FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
This afternoon I was listening to the economic plan of a presidential candidate. It included $6,000 for a new baby, more money for child care, money toward buying a home and more. Absent was any reference to deficits or debt.
In any case, I thought back to our life raising four children on one income and in the early years on a glorified clerks salary. I do recall sky high inflation in the 80s and no gas in the 70s
I don’t recall any subsidies or tax credits or rebates. No assistance buying our first very modest starter home with a 9-1/2% mortgage and required 10% down payment. No child care payments – that was Connie.
Somehow we made it all work. We didn’t live on credit. What is so different about 2024?
What didn’t we have or do that is considered a necessity today?
How did we get by on one income when today two incomes seem inadequate?
Political promises have also inflated. We are a long way from “a chicken in every pot.”
It is not lifestyle ” creep”, rather it is a lifestyle, “speeding along at light speed, squared.” Larger homes, more gadgets, huge SUVS and pick up trucks, body piercings and tattoos, etc. If someone spends a thousand on a tattoo, for example, at 18 years old, rather than putting it in a Roth, that could be, gross of inflation, a whopping $ 32,000 error, over 50 years. And, please , stop buying bottled water. At many venues, water is sold for15 bucks a pint. that is a tremendous $120.00 per GALLON! Of course, gasoline is much too pricey,in my area, about 3 a gallon. Hmmmm?
Ye gads, you sound like me. Better be careful, you will end up the new much maligned ranter in residence.
I do agree there has been some lifestyle creep in expectations over the years. But I’m not sure that is a bad thing. It seems this post touched a nerve-as Quinn notes, it’s election season. It’s surely a coincidence that his 2 posts this week were pro-billionaire and questioning government support from a presidential candidate as a lead-in.
I think you are right, the political rhetoric may have triggered my writing, on these subjects as it is hard to escape it, but with no political agenda other than thinking about the issues beyond rhetoric and perhaps a tad closer to reality.
Now this really is a handgrenade so please accept this isn’t a comment on anyone’s specific life choices. But it struck me the number of posts on HD that seem to take pride in the number of kids and grandkids the posters have spawned.
Surely at least part of the problem ( including for the planet as a whole) is the sheer number of humans. All competing and striving for somewhat limited resources, while a capitalist economic system celebrates their utility as literal growth to be serviced at a price.
Only intended to be political at a supra national philosophical level so please don’t think I’m advocating communism or restriction of personal choice. But people in part are the problem. The traffic you’re stuck in isn’t other people it’s you.
You might be interested in the following page on demographics. Bottom line, based only on the current demographic trends it’s likely the world’s population will peak about 2080 and drop rather quickly. For example, current projections have China’s population dropping by slightly more than half by 2100. Even India has now dropped their fertility rate below replacement value (ie. 2.1), but due to demographic momentum their population will continue to rise until about the 2060’s before starting it’s decline. Right now there’s no indication in the data of any reversal of the significant and continuing decline in the worldwide women fertility rate. If these trends continue this planet’s population will greatly decrease over the next 300 years. Peak global population and other key findings from the 2024 UN World Population Prospects – Our World in Data
I should have noted that you can edit the various graphs displayed and add countries. For example, by adding the United States to the fertility rate and population graphs, you can see that while the USA fertility rate is well below break even, our population continues to increase based on historical & projected immigration rates. I just thought I’d mention this as it makes playing with the graphs a lot more fun and insightful.
You said this isn’t a comment on anyone’s specific lifestyle choices and then go right ahead and criticize most people’s specific lifestyle choices. 😂
OK best not mention it so no one identifies the connection between having 4+ kids and things being tougher for succeeding generations.
We haven’t really hit peak tough yet IMV when AI wipes out whole tiers of professional grade jobs.
Lol. My kids are the “succeeding generations”. They will be paying your bills. You’re welcome.
Boy this feels like a rare post that brought out the knives. I can’t say I disagree with the post, all I get is it wondering why times are so different. Are some important things more expensive now, yes but so are wages. Do people have more stuff, yes partly because there are a lot more choices than when I was younger. To me that’s a good thing. I think the political posts started to take this a little off base. I do have to respectfully disagree with the one implying money and corruption in politics has something to do with things now. Both have always been around. It’s just with social media it is easier to bring things to light. But all that is for a different post.
Some of the comments and assumptions have taken this post way off base.
I related that we raised a family with four children in the 70s and 80s on one income – just a fact. I asked how we did that, what was different and I speculated that changes in our society in the 1960s changed our culture eventually making two income families a necessity not only because of prices, but demand for things that we never considered raising our family.
I never said we had it harder in the old days, but certainly different. At least in our family if it wasn’t affordable we simply did not have it. One income meant less stuff.
However, I listen to the complaints raised today, the moaning about difficulties even lack of opportunity and it seems to me those ideas ignore the history of the 19th century with everything from a major pandemic, multiple world wars, military draft disrupting lives, a Great Depression, inflation, deadly illnesses affecting children and more.
So, if one wants to compare the first quarter of the 21st century with the 20th, I think these times are pretty darn good – for everyone, even the lowest income.
And I stand by my theory that society encouraged two income families and that raised family income at all levels, caused lifestyle creep which eventually caused higher prices because of higher demand thus making two incomes a virtual necessity.
Merely observing our lifestyles, the stuff we accumulate, the homes we live in, the cars we drive and what we spend on non necessities I feel demonstrates my theory in action relative to every income level.
What part of “women wanted to work” is so hard for you to understand?
No part, what’s your point? I assume they went to work because they wanted to rather than be homemakers and society in the 60s and 70s encouraged them to do so, but regardless why, the long term affects were the same and today working is not as much of a choice as it once was. Do you think middle class families have much choice about two working adults?
You apparently think that women working outside the home (of course, they did all the work inside) was a mistake. I don’t. If companies paid a decent wage instead of worrying about Wall Street we would all be better off. And individuals, not just couples, are working two or more jobs because wages are low.
Not sure how you jump to that conclusion but my views on women working has nothing to do with this post. A mistake? Not a mistake, but a change that had undeniable consequences. Some people view those consequences as positive, some not, I think some of both.
I think your blanket remark that companies are not paying a decent wage is curious.
I would bet your very retirement (investments) for which you have stated you hope you don’t run out of money, is dependent on companies paying attention to Wall Street, growing earnings and paying dividends. It’s all connected.
I entered the corporate world in 1961 and saw first hand the unwritten rules about women and minorities – not many hired and even fewer getting decent promotions and none in management positions. Over the years that changed and even reversed where a woman or minority had an advantage over a white man.
When I retired in 2010, my boss, a SVP was a woman I had hired many decades before. She worked hard, advanced her education and deserved her achievements. She was making $300,000 a year and in the years after I left advanced to ExVP and member of the executive committee. How do I know her salary? I recommended it to the CEO. By then there were several women on the BOD as well.
Companies used to increase in value without a slavish concern about Wall Street. You only have to look at what’s happened to Boeing since the share price became more important than quality.
My parents never had to worry about the stock market because UK pensions had COLAs. The only reason I have to is because my US pension does not.
I think we need Jonathan’s view on companies paying attention to earnings and Wall Street, but I never remember when that was not true. However, I think the short-term focus is wrong.
My pension does not have a COLA, never did since established in 1911.
The issue for most people is not a pension without a COLA, but the absence of a pension and thus the importance of investment performance.
I think there’s two forces at play here in US culture that we touch on here at Humble Dollar, but don’t really get their due.
One is that the US is a sales driven culture rife with hucksterism. Sell, sell, sell and buy, buy,buy. You see it with our restaurants (it’s why plates of food are so large here compared to the rest of the world) and You see it in housing. The average person isn’t buying more than one house, so how do you get more money out of them? Easy – Sell a bigger house. Same with dinner entrees. Never mind the health issues from eating too much or the financial jam from too much house.
Which brings me to the second force – lack of personal financial education. I speak from personal experience on this and I assume it’s the reason many of us are here.
i think these twin forces are really the common thread over the decades regardless of any sociodemographic changes.
Figuring this out is way above my pay grade but I always use the eye test … just what is in all those ubiquitous monstrous storage buildings that now dot the landscape and why??? Something happened … the internet? home shopping? Amazon? lifestyle creep? Guess we can take the word minimalism out of dictionary
One of my challenges in getting older is not becoming the curmudgeon who tells people “back in my day…”. My two sons would say I lost that battle when they were kids 30 years ago. My wife too! How many times have they heard my stories of working when I was 9, paying rent when I was 12, living without a bedroom until I was an adult. I love/hate the story of how the average house has doubled in size, while the average family is 50% smaller. Each generation has new challenges and new advantages. I can imagine the outrage from some when social security was introduced. I did it on my own; why is the government helping out. My kids couldn’t buy a home in CA if they wanted to, even with two salaries. My wife and I, both without college degrees but both working full-time with kids, were able to do so when we were in our 20s. Our situation is both unique and the same as others our ages. Do people change or does our culture and society help influence differing priorities and desires. Dickens would say probably both. If I ran the world I would hope we focus less on financial gains and goodies and more on the spiritual and human goodies like love, friendship and joy. What worked for me may or may not work for you. And if you aren’t a white, older, male you didn’t/won’t have the benefits I got that I had nothing to do with. New times mean new solutions. Less greed and more generosity and gratitude are always in season.
Most HumbleDollar readers are either retired or close to it, and their perspective on the world tends to reflect their age. Some declare that things were better in the “good old days,” while also wringing their hands over how easy younger generations have it today and how those in their 20s, 30s and 40s live (excessively) high on the hog.
This brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon from decades ago. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” reads Charles Dickens’ book editor, as he reviews the manuscript for A Tale of Two Cities. “Now, come along Mr. Dickens, it could hardly have been both.”
Could things really have been so much better in the 1960s, while things are also far too good for younger adults in 2024? Is it really possible to claim that folks have been living in a bubble in recent decades — a bubble that has somehow failed to burst? That’s a contention that’s hard to sustain. So, which is it? Is the world a better place than it was 50 or 60 years ago — or isn’t it? Count me among those who see impressive, if uneven, progress.
May be due to more money and corruption in politics now so it costs more to live.
One element of the point I’m trying to make.
Here’s a sample, with the figure referring to the average floor area of a new single-family home:
All the while the average family size declining.
Who says it’s young people buying bigger houses? Isn’t it possible that older people are the ones driving this trend?
I don’t know, who said it was young people? On the other hand, older people – over 50 say tend more toward downsizing than upgrading.
I can’t help but think that this thread and many of Quinn’s other articles and threads are off-putting to younger folks who come to HD looking for financial advice. If I was in my 20s or 30s and encountered multiple threads like this one I think I would conclude HD was not for me.
Is there something factually inaccurate? What do you find offputting?
Is it not true that most couples need two incomes when in the past one would suffice? Is it not true the size of American homes has grown considerably- second highest in the world actually – with more amenities and higher prices?
How did families get by on one income in the past while it is very difficult today? I say societal changes over decades and perhaps spending priorities, demand for things and lifestyles.
If you have other ideas, let’s hear them. One thing for sure, there are reasons, it just didn’t happen without drivers and changes.
Also to working women!! I was a university professor for over 30 years. During that time, our family lived in the same house we had bought when my husband was the sole earner. We had one car, which I drove 50 miles one way to work, and took no fancy, expensive vacations. So where my salary go? First to paying off my student loans, and then to assuring that our children graduated college debt free. Gross consumerism was not the primary reason I worked; rather,I worked for the satisfaction many men gain from employment.
I’m one of those childless cat ladies, except I don’t have a cat. I cannot imagine having to stay home instead of having an interesting and demanding job. It’s not that long ago that women couldn’t get credit cards in their own names, never mind mortgages. Dick seems to be suffering from nostalgia for an age that most women are more than happy to have escaped.
Ok, that’s fine I am sure other families did the same, but not everyone and I hope you will acknowledge that two income families in the late 60s and for several years had more money to spend and many upgraded their lives.
That increased demand and we know what that does. I think we need to look at the big picture knowing there are always exceptions.
I have a PHD in Business and was a tenured Professor of Marketing, so I do well understand supply and demand. However, it is totally wrong to assume that women flooded the labor market in the 60s and 70s and obtained high paying jobs so that they could afford the luxuries you mention. The women, who entered the labor force in those decades were well educated, but their abilities were most often downplayed by male employers. The jobs we took were often low paying work for which we were overqualified that we hoped might lead to “something better.” (My father who overheard what one employer offered me suggest that I respond with the statement that “I can’t afford to give up my paper route.”) It took years — many times decades– to gain grudging acceptance in most professions.
Who said women flooded the market and obtained high paying jobs or even their families had high paying jobs or high income?
Or, they worked in professions for that matter.
On the other hand, two modest incomes or two low incomes are twice as much as one income.
I don’t have a PhD, but I think it’s fair to conclude that when a family’s income rises and millions of families are in the same position, the extra income will generate improved lifestyle and higher spending and not just on necessities.
Dick, my mom did the same as Marilyn. Back to work so her kids could be the first generation of the family to go to college. Guessing many moms of the late ‘60s and later did the same. Chris
Back to the late 60s, phone calls were expensive, Ma Bell still had a monopoly, there was no unleaded gas, or microwave ovens. Airline travel was expensive because of regulation so there was much less traveling. There were the three big networks for TV, and if you wanted something different you could go to the movies. There was no internet, if you wanted to know something you went to the library, or looked at an encyclopedia. The amount of scientific knowledge doubles every 15 years, and what you have to know to do many modern jobs is much more than it used to be. I think that life is much more complex these days that it used to be…..complexity has a price.
Our son purchased a modest house in 2007 using a small inheritance from his grandfather as down payment. This allowed him to avoid the mortgage insurance cost – did you have mortgage insurance on your first house? My brief google indicates that it was introduced in the 70’s. Not a necessity, a requirement.
In 2007 our daughter had the same inheritance. Then 2008. Necessity?
Our son’s home recently required massive repair work – sewer destroyed by roots, etc. In the process it was determined that he will also need expensive remediation for radon gas. Did we even know about radon gas and the health issues that exposure caused back in the 60’s and 70’s? So is this a necessity . . . or a requirement?
His youngest just turned 16. When I turned 15.5 I took Driver’s Ed as an elective in my public high school. At 16 I took a test and started driving the family car whenever I could get the keys. Not so today. We have learned so much about how young minds work and how to protect ourselves while on the road, etc. State laws have multiplied to respond to this knowledge and the cost of complying with those laws is huge. It will cost him thousands of $s to get yet another child in the driver’s seat. One more small step to responsibly launching a human into the world. Necessity or requirement?
If only he had two incomes, but he is a single father of two now. Single fathers were not very common when we were starting out. Necessity.
The world has changed. But one thing that hasn’t changed is that there are still people who work hard, and do the best they can.
I’m sure that is true.
The vast majority spend too much. Too big houses, too fancy vehicles, smartphones for young children, brand new cars as a gift for a graduate of a public high school, too much spending, often on gaudy, unneeded things.
Fancy baubles, expensive German suvs, its really simple, way too much spending. Taking out car loans for 8 years to buy way more car than needed, etc.
I think you are making some sweeping and highly debatable generalizations here.
Babylon Bee Headline: “Mom Drops Kids At Daycare To Work Second Job To Pay For Daycare.”
Hold your fire, it’s a joke.
I think we need more facts about the past to understand the present. I graduated from UC Berkeley in 1967. One dollar in 1967 is now $9.43 today. But, some things have escalated much more than this. Tuition at UCB in 1967 was $240 a year. Now it is $16,608. If this cost increase was just inflation it would be $2263…..In 1967 a person with a taxable income of $100k was in a 62% Fed Tax Bracket. That $100k would be worth $943k today. And, a person making $943k would at most be in the 37% bracket today. In 1967 the state paid most of the cost of running UCB, today the state pays a tiny fraction of that cost.
There was no need for today’s extensive network of childcare providers in 1967 as most women didn’t work, and kids could just play at elementary school in the afternoon after school was over until a working parent came home. I used to walk home by myself from elementary school…..Today this is viewed as not safe, and school children in elementary school must either be picked up or bussed.
Obviously something changed in how state universities are funded since 1967. These changes produced the entire student loan and debt situation…….
When three of my children went to a college it was about $25,000 a year, today it is $80,000. For sure both college and health care have outstripped normal cost of living increases.
I wonder what both college costs and health care costs might have in common?
The inability for us to be objective regarding cost and quality and the idea we believe high cost means high quality. We want the best for our children and ourselves, but when it comes to these items we have no way the accurately measure.
To put it simply would you have more confidence in a doctor who drives a ten year old Ford or a new BMW?
I once had a big argument with an employee because our insurance would not pay the fee of a very high priced obstetrician. He was the most expensive and thus was perceived as the best. Upon investigation his high fees were needed to cover his high malpractice insurance premiums because he had so many malpractice lawsuits against him.
It appears what is so different about 2024 is people have come to expect and vote for government handouts without any understanding of the economic or civic consequences.
For whatever it’s worth, my oldest two daughters are married in their twenties, each with two children, and each stay at home with their children rather than participate in the workforce. Both families own modest homes and drive older cars. They’re struggling, but they will get by, just like you did.
Three of my children are doing the same. Two of my sons work two jobs and six days a week – often seven, both have degrees one, a masters. They will get by and we are going to do whatever we can to help.
Agree that things were very different for most of the readers of Humbledollar but lets be honest on how we as a country got to this place of debt and lifestyle creep. Our generation has been calling most of the shots since the 1980’s. If there is anyone to blame its us. Criticizing younger generations that our struggling right now is punching down as someone alluded to. I would argue life is much harder for the younger generations. Not because they have to walk 10 miles to school like we did uphill both ways but because we’ve left them with a crushing national debt, unhealthy food, technology that has fragmented our culture, and solutions that were relevant 50 years ago but just give us more of the same now. Lets all hope our kids and grandkids figure out how to fix the mess we’ve created.
I hope you didn’t see criticism in what I wrote. I didn’t criticize I asked the question why can’t people get by the way we did. And my answer is that society made priority changes leading to lifestyle changes, higher demand and higher prices especially for housing.
It is also my opinion that most families today spend money differently than my generation did which is probably good for the economy, perhaps not for many households.
When I was young my family spent nothing on sports activities – except one first basemen’s glove and one bat. The last time I looked it up I found many families were spending thousands on sports, travel teams, lessons and equipment. That has to put a strain on families trying to keep up.
Very well stated, although I would argue that all generations create messes for the generations to follow. The only difference is the size and complexity of the mess.
IMO we are now doing a good job creating a mess for our children and grandchildren.
One possible answer to your last question. Knowing the difference between wants and needs, and prioritizing?
A large part of it IMO
It is interesting to think about. Our kids and their friends are hard workers and not entitled. We live a simple life. A lot of things have changed through the years, like the way computers have revolutionized our lives. And some things are coming full circle, like going back to owning one car instead of 2 for us. We all have to make adjustments. Chris
I hope people don’t get crazy over this rant Richard. You raise good questions, and I think everyone’s to blame.
Thirty or so years ago we not only had a balanced budget, we were on the path toward paying off the national debt. The new millennium brought 2 recessions and 911 that required stimulus tax cuts. Then the cuts were made permanent which pretty much derailed hopes of more balanced budgets. Paying off the debt was pretty much forgotten. Then more tax cuts busted the budget big time. Now it a race to see who can give the most money away. Huge child tax credits, pay off student loans, no tax on tips or Social Security, more corporate tax cuts, tariffs…….. Your right Richard, there isn’t anyone talking about this.
Want to talk about the old days? Kids today would be bored to death if all they had to play with was a bike and a ball glove. Life style creep is crippling many young families today.
I bought my first house in 1972 for 22k, I was age 20 so my dad had to be on the mortgage. I had amassed 5k for the down payment.
I would add that life style creep isn’t a phenomenon affecting only the younger generations. Financially speaking, not all old people ended up in a happy place.
It’s very possible, older people, where most of the wealth is, are the ones driving the trends we’re discussing. That would be ironic.
I would agree and add that today’s generation wants instant gratification. Perhaps the influence of social media is to blame.
Robert – I feel your comment is a generalization, and unfair to many younger people. I was a Boy Scout leader for many years and have worked with many boys who are now wonderful examples of mature and successful young men. Both of my sons enlisted in the military to gain new skills for their lives. One of them is still enlisted and the other used his new skills to obtain a good job. It would be folly for me to imply that I agree with all of their purchasing decisions, but at the same time, they work hard and make sacrifices for the benefit of their families. My stepdaughters are hardworking young women and also contribute to their successful families.
Perhaps social media has an influence. But remember – Humble Dollar is a form of social media. It’s not all bad.
This article can be a good prompt to think through each of our life journeys – the good, the not so good and all of it in-between – and how we learned and made better decisions to be where we are today. Admittedly, any discussion about (more) government hand-outs gets me roiled. In that vein, let’s also not forget the ever pending student loan forgiveness push. For now, let’s put all that back in the box and close the lid.
One very important point that Richard mentions that I am fortunate to share is that we were and are a two parent family. I have been and continue to be amazed by single parent families pushing through every day to raise their kids in the best way they can afford to. I cannot even begin to imagine what that is like. Daycare costs alone could sink many families ability to stay afloat.
Because stuff was just cheaper in real terms?
Like you could buy a modest family home on a single wage. And job security was a thing etc etc….
I don’t doubt that everyone has had lifestyle creep which pushes up the number of bills to pay but this seems in danger of being another thread where someone sitting on a gilded boomer throne punches down on those pesky avocado toast gen zers etc.
But have prices increased in real terms equal to two incomes versus one? I think I should resent the gilded boomer remark. I never felt gilded even though I’m a pre boomer. My parents were not gilded and I started working after high school as a minimum wage mail boy. And, like many in my generation had my life interrupted by nearly two years in the army. I don’t think gen z worries about that.
100% with you on your last paragraph. So, we have the choice here to not engage in that nonsense. Bravo!
Regarding a less expensive environment, that’s what I’ve been pondering. Both of us had very used cars. Married in 1982, just shy of broke, $350 for a cake and coffee reception for 50 people and both of us back to work on Monday. Had an apartment for about a year while I was still in school. Graduated in 1983 and hired full time from our co-op program as a Mfg. Eng. Thought we struck gold! We bought our first home, a 1&1/2 story brick bungalow with an octopus gravity furnace and a single car garage that resembled the leaning Tower of Pisa. $42,000 just outside Detroit, at what I believe was a 15% mortgage rate. Ready to add our first to the roost. Was that good compared to today? I don’t know but we kept on plowing ahead, probably because we didn’t know there was any other option we wanted to pursue. Best lesson from first boss; spend a lot less than you earn, always (parting sentence from a discussion regarding a possible raise).
Boy is this a live grenade. I think it’s a legit question, but we’ll be lucky if it doesn’t become a hornets’ nest in here.
I think post-60s we’ve just become more and more of a society interested in what government can do for us, rather than what we can do for ourselves. Since money is free (didn’t you know?), what’s the difference?
The two-income thing has probably been written about a lot, but I think the sexual revolution of unleashing women in the workforce was probably the biggest factor. Once that happened in the 70s and 80s (and continued with ever greater force), you have more people chasing the same number of jobs which necessarily means that relative pay per worker goes down.
Obviously, pluses and minuses to almost everything that happens, but that’s my crack at it.
Unleashing, seriously? Like dogs?
I agree with you in part, but I don’t think the pay went down. I think the new found second income caused massive lifestyle creep raising demand and the for the prices of everything from larger houses to more expensive vacations and more, even two cars.
Those higher prices especially for houses along with keeping up with the Jones’s has trapped American families with the necessity of two incomes. No turning back which I find quite sad.
Lifestyle creep could be a huge part of it. My grandparents’ small house, in which they raised 6 kids, would shock the conscience of most middle class families today. Everyone wants a big house and new car.