pkt77242
IPA Man
- Messages
- 10,805
- Reaction score
- 719
I believe that pulling out counts as one too.
Politics
- Thread starter BobD
- Start date
I believe that pulling out counts as one too.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
Touche. Does cold storage count?
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
Price tag for the American dream: $130K a year
WHAT IT COSTS TO LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM
Howard R. Gold, Special to USA TODAY 6:03 a.m. EDT July 4, 2014
No idea is more central to Americans' outlook than the American dream — the belief that with hard work and the freedom to pursue your destiny you can achieve success and provide better opportunities for your children.
Historian John Truslow Adams, who coined the term, called it "the greatest contribution we have made to the thought and welfare of the world." It has inspired millions of people from every corner of the globe to come here in search of liberty and opportunity.But the financial crisis, housing bust and Great Recession have caused more of us to worry that the American dream is out of reach.
For the vast majority of Americans, there is a sense that achieving the American dream is becoming more difficult," wrote Mark Robert Rank, Thomas A. Hirschl and Kirk A. Foster in a new book,
Chasing the American Dream.
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, in announcing a new policy to provide employees with a college education, declared: "In the last few years, we have seen the fracturing of the American dream."
In fact, three-quarters of Americans polled by the Brookings Institution in 2008 said the dream was harder to attain.
They're right to worry. An analysis by USA TODAY shows that living the American dream would cost the average family of four about $130,000 a year. Only 16 million U.S. households — around 1 in 8 — earned that much in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
In an interview, co-author Thomas Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University, stressed that for the dozens of people they surveyed and interviewed, the American dream was not about becoming one of the 1%.
"It's not about getting rich and making a lot of money. It's about security," he said. It's also as much about hope for the next generation as it is about the success of this one. "They want to feel that their children are going to have a better life than they do," said Hirschl.
In their book, the authors write that besides economic security, the American dream includes "finding and pursuing a rewarding career, leading a healthy and personally fulfilling life, and being able to retire in comfort."
With that in mind, USA TODAY added up the estimated costs of living the American dream:
•Home ownership is central to the American dream. So, we took the median price of a new home ($275,000), subtracted a 10% down payment, then projected the annual cost of a 30-year mortgage at 4% interest. We also added annual maintenance costs of 1% of the purchase price. Total: $17,062 a year.
•We used the U.S. Department of Agriculture's April 2014 figure of $12,659 for a moderate-cost grocery plan for a family of four.
•In May, AAA estimated it would cost $11,039 a year to own one four-wheel-drive sport-utility vehicle.
•The Milliman Medical Index pegged annual health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses at $9,144.•We used various estimates for the costs of restaurants and entertainment; one family summer vacation; clothing; utilities; cable or satellite; Internet and cellphone; and miscellaneous expenses (see table).
•Total federal, state, and local taxes were pegged at 30% for households at this income level, based on a model developed for Citizens for Tax Justice.
•USA TODAY calculated current educational expenses for two children at $4,000 a year and college savings (all of it pretax, we assumed) at $2,500 per year per child, based on various rules of thumb.
•Finally, the maximum annual pretax contribution to a retirement plan for people under 50 is $17,500. That's slightly less than 15% of this American dream household's annual earnings, in line with financial planners' recommendations.
Total: $130,357.
It sounds like a lot — and it is in a country where the median household income is about $51,000. Add one more child and another vehicle and you could easily reach $150,000
There are big regional variations, too. It costs a lot less to live the American dream in, say, Indianapolis or Tulsa than it does in metro areas like New York and San Francisco, where housing prices and taxes are sky high.
And many people achieve the dream on much less. Some immigrants, for example, have extended families and other support systems to help bear the burden.
Nonetheless, it's clear that though the American dream is still alive, fewer and fewer of us can afford to live it.
Howard R. Gold is a MarketWatch columnist and founder and editor of GoldenEgg Investing, which offers simple, low-cost, low-risk retirement investing plans. Follow him on Twitter @howardrgold.
WHAT IT COSTS TO LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM
Howard R. Gold, Special to USA TODAY 6:03 a.m. EDT July 4, 2014
No idea is more central to Americans' outlook than the American dream — the belief that with hard work and the freedom to pursue your destiny you can achieve success and provide better opportunities for your children.
Historian John Truslow Adams, who coined the term, called it "the greatest contribution we have made to the thought and welfare of the world." It has inspired millions of people from every corner of the globe to come here in search of liberty and opportunity.But the financial crisis, housing bust and Great Recession have caused more of us to worry that the American dream is out of reach.
For the vast majority of Americans, there is a sense that achieving the American dream is becoming more difficult," wrote Mark Robert Rank, Thomas A. Hirschl and Kirk A. Foster in a new book,
Chasing the American Dream.
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, in announcing a new policy to provide employees with a college education, declared: "In the last few years, we have seen the fracturing of the American dream."
In fact, three-quarters of Americans polled by the Brookings Institution in 2008 said the dream was harder to attain.
They're right to worry. An analysis by USA TODAY shows that living the American dream would cost the average family of four about $130,000 a year. Only 16 million U.S. households — around 1 in 8 — earned that much in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
In an interview, co-author Thomas Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University, stressed that for the dozens of people they surveyed and interviewed, the American dream was not about becoming one of the 1%.
"It's not about getting rich and making a lot of money. It's about security," he said. It's also as much about hope for the next generation as it is about the success of this one. "They want to feel that their children are going to have a better life than they do," said Hirschl.
In their book, the authors write that besides economic security, the American dream includes "finding and pursuing a rewarding career, leading a healthy and personally fulfilling life, and being able to retire in comfort."
With that in mind, USA TODAY added up the estimated costs of living the American dream:
•Home ownership is central to the American dream. So, we took the median price of a new home ($275,000), subtracted a 10% down payment, then projected the annual cost of a 30-year mortgage at 4% interest. We also added annual maintenance costs of 1% of the purchase price. Total: $17,062 a year.
•We used the U.S. Department of Agriculture's April 2014 figure of $12,659 for a moderate-cost grocery plan for a family of four.
•In May, AAA estimated it would cost $11,039 a year to own one four-wheel-drive sport-utility vehicle.
•The Milliman Medical Index pegged annual health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses at $9,144.•We used various estimates for the costs of restaurants and entertainment; one family summer vacation; clothing; utilities; cable or satellite; Internet and cellphone; and miscellaneous expenses (see table).
•Total federal, state, and local taxes were pegged at 30% for households at this income level, based on a model developed for Citizens for Tax Justice.
•USA TODAY calculated current educational expenses for two children at $4,000 a year and college savings (all of it pretax, we assumed) at $2,500 per year per child, based on various rules of thumb.
•Finally, the maximum annual pretax contribution to a retirement plan for people under 50 is $17,500. That's slightly less than 15% of this American dream household's annual earnings, in line with financial planners' recommendations.
Total: $130,357.
It sounds like a lot — and it is in a country where the median household income is about $51,000. Add one more child and another vehicle and you could easily reach $150,000
There are big regional variations, too. It costs a lot less to live the American dream in, say, Indianapolis or Tulsa than it does in metro areas like New York and San Francisco, where housing prices and taxes are sky high.
And many people achieve the dream on much less. Some immigrants, for example, have extended families and other support systems to help bear the burden.
Nonetheless, it's clear that though the American dream is still alive, fewer and fewer of us can afford to live it.
Howard R. Gold is a MarketWatch columnist and founder and editor of GoldenEgg Investing, which offers simple, low-cost, low-risk retirement investing plans. Follow him on Twitter @howardrgold.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
Those figures are absurd and say a lot more about how perverted the American dream has become than they do about it being "hard to win" in America.
First, the "median price for a new home" is a ridiculous metric. Nobody NEEDS a new home and very few need "median or better." Unless you're in the heart of a big city, most families of four can live very comfortably in a $200K home. That's nothing wrong with something more expensive, but we're talking about the minimum you need to live the "American Dream." Plus, you shouldn't be buying a house unless you can put 20% down.
$11K per year for an SUV must assume you're buying new and paying interest or lease payments. Plus, no one NEEDS an SUV.
If you're debt free and start in your twenties, you can retire with well over $1M contributing a lot less than $17,500 per year.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
First, the "median price for a new home" is a ridiculous metric. Nobody NEEDS a new home and very few need "median or better." Unless you're in the heart of a big city, most families of four can live very comfortably in a $200K home. That's nothing wrong with something more expensive, but we're talking about the minimum you need to live the "American Dream." Plus, you shouldn't be buying a house unless you can put 20% down.
$11K per year for an SUV must assume you're buying new and paying interest or lease payments. Plus, no one NEEDS an SUV.
If you're debt free and start in your twenties, you can retire with well over $1M contributing a lot less than $17,500 per year.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
connor_in
Oh Yeeaah!!!
- Messages
- 11,433
- Reaction score
- 1,006
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
Really great read, thanks for sharing. I especially liked this insight:
In matters of economic regulation, many of the distortions found within the marketplace are not themselves products of the free market but rather are the consequences of governmental intervention to aid favored players or ameliorate the consequences of poor economic outcomes by private businesses.
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
Democrat hopes immigration crisis isn’t ‘Obama’s Katrina moment’ | OnPolitics
Border Patrol statistics show the number of immigrants — adults and children — coming from countries other than Mexico who were arrested at the Southwest border has soared from 46,997 in fiscal year 2011 to nearly 150,000 in fiscal year 2013.
Border Patrol statistics show the number of immigrants — adults and children — coming from countries other than Mexico who were arrested at the Southwest border has soared from 46,997 in fiscal year 2011 to nearly 150,000 in fiscal year 2013.
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
- Messages
- 20,894
- Reaction score
- 8,126
Interesting stuff. I'll preface my comments here by pointing out that, if I had to check a box for a mainstream political affiliation, it'd be libertarian. So I'm naturally sympathetic to libertarian arguments. But I still see some (potentially major) problems with DeForrest's article, starting here:
- Catholicism didn't "absorb" insights from other systems of thought. Its philosophy was built directly on Aristotelianism; it's impossible to discuss Catholicism as separate from Aristotelian philosophy, because the former is basically a superstructure that was placed on the latter. And this may be pedantic, but I don't appreciate the implication of that phrasing either; makes it sound like Catholicism is an eclectic agglomeration of incoherent philosophies that have been picked up over the last couple millennia.
- Libertarianism is philosophically liberal, in that it is based on the concept of an autonomous individual. That concept of self would have been utterly incomprehensible in the ancient world, and it is fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism (which is based on the philosophy of those ancients). And conversely, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard have no use for the Aristotelian concepts "freedom and virtue, justice and choice."
- I agree with DeForrest that Catholic intellectuals need to place a stronger emphasis on subsidiarity, but I disagree that embracing a fundamentally incompatible political philosophy is the best way to do that. Distributist thinkers, for instance, offer a much more compatible way for Catholics to translate their beliefs into a coherent economic policy, because they recognize the dangers posed by big government and big business. Libertarians frequently advocate for breaking up the major banks (which I support), because they rightly argue that the banks only achieved economy-threatening size through crony capitalism. But they don't have an issue with huge corporations that exist due to "legitimate economies of scale", despite the fact that such entities are no less threatening to the civil society both Catholics and libertarians claim to prize. Size is the issue. Bigness of any sort-- government or corporate-- is a major problem, yet the deference libertarians are obliged to show to the "free market" causes them to turn a blind eye to lots of corporate malfeasance.
As a matter of pragmatic politics, Catholics may often find common cause with libertarians at the federal level, as we both fight to devolve power away from Washington and back to states and municipalities. The only federal politicians I can bring myself to support are consistent libertarians. But I can't see the alliance extending much beyond that.
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
For me, in a nutshell, this sums up everything wrong with our bureaucracy. Not only are we talking about numbers now for our government that (let's be honest) are virtually beyond practical human comprehension (hundreds of millions, multiple billions, trillions), but an entity is rewarded with $7,000,000 for only misspending almost $48,000,000.
Honestly, in what other facet of human existence does this type of inefficiency make any kind of logical sense??
Florida wins $7 million for wasting $47 million in food stamp funds | Fox News
Honestly, in what other facet of human existence does this type of inefficiency make any kind of logical sense??
Florida wins $7 million for wasting $47 million in food stamp funds | Fox News
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
So, over the weekend, I was talking with family and this doozy was shared. An acquaintance of the family just started an administrative job in the local sheriff office. She gets 25 paid days of vacation as a new hire (not including sick days). If she merely shows up to work as scheduled (so, not on vacation and not sick), she will get an additional 5 days of paid vacation the following year. You read that correctly. For just showing up (performance doesn't impact this), she gets additional days.
Her response as to her thoughts on this? "About time someone rewards those who do the right thing!". Apparently, pay checks don't communicate the same message.
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
I'm glad you commented. I read the article thinking "I hope Whiskey reads and responds to this" because I always enjoy what you have to say concerning the intersection of religion, philosophy, and politics.
I'm interested in what you'd say about how to deal with the problem of bigness in those cases where it is obtained through what you describe as "legitimate economies of scale." As a libertarian, I don't particularly like all-consuming mega-corporations, but it seems that the only way to kill a big fly is with an even bigger swatter. If "big business" is bad enough that we should do something about it, it's going to require an even bigger government, which I see as a much bigger threat.
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
I don't have any strong feelings one way or another about the article. I found some of it good, some of it not so good.
I'm glad you responded though, and responded in the manner in which you did (including your preface).
I find myself unable to give a political affiliation in our modern society. And I know you didn't give a heartfelt endorsement of libertarians. I view democrats as the greatest of evils in our system. I view republicans as the lesser of evils. In the voting booth, I always vote against the greatest evil. So I'm very rarely ever actually voting "for" anybody, but simply against somebody else. I somewhat believe in libertarian ideals, but unfortunately, have a difficult time seeing their solutions as practical in today's world. After all, a libertarian can ultimately claim "It's not in the Constitution. Let the individual state or local municipality decide it." Well, that can be argued for about 98% of our government. While I can wish for an axe to be taken to the vast, vast majority of government spending and programs, I can also see the benefit of educating all our citizens, having safety standards for automobiles and equipment and goods, regulation on our food and drug standards, the poor having access to food, water, shelter, and medical care, etc. These are things that, by and large, the free market or invisible hand has no interest in setting, maintaining, or regulating. And if it isn't in the Constitution or the free market can't or won't regulate it, then we simply go without?
So I simply call myself conservative, wanting a close adherence to the Constitution, with limited and efficient government.
In truth, I advocate for the Aristotelian slave/master philosophy, Plato's Aristocratic view...and Aquinas' charity.
connor_in
Oh Yeeaah!!!
- Messages
- 11,433
- Reaction score
- 1,006
Organized labor was a big part of that "flay swatter". It did help that the government took steps to empower labor organizations in the 1930's - mid 1970's (when support began to wain with the passing of "right to work" laws). Also, the government didn't need to be any bigger to avoid the 2008 financial collapse. It just needed to exercise already existing regulatory power.
As an aside, I still haven't heard any good arguments from "free market" advocates and or any libertarians as to why labor is so restricted in terms of its ability to move to and from various markets within "free trade zones".
Last edited:
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
I wouldn't put any restrictions on unions whatsoever but I wouldn't categorically protect them either. Workers should be free to organize and if they're negotiating from a position of strength, they can probably achieve a great deal. I don't believe in laws that FORCE businesses to collectively bargain, however. A union of plumbers works because the threat of a strike would leave you without plumbers. A union of dining hall workers, as some have suggested at Notre Dame, would never work because those workers are easily replaced.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
Not sure where to put this, so here you go.
Boston College professor assigns students to go on dates - Lifestyle - The Boston Globe
Boston College professor assigns students to go on dates - Lifestyle - The Boston Globe
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
Too funny. Reading about the "hookup culture" brings me back to Observer Viewpoint wars from sophomore year. Anyone remember the "Melissa Buddie" incident of 2008?
In defense of Buddie // The Observer
- Messages
- 20,894
- Reaction score
- 8,126
It would require some pretty radical measures, which large corporations would lobby against tooth and nail. So I'm not optimistic that it'll ever happen.
That's exactly right. Big business requires big government. Lots of politicians on the right talk about radically decreasing the size of the Federal government, but without a plan to also dismantle big business into smaller entities that can be effectively regulated by the states, it's just whistling into the wind.
I wouldn't say big government is a "bigger threat," just a different manifestation of the same threat. The vertical power hierarchies we're talking about here overlap considerably. The way to fix it is to dismantle the vertical hierarchies and distribute that power horizontally instead. So, everything that the individual states could handle on their own (welfare, education, etc.) gets devolved from Washington (lots of Department closures) to the states. And every corporation exceeding a certain value threshold is forced to split into smaller entities that are forced to compete with one another.
Realistically speaking, none of this could be achieved without another constitutional convention. But I think it's the only way to truly fix this country.
I'd argue that it was never a very effective fly-swatter, because our unions were heavily bureaucratized early on. The golden age of American unions directly coincided with a period of strong sustained economic growth, which was brought about by conditions that will probably never be replicated. When everyone's doing well, there's not much incentive to rock the boat.
And it has consistently failed to exercise that regulatory power because it's owned by the same people who make billions on Wall Street.
What sort of restrictions do you have in mind?
As wizards' post above demonstrates, libertarians don't dislike unions per se... freedom of association and all that. But they do dislike cronyism and market distortions, which have been the hallmarks of American unions due to their heavily bureaucratization.
Rack Em
Community Bod
- Messages
- 7,089
- Reaction score
- 2,727
GoIrish41
Paterfamilius
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 2,119
That's absolutely right. Drives me crazy when people call for smaller government without consideration of what that would look like. As with most things,itis a little more complex than a slogan that can fit on a bumper sticker.
connor_in
Oh Yeeaah!!!
- Messages
- 11,433
- Reaction score
- 1,006
That oped is pretty dumb. This type of "history is a liberal conspiracy" narrative is complete bullshit. I completed a history minor way back when. We openly discussed the Bay of Pigs and what a fiasco it was for Kennedy. I think he is remembered fondly in the end for avoiding World War 3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We also discussed the fact that Nixon implemented a ton of good public policy. Finally with FDR, arguing that his policies "prolonged" the depression is based on pretty shaky hypotheticals. One thing his policies did do was help avoid massive civil unrest. As to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the administration was well aware that war with Japan was coming (they had withdrawn their diplomats and what not). What they did not anticipate was a direct attack on the Hawaiian Islands.
As an aside, Chomsky's historical works lay out all of the horrific results of all the modern Presidents foreign policies. I'm surprised he isn't more widely read among libertarians.
Last edited:
C
Cackalacky
Guest
Revisionist history more like it. That author is guilty of the same thing he accuses the "leftist journalists" of doing.
Also anyone who thinks the current media and journalists have a left slant to them is fooling themselves. Media has fully aligned themselves under the flag of their corporate masters and will peddle whatever swill will generate the highest revenue stream. The only slant being generated is that which genarates $$$$$.
Also anyone who thinks the current media and journalists have a left slant to them is fooling themselves. Media has fully aligned themselves under the flag of their corporate masters and will peddle whatever swill will generate the highest revenue stream. The only slant being generated is that which genarates $$$$$.
irishog77
NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 2,206
This is probably true in the Twitterati and blogoshpere world, but not in the "mainstream" world of media and journalists. There is definitely a left slant for the majority of "mainstream." Hell, most even admit to it openly or from behind the curtain of anonymous polling of journalists.
C
Cackalacky
Guest
What constitutes mainstream? Fox certainly isn't leftist. CNN is vanilla. MSNBC is but no one watches them. I don't see it.
Hell I am a progressive person and I can't find any "news" programs I enjoy watching or would even consider to accurately portray a leftist position.
Its why I watch BBC if I want real news. All we get here is straight propoganda.
Wild Bill
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,518
- Reaction score
- 3,262
CNN is left, in my opinion.
Just about every major newspaper is left leaning.
The three major networks are left leaning. Some are worse than others.
Conservatives control Fox and talk radio.
I doubt the slant has anything to do with money. I mean, just like you said, nobody watches MSNBC. CNN has awful ratings too.