The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: NumberJohnny5 on September 13, 2014, 03:52:19 PM
-
This isn't about TV shows that are Antimustachian in nature...rather...any way that a tv show reinforces the status quo in some way.
First off, Married with Children. Pretty easy one here, just pick any one episode and you've got a ton of material. Lots of "rich people are bad", "us vs them", and poor decisions everywhere. A "smart" decision is buying pizza for Thanksgiving and only eating the topping, and then eating the crust for a second meal. Any windfall must be spent immediately. If you're rich and rent a park for your son's birthday, you deserve your family to be physically assaulted and your food stolen.
Love that show.
Next, there was an episode of Monk (Mr. Monk Goes to a Fashion Show) where they show the person in forensics who tested some dna. He's in his 40s and is retiring at the end of the week. Egads, we all know he's guilty of something, because no one can possibly retire in their 40s unless they're CROOKED, BAD PEOPLE. Turns out, yup, he framed an innocent man to get a payoff from the actual killer.
-
I think the bigger problem is the shows where they skew the views idea of how they deserve to live. Almost all shows feature people living absurdly above their mean, think friends where a coffee shop waitress lives in a huge apartment in NYC. I think it is important to have shows that paint a more realistic picture. Two shows I think do a great job of this were "Roseanne" and "King of the Hill." I think these shows do a pretty good job of showing what real life is like for most people, and this includes making horrible decisions with their money.
-
The entire premise of Weeds! She lives far beyond her means after her husband dies, because she's trying to maintain the standard of living she and her children are used to. The only way to do that is for her to sell drugs. Living in a great neighbourhood and buying all the toys is what it means to provide the best life for your children, even if you have to become a drug dealer to do it. At the same time the show is making fun of this, it's also reinforcing the idea that you need to have all this stuff.
-
I think the bigger problem is the shows where they skew the views idea of how they deserve to live. Almost all shows feature people living absurdly above their mean, think friends where a coffee shop waitress lives in a huge apartment in NYC. I think it is important to have shows that paint a more realistic picture. Two shows I think do a great job of this were "Roseanne" and "King of the Hill." I think these shows do a pretty good job of showing what real life is like for most people, and this includes making horrible decisions with their money.
Agreed. Viewers may not stop to consider that these characters' lifestyles are unrealistic, and it'll create an expectation: Why can't I live in a great apartment in one of the most expensive cities in the world and have great furniture that looks like it came from a vintage boutique, eat out /attend other cost-based entertainment constantly, dress like a model, and never go to work?
However, from another point of view, should TV entertainment reflect real life . . . or should it just be an escape? The entire premise of Weeds! She lives far beyond her means after her husband dies, because she's trying to maintain the standard of living she and her children are used to. The only way to do that is for her to sell drugs. Living in a great neighbourhood and buying all the toys is what it means to provide the best life for your children, even if you have to become a drug dealer to do it. At the same time the show is making fun of this, it's also reinforcing the idea that you need to have all this stuff.
I don't know that show, but it's making me think about Breaking Bad -- a series we enjoyed tremendously. The main character is a 50-year old high school teacher (and part-time car wash worker) with about 5K to his name. His wife, who is expecting an "oops baby", has recently quit her job, and they have a teenaged boy with a severe physical disability. They're barely keeping their heads above water when they discover he has cancer -- and his insurance won't pay. So he begins cooking meth. I think this part is realistic: At first he figures up how much $$$ his wife (future widow) will need to pay off the house, raise and educate the kids with her working part-time -- and he's trying to figure out if his health will hold out long enough for him to make that amount of money. But then as the money begins to roll in, he wants more and more and more.
-
I love to watch HGTV but one thing I hate are the shows where a couple/family are looking for a home with a specific like who have a "firm, max budget". They don't like anything in their budget but they end up going with something well over their max budget or a home in which one worker has a 45 min+ commute.
-
I have always found Big Bang Theory to be antimustachian. Howard, Sheldon, Raj and Leonard cannot be making much money at the University yet they always buy lunch at the University and order takeout for dinner or eat at Cheesecake Factory. Also no way Penny can afford that Apt alone on a waitress salary. Also how much they spend on comics, video games, memorabilia has to be quite high.
-
First off, Married with Children.
*sigh* It's Frasier (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/frasier-ltspoiler-alertgt/msg394139/#msg394139) again. I know satire can be hard to get for some folks... after all, there were people who took Swift's A Modest Proposal seriously. That said, can I please ask the community on a whole to please do the following? Before any more mustachians go around poking at the values presented by the entertainment industry for mockery (and I know, there's plenty to mock), can you please do the following first. Ask yourself the following two questions:
1) Is what I'm holding up for ridicule a situation comedy?
2) If so, is it possible that the values presented to the viewing public are satirical in nature and actually intended as points of ridicule and not celebration?
The greatest coup of Married With Children's scathing satirical take on not only television families, but the modern nuclear family in general and white trash culture was the fact that the show actually cultivated a fanbase of the very people that the writers were actively and openly mocking without these people realizing that their own values were the butt of the joke for everyone else. Al Bundy, just like Archie Bunker, was never meant to be a hero.
However, from another point of view, should TV entertainment reflect real life . . . or should it just be an escape?
This is an interesting question, however... even in perspective to satire. It also starts to scrape at the insidious psychological nature of the medium itself, opening up a far greater debate that is wholly inappropriate for the general tone and thrust of this thread.
-
First off, Married with Children.
*sigh* It's Frasier (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/frasier-ltspoiler-alertgt/msg394139/#msg394139) again. I know satire can be hard to get for some folks... after all, there were people who took Swift's A Modest Proposal seriously. That said, can I please ask the community on a whole to please do the following? Before any more mustachians go around poking at the values presented by the entertainment industry for mockery (and I know, there's plenty to mock), can you please do the following first. Ask yourself the following two questions:
1) Is what I'm holding up for ridicule a situation comedy?
2) If so, is it possible that the values presented to the viewing public are satirical in nature and actually intended as points of ridicule and not celebration?
The greatest coup of Married With Children's scathing satirical take on not only television families, but the modern nuclear family in general and white trash culture was the fact that the show actually cultivated a fanbase of the very people that the writers were actively and openly mocking without these people realizing that their own values were the butt of the joke for everyone else. Al Bundy, just like Archie Bunker, was never meant to be a hero.
I get that. But why was it so popular with a certain group of people? Because they could somewhat relate. I think the vast majority of the fanbase knew it was fiction (there's no way Peggy Bundy could afford the Blue Angels for her birthday, and how plausible is it that her mother actually ate a dog?). But the themes and values are something they could identify with.
I'm sure there were rich people that watched Frasier and thought "now THAT'S something I can relate to!"
-
I just finished watching, This is 40. The nuclear family in this movie lives in a McMansion - the kids and dad each have their own iPads and iPhones - and I think he dad drives a BMW. Following the typical, contrived Hollywood plot: they run into financial troubles when his business fails to do well. At one point, his accountant is on the phone telling him he's missed two mortgage payments. What happens next? A catered event for his 40th birthday! I know it's a movie, but WHO would cater themselves a birthday bash when they're on the verge of losing their home? Especially an unnecessary expense which probably costs the equivalent of two mortgage payments?
-
They're barely keeping their heads above water when they discover he has cancer -- and his insurance won't pay. So he begins cooking meth. I think this part is realistic: At first he figures up how much $$$ his wife (future widow) will need to pay off the house, raise and educate the kids with her working part-time -- and he's trying to figure out if his health will hold out long enough for him to make that amount of money. But then as the money begins to roll in, he wants more and more and more.
Small point, but his insurance would pay, just not for the *best* doctor which is what his wife is convinced he should have. It's a really interesting examination of American attitudes towards death and compromise.
It's sort of like your first point. Americans experience a sense of privation when they don't have the best of everything, and we have a skewed, entitled idea of what "everything" means based on what society teaches us to expect.
-
I'm trying to think of any TV show that realistically depicts people living within their means.
-
TV, in general, is meant to indoctrinate viewers into being consumers. That's why it's advertisement-driven. I don't watch very many shows because of this problem.
-
I just finished watching, This is 40. The nuclear family in this movie lives in a McMansion - the kids and dad each have their own iPads and iPhones - and I think he dad drives a BMW. Following the typical, contrived Hollywood plot: they run into financial troubles when his business fails to do well. At one point, his accountant is on the phone telling him he's missed two mortgage payments. What happens next? A catered event for his 40th birthday! I know it's a movie, but WHO would cater themselves a birthday bash when they're on the verge of losing their home? Especially an unnecessary expense which probably costs the equivalent of two mortgage payments?
You should watch The Joneses. The family is just a group of salesmen living together acting like a family. One of their neighbor couples buys everything that the Jonses have and the bread winner/neighbor guy freaks out because they've spent everything on replacing their crap with the same crap the Jonses have. The salesman 'husband' feels so terrible about it he tries to tell the guy it's his job during a big Mary Kay style sales party, but he doesn't get it.
-
They're barely keeping their heads above water when they discover he has cancer -- and his insurance won't pay. So he begins cooking meth. I think this part is realistic: At first he figures up how much $$$ his wife (future widow) will need to pay off the house, raise and educate the kids with her working part-time -- and he's trying to figure out if his health will hold out long enough for him to make that amount of money. But then as the money begins to roll in, he wants more and more and more.
Small point, but his insurance would pay, just not for the *best* doctor which is what his wife is convinced he should have. It's a really interesting examination of American attitudes towards death and compromise.
It's sort of like your first point. Americans experience a sense of privation when they don't have the best of everything, and we have a skewed, entitled idea of what "everything" means based on what society teaches us to expect.
I'm glad you brought that up. I had forgotten that Walter White's insurance wouldn't pay for treatment, but I always found that part to be bogus since Albuquerque teachers union provides health insurance and it's not like they were asking for experimental treatment for Walter (or were they? Sorry, if that's the case.)
But the same issue came up with Walter's brother in law, Hank, when he was hurt on the job. Once again, meth money was used to buy physical therapy and recovery treatment for Hank. I remember specifically they emphasized that "good" physical therapy wouldn't be covered by Hank's federal government provided insurance and I found that to be a bogus argument.
-
Don't watch much TV, but grew up with Gilligans Island. Man, that professor could make a nice radio out of a couple coconuts and some sea weed. Those were some mustachian dudes making their houses out of sticks and grass!
-
The Joneses is a good (bad!?) example. They are a fake couple subsized by ad companies. Suddenly all of the neighbors feel like buying their crap
-
Any show like Keeping Up With The Kardashians or Real Housewives of Wherever. Young people watch these shows and then go out to buy the clothes or the handbags or the cars without realizing that the people on the show got their stuff for free or in some cases got paid to use or wear something. I tried watching the Kardashians once back when I had cable and couldn't get through even five minutes of it, it was so annoying.
-
This is one of the reasons I really appreciate "King of the Hill." This isn't a show I watched much, but in hindsight it was a great example of down-to-Earth values and common-sense.
There is an episode where Hank gets fed up with the commercial meat that is offered at the grocery and discovers an organic co-op that is phenominal. Upon finding out that he has to be a member, he becomes one and turns it around, making it way more efficient. At the same time, he starts his own garden, because he values fresh and tasty vegetables. When he goes into work, he gets mocked for his "Hollywood sandwich," but pays them no mind.
-
I just finished watching, This is 40. The nuclear family in this movie lives in a McMansion - the kids and dad each have their own iPads and iPhones - and I think he dad drives a BMW. Following the typical, contrived Hollywood plot: they run into financial troubles when his business fails to do well. At one point, his accountant is on the phone telling him he's missed two mortgage payments. What happens next? A catered event for his 40th birthday! I know it's a movie, but WHO would cater themselves a birthday bash when they're on the verge of losing their home? Especially an unnecessary expense which probably costs the equivalent of two mortgage payments?
I was left wondering after watching that movie whether their conspicuous over-consumption was supposed to be a large part of the plot, or if it was actually trying to represent a stereotypical american family. Their financial troubles are one of the main themes of the movie but many viewers probably didn't make the connection between that and their spending, just blaming it on the failing business. The worst part was when they have a meltdown and then "realize" that somehow none of their problems are their fault and they can blame it all on somebody else.
-
I don't watch many TV shows these days, but I did appreciate the relative sense of financial reality in Breaking Bad. In one episode he mentions that as a high school teacher he made $43,000/yr. That's definitely little enough to feel pinched in his situation (wife out of work, son with disability, expecting surprise child). And he's stuck driving a Pontiac Aztek. And watching his former colleagues soar into obscene wealth eats at him. But of course then as he makes his drug money he wants more far and beyond what he initially set out to do.
I try not to take sitcoms and such too seriously in this regard, as very often you're analyzing something and forgetting that very often That's the joke.
-
I have always found Big Bang Theory to be antimustachian. Howard, Sheldon, Raj and Leonard cannot be making much money at the University yet they always buy lunch at the University and order takeout for dinner or eat at Cheesecake Factory. Also no way Penny can afford that Apt alone on a waitress salary. Also how much they spend on comics, video games, memorabilia has to be quite high.
Professors at Caltech make six figures. Howard lived with his mom most of the series, and Sheldon and Leonard share an apartment (average $1859 for 2-br in pasadena), and Sheldon doesn't even have a car. Raj comes from money. Seems like they have lots of "disposable" income. It may not be mustachian to buy all those nerdy trinkets, but I doubt they would have any debt, were they real people.
Penny, on the other hand, probably has lots of debt. Or makes lots of tips. Or got a good deal on rent by being pretty. Or it doesn't make sense but they needed her to be across the hall.
I just finished watching, This is 40. The nuclear family in this movie lives in a McMansion - the kids and dad each have their own iPads and iPhones - and I think he dad drives a BMW. Following the typical, contrived Hollywood plot: they run into financial troubles when his business fails to do well. At one point, his accountant is on the phone telling him he's missed two mortgage payments. What happens next? A catered event for his 40th birthday! I know it's a movie, but WHO would cater themselves a birthday bash when they're on the verge of losing their home? Especially an unnecessary expense which probably costs the equivalent of two mortgage payments?
I was left wondering after watching that movie whether their conspicuous over-consumption was supposed to be a large part of the plot, or if it was actually trying to represent a stereotypical american family. Their financial troubles are one of the main themes of the movie but many viewers probably didn't make the connection between that and their spending, just blaming it on the failing business. The worst part was when they have a meltdown and then "realize" that somehow none of their problems are their fault and they can blame it all on somebody else.
I definitely thought of MMM when watching that movie, and think it's probably supposed to be a subtle indictment.
-
They're barely keeping their heads above water when they discover he has cancer -- and his insurance won't pay. So he begins cooking meth. I think this part is realistic: At first he figures up how much $$$ his wife (future widow) will need to pay off the house, raise and educate the kids with her working part-time -- and he's trying to figure out if his health will hold out long enough for him to make that amount of money. But then as the money begins to roll in, he wants more and more and more.
Small point, but his insurance would pay, just not for the *best* doctor which is what his wife is convinced he should have. It's a really interesting examination of American attitudes towards death and compromise.
It's sort of like your first point. Americans experience a sense of privation when they don't have the best of everything, and we have a skewed, entitled idea of what "everything" means based on what society teaches us to expect.
I'm glad you brought that up. I had forgotten that Walter White's insurance wouldn't pay for treatment, but I always found that part to be bogus since Albuquerque teachers union provides health insurance and it's not like they were asking for experimental treatment for Walter (or were they? Sorry, if that's the case.)
But the same issue came up with Walter's brother in law, Hank, when he was hurt on the job. Once again, meth money was used to buy physical therapy and recovery treatment for Hank. I remember specifically they emphasized that "good" physical therapy wouldn't be covered by Hank's federal government provided insurance and I found that to be a bogus argument.
Yeah, isn't it, like, they have to wait for the treatment to be approved which could take up to two weeks while the doctors say it's better to begin right away? Or rather, the doctor sort of says because the insurance person is right there in the room moderating the conversation.
I like the ambivalence, the way it reflects Americans' paranoia about insurance companies. It's not clear if the extra care is needed or if the women are being hysterical children infuriated that they can't have what they want right now, under the guise of caring about someone else.
Update: Okay I found the scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp5FcuyIr-0
It would only take a few days - week for the insurance. But I think most Americans would have the reaction that why should they wait at all, especially when PT seems like a no-brainer? I don't know that a delay is realistic, though.
Then the difference in coverage is 4 sessions a week vs. every day and there may be doctors who aren't in network. Again, I don't know if this is realistic for federal workers. I do know there are fancy doctors in my city who don't even take insurance because they cater to the rich and don't have to bother.
Everyone will want to do everything possible for their loved one's health but as the doctor says, past a certain point outcomes are uncertain so we have to rely on what's "medically justifiable." If we did what was "optimal" for everyone, insurance companies would soon be economically unviable which I think would be a greater tragedy than the individual one.
The best part, I realize re-watching it, is how this parallels Marie's attitude towards Hank's condition. The doctor urges her to be realistic but she can't accept anything less than the very best outcome. The American faith is no longer Christianity but the conviction that statistics don't apply to oneself.
(Sorry, I know insurance discussions are a little OT but I get really excited about talking about Breaking Bad.)
-
Sexy in the City
Desperate Housewives
HGTV
The Kardashians
Real Housewives of Wherever
and many of the more popular series that I am so glad to forget. Fortunately, I do not watch television anymore, so I don't know any series that demonstrated anti-Mustachian themes. But I remember one of my all-time favorites... the Simpsons! Does anyone recall the time the employees at Homer's job got acquired and then, the employees got financial windfalls? I recall some employees bought fancy new clown-like cars while others just squandered their windfalls. http://www.tv.com/shows/the-simpsons/burns-verkaufen-der-kraftwerk-1331/ and for a listing of Simpsons money woes read http://www.snpp.com/guides/money.html.
-
I'm trying to think of any TV show that realistically depicts people living within their means.
The first thing that popped into my mind was The Torkelsons. I never realized they were supposed to be dirt poor when I was growing up. They are sadly mocked for being so poor, including an episode where the teenage daughter Dorothy Jane is harassed at a school dance for wearing a thrift store dress that was donated by a popular girl. The family has debt problems, though, so even they aren't within their means despite living some Mustachian values of hard work and self reliance.
-
I have always found Big Bang Theory to be antimustachian. Howard, Sheldon, Raj and Leonard cannot be making much money at the University yet they always buy lunch at the University and order takeout for dinner or eat at Cheesecake Factory. Also no way Penny can afford that Apt alone on a waitress salary. Also how much they spend on comics, video games, memorabilia has to be quite high.
Professors at Caltech make six figures. Howard lived with his mom most of the series, and Sheldon and Leonard share an apartment (average $1859 for 2-br in pasadena), and Sheldon doesn't even have a car. Raj comes from money. Seems like they have lots of "disposable" income. It may not be mustachian to buy all those nerdy trinkets, but I doubt they would have any debt, were they real people.
Penny, on the other hand, probably has lots of debt. Or makes lots of tips. Or got a good deal on rent by being pretty. Or it doesn't make sense but they needed her to be across the hall.
I just finished watching, This is 40. The nuclear family in this movie lives in a McMansion - the kids and dad each have their own iPads and iPhones - and I think he dad drives a BMW. Following the typical, contrived Hollywood plot: they run into financial troubles when his business fails to do well. At one point, his accountant is on the phone telling him he's missed two mortgage payments. What happens next? A catered event for his 40th birthday! I know it's a movie, but WHO would cater themselves a birthday bash when they're on the verge of losing their home? Especially an unnecessary expense which probably costs the equivalent of two mortgage payments?
I was left wondering after watching that movie whether their conspicuous over-consumption was supposed to be a large part of the plot, or if it was actually trying to represent a stereotypical american family. Their financial troubles are one of the main themes of the movie but many viewers probably didn't make the connection between that and their spending, just blaming it on the failing business. The worst part was when they have a meltdown and then "realize" that somehow none of their problems are their fault and they can blame it all on somebody else.
I definitely thought of MMM when watching that movie, and think it's probably supposed to be a subtle indictment.
Yep, my uncle and cousin were at Cal Tech and they made beaucoup bucks, but then, they were full professors. Are all of the nerds full profs?
-
...Update: Okay I found the scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp5FcuyIr-0
It would only take a few days - week for the insurance. But I think most Americans would have the reaction that why should they wait at all, especially when PT seems like a no-brainer? I don't know that a delay is realistic, though.
Then the difference in coverage is 4 sessions a week vs. every day and there may be doctors who aren't in network. Again, I don't know if this is realistic for federal workers. I do know there are fancy doctors in my city who don't even take insurance because they cater to the rich and don't have to bother.
Everyone will want to do everything possible for their loved one's health but as the doctor says, past a certain point outcomes are uncertain so we have to rely on what's "medically justifiable." If we did what was "optimal" for everyone, insurance companies would soon be economically unviable which I think would be a greater tragedy than the individual one.
The best part, I realize re-watching it, is how this parallels Marie's attitude towards Hank's condition. The doctor urges her to be realistic but she can't accept anything less than the very best outcome. The American faith is no longer Christianity but the conviction that statistics don't apply to oneself.
(Sorry, I know insurance discussions are a little OT but I get really excited about talking about Breaking Bad.)
interesting, thanks! I loved Breaking Bad, too!
-
Yep, my uncle and cousin were at Cal Tech and they made beaucoup bucks, but then, they were full professors. Are all of the nerds full profs?
Not initially, but at this point it's season 8. I bet they still make low 100k.
-
Yep, my uncle and cousin were at Cal Tech and they made beaucoup bucks, but then, they were full professors. Are all of the nerds full profs?
Not initially, but at this point it's season 8. I bet they still make low 100k.
I've only watched a few episodes of the show, but remember one scene relating to this: Penny doesn't have any money and the discussion of finances comes up with Sheldon. She may be needing to borrow from him. He mentions maintaining a very specific savings rate (he says something like "I save 46.7% of my post-tax money"). The joke, of course, is that he's a super nerd because he has his savings rate calculated to the 0.1% (hence the canned laughter when he says what his savings rate is). But, I remember that he was saving about half his money because that was roughly my savings rate at the time. However, I believe he had a lot of it stored in places in his apartment (he pulls out a wad of cash at some point).
I did a google search and it was actually 46.9%. Penny had also missed the rent payment.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1256024/synopsis
-
I'm trying to think of any TV show that realistically depicts people living within their means.
Don't watch much TV, but grew up with Gilligans Island. Man, that professor could make a nice radio out of a couple coconuts and some sea weed. Those were some mustachian dudes making their houses out of sticks and grass!
My first thought!
-
I remember seeing one episode of Malcolm in the Middle where the parents buy all new furniture with a "don't pay a penny until 20??", and then they show them sitting on the beat up furniture 2 years later or so on new years eve and their moment of realization that they have to pay for it all now. Haha! It reminded me of my family when I was growing up :)
-
Had the TV on last night while doing my workout routine and saw 2 Broke Girls for the first time. If you looked at all of the items in their apartment you would have no idea they were waitresses. They have more food in their kitchen than I consume in a month.
-
Had the TV on last night while doing my workout routine and saw 2 Broke Girls for the first time. If you looked at all of the items in their apartment you would have no idea they were waitresses. They have more food in their kitchen than I consume in a month.
I'm pretty sure they steal it from work. The blond one wore the same outfit every episode for the first season I think.
-
Yep, my uncle and cousin were at Cal Tech and they made beaucoup bucks, but then, they were full professors. Are all of the nerds full profs?
Not initially, but at this point it's season 8. I bet they still make low 100k.
Nope. Starting salaries at Caltech are near/at least 100k, for Assistant Professors (worked there about 10-12 yrs ago). That doesn't count the grant monies that faculty bring in, honoraria for lectures, or their consulting fees, or any funds they get from companies that license patents faculty hold (ie, my start-up will license your patent, and we'll put you on the board. All board members receive $xx,xxx or X shares of stock for their service).
It's good to be faculty at Caltech, though most work insane hours.
-
I remember seeing one episode of Malcolm in the Middle where the parents buy all new furniture with a "don't pay a penny until 20??", and then they show them sitting on the beat up furniture 2 years later or so on new years eve and their moment of realization that they have to pay for it all now. Haha! It reminded me of my family when I was growing up :)
There's an Armed Forces Network commercial about the stupidity of financing furniture. It shows a nice new sofa and the likely price tag/interest rate and then does a time lapse of the sofa and shows with a house full of kids how distressed that sofa is by the time the loan is paid off.
-
HGTV
.
Normally I agree with this. But as I was reading your posting, I hear the following quote from HGTV "what does a single person need with a 4000 sq.ft house"? then... "what would you do with all this space?"
The friend was trying to get the main character to not over buy... refreshing!
-
I'm trying to think of any TV show that realistically depicts people living within their means.
Duh! Trailer park boys! LOL
-
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Parks & Recreation yet! There are the anti-mustachians - Tom and Donna, especially - and then the quite-mustachian Ron.
-
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Parks & Recreation yet! There are the anti-mustachians - Tom and Donna, especially - and then the quite-mustachian Ron.
Actually, Donna appears to be loaded - no problem coming up with 30K to buy 3 shares of that club, for example. Haven't watched enough to really know where the money comes from, but she's at least a pretty good investor. So while she does appear to enjoy the finer things in life, it also looks like she can afford it.
-
Friends is particularly bad for showing people living a very unrealistic lifestyle. Ross seems to be the more sensible one of the group money wise but he is mocked for being cheap like when he wants to stay as long as he can when he paid for a hotel room. There is one episode when they are playing the lottery and he doesn't want to join in because of the odds but he is persuaded to join in and they are saying what they would do if they won and he said he would invest the money.
Chandler: Ok, so now that you're in, what are you gonna do if we win?
Ross: I don't know, probably just invest it.
Chandler: Ooh! Calm down ...
Joey: Seriously, that's your fantasy? To invest it?
Ross: Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "invest it"? I meant "be cool and piss it all away"
I think the bigger problem is the shows where they skew the views idea of how they deserve to live. Almost all shows feature people living absurdly above their mean, think friends where a coffee shop waitress lives in a huge apartment in NYC. I think it is important to have shows that paint a more realistic picture. Two shows I think do a great job of this were "Roseanne" and "King of the Hill." I think these shows do a pretty good job of showing what real life is like for most people, and this includes making horrible decisions with their money.
Yes, Roseanne was good in that way. I can't really remember King of the Hill.
-
I think the bigger issue is TV ads. This Escalade whopper has really stuck with me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3im23e4Z-gY
Now YOU can live like a filthy rich Egyptian pharoah...yeah!!
-
Yep, my uncle and cousin were at Cal Tech and they made beaucoup bucks, but then, they were full professors. Are all of the nerds full profs?
Not initially, but at this point it's season 8. I bet they still make low 100k.
I've only watched a few episodes of the show, but remember one scene relating to this: Penny doesn't have any money and the discussion of finances comes up with Sheldon. She may be needing to borrow from him. He mentions maintaining a very specific savings rate (he says something like "I save 46.7% of my post-tax money"). The joke, of course, is that he's a super nerd because he has his savings rate calculated to the 0.1% (hence the canned laughter when he says what his savings rate is). But, I remember that he was saving about half his money because that was roughly my savings rate at the time. However, I believe he had a lot of it stored in places in his apartment (he pulls out a wad of cash at some point).
I did a google search and it was actually 46.9%. Penny had also missed the rent payment.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1256024/synopsis
Then I stand corrected on Sheldon's salary because he must make a ton of $$$ if he can save 46.9% of his after tax $$$$ and still able to eat Thai food almost every night, have what is probably a very expensive modded laptop, consistently buy the latest gadgets, comics, video games, collectibles, etc.
-
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Parks & Recreation yet! There are the anti-mustachians - Tom and Donna, especially - and then the quite-mustachian Ron.
I drafted a post about Ron for this thread and scrapped it, I think because I got off on a "tammies" tanget; that librarian tammy is Ron's Achilles heel.
But yeah, Ron is the libertarian mustachean on TV.
-
Yep, my uncle and cousin were at Cal Tech and they made beaucoup bucks, but then, they were full professors. Are all of the nerds full profs?
Not initially, but at this point it's season 8. I bet they still make low 100k.
I've only watched a few episodes of the show, but remember one scene relating to this: Penny doesn't have any money and the discussion of finances comes up with Sheldon. She may be needing to borrow from him. He mentions maintaining a very specific savings rate (he says something like "I save 46.7% of my post-tax money"). The joke, of course, is that he's a super nerd because he has his savings rate calculated to the 0.1% (hence the canned laughter when he says what his savings rate is). But, I remember that he was saving about half his money because that was roughly my savings rate at the time. However, I believe he had a lot of it stored in places in his apartment (he pulls out a wad of cash at some point).
I did a google search and it was actually 46.9%. Penny had also missed the rent payment.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1256024/synopsis
Then I stand corrected on Sheldon's salary because he must make a ton of $$$ if he can save 46.9% of his after tax $$$$ and still able to eat Thai food almost every night, have what is probably a very expensive modded laptop, consistently buy the latest gadgets, comics, video games, collectibles, etc.
I heard they hire a financial planner to make sure all the monetary backstory is completely accurate. The writers just completely make up the physics parts though.
-
Yep, my uncle and cousin were at Cal Tech and they made beaucoup bucks, but then, they were full professors. Are all of the nerds full profs?
Not initially, but at this point it's season 8. I bet they still make low 100k.
I've only watched a few episodes of the show, but remember one scene relating to this: Penny doesn't have any money and the discussion of finances comes up with Sheldon. She may be needing to borrow from him. He mentions maintaining a very specific savings rate (he says something like "I save 46.7% of my post-tax money"). The joke, of course, is that he's a super nerd because he has his savings rate calculated to the 0.1% (hence the canned laughter when he says what his savings rate is). But, I remember that he was saving about half his money because that was roughly my savings rate at the time. However, I believe he had a lot of it stored in places in his apartment (he pulls out a wad of cash at some point).
I did a google search and it was actually 46.9%. Penny had also missed the rent payment.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1256024/synopsis
Then I stand corrected on Sheldon's salary because he must make a ton of $$$ if he can save 46.9% of his after tax $$$$ and still able to eat Thai food almost every night, have what is probably a very expensive modded laptop, consistently buy the latest gadgets, comics, video games, collectibles, etc.
I heard they hire a financial planner to make sure all the monetary backstory is completely accurate. The writers just completely make up the physics parts though.
Maybe so, but I'd have to ask said financial planner, "Explain Penny." Yes, she's a moocher, but she still lives alone in a similar sized apartment to the one Sheldon and Leonard live in. Presumably hers is a 1br, but if 2br apartments are $1900ish, 1br are usually about $1400-1500 in the same complex.
Sheldon's high savings despite his expensive toys (high end Alienware laptops are ~$3000 at most) is explainable because he doesn't own a car, mostly refuses to ride the bus, and harasses his friends to take him everywhere (which I doubt he pays for gas!).
My girlfriend has a friend like that. Her friend is a CPA, doesn't own a car, and gives my girlfriend crap because my GF prefers to ride her bike to places than drive to pick up said friend. She says "I'll just take a cab if I have to," but in practice she never does.
-
I'm watching the early seasons of Sons of Anarchy on Netflix, and it always depresses me watching eight grown men struggle to come up with $15k between them to (sometimes literally) save their lives.
-
I love to watch HGTV but one thing I hate are the shows where a couple/family are looking for a home with a specific like who have a "firm, max budget". They don't like anything in their budget but they end up going with something well over their max budget or a home in which one worker has a 45 min+ commute.
Ugh, so many things on HGTV drive me nuts!! Or when a couple looks at a house with totally decent sized closets and then the wife is all, "LOL, where's your closet, honey? 'Cause I'm gonna need both of these for my SHOES!" gross.
I think the bigger problem is the shows where they skew the views idea of how they deserve to live. Almost all shows feature people living absurdly above their mean, think friends where a coffee shop waitress lives in a huge apartment in NYC. I think it is important to have shows that paint a more realistic picture. Two shows I think do a great job of this were "Roseanne" and "King of the Hill." I think these shows do a pretty good job of showing what real life is like for most people, and this includes making horrible decisions with their money.
yes!!! I think we had a thread on here a while back about this. I can't think of any TV shows off the top of my head that are more realistic (but I don't watch a lot of different TV shows)... I think more movies do a good job though. last time we talked about it I had just seen Don Jon so I mentioned that, great movie and one of the things I liked about it was that everyone's homes seemed super realistic.
I remember seeing one episode of Malcolm in the Middle where the parents buy all new furniture with a "don't pay a penny until 20??", and then they show them sitting on the beat up furniture 2 years later or so on new years eve and their moment of realization that they have to pay for it all now. Haha! It reminded me of my family when I was growing up :)
There's an Armed Forces Network commercial about the stupidity of financing furniture. It shows a nice new sofa and the likely price tag/interest rate and then does a time lapse of the sofa and shows with a house full of kids how distressed that sofa is by the time the loan is paid off.
that is awesome!!
-
I don't know that show, but it's making me think about Breaking Bad -- a series we enjoyed tremendously. The main character is a 50-year old high school teacher (and part-time car wash worker) with about 5K to his name. His wife, who is expecting an "oops baby", has recently quit her job, and they have a teenaged boy with a severe physical disability. They're barely keeping their heads above water when they discover he has cancer -- and his insurance won't pay. So he begins cooking meth. I think this part is realistic: At first he figures up how much $$$ his wife (future widow) will need to pay off the house, raise and educate the kids with her working part-time -- and he's trying to figure out if his health will hold out long enough for him to make that amount of money. But then as the money begins to roll in, he wants more and more and more.
Breaking Bad pissed me off for the un-Mustachian ways of the main characters (even though it was a great show). What in God's name is a high-school teacher who has to work a second job at a car wash to make ends meet, doing owning a house with a f*ckin' pool?! In NEW MEXICO?!!! Not to mention two massive cars (a Pontiac SUV and a mega station wagon); you can only justify one large vehicle to transport the kid with cerebral palsy. Some crazy (and environmentally destructive) lifestyle inflation going on there.
Also, it's not that his insurance won't pay for the cancer treatment; it just won't pay for the particular procedure/doctor that he wants. Most companies do this; usually by weighing the cost with the likelihood of success (The Rainmaker-type evil insurance companies aren't that common). Considering the cancer is going to kill him in a couple years anyway (don't worry, not a spoiler), I don't blame the insurance company that much (though obviously it would suck, and I would probably feel differently, if I or someone I knew were in a similar situation)
-
Breaking Bad pissed me off for the un-Mustachian ways of the main characters (even though it was a great show). What in God's name is a high-school teacher who has to work a second job at a car wash to make ends meet, doing owning a house with a f*ckin' pool?! In NEW MEXICO?!!! Not to mention two massive cars (a Pontiac SUV and a mega station wagon); you can only justify one large vehicle to transport the kid with cerebral palsy. Some crazy (and environmentally destructive) lifestyle inflation going on there.
It wasn't mustachian, but it certainly wasn't an extravagant lifestyle they portrayed either. Two older beat up vehicles, a typical house that they had already been in before the "oops" baby derailed Skylar's job and added financial strain. It wasn't mustachian, but it sure felt a lot more typical than something like Friends or Big Bang Theory.
As an aside, when my wife and I were house hunting earlier this year, we actually looked at a place three houses down from Walter White's house. In real life that house would be somewhere around $250k-275k depending on condition. Not that unrealistic for a high school teacher with a working spouse.
-
It wasn't mustachian, but it certainly wasn't an extravagant lifestyle they portrayed either. Two older beat up vehicles, a typical house that they had already been in before the "oops" baby derailed Skylar's job and added financial strain. It wasn't mustachian, but it sure felt a lot more typical than something like Friends or Big Bang Theory.
As an aside, when my wife and I were house hunting earlier this year, we actually looked at a place three houses down from Walter White's house. In real life that house would be somewhere around $250k-275k depending on condition. Not that unrealistic for a high school teacher with a working spouse.
Not sure you need 2 vehicles when only one parent has a job (which is at the same school where their kid with cerebral palsy goes, so no mid-day emergency excuses). Especially not 2 gas guzzlers like those monsters they have.
Shouldn't they have tried to downsize before Walter considers working at a car wash to make ends meet? That may very well have been their lifestyle pre-"oops" baby but they don't have to continue it (speaking of, what happened to maternity leave? I thought Skyler was laid off from her job, not that she quit because of the second baby. Or did she quit her job after Walt Jr.? Who at the time of the show is 16. Plenty of time to downsize and adjust. Some serious Breaking Bad geeking out here :P)
I don't watch Big Bang Theory, so I can't comment. Do any of the characters have money problems?
Friends addressed the fancy apartment (illegal sublease in a rent-controlled building). The characters have money-troubles in the earlier seasons (The One with Five Steaks and an Eggplant), but later on they're all doing well career-wise and no one complains about money (so I don't care if they spend a lot).
Breaking Bad gets my goat because its entire premise is a guy turns to evil because he's doesn't have any money saved up. Again, it's a great show, but you have to wonder to what extent the family's problems are self-made.
-
There's an episode of Sex and the City where Carry's apartment is being converted (to condos?); she either has to leave or buy her apartment. She doesn't have the money for the down payment. She looks at her shoe closet, does the math and realizes that the price she paid for the shoes would have been sufficient down payment.
I'm not sure if I'm remembering the ending right... I think Mr. Big offers to make the down payment for her but she declines and ultimately takes a loan from one of her friends?
But that scene with her in the closet adding up what she spent on her shoes strikes me as television's anti-mustachian scene.
-
It wasn't mustachian, but it certainly wasn't an extravagant lifestyle they portrayed either. Two older beat up vehicles, a typical house that they had already been in before the "oops" baby derailed Skylar's job and added financial strain. It wasn't mustachian, but it sure felt a lot more typical than something like Friends or Big Bang Theory.
As an aside, when my wife and I were house hunting earlier this year, we actually looked at a place three houses down from Walter White's house. In real life that house would be somewhere around $250k-275k depending on condition. Not that unrealistic for a high school teacher with a working spouse.
Not sure you need 2 vehicles when only one parent has a job (which is at the same school where their kid with cerebral palsy goes, so no mid-day emergency excuses). Especially not 2 gas guzzlers like those monsters they have.
Shouldn't they have tried to downsize before Walter considers working at a car wash to make ends meet? That may very well have been their lifestyle pre-"oops" baby but they don't have to continue it (speaking of, what happened to maternity leave? I thought Skyler was laid off from her job, not that she quit because of the second baby. Or did she quit her job after Walt Jr.? Who at the time of the show is 16. Plenty of time to downsize and adjust. Some serious Breaking Bad geeking out here :P)
[...]
Breaking Bad gets my goat because its entire premise is a guy turns to evil because he's doesn't have any money saved up. Again, it's a great show, but you have to wonder to what extent the family's problems are self-made.
It wasn't mustachian, but it certainly wasn't an extravagant lifestyle they portrayed either.
This was what really interested me about it. Their lifestyle is typical. But they are drowning. I don't think the writers intended to portray them as extravagant but maybe to reflect the commonly-held feeling that the typical American lifestyle is not sustainable. Whether that's due to corporate and political machinations or individual profligacy depends on the viewer.
I think Marie's shoplifting is an interesting comment on this as well. They never appear to have money problems and they have more crap in their home. (I don't know about the value of their home. Of course, Hank probably makes more and Marie has a professional job and they have no kids. An interesting commentary itself that the "traditional" nuclear family are the poor relations.) But how much of that is her helping herself to things? Or how much is her stealing things related to her consumerism? How much is it related to money pressures they may feel? My interpretation would be that the pinched purse of the American middle class is eroding their values to the point that we don't judge crime as being bad so much as we judge lower-class crime as being bad.
-
Christmas Vacation. Spending your bonus which you don't have yet on a pool when you are already strapped for cash. Disaster almost strikes but then his crazy brother-in-law kidnaps the boss and everything turns out OK!
-
Sons of Anarchy comment upthread: I had exactly that same reaction to the outlaws who couldn't come up with a few thousand $!