Are Americans really making more money?

[Sheepdog]

i have actually seen a statistic that showed that even after accounting for inflation, the workers lowest 20% income do make more than the lowest 20% decades ago, and there is an observable upward trend, though it is very gradual.

this is also true for those in the 20-40% range, 40-60% range and so on. the growing "problem" of inequity is due to people in the higher income ranges increasing in income at a higher rate than everyone else. personally, so long as we are supporting the poor, especially those who have difficulties supporting themselves, i couldn't care less how much Bill Gates makes.

[NSMinistries]

Lets just take the salaries of all sports players. movie stars and singers and pay off everything... I'd bet we would be back in debt 20 mins. later to someone. Its just the way money works.

[Ryokan]

Yes to most of it and I had made less money each year for the past three years. Coupons, thrift stores, and repairs to things people have thrown away account for most that we own.

and if the ministry didn't support itself I wouldn't have the websites.

That's miserable. I am sorry to here that. I was speaking in general terms.

[NSMinistries]

That's miserable. I am sorry to here that. I was speaking in general terms.

We are doing okay. After all we learned to control our credit enough to finaly get a loan for a house. It may not be much but it'll be home.

[Hitch]

There has never been a time of greater oppertunity, especially wrt higher education and economic advancement, across the board.

[Rubia Warren]

Thanks for your responses, everyone.
It's funny that Pilgrim mentioned it about whether or not we are better off than our parents, as my stepdad was talking about it to me the other day, claiming that we are not better off than our parents. I still couldn't grasp what he was talking about, because it does seem like we are better off in the sense that we can afford more amenities like internet, phones, TV's, and stuff like that- technology has grown and these things are much cheaper for us nowadays.
But he brought up the costs of rent and homeownership and things like that... I just found this article on Harvard's website. It was pretty interesting, I thought I'd toss it out for discussion to see what the varying viewpoints will be. I am not sure about the copyright thingy, so I will just post snippets with the link and if I did it wrong, then maybe someone would edit it or moderate me or something.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/e...edia/money.pdf

September 11, 2003: 5:08 PM EDT By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money Senior Writer NEW YORK (CNN/Money)  If you feel like it's harder to provide the kind of middle class upbringing for your kids that your parents gave you, you may be right. According to Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi, coauthors of "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke," the average two-income middle class family today earns 75 percent more than the typical single-income family did 30 years ago. But today's family, they say, ends up with less money for everyday living expenses and savings. Why? The costs of housing and a good education are killing them. In other words, the authors argue, it now takes two incomes to provide what one income provided 30 years ago: a middle class home in a safe neighborhood with a decent public school. And that doesn't even factor in the cost of a private school or, for that matter, college, which the authors argue is now viewed as a must-do for today's parents in a way that it wasn't 30 years ago. So, too, is paying for kids to go to a good pre-school. With faith in the public school system declining, Warren and Tyagi contend, bidding wars erupted for homes in what are thought to be good school districts, making homes in those areas ever more expensive. The authors also suggest that the rise in two-income families contributed to the rise in home prices, since two-income families could outbid families with only one breadwinner. As a result, now you often need two incomes to be able to buy a home in a middle class neighborhood. And here's the kicker: The two-income family appears to be in a more precarious position financially than yesteryear's one-income family. Warren and Tyagi calculate today's two-earner family is two-and-a-half times more likely to face a job loss than
their counterpart of the early 1970s. Should one partner's paycheck be lost or reduced, their back is against the wall. Families can choose to reduce what they spend on food, clothing, savings, vacations or extracurriculars, "but you can't cut back a little on the mortgage or health insurance or tuition," said Warren, a Harvard law professor and bankruptcy specialist. The wealthy are costing you Here's another reason the cost of leaving it to Beaver may have become more prohibitive: The consumer behavior of the wealthy has upped the ante for everybody else. Cornell Professor of Economics Robert H. Frank calls the phenomenon the "expenditure cascade." As he wrote, "When top earners build larger mansions ... they shift the frame of reference that defines an acceptable house for those just slightly below them on the income scale. And when those people respond by building bigger houses, they in turn shift the frame of reference for those just below them, and so on, all the way down." The median size of a newly built home in 1970 was 1,500 square feet, Frank notes. By 2000, it had increased to 2,300 square feet, even though the median family's income hasn't changed much. But aren't we better off in other ways? While it may be true that a great number of middle class families are more strained financially than their parents, some would argue there are a lot of ways our lives have improved relative to a generation ago. Safety standards are higher, health care has advanced, women now enjoy far greater career opportunities than at any time in history, and it's no longer considered unusual --or prohibitively expensive -- to visit places across the globe. And there are some things that actually cost less than they did in your parents' day. Clothes, for instance. You now have a greater number of choices at lower costs thanks to discounters such as Targets or Marshall's, Warren and Tyagi note. But, according to the authors, that may be little comfort to the family who worries that paying for their daughter's Girl Scout outfit might compromise their ability to make the mortgage next month. Jeanne Sahadi writes about personal finance for CNN/Money. She also appears regularly on CNNfn's "Your Money," which airs weeknights at 5 p.m. ET. For comments on this column or suggestions for future ones, please e-mail her at
everydaymoney@cnnmoney.com.

[Sheepdog]

seems to be a fair assessment. tuition and healthcare costs are rising considerably faster than inflation. i'm familiar with the former as during my years at MSU i was shafted from the State of MI's tuition tax credit because they couldn't keep tuition increases below the rate of inflation. (yeah, the bean counters for the MI gov are kind of annoying like that.)

at the rate things are going, i hate to see how expensive stuff will be in 20-30 years.

[Ryokan]

Thanks for your responses, everyone.
It's funny that Pilgrim mentioned it about whether or not we are better off than our parents, as my stepdad was talking about it to me the other day, claiming that we are not better off than our parents. I still couldn't grasp what he was talking about, because it does seem like we are better off in the sense that we can afford more amenities like internet, phones, TV's, and stuff like that- technology has grown and these things are much cheaper for us nowadays.
But he brought up the costs of rent and homeownership and things like that... I just found this article on Harvard's website. It was pretty interesting, I thought I'd toss it out for discussion to see what the varying viewpoints will be. I am not sure about the copyright thingy, so I will just post snippets with the link and if I did it wrong, then maybe someone would edit it or moderate me or something.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/e...edia/money.pdf

Home ownership is more expensive, as people want more out of a home. Same with education. So, for some people it is harder. Other's, as the article pointed out, not so much. And we have all this technology and healthcare not previously available. Its different, I think.

[Epoetker]

It's simply now more than ever before time to think about buying your own rental property. Or starting your own business. Or at least acquiring some mutual funds. As long as the rich are making all the money owning these things, why not put yourself into that category?

(My dad gets real mad at me for buying Rich Dad, Poor Dad, talks about how 'money isn't everything, then yells at me a bit about some homeowner down our street who keeps his eyesore home out there unoccupied as a tax break. Two weeks ago he bought the house and now I'm helping him clean it out to turn it into a rental property. It's amazing what letting some people yell about will do for their thinking. Though taking risky steps like taking on debt to buy a home to rent out for profit requires an order of magnitude greater mental shift than getting off of welfare and getting a job. I have a feeling my dad did it just to keep me from ribbing him about it.)

Anyone in the world can get a job in America. And with illegal immigration, increasingly anyone is. Employers have taken note. If you want to not only survive but thrive here, you're just going to have to do the sort of risky capitalistic things that people in this country have been doing from time immemorial. They're still not popular in the rest of the world, so succeed here and you can easily succeed elsewhere.
And if I may volunteer, videogames are still the least expensive entertainment habit to have, so long as you stay the heck away from MMORPGs and stick to consoles.