What do we think now?

[JLM]

That is the classic defence: it's never my fault that I spend too much/eat too much/drink too much/take too many drugs; it's someone else's fault for making it available.

I read recently that in the 1950's, approx 30% of one's income was spent on food; now it's approx 15%. I don't know how accurate those numbers are, but I would guess they're certainly indicitave of the trend - we spend less of our money on necessities. Just because people feel the need to live in debt, that's their problem, not mine. My wife and I like to live within our means - we have no mortgage, and never borrow money for cars. We keep our cars for 7 to 10 years, and then typically buy used.

People fall for the foolishness of $50,000 weddings, but that's their own fault for not resisting temptation. It was ever thus.

Wise you are TenPenny- I'm just debating whether I should trade in my 1990 F250 pickup- I'd like to get about a 2006 or 7, but need something skookum enough to haul my 5th wheel at highway speeds on the hills. Probably about a 460. But even that would cost $20-$30,000. $50,000 dollar weddings !!!!! but how much are they willing to spend on the marriage? Yep, as you and Gerry say, the blame lies with ourselves- except for one aspect- most people are unsophisticated when it comes to matching wits with those specifically trained to relieve us of our money. Much as I often disagree with you TenPenny, most of your thinking is "in the ballpark". :smile:

well..... ya's "almost" get it and then you start blaming others......it is no ones fault except our own. Not the advertisers, not the money lenders. 100% our own. It's called taking responsibility. No one can "make" anyone do anything.

You have the right idea- "fault" and "blame" are bad words and solve very little, perhaps it's more a matter of "not having the 'tools'" to deal with the forces thrust upon us. As far as no one "making" us do anything, can we ignore the strength of "peer pressure"? In a lot of cases if you do you are an "a&&hole".......:lol::lol::lol:

 

[petros]

I read recently that in the 1950's, approx 30% of one's income was spent on food; now it's approx 15%. I don't know how accurate those numbers are, but I would guess they're certainly indicitave of the trend - we spend less of our money on necessities.

That is the North America's dirty little secret. We subsidize the snot out of agriculture so you still pay in the end through taxation but it is still no less than 30% ( I it was read 60%). BUT!!! Today that 15% (20% in other study) is now taken from combined household income instead of just the man being the bread winner so in reality we are still paying 30% PLUS subsidizing our food.

We're screwed if the subsidies were too end. Judging by the US economy that may very well happen sooner than I'd like to think.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I read recently that in the 1950's, approx 30% of one's income was spent on food; now it's approx 15%. I don't know how accurate those numbers are, but I would guess they're certainly indicitave of the trend - we spend less of our money on necessities.

I think that is true enough. Salaries and incomes today are much greater than they were in the 50s, even accounting for inflation. So it stands to reason that people would pay proportionately less today for necessities.

I also remember long distance phone calls used to be hideously expensive (they used to cost dollars a minute), these days they cost pennies a minute.

Just because people feel the need to live in debt, that's their problem, not mine. My wife and I like to live within our means - we have no mortgage, and never borrow money for cars. We keep our cars for 7 to 10 years, and then typically buy used.

Same with us, we have never been in debt, except mortgage. And we paid off the mortgage in three years (when I was laid off in 1989, i paid off what was left of the mortgage with my redundancy money).

People fall for the foolishness of $50,000 weddings, but that's their own fault for not resisting temptation. It was ever thus.

Instead of the 50,000 $ wedding, the couple would be much better off with a 5000 $ wedding and using the money for a down payment on their house.

 

[talloola]

Fault. psh. It's happened all throughout humanity that one generation recognizes flaws with its own time, so it attempts to pass down a lesson to the future generations. Then it doesn't like the way that manifests, and it freaks out.

People didn't like that kids were molested in silence in the 50's, or that they were kidnapping targets. So we started educating kids on the importance of standing up for themselves, how they didn't need to 'respect their elders'... but we forgot to teach the balance of the lesson somewhere. So right now, strangers don't get respect, they don't have authority, because the past two generations have taught this one that they don't need it. Yeah, it's there in some kids, but is it the end of the world? is it THE defining trait of this generation? Hell no. Unless you think your generation were mythical creatures I suppose.

i was always told, not to speak to strangers, we were very aware of the potential problems out there,
and our parents taught us how to take care of ourselves, and did their best to make sure we didn't
travel 'alone' at night, etc.
there has always been the potential 'of' harm to children out in society, and back in the 50s we were
very aware of that potential, but it still happened from time to time, just as it does now, but now
there is much 'more' taught to kids 'out' of the home, society has banned together much better to make
a better defense for kids, and that is good.

 

[AnnaG]

Well, I think kids today are no different from kids back then.
Maybe the language they use is different, but that's no surprise - kids try to 'push the envelope', that's what being a teenager is all about. The job of a teenager is to push against the limits, that's a way of testing adulthood. If the limits of adulthood have changed, that's not the fault of the teenagers.

Yup.

Parental authority is eroded today, and that is perfectly understandable. Respect for all kinds of authority has eroded. In the 50s, people used to respect and think highly of centres of power, such as government, courts, press, church etc. People in authority were in general respected.

These days, people don’t respect those in authority and a good thing too. But when parents don’t respect authority figures, do they really expect kids to respect the parents? Kids are not dummies, they learn from their parents. They see parents don’t respect anybody, neither do they.

These days parents must earn the respect of their kids, in old days, it was automatic. Parents got respect just because they were parents, they did not have to earn it. These days parenting is much more difficult, compared to old days. In the old days, if child misbehaved, all a parent had to do was get a switch (or a belt, a rod, whatever) and beat the kid senseless. Nobody questioned parent’s authority to do that. But again, these days there is no respect for any kind of authority.

So these days it is more difficult to get kids to respect you, and parents are partly responsible for that. Parents (rightly) don’t respect anybody, politicians, ministers, judges, press etc. Then they can’t expect children to respect them, they have to earn it.

So in a way, lack of respect for parents is a biproduct of a very desirable trait in the society, that is suspicion of all authority.

Basically all that verbiage boils down to the fact that kids today are rebels.
Um, guess what, Joey; there have been kids that have been rebels for a lot longer than the past 50 years.

 

[Cliffy]

Yup.

Basically all that verbiage boils down to the fact that kids today are rebels.
Um, guess what, Joey; there have been kids that have been rebels for a lot longer than the past 50 years.

Yup. I'm still in rebellion, railing against the machine. Guess I never got past the adolescent stage.

 

[AnnaG]

That is the problem, isn’t it? Do you decide for the whole society that life was better before two income families? If life was go good back then, why did women join the workforce in such large numbers (when they were given the chance)?

To get their own mad money that they wouldn't have to ask for, would be my guess.
So do you have a link as to how many is in your "large numbers"? What percentage of women dropped the mother/homemaker role and scuttled off to work?

If most women were happy being housewives as you claim, surely all the freedom, all the rights granted to them should not have made nay difference, they would have continued to be housewives. Why then do women go into professions in such large numbers? My son tells me that these days in many medical classes more than 50% are girls.

Money. DUH How much money do you think 1959 housewife got for spending money? How much do you think one got after learning a profession?
I don't think the ratio of home-makers to working women has changed much, though. There's just more people around these days. So can you back up your claim?

And if some woman wants to live that lifestyle today, she still can. The problem is many women don’t and they have freedom not to live such lifestyle today.

Again, have you actual numbers rather than the vague descriptives like "large numbers" and "droves"?

That is the North America's dirty little secret. We subsidize the snot out of agriculture so you still pay in the end through taxation but it is still no less than 30% ( I it was read 60%). BUT!!! Today that 15% (20% in other study) is now taken from combined household income instead of just the man being the bread winner so in reality we are still paying 30% PLUS subsidizing our food.

We're screwed if the subsidies were too end. Judging by the US economy that may very well happen sooner than I'd like to think.

Feds put out these consumer trend reports sometimes. They're relevant here, I think, so here's one:

Canada’s Office of Consumer Affairs - Consumer Trends Report - Appendix: Technical and Methodological Issues

This was also interesting:

Review of personal disposable income

From the fed's Dept. of Finance:

The tax system is deterring personal saving.

The personal savings rate continues its relentless decline, reaching minus 0.5% in the second quarter for the population as a whole, its lowest since the 1920s. Indeed, in the wealth generating 45-to-65 age group, the savings rate has dropped precipitously to 3.6% from 20% in the early 1980s.
The debt to personal disposable income ratio is now 117% up from 96% five years ago. There is no doubt that low interest rates, negative real after-tax returns to savers and the housing boom have contributed to the lowering of personal investment in financial assets and the assumption of greater debt.
The tax system is crushing savings. Using Exchange traded funds as a proxy for the market as a whole, iUnit Bond and iUnit 60 current after-tax yields at the top personal tax rate are 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively. In essence, returns are being totally eaten up by taxes and inflation.
High taxes on capital have contributed to unacceptably low levels of equity investment in Canada and greater current consumption to the detriment of improved productivity.

Russ E. Jackson Jr.'s Submission in Response to Finance Canada's Enhancing Canada's Tax and Other Issues Related to Publicly Listed Flow - Through Entities (Income Trusts and Limited Partnerships)

I think that is true enough. Salaries and incomes today are much greater than they were in the 50s, even accounting for inflation. So it stands to reason that people would pay proportionately less today for necessities.

Then why does the evidence say that we have less disposable income and are saving less today than before?

I also remember long distance phone calls used to be hideously expensive (they used to cost dollars a minute), these days they cost pennies a minute.

I still have a phone bill receipt from 1986 that was around $6. Our calling practises have not changed and now we are paying about $46 a month for phone. About $38 of that is just what it costs to have the phone in the house before making any calls. But we pay 9¢ a minute for long distance. So long distance charges have dropped drastically, but the charges for just having a phone have skyrocketed. Besides that there are more taxes added on these days.

 

[TenPenny]

I cannot imagine how you could have a phone bill of $6 back in 1986. The basic monthly charge here in NB at that time was approx $25.00.

 

[VanIsle]

well..... ya's "almost" get it and then you start blaming others......it is no ones fault except our own. Not the advertisers, not the money lenders. 100% our own. It's called taking responsibility. No one can "make" anyone do anything.

Yes they can! People (most) do what they have to to survive. I have listened to so many woman , much younger than me, who wished they could be a stay at home Mom but they can't do it. My daughter-in-law has a great career but their kids would be able to pretty much be stay at home kids unless she works. I've already talked about the sports etc. they are involved in. My son also makes an excellent wage but without both - they couldn't do it. In their situation they could do okay on one wage but they would live pay chq. to pay chq.
Everyone here is focusing on little words out of each post trying hard to turn thoughts into something they are not.
I for one, have no problem with any woman working outside the home. Some of you seem to forget that most of my conversation is centred around the "way we were" sort of thing. The comparison is now and 1959. Most of you responding did not live during the time we did as kids, with Mom's at home (with the exception of SJP who seems to have simply turned into an arguing machine). My Mom had no desire to work outside the home. Woman of that time, for the most part, did not consider having a career. I'm not saying women didn't work. We all, again, know that there were women school teachers, especially in the primary grades. We had only female nurses, female hairdressers and men only went to barbers. Most photographers were male. All police officers were male as were firefighters - the list goes on. Anyone who believes that families have progressed because women now have careers, is deluding themselves. Children today are being raised by schools and group homes (day care) so in other words, they are basically being raised by someone else's standards. My oldest son had a friend who was having trouble getting her 3yr old to go to bed at night. The day care she takes him to lets him sleep about 3 hours in the afternoon. At 11:00 PM this child is still wide awake. I know that because I looked after him one night and while the other kids were all sound asleep, he was there as bright as morning.
Woman having to work brought about change. It seems only natural that some woman want careers. If they want to work - they should be able to do so. I just think that for those who would really prefer to be a stay at home person, it would be nice if they still had that option. Kids go without as do adults in a one income family unless the worker in the family (and it isn't always the dad) makes really good money.
My discussion is not about woman wanting to work. It's about the way it was and the way it is. To me (and remember this was supposed to be a poll) life was better back then with my "stay at home Mom".

 

[AnnaG]

I cannot imagine how you could have a phone bill of $6 back in 1986. The basic monthly charge here in NB at that time was approx $25.00.

lol So you lived in the wrong province for phoning at that time.

 

[VanIsle]

Quoting Anna: I still have a phone bill receipt from 1986 that was around $6. Our calling practises have not changed and now we are paying about $46 a month for phone. About $38 of that is just what it costs to have the phone in the house before making any calls. But we pay 9¢ a minute for long distance. So long distance charges have dropped drastically, but the charges for just having a phone have skyrocketed. Besides that there are more taxes added on these days.
Your phone bill sounds like mine used to. We switched to Shaw a few months ago. They promised us a one year term of $15.95 per month plus $5.95 for call display and call waiting and 4 cents per min. for long distance. We got two bills like that. Then all their charges, including our internet went up - way up. Then I got a mail out from Telus so - I'm in the process of switching back. The offer they gave me was not shown on their home page. Here is what we'll pay once we re-connect to Telus.
(grand total plus taxes) $59.95 for High Speed internet, home phone which includes call display and voice mail and our long distance charges are 4 cents a minute. All of these service are free for the first 3 months except for my voice mail. Everyone, including Sears is offering long distance rates at either 3 or 4 cents a min.

lol So you lived in the wrong province for phoning at that time.

In 1986 all we had was B.C. Tel as I recall. They used to set their rates in regard to something to do with milage or something along those lines. Can't remember. I've never had a bill as low as $6.00.

 

[AnnaG]

Quoting Anna: I still have a phone bill receipt from 1986 that was around $6. Our calling practises have not changed and now we are paying about $46 a month for phone. About $38 of that is just what it costs to have the phone in the house before making any calls. But we pay 9¢ a minute for long distance. So long distance charges have dropped drastically, but the charges for just having a phone have skyrocketed. Besides that there are more taxes added on these days.
Your phone bill sounds like mine used to. We switched to Shaw a few months ago. They promised us a one year term of $15.95 per month plus $5.95 for call display and call waiting and 4 cents per min. for long distance. We got two bills like that. Then all their charges, including our internet went up - way up. Then I got a mail out from Telus so - I'm in the process of switching back. The offer they gave me was not shown on their home page. Here is what we'll pay once we re-connect to Telus.
(grand total plus taxes) $59.95 for High Speed internet, home phone which includes call display and voice mail and our long distance charges are 4 cents a minute. All of these service are free for the first 3 months except for my voice mail. Everyone, including Sears is offering long distance rates at either 3 or 4 cents a min.

Yeah. After MIL dies we're going to cancel the landline and use just the cells and Skype or something for the computer. It'll save about $40 a month, I think.

In 1986 all we had was B.C. Tel as I recall. They used to set their rates in regard to something to do with milage or something along those lines. Can't remember. I've never had a bill as low as $6.00.

OK. Maybe I'm wrong about the year or something. Maybe I can find the invoice and scan it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yup. I'm still in rebellion, railing against the machine. Guess I never got past the adolescent stage.

Rebellion isn't necessarily bad, Cliffy. It is really up to parents to enforce discipline and inspire respect. It is much more difficult these days than in the old days, but it can be done.

I cannot imagine how you could have a phone bill of $6 back in 1986. The basic monthly charge here in NB at that time was approx $25.00.

I remember, perhaps 15 years ago, switching my long distance company from Bell to Sprint, because Sprint 'only' charged 22 c per minute for long distance calls in North America (also, they charged the same rate, regardless of what time of the day you called, a novel concept in those days).

I still vividly remember Bell advertising long distance special to France, 6.95 $ for three minutes (this was in the 80s). Calls to places like India used to be even more than that (somebody told me that calls to India cost 6 c per minute today).

 

[#juan]

Quote:

Parker - Hulme Murder Case, 1954

Pauline Parker, 16, and Juliet Hulme, 15, were found guilty in 1954 of killing Pauline's mother, Honora Mary Parker, with a brick in a sock. The jury rejected a plea by the defence that the girls were not guilty on the grounds of insanity. The murder, which took place on 22 June 1954, remains one of Christchurch's most notorious.



Anne Perry, one of my favorite writers is one of these girls. I'm not sure which.

​

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I just think that for those who would really prefer to be a stay at home person, it would be nice if they still had that option. Kids go without as do adults in a one income family unless the worker in the family (and it isn't always the dad) makes really good money.
My discussion is not about woman wanting to work. It's about the way it was and the way it is. To me (and remember this was supposed to be a poll) life was better back then with my "stay at home Mom".

If some woman wants to stay at home and be a housewife, she still can do it, VanIsle. The only thing is that the family must be willing to live by the living standards of 1959.

That means a modest sized house (houses were in general smaller in those days), one car only, no internet, no cell phones. No computer, no microwave. No ATM machine (and fees associated with that). No DVDs, not even VCR. As for television, there will be rabbit ear antenna only and two or three stations that that will bring. No cable, no satellite.

No eating out frequently (they didn’t, in those days), no sushi, no latte etc. Just good, plain American food (steak and potatoes, or macaroni and cheese etc.) prepared at home from scratch. As to vacation, forget about vacation abroad, you may be able to take it perhaps once every ten or fifteen years. Pile up into the family car and go where you can afford.

I haven’t worked out the numbers, but I am pretty sure that a family could easily live on a single income if they lived to the same (low) living standards as 1959. The problem is peoples’ expectations have increased, they want much higher standard of living these days, they want many more conveniences. And you can’t have that on a single income, for that you need two incomes.

Quote:

Parker - Hulme Murder Case, 1954

Pauline Parker, 16, and Juliet Hulme, 15, were found guilty in 1954 of killing Pauline's mother, Honora Mary Parker, with a brick in a sock. The jury rejected a plea by the defence that the girls were not guilty on the grounds of insanity. The murder, which took place on 22 June 1954, remains one of Christchurch's most notorious.



Anne Perry, one of my favorite writers is one of these girls. I'm not sure which.

​

I assume they were hanged? That is another good thing today, compared to 1959. No death penalty.

 

[VanIsle]

If some woman wants to stay at home and be a housewife, she still can do it, VanIsle. The only thing is that the family must be willing to live by the living standards of 1959.

That means a modest sized house (houses were in general smaller in those days), one car only, no internet, no cell phones. No computer, no microwave. No ATM machine (and fees associated with that). No DVDs, not even VCR. As for television, there will be rabbit ear antenna only and two or three stations that that will bring. No cable, no satellite.

No eating out frequently (they didn’t, in those days), no sushi, no latte etc. Just good, plain American food (steak and potatoes, or macaroni and cheese etc.) prepared at home from scratch. As to vacation, forget about vacation abroad, you may be able to take it perhaps once every ten or fifteen years. Pile up into the family car and go where you can afford.

I haven’t worked out the numbers, but I am pretty sure that a family could easily live on a single income if they lived to the same (low) living standards as 1959. The problem is peoples’ expectations have increased, they want much higher standard of living these days, they want many more conveniences. And you can’t have that on a single income, for that you need two incomes.



I assume they were hanged? That is another good thing today, compared to 1959. No death penalty.

I believe I said that already.

 

[AnnaG]

If some woman wants to stay at home and be a housewife, she still can do it, VanIsle. The only thing is that the family must be willing to live by the living standards of 1959.

So you think any women who prefer to remain at home instead of going out to work live at the same standards there were in 1959? roflmao That's freakin hilarious. I have news for you, vlaka, there are a lot of women around enjoying some of the standards we have today and are not out practising law or something. As a house husband, what sort of standards do you maintain there? 1959 standards?

That means a modest sized house (houses were in general smaller in those days), one car only, no internet, no cell phones. No computer, no microwave. No ATM machine (and fees associated with that). No DVDs, not even VCR.

That also meant a lot less environmental impact.

As for television, there will be rabbit ear antenna only and two or three stations that that will bring. No cable, no satellite.

I had relatives living in Richmond BC back then. They had the major American networks as well as the CBC and whatnot. All things considered, there was less sitting around in front of the idiot box to see how round a shape you can become and more outdoor activity. Even with all the channels available now (I hear it's over 200), how many do people actually pay attention to?

No eating out frequently (they didn’t, in those days), no sushi, no latte etc. Just good, plain American food (steak and potatoes, or macaroni and cheese etc.) prepared at home from scratch.

Better for the health than McD's and all that other crap you get when you eat out.

As to vacation, forget about vacation abroad, you may be able to take it perhaps once every ten or fifteen years. Pile up into the family car and go where you can afford.

Travel is definitely easier these days, but along with it is the pollution caused by travel. Lower travelling speeds, too.

I haven’t worked out the numbers, but I am pretty sure that a family could easily live on a single income if they lived to the same (low) living standards as 1959. The problem is peoples’ expectations have increased, they want much higher standard of living these days, they want many more conveniences. And you can’t have that on a single income, for that you need two incomes.

Double incomes also indicates less disposable income because of taxes and higher prices.

I assume they were hanged? That is another good thing today, compared to 1959. No death penalty.

According to Juan, one changed her name and became an author. Can't you read?

 

[VanIsle]

Anna: I'm not disputing or disagreeing with your bill. I simply just never had one that low. I wish!! I can remember my husband being furious one time because our bill was something like $27.00 (I called my Mom a few times - she lived 60 miles away at that time). She died in 75' so that is a long time ago.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anna: I'm not disputing or disagreeing with your bill. I simply just never had one that low. I wish!! I can remember my husband being furious one time because our bill was something like $27.00 (I called my Mom a few times - she lived 60 miles away at that time). She died in 75' so that is a long time ago.

Those calls must have cost you a fortune. These days they will cost you a lot less than local calls (local call from a public phone these days costs 50 cents).

 

[AnnaG]

Quote:

Parker - Hulme Murder Case, 1954

Pauline Parker, 16, and Juliet Hulme, 15, were found guilty in 1954 of killing Pauline's mother, Honora Mary Parker, with a brick in a sock. The jury rejected a plea by the defence that the girls were not guilty on the grounds of insanity. The murder, which took place on 22 June 1954, remains one of Christchurch's most notorious.



Anne Perry, one of my favorite writers is one of these girls. I'm not sure which.

​

Anne Perry used to be Juliet Hulme.

Those calls must have cost you a fortune. These days they will cost you a lot less than local calls (local call from a public phone these days costs 50 cents).

1959 gallon(US) of gas = 25¢ US http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1959.html

A local call back in 1959 probably cost a nickel.