As it is, I do not forsee a reverasl of this trend ever. America is progressing it's evolution to a third world economic profile of a richer upper class served by an increasing lower class, while the middle class, which is seen as a welfare state aberration, is being slowly but surely phased out.
"They'll turn us all into beggars because beggars are easier to please." Heh.
Yikes; I just checked out the study in Jessica's link and found the calculator gives a "basic" budget in my area of nearly $83,000/yr. for my family. Which explains why I can work at a job that requires not only a college degree, but also post-graduate certification, and still end up living paycheck to paycheck.
One of the major problems with being poor in fact is that it's expensive. You never have the cash to do anything that requires investment up front but pays off in the long run, even if the long run is pretty short. Maybe you drive a junker car and put more money into keeping it running than a newer better one would cost, but you need it now and can't let it die while you save up for another.
Or you can't keep enough money for a bank account, so you get screwed by check-cashing places.
And on and on.
Thejeff, it looks like you've been reading Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, which really sets out the high costs of living poor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is interesting that when I just ran the numbers for my own area, the largest single expense in the "budget" it calculated was....
health care.
Health care made up a whopping 25 percent of the total budget of a 2013 family. According to the Huffington Post, health care costs have gone up 800% since 1960, adjusted for inflation. So just using that number, that means that health care in 1945 would have been 1/8th of what it is today, or roughly 1/32 of a family budget instead of 1/4. That means that $70k family could live just as comfortably on $55K if health care costs in 2013 were comparable to health care costs in 1945.
So essentially what this shows is that health care costs are making people poor.
Anyone seen your new health care bills for 2014? I did. Mine are going up by another 45%. So it's just getting worse.
(To be completely fair, there are some options that will increase my health care premiums by as little as 15%, but god forbid I should get sick and have to pay the out of pocket expenses with those plans....)
thejeff, I didn't even have air conditioning before moving into the suburbs. And I heated my house with free wood I got from harvesting wood from burned areas of the national forest.
I pay too much for cable, internet and phone because I have a family of four and all of us have gotten far too comfortable with our conveniences. Of course I do make a bit more than minimum wage, so I tell myself I can afford it.
I do agree with you that in some cases some of the conveniences listed (refrigerator is probably the best example) can actually lead to some cost savings that might balance out the energy, purchase and maintenance costs of the item.
As I pointed out above, the elephant in the living room here is health care costs and how much they have risen since 1945.
It is interesting that when I just ran the numbers for my own area, the largest single expense in the "budget" it calculated was....
health care.
Health care made up a whopping 25 percent of the total budget of a 2013 family. According to the Huffington Post, health care costs have gone up 800% since 1960, adjusted for inflation. So just using that number, that means that health care in 1945 would have been 1/8th of what it is today, or roughly 1/32 of a family budget instead of 1/4. That means that $70k family could live just as comfortably on $55K if health care costs in 2013 were comparable to health care costs in 1945.
So essentially what this shows is that health care costs are making people poor.
Anyone seen your new health care bills for 2014? I did. Mine are going up by another 45%. So it's just getting worse.
(To be completely fair, there are some options that will increase my health care premiums by as little as 15%, but god forbid I should get sick and have to pay the out of pocket expenses with those plans....)
Now compare those with health care costs in a country with a real health care policy. Even counting the taxes that pay for it.
And 45%? That's insane. Especially since it sounds like you had a fairly good policy to start with. It also seems like an incredible outlier.
I dunno, I've seen several stories in the news today about people who are discovering their health care premiums are doubling or tripling. I think 45% is probably going to end up pretty close to the mean.
I don't want this to turn into another Obamacare debate, I'll just say that I'm seeing a lot of people with health care sticker shock. I'm going to have to look real close at the plans on the table. The one that supposedly "replaces" my existing plan costs 45% more. But I may end up getting a plan with lower premiums and higher deductible and office visit expenses.
It isn't that huge of a deal with me since the vast majority of my health care costs over the years have been for autism treatment and that isn't covered by my plan so has been out of pocket anyway. I'm hoping the new plans cover autism. If so, I may end up paying less even with higher premiums. But that would be an outlier.
I've seen plenty of stories about premiums doubling or tripling, but they've all been focused on "cheapest" plans, which means junk insurance versus actual, if low end, insurance. And also on the youngest and healthiest.
But you're right. Let's leave the Obamacare for elsewhere. I hope the autism gets covered. It should be.
Well, in all fairness, covering things like autism might be the very reason it's going up 45%.
Hey, Minneapolis is my home town! Coolness! Thanks for the link, Comrade A. Whoops, I wasn't supposed to know that was you, was I. Sorry!
Honk, honk!
[Harpo Anklebiter performs a cartwheel and out of his pocket falls a fun commie link.]
Vive le Galt!
Who was that masked goblin?
Blast it, I have a question/point I'd like to ask/make, but I cannot get it to come out coherently. It's something about the perception of conditions such as autism and depression (my own bete noir), and whether advances in knowledge have affected the costs of treatment and if they'll continue to do so. I'd say they have and will, but what do y'all think?
Snow, what I think is that I pay a behavioral therapist and a psychiatrist well over $100/hr three times per month to try to help my son deal with his autism and have done so for a decade and I have not seen anything that I would call a "breakthrough" or "success" beyond the barest glimmerings of improvement. He has been on over a dozen different medications all of which have had different side effects, but none of which have done anything but blunt the edge of his behavioral problems.
I know for a fact that any "advances in knowledge" (real or imagined) have not reduced what I pay for their services, nor have I seen any major improvements in the results of what I pay for.
In fact I would say that my own experience has been that autism treatment has not significantly advanced in the entire time we have dealt with it. All they do is come out with new medicines to add to the bewildering list of concoctions that they HOPE will have a positive impact, but almost never do.
Actually, I'd argue that advances in knowledge have affected the cost of treatment for autism.
In 1945, as I understand it, treatment for autism would have involved locking your son up in an institution or attic and would have cost you almost nothing.
Similarly, lots of depression cases treated via therapy and antidepressants today would have been untreated or self medicated at the local bar.
Krensky, I doubt many parents who had the means even in 1945 would have "locked their son up in an institution or attic" when they could pay for whatever therapy was available.
And I wasn't going back four generations, just a bit over a decade.
Or just by sticking their heads in an oven.
Actually, I'd argue that advances in knowledge have affected the cost of treatment for autism.
In 1945, as I understand it, treatment for autism would have involved locking your son up in an institution or attic and would have cost you almost nothing.
Similarly, lots of depression cases treated via therapy and antidepressants today would have been untreated or self medicated at the local bar.
Krensky, I doubt many parents who had the means even in 1945 would have "locked their son up in an institution or attic" when they could pay for whatever therapy was available.
And I wasn't going back four generations, just a bit over a decade.
Then you are incredibly ignorant of the history of mental illness and it's care in this country.
As late as the 1980s your son could easily wound up in an institution regardless of your desires.
As late as the 1980s my son would almost certainly have been viewed as "an odd kid who doesn't get along with others." Just like several other kids I knew as a child.
In fact, our psychiatrist has suggested that it is likely that I would have been diagnosed as autistic when I was a kid using today's diagnostic techniques. And I grew up in the 70s.
And you know, I don't remember anyone throwing me into an institution. Funny that.
Of course I know it's pointless to debate with you. After all I only grew up and lived through the 80s and have an autistic son. You clearly are the expert on both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I started something that I absolutely did not mean to start, and I'll take this one as my bad for putting all four furry paws right smack into the quicksand.
AD, I wish all the best to you and your son, and I'll be keeping an eye on the developments in re the diagnosis and treatment of autism and related conditions. Please remember to take care of yourself, too. You matter.
|
Snow, what I think is that I pay a behavioral therapist and a psychiatrist well over $100/hr three times per month to try to help my son deal with his autism and have done so for a decade and I have not seen anything that I would call a "breakthrough" or "success" beyond the barest glimmerings of improvement. He has been on over a dozen different medications all of which have had different side effects, but none of which have done anything but blunt the edge of his behavioral problems.
I know for a fact that any "advances in knowledge" (real or imagined) have not reduced what I pay for their services, nor have I seen any major improvements in the results of what I pay for.
In fact I would say that my own experience has been that autism treatment has not significantly advanced in the entire time we have dealt with it. All they do is come out with new medicines to add to the bewildering list of concoctions that they HOPE will have a positive impact, but almost never do.
I CAST WALL OF TEXT!!!!
I don't want to pretend to know anything about your situation but I want to share mine.
My son is mildly autistic (on the spectrum, mostly ADHD and OCD behaviors, thankfully he is very social which is somewhat of an oddity). Before I ever knew he was autistic, in infancy, he had horrible Gatrointestinal issues where his movements were liquid and very caustic. I tried a bunch of stuff to fix this professionals who wanted to put him on medicine that they said would have a good chance of screwing up his liver...basically they didn't want to find out the problem, they wanted to treat the symptoms. Fast forward to almost 2years old and little man still hasn't said a word, can barely walk (weakness in joints) and rocks back and forth constantly. Neurologist tests him, and we start programs for him in an Easter Seals place. Suspected autism. Confirmed a year later. Start in with the Delaware Autism Program (which DE covers all sessions, no cost for us) and am seeing some marked improvement. He spends 2+ years there for 6 hours a day 5 days a week. Speech is good and comes up to standards, all good stuff. Still having issues with GI tract. I talk to some of the parents with Autistic kids and here some similar stories and some of their solutions. Some are freaky to me (air-pressure chambers, purging toxins with ionic charged footbaths, stuff that is high $$$ and may have issues) but some sound like "why not try it, it won't hurt him" (like going with a gluten-free, casein-free diet, trying some supplements like probiotics/vitamins/minerals).
I saw immediate changes in his GI tract and after about a month of no gluten/casein in his diet and some probiotics I see a drastic change in his intellect. Today he talks about how he felt like he was "in the clouds" or "fuzzy" when he remembers stuff from those times.
Once I saw that change I took him to a D.A.N. doctor (Defeat Autism Now Doctors--Mine costs around $600 per visit and insurance don't cover any of it). She helped outline a path to making his physical system healthy and some things to help with his mind (fish oil, vitamins, enzymes to help with digestion) and when I still had issues with GI coming and going randomly she did a bloodtest to test for food and other allergies. The arm stick tests all showed very little issues with the small amount of items they test for, and this blood test showed levels of allergicness in a larger range of things. These tests showed him with 50ish food allergies that are below the range of breaking out in a rash but that did a number on his digestive tract and caused his "belly" to be inflamed and slightly distended.
I have kept him clean for years now and have him retested for allergies on a yearly basis (his sensitivities seem to change, some things come off the list, others go on) but when I see him acting "more autistic", for lack of a better descriptor, I start researching his diet and usually find that we missed an ingredient somewhere in something that is effecting him.
The DAN doctor described what is possibly happening as him being born with a thinner than normal protective membrane around his brain. The membrane is supposed to filter out proteins and such from the brain. Proteins cause autistic or autism-like behaviors. When the GI system doesn't process his food right the proteins leak through his intestines and into his system, eventually making their way to his brain and causing issues.
I don't know how true any of this is but it worked in my case.
I don't truly believe that there is a cure for autism, but I think there may be ways of treating certain varieties of it. I may just be lucky with my son's variety and all but I love the DAN doctor although the cost really sucks. I have to make bread for him from Chebe (a brand name for a tapioca-based flour mix). I buy him mostly organic stuff to keep his system clean.
Like I said, don't know that any of this would help anyone else but it worked for me.
I had a good plan, paying 60 bucks a paycheck.
The offerings through the exchanges now, offer as little as 50 bucks a paycheck, but I'd pay most things out of pocket.
The only plans that make sense to actually pay for (especially if you need regular prescriptions and other medical equipment like a C-PAP for apnea) cost 138 bucks a paycheck.
The above is with my emplyer already covering about 55 to 60% of the cost.
So I'm going from 60 bucks a paycheck to 138 bucks a paycheck, to not lose any of the coverage I already have.
Affordable Healthcare Act? <scoff>
Fake, I hear a lot of stories from people with autistic kids or who are autistic themselves with a variety of food allergy or GI issues. In our case that was never an issue. My son has an iron stomach, he can eat just about anything and almost never has any negative reaction to it.
And he is very high functioning, to the point that most people who meet him don't notice anything really unusual, it's only when he is around people for a while that his social issues start to percolate. He has a job and graduated high school with a decent GPA.
The issues we have are mostly behavioral and are in large part due to his anger at the social issues he struggles with. He too is very social and enjoys being with friends or at parties. He just struggles with social cues to the point that he frequently finds himself on the outs with his friends. Most of the therapy we focus on centers on empathy and social cues and that has been slow, slow going.
|
|
Housing prices are the biggest problem here. Utilities keep going up, taxation is a mess, rent is getting higher, more laws crop up daily to make it harder to live alternative lifestyles to save. Homesteaders and backwoodsmen are getting hit by the obamacare hammer hard, especially in the rural south
|
|
Fake, I hear a lot of stories from people with autistic kids or who are autistic themselves with a variety of food allergy or GI issues. In our case that was never an issue. My son has an iron stomach, he can eat just about anything and almost never has any negative reaction to it.
And he is very high functioning, to the point that most people who meet him don't notice anything really unusual, it's only when he is around people for a while that his social issues start to percolate. He has a job and graduated high school with a decent GPA.
The issues we have are mostly behavioral and are in large part due to his anger at the social issues he struggles with. He too is very social and enjoys being with friends or at parties. He just struggles with social cues to the point that he frequently finds himself on the outs with his friends. Most of the therapy we focus on centers on empathy and social cues and that has been slow, slow going.
Yeah, my son is actually overly friendly (8-1/2yrs old) and doesn't/can't understand how that could be bad in certain situations. Giving people hugs and rubbing their arm while talking isn't exactly PC in schools.
I am glad to hear that your son is (mostly) doing great. Good friends who understand can help with the rest. I put my stuff out there mostly just in case someone reads and says "hey, that's kinda what I got going on" and it leads to some further exploration on their part. Info and help can be hard to come across in these situations so I toss it out as much as I can with the caveat that it worked (somewhat, still ongoing) for me and that every autistic kid is different so the help for each will be different.
Good luck bro.
Fake, thanks, but just for the sake of clarity, he isn't doing "great". He struggles daily. There is a certain amount of irony that because he is so close to "normal" he struggles more than most with his differences. His behavior veers into angry outbursts as a result.
It's like he's on the threshold of a door that he just can't get inside. It's a real problem.
Sorry to hear about folks with extensive medical bills. It's true that the cost of health care is going up, but is that really something that the majority of people are feeling the pinch with? Most of the people I know don't have any medical bills (I know a few with outrageous bills, but that's because they chose to forego getting insurance and then something popped up).
The biggest "expense" I have would be credit card payments and food. Both of which are my own fault, but I feel that in today's world it's probably fairly common. The ease of access to credit and fast food/dining out has really fit in well with our fast-paced culture. I mean, in 1945 you'd never imagine a family going out to eat accept if they were on vacation (in which case they may have actually packed food for the trip to avoid eating out) or it was a special occassion.
We also have a high-debt to income ratio (not only from poor personal choices, but from school, medical bills, auto repairs, etc) and that's really eating into this current generation's ability to build a future for themselves.
Where do you guys live that housing isn't your biggest expense?
My expenses: Rent-$400 (half of a really cheap 2 bdrm)
Food- ~$300 (but I eat out like 4 meals a week)
Phone- $85 but I have an iPhone and unlimited data which ain't cheap.
Internet- $55
Electricity- $65 (average over a year)
Sundries- $150 I split car payment, car and renters insurance, and gas with my gf with whom I share a vehicle.
In January I'll have to start paying about $125/mo for health insurance, but it's really good coverage.
Altogether: $1180
If I cooked all my own meals, got a non-data plan and dumped internet I'd MAYBE save $150 a month, and I'd be miserable.
As for on-topic, heck I'm barely paid was when I started this job, when compared to CPI. The starting wage at my work has been $9.50/hr since 2002 when the call center opened. Which means people working there, and getting standard raises, are doing the same job as me for like $4 more an hour, which is messed up.
Yeah the whole "we need to raise wages, but can't afford to give raises to everyone who's already here" tactic really blows.
I pay $330 a month for rent/utilites
Food is about 100-200 a week
Phone - 100 (unlimited data)
Car - $0 (owned since college)
Credit Cards/Loans/Medical Bills - $700
Roth IRA Payment - $160
I have one loan payment that's easily 100 more than my rent. I don't really count my health insurance, since that's taken out pre-tax, so I never see it, and don't really account for it, but it averages out to be about 100-200 a check.
That's per check, which I get twice a month. Looking a pay stub it's a little over 200/month for a single white male in health insurance.
That's per check, which I get twice a month. Looking a pay stub it's a little over 200/month for a single white male in health insurance.Plus whatever your company kicks in.
Well yeah, but whatever they kick in is free money. I certainly wouldn't count their contribution as part of my expenses. Even if I didn't have a job, I'd qualify for COBRA until I could find another one.
LOL Mortag, you do realize that your company considers what they "chip in" to your health care to be part of your overall compensation package, right? Meaning if they didn't have to give it to the insurance company, they could give it to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which would mean I'd have to pony up that portion to cover health care, so it's a wash either way. Besides, the odds of any company just adding that amount to your paycheck are pretty slim. They'd be more apt to introduce some other ephemeral benefit to make it seem like they're offering all these awesome things to employees. As a hyperbolic example, not paying their half of employee healthcare and creating employee daycare instead. On paper it seems like a great benefit, but I don't have kids, so I'd be completely out that money. No, I'd much rather they pay half of my health insurance than "give me the money."
Which would mean I'd have to pony up that portion to cover health care, so it's a wash either way. Besides, the odds of any company just adding that amount to your paycheck are pretty slim. They'd be more apt to introduce some other ephemeral benefit to make it seem like they're offering all these awesome things to employees. As a hyperbolic example, not paying their half of employee healthcare and creating employee daycare instead. On paper it seems like a great benefit, but I don't have kids, so I'd be completely out that money. No, I'd much rather they pay half of my health insurance than "give me the money."
Also, what they're paying for the policy as part of a huge bundle deal with all the other employee policies is likely to be considerably less than you'd pay for the same policy as an individual.
Believe it or not, most businesses would rather give you the money they are forced to give to insurance companies. They don't lose any money that way and they can claim to be providing a more competitive offer to hire you.
Well, that's for the people they really WANT to hire anyway.
Maybe you're right Dragon, but in my experience companies tend to prefer benefits over increased wage. That way it costs them less in the long run due to people not taking advantage/qualifying for the benefit.
401k programs are a great example of this. By offering one they can claim it as part of the benefits package, but newer employees tend to ignore them, or they only qualify to participate after a certain amount of time. Even then, if they don't become vested before leaving the company, they lose everything.
Hell, my company is doing something like that now. They're getting rid of employee matching and instead introducing profit sharing that goes straight into a 401k account for you. This is anticipated to be 300-500 a year, which is far less than what someone contributing to their 401k would get in any kind of matching program. Not only that, but by doing it this way they force vesting as a way to save costs.
Plus, by offering full time benefits, the company can hire part time employees and not pay out a dime.
But I digress, we're kind of getting off topic. At the end of the day the real question is whether someone in 1945 with comparable education could have the same standard of living today as they would then. Modern convienances aside, we're left with looking at housing, food, health care, transportation, and ability to maintain a family. I'm not sure if a college grad today can do what a college grad in 1945 could do, and I think it's tragic that we've moved away from that portion of the American Dream.
Mortag, I'll overlook the 401K thing, which I don't think you get right, but your point about college graduates not living as well today as they did in 1945 is bad enough, the reality is that college graduates today don't live as well as college graduates did ten years ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mortag's right.
My previous employer had a really good health care plan, but if you wanted to you could opt out and you'd get an additional $125 per paycheck, or $250 a month. A friend of mine, who was a marine vet, did this since he had free basic medical for life from his service. Works out to like $1.50/hr for a full time employee.
The company decided to get rid of the stipend as a cost-cutting measure, but didn't allow an employee to enroll in healthcare if they were receiving the stipend. Basically, they just took $125 out of his paycheck without so much as a thank you.
All things being equal, I'd rather just have the extra cash, but at the time purchasing individual insurance was more than the combined personal+company contributions because they were able to bargain as a unit. In other words, it's not a zero-sum proposition.
But any benefit is like this, it's part of your compensation package. Which is why, here in Wisconsin, I got so annoyed when the right-wingers kept talking about how teachers didn't pay enough for their healthcare and didn't pay into their pension. Their pension and healthcare are PART of the compensation package! Taking those things away is the same as cutting someone's pay.
A little late with a timely link about consumption and what used to be known as the "American standard of living."
A little one-sided, of course, but it was comedy.