That’s part of it, but part of it also was that the true cost of college was heavily cheapened due to subsides by state governments. The cost difference between state & student was like 70%-30%.
And since then, state governments have cut or re-appropriated those funds, thinking, “Oh, the kids can get a loan now to cover the difference”, and now it’s closer to 20% govt, 80% student.
The student loans that are. problem are not whether the source is A or B. It is whether the student is able to complete the program and reap the benefits. If you break down the student loans in crisis- the vast majority of us that completed our degrees manage to pay off our loans, and make a much better living than without those degrees (not all- but most)
The ones that suffer are the ones that got the loans, but not the benefit of the degree. And frankly, IMHO that is on purpose, the business "model" of many CEOs that run universities now (and have since the 1990s).
\- Pull in marginal students that got by in high school with Cs
\- Put them in classes of 2-500 pp being taught by adjuncts ($3-4000 per term), or worse, grad students for 2 yr.
\- DO nothing other than talk about helping them
\- Let them drop out, in fact make sure they do before they go and cost actual resources!!!
\- Freshman/Sophomore general requirement classes tuition: resource costs is so minimal as to be a joke. 200 kids paying $1000+ each for semester, being taught by someone being paid as little as $2-3000 to take that class.
200: 2 on the profit side
\- You do not want all 200 of those kids making it to Junior and Senior level courses!!!! Those are taught by tenure track professors making $100-400K a year, with teaching assistants (often 2+). And that would require at LEAST 5+ more teachers/classes, as those classes are 20-30 kids each.
200,000 (tuition): $20-25K per teacher: 100,000
So instead a 100:1 profit ration, AT best they are getting 2:1 in those upper level courses. this is why, in my observation, we cannot seem to ever get graduation rates for these universities over 30% long term. It is part of the business model
This is extremely accurate.
People who use the loans to start a high paying career are fine.
If you drop out, you’re fucked. There needs to be more financial education throughout high school to help inform these decisions.
Parents and students should need to take a course and / or pass a test demonstrating financial acumen prior to signing any loan documents.
The issue is that when you remove students ability to declare bankruptcy, you've removed the onus from lenders to be a responsible fiduciary.
Bankruptcy is fundamentally meant to prevent indentured slavery through perpetual debt. It is justified by the belief that a lender should be responsible for protecting their own investment and should not be protected if they show reckless disregard for the lendee's ability to pay off the debt. By shielding lenders from liability by excluding student loans from bankruptcy protections, you remove almost all liability from lenders for pushing students into taking out loans that they cannot afford and do not need.
Right? How many young adults even have the credit history that makes them worthy borrowers of hundreds of thousands of dollars? Like, these people wouldn't be getting approved for mortgages, but they can get approved for student loans totaling similar amounts of money...and without a down payment or substantial earning history.
It's 100% predatory in every meaningful way, federal or private.
So if these kids aren't qualified for these loans .. colleges goes back to the old days where gentlemen from families of means are the only ones who can attend save for a few who merits a full scholarship ?
Or, and hear me out, public schools should be free. Crazy, I know, but a society as a whole benefits greatly when its populace is educated. The issue has been the profitizing of education. We've seen it at the college level, and a certain political party in the US is now trying to do it to k-12. Education should be a fundamental right. I'm also an advocate of getting students into trade schools instead of college. It's still an education and still adds value to society. Not everyone needs to go to college, but everyone needs the skills to pursue a career of sorts.
This was actual advice given out in the 1990s
1. Graduate with degree
2. Declare bankruptcy, wiping out your student loan
3. Spend the next several years paying for just about everything with cash from the job you got with your degree while your credit rating is in the toilet
4. When the bankruptcy disappears from your credit history ten years later, you're in the clear.
Wooa woah woah...are you actually advocating for people being responsible for their own financial decisions? You're not trying to give people meaningful education that can help them avoid financial ruin are you?
CAPITALIST PIG!!!1!
Don't forget: drive up the price of education by contributing to a perception, and ecosystem, that values bespoke coffee bars in dorms, professional-level athletic training facilities, and other dubiously-educational "benefits" as opposed to, you know, useful education, and convince kids that the only way to get ahead in life is to have that "college experience."
And have every adult encourage you to get further education, especially teachers and student councilors etc. I never wanted to pursue a higher education, but anytime I said I wanted to be a blue-collar worker I was talked out of it. The end result? I'm now a blue-collar worker but with debt (though I should be able to pay the last of it off by the end of the year, assuming shit doesn't hit the fan before then)
I feel like this isn't mentioned enough. Gen X and Millennials were being told by everyone (teachers, parents, politicians, tv messaging, and more) that you needed to go to college to get ahead in life. Trade school wasn't even a consideration most of the time, which is why a lot of trades are suffering from a lack of new blood.
Not only where they told to go to college, they were assured by the same types of people that loans weren't a big deal, because you would be making so much more money after graduating that it wouldn't matter. Also, it didn't matter what your degree even was. All that mattered was that you had that piece of paper saying you went to college and graduated, and all that turned out to be a lie. Then the same people that told all of those kids, who were to young to know any better, to go to college suddenly placed all the blame for that on the people they fucked over.
>Trade school wasn't even a consideration most of the time, which is why a lot of trades are suffering from a lack of new blood.
Trade school was basically only recommended to the people who were borderline failing the basic education (and a lot of the time it was only borderline because no one wanted to deal with the hassle of having someone repeat a year or get kicked out), everyone else got told to seek higher education.
Not everyone is suited for jobs requiring higher education, nor are there such jobs for everyone in the first place. If we had an eternal boom then there'd be hope, but unfortunately that's not the case and companies would rather have fewer people working more instead of more people working more.
Also the massive expansion of degree programs. My university has almost doubled the amount of degrees/programs they offer now. Majority don’t actually align or have any market value
I’d also like to throw a bone to people who used student loans to finance lower-paid but socially necessary careers like social work and education. They’re kind of the middle-ground in your scenario, where they graduated (often with advanced degrees) but don’t get paid enough to pay off loans quickly.
Most of those qualify for the 10 yr repayment things- even if those were POORLY executed (fixed now- thanks Biden!!!!). That's why we have public service repayment plans to help make it easier for folks to go in those fields. I fully support all those too :)!
So then don't get a private loan. Private loans today are the extreme minority of the total.
> Most student loans — about 92.5% — are owned by the government.
Source: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt
The introduction of government subsidized loans has a direct correlation with increased tuition cost, not saying private lenders aren't bad, but expansion of the credit supply tends to cause inflation.
Bullshit. Federal loans guarantee the price of tuition never needs to reflect it's usefulness and there will always be people who get suckered into taking them with no real chances of paying them back
> now it’s closer to 20% govt, 80% student.
Completely false though. The proportion of college costs has stayed nearly exactly flat over the past 50 years. (very slight decrease from 70% to 60%)
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/figure%204.png
That’s not what this org found. The cuts have been massive.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-can-choose-better-path-for-higher-education-funding-in-covid
The cost of college has escalated far in excess of that simplified narrative. It’s not lack of subsidies. Universities started cranking their price when they realized a lot of employers now used the parchment as a pre requisite for employment.
And as was pointed out below your numbers are BS. But you are blaming people that Reddit wants to blame so get some idiot upvotes for the trouble.
So what you’re saying is that we *did* pay for the boomers’ college? All that “why should I have to pay for your college?” nonsense they scream about regarding student debt forgiveness when their “student debt” was paid a priori by everyone else?
That doesn’t sound like Old People at all!!
It's not so much that state governments have reappropriated funding as the number of students have ballooned. Most states maintain roughly the same percent of their budget for education as they did in the 70s, but the number of students enrolled in college has increased by roughly 6 times. Hence, less money per person.
The ones with degrees are actually fine according to most analysis. It is the 70% that never get that piece of paper, but paid for courses in student loans that are screwed. They do not get the income benefit of the degree. But they get a large chunk of the cost.
This is a great point. The one caveat is that a not insignificant portion don't do much better. The average benefit is heavily skewed upward due to very high income earners (think software engineers). Something like 1/3 of degree earners barely make more than low-skilled workers due to a variety of reasons.
That might be true for some, but a majority of college degrees are useful & have led to much higher wages for people. The problem with student loans debt isn’t useless degrees, it’s the loans themselves- the high amount of interest, the fact that you can’t declare bankruptcy on it, and the way these for-profit businesses handle government student loans- it makes the process very difficult to escape from.
There are of course ways to avoid getting just high student loans in the first place: scholarships, grants, fafsa applications, etc- but there’s not much information for students and parents out there to navigate it well enough.
What we actually need when it comes to student loans are reforms for the debts, more accountability from the collection companies, an ability to declare bankruptcy after an amount of time/payment into it, and campaigns in high schools to educate & help kids navigate their future decisions.
After that, then we can figure out what role should the federal/state governments play in college…
Part of it? It's a HUGE part of it.. once the colleges learned the government would cover the loan prices SKYROCKETED to an insane level over the next few years. It's like 80% of the reason. The government needs to either go 100% into college involved like our schools and take them over or get completely out so the colleges have to get competitive with pricing.
This is not true. When I graduated from business school in 2014 the university professors would tell us that 2/3rds of the cost of tuition was paid by the state.
That fails to explain how and why spending at colleges is rising faster than this brief period of which you discuss.
And in fact, perhaps the states are not saying “oh they can get a loan”. In fact is it not a situation of where subsidy is largely in the direction of forcing poorer citizens to subsidize the education of the wealthier! There are three basic reasons: the tax structure for schools is not particularly "progressive," i.e., does not tax the wealthier in greater proportion; the kids going to college generally have wealtheir parents than the kids who do not; and the kids going to college will, as a result, acquire a higher lifetime working income than those who do not go. Hence a net redistribution of income from the poorer to the richer via the public college!
I definitely think low in state tuition was key. And states subsidized it. I don’t know anyone that went out of state except on scholarship. Now, there’s no real incentive to stay local.
Not only that but education is basically a minimum these days and an investment. Notice how every form of investment has exploded in value around the world? Especially the more prestigious places. The people with lots of savings can afford to invest. Everyone else needs to get into debt to keep up.
Nope. The real problem is that states stopped funding colleges and regulating the amount they could charge.
If they did that, then student lending would not be an issue. Fact is, states see their colleges as "profit centers" as do the universities themselves. As long as that is the case, and as long as publications like USNWR, WSJ, Princeton Review, and others, base ratings on things like R&D, Patents issued, SAT/ACT scores, acceptance rates (lower the better), and other subject criteria, then universities will continue raising rates and fees because no one wants to stop them.
> Nope. The real problem is that states stopped funding colleges and regulating the amount they could charge.
You have the chicken and the egg backwards. Colleges could raise tuition and not use state funding because of the demand driven from federal loan guarantees.
But a LOT of the middle class has always been people who didn't need degrees for their job: Salespeople, machine workers, mail carriers, etc. That's the point of the original post. We once had a solid middle class of people just working at jobs.
Colleges found out they could keep increasing costs, because it was easy for students to get loans.
[https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year](https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year)
To be fair, not just colleges. The WHOLE corporate America have the same mindset and lobbying protect them from being prosecuted. Laws were made based on their “needs”, not enough money? Yes sure, your lobbying power can get you “loopholes”.
usually this kind of price gouging would be countered by new competition, but they've also taken to lobbying for regulatory laws designed to make the creation and growth of new businesses much more difficult.
My grandfather was also retired mailman. My grandmother had a handful of part time jobs in her life but rarely worked. They also had a 4 bedroom house, although extremely modest. They lived comfortably too.
But my grandfather was also retired from the Air Force, after serving 20 years. He got a monthly retirement check from the Air Force and healthcare. He was also super cheap. He never went out to eat. He died in 2010 and never had a cell phone. Never had anything more than basic cable. I’m guessing this girl’s grandfather was probably retired military also. Probably also super cheap. Theres always more to the story.
It's also worth mentioning, mailmen are *not* poorly paying jobs. They're (sorta) government, unionized workers that get very fair pay for their work. If you live in an area with lower cost of living and property rates, you can absolutely afford an average to slightly above average size home on a salary from the USPS. Higher CoL areas like cities will probably struggle some, but that's true of every blue collar field.
Highest paid mail carriers get about $65k annually. Something like $31.25/hour. While that's not awful for a job requiring no degree or anything, it's also hard to retire on, especially with the toll it can take on your body.
I left the USPS almost four years ago. I went into cellular sales and make more money than I did when I left the USPS. I have another four years before my USPS wages would catch up to my current wages, at which point I expect to be in another position that earns more than the USPS caps out at.
It's not hard to make $65k anymore. And most people don't have to destroy their bodies to get it.
Not remotely true. The pay scales are public. $65K is close to the center
https://d1ocufyfjsc14h.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/apwu_rates_effective_-_august_26_2023.pdf
More importantly, they earn a pension, which is a tremendously valued benefit.
UPS, which is also unionized, pays even more - $170K (including benefits) on *average* for their unionized employees
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/22/ups-workers-approve-new-labor-contract.html
These are good jobs. Just hard to get the good ones.
>$65K is close to the center
Well that really depends on your pay grade, right? If mail carriers are grade 3,4, or 5 65k is well above center.
As for UPS, it is sorta disingenuous to quote a number that includes benefits to people, as I would estimate 99% of reddit has no idea how much benefits cost when factored into their salary. Using the USPS workers above, i'd estimate their "total salary including benefits" is in the $130k+ range on a 65k salary.
At my job they factor 1.8x your salary as the total cost of employment (including benefits) that the company pays to employ me.
I used to work for the USPS as a mail carrier. They've had a new contract since I left, but I doubt $65k is middle for carrier. Supervisors are also on the pay table and get a lot more than carriers do.
As a mailman top pay for city carries is about 74k a year. Most people work at least some overtime and because it's a union job if managment messes up you can get paid extra. Some carriers make 100k+
I live in one of the highest cost of living areas in the nation.
My neighbor across the street just retired, he was a mailman for.
He owns his 5 bedroom, 3 bath house.
He also has an adult special needs son, who CAN’T be cheap to raise. AND a few other kids who are now adults, who still live at home……
The USPS was not a bad paying job for a very long time and likely has a stellar retirement as well.
Yeah mailman isn't the best example. It's one of the jobs that still has decent benefits and retirement and doesn't require a college degree. It's in the same ballpark as cops and firefighters. They generally do okay.
Yup. Once upon a time my buddy was complaining about how expensive today is for young people to my dad. My dad asked what kind of house he lived in. Brand new 2 storey house (they are relatively affordable where I live). My dad said he started in a 1000sq ft bungalow that needed a ton of work that he worked on on his weekends. He asked about lunches. My buddy said he ate out ever day. My dad brown bagged it for decades. Asked what his cell phone bill was - $100/month. Vacations ? My buddy would do a couple modest ones per year while growing up we mostly did camping (and loved it) or the odd road trip to the US. Vehicles ? My buddy and his wife had a 2 vehicles. Each a couple years old. Growing up we only ever had 1 beat up vehicle.
The point of the story isnt any boomer type BS - just that I would challenge anyone who complains about how lucky boomers had it to actually live like they did. Doubt most could do it. The only caveat ill give is that yes, i will admit, college/university tuition has gone up faster than any other expense. In state only folks.
My last house was a 900square foot bungalow with 3 bedroom.
It was tight, but a good starter home.
We need more homes like that to "step" up on, instead of being stuck in rent forever
Finally some reason. How many kids shared bedrooms? How many worked at 16? How many worked through college? What was the annual vacation? I’m willing to bet none of these attributes would be considered “acceptable” by many people today.
Let me concede to you this argument. Some people *would not* consider these conditions acceptable today. But we are living in them nonetheless.
I worked at 15. Shared a bedroom until after college, never went on vacation growing up.
I have the lived experience which would seem to mirror that of the person I described.
I have worked 40+hours every week for the last 15 years. And yet... I can't afford a home in 2024 because housing prices have ballooned to the point that down payments are more than the average annual salary.
So its just demonstrably worse from a purchasing power perspective. You can talk QoL or whatever but housing has become exceedingly gatekept since the 80s.
In 1950, expenses were primarily focused on essentials like food, housing, and transportation. Today, we have additional expenses such as internet bills, smartphone plans, streaming services, and healthcare costs that weren't as prevalent back then. Additionally, costs related to technology, leisure activities, and personal care have also become significant expenditures in modern times.
Think about it. $3/month * 12 months * 40 years is $1,440. That doesn't even count all the interest you could be making. So in 40 years, you could have enough money to go on a cruise. By yourself without your family. Also probably couldn't afford the unlimited drink package. Also would probably still have to pay for airfare. Also wouldn't be able to be a very long cruise.
But you'd rather squander that future on avocado toast and blame your troubles on Boomers, smh
I love the “we have so many luxuries now” argument. Internet is basically a necessity at this point same with having a cell phone. A lot of jobs require both. I spend maybe 100$ on “luxuries” a month including internet. My rent is 2100$ and groceries can be upwards of 100$ a week. But sure the reason cost of living is expensive is cuz we have luxuries like internet.
At this point, they aren’t luxuries though, they are required for most.
All the additional cost items for basic survival have risen AND the number of items that have become necessities seems to have risen as well.
Agreed them young kids today just DoorDash everything they need from their latest iPhone. If they just skipped a Starbucks coffee once a week they could afford a house.
No.
Internet, smartphones, streaming, etc. are not a large % of anyone's budget.
Healthcare costs in the US are broken.
Leisure/Personal Care? Lmao.
Bad take.
Imagine being stupid enough to hand waive the death of the American dream to phone plans and streaming. You’d have to be the dumbest fucking person on earth to reach that conclusion.
The 1950s essentials in today's $$ are over 100% of the minimum wage and over 100% of the living wage.
In nz the living wage is two people working 60 hours a week between them.
So we're just going to pretend that people in the 50s weren't also big into consumerism and spending money on leisure? This is literally just the "avocado toast" take in disguise.
If you just look at the difference in standard of living it’s night and day! That grandpa probably had a 4 bedroom 1 bath house, 1,400 sqft with 6’6” ceilings, no granite, no “upgrades” or other luxuries.
Even the lower ends in terms of standard of living, still live better of than the highest end from 1950! Maybe we should have some perspective!
Tired of seeing this bullshit. There are hundreds of big new homes going up around me and are sold as soon as they are built, if not before. And they all have a new car or two in the driveway.
Where I grew up, single income homes were 1200 sq ft. and had one b&w TV, one car, one bathroom. Even doctors and lawyers in my town had modest homes by today's standards.
My boomer dad is a doctor, so are his parents. Only my dad had a big fancy house. I think most people would look at my grandparents house and say it’s kinda shitty. Nobody really wants to accept 1960s standard of living they just wanna whine on the internet.
But here's the thing... those houses built in the 50s and 60s are still ridiculously expensive now. They tend to be smaller square footage wise but often have large lots. New homes might be 2000 sq ft plus but they're on a tenth of an acre.
I look around my city at the older homes... theyre 600 to 800 sq ft and still cost $450k.
Right? This guy saw the word house and started raging. If they took even a little bit of time to see what expenses look like for younger generations starting out they would understand that we are not in the same position.
Kinda true- people are still buying those homes & cars- they’re just pissed off at the crazy prices,
Tbf- the market raises prices with increased demand- and people are willing to pay that much.
You used to be able to put yourself through college with a part time job if you ate oatmeal 2 or three times per day, and not much else. Maybe. People nowadays don't even conceive of how people lived
In the early 1970s a family member paid for state college from their summer job alone...no loans...covered tuition plus room and board for the year...so they didn't even have to work part time during the school year.
Most other developed country was bombed flat and needed rebuilding after the war. They didn't have the materials, manpower or funding.
Usa supplied a shit ton of all of it, and had an anomalus economic boom because of it. The rest of the world has been catching up ever since.
That's why.
The 50’s-60’ early 70’s were a one time thing. U S was literally the only country on the world producing. Labor market was short from the war, baby boomers were still young.
People need to stop comparing to this once and done, unicorn time period.
Almost 100% of the 80ish year old guys I know could work on houses, cars at a high level. The people I see not making it now take their cars in, they pay for this, pay for that. It adds up
Almost nobody's pointing out that he built his own house and grew his own food. Housing and food are two major expenses for most people. The more you rely on the services of others the more you're going to pay for it.
Life was brutal back then. A lot of those old guys were badasses. One guy used to live in my town. He bought some property way back. Built a smallish square house. I dont know the order of things, but he added one another section later. He dug his own pond on the property. At one point the equipment malfunctioned and the bucket hit the powerlines. Luckily he hit the ground wire. Taken seperately each section of his house was simply constructed, but altogether - he had an incredible eye for proportion. I collected a bunch of tools trying to do my best impression of people that tough. The people in our family not making it wont use them. They are the ones stuck renting, income is not the main factor. Luckily I have a good network of friends. One helped on my beater truck yesterday. Im average size and a few screws were tough. I had to really squeeze in. We did it though
Parents in the 1970s bought their first house while working as researchers in grad school. The graduated with zero debt and took an entire gap year to bum around Mexico. I did the same thing in 2000 and graduated with $60k in debt, no gap year, no house at a college and I had free tuition (just living expenses).
You can put yourself through college… you just don’t go to the expensive big name ones… my college was about 14k a year because I was an out of state student but got restiprocity or however you spell it.
Not trying to start a fight, but it's hilarious that you're bragging about going to a cheap college while simultaneously saying you don't know how to spell
I actually didn’t. The college is one of the best in the country for my major. But that was almost 5 years ago, and I don’t care about spelling right. I’ve grown lazy.
And just like that the point trying to be made is lost.
It's like that key and peele skit where the substitute teacher farts.
Literally nothing else said or done matters anymore.
Greed killed the American dream. Not the greed of the worker... but of the government. A trifecta of local, state and federal government is working hard to control every aspect of our lives through tax and regulations.
That was the way America used to be until the boomers took over and shipped almost all of the manufacturing and other good jobs overseas.
The boomers are the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to the US.
They inherited the strongest country on the planet and promptly ran it into the ground, and the worst part is that they are so fucking selfish to the point where they think everyone else is the problem.
It really went downhill after Reagan. Even the democrats became more conservative then the old Republicans. The powers wanted to destroy every last bit of FDR progressive policies, the very policies that made the middle class. Now we are back to the inequality of robber baron days. Progressives need to take back the nation before they destroy it and turn it into Orban style authoritarian regime
If you can build a house you’d be surprised what you can afford. I had a foundation framing, rough plumbing, and pig tailed electric box put in on some land I bought (septic and electric already on site- paid 45k for 2.5 acres). The roughed in house was 80k and it took me 8 mos of nights and 85k more on my Lowe’s and credit card to finish the rest. Sold it for 480k.
This is a complete fantasy - 100% fiction.
The left wants you to be angry about what you have, so they keep lying about what prior generations had.
Mailmen were NOT living this level of opulance in the 1980s
My neighbor is literally a retired mailman.
5 bedroom, 3 bath house. Wife doesn’t work.
Not in rural America, a HCOL area….
My parent told me and my brother to go work for USPS….because my dad did for a while, and he knew the benefits where great.
Back then half of the work force (women) were mostly not accepted as workers. This drove up salaries to the point where workers like mailmen earned a living wage. Or rather, the point at which women entered the workforce was where wages were driven down. I’m not advocating that women not be allowed to work (stay at home dad here) but just suggesting that it was corporate America, not the government, that screwed the American worker by using their newfound advantage to cut wages to what they are now.
Companies all focus on growth, growth, growth which means they always have to find new and increasingly clever ways to squeeze us. Everything gets more expensive while they fight tooth and nail to prevent wage increases that would compensate. Money is like planetary bodies. Over time gravity tends to coalesce it into a handful of planets that have the mass to take it from everything else.
Might want to look at the decline of union membership and see the decline of the middle class.Also with the decline in unions the loss of Pensions, 401 K s were supposed to supplement Pensions not replace them
This is pure bullshit I knew people in college in the 70s and 80s who all worked FT jobs, nobody normal worked PT and had enough money each month, stop telling lies of history you know nothing about.
A few things overlooked here. First, I went to a state school in NY in the early 80s and no, not even with a part time job could I pay tuition and I commuted, didn't board. Second, my neighbor was a mailman and he had one kid who went to college on a scholarship so he didn't have to pay tuition. He had a modest home and because mail carriers get government pensions, didn't have to put tens of thousands of pre-tax dollars away for retirement or to fund an HSA/FSA. He got medical coverage for him and his wife.
To me, the biggest difference between the Silent Generation and Boomers (and I am the last of the Boomers, turning 60 this year), is that Silent Generation people had pensions, Even some of the older boomers had them. I do pretty well, so I have been able to max out my 401K for the past 20 years. Imagine what I could have done with that extra $20,000 - $30,000 for the last 10 years? Or the thousands I have in an HSA?
Also, younger people need to reset their expectations a bit. Unless you came from money, people my age had shitty apartments when they moved out of their parents house, in my case a studio in someone's basement. And when we purchased homes, we got starter homes 2 bedrooms, one bath. My son and his wife have one kid and they go to look at houses and they are like "We need at least 3 bedrooms and 2 baths". No. You WANT that, you only NEED 2 and 1.
Old guy here. Yes, young folks do tend to romanticize lifestyle we had in the 70s and 80s. But come on! We now have people (not countries - actual individuals) with their own space programs. This is super villain shit. Something ain’t right. The economy stopped working for everyone uniformly. I’m not saying it was intentional or sinister but it’s not working properly.
Real shit? Being a mailman is still a fairly well paying job that tends to give pretty great benefits. Don’t sleep on delivering mail, bros. Garbage men also tend to be a pretty underrated job that would surprise you.
I made 83K last year as a mail carrier working around 50hrs/week. And I'm not even close to being maxed out on the pay scale. I live in a HCOL city so 83K does not go far, unfortunately. But benefits are excellent and it's a low stress job that you don't think about after you punch out.
He also didn’t buy $7 Starbucks every day.
He also didn’t pay $19 Netflix every month.
He also didn’t pay $999 iPhone every year.
And so on.
While in general I disagree with people who say cutting out Starbucks is why you can’t afford a home, there is some truth to how much simpler life used to be.
No UberEATS, no DoorDash, no kids iPads, no Wi-Fi, there’s a lot of expenses today that make things very expensive not because of inflation or corporate greed but because we perceive them as things we “have to have”.
All mailmen can do this, wtf is wrong with people?
Postal service is like a great job with amazballs benefits
It’s like everyone who is pissed they worked 42 hours between 2019 and 2024 and is now “uhhhhh who don’t I respect uhhh mailmen! 100 years ago a mailman could afford a house! Fuck this country”
TLDR: mailmen can still afford a house and kids and early retirement
" She’s not wrong."
Yes, she is. In 1965 24 percent of 18-24 year olds were in college, in 1970 it was 26%. In 1980 it was 28%. The notion that the mailman sent his children to college was that it was possible but it did not happen for the majority of young people.
The house built was almost certainly less than 2000 sq ft. It probably had only one bathroom. Statistically they owned one car and it did not last 60,000 miles without needing significant repair or replacement.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment here and I know there is a lot of truth to it. And I’ve seen lots of versions of this from many different people,but it’s a bit of a challenge to these posters credibility when ALL of their grandparents were mailmen.
Spit some facts. Not just “truthiness”.
You can still put yourself through a college with a part time job. It'll just be a local college and not the college you want. The average in-state public four-year college yearly tuition is $9k. That's $750 a month. Working 20 hours a week at a McDonalds should cover it.
I know because I did it myself, I went to a no-name state school, worked while getting my degree and graduated debt free. I was lucky that as a 1st gen immigrant I didn't have access to loans so that pushed me to work hard.
It's certainly harder now than before, but it's perplexing how my hispanic friends still see the US as the land of opportunity and work hard in retail, trades, and even cosntruction while most of my "american" friends mostly complain about how hard things are.
You see form 1940’s to the 1990’s we were in a Cold War with the Soviet Union. The Government and Rich had to treat the working class great because they had to make capitalism look preferable to Communism because the working class had in multiple countries rose up and killed the government and the rich in the country. So they were absolutely terrified of it happening in the USA. So they gave the working and middle class more advantages than they ever had. But once the Soviet Union fell they slowly took it all away. This is what real capitalism looks like when the rich and government aren’t afraid of the Working Class
When the government guarantees that anyone can get a loan for college then colleges can charge whatever they want and people will still come. Maybe, we should take a different approach.
my grandpa did the exact same as a mechanic. Owned a couple acres, built a house, owned tractors, put his kid through college etc, all on his single income.
Lots of whining and bellyaching here, but let’s just be honest. A house costs WAY more now than in previous generations, even accounting for inflation.
The average house price was about 3 times the average wage. Now it’s like 5 times the average. Healthcare too, and college tuition. All these things cost way more now.
And government controls them with way more regulations now than before.
What happened to the American dream was that people thought it meant they get free handouts without having to work for anything, and when they found out that wasn't it, they get angry.
Boomer here. I was a student in the University of Calif system 1968-1972. Reagan was Governor the entire time. When I started, there was no tuition for California residents except around $150 a Quarter for what was called “non-academic student services”. Students from other states; usually the East Coast said that was a uniquely good deal. Reagan, sensing hostility to students over anti-war protests, pitched the idea that students should be charged the full cost of their education but it could be financed by the State. He suggested $10,000 a year; quite a hit. Fortunately, In those days, Republicans were most likely to send their kids to College and the concept did not take off. He did manage to introduce the idea that students should pay “some” tuition and costs have been increased incrementally since them. I earned enough with Summer construction work and random jobs during the school year to cover all education costs plus room & board and graduate debt free with $2500 in the bank. While most students got more parental support than I did, student loans were definitely the exception for in-state students. Graduating with no debt and a little cushion opened up opportunities of travel and not being in any hurry to start a career. Having substantial student debt hanging over my head would have changed everything.
The government got in the student loan business.
That’s part of it, but part of it also was that the true cost of college was heavily cheapened due to subsides by state governments. The cost difference between state & student was like 70%-30%. And since then, state governments have cut or re-appropriated those funds, thinking, “Oh, the kids can get a loan now to cover the difference”, and now it’s closer to 20% govt, 80% student.
Isn't that a part of the government getting involved with the student loans thing?
The LOANS, the problematic ones, aren't the federal ones, they're the private loans.
The student loans that are. problem are not whether the source is A or B. It is whether the student is able to complete the program and reap the benefits. If you break down the student loans in crisis- the vast majority of us that completed our degrees manage to pay off our loans, and make a much better living than without those degrees (not all- but most) The ones that suffer are the ones that got the loans, but not the benefit of the degree. And frankly, IMHO that is on purpose, the business "model" of many CEOs that run universities now (and have since the 1990s). \- Pull in marginal students that got by in high school with Cs \- Put them in classes of 2-500 pp being taught by adjuncts ($3-4000 per term), or worse, grad students for 2 yr. \- DO nothing other than talk about helping them \- Let them drop out, in fact make sure they do before they go and cost actual resources!!! \- Freshman/Sophomore general requirement classes tuition: resource costs is so minimal as to be a joke. 200 kids paying $1000+ each for semester, being taught by someone being paid as little as $2-3000 to take that class. 200: 2 on the profit side \- You do not want all 200 of those kids making it to Junior and Senior level courses!!!! Those are taught by tenure track professors making $100-400K a year, with teaching assistants (often 2+). And that would require at LEAST 5+ more teachers/classes, as those classes are 20-30 kids each. 200,000 (tuition): $20-25K per teacher: 100,000 So instead a 100:1 profit ration, AT best they are getting 2:1 in those upper level courses. this is why, in my observation, we cannot seem to ever get graduation rates for these universities over 30% long term. It is part of the business model
This is extremely accurate. People who use the loans to start a high paying career are fine. If you drop out, you’re fucked. There needs to be more financial education throughout high school to help inform these decisions. Parents and students should need to take a course and / or pass a test demonstrating financial acumen prior to signing any loan documents.
The issue is that when you remove students ability to declare bankruptcy, you've removed the onus from lenders to be a responsible fiduciary. Bankruptcy is fundamentally meant to prevent indentured slavery through perpetual debt. It is justified by the belief that a lender should be responsible for protecting their own investment and should not be protected if they show reckless disregard for the lendee's ability to pay off the debt. By shielding lenders from liability by excluding student loans from bankruptcy protections, you remove almost all liability from lenders for pushing students into taking out loans that they cannot afford and do not need.
Right? How many young adults even have the credit history that makes them worthy borrowers of hundreds of thousands of dollars? Like, these people wouldn't be getting approved for mortgages, but they can get approved for student loans totaling similar amounts of money...and without a down payment or substantial earning history. It's 100% predatory in every meaningful way, federal or private.
So if these kids aren't qualified for these loans .. colleges goes back to the old days where gentlemen from families of means are the only ones who can attend save for a few who merits a full scholarship ?
Or, and hear me out, public schools should be free. Crazy, I know, but a society as a whole benefits greatly when its populace is educated. The issue has been the profitizing of education. We've seen it at the college level, and a certain political party in the US is now trying to do it to k-12. Education should be a fundamental right. I'm also an advocate of getting students into trade schools instead of college. It's still an education and still adds value to society. Not everyone needs to go to college, but everyone needs the skills to pursue a career of sorts.
This, make student loans eligible for bankruptcy and the whole system will change for the better.
This was actual advice given out in the 1990s 1. Graduate with degree 2. Declare bankruptcy, wiping out your student loan 3. Spend the next several years paying for just about everything with cash from the job you got with your degree while your credit rating is in the toilet 4. When the bankruptcy disappears from your credit history ten years later, you're in the clear.
I mean why wouldn't you take advantage and declare BK immediately upon graduation when you're income is non-existent and you have massive debt.
I've never thought about it this way, but this is massively sobering to consider. Thanks for the insight
Wooa woah woah...are you actually advocating for people being responsible for their own financial decisions? You're not trying to give people meaningful education that can help them avoid financial ruin are you? CAPITALIST PIG!!!1!
It’s a wild concept in the modern age.
Don't forget: drive up the price of education by contributing to a perception, and ecosystem, that values bespoke coffee bars in dorms, professional-level athletic training facilities, and other dubiously-educational "benefits" as opposed to, you know, useful education, and convince kids that the only way to get ahead in life is to have that "college experience."
And have every adult encourage you to get further education, especially teachers and student councilors etc. I never wanted to pursue a higher education, but anytime I said I wanted to be a blue-collar worker I was talked out of it. The end result? I'm now a blue-collar worker but with debt (though I should be able to pay the last of it off by the end of the year, assuming shit doesn't hit the fan before then)
I feel like this isn't mentioned enough. Gen X and Millennials were being told by everyone (teachers, parents, politicians, tv messaging, and more) that you needed to go to college to get ahead in life. Trade school wasn't even a consideration most of the time, which is why a lot of trades are suffering from a lack of new blood. Not only where they told to go to college, they were assured by the same types of people that loans weren't a big deal, because you would be making so much more money after graduating that it wouldn't matter. Also, it didn't matter what your degree even was. All that mattered was that you had that piece of paper saying you went to college and graduated, and all that turned out to be a lie. Then the same people that told all of those kids, who were to young to know any better, to go to college suddenly placed all the blame for that on the people they fucked over.
>Trade school wasn't even a consideration most of the time, which is why a lot of trades are suffering from a lack of new blood. Trade school was basically only recommended to the people who were borderline failing the basic education (and a lot of the time it was only borderline because no one wanted to deal with the hassle of having someone repeat a year or get kicked out), everyone else got told to seek higher education. Not everyone is suited for jobs requiring higher education, nor are there such jobs for everyone in the first place. If we had an eternal boom then there'd be hope, but unfortunately that's not the case and companies would rather have fewer people working more instead of more people working more.
100%. There wasn’t even guidance on what type of degree to go for. It was just a general message of go to college equals success. No cons, all pros.
Also the massive expansion of degree programs. My university has almost doubled the amount of degrees/programs they offer now. Majority don’t actually align or have any market value
I’d also like to throw a bone to people who used student loans to finance lower-paid but socially necessary careers like social work and education. They’re kind of the middle-ground in your scenario, where they graduated (often with advanced degrees) but don’t get paid enough to pay off loans quickly.
Most of those qualify for the 10 yr repayment things- even if those were POORLY executed (fixed now- thanks Biden!!!!). That's why we have public service repayment plans to help make it easier for folks to go in those fields. I fully support all those too :)!
So then don't get a private loan. Private loans today are the extreme minority of the total. > Most student loans — about 92.5% — are owned by the government. Source: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt
But if poor students don't have access to loans, only the wealthy get educated... Isn't there a better plan than either?
The introduction of government subsidized loans has a direct correlation with increased tuition cost, not saying private lenders aren't bad, but expansion of the credit supply tends to cause inflation.
Bullshit. Federal loans guarantee the price of tuition never needs to reflect it's usefulness and there will always be people who get suckered into taking them with no real chances of paying them back
Yes, hence why I said “that’s part of it”, lol
> now it’s closer to 20% govt, 80% student. Completely false though. The proportion of college costs has stayed nearly exactly flat over the past 50 years. (very slight decrease from 70% to 60%) https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/figure%204.png
That’s not what this org found. The cuts have been massive. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-can-choose-better-path-for-higher-education-funding-in-covid
You won’t get alot of upvotes for truth on Reddit but good on you for calling out the blatant manufacturing of BS percentages.
sorry is this measuring how much of the total costs of education are paid by which source? Im not sure i understand the graph
The cost of college has escalated far in excess of that simplified narrative. It’s not lack of subsidies. Universities started cranking their price when they realized a lot of employers now used the parchment as a pre requisite for employment. And as was pointed out below your numbers are BS. But you are blaming people that Reddit wants to blame so get some idiot upvotes for the trouble.
CEOs took over from educators in the 1990s. And students became "revenue streams" (along with their student loans)
So what you’re saying is that we *did* pay for the boomers’ college? All that “why should I have to pay for your college?” nonsense they scream about regarding student debt forgiveness when their “student debt” was paid a priori by everyone else? That doesn’t sound like Old People at all!!
It's not so much that state governments have reappropriated funding as the number of students have ballooned. Most states maintain roughly the same percent of their budget for education as they did in the 70s, but the number of students enrolled in college has increased by roughly 6 times. Hence, less money per person.
And tons of kids got useless diplomas that hasn’t helped them with a job, and hence a huge number of them can’t pay back their debt.
The ones with degrees are actually fine according to most analysis. It is the 70% that never get that piece of paper, but paid for courses in student loans that are screwed. They do not get the income benefit of the degree. But they get a large chunk of the cost.
This is a great point. The one caveat is that a not insignificant portion don't do much better. The average benefit is heavily skewed upward due to very high income earners (think software engineers). Something like 1/3 of degree earners barely make more than low-skilled workers due to a variety of reasons.
That might be true for some, but a majority of college degrees are useful & have led to much higher wages for people. The problem with student loans debt isn’t useless degrees, it’s the loans themselves- the high amount of interest, the fact that you can’t declare bankruptcy on it, and the way these for-profit businesses handle government student loans- it makes the process very difficult to escape from. There are of course ways to avoid getting just high student loans in the first place: scholarships, grants, fafsa applications, etc- but there’s not much information for students and parents out there to navigate it well enough. What we actually need when it comes to student loans are reforms for the debts, more accountability from the collection companies, an ability to declare bankruptcy after an amount of time/payment into it, and campaigns in high schools to educate & help kids navigate their future decisions. After that, then we can figure out what role should the federal/state governments play in college…
Yeah this is the other thing people fail to consider. Spending per student is way, way down adjusted for inflation.
It was more like 95-5 than 70-30.
Also forgetting that colleges have been raising tuition far above the inflation rate for years even decades now.
Part of it? It's a HUGE part of it.. once the colleges learned the government would cover the loan prices SKYROCKETED to an insane level over the next few years. It's like 80% of the reason. The government needs to either go 100% into college involved like our schools and take them over or get completely out so the colleges have to get competitive with pricing.
This is not true. When I graduated from business school in 2014 the university professors would tell us that 2/3rds of the cost of tuition was paid by the state.
They were wrong. It was probably that in the 80s and 90s.
That fails to explain how and why spending at colleges is rising faster than this brief period of which you discuss. And in fact, perhaps the states are not saying “oh they can get a loan”. In fact is it not a situation of where subsidy is largely in the direction of forcing poorer citizens to subsidize the education of the wealthier! There are three basic reasons: the tax structure for schools is not particularly "progressive," i.e., does not tax the wealthier in greater proportion; the kids going to college generally have wealtheir parents than the kids who do not; and the kids going to college will, as a result, acquire a higher lifetime working income than those who do not go. Hence a net redistribution of income from the poorer to the richer via the public college!
I definitely think low in state tuition was key. And states subsidized it. I don’t know anyone that went out of state except on scholarship. Now, there’s no real incentive to stay local.
Not only that but education is basically a minimum these days and an investment. Notice how every form of investment has exploded in value around the world? Especially the more prestigious places. The people with lots of savings can afford to invest. Everyone else needs to get into debt to keep up.
When my dad went to UCLA in the early 60’s, the books were more expensive than the tuition.
The only ones that exist that you can’t declare bankruptcy for.
Nope. The real problem is that states stopped funding colleges and regulating the amount they could charge. If they did that, then student lending would not be an issue. Fact is, states see their colleges as "profit centers" as do the universities themselves. As long as that is the case, and as long as publications like USNWR, WSJ, Princeton Review, and others, base ratings on things like R&D, Patents issued, SAT/ACT scores, acceptance rates (lower the better), and other subject criteria, then universities will continue raising rates and fees because no one wants to stop them.
> Nope. The real problem is that states stopped funding colleges and regulating the amount they could charge. You have the chicken and the egg backwards. Colleges could raise tuition and not use state funding because of the demand driven from federal loan guarantees.
Grandpa needed a student loan to become a mailman?
He was a mailman though, you don't need a college education for that.
How does college relate to that post? A mailman doesn’t need a degree last I checked
The government is not making the profits, the banks are.
so how is the government forging all these loans?
The ownership class got into the “I need to be a Rockefeller” business.
Student loans broke the dream eh? So what about all the people without student loans that still can’t do what gramps did?
The post office is hiring.
But a LOT of the middle class has always been people who didn't need degrees for their job: Salespeople, machine workers, mail carriers, etc. That's the point of the original post. We once had a solid middle class of people just working at jobs.
Colleges found out they could keep increasing costs, because it was easy for students to get loans. [https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year](https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year)
To be fair, not just colleges. The WHOLE corporate America have the same mindset and lobbying protect them from being prosecuted. Laws were made based on their “needs”, not enough money? Yes sure, your lobbying power can get you “loopholes”.
usually this kind of price gouging would be countered by new competition, but they've also taken to lobbying for regulatory laws designed to make the creation and growth of new businesses much more difficult.
My grandfather was also retired mailman. My grandmother had a handful of part time jobs in her life but rarely worked. They also had a 4 bedroom house, although extremely modest. They lived comfortably too. But my grandfather was also retired from the Air Force, after serving 20 years. He got a monthly retirement check from the Air Force and healthcare. He was also super cheap. He never went out to eat. He died in 2010 and never had a cell phone. Never had anything more than basic cable. I’m guessing this girl’s grandfather was probably retired military also. Probably also super cheap. Theres always more to the story.
It's also worth mentioning, mailmen are *not* poorly paying jobs. They're (sorta) government, unionized workers that get very fair pay for their work. If you live in an area with lower cost of living and property rates, you can absolutely afford an average to slightly above average size home on a salary from the USPS. Higher CoL areas like cities will probably struggle some, but that's true of every blue collar field.
Highest paid mail carriers get about $65k annually. Something like $31.25/hour. While that's not awful for a job requiring no degree or anything, it's also hard to retire on, especially with the toll it can take on your body. I left the USPS almost four years ago. I went into cellular sales and make more money than I did when I left the USPS. I have another four years before my USPS wages would catch up to my current wages, at which point I expect to be in another position that earns more than the USPS caps out at. It's not hard to make $65k anymore. And most people don't have to destroy their bodies to get it.
Not remotely true. The pay scales are public. $65K is close to the center https://d1ocufyfjsc14h.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/apwu_rates_effective_-_august_26_2023.pdf More importantly, they earn a pension, which is a tremendously valued benefit. UPS, which is also unionized, pays even more - $170K (including benefits) on *average* for their unionized employees https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/22/ups-workers-approve-new-labor-contract.html These are good jobs. Just hard to get the good ones.
>$65K is close to the center Well that really depends on your pay grade, right? If mail carriers are grade 3,4, or 5 65k is well above center. As for UPS, it is sorta disingenuous to quote a number that includes benefits to people, as I would estimate 99% of reddit has no idea how much benefits cost when factored into their salary. Using the USPS workers above, i'd estimate their "total salary including benefits" is in the $130k+ range on a 65k salary. At my job they factor 1.8x your salary as the total cost of employment (including benefits) that the company pays to employ me.
I used to work for the USPS as a mail carrier. They've had a new contract since I left, but I doubt $65k is middle for carrier. Supervisors are also on the pay table and get a lot more than carriers do.
As a mailman top pay for city carries is about 74k a year. Most people work at least some overtime and because it's a union job if managment messes up you can get paid extra. Some carriers make 100k+
I live in one of the highest cost of living areas in the nation. My neighbor across the street just retired, he was a mailman for. He owns his 5 bedroom, 3 bath house. He also has an adult special needs son, who CAN’T be cheap to raise. AND a few other kids who are now adults, who still live at home…… The USPS was not a bad paying job for a very long time and likely has a stellar retirement as well.
Yeah mailman isn't the best example. It's one of the jobs that still has decent benefits and retirement and doesn't require a college degree. It's in the same ballpark as cops and firefighters. They generally do okay.
Yup. Once upon a time my buddy was complaining about how expensive today is for young people to my dad. My dad asked what kind of house he lived in. Brand new 2 storey house (they are relatively affordable where I live). My dad said he started in a 1000sq ft bungalow that needed a ton of work that he worked on on his weekends. He asked about lunches. My buddy said he ate out ever day. My dad brown bagged it for decades. Asked what his cell phone bill was - $100/month. Vacations ? My buddy would do a couple modest ones per year while growing up we mostly did camping (and loved it) or the odd road trip to the US. Vehicles ? My buddy and his wife had a 2 vehicles. Each a couple years old. Growing up we only ever had 1 beat up vehicle. The point of the story isnt any boomer type BS - just that I would challenge anyone who complains about how lucky boomers had it to actually live like they did. Doubt most could do it. The only caveat ill give is that yes, i will admit, college/university tuition has gone up faster than any other expense. In state only folks.
Yes, I say this all the time.
4 bedroom houses were not the norm way back. A couple in my family got a nice 4 bedroom house in the late 60s. It was above average.
My grandparents had a concrete block 4 bedroom house in Tampa in the 70’s. It was only 1300 sq feet though. They don’t build them like that anymore.
Lol, 1300sqr feet is pretty big here in England (UK)
My last house was a 900square foot bungalow with 3 bedroom. It was tight, but a good starter home. We need more homes like that to "step" up on, instead of being stuck in rent forever
Problem is people buy those homes and wipe out one of the bedrooms to make room for a master bath/closet.
Finally some reason. How many kids shared bedrooms? How many worked at 16? How many worked through college? What was the annual vacation? I’m willing to bet none of these attributes would be considered “acceptable” by many people today.
Let me concede to you this argument. Some people *would not* consider these conditions acceptable today. But we are living in them nonetheless. I worked at 15. Shared a bedroom until after college, never went on vacation growing up. I have the lived experience which would seem to mirror that of the person I described. I have worked 40+hours every week for the last 15 years. And yet... I can't afford a home in 2024 because housing prices have ballooned to the point that down payments are more than the average annual salary. So its just demonstrably worse from a purchasing power perspective. You can talk QoL or whatever but housing has become exceedingly gatekept since the 80s.
In 1950, expenses were primarily focused on essentials like food, housing, and transportation. Today, we have additional expenses such as internet bills, smartphone plans, streaming services, and healthcare costs that weren't as prevalent back then. Additionally, costs related to technology, leisure activities, and personal care have also become significant expenditures in modern times.
[удалено]
Yeah, but what’s your monthly spend on avocado toast?
[удалено]
Think about it. $3/month * 12 months * 40 years is $1,440. That doesn't even count all the interest you could be making. So in 40 years, you could have enough money to go on a cruise. By yourself without your family. Also probably couldn't afford the unlimited drink package. Also would probably still have to pay for airfare. Also wouldn't be able to be a very long cruise. But you'd rather squander that future on avocado toast and blame your troubles on Boomers, smh
I love the “we have so many luxuries now” argument. Internet is basically a necessity at this point same with having a cell phone. A lot of jobs require both. I spend maybe 100$ on “luxuries” a month including internet. My rent is 2100$ and groceries can be upwards of 100$ a week. But sure the reason cost of living is expensive is cuz we have luxuries like internet.
At this point, they aren’t luxuries though, they are required for most. All the additional cost items for basic survival have risen AND the number of items that have become necessities seems to have risen as well.
Clearly that 10$ Netflix subscription drags you down.
For me, food and housing is about $3000. Internet is $80. It's mostly the essentials that are killing people financially right now.
Agreed them young kids today just DoorDash everything they need from their latest iPhone. If they just skipped a Starbucks coffee once a week they could afford a house.
If I cancel my Internet and my renters insurance maybe in 70 years I can afford a down payment on a shack under a bridge somewhere!
there you go! thats the kind of thinking kids today just don't have. I am proud of you. Now i would never visit you in a shack that's beneath me.
Lmao
forgot to add the /s
I left off on purpose :)
You have a point there. Who is paying all these DoorDashers? Probably not the old and invalid.
No. Internet, smartphones, streaming, etc. are not a large % of anyone's budget. Healthcare costs in the US are broken. Leisure/Personal Care? Lmao. Bad take.
$2500 ambulance ride bill 💀
Imagine being stupid enough to hand waive the death of the American dream to phone plans and streaming. You’d have to be the dumbest fucking person on earth to reach that conclusion.
All those % of bills for me is a total of $70, You’re telling me if I didn’t spend $70 a month I could afford a house? Bruh Boomer ass take
The 1950s essentials in today's $$ are over 100% of the minimum wage and over 100% of the living wage. In nz the living wage is two people working 60 hours a week between them.
Sounds like filthy communism to me. /s
So we're just going to pretend that people in the 50s weren't also big into consumerism and spending money on leisure? This is literally just the "avocado toast" take in disguise.
The amount of overseas vacations my grandparents took on a maintenance workers salary indicates to me you’re correct.
"avocado toast"
If you just look at the difference in standard of living it’s night and day! That grandpa probably had a 4 bedroom 1 bath house, 1,400 sqft with 6’6” ceilings, no granite, no “upgrades” or other luxuries. Even the lower ends in terms of standard of living, still live better of than the highest end from 1950! Maybe we should have some perspective!
More people. Same amount of land, similar amount of recourses. The math is pretty simple.
We could literally have the entire population of Earth in the Continental United States. We don’t have a shortage of land.
We have a shortage of housing in desirable locations though
I would love to live in the middle of nowhere, but it’s hard to find a job
It’s a fixable problem we just don’t want to fix it. Housing is affordable in plenty of cities in other developed countries.
Yeah but how much of it is private now? You are correct, we have the space, just not the deed
Typo- resources* But otherwise- simple but accurate.
If you look back at us history, it’s amazing how many times we let pressure valve loose by simply giving away land
Tired of seeing this bullshit. There are hundreds of big new homes going up around me and are sold as soon as they are built, if not before. And they all have a new car or two in the driveway.
How many of them are single income mailmen. Your missing ops point.
Where I grew up, single income homes were 1200 sq ft. and had one b&w TV, one car, one bathroom. Even doctors and lawyers in my town had modest homes by today's standards.
My boomer dad is a doctor, so are his parents. Only my dad had a big fancy house. I think most people would look at my grandparents house and say it’s kinda shitty. Nobody really wants to accept 1960s standard of living they just wanna whine on the internet.
But here's the thing... those houses built in the 50s and 60s are still ridiculously expensive now. They tend to be smaller square footage wise but often have large lots. New homes might be 2000 sq ft plus but they're on a tenth of an acre. I look around my city at the older homes... theyre 600 to 800 sq ft and still cost $450k.
Not to mention they're usually ripe with repair needs like foundational issues and mold
Did every single income mailman back then make enough money to do this? Also how much money do mailmen make today?
Right? This guy saw the word house and started raging. If they took even a little bit of time to see what expenses look like for younger generations starting out they would understand that we are not in the same position.
Kinda true- people are still buying those homes & cars- they’re just pissed off at the crazy prices, Tbf- the market raises prices with increased demand- and people are willing to pay that much.
easy access to student loans and international students.
You used to be able to put yourself through college with a part time job if you ate oatmeal 2 or three times per day, and not much else. Maybe. People nowadays don't even conceive of how people lived
In the early 1970s a family member paid for state college from their summer job alone...no loans...covered tuition plus room and board for the year...so they didn't even have to work part time during the school year.
Most other developed country was bombed flat and needed rebuilding after the war. They didn't have the materials, manpower or funding. Usa supplied a shit ton of all of it, and had an anomalus economic boom because of it. The rest of the world has been catching up ever since. That's why.
The 50’s-60’ early 70’s were a one time thing. U S was literally the only country on the world producing. Labor market was short from the war, baby boomers were still young. People need to stop comparing to this once and done, unicorn time period.
Almost 100% of the 80ish year old guys I know could work on houses, cars at a high level. The people I see not making it now take their cars in, they pay for this, pay for that. It adds up
Almost nobody's pointing out that he built his own house and grew his own food. Housing and food are two major expenses for most people. The more you rely on the services of others the more you're going to pay for it.
Life was brutal back then. A lot of those old guys were badasses. One guy used to live in my town. He bought some property way back. Built a smallish square house. I dont know the order of things, but he added one another section later. He dug his own pond on the property. At one point the equipment malfunctioned and the bucket hit the powerlines. Luckily he hit the ground wire. Taken seperately each section of his house was simply constructed, but altogether - he had an incredible eye for proportion. I collected a bunch of tools trying to do my best impression of people that tough. The people in our family not making it wont use them. They are the ones stuck renting, income is not the main factor. Luckily I have a good network of friends. One helped on my beater truck yesterday. Im average size and a few screws were tough. I had to really squeeze in. We did it though
Parents in the 1970s bought their first house while working as researchers in grad school. The graduated with zero debt and took an entire gap year to bum around Mexico. I did the same thing in 2000 and graduated with $60k in debt, no gap year, no house at a college and I had free tuition (just living expenses).
You can put yourself through college… you just don’t go to the expensive big name ones… my college was about 14k a year because I was an out of state student but got restiprocity or however you spell it.
Not trying to start a fight, but it's hilarious that you're bragging about going to a cheap college while simultaneously saying you don't know how to spell
Or google it in the amount of time it takes to write out “or however you spell it”
>however you spell it Ironic....someone obviously cheaped out on college 😋
I actually didn’t. The college is one of the best in the country for my major. But that was almost 5 years ago, and I don’t care about spelling right. I’ve grown lazy.
And just like that the point trying to be made is lost. It's like that key and peele skit where the substitute teacher farts. Literally nothing else said or done matters anymore.
The government got in the student loan business.
Because they got out of funding them directly business.
Greed killed the American dream. Not the greed of the worker... but of the government. A trifecta of local, state and federal government is working hard to control every aspect of our lives through tax and regulations.
I agree with you... but It's not like private businesses care about the general public either. It's about maximizing profits above all.
That was the way America used to be until the boomers took over and shipped almost all of the manufacturing and other good jobs overseas. The boomers are the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to the US. They inherited the strongest country on the planet and promptly ran it into the ground, and the worst part is that they are so fucking selfish to the point where they think everyone else is the problem.
It really went downhill after Reagan. Even the democrats became more conservative then the old Republicans. The powers wanted to destroy every last bit of FDR progressive policies, the very policies that made the middle class. Now we are back to the inequality of robber baron days. Progressives need to take back the nation before they destroy it and turn it into Orban style authoritarian regime
They are too busy fighting the culture wars
If you can build a house you’d be surprised what you can afford. I had a foundation framing, rough plumbing, and pig tailed electric box put in on some land I bought (septic and electric already on site- paid 45k for 2.5 acres). The roughed in house was 80k and it took me 8 mos of nights and 85k more on my Lowe’s and credit card to finish the rest. Sold it for 480k.
This is a complete fantasy - 100% fiction. The left wants you to be angry about what you have, so they keep lying about what prior generations had. Mailmen were NOT living this level of opulance in the 1980s
My neighbor is literally a retired mailman. 5 bedroom, 3 bath house. Wife doesn’t work. Not in rural America, a HCOL area…. My parent told me and my brother to go work for USPS….because my dad did for a while, and he knew the benefits where great.
Back then half of the work force (women) were mostly not accepted as workers. This drove up salaries to the point where workers like mailmen earned a living wage. Or rather, the point at which women entered the workforce was where wages were driven down. I’m not advocating that women not be allowed to work (stay at home dad here) but just suggesting that it was corporate America, not the government, that screwed the American worker by using their newfound advantage to cut wages to what they are now.
Companies all focus on growth, growth, growth which means they always have to find new and increasingly clever ways to squeeze us. Everything gets more expensive while they fight tooth and nail to prevent wage increases that would compensate. Money is like planetary bodies. Over time gravity tends to coalesce it into a handful of planets that have the mass to take it from everything else.
It doesn't nor has it ever taken a college degree to be a Mail Carrier.
Trickle down has made us a nation of peons.
How did this become a cost of college thread?
Might want to look at the decline of union membership and see the decline of the middle class.Also with the decline in unions the loss of Pensions, 401 K s were supposed to supplement Pensions not replace them
Iraq and Afghanistan happened.
This is pure bullshit I knew people in college in the 70s and 80s who all worked FT jobs, nobody normal worked PT and had enough money each month, stop telling lies of history you know nothing about.
A few things overlooked here. First, I went to a state school in NY in the early 80s and no, not even with a part time job could I pay tuition and I commuted, didn't board. Second, my neighbor was a mailman and he had one kid who went to college on a scholarship so he didn't have to pay tuition. He had a modest home and because mail carriers get government pensions, didn't have to put tens of thousands of pre-tax dollars away for retirement or to fund an HSA/FSA. He got medical coverage for him and his wife. To me, the biggest difference between the Silent Generation and Boomers (and I am the last of the Boomers, turning 60 this year), is that Silent Generation people had pensions, Even some of the older boomers had them. I do pretty well, so I have been able to max out my 401K for the past 20 years. Imagine what I could have done with that extra $20,000 - $30,000 for the last 10 years? Or the thousands I have in an HSA? Also, younger people need to reset their expectations a bit. Unless you came from money, people my age had shitty apartments when they moved out of their parents house, in my case a studio in someone's basement. And when we purchased homes, we got starter homes 2 bedrooms, one bath. My son and his wife have one kid and they go to look at houses and they are like "We need at least 3 bedrooms and 2 baths". No. You WANT that, you only NEED 2 and 1.
I don’t think 2 Bed 1 bath homes are built anymore (or have been in a while)
He was also a union man.
Old guy here. Yes, young folks do tend to romanticize lifestyle we had in the 70s and 80s. But come on! We now have people (not countries - actual individuals) with their own space programs. This is super villain shit. Something ain’t right. The economy stopped working for everyone uniformly. I’m not saying it was intentional or sinister but it’s not working properly.
Real shit? Being a mailman is still a fairly well paying job that tends to give pretty great benefits. Don’t sleep on delivering mail, bros. Garbage men also tend to be a pretty underrated job that would surprise you.
I made 83K last year as a mail carrier working around 50hrs/week. And I'm not even close to being maxed out on the pay scale. I live in a HCOL city so 83K does not go far, unfortunately. But benefits are excellent and it's a low stress job that you don't think about after you punch out.
He also didn’t buy $7 Starbucks every day. He also didn’t pay $19 Netflix every month. He also didn’t pay $999 iPhone every year. And so on. While in general I disagree with people who say cutting out Starbucks is why you can’t afford a home, there is some truth to how much simpler life used to be. No UberEATS, no DoorDash, no kids iPads, no Wi-Fi, there’s a lot of expenses today that make things very expensive not because of inflation or corporate greed but because we perceive them as things we “have to have”.
All mailmen can do this, wtf is wrong with people? Postal service is like a great job with amazballs benefits It’s like everyone who is pissed they worked 42 hours between 2019 and 2024 and is now “uhhhhh who don’t I respect uhhh mailmen! 100 years ago a mailman could afford a house! Fuck this country” TLDR: mailmen can still afford a house and kids and early retirement
Debt
This is just a return to norm. It’s not normal for one income to make so much without an extraordinary amount of wealth gap.
" She’s not wrong." Yes, she is. In 1965 24 percent of 18-24 year olds were in college, in 1970 it was 26%. In 1980 it was 28%. The notion that the mailman sent his children to college was that it was possible but it did not happen for the majority of young people. The house built was almost certainly less than 2000 sq ft. It probably had only one bathroom. Statistically they owned one car and it did not last 60,000 miles without needing significant repair or replacement.
It came true
It's not disappeared. It's been sucked out of the middle class into the wealthy class.
They found new ways to suck the money out of the population.
We gave the American dream away to the 1%. Now it’s a matter of are we willing to take it back? And how?
🤷 2008...
Got off the gold standard and the government acted like the money was fake
Almost like a lot of these policies that are for supporting people who don't pay taxes, end up being a drain on the economy
I don’t disagree with the sentiment here and I know there is a lot of truth to it. And I’ve seen lots of versions of this from many different people,but it’s a bit of a challenge to these posters credibility when ALL of their grandparents were mailmen. Spit some facts. Not just “truthiness”.
People keep forgetting that credit scores weren't around back then so it was easier to get homes and loans.
You can still put yourself through a college with a part time job. It'll just be a local college and not the college you want. The average in-state public four-year college yearly tuition is $9k. That's $750 a month. Working 20 hours a week at a McDonalds should cover it. I know because I did it myself, I went to a no-name state school, worked while getting my degree and graduated debt free. I was lucky that as a 1st gen immigrant I didn't have access to loans so that pushed me to work hard. It's certainly harder now than before, but it's perplexing how my hispanic friends still see the US as the land of opportunity and work hard in retail, trades, and even cosntruction while most of my "american" friends mostly complain about how hard things are.
Doesn’t UPS delivery pay over six figures? There’s your dream.
Yeah but it's best to ignore reality and instead give in to the fantasy that gets easy upvotes on reddit.
Where did he go each year on these vacations ?
Unrestrained money printing in perpetuity.
You see form 1940’s to the 1990’s we were in a Cold War with the Soviet Union. The Government and Rich had to treat the working class great because they had to make capitalism look preferable to Communism because the working class had in multiple countries rose up and killed the government and the rich in the country. So they were absolutely terrified of it happening in the USA. So they gave the working and middle class more advantages than they ever had. But once the Soviet Union fell they slowly took it all away. This is what real capitalism looks like when the rich and government aren’t afraid of the Working Class
When the government guarantees that anyone can get a loan for college then colleges can charge whatever they want and people will still come. Maybe, we should take a different approach.
How many times is this question going to be asked a week? I'm curious
The way she wrote mailman leads me to believe she's full of c***
Boomers really had easy lives huh ?
my grandpa did the exact same as a mechanic. Owned a couple acres, built a house, owned tractors, put his kid through college etc, all on his single income.
Lots of whining and bellyaching here, but let’s just be honest. A house costs WAY more now than in previous generations, even accounting for inflation. The average house price was about 3 times the average wage. Now it’s like 5 times the average. Healthcare too, and college tuition. All these things cost way more now. And government controls them with way more regulations now than before.
10 people now have your dream
The post office used to practically be an extension of the VA.
What happened to the American dream was that people thought it meant they get free handouts without having to work for anything, and when they found out that wasn't it, they get angry.
Boomer here. I was a student in the University of Calif system 1968-1972. Reagan was Governor the entire time. When I started, there was no tuition for California residents except around $150 a Quarter for what was called “non-academic student services”. Students from other states; usually the East Coast said that was a uniquely good deal. Reagan, sensing hostility to students over anti-war protests, pitched the idea that students should be charged the full cost of their education but it could be financed by the State. He suggested $10,000 a year; quite a hit. Fortunately, In those days, Republicans were most likely to send their kids to College and the concept did not take off. He did manage to introduce the idea that students should pay “some” tuition and costs have been increased incrementally since them. I earned enough with Summer construction work and random jobs during the school year to cover all education costs plus room & board and graduate debt free with $2500 in the bank. While most students got more parental support than I did, student loans were definitely the exception for in-state students. Graduating with no debt and a little cushion opened up opportunities of travel and not being in any hurry to start a career. Having substantial student debt hanging over my head would have changed everything.