HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009

TPP wrote: DAMN, YOU'RE OLD!

You betcha.....but I will admit that Kennedy was high school and Eisenhower was jr high. You kids here just don't know nutin.

:thumbsup:

Of course people stretched too far, somewhere along the way people got complacent......real estate would ALWAYS rise, jobs would ALWAYS be available if you were educated and worked hard, and yes, borrowing was a good idea because you would be getting raises and you could pay later. NOT....if I tought my kids nothing else I tought them home finances....how to balance a check book.....how to manage credit....and how to know when they were in trouble and STOP whatever they were doing. My son internalized the info....my daughter took a while. I don't blame the times we live in as much as I blame parents and the financial pundits who seem to push the risky economic lifestyle, along with TV shows from the 50's, 60's right up to now that show the happy little family in the safe little neighborhood with the white picket fence and no one is hungry and no one fights over money and there is always a shiny car in the driveway and money for clothes and whatever else the kids want. We've been brain washed by the "haves" in this country to believe that everyone can be rich if they just spend enough money.

I think your taking this a little too personal- I've been talking about the condition of the country as a whole and you keep using your personal experiences as examples.
In 1950, more than half were free and clear of a mortgage. Our lifestyles may appear to be better than in 1950, but are they really?

The chart I show starts in 1975 but in 1950, a home could be bought and paid for in a few years. A middle class home might have cost $1200-$3500. We did spend more for food and clothing- the free market, better and less costly transportation brought those costs down- but they are back on the rise now.

Thanks to cheap labor- our cloths and shoes cost less- but now those countries are manufacturing nearly everything we buy- and middle class industrial jobs have gone to those countries.

Illegal immigration was nowhere near as bad back then- migrant workers were limited to picking crops. Now they are roofers, plumbers, electricians, masons, carpenters- jobs that Americans used to do.

So how much better off are we today? I'm not sure.

archer wrote: the price of homes went up faster than the income of those who wanted to be home owners...plus people were told that a mortgage was a good investment......you could get a mortgage for 6% then write off that interest against your income.....it was a bit of fuzzy math, but in the good years right up to a few years ago it might have been good advice. I'm sure I'm not the only person who bought a house with a mortgage and sold it 5 years later for twice it's value and pocketed all that equity. which then paid off the mortgage on my husbands house and we are free and clear of any debt.

Of course people stretched too far, somewhere along the way people got complacent......real estate would ALWAYS rise, jobs would ALWAYS be available if you were educated and worked hard, and yes, borrowing was a good idea because you would be getting raises and you could pay later. NOT....if I tought my kids nothing else I tought them home finances....how to balance a check book.....how to manage credit....and how to know when they were in trouble and STOP whatever they were doing. My son internalized the info....my daughter took a while. I don't blame the times we live in as much as I blame parents and the financial pundits who seem to push the risky economic lifestyle, along with TV shows from the 50's, 60's right up to now that show the happy little family in the safe little neighborhood with the white picket fence and no one is hungry and no one fights over money and there is always a shiny car in the driveway and money for clothes and whatever else the kids want. We've been brain washed by the "haves" in this country to believe that everyone can be rich if they just spend enough money.

Interesting assembly of information. Not saying you are wrong, but your own admission is that it was less a matter of the times than education in the home. It's always been said that education begins in the home. If so, then many failed their kids?

It is interesting to read about different life styles of families growing up in the 50's and 60's. Perhaps there is something to be said for being dirt poor. We couldn't afford a TV, thus never got exposure to the hype you talk about. We (parents) brought with them and taught us about Germany's runaway inflation after WWII. We were going to put our money into the farm as opposed to the bank, or buy the materials we needed to build the home we wanted to own. There was no discussion of mortgages and other investment strategies. We didn't expect much as kids and got less. We got plenty of responsibility and exercises in accountability. Throughout it all we remained thankful for the opportunity America granted us. Perhaps that sounds corny, but that is the German immigrant mindset I got exposed to during the 50's.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

Of course people stretched too far, somewhere along the way people got complacent......real estate would ALWAYS rise, jobs would ALWAYS be available if you were educated and worked hard, and yes, borrowing was a good idea because you would be getting raises and you could pay later. NOT....if I tought my kids nothing else I tought them home finances....how to balance a check book.....how to manage credit....and how to know when they were in trouble and STOP whatever they were doing. My son internalized the info....my daughter took a while. I don't blame the times we live in as much as I blame parents and the financial pundits who seem to push the risky economic lifestyle, along with TV shows from the 50's, 60's right up to now that show the happy little family in the safe little neighborhood with the white picket fence and no one is hungry and no one fights over money and there is always a shiny car in the driveway and money for clothes and whatever else the kids want. We've been brain washed by the "haves" in this country to believe that everyone can be rich if they just spend enough money.

I think your taking this a little too personal- I've been talking about the condition of the country as a whole and you keep using your personal experiences as examples.
In 1950, more than half were free and clear of a mortgage. Our lifestyles may appear to be better than in 1950, but are they really?

So how much better off are we today? I'm not sure.

I also was speaking to the condition of the country as a whole, and personal observation is certainly a part of that. Read all the statistics you want, but they will not tell you much about how it felt living during that era......the problem with statistics is that it's a consensus of many many differing experiences, but not indicative of how things actually were. My original response was to the OP....which while funny seemed to be overly simplistic and exaggerated....i took it as a joke and didn't respond until I saw a lot of responses that seemed so diametrically opposed to my own experiences. So I thought to impart some of what I felt, sorry if you feel that wasn't worth while.

I don't know how you would compare today to then and decide if we are better or worse off.....for me, some things better, some things worse......all things very different.

You kids here just don't know nutin.

Are you calling him a young whippersnapper?

I have always wanted to use that word. LOL

Nmysys wrote:

You kids here just don't know nutin.

Are you calling him a young whippersnapper?

I have always wanted to use that word. LOL

Boy, are you in trouble.

definition of whippersnapper:

whip·per·snap·per   /ˈʰwɪpərˌsnæpər, ˈwɪp-/ Show Spelled
[hwip-er-snap-er, wip-] Show IPA

–noun
an unimportant but offensively presumptuous person, especially a young one.

Here's my take on why it has gone so wrong. It used to be that there was a family 'unit', meaning the family was one and there were roles in the family that worked. Now I'm not saying that a woman should be at home to raise the kids, but somebody in the family should even if it's a grandparent. I think if a child is not raised by a mother or father, but rather an outside party (or a babysitter), the kids grow up thinking that's ok and will perpetuate that model when they have kids.

Now we have a generation of kids who have no real order in their lives and spend more time listening to the tv, Ipod, or some other pacifying technology than they do their parents.

Did we really have to change and have both parents working, or could we have lived more modestly, give up some luxuries and raise better kids?

That depends. What's more important, a robust economy or the family? Let's face it, women entering the workforce put our economy on steroids. It drove down the cost of labor and drove up the demand for consumer goods. I'm the last one to argue to roll the clock back, but I'd love to see the tax incentives shift to encourage more stay at home parenting, mom or dad. That's not likely to happen.

chickaree wrote: That depends. What's more important, a robust economy or the family? Let's face it, women entering the workforce put our economy on steroids. It drove down the cost of labor and drove up the demand for consumer goods. I'm the last one to argue to roll the clock back, but I'd love to see the tax incentives shift to encourage more stay at home parenting, mom or dad. That's not likely to happen.

Likely not. I think there is still the idea of the American dream out there, the chance to improve your lot in life, be it poor, middle class or something else. Personally, I've experienced the chance to improve my lot in life. Though we never talked about it, I suspect my parents may have looked back to different times in their lives when life was a little less stressful. Then again, going through 2 WW and their aftermath leave slim pickings. It seems that the good times rolled once we were all in the US.

Given your desire to see greater encouragement for one parent to stay at home, I'd say that the current incentive offered for mom's to go back to school in not necessarily consistent with such a wish.

You ask a important question in choosing between a robust economy and family. Years ago, I'd have said economy. Today, I'm old enough to realize the family unit, when strong, is capable of dealing with a poor economy, but a robust economy does little to create a robust family. I'm very interested in how others view your question. Perhaps you could set up a poll in another thread?

archer wrote:

Nmysys wrote:

You kids here just don't know nutin.

Are you calling him a young whippersnapper?

I have always wanted to use that word. LOL

Boy, are you in trouble.

definition of whippersnapper:

whip·per·snap·per   /ˈʰwɪpərˌsnæpər, ˈwɪp-/ Show Spelled
[hwip-er-snap-er, wip-] Show IPA

–noun
an unimportant but offensively presumptuous person, especially a young one.

"I MAY BE GETTING OLDER, BUT I REFUSE TO GROW-UP" :nyah: :nyah:

Thank you, it's a comfort that I'll always be younger than you are!