Entitlements?

[Alceste]

What part of Canada is this? Does it have frontage on Waikiki?

You'd meet a few fellow Canadians at our hospitals.
Canadians visit U.S. to get health care | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

I wouldn't meet any Canadians who are in my tax bracket in US hospitals, that's for sure. The US is famous for being the health care system well-heeled Canadians visit just to show everybody how rich they are, or so they don't have to queue for non-essential surgeries. I'm not that snooty or impatient. Meanwhile, Americans are sneaking over the border to our free, anonymous clinics for their clap medication, so I'm sure it all balances out in the end.

The trailer is in a rural area where property prices are quite cheap for where we are living (West Coast, within commuting distance from a town where a few jobs can be had). I would be content to live in a trailer park, but I am not willing to get soaked buying a trailer I will never be able to sell for the price I paid for it. A friend of mine bought a trailer out here before the boom and it took him years to unload it, even at a discount.

 

[Kathryn]

.

I'm NOT retiring. I am going to be self employed.

And yes - I got to stay home with my kids. We lived BELOW the poverty level for 6 of those 11 years. We literally did not eat out or even buy a soda (and I am not exaggerating) for those six years. We had one vehicle - the SAME vehicle for 11 years. We had no cable TV, no game system, and for much of that time didn't even have a VCR. I'm not complaining - just giving some context. As I said before, I didn't even use disposable diapers - and I hung the cloth ones out on a clothesline. I mean, really REALLY "old school."

When my wife and I start having kids hopefully next year, there is no way in hell she'll be able to stay home for more than a couple months after the baby is born.

It's very difficult to pull this off - requires a lot of sacrifice.

Even with our small house and relatively little luxuries (our cars are 4 and 5 years old), one of us simply couldn't support the whole family by ourselves. And we're 50% above the median household income in the country. In fact, our income puts us in the top 28% of households in the country.

We didn't own a home - we rented. We didn't have two cars - we had one very old car.

Oh - and later as a single mom, I raised four kids (teens) on about $50,000 a year - and that includes child support. It was hard, but do-able.

There is almost no way we'll be retiring in our 50s, and that's even with both of us working full-time until then, making good financial decisions and me hopefully making damn good money within the next 10 years.

I repeat - neither me nor my husband is retiring.

And did you miss the part about my husband's income tripling in the past three years? That will open a lot of doors of opportunity. But this didn't happen till he was over 50. And in spite of his income tripling, he's still working his *** off.

Yes, raising kids is very hard work, which is why it'll be extra hard for us who have to work full-time while doing it for their childhoods.

Your choice. Don't tell me that you have to have two incomes to raise kids. My oldest daughter is staying home with her kids, and my youngest daughter's husband is staying home (going to school) while she is working. In other words- one income houses with one parent staying home. Today - present tense. One in Virginia (in a high cost of living area) and one in Louisiana (just moved from Colorado Springs - another high cost of living area).

Like I said, it requires a LOT of sacrifice to pull this off - but it's definitely do able.

You no longer get to criticize the current generation, considering how good you've had it. I know had some rough times where you didn't have much money, but if you were able to stay home to raise kids for 11 years, you had it pretty damn good, by my standards.

It was very austere living for most of those eleven years. I don't know - but I don't call washing **** out of diapers in the toilet with your bare hands "having it pretty damn good," but hey, that's just me.

It was tough - but worth it.

You have not worked that hard. You've worked full-time for 20 years. Raising kids doesn't count. I've already worked full-time for 10 years. So, if I found a sugar mama, maybe I could retire in 10 years, too, but I wouldn't be bragging about how hard I worked when I retired at 40

Let's see - started working at age 14. Worked full time when I was in college. Stayed home for eleven years to raise four kids (stairsteps - I had kids in diapers for six straight years). And your comment about staying home to raise four kids not counting for working your *** off is RIDICULOUS. I was home alone with them most of the time -my husband worked out of town for 8 months out of the year.
'
Re-entered the full time workforce at age 30 and worked full time (over full time, I might add) for 20 more years. Now at age 50, I will quit working for someone else and work for myself. Oh, and did I mention that I will also be caring for four elderly parents and in laws? That's the flip side of the coin for baby boomers.

I'd say that's a pretty long run at hard work.

And I repeat - I'm not retiring.

OK, I don't want to hear any more from you then. You're retiring at 50, and you got to stay home to raise your kids for 11 years.

 

[Kathryn]

Great. I'm glad you live in a very cheap area. I could move to a cheaper area, too. I could probably have bought a similar home and be paying $200-300 less a month. And then, having to drive an extra 30 miles each way to work, I'd be spending an extra $140 a month on gas, and putting an extra 15,000 miles a year on my car. And if I move farther away than that, I wouldn't have support from my family and friends, especially in the next few years when we start having kids. So, you were lucky that you were able to get into an area that's cheap. I'm not that lucky.

Luck had nothing to do with it. I made judicious financial decisions, and many sacrifices, in order to reach my goals.

 

[Kathryn]

mball, let me ask you a question. If you suddenly made more money in two months than your wife made in a year, and your work schedule meant that you were away from home nearly 3 weeks out of every month, would you consider the option of her quitting her full time job working for someone else, so that when you were home, the two of you could spend more time together?

Hell, maybe you could even have kids and she could stay home with them rather than working full time! Would that mean that she was lazy? Or would that simply be the best option for your family?

If your debt to income ratio was about 14 percent, that would make even more sense, wouldn't it?

My husband and I are at a different stage in our lives than you are in yours. Instead of kids, we have four - FOUR - elderly and sickly parents living nearby. They need our help - not so much financially as logistically. One parent has cancer, one has had a major stroke and can't drive, one has had recent heart surgery and is extremely feeble, and one has some sort of denerative condition which means that he struggles with failing eyesight and extreme dizziness - which means that he often can't drive.

I am very blessed to be able to quit an 8-5 job and be self employed, which gives me the flexibility to drive old people around a lot and spend some time with my husband when he comes home.

Maybe one day you'll make enough money to be able to provide for your family in such a way. I hope so.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm NOT retiring. I am going to be self employed.

And yes - I got to stay home with my kids. We lived BELOW the poverty level for 6 of those 11 years. We literally did not eat out or even buy a soda (and I am not exaggerating) for those six years. We had one vehicle - the SAME vehicle for 11 years. We had no cable TV, no game system, and for much of that time didn't even have a VCR. I'm not complaining - just giving some context. As I said before, I didn't even use disposable diapers - and I hung the cloth ones out on a clothesline. I mean, really REALLY "old school."

Aw, I feel horrible for you. You chose to not work, and so had to live in poverty. By my count that's a bad decision.

It's very difficult to pull this off - requires a lot of sacrifice.

To pull what off?

I repeat - neither me nor my husband is retiring.

Then what are you doing?

Your choice. Don't tell me that you have to have two incomes to raise kids.

Oh, sure, I could subject my kids to poverty because my wife doesn't want to work, just like you did, but I'd rather provide a good home for my kids, even if it means not being there during the day. I mean, sure, everyone can raise kids on one income, if they're willing to live in poverty. I don't know why anyone would willingly choose that, though.

My oldest daughter is staying home with her kids, and my youngest daughter's husband is staying home (going to school) while she is working. In other words- one income houses with one parent staying home. Today - present tense. One in Virginia (in a high cost of living area) and one in Louisiana (just moved from Colorado Springs - another high cost of living area).

I'm very happy for them. I'm going to guess they either live in a cheaper area or make more than either my wife or me. Try raising a kid on $40,000 a year in an area where a medium-sized apartment costs $1,200 a month. I understand we could probably find a crappier place for $900 a month and force our kids to live in squalor, but I'd rather avoid that.

Like I said, it requires a LOT of sacrifice to pull this off - but it's definitely do able.

So, the main point is you've worked for 20 years, and now you're semi-retiring. Good for you; just don't act like you've worked harder than most people or made better decisions than most. You haven't. Younger people these days have it harder than you did.

 

[Magic Man]

Luck had nothing to do with it. I made judicious financial decisions, and many sacrifices, in order to reach my goals.

Keep telling yourself that. It'll never be true, but then, I know the point of it is not to be true, but to make you feel better. At least I realize how lucky I've been, and how lucky you have to be to be in either your position of mine.

 

[Magic Man]

mball, let me ask you a question. If you suddenly made more money in two months than your wife made in a year, and your work schedule meant that you were away from home nearly 3 weeks out of every month, would you consider the option of her quitting her full time job working for someone else, so that when you were home, the two of you could spend more time together?

What's the point?

Hell, maybe you could even have kids and she could stay home with them rather than working full time! Would that mean that she was lazy? Or would that simply be the best option for your family?

Oh, I see. You misunderstand what I'm saying. You're not lazy for retiring. You weren't lazy for staying home with your kids. What I'm saying is that you had it pretty good if you could stay home with your kids. If a couple can have one person stay home with the kids, that's great, but it means they're better off than a lot of people.

Obviously, if I made enough money for my wife to quit and stay home, that's what would happen. I hope that's the case at some point. But that would mean we were very, very lucky and abnormal. We're making $75,000 together right now, and that puts us in the top 28% of households in the country, well above the median.

I'm not criticizing your choices or your ability to retire now. I'm saying don't pretend like you've had it so hard, and this younger generation just has it so much better than you, if only they made better decisions. It's simply not true.

 

[Revoltingest]

Luck had nothing to do with it. I made judicious financial decisions, and many sacrifices, in order to reach my goals.

Au contraire....luck is absolutely necessary.
Skill, care & dedication certainly enable success & greatly improve the odds though.
There's merit in the old joke: I'd rather be lucky than smart.

 

[Kathryn]

What's the point?



Oh, I see. You misunderstand what I'm saying. You're not lazy for retiring. You weren't lazy for staying home with your kids. What I'm saying is that you had it pretty good if you could stay home with your kids. If a couple can have one person stay home with the kids, that's great, but it means they're better off than a lot of people.

Obviously, if I made enough money for my wife to quit and stay home, that's what would happen. I hope that's the case at some point. But that would mean we were very, very lucky and abnormal. We're making $75,000 together right now, and that puts us in the top 28% of households in the country, well above the median.

I'm not criticizing your choices or your ability to retire now. .

I'm not retiring. I'm just not going to work full time for someone else anymore.

You do know the difference between retiring and being self employed, don't you?

[QUOTEI'm saying don't pretend like you've had it so hard, and this younger generation just has it so much better than you, if only they made better decisions. It's simply not true.][/QUOTE]

And I haven't said that. Maybe it's just your subconcience telling you that.

I DID have it hard - for several years. But you're right in this sense - I made that choice. I made the choice to sacrifice material things while my children were small, in order to stay home and spend quality time with them, which I did with great gusto and great enjoyment (for all of us). I realised that we didn't have to have much money for me to do that very well. Those years I stayed home with my kids were hard - but they were also precious and wonderful. It was a great choice overall, in spite of the austere lifestyle we had to embrace.

And we weren't "better off than most people" our age when it came to material things or comfort or recreation, or income. We were POOR. FAR below the poverty line, in fact. But it was part of our plan - and it worked. I wouldn't trade those years of poverty, and tenderness and adventure and love, for anything in this world.

 

[Kathryn]

Keep telling yourself that. It'll never be true, but then, I know the point of it is not to be true, but to make you feel better. At least I realize how lucky I've been, and how lucky you have to be to be in either your position of mine.

I don't believe in luck. I believe in purpose.

 

[Kathryn]

.

Aw, I feel horrible for you. You chose to not work, and so had to live in poverty. By my count that's a bad decision.

I didn't ask you for any pity. I wouldn't have wanted it then, and I don't want it now. I've probably never been pitiful a day in my life.

You're right - I CHOSE to sacrifice material comforts in order to stay home with my kids when they were small. By my count it's a bad decision to hire other people to spend the majority of a child's waking moments with them, if there's any possible way to avoid it - even if it means living with basically no frills whatsoever.

But hey, that's just me.

Oh, sure, I could subject my kids to poverty because my wife doesn't want to work, just like you did, but I'd rather provide a good home for my kids, even if it means not being there during the day.

When kids are small, they don't know or care about what they may be missing when it comes to material things - as long as they are safe, sheltered, fed nutritiously, and loved. My husband and I made sure our kids had all of the above. With good management, that's very possible to do, even while living below the poverty line.

I mean, sure, everyone can raise kids on one income, if they're willing to live in poverty. I don't know why anyone would willingly choose that, though.

I knew we wouldn't live in poverty for very many years - and we didn't. We had a financial plan and it worked.

I'm very happy for them. I'm going to guess they either live in a cheaper area or make more than either my wife or me. Try raising a kid on $40,000 a year in an area where a medium-sized apartment costs $1,200 a month.

No thanks - I wouldn't live there. I'd move out of the area if I had to, to reach my own goals. But that's just me - apparently you are reaching YOUR family's goals so more power to you.

I understand we could probably find a crappier place for $900 a month and force our kids to live in squalor, but I'd rather avoid that.

Yeah, me too - which is why my kids never lived in squalor. Are you saying that poor people can't keep a clean, neat house or live in a tidy, working class neighborhood?

So, the main point is you've worked for 20 years, and now you're semi-retiring.

I've worked for more than twenty years. And I'm not semi retiring. You really do never give up on creative rephrasing, do you?

Good for you; just don't act like you've worked harder than most people or made better decisions than most. You haven't.

I didn't say I've worked harder than most people. I simply said I've worked hard - and I have.

As for "young people having it harder than people my age did" - I'm calling ******** on that one. Some do, and some don't. But one thing is for sure - I didn't eat your sack lunch. I'm not taking anything from anyone else, or enjoying something I haven't earned, by gratefully enjoying where I am in my life today.

 

[Alceste]

I don't believe in luck. I believe in purpose.

Why not both? It feels quite natural to me to feel grateful for the good fortune I have enjoyed from circumstances beyond my control (i.e. not being born in Somalia). If I had bought a home before the bubble that doubled the real cost of shelter, I would feel that my timing had been lucky rather than frugal. After all, how could I have known in 1999 what was going to happen in 2001? I have a friend who quit working at 35 due to good luck in the property boom - one of the ones who bought a half price home in his early 20s (downtown Calgary before the oil sands boom) using a downpayment from his dad. He knows he was lucky, not clever. He has NEVER had to work. He's a globe-trotting comedian and a film-maker.

I don't understand why you can't see or appreciate your own good fortune.

 

[dust1n]

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

 

[Kathryn]

Why not both? It feels quite natural to me to feel grateful for the good fortune I have enjoyed from circumstances beyond my control (i.e. not being born in Somalia). If I had bought a home before the bubble that doubled the real cost of shelter, I would feel that my timing had been lucky rather than frugal. After all, how could I have known in 1999 what was going to happen in 2001? I have a friend who quit working at 35 due to good luck in the property boom - one of the ones who bought a half price home in his early 20s (downtown Calgary before the oil sands boom) using a downpayment from his dad. He knows he was lucky, not clever. He has NEVER had to work. He's a globe-trotting comedian and a film-maker.

I don't understand why you can't see or appreciate your own good fortune.

What makes you think I'm not appreciative?

I am extremely grateful for every blessing God has given me - which is quite a lot.

I believe that every human life is sacred and has a purpose.

By the way, I'd like to point out that I've made a lot of mistakes. But I believe this:

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."
Romans 8:28

In spite of my many mistakes, God has blessed me and my family. But that doesn't mean that I haven't worked hard and made good decisions as well. And one of the best decisions I ever made (after making the terrible decision to marry a jerk - but of course I didn't realize at the time just how wrong that choice was), was to stay home for eleven years to raise my four children, in spite of the very austere lifestyle that choice entailed. I believe that God rewarded my faith and submission to what I firmly believed was His will and my responsibility, and blessed us in spite of my imperfections and sometimes foolish choices.

So no - I don't believe in luck or chance. I believe in purpose.

I also believe that an attitude of gratitude allows us to rise above the difficulties of our situation. When I was absolutely poverty stricken, I knew that it was my choices that landed me there. I also knew that I couldn't change the past and that I had to pick up from where I was and move forward, and that I simply could not compromise my values - which is what had landed me where I was in the first place. In other words, I had to perservere and make deliberate and sometimes difficult choices. One of those choices was to stay home to raise my kids, rather than placing them in daycare.

I am so glad I made this decision - and so are my children. I am so proud of my daughters, who have deliberately structured their lives so that their own kids don't have to be shuttled to daycare either. They of all people understand the benefits of this decision, in spite of the financial sacrifices it involves.

 

[Averroes]

I believe life does works on both luck and purpose. From the perspective of children born in dirty mud huts in an AIDS infested village that sure isn't purpose

 

[Magic Man]

As for "young people having it harder than people my age did" - I'm calling ******** on that one. Some do, and some don't. But one thing is for sure - I didn't eat your sack lunch. I'm not taking anything from anyone else, or enjoying something I haven't earned, by gratefully enjoying where I am in my life today.

You're still missing the point. You have this view that you're so much better than most of the current generation because you've worked hard and made good decisions, and that's why you're where you are. This is simply not true, which is evidenced by your ability to stay at home for 11 years with your kids and now practically retire at 50. That's all I'm saying. I'm not judging what you've done; I'm simply saying you're not better than most other people.

 

[Magic Man]

What makes you think I'm not appreciative?

How about the whole "I don't believe in luck" thing? Look, either you realize how lucky you are, or you don't. No fence-sitting. Do you realize that your position in the world is due to luck as well as your own decisions?

 

[Kathryn]

You're still missing the point. You have this view that you're so much better than most of the current generation because you've worked hard and made good decisions, and that's why you're where you are. This is simply not true, which is evidenced by your ability to stay at home for 11 years with your kids and now practically retire at 50. That's all I'm saying. I'm not judging what you've done; I'm simply saying you're not better than most other people.

I do NOT have the view that I am so much better than this generation (whatever you mean by "this" generation - I guess you mean "your" generation). The jury's still out on that generation when it comes to how they plan for their later years (50 plus) and how they structure their lives for the long haul.

You are missing MY point - which is that in our twenties and thirties, generally speaking, we didn't have anything more than those who are in those generations now. In fact, we often had less when it comes to material things. What ticks me off is when our hard work and sacrifices are dismissed or even denied, with some sort of judgmental, "righteous indignation" and Generation Xers and Yers claim that we've just been lucky, and have in fact "ruined" their chances somehow or that now our hard earned assets suddenly need to be redistributed in order to be "fair" - when in fact, when we look at people in their twenties and thirties, we clearly see that they don't "have" any less than we did at their age.

You are also totally fixated on this fact that I stayed home with my kids as if that meant that we were well off, when I've clearly stated our financial situation (living under the poverty line) and the significant and difficult sacrifices that entailed - sacrifices you clearly state that you personally are unwilling to make.

You also continue to imply or state that I am retiring at age 50. I've refuted that (because it is not true) repeatedly, but you're still on that tear.

So - since - as usual - you continue to intentionally twist my words, I am officially done discussing this with you. It always comes to this with you, mball, so I'm not surprised. I don't put people on ignore, but if I did, you'd definitely make that list, due to your dishonest style of diatribe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are missing MY point - which is that in our twenties and thirties, generally speaking, we didn't have anything more than those who are in those generations now. In fact, we often had less when it comes to material things. What ticks me off is when our hard work and sacrifices are dismissed or even denied, with some sort of judgmental, "righteous indignation" and Generation Xers and Yers claim that we've just been lucky, and have in fact "ruined" their chances somehow or that now our hard earned assets suddenly need to be redistributed in order to be "fair" - when in fact, when we look at people in their twenties and thirties, we clearly see that they don't "have" any less than we did at their age.

Don't worry, we'll be on the receiving end in time.

 

[Magic Man]

So - since - as usual - you continue to intentionally twist my words, I am officially done discussing this with you. It always comes to this with you, mball, so I'm not surprised. I don't put people on ignore, but if I did, you'd definitely make that list, due to your dishonest style of diatribe.

1) Then I just don't want to hear any more about how awesome you've been with money and hard work, and how so many other people aren't that awesome.

2) It does generally come to this, because I try to break down your diatribes and get to the real matter, and that doesn't go over well.

3) Quite funny you accusing me of dishonest diatribes. I'm not that one who goes off on tangents every which way, and posts 6-paragraph posts of which only 1 paragraph has any relevance to the conversation.

But I digress. This is all fine, if, as you claim, you realize that the younger generations are no better off than you were, and that they're no different from your generation. Some of them are good with money, and some aren't. The major difference is the price of things like housing compared to middle-class incomes.