17 Comments
User's avatar
Pnoldguy's avatar

The only problem with this entire post is that the people who should be reading and thinking about it ...... won't, because it's not on TikTok!

John Hawkins's avatar

You're probably right. It would also need to be about 9 second long somehow. Lol

MD Streeter's avatar

There's really nothing wrong with enjoying a $28 lunch every now and then, even if you should be saving that money. Why not treat yourself once or twice a month? ...just not every day. That adds up fast.

The mentality that the Boomers are keeping you down is just as harmful as every other vicimhood mentality. HOWEVER, saving money is difficult when inflation outpaces your savings account's interest rate (even the high yield ones and the CDs in my area). $10,000 today is not worth what $10,000 was worth in 2010, and the interest on that 2010 $10K did NOT keep up with inflation. A lot of policies you and I agree upon would fix this, of course. It's just not entirely untrue that the uphill battle to wealth (or just comfort) is a bit steeper than it's been in the past.

Urs Broderick Furrer's avatar

I agree, partially. There’s one thing that I believe this argument ignores. Because of invention and productivity, much of what we enjoy is already baked into life and gets left out of questions relating to cost and inflation.

Is your phone more expensive than 40 years ago? Sure, but add up all the saved time for not having to go to libraries to look things up, not driving to stores to buy everything you need or want, or movie theaters concert venues to be entertained.

How much cheaper is everything you can buy on amazon? Significantly. Add to that intangibles like cleaner air, water, safer streets, etc., and life at the same inflation adjusted rate is better in almost every respect.

So, while $10,000 today may not be technically worth what it was forty years ago, it is when you step back and look at it from 30,000 foot macro analysis.

MD Streeter's avatar

Thank you, that's a very good point. I should have remembered opportunity cost, but econ 101 was more than 25 years ago.

David's avatar

When I moved to Northern Virginia in 1981, the inflation rate was in double digits, and remained so for another three years.

Today's inflation rate is LOWER than what inflation dropped down to after 1984.

And while the Federal government increased the General Schedule--civil service pay--every year, the increase was always less than inflation.

MD Streeter's avatar

I'm willing to bet that actual inflation under Biden was more than what they reported, and I wouldn't bet against it being higher than what was experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

David's avatar

Really? Prove it.

At its peak, the inflation rate was just under TWENTY PERCENT in 1979.

Your assertion is untethered to the facts.

MD Streeter's avatar

Government-reported inflation at its peak was officially 7.8% in 2022 or 2023 (I forget and I'm not checking which year, the other year was over 5% for sure, officially). To get to that number they deliberately ignored entire sectors of the economy in order to keep it from the much higher numbers it actually was. Everyone saw it when they went to the grocery store. Things were up 50-100% in price, and if the price did not increase the size of the product decreased. Gas prices and housing prices went up dramatically (gas thanks to Biden-era restrictions). In my county, housing prices doubled between 2019 and 2021, something that is not limited to my county. It's not like I'm hallucinating. Biden (Dem) style policies exacerbated all of this.

So I'm supposed to just trust what the government says? Believe their numbers when my eyes tell me something else entirely when I have to go and actually pay for stuff?

Yeah, yeah, kids these days and all that. Let's not play "who had it worse." Today's kids face different pressure from what I faced as a kid and from what you faced as a kid. That doesn't mean we get to look down on them, belittle them, or minimize them. It would help a lot if small-government conservatism was able to ease the burden of corrupt government and onerous regulations (two big factors in inflation). What they don't need is some old man sitting on his porch in front of a nice house he owns in a nice neighborhood with his two cars parked in his garage sneering at them and belittling their struggles.

David's avatar

You honestly think any of that is different from when I was first in the workforce? If you aren't willing to rely on officially-published figures the discussion is pointless. Anyone can wave their arms and claim the figures aren't right.

Personal experience is not a valid refutation: if you can't show me exactly how the books were cooked, your assertion remains unsubstantiated.

Oh...and we didn't even get a whiff of inflation at current levels until well into the 1990s: a good twenty years after the first oil crisis in 1973 and its attendant supply-side shocks, that largely triggered the "Great Inflation."

Here's one for you: when I bought my first apartment, about two years after starting work, my mortgage rate was *twelve percent*. And that was in 1983, when Reagan and Volcker had *already* spent three years doing their best to squeeze inflation out of the economy. How's that for "personal experience"?

And I'm not sitting on any porch sneering at anyone. I'm living in a modest apartment (maybe 800 sqft) and I'm driving a 2007 model year car that I bought used in 2012.

All I'm pointing out is that none of this is new and that we've all gone through it. And that the notion that seems so popular that this generation has the worst of it and it's somehow all the fault of their parents is delusional.

I grew up in an era when if you complained about how tough life was, your parents--who had survived the Depression--would just laugh in your face. And I had relatives in Belgium who survived the War and the Occupation. They'd be rolling on the floor at all this self-pity.

MD Streeter's avatar

I'm not bothering to read this. Thank you for your time. I'm clocking out of this internet argument.

Urs Broderick Furrer's avatar

All good points. My view is that of course O’Leary’s advice is sound. I’m close to his age and I remember reading somewhere when I was in my 20’s that if you bought lunch every day instead of eating out, you could save something like $50,000 a year. What was true then is true now.

Does this mean these whiny know nothings will listen? Nope. But you know what? That’s not my problem because, like you, I don’t believe a time is entitled to anything. You want food, housing, an expensive phone, and vacations? Cool. Go buy or rent them. You want respect? Earn it.

David's avatar

I can tell you for a fact that I spent more than half my income--and a LOT more than half my paycheck--on "basic necessities" when I first went to work in Northern Virginia in 1981. My annual income was $15,922--funny how you remember these things, ain't it?--or about $1300/month. Of course a goodly chunk of that was siphoned off even before I got my paycheck.

I was paying $365/month in rent, which IIRC was around one-third of my net income after withholdings. So my net take-home pay must have been around $1000/month. Figure about $10/day for food, so $300/month. Since I worked in an office environment back in the days when they expected you to show up in a clean shirt and a pressed suit--or at least, jacket, tie, and nice slacks--dry-cleaning and laundered and ironed shirts were an additional cost--let's call it $10/week.

My phone bill was around $30-40/month IIRC, and my utilities bill was another $30-40/month. So all in the "basic necessities" were around $750/month out of around $1000/month take-home.

Yet somehow I survived. I even managed to go to the movies every weekend--$4-5/week--and occasionally, I'd even take the train or the air-shuttle to visit my family and friends in New York.