The Average American: 1967 And Today

[mawilson 2,133]

Simply because we have 'more' doesn't make our life 'better'.

The 'more' has brought along with it more debt.

Personally, I'm off that 'more' train. One of the reasons we have our home for sale is to buy a SMALLER one. ####### do I need with my 'big' house in the 'burbs, that suck heating dollars out of my pocket and fuel dollars out of my ONE car - yes I refuse to have more than one.

Since when does having MORE improve the quality of one's life? If I'm busting my chops to earn a buck to pay for a load of gadgets, bigger wheels and a house too big for me to dust and vacuum in one hour? Is that living?

I'm sorry I just don't buy into that.

If you don't think the acquisition of material wealth improves the quality of one's life,

you should move to Europe, Becca. Making do with one small car, small house and

no gadgets or luxury is a national sport there.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I would like to know what the ratio was of average household income versus average average house price in 1965.

[Jenn! 918]

I would like to know what the ratio was of average household income versus average average house price in 1965.

http://www.macrovestor.com/homevaluation.html

Things have not improved...

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

as I thought

[Jenn! 918]

as I thought

I know we won't be able to even think about buying a house for several more years. But I guess that must be our fault somehow too that the ratio of house prices to income is rising...

[rebeccajo 14]

Simply because we have 'more' doesn't make our life 'better'.

The 'more' has brought along with it more debt.

Personally, I'm off that 'more' train. One of the reasons we have our home for sale is to buy a SMALLER one. ####### do I need with my 'big' house in the 'burbs, that suck heating dollars out of my pocket and fuel dollars out of my ONE car - yes I refuse to have more than one.

Since when does having MORE improve the quality of one's life? If I'm busting my chops to earn a buck to pay for a load of gadgets, bigger wheels and a house too big for me to dust and vacuum in one hour? Is that living?

I'm sorry I just don't buy into that.

If you don't think the acquisition of material wealth improves the quality of one's life,

you should move to Europe, Becca. Making do with one small car, small house and

no gadgets or luxury is a national sport there.

LOL....actually I have thought about it.

As far as material possessions go, I guess I just have a different perspective. Once, I did have it all. Multiple cars, house and 2nd home, all the trappings. But in my case, there was a higher price to pay for those things and that price was sharing a life with the miserable sort of individual I jointly owned them with.

I don't tell this to garner sympathy or any of that bunk. It's just when one is in that type of situation, it sort of gives one the opportunity to assess how important material wealth really is. The answer to that question will vary, because of course different people have need 'levels' of what material things they want or don't want.

I guess in a perfect world, if one could have both material wealth and emotional happiness, then that would be the most desireable place to be. I'm kind of thinking that if I have to give up some material wealth, it's probably not a long term loss. I'll get back the material things I need as the rest of my 'happiness quotient' improves.

Edited October 19, 2006 by rebeccajo

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I know we won't be able to even think about buying a house for several more years. But I guess that must be our fault somehow too that the ratio of house prices to income is rising...

Median cost of a home in SoCal is $500k -- that will get you a very modest place in Inglewood. I think at one point a second income was about extras -- these days, in many places, a second income is an absolute necessity.

[peejay 327]

Using material wealth to determine whether we are "better off" than our ancestors is rather bogus in my opinion. There are many other factors in life that determine self worth and wellbeing.

I find that in America today the focus of our politicians in worshiping the GDP as an major indicator of the wellbeing and satisfaction of their constituents is bogus too. It is what has turned us into USA Incorporated and has allowed corporate America to literally determine the direction our country is taking. I think the government is not so much about the People, but about "some people".

I think in a lot of ways we are not better off than we were in 1967. More $$$ do not make for more happier or satisfied Americans. I think now it is more about "me" than about "we".

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Also, another indicator against material wealth being an indicator of "well-offness".

Guess which country is considered to have the HAPPIEST people--BANGLADESH (which is also one of the poorest)!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

also the phillippines, according to the Economist

http://www.economist.com/World/asia/displa...Story_ID=883909

[mawilson 2,133]

Also, another indicator against material wealth being an indicator of "well-offness".

Guess which country is considered to have the HAPPIEST people--BANGLADESH (which is also one of the poorest)!

Well maybe if they were a bit less happy, they wouldn't be multiplying like rabbits

and spreading poverty, hunger, disease and death.