Are most Americans going to have to adjust to a lower quality of life?

[deleted627832]

My wife and I had to take a $60,000.00 plus loss of the sell of our home. Never saw that caming. Now, we can't buy your new one yet. When we put our house up for sell it was worth 200,000.00 sold for 115,000. took a year. So, I hope everyone has a better NEW YEAR.....

 

[Pierced1953]

Most of us will have to adjust to a different living style. I for one was just like a hillbilly shitting in high cotton for 25 years. But losing close to a 225.000 on my value of my house now, probably 15 cents on the dollar for my pension.

I knew houses were over priced so I sold at a good time and semi-retired to Tn and bought a fixer upper,but all my labor is gone and the amount i over paid. I can move to Costa Rica with my ex,but were still living together and get by easily. But due to health reasons I need the VA.

I am the lucky one compaired to millions who have lost everything. I don't have a morgage,have ss and a small pension coming. It will take decades to bring back the job market, unless like said in one thread get into the medical field and also agree the tax bill should have been left alone to expire.

The wealthy are afraid to spend and to create jobs and have their investments in low gain accounts. The blue collar jobs are gone to mostly hispanics,textile is in China,as is our manufacturing.We were the leader in manufacturing,now way down the list.

Hold on to your hat as the ground sucks us up.

 

[bananaclubcock]

Most Americans will have to adjust to a different life, but whether that is higher/lower in quality remains to be seen. While there is a fundemental economic reality that limits what can and cannot be done, much of what impacts peoples' lives is how the political system favors certain activities over others. The U.S.'s political-economic arrangement in the recent past is at present on life support. The questions really are who suffers the consequences of the collapse of the previous arrangement and who do we empower in our new arrangement.

To put this talk of politics and arrangements into context: from the 1930s to the early 1970s much of government policy in the U.S. was aimed at improving the economic power of wage earners (aka most people). From the early 1970s (or perhaps as late as the 1980s), governmental policies worked to increase the economic power of the wealthy by doing everything it could to make assets more valuable.

The way forward in the U.S. is figuring out what isn't worth saving from our old arrangements and deciding what we want to cultivate in the future instead. One thing that should happen in some form is that asset prices should fall a lot. This basically means that many people who thought they were mad-rich in 2005-2007 or so will be a lot less rich. While this means that the country, at least on paper is less wealthy, it also means that homes are more affordable, that the cost of setting up a new business is lower, and most importantly of all: we wouldn't have to cripple the rest of society to keep rich the people whose poor stewardship of their wealth caused the most recent implosion.

An America that was economically vibrant might not look like it did before the crash. But that may be a very, very good thing. The obsession with the 'cars and houses' lifestyle is more expensive than most realize. If we stopped trying so hard to prop up that lifestyle, we might find ourselves much better off than we think. The U.S. might benefit massively from directing government spending away from Defense (much of that spent overseas). The U.S. might benefit massively from shift towards favoring entrepreneurs over entrenched companies. The U.S. might benefit from a new tax system, one that better dealt with windfalls and altered the preferences for employing labor and versus using materials (quick thought experiment: look at your computer and figure out how much of its value is labor and how much is the copper, platinum, silicon, etc. do not forget that the labor isn't simple assembly, realize it is the brains that thought up this cool shit).

I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do realize that dropping a lot of bad old ideas is a good start. A lot of the drag on the U.S. is just the fact that we are politically loathe to face up to the fact the old way has died and that trying to keep it alive isn't in most people's interests.

 

[Thedrewbert]

Obama can let it expire after reelection in 2012. Politically, he couldn't do it today.

 

[helgaleena]

It will be different, not worse. At least that is how I see it. The joy comes from being a poor person here instead of in Nigeria or Cambodia.

 

[Rikter8]

It amazes me (sort of) that men my age are still enamored with the idea of owning a 1967 Shelby or a bitchin' 1965 Camaro. Talk about being brainwashed to think stupid.

psst. Sweets...

Theres no such thing as a 65 Camaro. They didnt make The camaro until 1967.
Besides.... what's wrong with owning an american classic car? Most of them can be tuned up to get better mileage than many of todays vehicles. Plus..theyre recreational vehicles, which means your not spending tons of cash on them for daily use. Even if you did...your still going to spend $20K+ on a daily driver when bought new, so there isn't a savings as your just spending that money over a longer period plus interest.

 

[Rikter8]

My wife and I had to take a $60,000.00 plus loss of the sell of our home. Never saw that caming. Now, we can't buy your new one yet. When we put our house up for sell it was worth 200,000.00 sold for 115,000. took a year. So, I hope everyone has a better NEW YEAR.....

Your not alone. I can't sell mine as I owe more on it than what it is now worth.
So, my only options are to A. Walk away from it or B. Ride it out on unemployment only delaying the inevitable of bank reposession.

 

[B_bxmuscle]

Yes, I think most people will have declining living standards, but more because of increased income inequality at home than from competition from cheap labor countries.

 

[midlifebear]

psst. Sweets...

Theres no such thing as a 65 Camaro. They didnt make The camaro until 1967.
Besides.... what's wrong with owning an american classic car? Most of them can be tuned up to get better mileage than many of todays vehicles. Plus..theyre recreational vehicles, which means your not spending tons of cash on them for daily use. Even if you did...your still going to spend $20K+ on a daily driver when bought new, so there isn't a savings as your just spending that money over a longer period plus interest.

Rikter8:

I did not know that!? I never had to worry about owning an automobile until I moved back to the woolly west in the mid 1980s. San Francisco really isn't conducive to owning a car, although many residents do. However, I do know a great deal about Lincolns -- don't know why, but I do. I've still got a 62 convertible I bought as an investment (32,000 original miles) that, on a good day at 65 mph will get almost 20 mpg as long as there is a tailwind. But for some reason I thought my high school girl friend's Camaro SS (yellow with black rally stripes) was a '65. My bad. And she still has that car. It's a small block V8 and it's been completely rebuilt -- twice. However, until she sells it she won't be saving or making any money off of the old thing. Especially since she still drives it. q

 

[B_Marius567]

I am going to spend less in 2011 because I have everything I need.

 

[COMountainGuy]

I have already adjusted in several repects:

1) Peanut butter & jelly with quality bread is a tasty all-round meal.

2) 500 sq ft provides plenty of 'elbow room" for a bachelor.

3) Doing your own construction is excellent exercise for a middle aged guy.

4) had all the technology I needed in 2008.

5) Todays cars will last for 250,000 miles if properly maintained.

6) Second hand clothing stores provides a wider array of choices.

7) A colder home keeps one hardier.

8) Watching movies at home is great with todays HD televisions.

9) Burger Kings bargain menu is just oh so convenient.

10) Being nothing by skin, bones, muscle and veins is just...really healthy.

11) Dating was uber expensive anyway.

12) Who the hell needed freedom or privacy anyway? This alludes to true quality of life and not just income.

13) That gauntlet of government surveillance is keeping us safe.

14) The library has most all of the books you really need.

15) What good does a green lawn really do anyway?

16) Watching games in person just isn't good economics.

17) Nothing wrong with four layers of clothes since nobody can see inside your home.

18) The best music was made in decades past so no need to buy more.

19) The best porn is the stuff you already have.

20) Used tools have a proven track record. Unlikely to go up in smoke because of faulty wiring.

21) Why go out of state for a vacation? Just lay in bed...and visualize.

22) A shot of vodka cost less than a beer.

23) Milk is healthier than most drinks anyways.

24) A five minute shower is all that is really needed.

25) Who really needs fast download speeds anyway?


Thats just a start. Some are mostly for humor though all have, at least, an element of truth.

 

[Rikter8]

It's a small block V8 and it's been completely rebuilt -- twice. However, until she sells it she won't be saving or making any money off of the old thing. Especially since she still drives it. q

Probably a 302, and if its a real SS - tell her Im very interested in it...running or not.
I'd enjoy a nice leisurley drive to CA anyway.

 

[wallyj84]

I think it depends on how you define quality of life. If a lower quality of life means that not everyone can afford a car and have to live in smaller apartments/houses, then having a lower quality of life really won't be that bad, IMO.

 

[Bbucko]

Most of the adjustments made (or suggested by) the OP in this post were made by me over six years ago, when I embarked on a radical simplification of my life (including living car-free in FtL, where public transport is essentially non-existent); the political stuff (privacy, etc) goes back to the PATRIOT Act, which is now over nine years old.

Much of it, like green lawns and HDTVs, sound petty considering that I, along with over 4000 other Americans, am currently on a waiting list for life-saving medications because of "budget shortfalls". Peanut butter's the least of my problems (chunky's actually pretty good)

 

[COMountainGuy]

I think it depends on how you define quality of life. If a lower quality of life means that not everyone can afford a car and have to live in smaller apartments/houses, then having a lower quality of life really won't be that bad, IMO.

I'm pretty sure that our society defines quality of life as being pretty well tied to income. I personally beg to differ but as one poster recently pointed.....many people have a four gallon mind. So I often restrain my "eight gallon mind". Also helps me fly under the radar of the Neo Thought Police at times.:wink:

 

[midlifebear]

Probably a 302, and if its a real SS - tell her Im very interested in it...running or not.
I'd enjoy a nice leisurley drive to CA anyway.

She lives in SLC and was a fading local news anchor for several years. Her husband is one of the sculptors who makes Angel Moroni's they put on top of mormon temples. She'll never give up the Camaro (which still has the original 8-track AM/FM stereo BTW). Her dad, who had been a car dealer, found it used and gave it to her as a university graduation present when we discovered that she actually was going to graduate.

 

[wallyj84]

I'm pretty sure that our society defines quality of life as being pretty well tied to income. I personally beg to differ but as one poster recently pointed.....many people have a four gallon mind. So I often restrain my "eight gallon mind". Also helps me fly under the radar of the Neo Thought Police at times.:wink:

Of course, quality of life is tied to income, but my question is how are we defining quality of life? What goes into determining a person's quality of life?

In your previous post you sarcastically brought up the idea that, "500sq. ft are enough room for a bachelor." You meant that half seriously, but in all honesty that's twice as large as my current apartment. Do I have a low quality of life because my apartment is only 250sq. ft.? I don't feel that it is. I don't even have a car and rely on public transportation and my bike to get around. Is my quality of life low because I don't have a motor vehicle? Once again, I don't feel that it is.

So once again, outside of income, how are we defining quality of life?

 

[COMountainGuy]

Of course, quality of life is tied to income, but my question is how are we defining quality of life? What goes into determining a person's quality of life?

In your previous post you sarcastically brought up the idea that, "500sq. ft are enough room for a bachelor." You meant that half seriously, but in all honesty that's twice as large as my current apartment. Do I have a low quality of life because my apartment is only 250sq. ft.? I don't feel that it is. I don't even have a car and rely on public transportation and my bike to get around. Is my quality of life low because I don't have a motor vehicle? Once again, I don't feel that it is.

So once again, outside of income, how are we defining quality of life?

Tales of meager living fail to impress me. I've known too many that lived ever so frugally because they spend everyfukinpenny on drugs or alcohol or sex or gambling or..............................

I already addressed the quality of life issue a few posts back. I think everyone knows what I am referring to. If you wish to piss about semantics, I can't stop you.

 

[dandelion]

The US uses more resources per head than any other country. That's a lot of scope to cut back on what you are using but still maintain the quality of life other countries enjoy. Americans appear to cherish their right to squander resources, and this seems to be at the heart of what will happen. Put those however million people in the army to work building infrastructure instead. Or running public hospitals. Or schools. Or anything more useful.

Or, since there seems to be no change to policy of letting the rich get as rich as they can, divisions in society will increase: some will see no change while others will see drastic cuts in quality of life.

 

[bananaclubcock]

The US uses more resources per head than any other country. That's a lot of scope to cut back on what you are using but still maintain the quality of life other countries enjoy. Americans appear to cherish their right to squander resources, and this seems to be at the heart of what will happen. Put those however million people in the army to work building infrastructure instead. Or running public hospitals. Or schools. Or anything more useful.

Or, since there seems to be no change to policy of letting the rich get as rich as they can, divisions in society will increase: some will see no change while others will see drastic cuts in quality of life.

Wow, I am embarrassed it took someone from the UK to call out the real problems with the U.S. economy. I think it is kind of funny that my post on the politics of favoring different modes of producing/consuming got so little notice. Maybe I had a bit too much holiday cheer when I posted, but that is basically where this conversation should be. If you think this is all about being forced to eat only PB&J sandwiches, you have been taken.

But like the above quote says, we have a lot of room for change in the U.S. We almost certainly can't continue on the trajectory we were on before, but that doesn't mean we will be living a grim horrible life. In fact, I would posit that life in the U.S. might just get a whole lot better if we faced up to the fact that much of our political economy is about shielding a group of unspectacular individuals from reality, not about promoting growth and innovation.

And in case you think the idea of sloughing off some of the old ways would be fatal, just remember the biggest growth in the history of the U.S. happened after the Civil War, when a group of similarly unspectacular, but unfortunately rich individuals and the appalling governmental policy (aka legalized slavery) that propped them up was violent destroyed.

What might make the lives of the vast majority of Americans better? Policies that stop prompting the over-consumption of resources might be a great start. People might not understand this, but consuming more resources doesn't necessarily improve your quality of life. The energy consumption of a bumpkin in Kansas is off the charts, whereas someone in a fashionable neighborhood in New York or San Francisco can live on a small fraction of the bumpkin's energy consumption.

And who benefits from this large scale energy consumption? Mostly resource producers, which includes the funders of Middle Eastern terror groups and a bunch of other foreigners. Yes, originally oil in the U.S. was the province of the Ohio Mafia and later the Texas Mafia, two groups in the sanctum sanctorum of the Republican Party, but the economics of world oil means that the biggest beneficiaries have to be in the Middle East.

The other large beneficiaries are rural/small town/provincial/landlocked interests. These people seldom, if ever get truly wealthy off this arrangement, but they are able to keep their romantic lifestyle while never truly having to compete. In essence, the recent arrangement meant they lived better than their productivity should have allowed. The bumpkin in the above example is an example of this and he provides the electoral power that stymies attempts at moving toward a more just arrangement. Just think of this: small, mostly rural states have as many Senators as California. If you are cynical resource producer, like the oil industry, you make a deal with these people, an absolute minority, but an electoral majority, to tilt the U.S. priorities toward the highest possible resource use.

I realize this is a tad rambling, but I felt compelled to share. None of you should roll over and play dead. Realize that the complexity of the nation's economy means that no one has omniscience. And that means that much of what we elect to do as policy is about favoring or dis-favoring certain interests, i.e. it is a moral, not a technical question. When someone says that wages in China are $1/hour, therefore we are damned, tell them to fuck off. Ask them about what else happens in China and unless that have a good idea, they are simplifying to the point of uselessness.

What you should be focused on is that the we are squeezing a lot of poor and less-well off people to keep up the appearances that many of the formerly rich should stay that way. Unless you are proud to be a nutswinger, you should view what has happened in the U.S. as a sign that the previous political-economic arrangement has failed and many, but not all, of the seeming beneficiaries of that arrangement deserve to be stripped of their privileges (scams, actually).