And there are Brits here saying how great private care is and how much they want it... fucking turkeys to christmas.
People who push for private healthcare are either the type that could afford it or are the sheep following them.
And the thing is, private healthcare is great for those who can afford it. Both specialists and PCPs are readily available for appointments in the US, and the quality of care is good!... You'll just end up bankrupt if your employer doesn't provide good insurance.
It's fucked up, and it's not equitable. But I understand why it's appealing to the wealthy.
Both specialists and PCPs are readily available for appointments in the US
Where are you going? I usually have to schedule my appointments at least three months out, or there is no availability. My girlfriend had to wait a year and a half to see her OBGYN
6 months to see a dermatologist here in the great US of A.
Both specialists and PCPs are readily available for appointments in the US, and the quality of care is good!
My wife and I have high incomes and good insurance and she's currently waiting 2 months for a specialist.
The system is not good by any metric.
No no no that's only supposed to happen with universal healthcare! That only happens with socialism! Sean Hannity said so! Our system Is The Best On Earth!™
If I had a dollar for every way Hannity was wrong I wouldn't have to work lol
You might even be able to afford the "good" healthcare 🤣
quality of care is good
That's debatable for sure
I don't know about great
There's a reason why literally no other country in the world is imitating the US healthcare insurance system.
You say that but Britain is trying to emulate it :/
Britain has universal healthcare with zero deductible and zero co-pays. Not even on the same planet.
Currently yes but Torries want to remove that and replace it with one like the USA
Yes, and they are being bribed just like our politicians were
Sadly, only somewhat true nowadays.
There are plenty of parts of healthcare that are privatised and pay only. Some of this paid for by the NHS and the current government are attacking the "costs" of that. Especially as the treatments are often more expensive when done privately than they were on the NHS. Dental and optical treatment are privatised now. Much of our ambulance and rescue service are now private or voluntary. We're seeing ever increasing costs for the ambulance services, while watching wait times skyrocket. Given private ambulance firms are measured on a few KPIs, they are targeting those over general care. Many surgeries that used to be covered (such a cleft lip) by the NHS are now regarded as cosmetic and come with insurance deductibles or are not even covered by insurance.
Many industries, such as software development, are offering private cover as a workplace bonus. What that means in reality is when I come off my motorbike, the expensive emergency surgery I need will be covered by an NHS surgeon. The insurance company will then "elect" to pay for me to be moved to a comfortable hotel/hospital where I can stay in comfort. That comfort is what I'll be paying my insurance for, not the actual surgery.
Haven't heard of that phrase but it's an apt analogy for my fellow Brits. Same with Brexit. Wasn't till afterwards did they realize that what they voted for and were upset. Heaven forbid you listen to those warning you about it.
... median lifetime earnings for the typical U.S. worker stand at $1.7 million...
And Musk makes over 3.5x that amount in a single day.
Three and a half lifetimes of work per day, and nobody wants to do anything about the billionaire problem?
But you don't understand. Billionaires earn their money. They're superior to us. They make that much because they're just much better people than the rest of us. If you stood next to Musk you would notice the heat radiating from his head as his massive Iron-Man like intellect dwarfs your puny brain. You should be in awe of his superiority and beg to have his children (even if you're a guy). Clearly they should be rewarded for all their helping society and their taxes should be LOWERED, not increased.
The REAL billionaire problem is that we don't have enough of them!
They claim the "American dream" requires an $800k house at an over 7% interest rate and they assume you only put 10% down.
They claim the "American dream" involves buying a different used car every 6 years.
They claim the "American dream" involves spending $70k on pets over the course of your lifetime.
Its an interesting exercise, but the assumptions are weird and the headline is sensational.
If we assume a generous pet lifespan of 15 years that's not unreasonable that's like $400/mo which depending on what your pet needs food wise and how much you spoil them is easily met
If you have pets bigger than a hamster, 70k in your lifetime seems reasonable, even low. That around 1k per year.
And a different used car every 6 years is borderline frugal. My dream would be a new car every 3 years.
I don't see the data to be so bad. Even the house financing is realistic (heavily dependent on location, of course).
I bought my current car new 14 years ago. It has some issues that might be too expensive to fix so I might need to buy another car. My ideal car would be an electric car, but that is way too expensive for my budget. So I looked at hybrids. I might be able to make a hybrid work, but even a gas car will be stretching my budget.
And I plan to keep my next car until it breaks down - which hopefully would be about another 14 years.
I've never understood the mentality of 'its too expensive to fix'. $3000 is unobtainable, but $15000 just fine? My jeep needed a new engine, instead of buying a new car I just put a new engine in it. Saved me over ten grand and I've got transportation for at least the next ten years. Just fix your car, you'll be better off in the long run.
Cars devaluate around 50% every 3 years, so if you bought a 3 year old car instead of new, you could swap it every 7 years for the same cost. And if it holds some residual value, even more often than that...
Some manufacturers even offer warranties on 3 year old leasing returns.
The $800k house figure includes interest payments. So the value of the home will be much, much less than $800k.
As an average, those assumptions are downright modest. The cliche of a house with a white picket fence, a wife, 2.5 kids, a dog, and a mortgage line up pretty well with that.
Granted, this isn't everyone's dream, and it doesn't apply everywhere. But I would bet that the majority of people in this country would describe that as the cost to live that cliche.
Now, please don't tell me the dog ate that 0.5 kid!?
Buddy you need to move out of Nebraska. Those are perfectly reasonable assumptions.
I live on the west coast. Maybe check your own assumptions as well.
It costs lives too. Exploitation is hard baked into any $ucc€$$fu££ vulture venture or ideology
Retirement: $715,958
And this is why I likely won't be able to retire. At a recent retirement meeting my company gave, they said that people should be putting 15% of their income into retirement. However, I can't afford to do this. Not even close.
I live a pretty frugal life. I don't vacation. I rarely go out to eat or order food in. I plan my meals and only buy what we need. I drive a 14 year old car that's paid off. Still, my expenses, while less than my income, wouldn't let me reduce my pretax income by 15%.
I'm 48 and I doubt if I'll have 20% of the figure above when it comes time to retire.
And still 700K for retirement is still low since I'm sure they're using the US median salary and the old adage of saving 10 times your salary for retirement. So far every place I've worked and attended the financial seminar, my own retirement manager, and my sister who works in the industry have told me you really should be saving 15 - 20 time your salary if you want to live comfortably.
So to me what this article is saying is that you'll need that just so you can live pay check to pay check through retirement and still be stressed the fuck out and at risk for being homeless in your golden years.
How exactly is one supposed to store more than one makes?
Probably 15-20 your annual salary. So if you make 50k you should have $750k- 1 mil saved when you retire.
Sure thing I will get right on that.
I assume you're in the US? Because many other developed countries rely a lot less on private retirement savings and a lot more on public retirement programs in order to get everyone covered.
Of course, that means higher earners would have to pay more into programs similar to social security through taxes to cover lower earners, which many Americans are not willing to do.
I'm willing.
Are you me? Wow.
Now, I don't know where you live, but Canada at least has old age security (and a pension plan) that should offset a good chunk of your expenses when you retire.
That's in addition to whatever you do manage to put away.
However, it really helps if you own a home and are mortgage free by the time you hit retirement age.
I do own my house and hopefully will be mortgage free by the time I retire (or hit retirement age). I'm in New York State. Social Security would theoretically help, but who knows if it'll be around in 30 years. If it's not, I'll be working until I'm 90. If it is, I might be able to retire at 75. Assuming I don't have any large, unexpected expenses (which is a huge assumption).
Our future looks grim, friend. May the odds be ever in our favor. 🫰
US also has Social Security to help fund a basic retirement but it’s pretty minimal. It is enough to keep you from living on cat food
I also can’t finish paying off my mortgage before I should retire and given rampant ageism, I don’t know whether I’ll be able to find a job that long. And Social Security won’t cover my mortgage plus utilities
And even worse, Social Security needs adjustments to be able to continue meeting its commitments. The longer our political leaders avoid that, the more impact it will have when they are forced to do their jobs
Do you mind me asking, what do you do? Do you own or rent your residence?
I'm 41, and really striving to hit those numbers too and I feel like I'm doing pretty well with my position in life..... it's just life seems to be getting away from me as I look into the future and see my kids getting much more expensive.
I'm a web developer. I own my house, but am still paying the mortgage. (So I guess I don't technically fully own it yet.) I'm in a decent position financially at the moment - my income exceeds my expenses. Still, I've had some big financial hits recently ($3,600 for hearing aids for me, $1,000+ for tests to rule out cancer for my wife, $750 for a new dryer when our old one died, the potential new car that I might need to buy,...).
So while I'm able to keep my head above water, financially, I'm not able to put enough away to secure my retirement. Also, one big adverse event (medical crisis, job loss with unsuccessful job search, etc) and my current financial state could go from "decent in the short term" to "drowning in debt."
That's wild. Like 4k of that isn't anything I'd consider an expense due to universal health and insurance that covers the gaps.
I hope you are able to remain stable though.
Yeah, I think these rules (US) were made by people doing the math, without considering reality. It’s real easy to set aside a good amount to retire, as long as you set aside the recommended percentage throughout your career.
Of course the reality is that most of us will never do that. Many of us will get divorced and lose half what we put aside. Many of us will have financial emergencies such as medical emergencies, or being out of a job. Many of us will just be scraping by and can’t afford to set aside that much of our pay. Many of us just won’t have the perspective to be willing to set aside money for retirement many decades away. Many of us will live through times when our investments lose significant value over years. More importantly , most of us will hit those conditions sometime in our career and the basic premise is just not realistic. At least as importantly, with so much dependency on compounding returns over decades, there’s no way to recover when all those rosy assumptions don’t pan out.
I’m a good example, where I make a good income and realized the importance early on. At the beginning of my career I was able to daydream about my expected millions to retire. A few decades later and I’ve hit all of the above so am not even close. Even now as I panic about how soon I need to retire and how little I have set aside, and am making renewed effort, there’s no way to make up for all those missing years of compounding returns, and there’s only so much I can do while paying kids college expenses.
What's your employer match for you 401k? that 15% saving should be the savings after your employer match. So if you have that, you might be able actually sacrificing less than 15% of take home pay to save fore retirement.
I'd have to look it up. My company actually just changed the entire system to help out younger employees - but with the effect of hurting employees who have worked here longer. So it actually ends up being harder for me to save up. They acknowledged this, but argued it off as not affecting that many people. (Not many people - just the folks who stuck around the longest!)
The explanation we were given, though, was that 15% came before the matching. So I should take every $100 I earn and stick $15 into my retirement fund. Then, of course, I'd need to put some into healthcare, some into taxes, and some into basic costs of living. Then, when I'm done, I might be lucky enough to have a shiny penny left over. Unless I have any unforeseen expenses in which case I'd go deep into debt.
I think that advice makes sense. Ideally put away more than 15% of your gross income if possible, but I think the general advice is that you should be saving 15% of your gross income every year. Whether part of that 15% of gross comes from employer match or directly from you doesn't matter.
I think my employer did have a grant or something for new hires as well. The other thing I think they have is automatic increases annually of 401k contribution. So just in case you are an employee that doesn't manually go in to modify contributions, those employees will automatically have an increase of 1% contribution to 401k every where up to a certain upper limit, iirc.
Good luck on the retirement. Hope it works out. Also, when you look at the calculators to project future retirement, they tend to assume the market will greatly underperform historical market performance. For me it looks bad on that default. When I flip the project to match historical performance, or out perform historical performance, my retirement looks excessive. So save as much as you can and follow the guidelines, but there is some luck of market factors involved as to how you will end up.
I work in a municipality in Texas, and despite our state government being crazy the benefits at most cities are fantastic.
We have the Texas Municipal Retirement System in most places. At the last several cities I've worked at there's a mandatory 7% employee contribution, but then the city double-matches the contribution, so I'm paying 7% in while putting 21% away.
The catch is you have to work in TMRS city for a minimum of 5 years before you vest. If you don't put in your 5 years you only get the 7%.
And the really big cities don't participate. So I ain't gonna go work for Austin or Houston.
To put it in perspective... I inherited my mom's house, retirement, life savings, car, etc. And I am still very limited in buying a new home where I actually want to live, bc of how outrageous prices are. Just imagine... almost 70 years of her life, and I can't do what my dad and his first wife easily did at age 20 working as a restaurant manager. Insane.
That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.
George Carlin
You beat me to the punch.
No pun intended 😂
Is using an expression literally considered a pun?
Some costs might be lower or higher, depending on a family's goals. For instance, some might pay for more than one-year of college for their children, while others might buy fewer cars.
Wedding and engagement ring: $35,800
One year of college for two kids: $42,080
Pets: $67,935
Average cost to buy a home, including lifetime mortgage payments: $796,998
Are you really buying a house if you never finish paying for it?
And you effectively never truly own the house, if you stop paying property taxes on it the city/county takes it.
That's roughly a 30 year mortgage on a 400K home (5% interest).
Yes, because you have equity. You have partial ownership from the first payment until the last. If shit hits the fan, you can choose to sell it for whatever your portion of ownership is worth.
You also don't (generally) have to ask permission on what you do with your property.
I need to take a finance or accounting class. I don't know anything about either.
Nope, the Big Brain Compassionate People have since informed me that the American Dream™ is ONLY that you have the OPPORTUNITY to maybe afford that life.
So the American Dream™ is that CEOs exist, you can be one. The end. Get fucked Mr.Factory worker, your time passed and even though we still need you we don't care about your quality of life, just be a CEO.
It's amazing, because in that world the American Dream™ is literally impossible to deny. Rich people will always exist and Big Brains will always point to them and say "you can be that" so shut up.
Do we have some kind of list of CEOs, where they live, and how much they're paid. Maybe with photos of their faces. To show people that the American Dream is "real", of course, and not for any other purpose.
Mostly, yes, except addresses. Public companies publish that data.
Start a list. I assume musk is first.
Going through SEC filings is not on my hobby list.
Considering the Earth is dying and society will probably collapse in the next 20 years, there's no "retirement plan". You either die in your work boots at 90, get shot in the water wars, or starve to death once agricultural zones turn to sand.
Buy the game you want. Tell that hot person you're into them. See as much as the world right now as you can.
Sure, there's a COL crisis right now in North American, but in 20 years we'll look back at right now as "the good times".
You've forgotten the fourth category: the rich who barricade themselves into a paradise of hoarded resources while everyone else dies.
Oh we're coming for them first.
Or afterwards. One cannot live in a bunker without help. Why would the support staff not turn on the rich owner when the pay is worthless because there's no world outside in which to spend it?
Oh fun story they already are trying to plan for that.
Some of that answers the rich have come up with are:
Shock collars for their security team that can't be taken off.
Implants that allow for remote killing of their security team.
Biometric scanner that locks all food and water so I only the bunker owner can distribute it.
AI systems that are self running.
You know, literally comic book villain shit that when you try to point it out to them they seem truly confused as to your point. Reminder that the rich are already building their doomsday bunkers and have been just waiting for us to all die off for a while now.
Anything to avoid kindness and cooperation.
All about showing you have the most control over everyone and everything
Until one of the systems fails and you get murdered.
It's funny that the ruling class is banking on this outcome, without the understanding that to have a functioning society where people don't just randomly die of disease or infection, you have to have a few thousand people that all live relatively close to each other. Bunker living is just delaying the inevitable death by starvation.
Man my kid is going to have such a leg up over all the people who think like this. I hope your hilarious pessimism spreads honestly.
Please keep believing this. I have no interest in talking you out of your life choices.
I don't care about you. I do care about my kids. It benefits my kids for more people to think like you and give up on their lives. I hope your beliefs become widespread so my kids have life on easy mode.
That’s not selfish at all. /s
Allowing you to make your own choices is not selfish. Being excited about your bad choices, that you make without my input and that I firmly believe are silly, is not selfish.
Being happy my kids will have an easy life is not selfish, by definition.
: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.
By definition.
My daughter is not me. Your beliefs do not affect me at all. I'm already doing great, and you and i are most assuredly not competing for anything.
You want her to have an easy life. That’s natural. At the expense of others. That’s selfish.
I didn't cost the other people anything. I'm just happy they're independently making dumb choices they'd hate me for trying to talk them out of.
There's no way to spin this so that you're right.
I selfishly want you to continue thinking this way so that it accelerates the demise of capitalism.
Cool. I don't have an issue with that
You're still acting like a bitch. I hope you're not like this to your neighbors because they might shoot you AND your kids if shit hits the fan (but you have nothing to worry about... Right?).
Might be a bit contentious to say, but you're really bad at protecting your young's survival chances right now. Your selfishness actively endangers them even though this vector has no consequences right now. I hope you learn not to be an asshole to random people. It might impact more than just yourself. Granted I'm sure you're only like this because you're behind a keyboard, but if you said this to people in real life, I doubt you would have many reliable friends left.
His kid will shoot him, most likely
I hope you’re not like this to your neighbors because they might shoot you AND your kids
I find this extremely unlikely.
Your selfishness actively endangers them even though this vector has no consequences right now
I'm not selfish. We discussed this. You're free to make your own choices. I'm free to enjoy that they're bad ones.
Granted I’m sure you’re only like this because you’re behind a keyboard, but if you said this to people in real life,
I've told my daughters friends this too. Swing and a miss, again.
Can I see some research corroborating your certainty on this?
My certainty that my kids can outcompetes someone who gives up on life?
This is honestly one of the most pathetic things I have heard in awhile. How shitty of a parent are you that you bank on this kind of stuff?
Sucks that your kids aren’t going to be given a good head start on learning empathy.
My kids are quite empathetic, as am I.
If this person would rather travel the world and not plan for the future, that's their right.
You say empathy, but you're not exhibiting it.
Having empathy doesn't mean I join in on silly Doomer shit.
Just a guess, but I think your kids are going to be assholes. For their sake, I hope the apple rolls down a hill, far from the tree.
My kids are saints lol. As am I. Disagreeing with people with crazy views doesn't make you an asshole.
Your kids are going to have shitty lives if everyone around them has given up on life because the world sucks. Life on easy mode is being born rich.
A small percentage of one generation is not "everyone around them." This is not a large community and opinions expressed here are not widespread.
For all of our sakes, I hope you're right. But with the amount of crop failures occuring in North America, I'm probably the one who is correct.
Your kids deserve better than the mess you brought them into.
We don't get to pick when we exist, just play the hands wre dealt. Im happy they're born into the safest, healthiest, most prosperous time in all of human history, worldwide.
Let me guess, you're one of those "climate change is natural and the Earth has changed climate before a bunch of times periodically!" types of people?
Turns out, pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for 150 years is bad for interconnected ecosystems. Notice how it doesn't really snow anymore in North America, or if it does, it's a "once in a lifetime" snowpocalypse? Notice how the hurricanes in the south don't really ever stop now? Notice how Europe floods like a motherfucker now? Notice how many people are dying of heat stroke every year? How every single year is the hottest year in history? Remember when the North Pole existed?
Also, how do you figure your kid is going to have an easy time? Statistically speaking, you make around $35k a year. Given the housing market and wage stagnation, your kid is most likely going to be in the working class who scrapes a living together with 5 roommates.
Let me guess, you’re one of those “climate change is natural and the Earth has changed climate before a bunch of times periodically!” types of people?
I'm literally a climate lobbyist for Citizens Climate Lobby. You should join! We always need more passionate people.
Statistically speaking, you make around $35k a year.
I make slightly more than triple that, plus my wife's income. It's trivially easy to clear $35k right now, if you're willing to work some difficult, boring hours. I've dedicated my life to a role where I help frontline, unskilled laborers, and my last 2 jobs require 0 skills for our bottom-tier worker and will pay you well over 35k per year.
My daughter is in college for psychiatric nursing. I'm not worried about her. Entry level salary is about what I make now.
Also, slight correction - the north pole still exists. It's just ice free more often. The north pole is a magnetic feature of the planet
The American Dream is not as attainable as people claim.
I feel like I read a same article like this every 3 months
It's because you're still sleeping.
This explains alot, a life without love has made my checking account stable.
Save up a million in 401k, investments and equity just to spend it all in a couple of years for senior care.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be fucking asleep to believe it." / George Carlin
Okay, this may be just a side note, but I hope they mean "wedding (as a whole) and engagement ring" because 35 THOUSAND for three rings is excessive.
Bridal jewelry worker here. I can absolutely confirm that, yes, you can indeed spend $10k on a ring setting and stone very easily. You can also spend $35k on a single ring if you got something from Hearts on Fire or Tacori.
Most of the cost comes from the stone and not the ring setting itself though. Like you can spend maybe at most like $5k on a platinum ring setting and another $10k+ on the stone.
I spent like $1,000 on a ring. Of course she divorced me later on, probably because I didn't buy an expensive enough ring.
☹️ If that's legitimately the reason, you are much better off getting out of the relationship that "cheaply"...
Completely agreed, and none of this is directed at you. I’m responding to more of the overall sentiment in this post.
Jewelry and designer fashion is expensive very much on purpose. Yes, there’s an obvious quality element. That doesn’t mean that a Christian Siriano gown is going to last like a Carhartt jacket or that those Louboutin boots will outlast a pair of red wings. It’s wearable art, and it also makes a social statement.
We’re not even talking that level, though. The average cost for an American wedding is about $30k, so $35k all inclusive is absolutely in the ballpark. You can obviously get married for far less, but this article is talking about the reality of the “American dream” - which is really just a middle class lifestyle - versus various average expenses. The point isn’t that you can’t get married at the courthouse for $50, or even that you shouldn’t. The point is that people who subscribe to the concept of the American dream expect to be able to live an average lifestyle. Modest house. College for the kids. A “proper” wedding. Retirement. Leaving something behind. Those are increasingly moving out of reach.
You could hop over to Tiffany right now and find a nice necklace for $10k that would make a lovely Christmas present. That’s not what this article is talking about. It’s going beyond the basic “basket of goods” economists use to look at things like inflation and cost of living to include expenses that the average middle class family has traditionally expected. That’s exactly the approach many of us wish more people would take.
So strange that anybody would though.
Anyone who isn't rich enough that they don't even notice, anyway. So many issues Americans have stem from spending above their means.
I'm sorry but I'm struggling to even justify spending $500 on a shiny rock.
Massively under calling the total costs, from my quick read on the Investopedia article. No surprise there given the quality of that source.
I don’t see Food, Utilities, Vacation, Fuel/Maintenance, Clothes, or quite a few other major household expenses listed out.
So… that cost (relative to life one interval) would be much more out of reach.
Very true. So. Hmmm, well - so Okay then! So what! I say let's forget the "american dream" then, and concentrate on the things we enjoy that make us happy to get out bed in the morning. Maybe there's more to life than just a big house and a nice car. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
I'm with you in spirit, but keep in mind the US is still making tons of income overall as a nation - GDP is, and has been, trending up for a long time. That money's going somewhere.
It's like if we all ran/worked in a business and saw we're making tons in profit but we were then being asked (regularly) to take a pay cut. It ain't right.
That said, yes we all need to learn to live with less because it ain't getting fixed for at least another generation or two, if ever
GDP is, and has been, trending up for a long time.
That’s because GDP has been inflated to high hell. Military spending and real estate both contribute to GDP as well - notice how high both of those things are in the US?
Also there is a way in which GDP can be rigged via rigging the Official Inflation rate.
You see, GDP is first calculated nominally (i.e. in today's $) and then the Inflation rate is used to "deflate" it into real terms (i.e. turn it into something directly comparable with previous years because the effects of the dollar losing its value over time have been removed), thus creating what's called the Real GDP, which is the Official one we get.
In this, the lower the official inflation rate the less the deflation and hence the higher the Official GDP that comes out of, and thus if the official inflation rate is less than the real inflation, then part of inflation (the difference between the official one and the reality) mathematically results in higher GDP numbers than reality.
Knowing this, notice how for example a 1960s salary that was enough for a house, a car and the whole living costs of a family of 5, if inflation adjusted to today's money (i.e. converted into a supposedly equivalent amount using exactly the very inflation index we've been talking about) results in a amount that's barelly enough for a single person to rent a small appartment.
Judging by how what those inflation indexes tell us is the same money today and in the 60s not buying anywhere are much now as it did back then, I would say that the inflation index has been consistently understating inflation over the years, and the reason for doing that is at the top of my post: lower official inflation => higher official GDP.
If I remember the numbers correctly, in the late 70s in the US 24% of corporate revenues went into salaries, whilst by 2012, that was down to 7%.
Or putting things differently a little less than 50 years ago, roughly 1/4 of the money people spent ended up as income for workers, whilst by 2012 that was down less than 1/14th.
It's hardly surprising that people who work for a living (i.e. the vast majority of people) feel a lot poorer now, given that every time they spend $1 and it circulates around in the Economy, 93 cents gets captured by people who live of making money from having money (i.e. from owning investments) and taxes, whilst only 7 cents find their way back to people who work for a living.
Given that taxes for the wealthiest have actually de facto come down since the 70s - thanks to lower top tax rates and the rise of things like tax havens and transnational tax evasion schemes - guess who is getting the extra 17 cents that half a century ago went to workers ...
And here we go, asking what seem to be the real questions
Green Day came out with "The American Dream is Killing Me" . Perfect timing.
Learn to invest and grow money ffs, don't just squander your income. At the bare minimum understand compound interest. The earlier the better
"Have you tried being richer?"
More like have you tried using your income more effectively?
Okay grandpa. With what money? I only own a house due to inheritance.
Owning a house means no rent, most people blow 30% of their income on rent. Use that
The idea that workers can't understand compound interest, as though it's some crazy new idea, is a lie told by Capitalists to split the labor Aristocracy against the rest of the Proletariat.
Everyone knows that investing is good. Lying to engineers and doctors that they are somehow smarter and better than people who can't afford to invest just because engineers and doctors often can afford to invest is just a way for the bourgeoisie to protect itself from a United Proletariat.
What delusional nonsense are you dribbling? You've created some side argument for yourself nobody is talking about
You're blaming people's struggles with financial goals on poor planning and financial literacy, and making it a personal failure, rather than a systemic one. The reality is that people already understand basic financial literacy, but simply don't have enough income to meet basic financial goals regardless of budget.
Right until that next market crash. Dad was really happy in 2007.
You lose if you sell during a crash. If you bought literally just before the GFC and didn't sell, you would be up +313% on S&P 500. Buying at the worst time pre-GFC would have you negative for only 5 years.
Yeah I agree but if you planned to retire or planned to pay for a house or your kids college with that money you are SOL. Now you have to wait again on things that are time sensitive.
Yeah they said wait 5 years. If you're so desperate for cash u can't wait 5 years and work a part time job at 65 then fuck u just die.
I knew a guy where it did work out since he started school before the crash so they took the money out. Lucky him.
Last crash cost me job so hurts worst when you need money and can't even sell stocks you were investing for times like this.
Health insurance is HOW MUCH!
And there are Brits here saying how great private care is and how much they want it... fucking turkeys to christmas.
People who push for private healthcare are either the type that could afford it or are the sheep following them.
And the thing is, private healthcare is great for those who can afford it. Both specialists and PCPs are readily available for appointments in the US, and the quality of care is good!... You'll just end up bankrupt if your employer doesn't provide good insurance.
It's fucked up, and it's not equitable. But I understand why it's appealing to the wealthy.
Where are you going? I usually have to schedule my appointments at least three months out, or there is no availability. My girlfriend had to wait a year and a half to see her OBGYN
6 months to see a dermatologist here in the great US of A.
My wife and I have high incomes and good insurance and she's currently waiting 2 months for a specialist.
The system is not good by any metric.
No no no that's only supposed to happen with universal healthcare! That only happens with socialism! Sean Hannity said so! Our system Is The Best On Earth!™
If I had a dollar for every way Hannity was wrong I wouldn't have to work lol
You might even be able to afford the "good" healthcare 🤣
That's debatable for sure
I don't know about great
There's a reason why literally no other country in the world is imitating the US healthcare insurance system.
You say that but Britain is trying to emulate it :/
Britain has universal healthcare with zero deductible and zero co-pays. Not even on the same planet.
Currently yes but Torries want to remove that and replace it with one like the USA
Yes, and they are being bribed just like our politicians were
Sadly, only somewhat true nowadays.
There are plenty of parts of healthcare that are privatised and pay only. Some of this paid for by the NHS and the current government are attacking the "costs" of that. Especially as the treatments are often more expensive when done privately than they were on the NHS. Dental and optical treatment are privatised now. Much of our ambulance and rescue service are now private or voluntary. We're seeing ever increasing costs for the ambulance services, while watching wait times skyrocket. Given private ambulance firms are measured on a few KPIs, they are targeting those over general care. Many surgeries that used to be covered (such a cleft lip) by the NHS are now regarded as cosmetic and come with insurance deductibles or are not even covered by insurance.
Many industries, such as software development, are offering private cover as a workplace bonus. What that means in reality is when I come off my motorbike, the expensive emergency surgery I need will be covered by an NHS surgeon. The insurance company will then "elect" to pay for me to be moved to a comfortable hotel/hospital where I can stay in comfort. That comfort is what I'll be paying my insurance for, not the actual surgery.
Haven't heard of that phrase but it's an apt analogy for my fellow Brits. Same with Brexit. Wasn't till afterwards did they realize that what they voted for and were upset. Heaven forbid you listen to those warning you about it.
And Musk makes over 3.5x that amount in a single day.
Three and a half lifetimes of work per day, and nobody wants to do anything about the billionaire problem?
But you don't understand. Billionaires earn their money. They're superior to us. They make that much because they're just much better people than the rest of us. If you stood next to Musk you would notice the heat radiating from his head as his massive Iron-Man like intellect dwarfs your puny brain. You should be in awe of his superiority and beg to have his children (even if you're a guy). Clearly they should be rewarded for all their helping society and their taxes should be LOWERED, not increased.
The REAL billionaire problem is that we don't have enough of them!
If you spent $35K on a wedding, you're doing it wrong.
If you read the actual original Investopedia article, most of these claimed costs make silly assumptions about the definition of "The American Dream" and a lot of the data is cherry picked.
They claim the "American dream" requires an $800k house at an over 7% interest rate and they assume you only put 10% down.
They claim the "American dream" involves buying a different used car every 6 years.
They claim the "American dream" involves spending $70k on pets over the course of your lifetime.
Its an interesting exercise, but the assumptions are weird and the headline is sensational.
If we assume a generous pet lifespan of 15 years that's not unreasonable that's like $400/mo which depending on what your pet needs food wise and how much you spoil them is easily met
If you have pets bigger than a hamster, 70k in your lifetime seems reasonable, even low. That around 1k per year.
And a different used car every 6 years is borderline frugal. My dream would be a new car every 3 years.
I don't see the data to be so bad. Even the house financing is realistic (heavily dependent on location, of course).
I bought my current car new 14 years ago. It has some issues that might be too expensive to fix so I might need to buy another car. My ideal car would be an electric car, but that is way too expensive for my budget. So I looked at hybrids. I might be able to make a hybrid work, but even a gas car will be stretching my budget.
And I plan to keep my next car until it breaks down - which hopefully would be about another 14 years.
I've never understood the mentality of 'its too expensive to fix'. $3000 is unobtainable, but $15000 just fine? My jeep needed a new engine, instead of buying a new car I just put a new engine in it. Saved me over ten grand and I've got transportation for at least the next ten years. Just fix your car, you'll be better off in the long run.
Cars devaluate around 50% every 3 years, so if you bought a 3 year old car instead of new, you could swap it every 7 years for the same cost. And if it holds some residual value, even more often than that...
Some manufacturers even offer warranties on 3 year old leasing returns.
The $800k house figure includes interest payments. So the value of the home will be much, much less than $800k.
As an average, those assumptions are downright modest. The cliche of a house with a white picket fence, a wife, 2.5 kids, a dog, and a mortgage line up pretty well with that.
Granted, this isn't everyone's dream, and it doesn't apply everywhere. But I would bet that the majority of people in this country would describe that as the cost to live that cliche.
Now, please don't tell me the dog ate that 0.5 kid!?
Buddy you need to move out of Nebraska. Those are perfectly reasonable assumptions.
I live on the west coast. Maybe check your own assumptions as well.
It costs lives too. Exploitation is hard baked into any $ucc€$$fu££
vultureventure or ideologyAnd this is why I likely won't be able to retire. At a recent retirement meeting my company gave, they said that people should be putting 15% of their income into retirement. However, I can't afford to do this. Not even close.
I live a pretty frugal life. I don't vacation. I rarely go out to eat or order food in. I plan my meals and only buy what we need. I drive a 14 year old car that's paid off. Still, my expenses, while less than my income, wouldn't let me reduce my pretax income by 15%.
I'm 48 and I doubt if I'll have 20% of the figure above when it comes time to retire.
And still 700K for retirement is still low since I'm sure they're using the US median salary and the old adage of saving 10 times your salary for retirement. So far every place I've worked and attended the financial seminar, my own retirement manager, and my sister who works in the industry have told me you really should be saving 15 - 20 time your salary if you want to live comfortably.
So to me what this article is saying is that you'll need that just so you can live pay check to pay check through retirement and still be stressed the fuck out and at risk for being homeless in your golden years.
How exactly is one supposed to store more than one makes?
Probably 15-20 your annual salary. So if you make 50k you should have $750k- 1 mil saved when you retire.
Sure thing I will get right on that.
I assume you're in the US? Because many other developed countries rely a lot less on private retirement savings and a lot more on public retirement programs in order to get everyone covered.
Of course, that means higher earners would have to pay more into programs similar to social security through taxes to cover lower earners, which many Americans are not willing to do.
I'm willing.
Are you me? Wow.
Now, I don't know where you live, but Canada at least has old age security (and a pension plan) that should offset a good chunk of your expenses when you retire.
That's in addition to whatever you do manage to put away.
However, it really helps if you own a home and are mortgage free by the time you hit retirement age.
I do own my house and hopefully will be mortgage free by the time I retire (or hit retirement age). I'm in New York State. Social Security would theoretically help, but who knows if it'll be around in 30 years. If it's not, I'll be working until I'm 90. If it is, I might be able to retire at 75. Assuming I don't have any large, unexpected expenses (which is a huge assumption).
Our future looks grim, friend. May the odds be ever in our favor. 🫰
US also has Social Security to help fund a basic retirement but it’s pretty minimal. It is enough to keep you from living on cat food
I also can’t finish paying off my mortgage before I should retire and given rampant ageism, I don’t know whether I’ll be able to find a job that long. And Social Security won’t cover my mortgage plus utilities
And even worse, Social Security needs adjustments to be able to continue meeting its commitments. The longer our political leaders avoid that, the more impact it will have when they are forced to do their jobs
Do you mind me asking, what do you do? Do you own or rent your residence?
I'm 41, and really striving to hit those numbers too and I feel like I'm doing pretty well with my position in life..... it's just life seems to be getting away from me as I look into the future and see my kids getting much more expensive.
I'm a web developer. I own my house, but am still paying the mortgage. (So I guess I don't technically fully own it yet.) I'm in a decent position financially at the moment - my income exceeds my expenses. Still, I've had some big financial hits recently ($3,600 for hearing aids for me, $1,000+ for tests to rule out cancer for my wife, $750 for a new dryer when our old one died, the potential new car that I might need to buy,...).
So while I'm able to keep my head above water, financially, I'm not able to put enough away to secure my retirement. Also, one big adverse event (medical crisis, job loss with unsuccessful job search, etc) and my current financial state could go from "decent in the short term" to "drowning in debt."
That's wild. Like 4k of that isn't anything I'd consider an expense due to universal health and insurance that covers the gaps.
I hope you are able to remain stable though.
Yeah, I think these rules (US) were made by people doing the math, without considering reality. It’s real easy to set aside a good amount to retire, as long as you set aside the recommended percentage throughout your career.
Of course the reality is that most of us will never do that. Many of us will get divorced and lose half what we put aside. Many of us will have financial emergencies such as medical emergencies, or being out of a job. Many of us will just be scraping by and can’t afford to set aside that much of our pay. Many of us just won’t have the perspective to be willing to set aside money for retirement many decades away. Many of us will live through times when our investments lose significant value over years. More importantly , most of us will hit those conditions sometime in our career and the basic premise is just not realistic. At least as importantly, with so much dependency on compounding returns over decades, there’s no way to recover when all those rosy assumptions don’t pan out.
I’m a good example, where I make a good income and realized the importance early on. At the beginning of my career I was able to daydream about my expected millions to retire. A few decades later and I’ve hit all of the above so am not even close. Even now as I panic about how soon I need to retire and how little I have set aside, and am making renewed effort, there’s no way to make up for all those missing years of compounding returns, and there’s only so much I can do while paying kids college expenses.
What's your employer match for you 401k? that 15% saving should be the savings after your employer match. So if you have that, you might be able actually sacrificing less than 15% of take home pay to save fore retirement.
I'd have to look it up. My company actually just changed the entire system to help out younger employees - but with the effect of hurting employees who have worked here longer. So it actually ends up being harder for me to save up. They acknowledged this, but argued it off as not affecting that many people. (Not many people - just the folks who stuck around the longest!)
The explanation we were given, though, was that 15% came before the matching. So I should take every $100 I earn and stick $15 into my retirement fund. Then, of course, I'd need to put some into healthcare, some into taxes, and some into basic costs of living. Then, when I'm done, I might be lucky enough to have a shiny penny left over. Unless I have any unforeseen expenses in which case I'd go deep into debt.
I think that advice makes sense. Ideally put away more than 15% of your gross income if possible, but I think the general advice is that you should be saving 15% of your gross income every year. Whether part of that 15% of gross comes from employer match or directly from you doesn't matter.
I think my employer did have a grant or something for new hires as well. The other thing I think they have is automatic increases annually of 401k contribution. So just in case you are an employee that doesn't manually go in to modify contributions, those employees will automatically have an increase of 1% contribution to 401k every where up to a certain upper limit, iirc.
Good luck on the retirement. Hope it works out. Also, when you look at the calculators to project future retirement, they tend to assume the market will greatly underperform historical market performance. For me it looks bad on that default. When I flip the project to match historical performance, or out perform historical performance, my retirement looks excessive. So save as much as you can and follow the guidelines, but there is some luck of market factors involved as to how you will end up.
I work in a municipality in Texas, and despite our state government being crazy the benefits at most cities are fantastic.
We have the Texas Municipal Retirement System in most places. At the last several cities I've worked at there's a mandatory 7% employee contribution, but then the city double-matches the contribution, so I'm paying 7% in while putting 21% away.
The catch is you have to work in TMRS city for a minimum of 5 years before you vest. If you don't put in your 5 years you only get the 7%.
And the really big cities don't participate. So I ain't gonna go work for Austin or Houston.
To put it in perspective... I inherited my mom's house, retirement, life savings, car, etc. And I am still very limited in buying a new home where I actually want to live, bc of how outrageous prices are. Just imagine... almost 70 years of her life, and I can't do what my dad and his first wife easily did at age 20 working as a restaurant manager. Insane.
WE KNOW
Obligatory George Carlin quote
That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.
George Carlin
You beat me to the punch.
No pun intended 😂
Is using an expression literally considered a pun?
Are you really buying a house if you never finish paying for it?
And you effectively never truly own the house, if you stop paying property taxes on it the city/county takes it.
That's roughly a 30 year mortgage on a 400K home (5% interest).
Yes, because you have equity. You have partial ownership from the first payment until the last. If shit hits the fan, you can choose to sell it for whatever your portion of ownership is worth.
You also don't (generally) have to ask permission on what you do with your property.
I need to take a finance or accounting class. I don't know anything about either.
Nope, the Big Brain Compassionate People have since informed me that the American Dream™ is ONLY that you have the OPPORTUNITY to maybe afford that life.
So the American Dream™ is that CEOs exist, you can be one. The end. Get fucked Mr.Factory worker, your time passed and even though we still need you we don't care about your quality of life, just be a CEO.
It's amazing, because in that world the American Dream™ is literally impossible to deny. Rich people will always exist and Big Brains will always point to them and say "you can be that" so shut up.
Do we have some kind of list of CEOs, where they live, and how much they're paid. Maybe with photos of their faces. To show people that the American Dream is "real", of course, and not for any other purpose.
Mostly, yes, except addresses. Public companies publish that data.
Start a list. I assume musk is first.
Going through SEC filings is not on my hobby list.
Considering the Earth is dying and society will probably collapse in the next 20 years, there's no "retirement plan". You either die in your work boots at 90, get shot in the water wars, or starve to death once agricultural zones turn to sand.
Buy the game you want. Tell that hot person you're into them. See as much as the world right now as you can.
Sure, there's a COL crisis right now in North American, but in 20 years we'll look back at right now as "the good times".
You've forgotten the fourth category: the rich who barricade themselves into a paradise of hoarded resources while everyone else dies.
Oh we're coming for them first.
Or afterwards. One cannot live in a bunker without help. Why would the support staff not turn on the rich owner when the pay is worthless because there's no world outside in which to spend it?
Oh fun story they already are trying to plan for that.
Some of that answers the rich have come up with are:
Shock collars for their security team that can't be taken off.
Implants that allow for remote killing of their security team.
Biometric scanner that locks all food and water so I only the bunker owner can distribute it.
AI systems that are self running.
You know, literally comic book villain shit that when you try to point it out to them they seem truly confused as to your point. Reminder that the rich are already building their doomsday bunkers and have been just waiting for us to all die off for a while now.
Anything to avoid kindness and cooperation.
All about showing you have the most control over everyone and everything
Until one of the systems fails and you get murdered.
It's funny that the ruling class is banking on this outcome, without the understanding that to have a functioning society where people don't just randomly die of disease or infection, you have to have a few thousand people that all live relatively close to each other. Bunker living is just delaying the inevitable death by starvation.
Man my kid is going to have such a leg up over all the people who think like this. I hope your hilarious pessimism spreads honestly.
It’s not pessimism, it’s inevitable.
Please keep believing this. I have no interest in talking you out of your life choices.
I don't care about you. I do care about my kids. It benefits my kids for more people to think like you and give up on their lives. I hope your beliefs become widespread so my kids have life on easy mode.
That’s not selfish at all. /s
Allowing you to make your own choices is not selfish. Being excited about your bad choices, that you make without my input and that I firmly believe are silly, is not selfish.
Being happy my kids will have an easy life is not selfish, by definition.
Selfish:
By definition.
My daughter is not me. Your beliefs do not affect me at all. I'm already doing great, and you and i are most assuredly not competing for anything.
You want her to have an easy life. That’s natural. At the expense of others. That’s selfish.
I didn't cost the other people anything. I'm just happy they're independently making dumb choices they'd hate me for trying to talk them out of.
There's no way to spin this so that you're right.
I selfishly want you to continue thinking this way so that it accelerates the demise of capitalism.
Cool. I don't have an issue with that
You're still acting like a bitch. I hope you're not like this to your neighbors because they might shoot you AND your kids if shit hits the fan (but you have nothing to worry about... Right?).
Might be a bit contentious to say, but you're really bad at protecting your young's survival chances right now. Your selfishness actively endangers them even though this vector has no consequences right now. I hope you learn not to be an asshole to random people. It might impact more than just yourself. Granted I'm sure you're only like this because you're behind a keyboard, but if you said this to people in real life, I doubt you would have many reliable friends left.
His kid will shoot him, most likely
I find this extremely unlikely.
I'm not selfish. We discussed this. You're free to make your own choices. I'm free to enjoy that they're bad ones.
I've told my daughters friends this too. Swing and a miss, again.
Can I see some research corroborating your certainty on this?
My certainty that my kids can outcompetes someone who gives up on life?
This is honestly one of the most pathetic things I have heard in awhile. How shitty of a parent are you that you bank on this kind of stuff?
Sucks that your kids aren’t going to be given a good head start on learning empathy.
My kids are quite empathetic, as am I.
If this person would rather travel the world and not plan for the future, that's their right.
You say empathy, but you're not exhibiting it.
Having empathy doesn't mean I join in on silly Doomer shit.
Just a guess, but I think your kids are going to be assholes. For their sake, I hope the apple rolls down a hill, far from the tree.
My kids are saints lol. As am I. Disagreeing with people with crazy views doesn't make you an asshole.
Your kids are going to have shitty lives if everyone around them has given up on life because the world sucks. Life on easy mode is being born rich.
A small percentage of one generation is not "everyone around them." This is not a large community and opinions expressed here are not widespread.
For all of our sakes, I hope you're right. But with the amount of crop failures occuring in North America, I'm probably the one who is correct.
Your kids deserve better than the mess you brought them into.
We don't get to pick when we exist, just play the hands wre dealt. Im happy they're born into the safest, healthiest, most prosperous time in all of human history, worldwide.
Let me guess, you're one of those "climate change is natural and the Earth has changed climate before a bunch of times periodically!" types of people?
Turns out, pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for 150 years is bad for interconnected ecosystems. Notice how it doesn't really snow anymore in North America, or if it does, it's a "once in a lifetime" snowpocalypse? Notice how the hurricanes in the south don't really ever stop now? Notice how Europe floods like a motherfucker now? Notice how many people are dying of heat stroke every year? How every single year is the hottest year in history? Remember when the North Pole existed?
Also, how do you figure your kid is going to have an easy time? Statistically speaking, you make around $35k a year. Given the housing market and wage stagnation, your kid is most likely going to be in the working class who scrapes a living together with 5 roommates.
I'm literally a climate lobbyist for Citizens Climate Lobby. You should join! We always need more passionate people.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
I make slightly more than triple that, plus my wife's income. It's trivially easy to clear $35k right now, if you're willing to work some difficult, boring hours. I've dedicated my life to a role where I help frontline, unskilled laborers, and my last 2 jobs require 0 skills for our bottom-tier worker and will pay you well over 35k per year.
My daughter is in college for psychiatric nursing. I'm not worried about her. Entry level salary is about what I make now.
Also, slight correction - the north pole still exists. It's just ice free more often. The north pole is a magnetic feature of the planet
The American Dream is not as attainable as people claim.
I feel like I read a same article like this every 3 months
It's because you're still sleeping.
This explains alot, a life without love has made my checking account stable.
Save up a million in 401k, investments and equity just to spend it all in a couple of years for senior care.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be fucking asleep to believe it." / George Carlin
Okay, this may be just a side note, but I hope they mean "wedding (as a whole) and engagement ring" because 35 THOUSAND for three rings is excessive.
Bridal jewelry worker here. I can absolutely confirm that, yes, you can indeed spend $10k on a ring setting and stone very easily. You can also spend $35k on a single ring if you got something from Hearts on Fire or Tacori.
Most of the cost comes from the stone and not the ring setting itself though. Like you can spend maybe at most like $5k on a platinum ring setting and another $10k+ on the stone.
I spent like $1,000 on a ring. Of course she divorced me later on, probably because I didn't buy an expensive enough ring.
☹️ If that's legitimately the reason, you are much better off getting out of the relationship that "cheaply"...
Completely agreed, and none of this is directed at you. I’m responding to more of the overall sentiment in this post.
Jewelry and designer fashion is expensive very much on purpose. Yes, there’s an obvious quality element. That doesn’t mean that a Christian Siriano gown is going to last like a Carhartt jacket or that those Louboutin boots will outlast a pair of red wings. It’s wearable art, and it also makes a social statement.
We’re not even talking that level, though. The average cost for an American wedding is about $30k, so $35k all inclusive is absolutely in the ballpark. You can obviously get married for far less, but this article is talking about the reality of the “American dream” - which is really just a middle class lifestyle - versus various average expenses. The point isn’t that you can’t get married at the courthouse for $50, or even that you shouldn’t. The point is that people who subscribe to the concept of the American dream expect to be able to live an average lifestyle. Modest house. College for the kids. A “proper” wedding. Retirement. Leaving something behind. Those are increasingly moving out of reach.
You could hop over to Tiffany right now and find a nice necklace for $10k that would make a lovely Christmas present. That’s not what this article is talking about. It’s going beyond the basic “basket of goods” economists use to look at things like inflation and cost of living to include expenses that the average middle class family has traditionally expected. That’s exactly the approach many of us wish more people would take.
So strange that anybody would though.
Anyone who isn't rich enough that they don't even notice, anyway. So many issues Americans have stem from spending above their means.
I'm sorry but I'm struggling to even justify spending $500 on a shiny rock.
Most of the.math here makes total sense but what the fuck is this shit
If anyone here spends $35k on a fuckin ring when you can't afford hospital stays and shit, let me know so I can come slap some sense into you.
Like why is this even on the list? It doesn't even materially change the final outcome.
In the words of Green Day's new song "the American dream is killing me"
... Green Day has a new album dropping??
Not sure. The song came out a couple of months ago
https://youtu.be/t1TDvy7djJg?si=YF9CaBOHptaAHofi
Massively under calling the total costs, from my quick read on the Investopedia article. No surprise there given the quality of that source.
I don’t see Food, Utilities, Vacation, Fuel/Maintenance, Clothes, or quite a few other major household expenses listed out.
So… that cost (relative to life one interval) would be much more out of reach.
Very true. So. Hmmm, well - so Okay then! So what! I say let's forget the "american dream" then, and concentrate on the things we enjoy that make us happy to get out bed in the morning. Maybe there's more to life than just a big house and a nice car. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
I'm with you in spirit, but keep in mind the US is still making tons of income overall as a nation - GDP is, and has been, trending up for a long time. That money's going somewhere.
It's like if we all ran/worked in a business and saw we're making tons in profit but we were then being asked (regularly) to take a pay cut. It ain't right.
That said, yes we all need to learn to live with less because it ain't getting fixed for at least another generation or two, if ever
That’s because GDP has been inflated to high hell. Military spending and real estate both contribute to GDP as well - notice how high both of those things are in the US?
CPI is a better indicator of a nation’s economy and we’re over 300 points with a lot of industries underperforming and overspending with a CPI ratio of less than 1.
Also there is a way in which GDP can be rigged via rigging the Official Inflation rate.
You see, GDP is first calculated nominally (i.e. in today's $) and then the Inflation rate is used to "deflate" it into real terms (i.e. turn it into something directly comparable with previous years because the effects of the dollar losing its value over time have been removed), thus creating what's called the Real GDP, which is the Official one we get.
In this, the lower the official inflation rate the less the deflation and hence the higher the Official GDP that comes out of, and thus if the official inflation rate is less than the real inflation, then part of inflation (the difference between the official one and the reality) mathematically results in higher GDP numbers than reality.
Knowing this, notice how for example a 1960s salary that was enough for a house, a car and the whole living costs of a family of 5, if inflation adjusted to today's money (i.e. converted into a supposedly equivalent amount using exactly the very inflation index we've been talking about) results in a amount that's barelly enough for a single person to rent a small appartment.
Judging by how what those inflation indexes tell us is the same money today and in the 60s not buying anywhere are much now as it did back then, I would say that the inflation index has been consistently understating inflation over the years, and the reason for doing that is at the top of my post: lower official inflation => higher official GDP.
If I remember the numbers correctly, in the late 70s in the US 24% of corporate revenues went into salaries, whilst by 2012, that was down to 7%.
Or putting things differently a little less than 50 years ago, roughly 1/4 of the money people spent ended up as income for workers, whilst by 2012 that was down less than 1/14th.
It's hardly surprising that people who work for a living (i.e. the vast majority of people) feel a lot poorer now, given that every time they spend $1 and it circulates around in the Economy, 93 cents gets captured by people who live of making money from having money (i.e. from owning investments) and taxes, whilst only 7 cents find their way back to people who work for a living.
Given that taxes for the wealthiest have actually de facto come down since the 70s - thanks to lower top tax rates and the rise of things like tax havens and transnational tax evasion schemes - guess who is getting the extra 17 cents that half a century ago went to workers ...
And here we go, asking what seem to be the real questions
Green Day came out with "The American Dream is Killing Me" . Perfect timing.
Learn to invest and grow money ffs, don't just squander your income. At the bare minimum understand compound interest. The earlier the better
"Have you tried being richer?"
More like have you tried using your income more effectively?
Okay grandpa. With what money? I only own a house due to inheritance.
Owning a house means no rent, most people blow 30% of their income on rent. Use that
The idea that workers can't understand compound interest, as though it's some crazy new idea, is a lie told by Capitalists to split the labor Aristocracy against the rest of the Proletariat.
Everyone knows that investing is good. Lying to engineers and doctors that they are somehow smarter and better than people who can't afford to invest just because engineers and doctors often can afford to invest is just a way for the bourgeoisie to protect itself from a United Proletariat.
What delusional nonsense are you dribbling? You've created some side argument for yourself nobody is talking about
You're blaming people's struggles with financial goals on poor planning and financial literacy, and making it a personal failure, rather than a systemic one. The reality is that people already understand basic financial literacy, but simply don't have enough income to meet basic financial goals regardless of budget.
Right until that next market crash. Dad was really happy in 2007.
You lose if you sell during a crash. If you bought literally just before the GFC and didn't sell, you would be up +313% on S&P 500. Buying at the worst time pre-GFC would have you negative for only 5 years.
Yeah I agree but if you planned to retire or planned to pay for a house or your kids college with that money you are SOL. Now you have to wait again on things that are time sensitive.
Yeah they said wait 5 years. If you're so desperate for cash u can't wait 5 years and work a part time job at 65 then fuck u just die.
I knew a guy where it did work out since he started school before the crash so they took the money out. Lucky him. Last crash cost me job so hurts worst when you need money and can't even sell stocks you were investing for times like this.