Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What determines how your life will be?

24

Replies

  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,371 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    I consider myself to be successful, according to my own criteria given upthread, and I have never ever done 5 year plans.

    Ditto. I decided to go back to school and do a master's degree on the spur of the moment. Same with buying a bigger/nicer house (which entailed getting my old house ready for sale while finishing off that master's and working full-time). There was definitely no planning involved there! I'm possibly the least spontaneous person ever but, in retrospect, everything that is really good in my life has come about as the result of a completely spontaneous decision.

    I am now three years past retirement eligibility and have absolutely no idea when I'm going to retire. :D
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,304 Member
    I didn't turn out to be that fortune 500 CEO, or Mother Theresa, or anything, so maybe a completely secure childhood is not 100% a good thing. Saps ambition? It felt great, though, and I think contributed to relative happiness and satisfaction in adulthood.

    Oh I dont know, I feel ambition is over rated myself

    These people who are really ambitious and driven and have to be the best and most at everything 'type A personalities'- are they really happier??
    I think there is a lot to be said for accepting where you are at and being happy with not being the top level of everything.

    I am not super ambitious and I didnt become CEO of the world either - but I am happy in the job I do and I do my best at it and I have earned comfortable enough money without becoming the richest person in the world

    Most of us really will be ordinary people doing ordinary jobs and earning ordinary money - and thats OK

    Usual disclaimers:
    it is not a false dichotomy between Strive to be CEO of the world and lying on the beach doing nothing all your life
    Everyone is different and what makes different people feel happy and successful varies - but IMO we all need work/life balance and not to be so driven by ambition that we lose sight of the other things in life.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,498 Member
    Haven't seen work ethic mentioned.

    Work ethic is a belief that work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character and individual abilities.[1] It is a set of values centered on importance of work and manifested by determination or desire to work hard. Social ingrainment of this value is considered to enhance character through hard work that is respective to an individual's field of work

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic

    Note, it's my belief that strong work ethic transfers over to good in one's personal life.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,622 Member
    I've been giving this more thought.

    I suspect that pursuing and achieving "success" (in many definitions) requires that there be some discontent, discomfort or something like that. Y'know, like the irritant that causes the pearl to begin growing?

    Maybe if one's too contented where one is, accomplishment is more likely to stall? Why bother, if things are happy as they are?

    There could be a sweet-spot range, enough discomfort/discontent to spur action and change, but not so much that one is discouraged from even trying to improve things. (Those thresholds would certainly differ for different people.)

    We all know the tropes, like the scion of a well-off happy family who goes nowhere in life, or maybe even heads downhill despite "all the advantages". Maybe too comfortable, used to good things arriving with no effort input?

    Just a thought, as one possible factor.
  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    @AnnPT77 - or, like in my case, everyone is relying on you. My wife is currently disabled with a foot that desperately needs surgery (and a back surgery needed). To afford surgeries in the US being self-employed, you're likely talking 30K this year out of pocket. I'm fortunate enough to have that but I'd rather not dip into retirement or savings.

    I completely get what most are saying on here -- 5 year planning isn't necessary, I just put it out there that it helped me tremendously. There were times in my life (mostly with the mental health and addiction parts in my 20s) where one day at a time was all I could and should have managed.

    But when you're mostly from a one income family and you're relied upon as the head of household to help put your kids through college, prepare for retirement and also have enough for medical care in the US and comfortable older years (where I can actually do some things for me, which I haven't done in decades because I've been taking care of everyone else), it does take some planning. There was a financial planning company (obviously biased) that did a study on planning for retirement -- they said over 60% of those that did were happy versus 20 something percent that didn't). And with the rising costs of healthcare and the status of Social Security in the future (and inflation on top), for me it simply reverts back to the hierarchy of needs -- health, shelter, food. I came from a family where that stuff wasn't taken for granted. Perhaps that's the A type personality in me. IDK. I think there is something to be said growing up on the edge, so to speak, with fear that you might not make it financially. My kids, unfortunately or fortunately, also grew up with that -- lots of love but also some financial fear and uncertainty.

    I also paid for all my own college. Something nearly impossible these days, but I was pretty brutally poor going through school. It makes a huge difference if you're living off of mommy and daddy's credit card in college versus working 50 hours a week during exam weeks. Perhaps that drives me too.

    My wife and I (and kids) have been pretty poor (like Govt Cheese/formula poor) and also affluent by most measures. Having the necessities and not worrying about them sure beats the alternative. But it's also something my wife doesn't have to think or worry about now. She's not a planner because she doesn't have to be. It's ironic, she's always saying I should be more spontaneous. I wish I had that leisure to be!! I guess I feel I owe her that -- she met me when I didn't have a dime and just getting over addiction. And perhaps my present mindset affected a lot of my responses -- as you alluded to -- your current circumstances affect a lot of your actions or inactions toward a different result.

    I guess what I'm saying is relationships, food, shelter, comfort and love -- the basics -- are still what drives me, regardless of the way I came across initially. And as to what @ythannah mentioned, I'm a firm believer in life/work balance, believe it or not. My son approached me with some real estate investments just this week and I said no because I don't need the stress of it at my age, though it likely could mean a lot more revenue.
  • tnh2o
    tnh2o Posts: 161 Member
    I've had a five year plan since I was 16 yet by most measures - including mine - I have been spectacularly UNsuccessful.

    But things could be a whole lot worse and I'm in a relatively good spot now.

    @ReenieHJ It doesn't hurt if you happened to have been born a white male.
  • autobahn66
    autobahn66 Posts: 59 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Haven't seen work ethic mentioned.

    Work ethic is a belief that work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character and individual abilities.[1] It is a set of values centered on importance of work and manifested by determination or desire to work hard. Social ingrainment of this value is considered to enhance character through hard work that is respective to an individual's field of work

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic

    Note, it's my belief that strong work ethic transfers over to good in one's personal life.

    I firmly disagree. Both that work has value in its own right and that a dedication to work necessarily benefits one's personal life.

    With regard to good in one's personal life:

    I come from a traditional background, where work ethic is highly celebrated. I confound my value as a person so highly with my work, and with my ability and dedication to achieving my work, that it has been a detriment to my physical and mental health. It has been extremely difficult to decouple my work and my value as a person.

    To complicate matters, I work in a profession that is widely considered to be doing work that is good and has value. Combining this with an uncontrolled 'work ethic' leads to either guilt (at taking the time required to rest in order to work effectively, even though remaining would very likely benefit the work) or working inappropriate hours to try to make the work perfect in an imperfect world.


    With regard to the inherent value of work:

    I work diligently because failing to do so would put others at risk. If I could change the circumstances of my work to allow me to work less diligently, with less time or focus, then I would do that. In a utopia most, if not all, my work would be automated, and it would likely be better for all involved. Perhaps my job would still exist as a transducer or communicator, gathering inputs and feeding back outputs of a perfect decision-making machine.

    Some work is educational: due to the nature of my job, I have been 'training' for 15 years (give or take) and in this case, the process of work has value, as indeed it does improve my ability to do my job through experience. But many people work hard to make this so. It take phenomenal work from others to allow someone to do work that is valuable to their educational needs for such a long time. If I was doing the same thing for 15 years, then the value of that work to me would be nil.

    But much of the 'work' that is done is not educational, has no inherent virtue beyond the output of the work (which may or may not have value in its own right), and does not improve the character or abilities of the person doing it. Whether it is achieved with diligence or with a lackadaisical whimsy is inconsequential: so long as the outcomes of the work are the same (i.e. a task was completed to a suitable standard and appropriate payment was given).

    I accept that there is substantial evidence that people who work do better in many ways than those who don't. I am willing to go so far as to say that some of that benefit extends beyond the fact that those not in work are likely to have confounding factors which make them less healthy and happy than those who are able to work. But I believe this is a function of larger, non-ideal systems which encourage a strong work ethic to the benefit of large institutions to the detriment of most working people.
  • Xerogs
    Xerogs Posts: 328 Member
    In my opinion success is always a work in progress and you have to be OK with failing to appreciate any success in your life. I think it boils down to each individual on how they define their own success and pursue it. I've seen children raised by the same parents in the same manner have very different outcomes in life. Even in different financial scenarios there can be very different outcomes in how people deal with navigating their life. Some people I know with a very wealthy upbringing don't seem to have the coping skills to deal with adversity and they sometimes implode as a result.

    In my own personal journey there were moments in my life where I took stock of where I was and where I wanted to be so it changed my behavior. I also had to be OK with the outcome of that decision even if it didn't bear fruit. Taking a very long look at my life allowed me to let go of my past and not use it as an excuse to not try to make things better. It's easy to blame my own shortcomings on things that happened in my past but really those things are necessary to shape who I am today. I can't change my past but I can use it to guide my decisions in the present moment to help shape my future. Worrying about the past or future a great deal is wasted energy but that is not to say you shouldn't take note of each to help yourself out. Having flexible goals has shaped my current level of success in general (both life and work)

    So to me its each individual has the ability to define their own success and not wallow in the pity swamp so to speak. Introspective people seem to surround themselves with great support systems no matter their upbringing and seem to generate their own success and not take if for granted. None of this is very easy and it takes time to develop the tools you need to navigate the highs and lows of life.
  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    tnh2o wrote: »
    I've had a five year plan since I was 16 yet by most measures - including mine - I have been spectacularly UNsuccessful.

    But things could be a whole lot worse and I'm in a relatively good spot now.

    @ReenieHJ It doesn't hurt if you happened to have been born a white male.

    It might surprise you to hear that I mostly agree with you, especially historically. But over 25 years in recruiting, I have seen things improve, in some cases dramatically.

    Though early in career, I saw sexism and potential racism blatantly applied, I've also seen corrective actions to rectify past discriminatory hiring practices. I've been lucky enough to participate in two Fortune 100 diversity initiatives that were active in hiring racially diverse candidates and women. One program had an HR "kickback" to hire women/minorities over white males. Basically, "headhunting" fees didn't get counted out of their HR budget if they hired a woman or a minority candidate. Another (the largest Building Products company in North America) had historically very little diversity and women in that industry. So they aggressively hired women and minorities into entry level roles and also into higher level roles.

    I spent six months finding women and minority MBA grads to fill entry level VP candidates for them and they specifically said, while they would "look at" white male candidates, they certainly weren't the priority. That can be an acceptable and completely legal business practice in order to balance out an industry to reflect the demographics of the population and avoid lawsuits for discrimination, even if not intentional. Many industries like concrete, cement or asphalt Construction don't have minorities/women in the ranks. So, it's not as simple as "hire the best person that's the most qualified for the job...". That's BS. With decades of nepotism as the means of hiring, all that existed within that industry were white males. That's changing rapidly and I'm proud to have been a small part of that change. I hired in an HR Manager that hired in a diverse (black male) HR Mgr that became their "Champion" of North American Diversity and he called me to ask me to work with them to help implement that. Both were two of most talented HR professionals I've ever worked with in my career (and the other I remember most fondly were female but in different industries).

    Being a Construction headhunter (I split time between construction and high-tech startups), I also have at least a half dozen clients that are DBEs (diversity business enterprises) that get a lot of their business because larger cities require a certain percentage of women and minority owned participants for any construction. And this process has been improved. It used to be common that white males would set up sham companies with their wives or a minority friend and use it as a front to win more business to skirt around these diversity requirements. I've seen many of those people prosecuted for fraud (and rightfully so). One high profile one in my hometown of Cincinnati.

    I also follow and am connected with some women owned VC (Venture Capital firms) that only invest in women owned companies and that's fantastic! I also know some Black VCs that only invest in black owned businesses too! Things are changing for the better.

    But I've also been on the other side of that and I'm not mad at all about it (in scholarships and at work where it was clear that only women or minorities would get money or promotions to catch up for past discretions). My daughter was too. She was a Valedictorian and had to go out of state to get any financial help because she was white. We were literally told that by a financial aid counselor in Ohio. And I understand that completely. BTW, my daughter worked her tail off and ended up getting the last two years full academic scholarship, including room and board.

    I'm hopeful that we will soon reach a time where upbringing, culture and support, as well as financial head starts, mean more than race or gender. And I know that it's a huge difference between getting hired and being treated the same within the workplace, but even that is changing, perhaps more slowly.

    But this mostly ties in with financial success, which certainly contributes to happiness.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,622 Member
    It's interesting (and a little odd to me) that the discussion of "work ethic" here seems to be framing it as something inherently about paid labor. I understand that the linked Wikipedia article, and some other definition sources, frame it that way.

    But that's not the way I think of it. To me, it's more a shorthand for a set of behaviors, or perhaps a character trait. (Some other sources' definitions seem to frame it this way, too.) I don't know quite how to define it, but it seems like bringing one's whole self, intelligence, and energy to an important task at hand, during the time devoted to that task.

    I don't agree with the post that set off this sub-thread, that it's merely that "strong work ethic transfers over to good in one's personal life". I think it potentially applies across multiple domains in life (but not necessarily to all domains equally).

    I'll give an example from my own background, that I think represents strong work ethic: My dad built the house I grew up in, in less than a year, mostly just helped by his brother, and a bit by my pregnant mother (though she had fewer relevant skills). Cousins came to help with specific tasks, like raising walls or laying cement, that require a crew, but mostly it was just dad & uncle coming home from paid work every bleepin' day - and on their vacations from paid work - and working until bedtime. Only a few specialty things, like putting in the furnace, plastering, and drilling the well, were hired out. Dad/uncle did the wiring, plumbing, block-laying, carpentry, more. Decent amounts of the lumber came from cutting down trees on the property, hauling them to a nearby sawmill in small trailer-loads, then trailering back the boards. Then they turned around and did the same for my uncle's house next door. I don't see how that's not work ethic . . . but they weren't being paid.

    I admit, that example's at heart an economic activity, even if not paid labor. But I think the same thing applies to other domains: I know people who are hobby artists or musicians, for example, who bring a work ethic to those things. Their work ethic distinguishes them from dippers, dabblers, and dilettantes.

    In my paid-work life, I've even known some people who had a strong work ethic related to their non-paid activities, but a more slacker-like approach to their paid work, as if the paid work were a conveyor belt they hopped on at a certain of day, did the things they were explicitly told to do (not necessarily with energy), then stepped off the conveyor at clock-out time and went home. (Personally, I feel that approaching one's paid work that way increases the boredom level, makes work less enjoyable, but maybe that's just me. Yes, I have held low compensation, tedious, inherently meaningless jobs - one example was working in a extrusion-type plastics factory in the Nevada desert, making plastic flowerpots, Cool Whip bowls, mystery parts we didn't know the use of. It was still more fun to work at those jobs, during the work hours. I don't claim to have 'work ethic' across the board, though - zero work ethic for housework, for example.)
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Haven't seen work ethic mentioned.

    Work ethic is a belief that work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character and individual abilities.[1] It is a set of values centered on importance of work and manifested by determination or desire to work hard. Social ingrainment of this value is considered to enhance character through hard work that is respective to an individual's field of work

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic

    Note, it's my belief that strong work ethic transfers over to good in one's personal life.

    My attitude has always been "work smarter not harder." I quit a job once because they wanted me to hand type information from one database into another. I told them it's error prone, slow, and needlessly expensive; I can write them a query to do the entire job. They insisted it must be hand typed. I said "sorry, I'm not doing something that dumb." Constructive laziness is a big part of what separates good software developers from mediocre ones.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,498 Member
    edited December 2021
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Haven't seen work ethic mentioned.

    Work ethic is a belief that work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character and individual abilities.[1] It is a set of values centered on importance of work and manifested by determination or desire to work hard. Social ingrainment of this value is considered to enhance character through hard work that is respective to an individual's field of work

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic

    Note, it's my belief that strong work ethic transfers over to good in one's personal life.

    "Strong work ethic" has become corporate-speak for "available to my employer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week".

    I'm not saying the phrase always had that connotation, but it definitely does now. If you don't answer an e-mail on a Sunday morning, you are accused of not having a "strong work ethic".

    The compellation from Wikipeidia really didn't say anything about working longer.

    We have had a couple neighbor teenagers start their first jobs at fast food places (they work their assigned hours and don't work "overtime") Both have gotten promotions within 2 weeks of starting. I asked them what they have done to get the promotions. Both said
    • Show up on time, dressed/groomed to the employer's standards
    • Polite to customers and coworkers
    • If they finished their assigned tasks and tasks they observe need to be done, they ask the manager what else they can do instead of going off to a corner to lean on a wall and look at their phone.

      These types of behaviors will transfer over to good in one's personal life.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Haven't seen work ethic mentioned.

    Work ethic is a belief that work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character and individual abilities.[1] It is a set of values centered on importance of work and manifested by determination or desire to work hard. Social ingrainment of this value is considered to enhance character through hard work that is respective to an individual's field of work

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic

    Note, it's my belief that strong work ethic transfers over to good in one's personal life.

    "Strong work ethic" has become corporate-speak for "available to my employer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week".

    I'm not saying the phrase always had that connotation, but it definitely does now. If you don't answer an e-mail on a Sunday morning, you are accused of not having a "strong work ethic".

    Corporate America has spent the last 30 years convincing people they're lucky to have a job. Now things have changed, and companies are lucky to have our labor. 😁
  • HoneyBadger302
    HoneyBadger302 Posts: 2,085 Member
    I have not read all the replies, so I may be repeating things, but this is my opinion on success.

    First off, one's childhood circumstances do not determine where you will end up, or if you can be successful.

    However, it has been proven over and over, it is easier to be successful if you start out as a "have" instead of a "have not."

    Now, from there your choices, your focus, your willingness to get up and "do the things," and perhaps most importantly, your ability to recognize, admit to, and correct your short comings that are holding you back will determine if you can succeed or not, regardless of where you started out.

    Personal relation to the topic:

    I don't consider myself "successful" - but I'm working on it. I struggle with patience - if I'm changing and doing something to get that promotion or next step, then I struggle to give it time. If I'm not seeing results from hard work, then I tend to shift focus off to something else a bit too quickly, especially if other people's responses can affect my outcome (such as getting a promotion at work). If it is something completely in my hands (such as fitness or my racing) then it's easier for me to keep my focus since I completely own the results.

    Either way though, I can see how my choices have led me to where I am, and I don't blame my childhood for that - there were things about my childhood that maybe didn't set me up for success, but I still made the decisions once I was out of high school anyways - no matter how much influence my circumstances and family may have had, I still own those choices I made.

    My brother on the other hand - same family, basically the same circumstances - is the polar opposite of successful, and he blames everyone but himself for where he's at in life (okay, IMO, he's what I would call a "loser" as a full grown mid-30's guy in this country). He chooses not to take responsibility, and it shows.

    Our sister, the youngest in the family, took some of my advice (over 10 years between us), and took control of her choices at a younger age, ignoring a lot of the familial "advice/guilt/etc," and of all of us, is the one I would call the most successful. I still wouldn't label her "successful" but she has potential to make it there at a younger age than I do at this point.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    1132488478187352064-png__700.jpg
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    2ovziybbii881.jpg
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,030 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg
    It's about greedy Capitalism. I'm for capitalism, but when it comes to the point where big money makers step all over the less fortunate, it sucks.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,498 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg

    True, but also look at what the average house in your grandparents generation looked like compared to now in regard to size, features, etc.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    edited December 2021
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg

    True, but also look at what the average house in your grandparents generation looked like compared to now in regard to size, features, etc.

    My mom's uncle bought a house in the 1950s on a clerical worker's salary, in Stamford Connecticut. It's worth $2.7 million today. You would need a doctor's salary to buy it now. The only improvement he ever made was hanging a swing from the oak tree in the back yard. His cousin bought a house literally across the street working as an auto mechanic, it's worth $1.8 million now.

    24d2blhwr4881.jpg
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,498 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg

    True, but also look at what the average house in your grandparents generation looked like compared to now in regard to size, features, etc.
    Well my grandparents lived with us so that doesn't matter. But my dad's house (he's 88) and still lives there, was $44,000 in 1972. It appraised just recently for $548,000. Nothing done to the house except a few upgrades. Still has the 70's kitchen.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    I'm guessing this is more due to location vs the actual house.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,498 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg

    True, but also look at what the average house in your grandparents generation looked like compared to now in regard to size, features, etc.

    My mom's uncle bought a house in the 1950s on a clerical worker's salary, in Stamford Connecticut. It's worth $2.7 million today. You would need a doctor's salary to buy it now. The only improvement he ever made was hanging a swing from the oak tree in the back yard. His cousin bought a house literally across the street working as an auto mechanic, it's worth $1.8 million now.

    24d2blhwr4881.jpg

    Same as with @ninerbuff more location than house.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,622 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg

    True, but also look at what the average house in your grandparents generation looked like compared to now in regard to size, features, etc.

    So, respond to the meme, but but not to what NorthCascades typed with his own fingers: "now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment."

    IMU, that statement is true. A modern 2-bedroom apartment may be likely to have a few "mod cons" like appliances that didn't exist in my parents' generation**, but it's not a dramatically bigger, more luxurious place than in earlier eras.

    The parents' generation may've stuffed more kids into a two-bedroom apartment because the average family was bigger, but that's not exactly the point here.

    Someone working full-time at a minimum wage job had a prayer of getting by on their own with food, clothing and shelter, back in the day. Now, it's laughable, but only because one can't cry all the time.

    ** I switched generations vs. what NorthCascades wrote because I'm easily old enough to be his mother, maybe even his grandmother. In my early jobs, like the "machine operators, women preferred" minimum wage one at the plastics plant in the Nevada desert in the 1970s, the workers were getting by. The women machine operators (minimum wage) mostly lived with their kids (lot of divorced women who were single moms) in trailer park rentals out in the desert, and were scraping by, narrowly. The supervisors and maintenance people (mostly male), not making big bucks either, sometimes owned actual houses.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    What a sad commentary.  My grandparents' generation could buy a home and raise a family on a janitor's salary, now there is no state in the union where a full time job at minimum wage can pay for a two bedroom apartment.

    bfpzrzk82k881.jpg

    True, but also look at what the average house in your grandparents generation looked like compared to now in regard to size, features, etc.

    My mom's uncle bought a house in the 1950s on a clerical worker's salary, in Stamford Connecticut. It's worth $2.7 million today. You would need a doctor's salary to buy it now. The only improvement he ever made was hanging a swing from the oak tree in the back yard. His cousin bought a house literally across the street working as an auto mechanic, it's worth $1.8 million now.

    24d2blhwr4881.jpg

    Same as with @ninerbuff more location than house.

    What are you basing this opinion on?

Categories