If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Americans say they are less frugal than they were a few years ago, are now finally buying those luxuries they haven't been able to afford since 2007, like food, clothing, gasoline   (usatoday.com) divider line 49
    More: Followup, Americans, ORC International, gas  
•       •       •

656 clicks; posted to Business » on 20 May 2013 at 9:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-20 09:38:13 AM
I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?  Yeah, it's easier just to complain later on about how unfair the economy is.
 
2013-05-20 09:48:30 AM

RumsfeldsReplacement: I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?


To be fair, saving money is not the best thing to do for the economy.

Spending it is.
 
2013-05-20 09:49:49 AM
People are able to enjoy more evenings out.  Comments in this thread will explain why this is bad.
 
2013-05-20 10:02:18 AM

Rapmaster2000: People are able to enjoy more evenings out.  Comments in this thread will explain why this is bad.


It's bad enough that the poors have refrigerators "given" to them by 0bama, paid for by MY tax dollars.

Now I have to rub shoulders with the riffraff at the Brio Tuscan Grille?  Disgusting.

Listen, you jerks.  Market segmentation exists for a reason.  Eat at your damn Fazoli's and stop trying to pretend you're one of the elite.
 
2013-05-20 10:06:58 AM
So it is trickling down now.
 
2013-05-20 10:13:02 AM
I know it's horribly callous to say, but I almost wish the financial collapse and resulting recession had been deeper and more severe. I mean, bad enough to instil some semblance of Depression-era frugality on Americans. (Not to the extent of heating our pork and beans in the oven by the heat of the pilot light for 10 hours and dipping our bread crusts in lard frugal, but maybe darning our socks frugal.) Yes, I know that's bad for the kind of economy we run around these parts, but we've gotten too stupid as a nation to be allowed to handle our own money. If we were a college student, our mom would already have turned off our credit card for our own good. If we as a people didn't waste so much, we might be better off. Yes, again I know that would require an entire reboot of our economy and would probably be a disaster in the real world, but it's a nice fantasy.
 
2013-05-20 10:21:19 AM
Yup Im rolling in it now. Gonna get my plumbing done in solid gold pipes wooo hoo that leak is gone. And I jsut spent $52 on getting a new heating coil for my oven. But hey the roomate paid her rent this month yay me!
 
2013-05-20 10:23:21 AM

TopoGigo: I know it's horribly callous to say, but I almost wish the financial collapse and resulting recession had been deeper and more severe. I mean, bad enough to instil some semblance of Depression-era frugality on Americans. (Not to the extent of heating our pork and beans in the oven by the heat of the pilot light for 10 hours and dipping our bread crusts in lard frugal, but maybe darning our socks frugal.) Yes, I know that's bad for the kind of economy we run around these parts, but we've gotten too stupid as a nation to be allowed to handle our own money. If we were a college student, our mom would already have turned off our credit card for our own good. If we as a people didn't waste so much, we might be better off. Yes, again I know that would require an entire reboot of our economy and would probably be a disaster in the real world, but it's a nice fantasy.


My generation seems to have been affected pretty deeply. It's just rather than saving $0.10 by spending a half hour sewing up old socks, we're not buying houses. Or we're driving old cars for an extra few years.

Depression-era frugality isn't cost effective, particularly because of the internet. It's more efficient and costs about the same to buy clothes and furniture second hand than it does to repair your own. Better to save money on large purchases than waste a lot of time pinching a dollar here or there.
 
2013-05-20 10:24:00 AM

RumsfeldsReplacement: I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?  Yeah, it's easier just to complain later on about how unfair the economy is.


Aside from a basic emergency fund, what sort of idiot would save their money right now?

The fact is, saving isn't in the best interests of most people. The interest rates are obscenely low (gotta get that credit flowing so people can buy! buy! buy! and help the rich people get back what they lost in the downturn, after all) that putting your money in any sort of traditional saving account is a surefire way to get poorer. Better to just maintain an emergency fund and either invest the rest or just blow it before the small amount of inflation we have takes it away from you.

Which is part of the reason I'm opposed to things like TARP. It's not that it can't do what it's aim is, it's that what it's aim is is wrong. The economic policy in this country seems to be designed exclusively to constantly funnel money from the middle and lower classes up into corporations. Which is fun for everyone while things are going well but virtually guarantees catastrophe when you hit a big slowdown like we had in 2007-2010.

Like everything else we do in America, heaven forfend common sense. Can't just have a balanced, sensible approach, gotta go full bore in one direction or the other, because fark a reasonable middle ground...
 
2013-05-20 10:31:03 AM
Everyone here that believes in the myth that Americans now spend money more frivolously that they did in the past should read The Two Income Trap, I used to as well and the book completely turns that logic on its face with hard data.
 
2013-05-20 10:35:50 AM
They can speak for themselves; I'm as cheap as ever.  And I think a lot of people are too.  There's a reason "Thrift Shop" was a huge hit.
 
2013-05-20 10:44:30 AM

skozlaw: RumsfeldsReplacement: I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?  Yeah, it's easier just to complain later on about how unfair the economy is.

Aside from a basic emergency fund, what sort of idiot would save their money right now?

The fact is, saving isn't in the best interests of most people. The interest rates are obscenely low (gotta get that credit flowing so people can buy! buy! buy! and help the rich people get back what they lost in the downturn, after all) that putting your money in any sort of traditional saving account is a surefire way to get poorer. Better to just maintain an emergency fund and either invest the rest or just blow it before the small amount of inflation we have takes it away from you.

Which is part of the reason I'm opposed to things like TARP. It's not that it can't do what it's aim is, it's that what it's aim is is wrong. The economic policy in this country seems to be designed exclusively to constantly funnel money from the middle and lower classes up into corporations. Which is fun for everyone while things are going well but virtually guarantees catastrophe when you hit a big slowdown like we had in 2007-2010.

Like everything else we do in America, heaven forfend common sense. Can't just have a balanced, sensible approach, gotta go full bore in one direction or the other, because fark a reasonable middle ground...


I consider investing money to be saving.  That is a wonderful LONG TERM decision.  Certainly better than blowing it on $9.50 sandwiches every day or whatever else people do.
 
2013-05-20 11:44:59 AM

Ishkur: To be fair, saving money is not the best thing to do for the economy.

Spending it is.


One of these days I'm going to have to teach you guys about why capital is important in a capitalist society.

/Being a consumerist laborer is pretty much the exact opposite of what you should be doing
 
2013-05-20 11:49:42 AM

Ishkur: RumsfeldsReplacement: I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?

To be fair, saving money is not the best thing to do for the economy.

Spending it is.


I just bought a car. And I can still afford to save money.

Am I doing it wrong?
 
2013-05-20 11:55:39 AM

Beta Tested: Everyone here that believes in the myth that Americans now spend money more frivolously that they did in the past should read The Two Income Trap, I used to as well and the book completely turns that logic on its face with hard data.


That's why I have 3 jobs'
 
2013-05-20 12:26:39 PM
Oh, man. I would KILL to have enough money for food!

I really miss it.
 
2013-05-20 01:06:10 PM
Notice the economy failed when the demorats gained power. First the congress, then the presidency and its been a mess ever since. Thanks liberals!
 
2013-05-20 01:24:57 PM
Yep, this last recession was a tough one. Had to get 100k miles out of the old Mercedes, instead of the usual 50K and trade for a new one every 3 years. Had to put off new deck liner for the pool, as well. And the poor kids, having to drive a Honda Accord at Harvard, instead of BMW, ouch! How embarrassing for them.
 
2013-05-20 02:12:04 PM

Pick: Yep, this last recession was a tough one. Had to get 100k miles out of the old Mercedes, instead of the usual 50K and trade for a new one every 3 years. Had to put off new deck liner for the pool, as well. And the poor kids, having to drive a Honda Accord at Harvard, instead of BMW, ouch! How embarrassing for them.


Deck liner!?  Mine is concrete.
 
2013-05-20 02:14:13 PM

jwilson07: Notice the economy failed when the demorats gained power. First the congress, then the presidency and its been a mess ever since. Thanks liberals!


That's how you troll. It's confusing, it's illogical and yet still manages to be infuriating. All in a nifty little package that stinks of Poe's law.
 
2013-05-20 02:25:10 PM

RumsfeldsReplacement: I consider investing money to be saving.  That is a wonderful LONG TERM decision.  Certainly better than blowing it on $9.50 sandwiches every day or whatever else people do.


It's all about balance.  Many investments have far better rates of return than savings accounts and relatively low risk, but it's always a good idea to have a cash reserve that's highly liquid, and that can cover at least a few month's worth of expenses, and won't disappear when you really need it (if you lose our job due to a market crash, that crash is likely to adversely affect your investments as well).

/the two best investments I ever made were TSLA and a pressure cooker
 
kab
2013-05-20 03:21:55 PM
Americans seem to be fed up with frugality.

Spending less than ever right now, with absolutely no plans to change that.  I guess I'm not a 'murkin.
 
2013-05-20 03:28:04 PM

RumsfeldsReplacement: I consider investing money to be saving


I guess it depends on what you're investing in and I see what you're going for, but I don't think I'd call that saving any more than I'd call it saving if you put that money into trying to start up your own business.

Generally when I think "saving" I don't think "significant potential for having less money than when I started".
 
2013-05-20 03:50:48 PM

Ishkur: RumsfeldsReplacement: I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?

To be fair, saving money is not the best thing to do for the economy.

Spending it is.


to be fair, saving money means more financial stability, more financial stability means more money to spend

unless your goal is for the american populace to only spend on cheap chinese crap and mountain dew
 
2013-05-20 04:22:42 PM

Ishkur: RumsfeldsReplacement: I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?

To be fair, saving money is not the best thing to do for the economy.

Spending it is.


bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt

Capital is necessary.
 
2013-05-20 05:10:37 PM

YixilTesiphon: Capital is necessary.


There's plenty of capital, it's just not doing very much because quite a small group of people has most of it.
 
2013-05-20 05:30:22 PM

RumsfeldsReplacement: skozlaw: RumsfeldsReplacement: I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?  Yeah, it's easier just to complain later on about how unfair the economy is.

Aside from a basic emergency fund, what sort of idiot would save their money right now?

The fact is, saving isn't in the best interests of most people. The interest rates are obscenely low (gotta get that credit flowing so people can buy! buy! buy! and help the rich people get back what they lost in the downturn, after all) that putting your money in any sort of traditional saving account is a surefire way to get poorer. Better to just maintain an emergency fund and either invest the rest or just blow it before the small amount of inflation we have takes it away from you.

Which is part of the reason I'm opposed to things like TARP. It's not that it can't do what it's aim is, it's that what it's aim is is wrong. The economic policy in this country seems to be designed exclusively to constantly funnel money from the middle and lower classes up into corporations. Which is fun for everyone while things are going well but virtually guarantees catastrophe when you hit a big slowdown like we had in 2007-2010.

Like everything else we do in America, heaven forfend common sense. Can't just have a balanced, sensible approach, gotta go full bore in one direction or the other, because fark a reasonable middle ground...

I consider investing money to be saving.  That is a wonderful LONG TERM decision.  Certainly better than blowing it on $9.50 sandwiches every day or whatever else people do.


I'm going to die youngish and poor, but I'll have enjoyed it. Enjoy counting your coins and being smug towards those that don't.
 
2013-05-20 05:31:30 PM

you have pee hands: YixilTesiphon: Capital is necessary.

There's plenty of capital, it's just not doing very much because quite a small group of people has most of it.


As this has been the case since forever, I don't see how we ever advanced as a society.
 
2013-05-20 06:07:54 PM

You're the jerk... jerk: you have pee hands: YixilTesiphon: Capital is necessary.

There's plenty of capital, it's just not doing very much because quite a small group of people has most of it.

As this has been the case since forever, I don't see how we ever advanced as a society.


You know those 1950's that Republicans are always pining for?  A big part of the reason it was an economic boom time is that wealth was distributed more evenly back then--not forced equality a la Leninism, but the difference in wealth between a typical business owner and his employees was much smaller.
 
2013-05-20 07:07:02 PM
So, we're back to where we were in 2007. This will not end well.
 
2013-05-20 07:08:19 PM

TopoGigo: I know it's horribly callous to say, but I almost wish the financial collapse and resulting recession had been deeper and more severe....


Don't worry; it will be. It's not even close to being over, yet.
 
2013-05-20 07:11:11 PM

Ishkur: RumsfeldsReplacement: I suppose actually saving money is out of the question?

To be fair, saving money is not the best thing to do for the economy.

Spending it is.


Over the last 10 years, I've paid off almost all of my debt and increased my savings rate to about 40% of my income, so I'm getting a kick...

Don't come crying to me when the economy tanks again and you're broke while I'm not. It won't be my fault.
 
2013-05-20 07:48:50 PM
I've turned frugality into a way of life and was rewarded with no more debt.
 
2013-05-20 09:01:01 PM

you have pee hands: YixilTesiphon: Capital is necessary.

There's plenty of capital, it's just not doing very much because quite a small group of people has most of it.


Money is a lot like manure.  Spread it around a bit and it can do some good.  Pile it in one place and it stinks to high heaven.
 
2013-05-20 09:33:21 PM

anfrind: You're the jerk... jerk: you have pee hands: YixilTesiphon: Capital is necessary.

There's plenty of capital, it's just not doing very much because quite a small group of people has most of it.

As this has been the case since forever, I don't see how we ever advanced as a society.

You know those 1950's that Republicans are always pining for?  A big part of the reason it was an economic boom time is that wealth was distributed more evenly back then--not forced equality a la Leninism, but the difference in wealth between a typical business owner and his employees was much smaller.


You know those people who talk about how equal things were back in 1950? They are all white.

The gini coefficient isn't much different than 1950 when you look at the underlying data, a large percentage of the low wealth individuals are recent immigrants and young people.
 
2013-05-20 10:56:21 PM

Rapmaster2000: People are able to enjoy more evenings out.  Comments in this thread will explain why this is bad.


TIPPING THREAD!
 
kab
2013-05-21 02:12:57 AM

DrPainMD: Over the last 10 years, I've paid off almost all of my debt and increased my savings rate to about 40% of my income, so I'm getting a kick...

Don't come crying to me when the economy tanks again and you're broke while I'm not. It won't be my fault.


The point you seem to be missing is that a high % of the population acting in such a manner would be bad.
 
2013-05-21 06:55:21 AM

DrPainMD: So, we're back to where we were in 2007. This will not end well.


Yep with no meaningful regulations or legislation to prevent another crash. You have people in the mainstream white knighting bernanke's quantitative easing in the msm (not surprising). It's going to be a fun rocketship to the bottom.
 
jgi
2013-05-21 08:18:44 AM

kab: DrPainMD: Over the last 10 years, I've paid off almost all of my debt and increased my savings rate to about 40% of my income, so I'm getting a kick...

Don't come crying to me when the economy tanks again and you're broke while I'm not. It won't be my fault.

The point you seem to be missing is that a high % of the population acting in such a manner would be bad.


Even if your point were true (which it is not -- rather, it would bring a needed correction), isn't it still reasonable to say that it would be good for you ("you" being any farker reading this right now) to live frugally, save your money, and save as much of your pay as possible? So, DrPainMD's point is valid... you should save your money or you will be broke again when the next inevitable crash hits.
 
2013-05-21 08:28:17 AM

jgi: kab: DrPainMD: Over the last 10 years, I've paid off almost all of my debt and increased my savings rate to about 40% of my income, so I'm getting a kick...

Don't come crying to me when the economy tanks again and you're broke while I'm not. It won't be my fault.

The point you seem to be missing is that a high % of the population acting in such a manner would be bad.

Even if your point were true (which it is not -- rather, it would bring a needed correction), isn't it still reasonable to say that it would be good for you ("you" being any farker reading this right now) to live frugally, save your money, and save as much of your pay as possible? So, DrPainMD's point is valid... you should save your money or you will be broke again when the next inevitable crash hits.


DrPainMD's point is not valid. If everyone tried to live as frugally as possible the economy would crash long before anyone could save up a decent amount. If everyone cancelled their cable, quit eating out, quit going to movies, quit going on vacation, ext, a whole lot of business would have to close due to lack of customers.

Hoarding money is never good for the economy in the macro sense.
 
2013-05-21 08:29:51 AM

Franco: You have people in the mainstream white knighting bernanke's quantitative easing in the msm (not surprising).


This was subtle enough because the words are separate in the sentence that I can't tell if you're trolling or serious. Did you even notice you said mainstream MSM?
 
jgi
2013-05-21 09:01:41 AM

max_pooper: jgi: kab: DrPainMD: Over the last 10 years, I've paid off almost all of my debt and increased my savings rate to about 40% of my income, so I'm getting a kick...

Don't come crying to me when the economy tanks again and you're broke while I'm not. It won't be my fault.

The point you seem to be missing is that a high % of the population acting in such a manner would be bad.

Even if your point were true (which it is not -- rather, it would bring a needed correction), isn't it still reasonable to say that it would be good for you ("you" being any farker reading this right now) to live frugally, save your money, and save as much of your pay as possible? So, DrPainMD's point is valid... you should save your money or you will be broke again when the next inevitable crash hits.

DrPainMD's point is not valid. If everyone tried to live as frugally as possible the economy would crash long before anyone could save up a decent amount. If everyone cancelled their cable, quit eating out, quit going to movies, quit going on vacation, ext, a whole lot of business would have to close due to lack of customers.

Hoarding money is never good for the economy in the macro sense.


I think you missed my point. Supposing you are right in your prediction. Isn't it then a good idea for the average farker, you or me, to save and live frugally etc etc etc? So that we personally get out ahead. You get out of debt. You save your money. You become a capitalist. Not everybody.
 
2013-05-21 09:09:23 AM

jgi: max_pooper: jgi: kab: DrPainMD: Over the last 10 years, I've paid off almost all of my debt and increased my savings rate to about 40% of my income, so I'm getting a kick...

Don't come crying to me when the economy tanks again and you're broke while I'm not. It won't be my fault.

The point you seem to be missing is that a high % of the population acting in such a manner would be bad.

Even if your point were true (which it is not -- rather, it would bring a needed correction), isn't it still reasonable to say that it would be good for you ("you" being any farker reading this right now) to live frugally, save your money, and save as much of your pay as possible? So, DrPainMD's point is valid... you should save your money or you will be broke again when the next inevitable crash hits.

DrPainMD's point is not valid. If everyone tried to live as frugally as possible the economy would crash long before anyone could save up a decent amount. If everyone cancelled their cable, quit eating out, quit going to movies, quit going on vacation, ext, a whole lot of business would have to close due to lack of customers.

Hoarding money is never good for the economy in the macro sense.

I think you missed my point. Supposing you are right in your prediction. Isn't it then a good idea for the average farker, you or me, to save and live frugally etc etc etc? So that we personally get out ahead. You get out of debt. You save your money. You become a capitalist. Not everybody.


You could also just rob banks. You would gets lots of money with very little work.

Actions of an individual that create personal gain can be harmful to society.
 
2013-05-21 11:33:19 AM

YixilTesiphon: bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt
Capital is necessary.


We have enough capital right now. In fact, we have too much capital. You guys have to stop worrying about capital. Capital is the one thing we have an overabundance of and can't get rid of. The nation's corporations are sitting on $1.3 trillion worth of reserves.

Capital is not the problem.
 
2013-05-21 11:38:11 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: The gini coefficient isn't much different than 1950 when you look at the underlying data,


You do understand the Gini Coefficient is on a scale of 1 to 100, right? ...so there are only 100 data points? So when you move, say, from the mid 30s (where it was in the 1950s) to the mid 40s (where it is now) is HUGE.. it has moved 10% along the entire scale of something where even a 1 or 2% difference can mean the difference between feast and famine.

But hey, you're on par with China now, so that's something to be proud of.
 
2013-05-21 12:01:01 PM

Ishkur: You're the jerk... jerk: The gini coefficient isn't much different than 1950 when you look at the underlying data,

You do understand the Gini Coefficient is on a scale of 1 to 100, right? ...so there are only 100 data points? So when you move, say, from the mid 30s (where it was in the 1950s) to the mid 40s (where it is now) is HUGE.. it has moved 10% along the entire scale of something where even a 1 or 2% difference can mean the difference between feast and famine.

But hey, you're on par with China now, so that's something to be proud of.


I understand how the char works, and a move from 38 to 44 over 50 years is actually relatively small. (Sweden has grown by more than that since 1980)

If you could read a chart you would see we have always been less equal than china, it is China growing economically that has closed the gap. Also, your feast vs. famine comment makes no sense. There is generally a positive correlation between Gini coefficient and economic growth in developed countries.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:29 PM
Actually, there are a number of things with the Gini coefficient that I don't like, but it is still a better barometer for economic health than, say, GDP.

You're the jerk... jerk: If you could read a chart you would see we have always been less equal than china,


The issue is not equality, the issue is disparity of affluence. Two entirely different things that I would have been happy to explain to you if you decided not to be a condescending douchebag.
 
2013-05-21 12:43:49 PM

Ishkur: Actually, there are a number of things with the Gini coefficient that I don't like, but it is still a better barometer for economic health than, say, GDP.

You're the jerk... jerk: If you could read a chart you would see we have always been less equal than china,

The issue is not equality, the issue is disparity of affluence. Two entirely different things that I would have been happy to explain to you if you decided not to be a condescending douchebag.


How is it a better barometer for economic health than GDP? Not that GDP doesn't have issues, but GINI says nothing about health. As life has gotten better in China, Gini has grown. As immigrants move into a country (generally correlated to higher standards of living), Gini grows. Large, diverse countries will naturally have larger Gini coefficients than smaller homogeneous countries.
 
2013-05-21 09:32:33 PM
Thinking about my parents, that tried to do everything right and got completely boned through the course of 2006-2010, I can see why people might be less concerned with living frugally than spending it while they've got it.

My parents both had their jobs shipped to Central America after working for the company for a combined 60+ years. Six months severance and still years to go before they could draw their 401ks without penalty. They were forced to pull their retirement savings out when stocks were at their lowest point in decades in order to prevent going through bankruptcy.

So I can understand how a younger person or younger family could see a situation like that and feel that both the job market and the stock market have the potential to be so erratic that "What's the use in putting your money away if it's just going to fritter away and be wasted by the time you actually plan on using it?" It begs the question. What stability do you really have thirty years down the road in terms of your personal economy?

I'm not so cynical, and I realize that my parents (and a large number of lower middle class families with parents in their early to late fifties) really caught the ultimate shaft in regard to the Great Recession combination of rock-bottom job stability (Especially for aging red state blue collars) and a tanking stock market, but I imagine the feeling persists among many people around my age.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report