# Food prices



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Good time to stock up now. A friend of mine works for a very large packer and let me know (when I mentioned lamb prices had bounced back somewhat) that all food right across the board will rise 35% by the end of 2008. Not sure how much stock to put in that kind of rumour but he's usually right. Guess I'll by a bob calf or two this spring to replace the steer I already have half grown.


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

Good idea, Ross. I need to finish the fence and get a couple of calves too.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

So far I've gotten wheat, corn, mung beans, peanut butter and cashew butter stocked. Still have grape juice, tomato juice, tomatoes, green beans, jams, peppers, and beef to last the year.

Note to self: Need rice, black and pinto beans, bacon, pork, chicken, seafood, soy beans, and a double sized garden for the rest this year. Can't forget the mustard. And need to replace the horseradish plants. Oh yes, and fruit trees, grape vines, 

Will be starting ginger plants in pots. 

Buying extras every trip to the store these days. It's expensive now, but if prices go up like they say, will pay off later.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I'd say that predicting 38% rise in prices would be a very very conservative estimate!!!


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Somebody's going to make a killing in the commodities markets with this news. :happy: Will the prices drop back to normal then?


----------



## Milo (Apr 11, 2006)

I've seen recently that the major beef packers would spend an additional 700 million each in feed prices in the next 12 months. I'll try to find a link. What do you suppose this will do to meat prices?


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Milo said:


> I've seen recently that the major beef packers would spend an additional 700 million each in feed prices in the next 12 months. I'll try to find a link. What do you suppose this will do to meat prices?


Call it the Great American Weight Loss Plan. Can I copywrite that term?


----------



## farmwife (Jan 6, 2006)

Just maybe the small niche market farmer will have cheaper prices. Their stuff would be local. If they raise their own feed, it would be hopefully cheaper. I would love to see the small farmer getting ahead. 

Maybe I am dreaming!


----------



## Deb862 (Jun 22, 2005)

pickapeppa said:


> Call it the Great American Weight Loss Plan. Can I copywrite that term?


Definitely. The average Cuban lost 20 pounds when they had their "special period" when the oil stopped for them and food went thru the roof.


----------



## highplains (Oct 5, 2006)

I can guarantee that you will see prices rise significantly!

We do row crops and raise cattle.
Cattle feed has risen almost 75% this year compared to last year.

Row crops - seed has gone up another 40%, and fertilizer is up another almost 80%.

So... yes as sure as the sun rises, the prices will be going higher this year.

So folks out there - plant your victory gardens... this time the war is against inflation.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Fertilizer is only up 60% here I feel better already. I hope the niche marketing small farmer (like me) will get even better prices than the retail I get now.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

texican said:


> I'd say that predicting 38% rise in prices would be a very very conservative estimate!!!


Food prices will rise along with everything else, but 38%? That seems like a lot.

What is the driving factor that these sages who work for stockers are citing for the rising prices?


----------



## collegeboundgal (Jul 17, 2005)

Corn grown for ethanol will take up space that used to be used for human and animal food/feed. A shortage in these areas will make the price go up. The cost of the seed is up; the gas to plant the seed is up. The gas to harvest the seed is up. The gas to haul the seed to market is up. Basically the same for animals grown for human consumption. It all adds up. 

-Melissa


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

We make our living farming. We recently ordered fertilizer - up 75%. We recently ordered seed - up 50%. We recently ordered fuel ($3.93 a gallon for 1800 gallons - almost double last year). Oil and grease did double. Animal feed has gone up 60%, and we buy it by the semi-load straight from the company. Tractor parts have gone up 35%..

But the farmers are getting rich..............just ask anybody who doesn't farm


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I think I'm going to expand the garden by 200% this year.


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

Ernie said:


> I think I'm going to expand the garden by 200% this year.


Ditto.

As for questioning the percent the prices will rise, they went up close to that much last year on a lot of things!

Kathleen


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

If the government would stop lying about food price inflation we would see much larger percentage increase. I think 35-40% would be conservative.

The basic cause in the rapid decrease in the value of the US dollar and there is no end in sight.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Here is a fairly good summary of the problem:

The price of food is heading north for a variety of reasons, but taken together, they represent 'a perfect storm', say analysts. Prices are expected to continue to surge for the next two or three years, perhaps longer.
First, food price inflation is being fuelled by surging demand from the middle classes of Asia and South America as people move from basic grain to protein-based diets, meaning higher consumption of meat, milk, fruit and vegetables, but with rice still a popular staple for both the affluent and urban and agricultural poor. As more people turn to a meat-based diet, additional grain is needed to feed bigger herds of cattle, further fuelling demand.
Second, the global population continues to rise: from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.5 billion today, according to the UN's food and agriculture organisation (FAO), which forecasts that the figure will peak at 9 billion by the end of the century. Population growth imposes extra strain on arable land, already being eroded by the extreme weather caused by global warming. Over the past two years, Australia, one of the biggest grain producers, has been hit by severe drought.

Against this unpromising backdrop, vast areas that could be used to grow food are being turned over to the production of ethanol and biodiesel, derived from corn, sugar, soya and palm oil, as the developed world, notably the US and EU, seeks to reduce its dependence on oil. An FAO report says: 'Biofuels tend to allocate resources [for example, land, labour and capital] away from the production of food crops into the production of feedstocks for biofuels.'

Although food prices aren't expected to come down soon, Abdolreda Abbassion, a commodities analyst at the FAO, says it is important to keep things in perspective. He says that in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the price of wheat is no higher than in the mid-1970s and that other foodstuffs are trading at levels that were commonplace during the Asian economic crisis in the mid-1990s.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/02/agriculture.food/print


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

There is only 2 of us here and we've done our job to get ready for this. But all the explination for the problem doesn't help much when food has been rising for this long and this fast. It's the wondering when it will stop.
i don't know how people with kids are doing it. Or senior citisens who already had to make choices between food and bills or even meds.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Explorer said:


> says it is important to keep things in perspective. He says that in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the price of wheat is no higher than in the mid-1970s and that other foodstuffs are trading at levels that were commonplace during the Asian economic crisis in the mid-1990s.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/02/agriculture.food/print


Oh Goody,the 70's,high inflation,high unemployment.Glad to see foodstuffs are 'only' in that category.


----------



## hfwarner3 (Feb 19, 2008)

Ross said:


> Good time to stock up now. A friend of mine works for a very large packer and let me know (when I mentioned lamb prices had bounced back somewhat) that all food right across the board will rise 35% by the end of 2008.


If gas prices go up to $4.00 a gallon (a number I am hearing thrown around a lot these days) then everything gets more expensive at each stage of the agricultural production chain - feed, delivery, etc. 

Looking at our grocery and Costco bills, we have personally seen 18% increase in the last year - that's an 18% increase in what we spend 1/6 of my paycheck on. I certainly did not get an 18% raise this year, but if prices keep going up like this then salaries will HAVE to go up too, which will drive prices further up...


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

hfwarner3 said:


> If gas prices go up to $4.00 a gallon (a number I am hearing thrown around a lot these days) then everything gets more expensive at each stage of the agricultural production chain - feed, delivery, etc.
> 
> Looking at our grocery and Costco bills, we have personally seen 18% increase in the last year - that's an 18% increase in what we spend 1/6 of my paycheck on. I certainly did not get an 18% raise this year, but if prices keep going up like this then salaries will HAVE to go up too, which will drive prices further up...


By the end of this year, between inflation and a budget cut at one of our work places, it looks like we'll have lost 50% of our income.

The boat is full, and hoping for no holes.


----------



## Andy Nonymous (Aug 20, 2005)

hfwarner3 said:


> Looking at our grocery and Costco bills, we have personally seen an 18% increase in the last year - that's an 18% increase in what we spend 1/6 of my paycheck on. I certainly did not get an 18% raise this year, but if prices keep going up like this then salaries will HAVE to go up too, which will drive prices further up...


Bingo! Inflation, as long as salaries track with it, is 'tolerable', however, while real inflation (counting food and fuel and housing costs in the stats) has been running at about 10% for the past 6 years, and is now ratcheting up even faster in response to the Fed pumping more paper into economy to keep things 'afloat'. I can't speak for anyone else, but my w2 has actually shrunk the past two years as our customer base are tightening their belts. I can't imagine those who have left union jobs and are working at Mall-Wart, or even worse, still out of work.

Now imagine this: if you made $12 an hour last year at this time, and chose to be paid in silver Eagles, you'd get one for every hour worked. Today, you'd be able to trade that same Eagle for about 20 FRN's, a roughly 60% increase, in one year. If everyone was paid in silver, it would be even worse, because there wouldn't be anywhere enough silver to go around - inflation *IS* that bad, and most can't see it. It is a hard concept to grasp, because we are accustomed to think in *F*ederal *R*eserve *A*ccounting *U*nits of *D*enomination Notes. While it seems that prices of necessities are going up unreasonably, and in some cases they are, in actuality, the paper is becoming _worth less_ (um, perhaps that should be one word).

Essentially, unless you're on the top of the economic food chain where the 'essentials' are still a small percentage of your income, or you can 'pass along' your costs to someone else, we're being squeezed dry, because those who have allowed this mess, sure as shinola aren't going to be holding the short end of the stick if they can avoid it, and as was pointed out in another thread the 45 Trillion of leveraged debt extended has to be paid by someone, and as long as the hustlers can still hustle, that someone is gonna be you and I.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Do you make more money now than you did in the mid-seventies? If so, you are ahead of the game. 

One needs to put things in perspective as it is conducive to mental health.


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

what the heck does what I paid for something in the 70's have to do with what I am paying now? For me, today, my grocery bill has gone up - noticeable to even me, who doesn't notice things. My gas bill has gone WAY up. My heating bill is UP. I do not see how what I paid in the 70's has anything to do with the drastic increase in my bills today. I don't care if it is NOT any worse than way back then. I am a student in search of better. 

I was just a teenager in the 70's. I didn't have an income. I don't see how it matters whether today is like then or not.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

It is fairly straight forward. Our standard of living has increased considerably since the 70's. Maybe foolishly (more electronics, cell phones, computers, better cars & trucks, and so on), but we spend less of our disposable income on food. Well, those days are over. Welcome to the new globalized world where more people are competing for the same goods. Our disposable income spent on 'necessities' will increase as a percentage drastically. Either you accept this and modify your life style (to more of a homesteading one) or you will be very unhappy.


----------



## sparkysarah (Dec 4, 2007)

Explorer.....I like your way of thinking. I'm always telling people that the reason we all live paycheck to paycheck is because of all the extra junk in our monthly budget. Everything has a monthly fee attached to it.


----------



## RockyGlen (Jan 19, 2007)

Sparky and Explorer, I agree with you, to an extent. The ones I see being hurt, with no way to help themselves, are the elderly and disabled on Social Security or other fixed incomes. Many were just barely making it before, but now they have to choose between propane to heat their home, or food to fill their belly. We have a large elderly population in our town and they are hurting. I'm seeing family heirlooms getting sold, I'm seeing older people keeping their heat on 50 degrees and sitting under blankets all day shivering. I'm seeing them at the grocery store getting a can of soup and a loaf of bread and paying with change. 

Our community bands together to help as much as we can: we have anonymously filled some propane tanks, had groceries delivered (the store gives them at cost), even bought a couple family heirlooms and given them back, but I am sure that there are people falling through the cracks.

Us young people who are healthy and hearty have choices. We can cut down on our "toys" and we can grow things and we can do odd jobs and on and on...but the elderly and disabled don't have those options. While my healthy, farm living family is eligible to receive almost a thousand dollars a month in food stamps, some of these elderly and disabled people qualify for a whopping $20 or $30 dollars.

These are the people I worry about.......


----------



## sparkysarah (Dec 4, 2007)

Didn't think of that Rockyglen. I commend you on seeing where you could help....and doing so.


----------



## farmwife (Jan 6, 2006)

I agree with Explorer as well! We have cut out luxeries and you know our children are ok with it. They like staying home. I think really everyone enjoys the slower lifestyle, but we have come to fast paced. 

I agree too with Rockglenn that the ones on fixed incomes will hurt. I know we would take my parents in before that happens. They helped us when we were young, than the young need to take care of the old. With the raising of these expenses that will happen I am sure.


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

My income (actual FRNs, not adjusted for inflation) is less than half what it was in the mid 80s when I was working full time. OTOH, gas is way more than twice what it was and so are most other things I really have to have, like milk and bread and chicken feed. If I didn't buy bulk grains and make my bread it would be awfully hard to afford it.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Life is not easy at times. Since WWII we have been on a gravy train. We were the breadbasket of the world, first class manufacturing base and the highest standard of living in the world. Times have changed. The foo-foo's will disappear and our standard of living will be greatly reduced.

How far, I really don't have a clue. In the mid thirties, at the height of the great depression, my father who was newly married worked in a lumber yard. They lived at the edge of a small town in North Dakota in a house owned by my Grandfather (no rent) and walked everywhere including to his job about a mile away. They had a large garden and Mom canned huge amounts of food (according to her). Anyway, Dad made about $50 per month and half went for food for them and my brother who was a baby. The remaining money was saved to buy their own place.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

hfwarner3 said:


> If gas prices go up to $4.00 a gallon (a number I am hearing thrown around a lot these days) then everything gets more expensive at each stage of the agricultural production chain - feed, delivery, etc.
> 
> Looking at our grocery and Costco bills, we have personally seen 18% increase in the last year - that's an 18% increase in what we spend 1/6 of my paycheck on. I certainly did not get an 18% raise this year, but if prices keep going up like this then salaries will HAVE to go up too, which will drive prices further up...


Ive been paying 3,97 a gallon for quite a while now. 4 dollar gas will hardly stop the world here.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

I remember posting about how food was going nutso in price 2-3 years ago in GC (though not so blatant as now) and getting reamed for it,inflation is 2% you liberal idiot fool you!You are just LOOKING for anything to blame on George Bush! Look at the FACTS,inflation is 2 %. 

Right.Sure it is.

Glad some folks get it and can see things beyond a Dem/Rep soul encompassing life or death political persuasion debate and just see the frickin' truth!


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I think if food costs continue to rise and the dollar continues to fall, you're going to see more food production returning to the United States. There's likely a sort of push me-pull you effect on it that is going to keep prices from having no upper cost limit.

However in the short term, I think it could get pretty bad. Particularly if our current economy continues to go in the crapper. You're going to see food costs high and salaries low (or non-existent) and that's going to put the squeeze on a lot of families.

Some staples should remain low cost though. Things that don't travel well would continue to be sold where they're produced, and people will probably shift towards eating more locally. I know I will, anyway.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Stagflation is what its looking like.


----------



## hfwarner3 (Feb 19, 2008)

mightybooboo said:


> Ive been paying 3,97 a gallon for quite a while now. 4 dollar gas will hardly stop the world here.


The national average last week was $3.162 a gallon. Link So please amend my statement to the National Average Price of Gasoline Per Gallon being $4.00.

And, for the records, I filled up for $3.08 a gallon this last weekend.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Yes,its already much higher here out west.


----------



## hfwarner3 (Feb 19, 2008)

mightybooboo said:


> Stagflation is what its looking like.


I am hoping that we learned SOMETHING since the 1970s, but I am starting to fear that you are right. The government is REFUSING to admit that food prices are going through the roof. Salaries are mostly stuck, maybe increasing 2-3% a year. Millions of people tapped into the equity in their homes like it was a checking account. Almost everyone is in debt. 

Long story short, the collective "we" are idiots. Just last year people ragged on me because I saved up cash and bought a used car debt-free. Some of those same people are now asking me how I am making it when they are swimming in debt (have your $50,000 car ask my $3,000 car). Ironically, we have many mouths to feed (5 kids with another on the way) but this also means we have plenty of hands to help with the work if it comes to that.


----------



## WisJim (Jan 14, 2004)

mightybooboo said:


> I remember posting about how food was going nutso in price 2-3 years ago in GC (though not so blatant as now) and getting reamed for it,inflation is 2% you liberal idiot fool you!You are just LOOKING for anything to blame on George Bush! Look at the FACTS,inflation is 2 %.
> Right.Sure it is.



Yes, the gov't says its 2%--- if you don't count housing, food, or fuel, you know, those items we don't really need. I have no idea how they think they get by with that kind of woozy reasoning.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

One thing to remember about comparing the 1970's to today is that many many more homes are dual income households. If the majority of people had to make a go of it on one income while raising a family I think we would have been in serious trouble years ago. And also, people now days buy way more things on credit versus just saving for it. Most of the increase of living standards from the 1970s is merely an illusion created by easy credit. 

I do agree with the statement that there are more than a few things that people consider necessities that really we could do without.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2008)

PhilJohnson said:


> If the majority of people had to make a go of it on one income while raising a family I think we would have been in serious trouble years ago.


I disagree. Although not true of all working couples, as a general rule our 2 income society has resulted in a generation who feel entitled to try living very far beyond their means. People have lost their frugality.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

I whole heartedly agree that there are a lot of people who have a sense of entitlement. I think though this applies to larger towns and cities more so than to rural areas. From my personal observation of most rural areas and small towns there are a lot of folks who wouldn't make it on one income alone. Typically if someone makes 10 bucks an hour it is considered good money. And most of the jobs in these areas have next to nothing for health insurance coverage. Most families in these areas living on one income typically have no health insurance, no car insurance, don't have cable, but usually have internet service. From what I have heard and observed most of the entitlement sentiment comes from larger towns where people make a decent amount of money. I don't feel sorry for people in the suburbs whining about how bad things are when they have two newer SUVs parked in the driveway, a monster house with only a couple kids, boat, and other toys. 

Even with all that said, without the extra money from working couples I think our economy would be much worse off. For the economy to expand, peoples spending habits have to expand as well. Since we are no longer an industrial based economy we only can rely on people and their ever increasing greed and financial recklessness to keep the economy growing. The only other way the economy can expand is for a rapidly increasing population base which has a whole other set of problems to contend with like increasing food cost.

Being frugal certainly works on a personal level, but if everyone in this country was a tightwad we would not have the level of wealth in this country even on the lowest rungs of society that we enjoy today. The Great Depression wasn't ended by being more frugal and I don't think we can really expect that it will work this time to get us out of the jam that we now face.

Perhaps it is time for a change away from basing our economy almost solely on consumption. It is obvious from a pure scientific viewpoint that an ever expanding economy on a finite Earth will not work. I believe this will only become more and more increasingly painfully obvious as time goes on.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

The great depression was not ended by people spending (that happened after WWII), but by the spending by the government because we went to WAR.


----------



## hfwarner3 (Feb 19, 2008)

The people that I think are in for a big awakening are the dual 6-figure income folks. There is a woman at work who pays a private nanny $500 a week so that she can keep working. Her husband and her have one child (1 year old) and together they make about $220,000 -- and she keeps telling me she can't afford to stay home. The combined cost of their cars is more than my house! Let's see ... take out the nanny, the cars, the insurance, the taxes on your income, gas, lunches at work, etc.

Point being - if she had ANY ability to be frugal, she would not have to work, so I find it hard to feel sorry for her when she says how much she wishes she could be a stay-at-home mom. 

If the economy collapsed, she and her family are gone. I give them no chance.


----------



## sparkysarah (Dec 4, 2007)

If she truly wished to stay home she could. It was difficult selling vehicles and moving into a trailer for me to stay home with our son....my husband and I are so grateful we did that.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

"Ive been paying 3,97 a gallon for quite a while now. 4 dollar gas will hardly stop the world here."

I would guess that if the national average goes to $4/gal then you will probably see ~$5/gal where you are.


===============================

I was talking to a lady whose husband I worked with (years ago). She said that she couldn't stay at home either. They communted about 1.5 hours one-way to work. I mentioned how they didn't get any quality time with their children: get them up, dressed, fed, and then dropped at the daycare in the morning so no quality time; after work, pick them up, feed them, get them bathed, dressed, and then to bed so no quality time. She stated that if they both didn't work they wouldn't be able to maintain their lifestyle. I told her that she was putting her lifestyle ahead of her children and that I didn't understand how anyone could put their lifestyle ahead of their children.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Explorer said:


> The great depression was not ended by people spending (that happened after WWII), but by the spending by the government because we went to WAR.


Valid point, but if people continued to be as frugal as they had been before WW-II the Depression would have kept going. Government spending did indeed help matters as well as the massive need for goods overseas for the war effort. However, government spending alone can not lift an economy or carry one in absence or decline of consumer spending. Russia found that out the hard way, and it is a lesson the Chinese have learned quite well. I have never seen an economic recovery that happened due to people being frugal or saving more.

I think people wouldn't be any worse off driving used cars, growing their own food, and buying clothing at Good Will. However if we had a nation were the majority of people did such things our economy would certainly not have been as robust and grown as much as it has. 

I think most people could learn to adjust to being frugal. But only if it was forced upon them. I have a hard time believing that most people who own the toys and new cars would suddenly start saving more because it is the responsible thing to do. 

More than likely the recent slowdown and possible coming of a recession/depression will re-educate a lot of people in the lost art of penny pinching.

As far as rising food prices go, I am going to increase my intake of wild foods and grow a good sized garden this year. I have no problem living on a shoe string budget. I can and have lived quite comfortably on 150 bucks a week. If I had a family that would be a different story.


----------



## hfwarner3 (Feb 19, 2008)

uyk7 said:


> I was talking to a lady whose husband I worked with (years ago). She said that she couldn't stay at home either. They communted about 1.5 hours one-way to work. I mentioned how they didn't get any quality time with their children: get them up, dressed, fed, and then dropped at the daycare in the morning so no quality time; after work, pick them up, feed them, get them bathed, dressed, and then to bed so no quality time. She stated that if they both didn't work they wouldn't be able to maintain their lifestyle. I told her that she was putting her lifestyle ahead of her children and that I didn't understand how anyone could put their lifestyle ahead of their children.


If that is a lifestyle, I would rather be DEAD.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2008)

PhilJohnson said:


> I think people wouldn't be any worse off driving used cars, growing their own food, and buying clothing at Good Will. However if we had a nation were the majority of people did such things our economy would certainly not have been as robust and grown as much as it has.


Our economy is not so robust as once it was.

Some growth is good, but it's gone completely overboard now. All those credit card and mortgage debts are primarily interest, which is putting money into the pockets of the rich lenders.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

> if people continued to be as frugal as they had been before WW-II the Depression would have kept going


I agree, at some point the "depression" standard would have become the norm for people. 

We, the whole world, live in a consumer driven society. If we were to stop 'consuming' our society would undergo drastic changes. It possibly would end up similar to the Greek and Roman societies of BCE. Not that that is bad as those societies had excellent arts and science capabilities. Perhaps intellectual growth would become prized as we prize a new auto or something similar.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Explorer said:


> The great depression was not ended by people spending (that happened after WWII), but by the spending by the government because we went to WAR.


DING DING DING DING! Give the man a Kewpie Doll.

That is exactly right.

Consider that and apply it to todays situation.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

ladycat said:


> I disagree. Although not true of all working couples, as a general rule our 2 income society has resulted in a generation who feel entitled to try living very far beyond their means. People have lost their frugality.


In addition to a generation who simply got used to more means, but still live within them.

The main thing is, anyone who has borrowed money for a house, car, college education is living beyond their means.

The sad thing about this is, if people paid their way through college, then saved for a car and paid cash, then saved for a house and paid cash, by the time most of them are 40, they might be able to buy the house. At which point, child- bearing years are coming to an end.

People who want to have families, most often I think, have few choices but to borrow money starting out somewhere before the clock runs out of time.

It's also sad how many people feel they have to work a second job for the household, when they can get by on one income. Now, I know there are exceptions where both spouses earn the same amounts, but not enough for one of them to give up a job.

By my figures based in 2006 dollars, living frugally saved at least $8000 a year. That only involved cutting back on some energy use, cooking from scratch, and one errand to town per week. If a person also has to pay day care expenses, let's say 400 a week on the low side, that's another $20,000 saved. Then add in your commuting expense for work, extra clothing and laundering, take out sick days for you and the kids, etc.

That's a minimum of $28,000 saved just from one person staying out of the workforce and practicing a frugal lifestyle.

The only benefit to working when looking at those figures was contributing to your social security, plus your employers contributions.

We really do live better when I work from home, than when I work for someone else. Plus, we have much more family time, more nutritious and healthier meals, organic, home-grown fruits and veggies, etc.

It's just all around a better choice for us. It took me a while to convince my better half of this, and it took me going out working another full-time job to prove that I wasn't just wanting to stay home and be lazy. Lol. (Sometimes spouses get to feeling that way.) It did come back to the fact that we were so much better off with one of us at home working on the side and managing the household and finances properly.

I think it's just so easy for people to not see alternatives. For one, many of us don't know any other way. If you were raised by a working mom who served you out of boxes and bags every night (I'm married to someone like this), that's a normal, acceptable thing. I was raised just the opposite. Mom was home, ran a side business, and managed by living frugally with all that involves - gardening, cooking from scratch, canning, stocking up, etc.

That societal programming that everyone needs to be out in the workforce is so strong. I'm one of those oddballs that has actually sat down and crunched the numbers and found that to be a myth. With the salaries that are paid today, I think many are losing money by participating in the workforce, but never stop to think about it. It's just what you're supposed to do, no questions asked.

I think people will be pleasantly surprised by their increased quality of life when they give up the rat race and accept 'lower' circumstances. Time with your kids is important, for both parents. It can't ever be replaced. It's the one thing they don't make any more of, besides land.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2008)

pickapeppa said:


> In addition to a generation who simply got used to more means, but still live within them.
> 
> The main thing is, anyone who has borrowed money for a house, car, college education is living beyond their means.


A few months out of date but some good statistics.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/credit/2007-09-05-credit-cards_N.htm


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

ladycat said:


> A few months out of date but some good statistics.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/credit/2007-09-05-credit-cards_N.htm





> From 2000 to 2006, the average card debt carried by Americans grew from $7,842 to $9,659, according to CardTrack.com. That totals $850 billion in credit card debt for 88 million Americans, it says.


These numbers surprise me. I must know a skewed set of average working schmucks then. Almost nobody in my circle of friends has credit card debt near that amount. There is only one, because they don't have health insurance and had several bad incidents requiring hospitalization and expensive testing, the had to use credit cards to cover their medical expenses.

Nobody else I know uses credit cards other than to charge and then pay off before interest comes due.

Going to the website they sourced for these numbers. It does say 'average' balance for 88 million americans. I hope it's an exaggeration.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Not surprised at all.Expect it to rise dramatically now that the ATM called a house is out of business.


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

Another thing that I've not seen mentioned. People used to take care of their parents. Then the parents' home/farm would go to one of the children. Nowadays, the parents end up in an assisted living facility/nursing home because most of their children either are working fulltime and/or have no interest in caring for their elders. The elders have to either sell the home and spend down to qualify for public assistance or the gov takes their home after they die to repay Medicare costs. 

So people who could have had a legacy lose it because they do not honor their parents. (I know this is not always the case, only in some instances. I'm only meaning the people who could have, but didn't.)


----------

