Just spit balling, but I have wondered if a lot of us families could go down to one three-year old Corolla, go tent camping for our summer vacations and live in a two-bedroom town house with the kids sharing a room and a bunkbed, and survive on one income and enjoy life more.
We do have pretty high standards of living here, but I don't know that we've found the perfect balance between material possessions and expectations for travel and the amount of work it requires to sustain all of our wants.
You sound so far out of touch you should go into politics. There are plenty of families already with only 1 car (or none), who can't take vacations, and are renting a 2 bedroom suite because they can't afford to buy a house. They don't need the extra challenge of trying to figure out who watches the kids when their school has an unexpected closure
The standard of living and human progress globally has been absolutely incredible over the past hundred years, and astonishing in the last 50-60. We lift 130,000 people out of extreme poverty every day. Talk to your grandparents about their life and tell me that ours is not better in almost every single conceivable way.
My grandparents have all passed on unfortunately but without holding a seance I can tell you that they owned their homes that they lived in on a single blue collar income with their 4+ children who were all fed and were all able to very reasonably afford a post secondary education.
Quote:
In the 1930's, people would literally stave to death in this country and on this continent. I know that life is tough for some these days, but that doesn't happen today. The social safety net did not exist, and there is no question that the overall quality of everything from shelter and housing to our diets and availability of food has taken leaps and bounds forward.
Are you under the impression that suggesting things have gotten better for some means that things got better for everybody? Your argument is pretty flawed here because you’re basically suggesting that someone who under the same circumstances in previous generations would have been fairly well off and able to afford more isn’t worse off today because someone else who was way worse off in those previous generations is marginally better.
Quote:
On what metric are you suggesting things are worse for this generation or the one before us? I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I can't think of a single thing that was better in the good old days of the 1920's or whatever.
Well first off it’s pretty funny to me that you keep using the 1920s and 1930s as reference points when arguing that the current generation(living in the year 2024) is doing better than the last but it’s a cold day so I appreciate the comical warmth your sense of humour brings with it. I’d 100% agree that life in the 60s was unquestionably better than it was in the 20s, partly because for so many people living in the 20s there was nowhere to go but up.
Just spit balling, but I have wondered if a lot of us families could go down to one three-year old Corolla, go tent camping for our summer vacations and live in a two-bedroom town house with the kids sharing a room and a bunkbed, and survive on one income and enjoy life more.
We do have pretty high standards of living here, but I don't know that we've found the perfect balance between material possessions and expectations for travel and the amount of work it requires to sustain all of our wants.
Spit balling? I've run ballpark numbers before because I'm as weirdo. I've never seen anyone else run basic numbers like this before, but when I've point it out, it quickly makes sense.
Many people lose $50-100K in net worth a year (ie: Interest debt on upgrades, duplicate/unnecessary spending). Some of it is required to be lost to put a roof over your head etc., work, stay warm in this weather, mental health etc., but a surprising amount of it is unnecessary to be lost. Making that lifestyle more efficient and retaining even 10-20% of that yearly lost net worth could be huge for many households.
OT, won't clutter the thread. Calc below.
Spoiler!
The difference between a $30K vehicle (ie: new Corolla) vs a $50K premium vehicle is $20K. If you finance that over 3 years at let's say 5% on average (higher now), you're constantly giving away an extra $1K while also locking up the cashflow difference of $20K during that time span.
For many families, vehicles a somewhat continuous cycle for at least a decade or two with minor gaps that don't change the calculation too much. Meaning that each decade, you're losing net worth of around $3-5K on that difference alone BEFORE the depreciation of the extra $20K bump ups. That perhaps could be described as exchanging around $2-3K extra net worth a year to be in a fancier vehicle. That's $20-30K a decade in extra interest and probably $40K+ on a depreciating asset. This before the additional costs of operating and maintaining those vehicles. If you're struggling to increase your household net worth, something like this better be worth it.
This is also easily calculable for intergenerational families in a home. $2-3K ish in extra in rent per year comes out to $25-40K extra you're giving away a year for comfort. A decade later, that's $250-400K. It's not to say you'd immediately save it all and invest and then retire early or anything. I'm just saying again that's how much after tax net worth you are exchanging for comfort.
There's also buying a house too big and how much 3% over a decade (yes, it's higher now) on an extra $200K house comes out to. $6K a year in net worth gifted to the bank extra in simple, not compound interest. Again, not even factoring the cash flow lock up for paying down the principle. A decade later, that's $60K in net worth given away, plus the stresses of forced savings by paying down principle. Again, is the bump up worth it? If yes, fair. If no, re-evaluate.
Blah, blah, blah. Yes, I have not factored other facets that might be worth it. But most people who say that to me haven't even gotten to the basic step 1 in quantifying the loss of net worth as I have in the above and summarized below. That's not including other stuff.
But bump ups net worth trade:
- $20K for car, $2.5K extra per year interest
- Equal or double above for depreciating asset.
- Rent v intergenerational household $20-40K per year.
- Interest on $300-500K mortgage about same $20-40K.
- $200K bump up for house, $8-12K extra per year.
If someone trading away an extra $30-55K in net worth a year for a comfort or conspicuous consumption that they don't need, that might be why they can't get ahead and why maintaining it is so stressful. A decade later, that's $300-550K they could have perhaps maintained or let's be real, spent on other things that excite the person more or derive more happiness. $300-550K is also a basic retirement that will last several decades when paired up with CPP and OAS. Even retaining half of that net worth in a decade isn't something to scoff at and this goes on for several decades for many people.
If you love that car or love that community or love those upgrades, by all means. But if those things are meh to you and the rich have convinced us to live like them, that might be why they're getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. $30-55K extra in net worth lost on a $75-150K post tax household is a pretty big percentage.
Saving an extra $3K ($250 a month), $6K ($500 a month), $12K ($1K a month) or even $18K ($750 a month) for a household (not person) can go quite far after a few decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda
You sound so far out of touch you should go into politics. There are plenty of families already with only 1 car (or none), who can't take vacations, and are renting a 2 bedroom suite because they can't afford to buy a house. They don't need the extra challenge of trying to figure out who watches the kids when their school has an unexpected closure
If you make $50K after tax and work 50 weeks. I believe that means a single day of work is worth $200.
That's hard to let go, especially since taking time off for the kids also increases the risk you lose your ability to earn that $200 per day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Add AWD or 4H to that setup and you’ll feel like a god.
I’m out there ripping (while safely approaching stops and maintaining and over-cautious following distance as I am still a good citizen).
But off the line? Let’s ####ing go.
I'm doing that too. I'm ripping it like crazy and having a ton of fun in this weather. But when other vehicles are around, I drive a lot more cautiously like speed limit and following distance of 2-3+ vehicles. I also try not to drive directly side by side vehicles if possible to reduce risk of side swipes because the road lines aren't always easy to see and I don't know how others will react when they can't see them.
I see so many people follow too close and use braking distances that have no room for margin. Even if I trust myself, I don't trust others not to do things that might increase the chances of a situation.
I seem to recall you had studs, I bet they're extra great right now.
Last edited by DoubleF; 01-12-2024 at 01:18 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
To keep it on topic, my mom routinely talks about how bad the winters used to be where there was significant snow in September, all the way until May.
Slightly off topic: In weather like this, you have to feel for the real working class people who are still keeping things going. The delivery drivers, the Skip the Dishes, the restaurant workers, grocery store and more. Lot's of people who work with the laptop from home, getting Amazon delivered, thinking it's great, have an out of touch mentality in some ways.
Coming from immigrant parents and grandparents, one common thing that has been repeated a lot was this. Years ago when people lived simpler lives, the stress was making sure there was quality food on the table and a decent roof over your head.
Now people have extreme stress trying to pay bills, but a lot of bills for items and services we don't really need. There is a difference. The consumerism is in some ways killing us and a lot of it is very North American. They don't have the same mentality in other countries.
An old tale I have heard many times goes like this. "An American/Canadian family is on vacation on a beautiful island. A local, elderly fisherman pulls up in his boat and sits down at a seaside tavern for lunch. The family inquires how many boats he has for his fisherman business and he says only 1. The family asks him if he has ever wanted to buy more boats, hire more fisherman so he can have a larger fisherman business and thus more income. With the higher income, he could have more free time to just enjoy life without financial stress. The elderly fisherman looks at the American/Canadian family and says "Isn't that what I am doing now?"
You sound so far out of touch you should go into politics. There are plenty of families already with only 1 car (or none), who can't take vacations, and are renting a 2 bedroom suite because they can't afford to buy a house. They don't need the extra challenge of trying to figure out who watches the kids when their school has an unexpected closure
Um, fking obviously.
But you're totally out of touch if you don't think there is a giant group of middle class people working their asses off for material goods and too-expensive vacations that then forces them to work way too hard and take on too much stress to try to live a better life when that approach results in a worse life.
You honestly aren't aware of people with a couple cars, a too-big house in a too-expensive neighbourhood that need to get away to a sun destination annually yet complain about how long they'll have to work and how hard it is to keep that pace?
Yeah, a poor family eating ramen for dinner every night has no fat left to cut, but there are absolutely tens of thousands of people in Calgary and everywhere else living a very high standard of living they are sacrificing greatly to maintain.
With your logic why don't we keep going down? A poor family in a rental apartment has it bad? What about the guy living in a tent along Deerfoot? And you think he has it bad, go live in a refugee camp in Sudan.
My point is totally reasonable and applies to a ton of people. I realize it doesn't apply to every human on earth.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
I seem to recall you had studs, I bet they're extra great right now.
Felt like a bit of a waste over the past month or two (and a bit silly clacking around on endlessly dry roads) but they’re absolutely shining in these conditions.
I’ll have to see how many times I really get to enjoy them to the fullest over their lifetime before I decide if I’d do it again, but it’s pretty fun out there right now. It’s nice hitting a bus route hill or an intersection approach that’s pure ice and having them feel as tacky as pavement.
schools closed- but oh no not for Looooob who had a mandatory international exam that day- there were likely 20 of us across all of CBE that had to go to school (at least that's how I remember it)
the day was memorable for 2 reasons, the Flames beat Doug Gilmour and the Blues in the dome that night in game 7 to advance to the finals
^ I was in grade 1 for that one. A bunch of snow drifted at our front door and we dug a tunnel to the outside. When you're six years old, it was awesome.
I think I was in grade 2 for the 1986 one. My dad took our 1973 international scout out to go free some other families from their houses.
You're doing a really job of being obtuse, for someone who isn't even trying.
Great contribution, so you must have some kind of metric to counter with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
My grandparents have all passed on unfortunately but without holding a seance I can tell you that they owned their homes that they lived in on a single blue collar income with their 4+ children who were all fed and were all able to very reasonably afford a post secondary education.
Are you under the impression that suggesting things have gotten better for some means that things got better for everybody? Your argument is pretty flawed here because you’re basically suggesting that someone who under the same circumstances in previous generations would have been fairly well off and able to afford more isn’t worse off today because someone else who was way worse off in those previous generations is marginally better.
Well first off it’s pretty funny to me that you keep using the 1920s and 1930s as reference points when arguing that the current generation(living in the year 2024) is doing better than the last but it’s a cold day so I appreciate the comical warmth your sense of humour brings with it. I’d 100% agree that life in the 60s was unquestionably better than it was in the 20s, partly because for so many people living in the 20s there was nowhere to go but up.
Well, I used the 1920’s and 30’s because that’s 100 years or so ago. You suggested it’s been 2/3 generations of decline and I feel like that’s about 100 years. If you want to go back to another time and show some kind of evidence that things are worse today, I’m all ears.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Great contribution, so you must have some kind of metric to counter with?
Sure, my metric is: three generations ago was not 100 years ago. Who taught you math? You're cherry-picking the Great Depression as the point of comparison, when it's clear to everyone else that the basis of comparison being made is against the Baby Boomers, who were born from the late 1940s to late 1960s. That's "three generations ago".
Sure, my metric is: three generations ago was not 100 years ago. Who taught you math? You're cherry-picking the Great Depression as the point of comparison, when it's clear to everyone else that the basis of comparison being made is against the Baby Boomers, who were born from the late 1940s to late 1960s. That's "three generations ago".
Great, so what’s worse today than the 1940’s or the 60’s or 70’s for that matter. And yeah for me, my grandparents were born in the 1910’s and 1920’s, so that is three generations, but thanks for your perspective.
Great, so what’s worse today than the 1940’s or the 60’s or 70’s for that matter. And yeah for me, my grandparents were born in the 1910’s and 1920’s, so that is three generations, but thanks for your perspective.
Usually when people discuss “generations ago” they don’t mean three generations older than they are, to be fair.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Usually when people discuss “generations ago” they don’t mean three generations older than they are, to be fair.
You guys are just insufferable. Pick whatever starting date, IDGAF, and tell me how things are way worse today. The pedantic nature of these conversations is just mind numbing.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Well, I used the 1920’s and 30’s because that’s 100 years or so ago. You suggested it’s been 2/3 generations of decline and I feel like that’s about 100 years.
Boomers, gen x, gen y, gen z. That’s four generations and still a few decades away from what you’re referencing but this is just arguing semantics at this point.
Quote:
If you want to go back to another time and show some kind of evidence that things are worse today, I’m all ears.
Is home ownership(not renting) more easily achievable (especially for lower income earners) today compared to the 50s, 60s and 70s? Heck is it even more achievable compared to 20 years ago? What kind of value is the average person getting when buying a home compared to back then?
How are things like pensions and post secondary education costs compared to years past?
I really don’t understand what you gain out of pretending that the majority of people are on an upward trajectory as it relates to their economic mobility when it clearly isn’t the case anymore. That isn’t to say that no one is seeing things improve but pointing to overall reduced poverty numbers as your sole argument that the majority of people aren’t seeing things backslide isn’t very convincing.
Sure, my metric is: three generations ago was not 100 years ago. Who taught you math? You're cherry-picking the Great Depression as the point of comparison, when it's clear to everyone else that the basis of comparison being made is against the Baby Boomers, who were born from the late 1940s to late 1960s. That's "three generations ago".
Sure, didn't those kids grow up with one car? My mom had three sisters. They had a two bedroom house so the four girls all shared one room. There was one bathroom for all six people. My grandpa was a janitor at a school and my grandma worked a couple days a week at a jewelry store, but was more or less a homemaker.
That's what I'm talking about. My mom and aunts had awesome childhoods. Very poor materially (they would turn their sheets inside out between washes to stretch the amount of time between doing laundry to save money). But they enjoyed life. No natural gas, either. Apparently my grandpa had to shovel coal into a furnace to warm up the house in the morning? This would have been early 1950s in Prince Albert, Sask.
I think a lot of people could live like that and be happy, but the pull of materialism is very strong. We want more than one bathroom. We don't want to share a bedroom. We want two cars and a few tvs and to go out for dinner and all the rest of it. There is a cost to all of that, though, and it takes a toll.
And yeah, super duper obviously I know this doesn't apply to everyone. Can't even believe that has to be said, btw.
