Every phone company used to do that; your local bill was set based on how far from the central switching office you were.
What do we think now?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Every phone company used to do that; your local bill was set based on how far from the central switching office you were.
My son and his wife both worked for about five years until their house was paid off. They now have two children and another on the way. There is nothing wrong with their standard of living with one income. It is all a question of priorities. They just had to get rid of that mortgage albatross to free up a pile of money to be able to afford the extras. There is no magic. Just a little discipline early on.
Bills of $6 a month were definitely possible in B.C. in 1986. B.C. Tel had about 10 different exchange rates, places like Vancouver and Victoria were the highest due to local call access to virtually every business you had to call. However if you were in an exchange like New Denver or 70 Mile House where you had very limited local calls to do business the exchange rates were something like $2.95 a month and if you happened to make all local calls then you had a very low bill. I would suggest people with a $6 bill lived in a fairly remote rural area.
Regarding today vs. 1959 let's just take a look at one spending practice we have today- Xmas shopping. How much does the average family spend on Xmas today? $1000, $1500, $2000? OK, that much alone could be saved by one simple change, making presents instead of buying. How much does a ball of wool cost, or a little wood and glue and screws and nails for kids toys? It just takes trading off some laziness for some imagination. :lol::lol:
A second major change could be made by trading off trips to the furniture store and hardware store for trips to yard sales.
Quite so, if somebody wants to live by the old standard of living, they can do so, without any problem. It is just that most people don't want to. People these days have high expectations, they are not willing to settle for lower standard of living. Hence the necessity of two incomes. There is nothing wrong with that.
Karrie, I'm on your side with this. I just extended on the "blame" that was already put out there. If they are going to blame someone or something for their perceived idea that kids today and life today is/are so much worse than when "they" grew up, then "they" need to look in the mirror as to where the "blame" should be laid.
Too many are not willing to accept responsibility for their actions. I have harped on this fact for years when discussing abortion. This thread is a prime example of people not taking responsibility for their actions and blaming others instead. In this case they blame the "money lenders" and "advertisers" for their debt and the need for 2 incomes. Sorry, it just doesn't wash with me. Not unless those "money lenders" and "advertisers" put a gun to their heads and FORCED them to over extend themselves.
IF kids today don't respect their elders, and I personally don't agree that that is true, then the only ones to blame for that fact are the parents and grandparents.
Not to derail the thread, but if a person decides to have an abortion, and pays for it, they are hardly blaming others or not taking responsibility for their actions.
I think one of the main problems today is a lot of people confuse a "better standard" of living with a "different standard" of living. :smile:
Since I am the one who brought up many of the things you mentioned, I'll take it you are mostly referring to me. I raised my kids not to swear, to know that we did not have the money to buy everything their little hearts desired and to respect those around them. I treat my grandchildren exactly the same way. They spend a lot of time with me and they get lots of info they probably wish they didn't have to get but - that's life. They know that in my house in particular - rules are rules. Their mother was raised very different. She's self centred and has little to no time for kids and their wants and needs. She swears worse than any teen or man I've known. She has a massive temper. She displays all this in front of the kids so you all know exactly what the kids learn from it. They have had to tone down a lot since spending so much time with my husband and myself. Our son has picked up on the fact that his kids language and manners needed some fine tuning. So - he took away all the words he felt were inappropriate. They are learning better table manners etc. He just never really noticed before how bad it was but now he does and he's taking responsibility.
You say we shouldn't blame banks for debt. Well, banks, credit card companies etc. are at fault. If they were not, you wouldn't see so many people in debt. I don't know about you but I expect it's much the same - I get stuff sent to me weekly trying to lure me into yet another credit card. Banks are advertizing low interest rates for personal loans, furniture stores lure people into the "buy now, pay later" plan that works for some of us but others don't "get". Far far too many people make the purchase and then don't make a payment for the full two years. Bad call but none the less - the carrot is dangling. Yes, it's peoples choice to make and most do. People think it's no biggie to pay $25.00 here and $15.00 there until pretty soon - they're tapped out. With the exception of a mtg. it isn't hard to get a bank loan for a car, a boat, a travel trailer - all the toys most of us like to have. People see what they want and buy it but they don't look at the interest rate charged by places like Sears/Zellers/The Bay to name just a very few. Everyone believes they will make the payments and they won't get into debt. Most people are just not that disciplined. Why pay today what you can put off until next payday!!
Back to 1959. My folks did not own a credit card. I don't think there was any. Banks did not do "over-drafts" - they bounced your chq.
Have to serve supper now.
And do you sign up for them all?
No, no you don't.
Thus proving our point. If it was the banks' fault, you'd sign up for them all and be massively in debt. Blaming the banks is like blaming the grocery store if you weigh 450 lbs. Just because it's available, doesn't mean you have to indulge. Whether it's debt, or food, or alcohol.
I found this interesting, not to single you out VI, but as a general phemonena in humanity. When discussing her impact on the kids, you discuss her upbringing first and foremost, the way she was raised. But when discussing your son's impact, upbringing doesn't factor in... his need to take personal responsibility does. Do we blame our upbringing in how we turn out, and thus how our kids turn out, or don't we? Or do we cherry pick when we want it to apply and when we don't?
See... I don't actually think it factors in much... the lessons we teach our kids always seem to go awry when they hit the next generation down. I think that's why reading much of the history of psych, from the Greek philosophers onward, every generation is appalled at how the grandchildren are turning out in a broad societal sense. Never individually of course, but society as a whole.
I hate the words "fault" and "blame", but if we have to use them I think we should also use the word "factor". For instance let's say I have a son and from the time he can talk I taught him to swear and be disrespectful and I ridiculed his every action and then I smacked him incessantly and later on taught him to lie and steal. I discouraged him doing anything improve himself and encouraged him to play hookey from school. Finally at age 18 he is a hopeless drug addict, in jail charged with armed robbery. Even though it may not be my fault he is where he is, I would say what I did was definitely a factor. Now, that is an extreme case, but I think we have all sorts of situations, where the various influences are factors if not causes. :smile:
I'm not so sure I understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that I did not talk about the way my son was raised or are you saying that I did not mention that his upbringing factored into the way the kids are? Tell me - If a woman suddenly makes a decision to stop being a mother because it doesn't suit her way of life anymore, nor does being a wife, is she being somewhat responsible for anything? Could you spend only 9 hours a week, split between 2 days with your children or does responsibility tell you that your children are a part of your life and need you? My son, like most people, may not get the father of the year award but - not for a moment has he considered life without his children. They spend a lot of time together. Kids are with me tonight as their Dad is out of town for the night. Their Mom took them from after school until 7:00 PM (it's her usual day). While she had the 3 children out shopping she bought one of the three a new pair of pants, 2 new pairs of shoes, a new shirt, new underwear and a new belt. That child and one other got a candy treat. The child in the wheel chair became upset because once again he didn't get anything new. He hit the brother who got all the new things. He was feeling angry. He is also the oldest of the three. So, while one got a bunch of new clothes and a treat and the other just got a treat, one got nothing. In her brief visit she found it necessary to punish him for feeling upset about being left out - again. In our house, every child gets the same amount of money spent - regardless of whether or not they are my sons, son's wife or grandchildren. What I spend on one, I spend on five. When this woman lived in my house for 9 months, I would buy stuff at the store and often bring home 6 chocolate bars (just an example for you). I brought her 2 of her favourite bars and did the same for my husband and myself. When she went to the store, she returned with 4 bars. One for me, one for my husband and 2 for herself. My son on the other hand (and this is not always a good thing) would literally give you the shirt off his back.
The kids I'm talking about here are 13, 12, & 9. She's moved out over a year ago. She doesn't even call them. She knows they are at my house every Monday and Tuesday without fail. She lives less than a block from my house and she doesn't even call to see if she can stop by to visit. Are you getting any idea regarding upbringing now?
At one point in time, she used to go to "babysit" her children in the previous family home on her days off from work. She would take the wet laundry out of the washer, lay it on top and do her and her boyfriend's laundry and then put her children's and ex-husband's laundry back into the washer! She is off on Wed. but so is her boyfriend and she never gives up any part of that day for the children. Are you still thinking maybe I never raised my child to be responsible? He is the one who makes sure they are bathed, their lunches are made, their clothes are clean, their beds are clean, and he gets them to school everyday. I think he's taking his responsibility a lot more serious than his former wife is. I know just from listening to you talk on here that it is likely you would climb mountains to get to your children. That's what most moms do. These children here beside me could have spent the night with their mom. Sleeping on the floor in her one bedroom apt. She said they could and that her bf could go spend the night with one of his friends. He has a long "record" that we printed off from the court lists and she's not allowed to have the children in his company. In her attempt to change that, she suddenly decided the children could not stay with her because her boyfriend should not have to leave his home.
Sorry - I got carried away but this kind of lack of responsibility to me is probably about as bad as it gets.
Don't worry about it VI... I like to dissect the way society operates, the way people think, and why they think that way. I was asking you a broad question that applies on a societal level based on an individual example you're giving... which has been our run in all along. |You and talloola are answering via individual experience to a question, that to me, is about a whole society, not individuals.
You know, in giving your reply some though as I ran downstairs to flip laundry because my in-laws are coming and want the house caught up, I couldn't help but reflect VI, on what my mother-in-law would say about me if you sat her down and asked what I am like as a daughter-in-law.
Lazy (my kids hair doesn't get cut often enough, their clothes don't get patched, the house isn't as clean as it should be, and for the first years of marriage hubby had to make many of the meals, still has to iron his own clothes, and didn't get lunches made for him until very recently)
Foulmouthed (yes, I swear. I was raised on a farm, surrounded by alcoholic, angry, oilpatch workers)
Uncouth (yes, I lack in social graces, forget my manners, etc.)
A downright crazy hippy (oh sure, she couches it by referring to me as her 'earth mother' daughter in law, but, she really does feel my that my reluctance to rush the kids off to doctors is a hazard. My home birth nearly killed her, and breastfeeding had her so terrified that my children would starve to death sucking at a dry teat that I thought she might call social services. Still, lucky for her, I possessed enough manners to not show her just how much milk was at hand.)
But most importantly, in hearing her reflect on her own childhood, I think she'd tell you that she is happy to have me, because despite the failures and short comings, the childhood my children are getting is safer, and more respectful of them, than one of abuse hidden behind glossy manners.
Lazy (my kids hair doesn't get cut often enough, their clothes don't get patched, the house isn't as clean as it should be, and for the first years of marriage hubby had to make many of the meals, still has to iron his own clothes, and didn't get lunches made for him until very recently)
Foulmouthed (yes, I swear. I was raised on a farm, surrounded by alcoholic, angry, oilpatch workers)
Uncouth (yes, I lack in social graces, forget my manners, etc.)
A downright crazy hippy (oh sure, she couches it by referring to me as her 'earth mother' daughter in law, but, she really does feel my that my reluctance to rush the kids off to doctors is a hazard. My home birth nearly killed her, and breastfeeding had her so terrified that my children would starve to death sucking at a dry teat that I thought she might call social services. Still, lucky for her, I possessed enough manners to not show her just how much milk was at hand.)
But most importantly, in hearing her reflect on her own childhood, I think she'd tell you that she is happy to have me, because despite the failures and short comings, the childhood my children are getting is safer, and more respectful of them, than one of abuse hidden behind glossy manners.
Charges are pending (court in Sept.) for beating my son. He can't even begin to fight back. He's 6ft. 4 in. All he could do was stand there and take it. She's been to court twice already but the big day comes in Sept. I don't know why it's taken so much court time. She has a no contact order in place but she ignores it completely. She wasn't out of court for 5 min. and she was calling me demanding that I give him a message.
In some ways, she sounds much like my own mother-in-law. I got along great with my father-in-law but not her. Just before she died (she was quite ill) she said to me "I always thought you would teach the kiddies (her word) to hate us, but you never did".
She was a nasty lady but I understand her Mother was too. I never met her so I don't know. I'm not being nasty toward my ex daughter-in-law. I'm not even telling you the worst parts. I get along great with our other daughter-in-law. She's no pushover. She has a great career and she's a great Mom. Her house is messy but for some reason, it doesn't bother us. She's a busy Mom and the house comes second. I can handle that pretty easy.
I doubt that it's unusual for both Talloola and myself to give you personal situations because of the way the question was worded. It compared two times in life and we have both lived through those times.
You describe one particular type of woman who stayed home, but forgot to mention the many other types who
stayed home, you pack them all in a description that makes them all the same, like cookies from a cookie
cutter, you are very very misinformed, and that is too bad, you have tunnel vision, and don't seem to
realize that women of every generation were individuals just as they are today, and made decision for
different reasons just as they do today. society slowly changed, and many more women joined the work
force, they enjoyed the independence and financial freedom, and that is fine.
The idea that women who stayed home were like the black slaves in the south is 'laughable', and my husband and I had a
good laugh at your expense, when he also read your post.
And the idea that women who stayed home were 'given' an allowance fits a small percentage of couples, but
you again forgot to mention all of the rest of the women staying home, who were 100% in charge of the
finances, had good heads for money and budgeting, and husbands were happy to have them to it, because many
men, certainly not all, don't budget very well and hate doing it.
All of the examples you gave only fit a small percentage of people, but you generalize so much that it seems
like the 50s were slave years, poor years, unhappy years, and the opposite is true, yes society was slowly
changing, that is the way life is, that is normal, things don't stay the same, especially when there was
so many openings out there for women to go out and work.
The standard of living we had in the 50's was not 'low' it was middle class for the day, good wages, money
for everything we needed to do. Our standard of living in the 90s was still middle class, we had money
for all of the things we need to do. In the 50's we had many things that they didn't have in the 40s and
30s, and in the 60s,70s,80s,90 and on they all had many things that the decade before them did not have.
You make it sound like life in the 50s was sad, people didn't have much of anything, but that is not true,
we had everything, (to a point) that a middleclass family was able to have in that day, not a low standard
of living at all.
Having 'stuff' doesn't describe how successful people are, it's the 'stuff' inside the people that describes
how successful people are.
Some 'get it' some 'don't'.
back in the 50s, most young people were civil too, had good manners, considerate of others, watched
hockey games, probably said 'sh*t when their team lost, the kids were good and bad back then, as they
are now, being good with good manners is impressive, but all scenarios also happen, bad kids with
smooth manners and don't swear, kids that swear every second word, some good some bad, most somewhere
in the middle, but today, it is very noticeable that the kids/teenagers/young adults, both sexes, use
fowl language much more, and don't worry who is around, and those kids come in all flavours, but their
gestures and fowl mouths are very apparent, and very unattractive.
people are what their times are, equal rights expression was not known back in the 50's, so people were
not refusing to allow equal rights, just living with the times, equal rights came on slowly, people change,
people make it happen, it evolves. just like everything else, all of a sudden someone invents an expression
'equal rights', wow that is clicky and works, and it has, and it is good.
the' people now are not better people at the core', and they weren't better at the core in the past, that
statement is so general, people are individuals, and what they are is such a mix of differences that
it is impossible to say people now are better at the core, some are some aren't.
Society has changed, government has bought into that and changed many laws, that is good, more helpful
for the people who previously dropped through the cracks.
But problems have loomed up that were not around in the 50's, so I'm not sure how anyone can say what
is better or not, overall, that is very difficult, we point to what we 'knew' about the 50s, as that
was 'our time' of being part of the young generation, so we know what was happening then, just as all
of you do about your teen life through your twenties, most informative time of your lives, makes such
an impression on 'you' as a person, and life goes on.
I grew up as a 'city' kid, not a small town'kid', right in the busy part of
the city, and I was very aware very early
on how to live and survive in the 'city', saw how the city worked every
day, became very savvy on the inner pulses of city life, it was natural
living there for me, I loved it, everything was at my fingertips, busses,
activities, movies, libraries, parades, and on and on. I new the streets
like the back of my hand, and even vancouver, by the time I was about 14
one could not lose me in that city, and when I was 17, i quit school, was
on honour roll, principal helped me find a job, my mother needed money at home,
she was a separated mom, I adapted very quickly to typing and all things connected,and was soon working fulltime
as a receptionist in a contracting firm in downtown vancouver, rode the bus
to and from everyday.
Last edited: