 7% inflation but they don't include the extra appx 7% increase on food and energy.)

I'm happy to criticize the Fed and congress for inflation, but I think that you are oversimplifying things. The most recent (January) CPI report shows food prices up 7% and energy up 27%. Are you claiming that these number are fudged?

Not everyone got the same amount of stimulus. For example, my household was in the phase-out range. I do however agree that we sent too much money to people who didn't need it. But that doesn't change the fact that you are conflating cost-push inflation (the supply chain) with demand-pull inflation (the stimulus checks to people that didn't need them and massive Fed QE). But it's allowed to be both.

[snowball]

So sure, both homeschooling and public school can be implemented poorly.  But you can design much better systems and failsafes into public school, and - assuming you do allocate appropriate resources to it as a society - then I strongly believe that public school is an inherently better approach for most people.

That's why you need competition. Nothing gets better when it has a monopoly.
Give people the choice of where to spend the money and you'll see rapid improvements.

Will we?  I'm not convinced.

[nereo]

So sure, both homeschooling and public school can be implemented poorly.  But you can design much better systems and failsafes into public school, and - assuming you do allocate appropriate resources to it as a society - then I strongly believe that public school is an inherently better approach for most people.

That's why you need competition. Nothing gets better when it has a monopoly.
Give people the choice of where to spend the money and you'll see rapid improvements.

Will we?  I'm not convinced.

I’m not sure what poxpower is suggesting here - that we take money from public schools, give it to parents, leave them to find ‘better’ solutions and hope it works out for the best?  Is that right?

[nessness]

@poxpower okay, if your premise is that some bright, motivated kids with involved parents are better served by homeschooling than public school, then sure, I'll give you that. I homeschooled my daughter last year for kindergarten and she went from barely reading to reading at a fourth grade level over the course of the year.

I don't really agree with paying parents to homeschool though - it seems like there's a lot of potential for it to lead to parents homeschooling for the wrong reason and kids falling through the cracks.

And I don't really know what to make of all the other "thought experiment" stuff.

[mastrr]

This is why we should advocate for cutting all government regulation and let the free market reign.

[Morning Glory]

@poxpower okay, if your premise is that some bright, motivated kids with involved parents are better served by homeschooling than public school, then sure, I'll give you that. I homeschooled my daughter last year for kindergarten and she went from barely reading to reading at a fourth grade level over the course of the year.

I don't really agree with paying parents to homeschool though - it seems like there's a lot of potential for it to lead to parents homeschooling for the wrong reason and kids falling through the cracks.

And I don't really know what to make of all the other "thought experiment" stuff.

Yeah after the forced homeschooling a lot of us went through last year, I don't think his ideas about it will be very popular with parents. He sounds like he's never actually met a six year old.

His other "thought experiment " stuff is typical libertarian bs. "School choice " only benefits the corporations that own the charter schools and takes funding from those who need it most

@mastrr I hope you are joking. I distinctly remember from another thread that you wanted more government regulation when it came to a certain medical procedure.

[poxpower]

I don't really agree with paying parents to homeschool though - it seems like there's a lot of potential for it to lead to parents homeschooling for the wrong reason and kids falling through the cracks.

You're not paying them you're giving them their money back.
That money belongs to the kids. It is set aside for their education.

You homeschooled your kid but the school kept your money. How is that fair? If K-12 was any good how could it POSSIBLY be that home schooling even remotely competes with that system, which is supposedly staffed with experimented and educated professionals all directed by experts?

Are you some kind of secret genius or is it that your homeschooling is competing against a complete joke of a system?

Think about what you did. It's like if you paid your car mechanic to fix your car but you know he's so bad at his job that you just fixed the car yourself and he kept the money.

In what world does that make sense to you?

Why should you be forced to pay this incompetent mechanic when you can do the work yourself, just because hypothetically there's someone out there who will try to also do the job but fail badly and crash his car? That's not your problem. It has nothing to do with you. Who has a right to take away your agency to do this job yourself?

[nereo]

I don't really agree with paying parents to homeschool though - it seems like there's a lot of potential for it to lead to parents homeschooling for the wrong reason and kids falling through the cracks.

You're not paying them you're giving them their money back.
That money belongs to the kids. It is set aside for their education.

You homeschooled your kid but the school kept your money. How is that fair? If K-12 was any good how could it POSSIBLY be that home schooling even remotely competes with that system, which is supposedly staffed with experimented and educated professionals all directed by experts?

Are you some kind of secret genius or is it that your homeschooling is competing against a complete joke of a system?

Think about what you did. It's like if you paid your car mechanic to fix your car but you know he's so bad at his job that you just fixed the car yourself and he kept the money.

In what world does that make sense to you?

Why should you be forced to pay this incompetent mechanic when you can do the work yourself, just because hypothetically there's someone out there who will try to also do the job but fail badly and crash his car? That's not your problem. It has nothing to do with you. Who has a right to take away your agency to do this job yourself?

Are you going to argue next that those without children, or those who’s children have grown into adults shouldn’t pay for schools either?

It’s clear you have a truly abysmal view of public education.  It’s certainly substandard for a lot of kids, but that isn’t everyone’s experience, nor do I believe it’s even the majority. And from everything I’ve seen the success (or failure) of homeschooling has to do first and foremost with the personality of the child, coupled with the skills of the parent. FOr some children home schooling is the best option, but to be blunt most kids don’t thrive in a home-schooling environments, and most parents have neither the desire nor the skills to effectively teach children. 

[six-car-habit]

You're not paying them you're giving them their money back.
That money belongs to the kids. It is set aside for their education.

You homeschooled your kid but the school kept your money. How is that fair? If K-12 was any good how could it POSSIBLY be that home schooling even remotely competes with that system, which is supposedly staffed with experimented and educated professionals all directed by experts?

  The local public school district has to take Every person of eligible age and attempt to educate them fairly. Whether they are genius level, an indifferent student, troublemaker, bully, special needs, etc.   Heck they may have had to accept poxpower as a student back in the day...

  How about we double the  $$ allocation for every parent who wants to homeschool their child. But they have to accept another student, Randomly picked from the community to also educate.  Both children must pass competency exams at the end of the year, if either fail, the parent is not eligible to teach anyone the following year. And lets have homeschool parent pick up and drop off their 2nd student where they would normally get on the bus, and feed the kid, and have several music instruments available and proficiency to teach them, and a science kit, and a small library, and a substitute teacher available, and clean the bathroom every day, keep progress reports, have auditable financial books, etc.

   Do you know any parents who would entertain doing this ?
 Maybe those who would, are already employed by your local school district or charter / private school ?   Making those big bucks !

 
   
   

[Cranky]

So sure, both homeschooling and public school can be implemented poorly.  But you can design much better systems and failsafes into public school, and - assuming you do allocate appropriate resources to it as a society - then I strongly believe that public school is an inherently better approach for most people.

That's why you need competition. Nothing gets better when it has a monopoly.
Give people the choice of where to spend the money and you'll see rapid improvements.

Btw teacher's unions in most countries I know of fight school choice tooth and nail. They want the cash. That's all they're interested in, not the parents and not the kids. Do whatever you want with/to your kid, but don't you dare touch their money.

Except it doesn’t generally work that way. Charter schools in the US, which are largely for profit public ally funded schools that aren’t unionized, don’t perform especially well controlled for demographics.

(And this was counter to expectation as it seemed logical that they would be able to cherry pick the best students in poor school systems, but it doesn’t work that way.)

Plus, I’ve taught in private schools and I can’t say that they are across the board better. Theycan be a better fit for an individual child, of course.

Education is complicated, but in general kids get from school what they take to school.

[LaineyAZ]

I don't really agree with paying parents to homeschool though - it seems like there's a lot of potential for it to lead to parents homeschooling for the wrong reason and kids falling through the cracks.

You're not paying them you're giving them their money back.
That money belongs to the kids. It is set aside for their education.

You homeschooled your kid but the school kept your money. How is that fair? If K-12 was any good how could it POSSIBLY be that home schooling even remotely competes with that system, which is supposedly staffed with experimented and educated professionals all directed by experts?

...

I've never understood this "give them their money back" attitude either.

I enjoy living in a first world country which educates all students from the general tax fund.  It's a clear benefit to all of us to have an educated populace.

But if we taxpayers are suddenly allowed to cherry pick what we will and will not pay for, where does it end?  How about I decide I no longer want to use public parks but instead demand a refund of my tax money that supports the parks so I can use it for a vacation at a resort?   
Or I demand a refund of my tax money that supports libraries because I buy all of my own books and never use the library? 
Or I decide that because I never use the roadways in the rural parts of the state that my taxes supporting those roads should be refunded to me?

I wish all of these libertarian types would all move to one area and enjoy their dog-eat-dogistan life.

[Tempname23]

I recently responded to a Quora question about why we need two income families vs one income families in the 60s.
 Let’s see compared to my parents during the 60s. Yes, my house is about twice as big. We have air conditioning, they didn’t. I have 3 large screen TVs, they had one small TV. We used to have cable TV, they didn’t, I have two computers, 3 monitors and two printers, they didn’t. We have 3 cars, they had one. We have 2 car garage the had none. We have two baths, they had one. We have a sauna, they didn’t, We have a riding lawn mower, they didn’t. We have a dishwasher, they didn’t. I have streaming services and 3 Firesticks, they didn’t. We have two refrigerators and two chest freezers, they didn’t. We have a work shed and a storage shed, they didn’t. We have a high end stereo system, they didn’t. We have two cellphones, they had a black phone on the wall. We have a refrigerator that is twice as big as my parents fridge. We use almost twice as much electricity as my parents. And we just have so many more useless trinkets that are available to purchase. I also have to add, we lived below our means all our marriage and now are retired living on the growth of our stock portfolio. So it’s not like we blew all our doe on stuff. You can live without all that stuff I listed and still be happy.

[nereo]

I don't really agree with paying parents to homeschool though - it seems like there's a lot of potential for it to lead to parents homeschooling for the wrong reason and kids falling through the cracks.

You're not paying them you're giving them their money back.
That money belongs to the kids. It is set aside for their education.

You homeschooled your kid but the school kept your money. How is that fair? If K-12 was any good how could it POSSIBLY be that home schooling even remotely competes with that system, which is supposedly staffed with experimented and educated professionals all directed by experts?

...

I've never understood this "give them their money back" attitude either.

I enjoy living in a first world country which educates all students from the general tax fund.  It's a clear benefit to all of us to have an educated populace.

But if we taxpayers are suddenly allowed to cherry pick what we will and will not pay for, where does it end?  How about I decide I no longer want to use public parks but instead demand a refund of my tax money that supports the parks so I can use it for a vacation at a resort?   
Or I demand a refund of my tax money that supports libraries because I buy all of my own books and never use the library? 
Or I decide that because I never use the roadways in the rural parts of the state that my taxes supporting those roads should be refunded to me?

I wish all of these libertarian types would all move to one area and enjoy their dog-eat-dogistan life.

Agreed.  Some people view taxes as the government taking their money. It’s exasperated by politicians from all sides who clumsily talk about their policies putting “money back in the pockets of hardworking people” and portray the other side as “taking” money away. The sentiment is bunk, of course. Legally that money isn’t yours - hence why you can face penalties and incarceration for not paying. Ethically it falls too lose to the “taxation is theft,” which is particularly odious in a democratic society.