Living within your means........

I think the guy who can't come up with anything better than "so what" who says he somehow got "rich" as an inner city teacher IS playing victim olympics by telling us how it's the fault of the evil corporations that people would spend $1000 on an iphone instead of food.

Yes.

 

Your information is out of date.

"A report released this summer by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, an Ottawa nonprofit, contends that as of 2016 Canada had in fact pulled ahead of the U.S. in median household income, with a US$59,438 to US$58,849 advantage in U.S. dollars if (and this is a reasonably big if) you use the Canadian government statistical agency’s formula for converting Canadian dollars into U.S. ones. The study also compares incomes in every percentile of the income distribution, and finds that up through the 56th percentile Canadians are better off than their U.S. counterparts."​

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/most-canadians-are-now-better-off-than-most-americans-1.1308648

 

Most people may want to have a better job, but most people do not want to get a better job.

I like being in exotic places, but I hate traveling. I like being there, but I don't like getting there, so I don't go anymore.

 

Thanks Obama.

 

I didn't say I was an inner city teacher. Stop making stuff up.

Doubling down on your dumb comment?

Corporations contribute to the problem.

You must think the people running corporations are stupid for spending billions on advertising to influence consumers.

 

Actually, from your source:

As I mentioned above, these results are dependent on how you convert Canadian dollars into U.S. dollars. If you used the average exchange rate for 2016, Canada’s median household income would be just US$53,336 in U.S. dollars, well short of the U.S. median of US$58,849. But because exchange rates jump around a lot, and don’t always reflect the relative purchasing power of people in different countries, those making international comparisons of incomes usually adjust for what’s called purchasing-power parity, or PPP.

 

Sure you didn't.

If you allow anyone to influence you, that's your fault.

I wouldn't expect you to accept that, having yourself been influenced by advocates of the victim mentality.

Keep blaming people's bad choices on everyone else though. It's what some have been trained to do.

 

The good news is that real wages in Obama's last three years and Trump's first three years are increasing faster than any time since the Clinton's second term. The bad news is that even after the last six years real wages are just 7.5% higher than in 1979, and the current expansion is likely to slow.

 

I said I pressed students to take responsibility for themselves, but that doesn't mean corporations didn't cause some of the problem.

You're mischaracterizing my position.

 

You object to using PPP?

 

"Most people may want to have a better job, but most people do not want to get a better job."

That was never me. I didn't want to work, at all. I just wanted more money.

"I like being in exotic places, but I hate traveling. I like being there, but I don't like getting there, so I don't go anymore."

After twenty years of traveling the world with the military, then another twenty-three traveling throughout the US and parts of Canada, driving a truck, that is me exactly.

 

So.. more victim mentality.

"I spent all my money because that evil corporation told me I need to buy their product".

Really?

 

No, it's called "living in the real world."

A lot of people I know made bad choices that left them in retired poverty and poor health. The system has many ways to supplement their income that my higher taxes cover. There's a direct connection between corporations encouraging them to be unhealthy or waste money and my tax bill.

I didn't get any help from the government-run school system to present students with the choice of saving and investing vs. consuming.

No, a straw man.

 

"Living within your means" - Apparently Trump did not get the memo

 

That is a very good response!

I have only one (small) quibble: I would not wish to "owe a little" at tax time, as that would indicate that I have allowed the government to use my money to invest (and draw interest), rather than doing so myself. But I do think that it is a very good thing to receive only a very small refund.

Ours this year (we just had our taxes done) was a mere $19.

As for Amy and her husband, I would recommend the pay-yourself-first method: First, save a set amount each week (call it an Emergency Fund, or a Rainy-Day Fund--whatever); second, pay the bills; third, save out enough money to eat on each month; fourth, save out enough money to purchase fuel for the car each month; and fifth--if there is anything left over--use some money for pleasure (including--but not limited to--saving for a vacation).

That way, one simply cannot claim that there was not enough money left over for savings...

 

Theoretically, it should be.

But I am not really sure that this is always the case.

The same person who makes $40,000 per year, and spends $50,000, would likely spend $110,000 per year if he made $100,000.

 

I have no debt (unless you count as "short-term debt" my frequent credit-card purchases; but I pay off my credit card entirely each month; so I view it no differently than a utility bill).

As for keeping up with the Joneses, I have no desire, whatsoever, to do that. In fact, I drive a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica--some 16 years in arrears--but I simply could not care less. (It is my understanding, in fact, that the late Sam Walton--the founder of Walmart, and a billionaire--drove an old pickup truck, and ordinarily just wore jeans. Not exactly ostentatious.)

As regarding all this, I sincerely congratulate you!

 

Nonsense. You base this on what?

It takes a certain amount of money to put a roof over your head and feed your family. Those costs don't double when your income doubles.

That's an absurd claim

 

Yeah... not getting it.

So it was their fault. But the corporations made them do it. But you feel you need to bail them out?

 

Someone has to do something to fix this...



... or we risk losing support for the free enterprise system.

What's your solution?

 

Many people--in fact, I would assert that most people--wish to live beyond their means. So those who have a comfortable income--the upper-middle class--would prefer to live a bit larger than even their (plentiful) income will allow.

 

Your "assertions" aside...the fact remains...there is no evidence that says that doubling income would lead to greater debt...in fact none that says that on average it wouldn't lead to less debt

 

You have simply brushed aside my central point, viz.: A great many Americans wish to live beyond their means--in order, I suppose, to keep up with the Joneses--and one's being a part of the upper-middle class does not nullify (or even diminish) this tendency.

 

Your chart shows earnings are climbing?