Overheard on Facebook

[APowers]

Posted on a former co-workers fb wall. I did a *tiny* bit of research and the "average salary wage" in 1965 was ~$35k in today's dollars, a "nice car" (Chrysler Imperial) was ~$50k.  Imagine what their dad could have done with ~$52k....



I know I have made an average of less than $26k over the last 5 years, working less than 40hrs/wk-- managed to be raising 2 kids, paid off my house entirely, and if we wanted a nice car we could afford one.

I commented in reply "Sounds like the memewriter needs to go talk to his Dad for some financial advice." There was no response.

[MgoSam]

APowers, that is a valid concern. My only caveat with such thinking is that the reason many people feel like they are working harder for less is because they are spending way more than their parents did...smartphones, cable tv, take-out are a few examples. That said, wages have stagnated in the past few decades and that is a real concern.

[tarheeldan]

FB acquantaince posts to encourage everyone to get an extended warranty on their next car purchase because her new car had to go in for new repairs and she "would have had a really hard time coming up with the cash to pay repairs". At least she bought used, it sounds like.

[randymarsh]

I saw a picture almost exactly like that yesterday on my newsfeed too. I mostly rolled my eyes because the person posting it drives a huge truck and their spouse just bought a huge SUV.

[Kitsune]

APowers, that is a valid concern. My only caveat with such thinking is that the reason many people feel like they are working harder for less is because they are spending way more than their parents did...smartphones, cable tv, take-out are a few examples. That said, wages have stagnated in the past few decades and that is a real concern.

I think that's the disconnect between mustachians and the rest of the world.

Rest of the world: "wages have stagnated, expenses keep going up, that's the whole problem!"
Mustachians: "people aren't taking responsibility for their finances and spending decisions, that's the whole problem!"

IMO: both are right. Wages ARE stagnating, and expenses DO keep rising, and that IS a larger societal issue. At the same time, people are ALSO not taking personal responsibility for their finances.

Personal responsibility will not fix broad societal issues, but it does mean that you'll wind up making the best of a possibly messed-up situation, and you'll be better off than you would otherwise.

That said, I'm pretty sure no one ever suffered from making responsible financial choices...

[merula]

I think that's the disconnect between mustachians and the rest of the world.

Rest of the world: "wages have stagnated, expenses keep going up, that's the whole problem!"
Mustachians: "people aren't taking responsibility for their finances and spending decisions, that's the whole problem!"

IMO: both are right. Wages ARE stagnating, and expenses DO keep rising, and that IS a larger societal issue. At the same time, people are ALSO not taking personal responsibility for their finances.

Personal responsibility will not fix broad societal issues, but it does mean that you'll wind up making the best of a possibly messed-up situation, and you'll be better off than you would otherwise.

That said, I'm pretty sure no one ever suffered from making responsible financial choices...

See, here's my take: an example of people not taking responsibility for their finances is the now-common habit of increasing spending with stagnant wages. Used to be that you didn't buy things you couldn't afford. Not always, clearly, but pre-credit cards it wasn't really possible to do otherwise.

And you don't *need* to go out to eat or drive a brand-new car or have a smartphone, but the internet has led us to believe that everyone does those things so we have to too.

And that's where mustachianism comes in.

[MgoSam]

I think that's the disconnect between mustachians and the rest of the world.

Rest of the world: "wages have stagnated, expenses keep going up, that's the whole problem!"
Mustachians: "people aren't taking responsibility for their finances and spending decisions, that's the whole problem!"

IMO: both are right. Wages ARE stagnating, and expenses DO keep rising, and that IS a larger societal issue. At the same time, people are ALSO not taking personal responsibility for their finances.

Personal responsibility will not fix broad societal issues, but it does mean that you'll wind up making the best of a possibly messed-up situation, and you'll be better off than you would otherwise.

That said, I'm pretty sure no one ever suffered from making responsible financial choices...

See, here's my take: an example of people not taking responsibility for their finances is the now-common habit of increasing spending with stagnant wages. Used to be that you didn't buy things you couldn't afford. Not always, clearly, but pre-credit cards it wasn't really possible to do otherwise.

And you don't *need* to go out to eat or drive a brand-new car or have a smartphone, but the internet has led us to believe that everyone does those things so we have to too.

And that's where mustachianism comes in.

Absolutely!

My point is that the two things: stagnant wages and rampant spending, aren't opposing viewpoints. I believe both have occurred. That said, individuals largely have control over one aspect and that is their spending, so that's what I feel more concerned about fixing personally. Then again, my wage is based on my company's profitability, so I guess I'm not a good example.

[Inaya]

I think that's the disconnect between mustachians and the rest of the world.

Rest of the world: "wages have stagnated, expenses keep going up, that's the whole problem!"
Mustachians: "people aren't taking responsibility for their finances and spending decisions, that's the whole problem!"

IMO: both are right. Wages ARE stagnating, and expenses DO keep rising, and that IS a larger societal issue. At the same time, people are ALSO not taking personal responsibility for their finances.

Personal responsibility will not fix broad societal issues, but it does mean that you'll wind up making the best of a possibly messed-up situation, and you'll be better off than you would otherwise.

That said, I'm pretty sure no one ever suffered from making responsible financial choices...

And you don't *need* to go out to eat or drive a brand-new car or have a smartphone, but the internet has led us to believe that everyone does those things so we have to too.

And that's where mustachianism comes in.

Keeping up with the Joneses predates the Internet by pretty big margin. I'd say it was more likely caused by TV.

[I'm a red panda]

Keeping up with the Joneses predates the Internet by pretty big margin. I'd say it was more likely caused by TV.

I think it is way before TV.
Not coveting your neighbor's (stuff*) is in the Old Testament.


*translations of which stuff varies

[dragoncar]

Keeping up with the Joneses predates the Internet by pretty big margin. I'd say it was more likely caused by TV.

I think it is way before TV.
Not coveting your neighbor's (stuff*) is in the Old Testament.


*translations of which stuff varies

Sure, it's just worse now that people are constantly exposed to new purchases (even if each of your 365 Facebook friends buys something once a year, that's 1 post per day) and the excessive curating effect of social media (where people of course only post their most impressive trips/purchases/achievements).  One of the reasons I rarely use facebook

[MgoSam]

Keeping up with the Joneses predates the Internet by pretty big margin. I'd say it was more likely caused by TV.

I think it is way before TV.
Not coveting your neighbor's (stuff*) is in the Old Testament.


*translations of which stuff varies

Sure, it's just worse now that people are constantly exposed to new purchases (even if each of your 365 Facebook friends buys something once a year, that's 1 post per day) and the excessive curating effect of social media (where people of course only post their most impressive trips/purchases/achievements).  One of the reasons I rarely use facebook

To be fair back in the olden times people saw their neighbors more often and would trade gossip. That's where "chewing the fat" comes from....people coming over to share in your good fortunate by eating the pig that you were able to get. Long story short, I imagine envy was very rampant if your neighbor had better things than you, only there's a good chance that it might be a life-or-death situation as there were safety nets other than charity of your neighbors.

That said, I totally agree with giving up FB and other social media. It's not just purchases, but experiences that can create a desire that is unhealthy for your pocketbook and your well-being.

[randymarsh]

My point is that the two things: stagnant wages and rampant spending, aren't opposing viewpoints. I believe both have occurred. That said, individuals largely have control over one aspect and that is their spending, so that's what I feel more concerned about fixing personally.

This is my general take as well. Are there issues surrounding inequality and student loan debt, etc? Of course. Should anyone in a rough situation just sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting on God/government/someone to magically fix it? Of course not!

I routinely get bitched at on reddit.com/r/personalfinance for suggesting that someone with 100K student loan debt making 20K should make more money. Usually people go on and on talking about for profit schools and how our parents in the 1970s had it so much easier and blah blah blah. Maybe that's all true. But it does nothing to fix the problem at hand.

You can spend all day thinking about the way things ought to be or you can accept that not everything is perfect and figure out what steps you should take to improve your personal situation.

[Kitsune]

My point is that the two things: stagnant wages and rampant spending, aren't opposing viewpoints. I believe both have occurred. That said, individuals largely have control over one aspect and that is their spending, so that's what I feel more concerned about fixing personally.

This is my general take as well. Are there issues surrounding inequality and student loan debt, etc? Of course. Should anyone in a rough situation just sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting on God/government/someone to magically fix it? Of course not!

I routinely get bitched at on reddit.com/r/personalfinance for suggesting that someone with 100K student loan debt making 20K should make more money. Usually people go on and on talking about for profit schools and how our parents in the 1970s had it so much easier and blah blah blah. Maybe that's all true. But it does nothing to fix the problem at hand.

You can spend all day thinking about the way things ought to be or you can accept that not everything is perfect and figure out what steps you should take to improve your personal situation.

Yes!! That was actually kinda my point - like, even if the system is a mess, there's nothing stopping you from doing the best you can within that system.would you do better in another system? Sure! Maybe! But since you're in this one, why not do what you can anyway, all while hoping it gets fixed?worst case scenario is that you're gonna do better...

[MgoSam]

My point is that the two things: stagnant wages and rampant spending, aren't opposing viewpoints. I believe both have occurred. That said, individuals largely have control over one aspect and that is their spending, so that's what I feel more concerned about fixing personally.

This is my general take as well. Are there issues surrounding inequality and student loan debt, etc? Of course. Should anyone in a rough situation just sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting on God/government/someone to magically fix it? Of course not!

I routinely get bitched at on reddit.com/r/personalfinance for suggesting that someone with 100K student loan debt making 20K should make more money. Usually people go on and on talking about for profit schools and how our parents in the 1970s had it so much easier and blah blah blah. Maybe that's all true. But it does nothing to fix the problem at hand.

You can spend all day thinking about the way things ought to be or you can accept that not everything is perfect and figure out what steps you should take to improve your personal situation.

Absolutely! A good friend of mine has a ton of student debt, but she's a teacher and her school district pays off student loans for teachers if they work ___ years (can't recall the number), so she's doing that. I don't think she likes her posting, but for the salary plus debt forgiveness she figures that it's way too good to pass up.

Another good friend had student loans from college and graduate school for architecture and her response was to keep a strict budget that she never budged from until it was cleared out. She managed to clear it in 2.5 years by doing so. Now she's saving up to buy a house in cash, though I don't think she's going to be as restrictive this time around. She's also someone that is perfectly willing to call people out on their bullshit.

[runningthroughFIRE]

I've got one.

Girl about my age (young 20s) posted a picture of the shiny new 2016 Jeep Patriot she just leased.  It's not as crazy as some of the cars out there but she's single, lives alone, and never drives off paved city streets.

[Inaya]

Keeping up with the Joneses predates the Internet by pretty big margin. I'd say it was more likely caused by TV.

I think it is way before TV.
Not coveting your neighbor's (stuff*) is in the Old Testament.

*translations of which stuff varies

Sure, it's just worse now that people are constantly exposed to new purchases (even if each of your 365 Facebook friends buys something once a year, that's 1 post per day) and the excessive curating effect of social media (where people of course only post their most impressive trips/purchases/achievements).  One of the reasons I rarely use facebook

I'm still not sure about that. People (Americans) still (as of 2014) watch WAY more TV (~3 hours per week) than they spend on the computer for leisure (~30 minutes per week). Which is actually extremely surprising to me, but they're exposed to WAY more consumerism in 3 hours of TV than in 30 minutes of computer time. Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm

Now, I'm not sure if smart phone use falls into computer time, but the fact remains that TV watching comprises at least half of the average American's leisure time. Recall that most nonMustachian Americans haven't cut the cable yet.

[JLee]

Keeping up with the Joneses predates the Internet by pretty big margin. I'd say it was more likely caused by TV.

I think it is way before TV.
Not coveting your neighbor's (stuff*) is in the Old Testament.

*translations of which stuff varies

Sure, it's just worse now that people are constantly exposed to new purchases (even if each of your 365 Facebook friends buys something once a year, that's 1 post per day) and the excessive curating effect of social media (where people of course only post their most impressive trips/purchases/achievements).  One of the reasons I rarely use facebook

I'm still not sure about that. People (Americans) still (as of 2014) watch WAY more TV (~3 hours per week) than they spend on the computer for leisure (~30 minutes per week). Which is actually extremely surprising to me, but they're exposed to WAY more consumerism in 3 hours of TV than in 30 minutes of computer time. Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm

Now, I'm not sure if smart phone use falls into computer time, but the fact remains that TV watching comprises at least half of the average American's leisure time. Recall that most nonMustachian Americans haven't cut the cable yet.

I believe that's hours per day, not per week.

[Inaya]

Keeping up with the Joneses predates the Internet by pretty big margin. I'd say it was more likely caused by TV.

I think it is way before TV.
Not coveting your neighbor's (stuff*) is in the Old Testament.

*translations of which stuff varies

Sure, it's just worse now that people are constantly exposed to new purchases (even if each of your 365 Facebook friends buys something once a year, that's 1 post per day) and the excessive curating effect of social media (where people of course only post their most impressive trips/purchases/achievements).  One of the reasons I rarely use facebook

I'm still not sure about that. People (Americans) still (as of 2014) watch WAY more TV (~3 hours per week) than they spend on the computer for leisure (~30 minutes per week). Which is actually extremely surprising to me, but they're exposed to WAY more consumerism in 3 hours of TV than in 30 minutes of computer time. Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm

Now, I'm not sure if smart phone use falls into computer time, but the fact remains that TV watching comprises at least half of the average American's leisure time. Recall that most nonMustachian Americans haven't cut the cable yet.

I believe that's hours per day, not per week.

Oops, that's correct. My brain switches off when I see charts with numbers in them. It's a survival mechanism.


Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that half of all leisure time is TV, whereas Internet/computer use is much, much lower in comparison.

[BDWW]

My point is that the two things: stagnant wages and rampant spending, aren't opposing viewpoints. I believe both have occurred. That said, individuals largely have control over one aspect and that is their spending, so that's what I feel more concerned about fixing personally.

This is my general take as well. Are there issues surrounding inequality and student loan debt, etc? Of course. Should anyone in a rough situation just sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting on God/government/someone to magically fix it? Of course not!

I routinely get bitched at on reddit.com/r/personalfinance for suggesting that someone with 100K student loan debt making 20K should make more money. Usually people go on and on talking about for profit schools and how our parents in the 1970s had it so much easier and blah blah blah. Maybe that's all true. But it does nothing to fix the problem at hand.

You can spend all day thinking about the way things ought to be or you can accept that not everything is perfect and figure out what steps you should take to improve your personal situation.

Yes!! That was actually kinda my point - like, even if the system is a mess, there's nothing stopping you from doing the best you can within that system.would you do better in another system? Sure! Maybe! But since you're in this one, why not do what you can anyway, all while hoping it gets fixed?worst case scenario is that you're gonna do better...

The colloquial response to such a situation around here is "Wish in one hand, sh*t in the other, and see which fills up faster."

[mm1970]

Keeping up with the Joneses predates the Internet by pretty big margin. I'd say it was more likely caused by TV.

I think it is way before TV.
Not coveting your neighbor's (stuff*) is in the Old Testament.

*translations of which stuff varies

Sure, it's just worse now that people are constantly exposed to new purchases (even if each of your 365 Facebook friends buys something once a year, that's 1 post per day) and the excessive curating effect of social media (where people of course only post their most impressive trips/purchases/achievements).  One of the reasons I rarely use facebook

I'm still not sure about that. People (Americans) still (as of 2014) watch WAY more TV (~3 hours per week) than they spend on the computer for leisure (~30 minutes per week). Which is actually extremely surprising to me, but they're exposed to WAY more consumerism in 3 hours of TV than in 30 minutes of computer time. Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm

Now, I'm not sure if smart phone use falls into computer time, but the fact remains that TV watching comprises at least half of the average American's leisure time. Recall that most nonMustachian Americans haven't cut the cable yet.

This is kind of how I feel.  I grew up in the 70s/80s, and I watched a LOT of TV while doing homework.  Hours a day really.  But we only had 3-4 channels.

So, I watched Brady Bunch, MASH, shows like that. They weren't over the top.

And then I remember watching 90210 and Fresh Prince - but by then I was in college and I think we all knew it was over-the-top fake.  At least for a country girl from Western PA.

TV now seems like "everyone is middle class" but they aren't.  At least we had Roseanne.

[randymarsh]

And then I remember watching 90210 and Fresh Prince - but by then I was in college and I think we all knew it was over-the-top fake.  At least for a country girl from Western PA.

TV now seems like "everyone is middle class" but they aren't.  At least we had Roseanne.

I love Fresh Prince, but I thought they established pretty well that this was an upper class family. It wasn't pretending that lifestyle was "normal".  Friends to me is the ultimate suspension of disbelief. Half of them were unemployed most of the time living in huge Manhattan apartments.

[Paul der Krake]

And then I remember watching 90210 and Fresh Prince - but by then I was in college and I think we all knew it was over-the-top fake.  At least for a country girl from Western PA.

TV now seems like "everyone is middle class" but they aren't.  At least we had Roseanne.

I love Fresh Prince, but I thought they established pretty well that this was an upper class family. It wasn't pretending that lifestyle was "normal".  Friends to me is the ultimate suspension of disbelief. Half of them were unemployed most of the time living in huge Manhattan apartments.

Oh my, yes. Don't get me wrong, I love Friends and understand it's comedy.

The most unbelievable part for me was when Joey and Chandler have a falling out, and Chandler reminds the audience that he has been paying Joey's part of the rent for years like it's just a moderate favor.

[dragoncar]

And then I remember watching 90210 and Fresh Prince - but by then I was in college and I think we all knew it was over-the-top fake.  At least for a country girl from Western PA.

TV now seems like "everyone is middle class" but they aren't.  At least we had Roseanne.

I love Fresh Prince, but I thought they established pretty well that this was an upper class family. It wasn't pretending that lifestyle was "normal".  Friends to me is the ultimate suspension of disbelief. Half of them were unemployed most of the time living in huge Manhattan apartments.

Oh my, yes. Don't get me wrong, I love Friends and understand it's comedy.

The most unbelievable part for me was when Joey and Chandler have a falling out, and Chandler reminds the audience that he has been paying Joey's part of the rent for years like it's just a moderate favor.

Chandler makes a LOT of money as a transponster, so it's no big deal

[nobodyspecial]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

[dragoncar]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

[MgoSam]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

[dragoncar]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

[AlanStache]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

They are saying that Danny in Full House makes half what the Winslows did in Family Matters and just a bit more than Homer Jay Simpson?  Somehow I always thought that Danny had some family money or did well before the shows time too.

Under sources they list only the page the chart is on.  Are there good public data on income by occupation over the last few decades and housing prices?  Was the 'analysis' done in today's dollars or 80's?

I probably have better things to be thinking about today...

[crispy]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

 

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

They are saying that Danny in Full House makes half what the Winslows did in Family Matters and just a bit more than Homer Jay Simpson?  Somehow I always thought that Danny had some family money or did well before the shows time too.

Under sources they list only the page the chart is on.  Are there good public data on income by occupation over the last few decades and housing prices?  Was the 'analysis' done in today's dollars or 80's?

I probably have better things to be thinking about today...

He was a widower so I always assumed that he received life insurance after his wife died. And yes, I have spent way too much time thinking about the lives of sitcom characters.

[onecoolcat]

Anyone seen the FB post titled "Make Monsanto Mad!!" with the ingredients to a simple weed killer (epsom salt, vinegar, dish detergent, etc)?  Good tip, cheaper and very MMM way to tend the yard, but it really tipped something over in me considering who shared it this time. 

This was posted by an idiot relative who must be the dumbest woman I have ever met.  She loves to harp all about this kind of greenie-mama earth stuff and loves to share posts that are all about Sticking it to The Man and railing against Big Corporations. 

Meanwhile she smoked and drank her way through two pregnancies and has idiot children to show for it--no kidding, one has all the physical and mental markers of prenatal alcohol syndrome, both are adults now and are really messed up losers who can't stray too far from the Jack Daniels or the bong to work or get some education and skills.  I just can't deal with the self-righteous bullshit she is always spewing when the one thing she had 100% control over was just too hard to do, i.e. cut the booze and smicks while hatching the brood. 

I would love to point this out to her in response to her most ridiculous "they are poisoning us!" posts, but I just can't.  She is not worth dealing with the fallout from everyone she is linked to.  BTW, no, she has not adopted clean living in the last 25 years and is making up for harming her kids--she still smokes and tokes and guzzles as much as ever.  And her house is a hoard, filthy, disgusting, full of crap.  She is just crazy I guess.

Maybe you should unfriend her because you obviously despise her and her "brood".

[MgoSam]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

They are saying that Danny in Full House makes half what the Winslows did in Family Matters and just a bit more than Homer Jay Simpson?  Somehow I always thought that Danny had some family money or did well before the shows time too.

Under sources they list only the page the chart is on.  Are there good public data on income by occupation over the last few decades and housing prices?  Was the 'analysis' done in today's dollars or 80's?

I probably have better things to be thinking about today...

For the Simpsons, they were gifted the house by Grandpa Abe.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

As fun as it is to giggle about how (un)realistic TV people's standards of living are compared to what a real person could afford or actually do, isn't that part of the point of the entertainment? On TV, the finances are just as fake as the tits and the eyelashes.

[LazyBones]

A young family that is friends with my DW and I recently sold their home and moved in with the parents to save money to pay off debts and get back on their feet.
A couple of weeks ago, they traded in one of their cars and purchased a slightly used minivan.
On top of that, one of them also just recently left their job that was close to home and got a new job that is about 45 minutes away.  I don't think there was much of a pay increase, if any.

Over the weekend on Facebook, I saw a post where they decided to drive 3 hours one way to go on a shopping trip.

[dragoncar]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

They are saying that Danny in Full House makes half what the Winslows did in Family Matters and just a bit more than Homer Jay Simpson?  Somehow I always thought that Danny had some family money or did well before the shows time too.

Under sources they list only the page the chart is on.  Are there good public data on income by occupation over the last few decades and housing prices?  Was the 'analysis' done in today's dollars or 80's?

I probably have better things to be thinking about today...

It's almost certainly today's real estate prices and today's salaries in today's dollars.  If their point is that SF of today has gotten unaffordable for the middle class, then they are right-- just watch full house revamped.  But when the show actually aired, I don't think it was crazy (besides being comically large perhaps, as all TV sets are)

[Inaya]

Guy posts photos of his new house.

A few hours later, same guy starts begging people for furniture, appliances, flatware, etc. to fill it.

I can't decide if he was Mustachian for furnishing the house with freebies, or Antimustachian for spending so much on the house he couldn't afford to furnish it.

[Chris22]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

They are saying that Danny in Full House makes half what the Winslows did in Family Matters and just a bit more than Homer Jay Simpson?  Somehow I always thought that Danny had some family money or did well before the shows time too.

Under sources they list only the page the chart is on.  Are there good public data on income by occupation over the last few decades and housing prices?  Was the 'analysis' done in today's dollars or 80's?

I probably have better things to be thinking about today...

For the Simpsons, they were gifted the house by Grandpa Abe.

I remember there was an episode where Homer and Marge paid off their mortgage, and then Homer takes out a new mortgage on their house so he can give the money to Moe and save his bar.  So they had a mortgage.  I have no idea why I remember this, or why I feel it important to correct you.

[MgoSam]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

They are saying that Danny in Full House makes half what the Winslows did in Family Matters and just a bit more than Homer Jay Simpson?  Somehow I always thought that Danny had some family money or did well before the shows time too.

Under sources they list only the page the chart is on.  Are there good public data on income by occupation over the last few decades and housing prices?  Was the 'analysis' done in today's dollars or 80's?

I probably have better things to be thinking about today...

For the Simpsons, they were gifted the house by Grandpa Abe.

I remember there was an episode where Homer and Marge paid off their mortgage, and then Homer takes out a new mortgage on their house so he can give the money to Moe and save his bar.  So they had a mortgage.  I have no idea why I remember this, or why I feel it important to correct you.

I stand corrected, turns out that Abe gave them the money for the down-payment, I thought he paid for the entire house.

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/742_Evergreen_Terrace

[dragoncar]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

They are saying that Danny in Full House makes half what the Winslows did in Family Matters and just a bit more than Homer Jay Simpson?  Somehow I always thought that Danny had some family money or did well before the shows time too.

Under sources they list only the page the chart is on.  Are there good public data on income by occupation over the last few decades and housing prices?  Was the 'analysis' done in today's dollars or 80's?

I probably have better things to be thinking about today...

For the Simpsons, they were gifted the house by Grandpa Abe.

I remember there was an episode where Homer and Marge paid off their mortgage, and then Homer takes out a new mortgage on their house so he can give the money to Moe and save his bar.  So they had a mortgage.  I have no idea why I remember this, or why I feel it important to correct you.

I stand corrected, turns out that Abe gave them the money for the down-payment, I thought he paid for the entire house.

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/742_Evergreen_Terrace

I like how you guys expect the Simpsons to have internal consistency. 

[frugalnacho]

I like how you guys expect the Simpsons to have internal consistency.

Itchy should've tied Scratchy's tongue with a taut-line hitch, not a sheet bend.

[MgoSam]

I like how you guys expect the Simpsons to have internal consistency.

Itchy should've tied Scratchy's tongue with a taut-line hitch, not a sheet bend.

Ahh this brings back memories of my childhood, LOVE this show. I haven't watched it in some time, are the new episodes good?

[frugalnacho]

Ahh this brings back memories of my childhood, LOVE this show. I haven't watched it in some time, are the new episodes good?

No.  I've only caught a few episodes here and there, but they are a completely different beast from the early episodes.  Seasons 4 through 10 are pure gold.  That particular episode was from season 5 I believe.

[hernandz]

http://www.movoto.com/blog/novelty-real-estate/sitcom-cribs/ Which TV characters could afford their apartments

Full house was in the 80s though... SF was probably cheaper

That's an understatement if ever I heard one.

Sorry, I meant full house was LIKE, TOTALLY set in the 80s

Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people [post] topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. 

[BTDretire]

I like how you guys expect the Simpsons to have internal consistency.

Itchy should've tied Scratchy's tongue with a taut-line hitch, not a sheet bend.

Lmftfy, 800 pixels wide, then you can see the whole picture.
 OK, sorry, it looks correct in preview, but not after I save it.
I tried twice, I don't understand.

[Ceridwen]

Re: The Full House house, in the "Fuller House" reboot on Netflix (don't judge, I'm an 80s baby and I LOVED IT), Jesse makes a comment to Danny (who decides to give the house to his daughters instead of selling it) along the lines of "do you even know how much this house is worth?!?".

[infogoon]

Re: The Full House house, in the "Fuller House" reboot on Netflix (don't judge, I'm an 80s baby and I LOVED IT), Jesse makes a comment to Danny (who decides to give the house to his daughters instead of selling it) along the lines of "do you even know how much this house is worth?!?".

I was in San Francisco a few years ago with my wife, and we bought a day pass on one of those sight-seeing buses that drives around the city. The driver told us that tour companies weren't allowed to stop in front of the houses from the exterior shots in Full House any more because passengers kept yelling stuff like "Is Kimmy Gibbler there?!" at the residents.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Re: The Full House house, in the "Fuller House" reboot on Netflix (don't judge, I'm an 80s baby and I LOVED IT), Jesse makes a comment to Danny (who decides to give the house to his daughters instead of selling it) along the lines of "do you even know how much this house is worth?!?".

I was in San Francisco a few years ago with my wife, and we bought a day pass on one of those sight-seeing buses that drives around the city. The driver told us that tour companies weren't allowed to stop in front of the houses from the exterior shots in Full House any more because passengers kept yelling stuff like "Is Kimmy Gibbler there?!" at the residents.

Two of the houses used in "Breaking Bad" a few years ago are up for sale. One of the problems is the constant tour traffic. It's great for the tour companies but bad for the residents and neighbors. The extra vehicles in a residential area are a huge pain, and while it's common for individuals to think that their disruptive comment is "no big deal", when it happens on a daily basis it interferes with your basic comfort and safety in your own home. It also creates a maintenance burden. One homeowner regularly has to go out and retrieve garbage thrown onto his property because people keep trying to hurl pizza onto his roof to re-enact one of the scenes from the series. Overall, I don't think that whatever they made hiring their house out for the shoot was worth the resulting pain in the tush.

[Kitsune]

"I don't eat out much! I only order take-out once a week, and go to restaurants 1-2 nights a week... oh, and of course I buy lunch at work, but I always bring breakfast!"

... In comparison, that 25$/person meal we had this weekend, which was our first restaurant meal in 2016, almost seems reasonable. Ye gods.

[Magilla]

Re: The Full House house, in the "Fuller House" reboot on Netflix (don't judge, I'm an 80s baby and I LOVED IT), Jesse makes a comment to Danny (who decides to give the house to his daughters instead of selling it) along the lines of "do you even know how much this house is worth?!?".

I was in San Francisco a few years ago with my wife, and we bought a day pass on one of those sight-seeing buses that drives around the city. The driver told us that tour companies weren't allowed to stop in front of the houses from the exterior shots in Full House any more because passengers kept yelling stuff like "Is Kimmy Gibbler there?!" at the residents.

Two of the houses used in "Breaking Bad" a few years ago are up for sale. One of the problems is the constant tour traffic. It's great for the tour companies but bad for the residents and neighbors. The extra vehicles in a residential area are a huge pain, and while it's common for individuals to think that their disruptive comment is "no big deal", when it happens on a daily basis it interferes with your basic comfort and safety in your own home. It also creates a maintenance burden. One homeowner regularly has to go out and retrieve garbage thrown onto his property because people keep trying to hurl pizza onto his roof to re-enact one of the scenes from the series. Overall, I don't think that whatever they made hiring their house out for the shoot was worth the resulting pain in the tush.

I think the lesson here is to have your house for sale right before the episode/movie airs.  Capitalize on the publicity but before people go ape-shit.

[cats]

A friend is moving cities for a new job.  Leading up to the move, she has been freaking out about the expense of moving on FB, which is understandable, right?  Moving is a pain, and even cheap moving can feel like a big chunk of money.  I sympathize.

This week (post-move), she writes a post about how totally worth it the $99 fee for Ikea delivery is, because they bought furnishings for an entire apartment.  Friend does own a car. Which made me wonder:

1) The cost of moving was a problem, but you can afford to go out and buy a bunch of new (albeit Ikea) furnishings?  There is this thing called Craigslist.

2) Isn't almost everything large at Ikea sold in that nice flat package format that makes it easy to fit into just about any car?  She did move her mattress, so I'm at a loss as to what other large and awkward-to-fit-in-a-car type items she might have bought.

[PMG]

It makes me wonder what they moved if they didn't move furniture and homegoods?

Perhaps by cost of moving they are referring to security deposits, etc.

A friend is moving cities for a new job.  Leading up to the move, she has been freaking out about the expense of moving on FB, which is understandable, right?  Moving is a pain, and even cheap moving can feel like a big chunk of money.  I sympathize.

This week (post-move), she writes a post about how totally worth it the $99 fee for Ikea delivery is, because they bought furnishings for an entire apartment.  Friend does own a car. Which made me wonder:

1) The cost of moving was a problem, but you can afford to go out and buy a bunch of new (albeit Ikea) furnishings?  There is this thing called Craigslist.

2) Isn't almost everything large at Ikea sold in that nice flat package format that makes it easy to fit into just about any car?  She did move her mattress, so I'm at a loss as to what other large and awkward-to-fit-in-a-car type items she might have bought.