The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: MrsMadHobo on August 01, 2015, 01:50:00 PM
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/millennials-with-rich-parents/398501/#disqus_thread (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/millennials-with-rich-parents/398501/#disqus_thread)
Yes, our success has nothing to do with choosing sensible majors, working through college to pay tuition, and saving 50%+ of our income...grr, just completely discredits our work.
-
See also http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/interesting-article-re-%27privilege%27-of-successful-millenials/.
-
Bah, didn't come up when I searched.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/millennials-with-rich-parents/398501/#disqus_thread (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/millennials-with-rich-parents/398501/#disqus_thread)
Yes, our success has nothing to do with choosing sensible majors, working through college to pay tuition, and saving 50%+ of our income...grr, just completely discredits our work.
It doesn't say that at all. You're being too sensitive. or maaaaaybe feeling guilty...? This could be said about X'ers, Boomers, Jonsers, and The Greediest Generation before them. All the way back to the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Cave Dwellers. The one with the richest folks can be predicted to do better. And don't boar me with personals like "I know a guy who had poor folks and he worked hard and now he is successful. Not what I'm, talking about. Rich Folk= Higher potential for success on every planet. Millenials are no diff.
-
It doesn't say that at all. You're being too sensitive. or maaaaaybe feeling guilty...? This could be said about X'ers, Boomers, Jonsers, and The Greediest Generation before them. All the way back to the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Cave Dwellers. The one with the richest folks can be predicted to do better. And don't boar me with personals like "I know a guy who had poor folks and he worked hard and now he is successful. Not what I'm, talking about. Rich Folk= Higher potential for success on every planet. Millenials are no diff.
Hey now, the other day someone right on this forum insisted that Ben Carson's success invalidates all claims about upbringing as a predictor of life outcomes. It must be true.
-
Avoiding the privilege discussion, this article has some very Anti-Mustachian stuff in there. Here are some of my favorites:
If he or she follows the popular financial advice to save 10 percent of his or her annual pay, it’ll take him or her about eight years to have that down payment ready to go.
What "popular financial advice" are they talking about. Dave Ramsey says 15% to Retirement savings with any other savings being on top of that. (Although I think he will sometimes advocate saving for a house down payment before retirement savings, "Baby Step 3B" I believe) And the 50/30/20 rule is incredibly common one as well. 10 percent seems like a purposefully low number just to make it seem like saving for a down payment is impossible.
While many remain skeptical about the real-estate market, homeownership is still the primary way that Americans build wealth.
I think we've debated this many many times over, but people should definitely be building wealth outside of an illiquid house that they need to live in.
So, how about instead of beating the dead horse of the privilege debate, let's stick to pointing out anti-Mustachian ideals found in this article.
-
While many remain skeptical about the real-estate market, homeownership is still the primary way that Americans build wealth.
I think we've debated this many many times over, but people should definitely be building wealth outside of an illiquid house that they need to live in.
You seem to be comparing a descriptive statement (about present reality and recent history) to a prescriptive one. Am I mistaken?
Obviously, I agree with you on the "should", but if the article is saying that homeownership has been the primary vehicle for wealth accumulation and skeptical Millennials could miss out (and thereby do even worse), that can also be correct (and compatible with your comment).
-
While many remain skeptical about the real-estate market, homeownership is still the primary way that Americans build wealth.
I think we've debated this many many times over, but people should definitely be building wealth outside of an illiquid house that they need to live in.
You seem to be comparing a descriptive statement (about present reality and recent history) to a prescriptive one. Am I mistaken?
Obviously, I agree with you on the "should", but if the article is saying that homeownership has been the primary vehicle for wealth accumulation and skeptical Millennials could miss out (and thereby do even worse), that can also be correct (and compatible with your comment).
Yes you're pretty much right, but I still feel like putting it in the article makes it seem as though home-ownership is the right path to wealth. If the article included another paragraph on 401k savings, then I'd give them a pass, but they put a pretty big focus on the home ownership as a path to success/wealth bit.
-
Yes you're pretty much right, but I still feel like putting it in the article makes it seem as though home-ownership is the right path to wealth. If the article included another paragraph on 401k savings, then I'd give them a pass, but they put a pretty big focus on the home ownership as a path to success/wealth bit.
Couldn't agree more. Even if homeownership has been a useful tool for savings, it's also been a piggy bank people instinctively raid for dumb shit and thereby screw themselves. They need to diversify.
-
Yes you're pretty much right, but I still feel like putting it in the article makes it seem as though home-ownership is the right path to wealth. If the article included another paragraph on 401k savings, then I'd give them a pass, but they put a pretty big focus on the home ownership as a path to success/wealth bit.
Couldn't agree more. Even if homeownership has been a useful tool for savings, it's also been a piggy bank people instinctively raid for dumb shit and thereby screw themselves. They need to diversify.
Having that money in retirement accounts is much harder to get to for those people. While some may still take the huge penalties, most will realize that that's too heavy a price to pay.
-
Yes you're pretty much right, but I still feel like putting it in the article makes it seem as though home-ownership is the right path to wealth. If the article included another paragraph on 401k savings, then I'd give them a pass, but they put a pretty big focus on the home ownership as a path to success/wealth bit.
Couldn't agree more. Even if homeownership has been a useful tool for savings, it's also been a piggy bank people instinctively raid for dumb shit and thereby screw themselves. They need to diversify.
I like to think/hope that us millenials will learn from the mistakes of those before us and never touch home equity for non-investment purchases (cars, travel, etc). I have a healthy HELOC I can tap, and I can tell you it's an emergency-only "account" that I don't plan to touch. Already got burned on one house that's upside down (that's now an investment property, and it wasn't because we drew down equity), I'm not screwing up a RE transaction with a HELOC.
-
I like to think/hope that us millenials will learn from the mistakes of those before us and never touch home equity for non-investment purchases (cars, travel, etc). I have a healthy HELOC I can tap, and I can tell you it's an emergency-only "account" that I don't plan to touch. Already got burned on one house that's upside down (that's now an investment property, and it wasn't because we drew down equity), I'm not screwing up a RE transaction with a HELOC.
Just being here puts you miles ahead of most people, regardless of generation.
I fear that too many Millennials are afraid to invest in anything, just because their formative years saw a stock market crash (whose pain is more memorable than the runups before and after, or the overall solid returns over time) and a housing crash (which many wrongly interpret as an indictment of real estate as a whole, and not the combined product of deregulation and overconsumption that it truly was). There seems to be a belief that no investment is safe and we all may as well just spend what we have on a good feeling in the here and now.
-
I like to think/hope that us millenials will learn from the mistakes of those before us and never touch home equity for non-investment purchases (cars, travel, etc). I have a healthy HELOC I can tap, and I can tell you it's an emergency-only "account" that I don't plan to touch. Already got burned on one house that's upside down (that's now an investment property, and it wasn't because we drew down equity), I'm not screwing up a RE transaction with a HELOC.
Just being here puts you miles ahead of most people, regardless of generation.
I fear that too many Millennials are afraid to invest in anything, just because their formative years saw a stock market crash (whose pain is more memorable than the runups before and after, or the overall solid returns over time) and a housing crash (which many wrongly interpret as an indictment of real estate as a whole, and not the combined product of deregulation and overconsumption that it truly was). There seems to be a belief that no investment is safe and we all may as well just spend what we have on a good feeling in the here and now.
Every report, news article and study I ever see points to Student Loan debt as being the primary factor that keeps Millenials from investing. From the 2008 recession, I think more people will remember the housing crisis rather than the stock market crash. I think the word has gotten out that those who "held the line" and rode the roller coaster back up did fine and it was only the Nervous Nellies that got hosed, so I don't think there is any extra level of fear in Millenials. There's always some who don't want to invest in the stock market because they think it's gambling, but I don't think we have any more of those than any other generation.
But I think people learned a lot from the housing crisis. They know that ARMs are bad, and that houses aren't great investments. Millenials are continuing to rent and I think that's only partially due to lack of down payments and a lot to do with lifestyle decisions and realizations that houses aren't great investments.
-
They know that ARMs are bad...
My ARM is great, buying more house than you can afford is bad.
-
They know that ARMs are bad...
My ARM is great, buying more house than you can afford is bad.
You're right for us they are may be better, but for the general population that can't afford a several hundred dollar increase in their house payment, they are a bad thing, and that's the point I was making.
-
They know that ARMs are bad...
My ARM is great, buying more house than you can afford is bad.
Is it? My recent mortgage was locked in at 3.XX. Given that that's almost a historic low, how much lower are you getting and what is the value of that versus locking in a rate almost certain to go up over time?
-
I love how they put everyone in the same boat. In my case, it's the opposite, I had to pay for my own school tuition, heck I even helped my parents out financially because they are the one struggling with money and not the other way around like the article says.
-
They know that ARMs are bad...
My ARM is great, buying more house than you can afford is bad.
Is it? My recent mortgage was locked in at 3.XX. Given that that's almost a historic low, how much lower are you getting and what is the value of that versus locking in a rate almost certain to go up over time?
Depends on your payoff schedule. For instance, my wife and I have a 3.375% rate locked in for 15 years. But we're actually paying it off within 3 years. A 5/1 ARM or even a 3/1 ARM would have likely been a better deal for us. (Nice to live in an area where our house is such a small part of our financial world).
-
They know that ARMs are bad...
My ARM is great, buying more house than you can afford is bad.
Is it? My recent mortgage was locked in at 3.XX. Given that that's almost a historic low, how much lower are you getting and what is the value of that versus locking in a rate almost certain to go up over time?
Depends on your payoff schedule. For instance, my wife and I have a 3.375% rate locked in for 15 years. But we're actually paying it off within 3 years. A 5/1 ARM or even a 3/1 ARM would have likely been a better deal for us. (Nice to live in an area where our house is such a small part of our financial world).
But now aren't you just into the old "Should I pay off the mortgage debate?" which I think we're all well aware that from a math standpoint then answer 99% of the time is no. Sure, an ARM is better if you pay it down in 3 years, but even better would be carrying that 15 year to term.
-
They know that ARMs are bad...
My ARM is great, buying more house than you can afford is bad.
Is it? My recent mortgage was locked in at 3.XX. Given that that's almost a historic low, how much lower are you getting and what is the value of that versus locking in a rate almost certain to go up over time?
Depends on your payoff schedule. For instance, my wife and I have a 3.375% rate locked in for 15 years. But we're actually paying it off within 3 years. A 5/1 ARM or even a 3/1 ARM would have likely been a better deal for us. (Nice to live in an area where our house is such a small part of our financial world).
But now aren't you just into the old "Should I pay off the mortgage debate?" which I think we're all well aware that from a math standpoint then answer 99% of the time is no. Sure, an ARM is better if you pay it down in 3 years, but even better would be carrying that 15 year to term.
and better yet refi to a 30 year and carry that to term. now you're a real baller
-
They know that ARMs are bad...
My ARM is great, buying more house than you can afford is bad.
Is it? My recent mortgage was locked in at 3.XX. Given that that's almost a historic low, how much lower are you getting and what is the value of that versus locking in a rate almost certain to go up over time?
Depends on your payoff schedule. For instance, my wife and I have a 3.375% rate locked in for 15 years. But we're actually paying it off within 3 years. A 5/1 ARM or even a 3/1 ARM would have likely been a better deal for us. (Nice to live in an area where our house is such a small part of our financial world).
But now aren't you just into the old "Should I pay off the mortgage debate?" which I think we're all well aware that from a math standpoint then answer 99% of the time is no. Sure, an ARM is better if you pay it down in 3 years, but even better would be carrying that 15 year to term.
and better yet refi to a 30 year and carry that to term. now you're a real baller
and then a few years from now, if rates haven't gotten too high, and the closing costs aren't prohibitive, do a cash-out refinance to a new 30 year term.
I guess I'd feel more strongly on the issue if our house was more expensive. As it is, I can live with paying the mortgage down after maxing out our tax-sheltered accounts each year. Which as it turns out means it will be paid off next year.
-
Nice to live in an area where our house is such a small part of our financial world.
True that! We have a 5/1 ARM at 3.375%. The payment is only about 5% of wages and we could easily pay it off before the first adjustment. And that's the current plan.
-
Nice to live in an area where our house is such a small part of our financial world.
True that! We have a 5/1 ARM at 3.375%. The payment is only about 5% of wages and we could easily pay it off before the first adjustment. And that's the current plan.
Wow, I was offered a 15 year fixed at 3.25%. Why would my 15 year be lower than a 5/1 ARM?
-
Nice to live in an area where our house is such a small part of our financial world.
True that! We have a 5/1 ARM at 3.375%. The payment is only about 5% of wages and we could easily pay it off before the first adjustment. And that's the current plan.
Wow, I was offered a 15 year fixed at 3.25%. Why would my 15 year be lower than a 5/1 ARM?
Probably because he got his ARM 6 months to a year ago.
-
Wow, I was offered a 15 year fixed at 3.25%. Why would my 15 year be lower than a 5/1 ARM?
Probably because he got his ARM 6 months to a year ago.
Yeah, this sale was closed last October. I hate to churn mortgages but I'm thinking about one refi, quite possibly a 15-year fixed, to kill PMI right now (between paydowns and improvements we've gone from 90% financed to <80%, but they insist on 2 years of payments before considering removal) and get a better rate too. The higher payment is a non-issue.
-
They know that ARMs are bad...
My ARM is great, buying more house than you can afford is bad.
Is it? My recent mortgage was locked in at 3.XX. Given that that's almost a historic low, how much lower are you getting and what is the value of that versus locking in a rate almost certain to go up over time?
Sorry for not replying for so long...
Yes, it is. My ARM is a 10/1 with a 2.5% interest rate locked in for the first 10 years. 10 years is longer than it will take for me to become FI, and I don't want to RE with a mortgage (or without having the ability to pay it off at-will), so by the time my rate could possibly adjust I will either have already paid off the mortgage or will be in a position to pay it off if I choose if the interest rate goes up too much.
There is literally no downside for me, and assuming I could have had a 3% 30-year fixed (which I doubt) I'm saving ~1k / year because of my choice of ARM.
-
My biggest issue with the article is the claim that homeowners "save more than those who were forced to throw away tens of thousands of dollars on rent due to their inability to buy". This isn't something you can just throw out as a truism. You need to look at it on a case by case basis to figure out if buying is a smart decision.
-
My biggest issue with the article is the claim that homeowners "save more than those who were forced to throw away tens of thousands of dollars on rent due to their inability to buy". This isn't something you can just throw out as a truism. You need to look at it on a case by case basis to figure out if buying is a smart decision.
I do think that buying a home can be a good decision for many people that are otherwise non-savers because the money they are spending on their mortgage is a form of "forced savings."
-
Yes you're pretty much right, but I still feel like putting it in the article makes it seem as though home-ownership is the right path to wealth. If the article included another paragraph on 401k savings, then I'd give them a pass, but they put a pretty big focus on the home ownership as a path to success/wealth bit.
Couldn't agree more. Even if homeownership has been a useful tool for savings, it's also been a piggy bank people instinctively raid for dumb shit and thereby screw themselves. They need to diversify.
So far in the last 11 years buying my house was the worst financial decision I've ever made.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/millennials-with-rich-parents/398501/#disqus_thread (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/millennials-with-rich-parents/398501/#disqus_thread)
Yes, our success has nothing to do with choosing sensible majors, working through college to pay tuition, and saving 50%+ of our income...grr, just completely discredits our work.
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging privilege. Whether you work hard or not.
I grew up poor in a rural area, 8th of 9 kids, college was not a thing in my family. But I worked through school, joined the Navy, and got a good job, chose a sensible major.
But I'm privileged anyway, to be smart, white, with parents who were not addicted to anything (at least not when I was a kid), and who valued hard work and taught us that lesson.
-
Yes you're pretty much right, but I still feel like putting it in the article makes it seem as though home-ownership is the right path to wealth. If the article included another paragraph on 401k savings, then I'd give them a pass, but they put a pretty big focus on the home ownership as a path to success/wealth bit.
Couldn't agree more. Even if homeownership has been a useful tool for savings, it's also been a piggy bank people instinctively raid for dumb shit and thereby screw themselves. They need to diversify.
So far in the last 11 years buying my house was the worst financial decision I've ever made.
So far in the last 6 years buying my house was the best financial decision I've ever made.
(The point is, circumstances matter and not everybody's are the same as yours.)
Also, I think there might be a "correlation is not causation" issue going on here: home ownership is correlated with wealth because (mostly) only people inclined towards saving can accumulate the necessary down payment in the first place. But those people don't become wealthy because they bought a house; they were able to buy a house because they had the right habits to become wealthy already.
-
Yes you're pretty much right, but I still feel like putting it in the article makes it seem as though home-ownership is the right path to wealth. If the article included another paragraph on 401k savings, then I'd give them a pass, but they put a pretty big focus on the home ownership as a path to success/wealth bit.
Couldn't agree more. Even if homeownership has been a useful tool for savings, it's also been a piggy bank people instinctively raid for dumb shit and thereby screw themselves. They need to diversify.
So far in the last 11 years buying my house was the worst financial decision I've ever made.
So far in the last 6 years buying my house was the best financial decision I've ever made.
(The point is, circumstances matter and not everybody's are the same as yours.)
Also, I think there might be a "correlation is not causation" issue going on here: home ownership is correlated with wealth because (mostly) only people inclined towards saving can accumulate the necessary down payment in the first place. But those people don't become wealthy because they bought a house; they were able to buy a house because they had the right habits to become wealthy already.
I would agree with this. Buying a house, going to college, and picking a high paying career have been overall, the key things to my success (of course God has been helping along the way as well). It really is amazing that people don't make these basic sacrifices for a better life.
-
Oh, I do agree though that the majority of millennials who make it these days are doing so with help from their parents. I have a friend in his mid thirties who has been coddled his entire life by his parents. They are now paying for his MBA that he has been pursuing for about 8 years now so that he can make more than $15 an hour doing book keeping work. He keeps flunking his classes at a for profit school though, and considering how much financial hand holding he needs, I can't imagine him ever becoming a CPA, unless his parents take the tests for him or something.
-
Obligatory: I am not a millennial, and this is just my n=1.
I was really proud of the fact that my success in life wasn't due to my parents, but my own hard work (scholarships for school, not taking money after I turned 19, etc, etc). Yeah, except for the unconditional love, support, and advice they gave me, as well as the knowledge that if shit hit the fan they would have my back.
Lo and behold, the shit hit the fan (divorce) and my parents stepped up big time. Loans at 4% secured with my parents collateral versus who knows what percentage loans to pay for lawyers, separating households, etc. Without their help, I don't know that I'd have been able to get joint custody of my kids, or even get my life back together. They could have just given me money, but then I wouldn't have learned anything - and I probably wouldn't be here.
It's amazing the things you take for granted because you don't know any better. Just the knowledge that the backup is there makes certain avenues easier to take. I say thank-you to my parents a lot. I love them and hope to be able to be as supportive (in every respect) for my kids as they were for me. Lots of motivations for killing the debt and striving for FI.
-
I can't imagine him ever becoming a CPA, unless his parents take the tests for him or something.
Yikes, becoming CPA requires an insanely amount of studying.
-
Oh, I do agree though that the majority of millennials who make it these days are doing so with help from their parents. I have a friend in his mid thirties who has been coddled his entire life by his parents. They are now paying for his MBA that he has been pursuing for about 8 years now so that he can make more than $15 an hour doing book keeping work. He keeps flunking his classes at a for profit school though, and considering how much financial hand holding he needs, I can't imagine him ever becoming a CPA, unless his parents take the tests for him or something.
The "majority" need help from their parents? And then you list one personal anecdote? Come on.
I'm a 30 year old "young professional" and I don't know of a single successful friend currently getting financial help from their parents. If you go back to college some had 4 years at the in-state school paid for, some had scholarships and/or jobs. The only people I know who get help from their parents now are the unsuccessful ones who had to move back home.
-
..
It's amazing the things you take for granted because you don't know any better. Just the knowledge that the backup is there makes certain avenues easier to take. I say thank-you to my parents a lot. I love them and hope to be able to be as supportive (in every respect) for my kids as they were for me. Lots of motivations for killing the debt and striving for FI.
Yep. From personal experience I know not having a strong safety net changes the dynamic, not sure how many people understand what it is like to know you cant call mom/dad up for a loan (even for some bs 1k$ car repair) or move back in with them if things ever really hit the fan. For all the problems my ex and I had she did understand that if she failed she could always move home and get a job with her parents business and have a fine life, and she got that I had none of that and was on my own. This safety net I think made her more relaxed and willing to go try something different that she ended up being very successful at.
-
Oh, I do agree though that the majority of millennials who make it these days are doing so with help from their parents. I have a friend in his mid thirties who has been coddled his entire life by his parents. They are now paying for his MBA that he has been pursuing for about 8 years now so that he can make more than $15 an hour doing book keeping work. He keeps flunking his classes at a for profit school though, and considering how much financial hand holding he needs, I can't imagine him ever becoming a CPA, unless his parents take the tests for him or something.
I think it depends what you mean by "make it" and what you mean by "help". Parents allowing their child to live at home rent free while attending college or starting a career can be tremendously helpful but does obviously not require wealthy parents. Your friend doesn't seem to be very financially successful and has received copious amounts of help from his parents.
-
So far in the last 11 years buying my house was the worst financial decision I've ever made.
Because...?
I can list one of my home buys as a terrible decision, though not necessarily the worst, but it was due to unforeseeable circumstances (bankrupt builder, foreclosures, dive in value) and I'll overcome it eventually. Getting married and divorced screwed me far worse... lol
-
Getting married and divorced screwed me far worse... lol
+1. But hey, at least I got two adorable kids out of it...
-
Yes you're pretty much right, but I still feel like putting it in the article makes it seem as though home-ownership is the right path to wealth. If the article included another paragraph on 401k savings, then I'd give them a pass, but they put a pretty big focus on the home ownership as a path to success/wealth bit.
Couldn't agree more. Even if homeownership has been a useful tool for savings, it's also been a piggy bank people instinctively raid for dumb shit and thereby screw themselves. They need to diversify.
So far in the last 11 years buying my house was the worst financial decision I've ever made.
So far in the last 6 years buying my house was the best financial decision I've ever made.
(The point is, circumstances matter and not everybody's are the same as yours.)
Also, I think there might be a "correlation is not causation" issue going on here: home ownership is correlated with wealth because (mostly) only people inclined towards saving can accumulate the necessary down payment in the first place. But those people don't become wealthy because they bought a house; they were able to buy a house because they had the right habits to become wealthy already.
Definitely truth in this. But again, circumstances vary, there are a large # of people for whom homeownership was NOT a road to wealth.
-
So far in the last 11 years buying my house was the worst financial decision I've ever made.
Because...?
I can list one of my home buys as a terrible decision, though not necessarily the worst, but it was due to unforeseeable circumstances (bankrupt builder, foreclosures, dive in value) and I'll overcome it eventually. Getting married and divorced screwed me far worse... lol
Just straight-up math from the housing bubble. Bought in 2004 (could have been worse, next door neighbors bought in 2006 and paid $100k more than we did). House is not quite worth what it was when we bought it, but it's getting close. (The "floor" of the market was $300k less than we paid for it.)
Don't get me wrong. I like my house, my neighborhood, and it's a place to live. It was never an "investment" for me.
Which is a good thing. I could have rented the house for the last 11 years for much less. Mortgage, property tax, upkeep (roof, floors, heating, windows, paint, backyard), etc...even factoring in the tax savings due to interest paid, my quick calculations tell me renting would have been $600k cheaper over the last 11 years.
-
So far in the last 11 years buying my house was the worst financial decision I've ever made.
Because...?
I can list one of my home buys as a terrible decision, though not necessarily the worst, but it was due to unforeseeable circumstances (bankrupt builder, foreclosures, dive in value) and I'll overcome it eventually. Getting married and divorced screwed me far worse... lol
Just straight-up math from the housing bubble. Bought in 2004 (could have been worse, next door neighbors bought in 2006 and paid $100k more than we did). House is not quite worth what it was when we bought it, but it's getting close. (The "floor" of the market was $300k less than we paid for it.)
Don't get me wrong. I like my house, my neighborhood, and it's a place to live. It was never an "investment" for me.
Which is a good thing. I could have rented the house for the last 11 years for much less. Mortgage, property tax, upkeep (roof, floors, heating, windows, paint, backyard), etc...even factoring in the tax savings due to interest paid, my quick calculations tell me renting would have been $600k cheaper over the last 11 years.
"600k cheaper"!!!! Did you buy football field in down town Tokyo? Closets should not have there own zip codes; if you need a moving walkway to get from your kitchen to your other kitchen you are doing it wrong :-)
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/millennials-with-rich-parents/398501/#disqus_thread (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/millennials-with-rich-parents/398501/#disqus_thread)
Yes, our success has nothing to do with choosing sensible majors, working through college to pay tuition, and saving 50%+ of our income...grr, just completely discredits our work.
I wouldn't be thowing stones when so many of your generation have multiple degrees and are flipping burgers for $11/HR while living in moms basement....
ML
-
So far in the last 11 years buying my house was the worst financial decision I've ever made.
Because...?
I can list one of my home buys as a terrible decision, though not necessarily the worst, but it was due to unforeseeable circumstances (bankrupt builder, foreclosures, dive in value) and I'll overcome it eventually. Getting married and divorced screwed me far worse... lol
Just straight-up math from the housing bubble. Bought in 2004 (could have been worse, next door neighbors bought in 2006 and paid $100k more than we did). House is not quite worth what it was when we bought it, but it's getting close. (The "floor" of the market was $300k less than we paid for it.)
Don't get me wrong. I like my house, my neighborhood, and it's a place to live. It was never an "investment" for me.
Which is a good thing. I could have rented the house for the last 11 years for much less. Mortgage, property tax, upkeep (roof, floors, heating, windows, paint, backyard), etc...even factoring in the tax savings due to interest paid, my quick calculations tell me renting would have been $600k cheaper over the last 11 years.
"600k cheaper"!!!! Did you buy football field in down town Tokyo? Closets should not have there own zip codes; if you need a moving walkway to get from your kitchen to your other kitchen you are doing it wrong :-)
Ha, I know right? The sad (?) realism of the thing - it's a 2BR, 1 BA, 1100 sf house with no garage, built in 1947 (with a driveway to a house in the back, owned by someone else), on a 5227 sq foot lot (much of which is not "usable" because of said driveway). Almost the bottom of the single family home market in this town, though some older homes are only 850-1000sf. But it's Coastal Southern California. As I explained to my FIL when we bought the house: "Just think of it as a $188k house on a $600k piece of land".
A lot of that cost was having the down payment tied up, plus prop tax, plus upkeep, plus just the cost of the mortgage (which was $3800 a month when we bought it - NOT INCLUDING PROP TAX OF $8000 a year), rent would have been $2k back then).
All for a little slice of heaven.
At least now with refi and paying down the mortgage "faster", our mortgage+prop tax+insurance is equal to rent ($2900). That's something.
-
Oh, I do agree though that the majority of millennials who make it these days are doing so with help from their parents. I have a friend in his mid thirties....
I'm in my mid-30s and I thought I was Gen-X not millennial. Damn, I don't want to be a millennial.
-
...
"600k cheaper"!!!! Did you buy football field in down town Tokyo? Closets should not have there own zip codes; if you need a moving walkway to get from your kitchen to your other kitchen you are doing it wrong :-)
Ha, I know right? The sad (?) realism of the thing - it's a 2BR, 1 BA, 1100 sf house with no garage, built in 1947 (with a driveway to a house in the back, owned by someone else), on a 5227 sq foot lot (much of which is not "usable" because of said driveway). Almost the bottom of the single family home market in this town, though some older homes are only 850-1000sf. But it's Coastal Southern California. As I explained to my FIL when we bought the house: "Just think of it as a $188k house on a $600k piece of land".
A lot of that cost was having the down payment tied up, plus prop tax, plus upkeep, plus just the cost of the mortgage (which was $3800 a month when we bought it - NOT INCLUDING PROP TAX OF $8000 a year), rent would have been $2k back then).
All for a little slice of heaven.
At least now with refi and paying down the mortgage "faster", our mortgage+prop tax+insurance is equal to rent ($2900). That's something.
So 600k is opportunity cost too. Am going to the SF bay soon, am sure I will be dreaming a bit about living there, but then I will remember my house cost what a 20% down payment is in any California city. I love the west coast but man....
-
I remember bringing up finances with my Gen X friends at a book group. They were astounded (as was I) at the number of friends my age and younger (Millennial) whose parents were paying their twenty-something kids's cell phone bills, car insurance, health care through work, and sometimes new car loans.
But I can't really talk, because my parents took out a student loan for my sister and I, in addition to the loans I got myself. Also, very privileged in many other ways. I've had the shit hit the fan and get a lot of help from family.
Also, in regards to this and other SL articles, I've noticed my friends with the most loans also went abroad for study. 96k sounds crazy, but you got to go to Cambridge?!? Nice! Or get your graduate degree in 19th Century Literature at the University of Sheffield? That's cool! But very expensive.
-
Also, in regards to this and other SL articles, I've noticed my friends with the most loans also went abroad for study. 96k sounds crazy, but you got to go to Cambridge?!? Nice! Or get your graduate degree in 19th Century Literature at the University of Sheffield? That's cool! But very expensive.
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
-
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
Nice! I had an old co-worker who went there, and yeah, her costs were about like mine. So, true, it's not everyone.
-
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
I'd venture to guess that tuition payers at most European universities are also not actively subsidizing multiple professional sport leagues or their cities' performing arts scene.
The American universities I've seen so far devote large amounts of their resources to preparing future pro athletes to play in the NFL and NBA. They provide income and training opportunities for future professional coaches for those for-profit teams and sports commentators for commercial news networks (the most highly paid people on campus generally include the football and basketball coaches). They also pay to build and maintain arenas, concert halls, and performing arts centers that are used chiefly by for-profit ventures such as traveling off-Broadway musical productions.
Although a very few universities have large endowment funds from well heeled alumni, and there are sometimes grants or city funding available, most educational institutions need to raise money every year. Very seldom does an athletics program, for example, pay for itself. Indeed, there are only about half a dozen universities where the athletics program not only pays for itself but funds other parts of the institution. The vast majority of the money in the vast majority of the schools comes from the students. In some schools, the students got so fed up paying an increasingly hefty "jock tax" for expensive athletics facilities they didn't get to use and special gyms they didn't get to work out in, the schools stopped breaking down how the funding was allocated and presented tuition in one unified fee.
-
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
I'd venture to guess that tuition payers at most European universities are also not actively subsidizing multiple professional sport leagues or their cities' performing arts scene.
The American universities I've seen so far devote large amounts of their resources to preparing future pro athletes to play in the NFL and NBA. They provide income and training opportunities for future professional coaches for those for-profit teams and sports commentators for commercial news networks (the most highly paid people on campus generally include the football and basketball coaches). They also pay to build and maintain arenas, concert halls, and performing arts centers that are used chiefly by for-profit ventures such as traveling off-Broadway musical productions.
Although a very few universities have large endowment funds from well heeled alumni, and there are sometimes grants or city funding available, most educational institutions need to raise money every year. Very seldom does an athletics program, for example, pay for itself. Indeed, there are only about half a dozen universities where the athletics program not only pays for itself but funds other parts of the institution. The vast majority of the money in the vast majority of the schools comes from the students. In some schools, the students got so fed up paying an increasingly hefty "jock tax" for expensive athletics facilities they didn't get to use and special gyms they didn't get to work out in, the schools stopped breaking down how the funding was allocated and presented tuition in one unified fee.
AMEN
Our universities are basically the minor leagues for the NBA and the NFL.
-
I don't make much and I'm still in school. Yet I'm near 90K and I have a really good savings rate going on being in my mid-20s.
I think my financial stability was me stumbling on this site. Also my parents being Asian, paid for my entire education. If I was like many other Americans, I'd be drowning in student debt, not even breaking even. So in a way, that sets me years, decades ahead of others.
Student loans are a real killer that millennials my age have to face that no one else does. Not to mention a changing job landscape. During the baby boomer years, post WWII, you could get a job anywhere w/journalism. Now...well...you know it's a useless degree. How many journalism majors are there?
But student loans are the real killer and drain. So I do agree that the chance for being successful improves dramatically if you had parents to help pay tuition, room, board.
-
The American universities I've seen so far devote large amounts of their resources to preparing future pro athletes to play in the NFL and NBA. They provide income and training opportunities for future professional coaches for those for-profit teams and sports commentators for commercial news networks (the most highly paid people on campus generally include the football and basketball coaches). They also pay to build and maintain arenas, concert halls, and performing arts centers that are used chiefly by for-profit ventures such as traveling off-Broadway musical productions.
Some big schools are like this, but a lot aren't, and most of the smaller ones aren't. I went to a university that had no football team at all. Sports weren't a big focus and they didn't have high-end arenas/venues. Current cost is right around $65k/yr in spite of that... when I went in the 90s it was more like $30k/yr and the school I went to in London was $18k/yr. (Which in retrospect is probably less than the rent on a studio apartment would have been in that part of London... it's like I rented a really shitty apartment and got free tuition and a meal plan! Somehow that makes me feel better about the complete uselessness of the classes I took that year...)
-
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
I'd venture to guess that tuition payers at most European universities are also not actively subsidizing multiple professional sport leagues or their cities' performing arts scene.
The American universities I've seen so far devote large amounts of their resources to preparing future pro athletes to play in the NFL and NBA. They provide income and training opportunities for future professional coaches for those for-profit teams and sports commentators for commercial news networks (the most highly paid people on campus generally include the football and basketball coaches). They also pay to build and maintain arenas, concert halls, and performing arts centers that are used chiefly by for-profit ventures such as traveling off-Broadway musical productions.
Although a very few universities have large endowment funds from well heeled alumni, and there are sometimes grants or city funding available, most educational institutions need to raise money every year. Very seldom does an athletics program, for example, pay for itself. Indeed, there are only about half a dozen universities where the athletics program not only pays for itself but funds other parts of the institution. The vast majority of the money in the vast majority of the schools comes from the students. In some schools, the students got so fed up paying an increasingly hefty "jock tax" for expensive athletics facilities they didn't get to use and special gyms they didn't get to work out in, the schools stopped breaking down how the funding was allocated and presented tuition in one unified fee.
I know in the case of the school I attended (Penn State) the football program brought in so much revenue that it paid all of it's expenses as well as funded most of the less popular athletic programs. I would imagine this is true at a lot of universities with popular football programs.
-
I think we have had this on the forum before.
I am a baby boomer - but when I graduated university, a lot of us went to grad school because there were so few jobs for us. Think about it, the early boomers were scarce and there were jobs, but we flooded the job market.
University - things have changed, yes. But when I was a student, walking 20 km uphill each way to class (but in the slush, not blizzard, Kingston, meh) we all had no money and made our own fun for cheap. And looked like our clothes would fall apart any moment. The hippie look was a big help. We all tried to get summer jobs at home so we could save like mad each summer for school expenses. That, or once we were living out of residence, get a job where university was so we were not stuck paying rent on an unoccupied apartment.
Seriously, when I was teaching we used to joke that we could dress for a year on what our students spent in a month - the students were so much better dressed than the faculty. And their laptops were fancier than ours. Not to mention cell phones.
Student loans are a real killer that millennials my age have to face that no one else does. Not to mention a changing job landscape. During the baby boomer years, post WWII, you could get a job anywhere w/journalism. Now...well...you know it's a useless degree. How many journalism majors are there?
But student loans are the real killer and drain. So I do agree that the chance for being successful improves dramatically if you had parents to help pay tuition, room, board.
-
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
I'd venture to guess that tuition payers at most European universities are also not actively subsidizing multiple professional sport leagues or their cities' performing arts scene.
The American universities I've seen so far devote large amounts of their resources to preparing future pro athletes to play in the NFL and NBA. They provide income and training opportunities for future professional coaches for those for-profit teams and sports commentators for commercial news networks (the most highly paid people on campus generally include the football and basketball coaches). They also pay to build and maintain arenas, concert halls, and performing arts centers that are used chiefly by for-profit ventures such as traveling off-Broadway musical productions.
Although a very few universities have large endowment funds from well heeled alumni, and there are sometimes grants or city funding available, most educational institutions need to raise money every year. Very seldom does an athletics program, for example, pay for itself. Indeed, there are only about half a dozen universities where the athletics program not only pays for itself but funds other parts of the institution. The vast majority of the money in the vast majority of the schools comes from the students. In some schools, the students got so fed up paying an increasingly hefty "jock tax" for expensive athletics facilities they didn't get to use and special gyms they didn't get to work out in, the schools stopped breaking down how the funding was allocated and presented tuition in one unified fee.
I know in the case of the school I attended (Penn State) the football program brought in so much revenue that it paid all of it's expenses as well as funded most of the less popular athletic programs. I would imagine this is true at a lot of universities with popular football programs.
Which might, possibly, come close to taking care of the athletics department and all its associated buildings, maintenance and groundskeeping. I'm not sure what the layout of the Penn State campus is like or whether the costs of maintaining those buildings is factored into the department revenue, or whether it's budgeted for separately. Many schools hide maintenance costs related to the expensive buildings by classifying maintenance as a separate budget item.
Athletics isn't the only expensive problem child a university can have. I notice that Penn State also has the impressive Eisenhower auditorium in addition to a theatre building and Esber recital hall. Do the annual student productions draw in enough revenue to cover all three buildings and the cost of the fine arts department, or is the school subsidizing them like the other campuses I've seen?
None of New Mexico's universities-- for example-- get enough revenue from athletic programs to consistently cover the athletics program costs. Same goes for fine arts. But for-profit ventures sure benefit from having access to the facilities. I'd actually like to see the professional sports association and the for-profit teams turn around and start actually funding some of the programs they benefit from, instead of just skimming the cream.
-
Ha, I know right? The sad (?) realism of the thing - it's a 2BR, 1 BA, 1100 sf house with no garage, built in 1947 (with a driveway to a house in the back, owned by someone else), on a 5227 sq foot lot (much of which is not "usable" because of said driveway). Almost the bottom of the single family home market in this town, though some older homes are only 850-1000sf. But it's Coastal Southern California. As I explained to my FIL when we bought the house: "Just think of it as a $188k house on a $600k piece of land".
A lot of that cost was having the down payment tied up, plus prop tax, plus upkeep, plus just the cost of the mortgage (which was $3800 a month when we bought it - NOT INCLUDING PROP TAX OF $8000 a year), rent would have been $2k back then).
You described our first house. $58K with taxes of about $400 a year. We sold a few years later and broke even after a new HVAC system and carpet.
-
Every report, news article and study I ever see points to Student Loan debt as being the primary factor that keeps Millenials from investing.
And I really, really do not understand that.
The median student loan debt is several thousand dollars LESS than the median new car price!
Most should be able to save and invest "just fine" if they set their minds to it.
-
Every report, news article and study I ever see points to Student Loan debt as being the primary factor that keeps Millenials from investing.
And I really, really do not understand that.
The median student loan debt is several thousand dollars LESS than the median new car price!
Most should be able to save and invest "just fine" if they set their minds to it.
Most news articles and studies are written by clueless people.
The primary reason most millennials either don't invest or under-invest is their complete ignorance when it comes to investing. Most of my high school friends who fall into that category literally just hoard cash in their checking accounts. Being gun-shy due to the '08 crash, unchecked spending, and high student loans are other lesser contributing factor.s
-
I'm not refuting that sensible decisions (choosing a major that will pay the bills, ect) help lead to success, but I can't discount having "rich" parents.
I don't know as much about the rich part, but we can't excuse how much of life is networking and having influential parents can help direct you in the right direction. There's a great comic I like.
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
In my personal case, I was able to make some stupid decisions that would have crippled some other people. For instance, I went to a public school that was out of state, so I had to pay full tuition. I'm Indian, and my parents saved for my education as well as my siblings because that was a goal they had (neither went to college). I graduated during the recession and I found it hard to get a job, but was able to move back home to save money. After working on my own for a year, my dad asked me to join his company. 4 years later I am running the company (my dad's still controls the company, but he has been decreasing his hours).
-
That is a good comic, mgo. Thanks for linking it.
-
Meh. I'm not saying that it's not an advantage to be born into wealth, but I think the world has changed enough that in Western society you have a lot of options regardless. My boyfriend is from a wealthy background and it has yet to be of much benefit - he's certainly never been able to leverage that into jobs or anything. His background actually meant he had developed a lot of bad habits that he needed to break, like eating out frequently. My working-class background has benefited both of us so much more, because I've always had useful skills like cooking, repairing things, finding jobs, and general self-reliance stuff.
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
-
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
UCL alum here. Thank you for paying international tuition rates. :)
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
-
Successful millennial here. I'm successful thanks to my parents. No, not because they're rich (they might be, depending on your threshold), but because they instilled in me the same will and determination to succeed, both in work and life.
-
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
UCL alum here. Thank you for paying international tuition rates. :)
:-P You're welcome.
I remember when I was there (1998) all the UK students were bitching about how there was some new rule (or proposed rule) that they would have to pay 1000 GBP annually to attend university in the future (instead of it being free), and how could anyone possibly afford that, etc. There were only, what, 20 weeks of classes all year? And they couldn't come up with 1000 GBP during the other 32 weeks!? That was hard to swallow when I was paying the equivalent of a full-time, full-year job's salary to attend.
-
I studied abroad in London for a year (UCL) and it was actually about 35% cheaper than my university at home, including living in a dorm and a meal plan. Even when you add in the money I spent traveling around Europe for five weeks, and the flights back and forth to Boston, it was still thousands of dollars less expensive.
That is if you are paying full price with no scholarships/grants/etc., so the math might work out differently for different people, but still... equivalent universities abroad are just not as expensive as they are in the US.
UCL alum here. Thank you for paying international tuition rates. :)
:-P You're welcome.
I remember when I was there (1998) all the UK students were bitching about how there was some new rule (or proposed rule) that they would have to pay 1000 GBP annually to attend university in the future (instead of it being free), and how could anyone possibly afford that, etc. There were only, what, 20 weeks of classes all year? And they couldn't come up with 1000 GBP during the other 32 weeks!? That was hard to swallow when I was paying the equivalent of a full-time, full-year job's salary to attend.
Blast from the past! I was there a decade after you, tuition for UK students during my time was 3,000 GBP, 10,000 GBP for Americans international students. It's ballooned to 9,000 GBP for UK students recently, and I'm too afraid to look at the price for international students. Madness.
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
Because your elderly parents live there and you have to take care of them as well? Because you don't have the extra cash to travel to a LCOL area to secure a job prior to quitting their existing job? There are lots of reasons why minimum wage earners don't flock to LCOL areas.
Yes, you can live a mustachian lifestyle in a HCOL area, but that is a lot easier to do when you have the ability to absorb financial hurdles. An unexpected car repair to the mustachian just means they save a little less that month, but for lower income folks it might mean having to rack up debt or having to skip a few meals.
I think the comic illustrates the basic point that "equal opportunity" doesn't exist in any real sense. Assuming both children were born with the same intelligence level and physical ability, the lesser privileged child would have to be exposed to privilege at a young age to even be aware that they are disadvantaged. Then, they need to have the mental maturity and perseverance to make choices to give themselves a chance to escape their current situation and improve their long term prospects, which will fly in the face of what their environment's "normal" is. The lesser child will need an incredible amount of luck to be able to rise to the same level as the more privileged child given the same amount of personal effort invested. Whether society has the obligation, resources, or ability to even the playing field is subject to debate.
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
Because your elderly parents live there and you have to take care of them as well? Because you don't have the extra cash to travel to a LCOL area to secure a job prior to quitting their existing job? There are lots of reasons why minimum wage earners don't flock to LCOL areas.
Yes, you can live a mustachian lifestyle in a HCOL area, but that is a lot easier to do when you have the ability to absorb financial hurdles. An unexpected car repair to the mustachian just means they save a little less that month, but for lower income folks it might mean having to rack up debt or having to skip a few meals.
I think the comic illustrates the basic point that "equal opportunity" doesn't exist in any real sense. Assuming both children were born with the same intelligence level and physical ability, the lesser privileged child would have to be exposed to privilege at a young age to even be aware that they are disadvantaged. Then, they need to have the mental maturity and perseverance to make choices to give themselves a chance to escape their current situation and improve their long term prospects, which will fly in the face of what their environment's "normal" is. The lesser child will need an incredible amount of luck to be able to rise to the same level as the more privileged child given the same amount of personal effort invested. Whether society has the obligation, resources, or ability to even the playing field is subject to debate.
Well, maybe the elderly parents need to be realistic and move as well, and recognize that insisting their adult children stay in a HCOL area to take care of them is greatly harming their grandchildren? What sort of terrible grandparents would voluntarily choose to have their grandchildren grow up sick all the time from living in a health-hazard dump?
Can the parents really never manage to save up enough for ONE move over the course of 18-20 years, despite working FOUR JOBS between the two of them? That seems absolutely ludicrous.
I get what the comic is saying, but I think the personal choices available to everyone can bridge so much of the gap.
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
Where did you grow up? Where does your family live?
Do you have the ability to move? Do you even have a car, money to change locations, ability to put first/last months rent in a new location?
Do you have childcare? If you move, are you giving up free childcare (sibling, parents?) Does it make sense to move?
Rent on a 2BR apartment starts at $2400 a month.
Let's say 2 people make minimum wage and manage to get 50 hours a week between two jobs a piece (a pipe dream, really). That's still not much money.
When you make a comment like: "even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick" you are greatly simplifying the issue and applying your own personal experience filter.
By the way that $2400 a month apartment in my town would be a sh*thole in a bad neighborhood, likely poorly maintained (leaky roof, mold, etc.)
Then again, a fair number of minimum wage workers and families in my town are homeless, including kids who attend my son's school.
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
Where did you grow up? Where does your family live?
Do you have the ability to move? Do you even have a car, money to change locations, ability to put first/last months rent in a new location?
Do you have childcare? If you move, are you giving up free childcare (sibling, parents?) Does it make sense to move?
Rent on a 2BR apartment starts at $2400 a month.
Let's say 2 people make minimum wage and manage to get 50 hours a week between two jobs a piece (a pipe dream, really). That's still not much money.
When you make a comment like: "even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick" you are greatly simplifying the issue and applying your own personal experience filter.
By the way that $2400 a month apartment in my town would be a sh*thole in a bad neighborhood, likely poorly maintained (leaky roof, mold, etc.)
Then again, a fair number of minimum wage workers and families in my town are homeless, including kids who attend my son's school.
Even if the place is $2400, there are apparently a bunch of other people living with them, so they wouldn't be paying that full amount unless they're also suckers on top of making bad financial decisions. I know people are bad at saving, but do you really think that a family with two adults working four jobs could not reasonably save up enough to pay for ONE MOVE over 18-20 years? Even if they put it all on a credit card, they would literally break even on the moving costs within months.
-
Well, maybe the elderly parents need to be realistic and move as well, and recognize that insisting their adult children stay in a HCOL area to take care of them is greatly harming their grandchildren? What sort of terrible grandparents would voluntarily choose to have their grandchildren grow up sick all the time from living in a health-hazard dump?
Can the parents really never manage to save up enough for ONE move over the course of 18-20 years, despite working FOUR JOBS between the two of them? That seems absolutely ludicrous.
I get what the comic is saying, but I think the personal choices available to everyone can bridge so much of the gap.
Perhaps the elderly parents have Alzheimer's and are therefore not capable of handling their own affairs. Perhaps they immigrated to the US and worked menial jobs just to give their kids a chance at a better life, and now the kids aren't soulless jerks willing to abandon their parents because they are an inconvenient burden.
I suppose it is possible that over the course of 18 years the family might not have a single unforeseen misfortune affect their financial plans so they can move.
I agree that there are numerous personal choices that affect the outcome, but the validity of the options are going to vary because of each individual's circumstances. If a teenager in high school can't earn money to attend college because they have to play "mom" to their younger siblings while their single parent is working two jobs to put food on the table, are you going to blame that teenager for not doing what is in their best interest? Did that teenager really have an option to abandon their siblings to get money for college?
-
Even if they put it all on a credit card, they would literally break even on the moving costs within months.
These folks most likely don't have a checking account, let alone a credit card. Most likely they would have to take out a payday loan to finance the job hunting trip. Should they risk that cycle of debt for a potential move?
-
Well, maybe the elderly parents need to be realistic and move as well, and recognize that insisting their adult children stay in a HCOL area to take care of them is greatly harming their grandchildren? What sort of terrible grandparents would voluntarily choose to have their grandchildren grow up sick all the time from living in a health-hazard dump?
Can the parents really never manage to save up enough for ONE move over the course of 18-20 years, despite working FOUR JOBS between the two of them? That seems absolutely ludicrous.
I get what the comic is saying, but I think the personal choices available to everyone can bridge so much of the gap.
Perhaps the elderly parents have Alzheimer's and are therefore not capable of handling their own affairs. Perhaps they immigrated to the US and worked menial jobs just to give their kids a chance at a better life, and now the kids aren't soulless jerks willing to abandon their parents because they are an inconvenient burden.
I suppose it is possible that over the course of 18 years the family might not have a single unforeseen misfortune affect their financial plans so they can move.
I agree that there are numerous personal choices that affect the outcome, but the validity of the options are going to vary because of each individual's circumstances. If a teenager in high school can't earn money to attend college because they have to play "mom" to their younger siblings while their single parent is working two jobs to put food on the table, are you going to blame that teenager for not doing what is in their best interest? Did that teenager really have an option to abandon their siblings to get money for college?
So people with Alzheimer's are incapable of moving to LCOL areas, with the help of their adult children who are also moving there? Who said anything about abandoning them? I said they should be realistic about the options and willing to move somewhere cheaper if they really need their kids to take care of them.
So you honestly believe that it's unreasonable to expect a family or two adults with four jobs, working 100+ hours a week between them, to save up a couple thousand over the course of 18-20 years? You honestly believe it would take 18 years of never having a single misfortune for this miraculous thing to happen? That's... amazing.
These folks most likely don't have a checking account, let alone a credit card. Most likely they would have to take out a payday loan to finance the job hunting trip. Should they risk that cycle of debt for a potential move?
If you're moving from somewhere that's $2400 rent to somewhere that's $700 rent, and you're pretty much guaranteed to find work at Walmart/restaurants/gas stations/etc given that you're only looking for minimum wage, HELL YES, just go, don't bother with a "job hunting trip", just MOVE. That would be a completely reasonable scenario to go into small debt for.
-
Well, maybe the elderly parents need to be realistic and move as well, and recognize that insisting their adult children stay in a HCOL area to take care of them is greatly harming their grandchildren? What sort of terrible grandparents would voluntarily choose to have their grandchildren grow up sick all the time from living in a health-hazard dump?
Can the parents really never manage to save up enough for ONE move over the course of 18-20 years, despite working FOUR JOBS between the two of them? That seems absolutely ludicrous.
I get what the comic is saying, but I think the personal choices available to everyone can bridge so much of the gap.
Perhaps the elderly parents have Alzheimer's and are therefore not capable of handling their own affairs. Perhaps they immigrated to the US and worked menial jobs just to give their kids a chance at a better life, and now the kids aren't soulless jerks willing to abandon their parents because they are an inconvenient burden.
I suppose it is possible that over the course of 18 years the family might not have a single unforeseen misfortune affect their financial plans so they can move.
I agree that there are numerous personal choices that affect the outcome, but the validity of the options are going to vary because of each individual's circumstances. If a teenager in high school can't earn money to attend college because they have to play "mom" to their younger siblings while their single parent is working two jobs to put food on the table, are you going to blame that teenager for not doing what is in their best interest? Did that teenager really have an option to abandon their siblings to get money for college?
So people with Alzheimer's are incapable of moving to LCOL areas, with the help of their adult children who are also moving there? Who said anything about abandoning them? I said they should be realistic about the options and willing to move somewhere cheaper if they really need their kids to take care of them.
So you honestly believe that it's unreasonable to expect a family or two adults with four jobs, working 100+ hours a week between them, to save up a couple thousand over the course of 18-20 years? You honestly believe it would take 18 years of never having a single misfortune for this miraculous thing to happen? That's... amazing.
These folks most likely don't have a checking account, let alone a credit card. Most likely they would have to take out a payday loan to finance the job hunting trip. Should they risk that cycle of debt for a potential move?
If you're moving from somewhere that's $2400 rent to somewhere that's $700 rent, and you're pretty much guaranteed to find work at Walmart/restaurants/gas stations/etc given that you're only looking for minimum wage, HELL YES, just go, don't bother with a "job hunting trip", just MOVE. That would be a completely reasonable scenario to go into small debt for.
Let's say the 4 children of the Alzheimer-stricken grandparents split the responsibilities as caregiver. Should our 100 hour workers force all of the families to move so they can save some money?
I am guessing they aren't working 100 hours a week because they like their jobs and hate spending time with their kids. There is no extra money to save. Because there is no extra money, taking a risk such as giving up 4 jobs for the hope of 4 equally crappy ones with enough scheduling flexibility to allow the 4 jobs to coexist while moving hundreds of miles away from their friends and family (their support system) is a ridiculous notion. I don't understand why that is so difficult for you to understand.
We can argue for days and we'll never change each other's mind. I'm going to let it drop at this point.
-
Let's say the 4 children of the Alzheimer-stricken grandparents split the responsibilities as caregiver. Should our 100 hour workers force all of the families to move so they can save some money?
I am guessing they aren't working 100 hours a week because they like their jobs and hate spending time with their kids. There is no extra money to save. Because there is no extra money, taking a risk such as giving up 4 jobs for the hope of 4 equally crappy ones with enough scheduling flexibility to allow the 4 jobs to coexist while moving hundreds of miles away from their friends and family (their support system) is a ridiculous notion. I don't understand why that is so difficult for you to understand.
We can argue for days and we'll never change each other's mind. I'm going to let it drop at this point.
But you have to compare it to the alternative of staying where they are - financial ruin, major health problems, ruining their own and their kids lives, continuing the cycle of poverty, basically an all-around disaster shit-fest. It doesn't get worse than that. You're already at the bottom. Any change you make will improve your situation.
There is extra money. There's no way for that not to be the case at 100 hours a week in the united states on ANY legal wage, given the lifestyle that they live (dumpy shared home, etc) It's just a question of what it's being spent on.
Discussions on this sort of thing sure demonstrate the glaring differences between people with an external and internal locus of control.
-
But you have to compare it to the alternative of staying where they are - financial ruin, major health problems, ruining their own and their kids lives, continuing the cycle of poverty, basically an all-around disaster shit-fest. It doesn't get worse than that. You're already at the bottom. Any change you make will improve your situation.
There is extra money. There's no way for that not to be the case at 100 hours a week in the united states on ANY legal wage, given the lifestyle that they live (dumpy shared home, etc) It's just a question of what it's being spent on.
Discussions on this sort of thing sure demonstrate the glaring differences between people with an external and internal locus of control.
I actually agree with this! They know they are in a crappy situation, but the cycle of poverty is all they know, and trying to break it given that their environment says it is normal is EXTREMELY difficult. From the outside looking at it, the "correct" choices seem obvious. But folks who escape the cycle are too few and far between to provide adequate evidence that the "correct" choices will actually work.
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
Where did you grow up? Where does your family live?
Do you have the ability to move? Do you even have a car, money to change locations, ability to put first/last months rent in a new location?
Do you have childcare? If you move, are you giving up free childcare (sibling, parents?) Does it make sense to move?
Rent on a 2BR apartment starts at $2400 a month.
Let's say 2 people make minimum wage and manage to get 50 hours a week between two jobs a piece (a pipe dream, really). That's still not much money.
When you make a comment like: "even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick" you are greatly simplifying the issue and applying your own personal experience filter.
By the way that $2400 a month apartment in my town would be a sh*thole in a bad neighborhood, likely poorly maintained (leaky roof, mold, etc.)
Then again, a fair number of minimum wage workers and families in my town are homeless, including kids who attend my son's school.
Even if the place is $2400, there are apparently a bunch of other people living with them, so they wouldn't be paying that full amount unless they're also suckers on top of making bad financial decisions. I know people are bad at saving, but do you really think that a family with two adults working four jobs could not reasonably save up enough to pay for ONE MOVE over 18-20 years? Even if they put it all on a credit card, they would literally break even on the moving costs within months.
I know a number of families in my town who are "married" to this place. They'll struggle financially but they won't leave this place b/c everyone they have ever known lives here.
-
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Paula's (and her parents', and her grandparents') childhood experiences encourage lifelong health problems. Childhood stress actually affects neural connections and increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes (so Paula visiting the hospital for her over-worked, stressed, dad isn't far-fetched).
Brain scans for children who have experienced a lot of trauma suggest that the neural connections in the parts of the brain responsible for reasoning and learning are weakened. That leads to problems with decision-making, impulse control and memory.
(emphasis added)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/flint-has-a-chance-to-improve-more-than-its-water/
Obviously, the "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" methodology to solve poverty is optimistic.
-
Rent on a 2BR apartment starts at $2400 a month.
Let's say 2 people make minimum wage and manage to get 50 hours a week between two jobs a piece (a pipe dream, really). That's still not much money.
When you make a comment like: "even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick" you are greatly simplifying the issue and applying your own personal experience filter.
If rent starts! at $2,400 that is 100% a reason to move at minimum wage no matter the circumstances, unless moving up is the goal, i.e. aspiring actor (and even that is slightly unreasonable). I live in a fairly nice 2 BR apartment with a large living space in walking distance of a grocery store, banks, several restaurants, a walmart (25 minute walk for walmart), and a good state college. It only costs $500 per month. The drop in rent of $1,900 means a federal minimum wage worker would need to work 60 less hours per week no including taxes. It would be even more if taxes are figured in, or the fact that Ohio's minimum wage is 8.10. $2,400 per month is ridiculous for minimum wage.
-
Even if they put it all on a credit card, they would literally break even on the moving costs within months.
These folks most likely don't have a checking account, let alone a credit card. Most likely they would have to take out a payday loan to finance the job hunting trip. Should they risk that cycle of debt for a potential move?
Yes, you know it's hard to explain sometimes. I've seen several families make "moves" for new jobs, careers, what have you.
It's about 50/50 - great idea vs. complete disaster.
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
Where did you grow up? Where does your family live?
Do you have the ability to move? Do you even have a car, money to change locations, ability to put first/last months rent in a new location?
Do you have childcare? If you move, are you giving up free childcare (sibling, parents?) Does it make sense to move?
Rent on a 2BR apartment starts at $2400 a month.
Let's say 2 people make minimum wage and manage to get 50 hours a week between two jobs a piece (a pipe dream, really). That's still not much money.
When you make a comment like: "even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick" you are greatly simplifying the issue and applying your own personal experience filter.
By the way that $2400 a month apartment in my town would be a sh*thole in a bad neighborhood, likely poorly maintained (leaky roof, mold, etc.)
Then again, a fair number of minimum wage workers and families in my town are homeless, including kids who attend my son's school.
Even if the place is $2400, there are apparently a bunch of other people living with them, so they wouldn't be paying that full amount unless they're also suckers on top of making bad financial decisions. I know people are bad at saving, but do you really think that a family with two adults working four jobs could not reasonably save up enough to pay for ONE MOVE over 18-20 years? Even if they put it all on a credit card, they would literally break even on the moving costs within months.
How can you be so sure that the move won't be a complete disaster? I can't imagine that it's terribly easy for two parents to both get new jobs in a new location with no family and have it all work out.
I wouldn't mind seeing statistics on that, in fact. In my own personal circle, it seems to be 50/50 (worked out great vs. complete disaster).
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
Where did you grow up? Where does your family live?
Do you have the ability to move? Do you even have a car, money to change locations, ability to put first/last months rent in a new location?
Do you have childcare? If you move, are you giving up free childcare (sibling, parents?) Does it make sense to move?
Rent on a 2BR apartment starts at $2400 a month.
Let's say 2 people make minimum wage and manage to get 50 hours a week between two jobs a piece (a pipe dream, really). That's still not much money.
When you make a comment like: "even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick" you are greatly simplifying the issue and applying your own personal experience filter.
By the way that $2400 a month apartment in my town would be a sh*thole in a bad neighborhood, likely poorly maintained (leaky roof, mold, etc.)
Then again, a fair number of minimum wage workers and families in my town are homeless, including kids who attend my son's school.
Even if the place is $2400, there are apparently a bunch of other people living with them, so they wouldn't be paying that full amount unless they're also suckers on top of making bad financial decisions. I know people are bad at saving, but do you really think that a family with two adults working four jobs could not reasonably save up enough to pay for ONE MOVE over 18-20 years? Even if they put it all on a credit card, they would literally break even on the moving costs within months.
I know a number of families in my town who are "married" to this place. They'll struggle financially but they won't leave this place b/c everyone they have ever known lives here.
Same here. There is a 7 year waiting list for subsidized housing. It's very hard to find places to live that are affordable. Many of the families have 1 or 2 jobs per adult - but one or no cars. So, moving 35-40 miles in either direction causes an additional problem. Sure, it's cheaper to live. However, with the odd jobs and odd hours, you would need 1 or 2 cars, plus the cost of gas, plus the child care that comes along with that commute. At least professionals can carpool.
Not that there aren't jobs in the other towns, but there aren't as many and they don't pay as well. Even in my educated circle, it's not uncommon to find one family member "sent ahead" for 6 months to 3 years, before the rest of the family joins them. Otherwise, huge risk.
-
One comment about the comic - if both of Paula's parents are working two jobs, and working enough hours that she rarely see them, even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick. The story would change completely if her parents were Mustachian. She would have grown up in reasonable comfort, learned a lot of self reliance skills, and gone on to a comfortable adulthood.
Not necessarily. This will GREATLY depend on where you live. HCOL? Not so much.
Well, if you're going to work at Walmart, why live in a HCOL? And in any case, I bet there are tons of Mustachians in every HCOL in America who spend less than minimum wage and live comfortably.
Where did you grow up? Where does your family live?
Do you have the ability to move? Do you even have a car, money to change locations, ability to put first/last months rent in a new location?
Do you have childcare? If you move, are you giving up free childcare (sibling, parents?) Does it make sense to move?
Rent on a 2BR apartment starts at $2400 a month.
Let's say 2 people make minimum wage and manage to get 50 hours a week between two jobs a piece (a pipe dream, really). That's still not much money.
When you make a comment like: "even at minimum wage they would make enough to not live in a health-hazard place that makes their kids sick" you are greatly simplifying the issue and applying your own personal experience filter.
By the way that $2400 a month apartment in my town would be a sh*thole in a bad neighborhood, likely poorly maintained (leaky roof, mold, etc.)
Then again, a fair number of minimum wage workers and families in my town are homeless, including kids who attend my son's school.
Even if the place is $2400, there are apparently a bunch of other people living with them, so they wouldn't be paying that full amount unless they're also suckers on top of making bad financial decisions. I know people are bad at saving, but do you really think that a family with two adults working four jobs could not reasonably save up enough to pay for ONE MOVE over 18-20 years? Even if they put it all on a credit card, they would literally break even on the moving costs within months.
I know a number of families in my town who are "married" to this place. They'll struggle financially but they won't leave this place b/c everyone they have ever known lives here.
Same here. There is a 7 year waiting list for subsidized housing. It's very hard to find places to live that are affordable. Many of the families have 1 or 2 jobs per adult - but one or no cars. So, moving 35-40 miles in either direction causes an additional problem. Sure, it's cheaper to live. However, with the odd jobs and odd hours, you would need 1 or 2 cars, plus the cost of gas, plus the child care that comes along with that commute. At least professionals can carpool.
Not that there aren't jobs in the other towns, but there aren't as many and they don't pay as well. Even in my educated circle, it's not uncommon to find one family member "sent ahead" for 6 months to 3 years, before the rest of the family joins them. Otherwise, huge risk.
If the family contains elderly people, children, or individuals with disabilities who rely on government benefits of any kind, such as Medicaid, it's not always easy or even necessarily possible to transfer that person's benefits to the new state. Anyone who gets into a situation where the supply of benefits or places is limited (such as a heavily subsidized nursing home, rehab facility, inpatient mental health facility, or subsidized apartment) generally needs to hold onto it. They can't afford to move, because they go to the end of the line in their new location and have to wait their turn. This can take years. Until such time as they are able to secure benefits for themselves, they are 100% dependent on the working or able-bodied members of the family. This means that any able-bodied working adults or teenagers get pulled away from what they're doing to take care of smaller children, disabled adults, elders, and other kinds of in-home caregiving instead of earning a living or continuing their own education.
It's the same in an economy as it is on a battlefield: killing an opponent takes one person out, but just wounding that person takes two to three people out of the action. The person who's hit is out, obviously, but it also takes one to two other people to care for him or her. When a member of a family is sick, injured, a child, very old, or otherwise in need of care, the resources to provide care for that person have to come from somewhere. They do not fall from the sky.
The battlefield analogy breaks down a bit because families (generally) aren't shooting at each other. What deals out the hits is life itself.
Sooner or later, everyone gets old, has a baby, gets sick, or picks up an injury and needs care of some kind. If you don't want that person to rot from neglect, you can either hire someone else to do the work (perhaps by checking into some kind of care facility if it's appropriate, or by putting a child in day care), or you can do the work yourself. Most families can get by if only about a third of the family members have special needs such that they require care and can't get through the day independently. But, frankly, poor families tend to have way more people with special needs like that. They're far more likely to contain adults who suffer from a physical injury, an illness exacerbated by poor nutrition or an inability to pay for preventive care, an old war wound, an untreated or untreatable mental illness, long-term incarceration, a personality disorder, an addiction, or complications related to poor education (such as functional illiteracy).
Every person who's hit requires one to two more to take care of him or her. Pretty soon there's no money left to pay for help. Then, the labor must come from the family. Eventually there are no able-bodied, trained adults left to hold down a job or earn income, or to take care of the actual children because everyone is too busy focusing on the emergency created by whoever has special needs that require attention. The kids end up fending for themselves and sometimes making bad decisions that impair their own ability to become self-supporting. Government programs can slow this process down a bit by providing some help for the elderly, sick, and disabled, but no family in their right collective mind is going to move away from such a program into a region where 100% of the burden is thrown back onto the wage earners. There just aren't enough wage earners.
-
For someone mentioning moving to a LCOL, it isn't really that easy to do for many people.
A. Finding a place to rent, and moving expenses
B.Transplanting parents from the home and neighborhood they know
C. Losing your friends
D. It's likely that Paula went to a community college local university, many may not have big network and it may not be prestigious enough to draw weight in an area that she might move to.
People like Paula are ones that I would love to hire if I find them. They are loyal to their parents, came up the hard way, and are dedicated.
On a personal note, I wouldn't be nearly as educated without the direct effort of my parents. My dad taught me algebra when I was 7. My mom made it to every parent teacher meeting and kept asking teachers for their advice on how to encourage me. I was sent to various seminars and activities. If I got a bad grade (anything lower than a A-), they would encourage me to work harder and would offer to get me a tutor if I needed one. I can't imagine Paula's parents being as able to help her. This isn't because they don't care (they do), but they may not know any better.They came from little and might not know about tutoring (or unable to afford it), they probably can't invest as much time in Paula's education as my mom was able to do. This is one of the many factors that can contribute to "success" between people from different backgrounds.
-
I had to email that article to my parents. They are both average wage earners with slightly above average savings and about to pay off their mortgage on the house I grew up in.
Subject: Great news y'all. Turns out your rich!