The top 10% of earners—households making about $250,000 a year or more—are splurging on everything from vacations to designer handbags, buoyed by big gains in stocks, real estate and other assets.
Those consumers now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.
The top-level post uses a gift link. When it runs out, there is an archived copy of the article.
Wrong. We can all choose to live and appreciate more modest lives.
I haven’t eaten at a restaurant or bought a video game in years, for example. If more people appreciated what they have instead of always wanting more, these problems would be solved overnight.
The housing market is complete bullshit, but workers also have themselves to blame for accepting renting as normal. We need to discourage renting and encourage ownership. Unfortunately, in order to do that people need to be willing to live more modest lifestyles outside of major cities. Supply and demand doesn’t go away just because we want it to.
Its not the workers who are to blame. Its the folks who aspires to live on “passive income” who used housing as a vehicle to steal wealth from the younger generations. I finished high school during the GFC and everything about the housing market has been fucked since then.
No, workers absolutely bear some of the blame. They choose to go along with consumerism and attack anyone who goes against it.
Mate, I have an electrical engineering degree and work for a big chip design company. Wages have stagnated to the point where I can never afford afford to buy a house, and rent eats nearly half my wages. I live a modest life and the only time I travelled was when I was working full time in Europe. Never been on a holiday. There’s literally nothing I could have done to fix that except find a squat to live, or put up with share houses into my thirties. No family I can live with. Its out of many peoples control. The house I rent is valued at 1.2 million in Melbourne. It was 370k 15 years ago.
A house where? In a suburb for $250,000+? You know you can buy houses for <$100k, right? Some people’s cars cost more than my house, but I don’t need more.
Yeah, you’re part of the problem. You need to be willing a more modest lifestyle. Ask yourself this, if you need more, how do others survive with significantly less? They probably don’t live in major cities, for one. If you think you’re entitled to live in a major city, then you’re part of the problem.
You are commenting from an American perspective. There are no houses in Australian capital cities for less than 100k. And there are no job opportunities for many professions outside the capital cities.
Is there any room for ya’ll to spread out and build more?
That’s not how jobs work, mi amigo. The more people that live in a given area, the more jobs will be available. You might not get paid as much, but to make the argument that there’s no work or that your job can’t be done remotely is false.
Whatever mate. You don’t know a fucking thing about the job market and housing market in Australia. Get fucked seppo.
Right. Anything to avoid admitting you have some control over your situation.
Ah yes. The American libertarian position. If you find an affordable rental in Australia during a housing crisis let me know.
I’m definitely not a libertarian.
We have a lot of room though and should spread out. Supply and demand. It won’t be glamorous at first, but we should be investing in making more places livable.
Think about it like this. There are already people who live in those areas that “aren’t good enough” for you. Why should you get more before they do? Doesn’t it make more sense to improve those areas which will increase the supply of livable places?
The fact we never discuss these things shows how far removed we are from wanting actual solutions to our actual problems. It’s why things are the way they are, to be honest.
Wealthiest nation in the world (by a large margin if I may add), regular people are struggling to get by and your solution is “just be more frugal”? I’d imagine if you’re the wealthiest nation in the world you can afford some luxuries but I guess not according to you. Also, if you’re so wealthy where does all that wealth go?
Not quite. We need to get off the consumer bandwagon and learn to appreciate what we have.
People are miserable because they’re constantly trying to “keep up with the jones’” which means wasting money on bullshit they don’t need and have been conditioned to want.
Until the working class learns to appreciate different things, we shouldn’t expect anything to change or improve.
I ended up reading your other comments. You’re out of touch with reality and there’s nothing I could say that others haven’t already brought up, and since you’re not listening to them I doubt you’ll listen to me. So the only thing I can add is that you should start practicing what you’re preaching and get off the internet because the internet is a luxury. Then again I imagine you won’t have a problem justifying your own “wasting money on bullshit” because you can afford it.
Yeah, no.
It’s not an “all-or-nothing” thing. That’s what consumers have been convinced to believe so that they don’t feel guilty about contributing to the problem. You’re doing it right now.
It’s not an all or nothing thing, getting rid of consumerism would definitely be a net positive for society. But your suggestion goes squarely in the same hole as “to solve climate change people need to watch their carbon footprint” while completely ignoring the fact that the biggest polluters are corporations. Or the “to solve microplastics people need to sort their trash” which again completely ignores the fact that a very small part of plastics are recyclable because most corporations won’t spend extra money to make more recyclable plastics (or ideally not use plastics at all).
What you’re suggesting is a net positive in the context of the problem but its not going to solve the problem. Just like with climate change and microplastics your “solution” is just kicking the can down the road instead of actually solving the problem.
No it doesn’t and your analogy only servers to distract and derail because you have no real argument. Try to stay on topic.
You would directly benefit from appreciating a more-modest lifestyle, and so would your finances. Instead, you’re looking for any argument to justify your entitlement and overconsumption because you like nice things too.
It’s okay to be honest about it. Lying and derailing only shows me you’re insecure, which is to be expected.
Look at how much effort you’re putting into arguing against spreading out. This is the cultural problem.
And you’re proving my point about this being a waste of time. But that’s fine. It’s fine if you get so riled up that you need to call me a liar and insecure and claiming I want to derail whatever soapbox you’re on. I don’t care because at the end of the day I’m not the one telling minimum wage workers, who can’t afford to save money, that all they need to do is just save more money. Unlike you I know what being poor means, which is why I know what you’re saying is compete garbage. But hey, don’t let me stop you from letting everyone know what you are.
You’re not a minimum wage worker, bub. This is what I mean by why should you get more before others who have less?
Why should we improve your lifestyle in the big city because you’re “too good” to accept a more modest and affordable lifestyle outside of one? You’re not willing to invest in making more places livable and improving the lives of others, you’re just looking for ways to justify your entitlement to have as much as you can get.
It’s not a big surprise. I don’t expect more from people like you at this point. I would be foolish if I did.