Dies Irae said:

---

Real wage stagnation is real. Technology makes it to where you can Jack your profitability through the roof by spending a lot of money up front, without needing to pay a specialized employee. So it is "greed" in the sense that if a factory owner automates his machine and his warehouse he spends a ton of money up front, but then keeps all the savings from the labor over the years.

Technology creates a smaller number of higher paid jobs. Unfortunately when the automobile was invented there wasn't a lot of places for the horses that used to pull the carriages to go.

---

This just isn't true. The car industry has created an order of magnitude more jobs than horses ever did. On top of that, you could start making money immediately working for a car manufacturer. Before that you had to apprentice under a blacksmith for years before you could hang up your own shingle and start making money.

I know this board thinks AI is going to put us all out of a job, but using the auto industry as an example of that isn't making your case.

The wage stagnation is a real thing, and government regulations putting people out of jobs is a real thing. Advancing technologies only creates more opportunities for us though, not less.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

In 1908, a new Model T cost $825. In 2023 dollars, that would be $27,400.

Average wage was $0.22 an hour, so average person would have to work 3,750 hours to buy one, or about 2 years salary.

At minimum wage today, one would have to work 2,759 hours for a $20,000 car, that is light years better than a Model T.

Average wage in the US right now is $28.96, so you could earn that car in 690 hours.

---

What were taxes in 1908?

I have a friend who owns a repair shop. Business is real good. People are going to repair their car longer than they would of 5-10 years ago.

TAMU1990 said:

---

I have a friend who owns a repair shop. Business is real good. People are going to repair their car longer than they would of 5-10 years ago.

---

I've had a couple repairmen tell me that the auto industry was trying to discourage parts after a certain number of years to get people to buy new, more efficient cars.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Real wage stagnation is real. Technology makes it to where you can Jack your profitability through the roof by spending a lot of money up front, without needing to pay a specialized employee. So it is "greed" in the sense that if a factory owner automates his machine and his warehouse he spends a ton of money up front, but then keeps all the savings from the labor over the years.

Technology creates a smaller number of higher paid jobs. Unfortunately when the automobile was invented there wasn't a lot of places for the horses that used to pull the carriages to go.

---

This just isn't true. The car industry has created an order of magnitude more jobs than horses ever did. On top of that, you could start making money immediately working for a car manufacturer. Before that you had to apprentice under a blacksmith for years before you could hang up your own shingle and start making money.

I know this board thinks AI is going to put us all out of a job, but using the auto industry as an example of that isn't making your case.

The wage stagnation is a real thing, and government regulations putting people out of jobs is a real thing. Advancing technologies only creates more opportunities for us though, not less.

---

How did the horses fare?



It's a boomer pipe dream that blue and grey collar workers can instantly grasp the technical ability to make the switch from driving a truck for a living to programming but it's not the case, this is similar with machinists and warehouse personnel; I can speak to those two positions specifically with experience.

The rust belt is rusty for a reason, the manufacturing jobs left, and the people who used to work at the "plant" weren't able to find paying work. It's not that they were lazy, hell they'd worked hard dangerous manual labor for decades; it's that they had no options.

Take a drilling rig for example; they're now being automated. Find a job for the roughnecks who make nearly $100k a year with their skill set which boils down to "physically fit, willing to work dangerous job"

Boomer pipe dream?! Get out with that boomer trash talk.

It's white liberals. Dementia Joe is the one who originally made the dumbass claim. He's one of the biggest idiots to ever hold that office.

Dies Irae said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Real wage stagnation is real. Technology makes it to where you can Jack your profitability through the roof by spending a lot of money up front, without needing to pay a specialized employee. So it is "greed" in the sense that if a factory owner automates his machine and his warehouse he spends a ton of money up front, but then keeps all the savings from the labor over the years.

Technology creates a smaller number of higher paid jobs. Unfortunately when the automobile was invented there wasn't a lot of places for the horses that used to pull the carriages to go.

---

This just isn't true. The car industry has created an order of magnitude more jobs than horses ever did. On top of that, you could start making money immediately working for a car manufacturer. Before that you had to apprentice under a blacksmith for years before you could hang up your own shingle and start making money.

I know this board thinks AI is going to put us all out of a job, but using the auto industry as an example of that isn't making your case.

The wage stagnation is a real thing, and government regulations putting people out of jobs is a real thing. Advancing technologies only creates more opportunities for us though, not less.

---

How did the horses fare?



It's a boomer pipe dream that blue and grey collar workers can instantly grasp the technical ability to make the switch from driving a truck for a living to programming but it's not the case, this is similar with machinists and warehouse personnel; I can speak to those two positions specifically with experience.

The rust belt is rusty for a reason, the manufacturing jobs left, and the people who used to work at the "plant" weren't able to find paying work. It's not that they were lazy, hell they'd worked hard dangerous manual labor for decades; it's that they had no options.

Take a drilling rig for example; they're now being automated. Find a job for the roughnecks who make nearly $100k a year with their skill set which boils down to "physically fit, willing to work dangerous job"

---

Well first thing is that shifting the argument to how many horses are around is not what we were originally discussing. You were arguing that the car killed jobs. It certainly did, but it created an order of magnitude more jobs than ever existed if it wasn't around.

I agree with you that those guys don't have the technical ability to program right now. I think AI will actually help with that. If we set up the right parameters (major issue right now), AI will be to programming what the calculator was to math. You can now use a less intelligent person to fulfill the same role, while increasing productivity. Most people will always want a human technician to verify the work, just like we currently do with computers.

Whether or not that is a "fulfilling" job compared to their old physical labor job is of course a completely different conversation. I tend to agree with the idea that we are evolving technologically faster than our brains, so the world we are creating isn't always suited for us psychologically.

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

I keep thinking this, and it scares me. We do relatively well compared to most of the population (not a high bar), and are feeling the rising costs of everything and cutting certain costs in order to be able to save more each month. How are people getting by? Especially those who are over-extended with ridiculous car/truck notes who have been living beyond their means for years?

I don't understand how so many are getting by seemingly just fine. At some point this has to boil over.

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

Picked my younger boy up from football practice yesterday. Was driving by a new development a few miles from our house. They had just put up this huge sign that says "starting in the mid $300's". I'm looking at these houses they've just built or are building and not one of them is bigger or appears better than the new home the wife and I bought in North Austin, 23 years ago almost to the day, for $132k.

Captain Obvious moment is that wages/compensation are pretty much only slightly better than they were two decades ago, when my wife and I could easily afford our first home and then some.

This is not good.

Zarathustra said:

---

Growing up I don't know anyone who bought a new car. All the middle class people I knew drove older used cars. Some were still a one car household, but that was ending quickly.

Middle class families in the 80s were middle class because they were frugal. And didn't live paycheck to paycheck buying new homes and vehicles on payments.

---

Well to be fair, there was a time when you could buy a 2-3 year old used car at a significant discount. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Buying used and keeping cars longer. Why isn't this still an option? It makes no freaking sense to me. I make well over 200k a year and the goal is a minimum of 10 years if I buy a new car, and that includes the 11 year old bmw sitting in the garage right now (and it's stupid to keep a German car out of warranty, but I just love the damn thing, and it's hard to swallow the cost of a new one). It almost seems like the less people make the more wasteful they are with cars. Of course, that applies to everything else people buy. A new iPhone every year (as I stare at my 4 year phone)? Yep. A $6 cup of coffee every day? Yep. Eating out everyday? Yep. If you don't make much, then buy used and keep it longer! Get a boring used Corolla and be happy with it until you can afford something better. Don't get a new Lexus the second the bank approves that 15% 8 year lone, because you "want it."

I've had this discussion with people before, both younger and older than me (I'm 40 for reference). Building wealth isn't a goal anymore. It's all about the moment. It's a strange attitude to me, as the idea of spending every dime in my bank account as fast as I get it has never made sense to me, even when I was making $5.15 an hour. I guess it's a different mindset. For me, from what I've built, as an example, I could've lived comfortably all my work years spending everything I make, but never be able to retire. But I could buy whatever I wanted, even if I already have something just as good. Or live relatively comfortably, but with less "stuff" and keeping things longer, saving and accumulating wealth, and retiring younger and living very comfortably thereafter. Which is exactly what I did. I don't mind being lame and frugal for 10-15 years in exchange of having to work less and enjoy life living off accumulated wealth for the rest of my life. Different priorities, but just doesn't make sense to me…

Just wait til electric cars are forced on us as the only option, when vehicles will cost even more new, and used cars have a range of 50 miles unless you spend an additional $10k for a new battery pack. The used market will not actually be an option once that happens and poor people will be REALLY screwed.

Keep your gas vehicles as long as possible folks.

Urban Ag said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

Picked my younger boy up from football practice yesterday. Was driving by a new development a few miles from our house. They had just put up this huge sign that says "starting in the mid $300's". I'm looking at these houses they've just built or are building and not one of them is bigger or appears better than the new home the wife and I bought in North Austin, 23 years ago almost to the day, for $132k.

Captain Obvious moment is that wages/compensation are pretty much only slightly better than they were two decades ago, when my wife and I could easily afford our first home and then some.

This is not good.

---

We bought in a solidly lower level upper middle class neighborhood in 2017 for 280k and it seemed like it was at the absolute top of my budget. That same house would probably get 450 to 500k today. When I look at the market today and see homes selling for 280k they are in the working class neighborhoods. Old 3/2s around 2k sq feet. Built in 70s. Run down because the people there aren't paying tens of thousands for renovations. Its the kind if neighborhood my single mom could afford when I was a kid and someplace I wouldn't want to raise my kids. I have absolutely no idea how people are getting ahead today. I am forever grateful I am 10+ years in to my career and chose a profession that has a high floor.

I was 24 when I started college making $16/hrs back in 2007 doing industrial pump service and installation. I cant imagine how life would be had i not made a hard right turn and changed my path in life.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Real wage stagnation is real. Technology makes it to where you can Jack your profitability through the roof by spending a lot of money up front, without needing to pay a specialized employee. So it is "greed" in the sense that if a factory owner automates his machine and his warehouse he spends a ton of money up front, but then keeps all the savings from the labor over the years.

Technology creates a smaller number of higher paid jobs. Unfortunately when the automobile was invented there wasn't a lot of places for the horses that used to pull the carriages to go.

---

This just isn't true. The car industry has created an order of magnitude more jobs than horses ever did. On top of that, you could start making money immediately working for a car manufacturer. Before that you had to apprentice under a blacksmith for years before you could hang up your own shingle and start making money.

I know this board thinks AI is going to put us all out of a job, but using the auto industry as an example of that isn't making your case.

The wage stagnation is a real thing, and government regulations putting people out of jobs is a real thing. Advancing technologies only creates more opportunities for us though, not less.

---

How did the horses fare?



It's a boomer pipe dream that blue and grey collar workers can instantly grasp the technical ability to make the switch from driving a truck for a living to programming but it's not the case, this is similar with machinists and warehouse personnel; I can speak to those two positions specifically with experience.

The rust belt is rusty for a reason, the manufacturing jobs left, and the people who used to work at the "plant" weren't able to find paying work. It's not that they were lazy, hell they'd worked hard dangerous manual labor for decades; it's that they had no options.

Take a drilling rig for example; they're now being automated. Find a job for the roughnecks who make nearly $100k a year with their skill set which boils down to "physically fit, willing to work dangerous job"

---

Well first thing is that shifting the argument to how many horses are around is not what we were originally discussing. You were arguing that the car killed jobs. It certainly did, but it created an order of magnitude more jobs than ever existed if it wasn't around.

I agree with you that those guys don't have the technical ability to program right now. I think AI will actually help with that. If we set up the right parameters (major issue right now), AI will be to programming what the calculator was to math. You can now use a less intelligent person to fulfill the same role, while increasing productivity. Most people will always want a human technician to verify the work, just like we currently do with computers.

Whether or not that is a "fulfilling" job compared to their old physical labor job is of course a completely different conversation. I tend to agree with the idea that we are evolving technologically faster than our brains, so the world we are creating isn't always suited for us psychologically.

---

I was not arguing that the car killed jobs, I was arguing that technology replaces specialized labor with lower paid jobs because technology does most of the work; and that the majority of the profit from the increased efficiency stays at the top.

That less intelligent person you mention will be paid peanuts compared to what the intelligent person who didn't use the calculator was paid. That's what I'm talking about. You don't need to pay a specialized math whiz, when you can hand a dolt a calculator and get more productivity out of them. So what the business owner does is spend the money to buy a bunch of calculators; get rid of the math whizzes, and pay a bunch of dudes $11/hr to use the calculator, while keeping on one Quality Tech to oversee and pocket the additional profit from getting more productivity out of lower paid workers. This is exactly what has happened. Productivity has gone through the roof, real wages are stagnant.

Sea Speed said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

Picked my younger boy up from football practice yesterday. Was driving by a new development a few miles from our house. They had just put up this huge sign that says "starting in the mid $300's". I'm looking at these houses they've just built or are building and not one of them is bigger or appears better than the new home the wife and I bought in North Austin, 23 years ago almost to the day, for $132k.

Captain Obvious moment is that wages/compensation are pretty much only slightly better than they were two decades ago, when my wife and I could easily afford our first home and then some.

This is not good.

---

We bought in a solidly lower level upper middle class neighborhood in 2017 for 280k and it seemed like it was at the absolute top of my budget. That same house would probably get 450 to 500k today. When I look at the market today and see homes selling for 280k they are in the working class neighborhoods. Old 3/2s around 2k sq feet. Built in 70s. Run down because the people there aren't paying tens of thousands for renovations. Its the kind if neighborhood my single mom could afford when I was a kid and someplace I wouldn't want to raise my kids. I have absolutely no idea how people are getting ahead today. I am forever grateful I am 10+ years in to my career and chose a profession that has a high floor.

I was 24 when I started college making $16/hrs back in 2007 doing industrial pump service and installation. I cant imagine how life would be had i not made a hard right turn and changed my path in life.

---

Good on you brother.

I have done about a complete 180 on this topic. My dad and I were talking about it last night. He's almost 79 and I am 49. He's worried about his grandkids and I am, of course, worried about mine. They're priced out before they even really start adult life. It was simply not this way for Gen X or the Boomers. We were pretty easily in a decent new home as young married couples with a mind on investing - by our mid 20's.

This has to be so defeating for Y and Z.

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

There was a survey that dropped saying something like 70% of people earning 170k a year live pay check to pay check and worry about income.

---

There is literally NO WAY that can be true! 70%????????

---

Thats not 70% of Americans, thats 70% of the employed under $170k.

The true number is probably close to 90% of total Americans.

I would bet only 1-in-10 Americans actually try and save money. The rest spend it faster than they make it.

---

50% of Americans literally have nothing (that is $0 for the mathematically challenged) in retirement. The average nest egg for the remaining 50% is $40-80K so I can believe that survey.

Very few people save while the vast majority live paycheck to paycheck regardless of income level.

These stats are why you are going to get the Great Reset because many people are just going to throw in the towel because they can't keep up with their own life. Everyone getting downgraded and operating at the same base subsistence level is going to look good for many. IOW, if I can't live that way then no one else should get to either - make us all equal.

---

The median net worth for those 55-64, those entering retirement age, excluding home equity, is $88k.

$88k!

Over half the country is absolute toast.

---

Holy **** that's frightening! I'm 32 and already well over double that number. My wife and I also make quite a bit less than $175k most years. The biggest advantage we have though is that we live in a very rural town, so the cost of living is pretty cheap. However, we also limit our spending on eating out because we have to drive to another town to be able to eat at a restaurant. That alone makes a huge difference.

Urban Ag said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

Picked my younger boy up from football practice yesterday. Was driving by a new development a few miles from our house. They had just put up this huge sign that says "starting in the mid $300's". I'm looking at these houses they've just built or are building and not one of them is bigger or appears better than the new home the wife and I bought in North Austin, 23 years ago almost to the day, for $132k.

Captain Obvious moment is that wages/compensation are pretty much only slightly better than they were two decades ago, when my wife and I could easily afford our first home and then some.

This is not good.

---

We bought in a solidly lower level upper middle class neighborhood in 2017 for 280k and it seemed like it was at the absolute top of my budget. That same house would probably get 450 to 500k today. When I look at the market today and see homes selling for 280k they are in the working class neighborhoods. Old 3/2s around 2k sq feet. Built in 70s. Run down because the people there aren't paying tens of thousands for renovations. Its the kind if neighborhood my single mom could afford when I was a kid and someplace I wouldn't want to raise my kids. I have absolutely no idea how people are getting ahead today. I am forever grateful I am 10+ years in to my career and chose a profession that has a high floor.

I was 24 when I started college making $16/hrs back in 2007 doing industrial pump service and installation. I cant imagine how life would be had i not made a hard right turn and changed my path in life.

---

Good on you brother.

I have done about a complete 180 on this topic. My dad and I were talking about it last night. He's almost 79 and I am 49. He's worried about his grandkids and I am, of course, worried about mine. They're priced out before they even really start adult life. It was simply not this way for Gen X or the Boomers. We were pretty easily in a decent new home as young married couples with a mind on investing - by our mid 20's.

This has to be so defeating for Y and Z.

---

Well hopefully they stop voting for Democrats that keep causing the problems for them. The market will fix all of this if it is allowed to function. Eventually supply/demand finds a way.

BTW, Boomers got to deal with 18% Interest rates in the '70s for their first homes and Gen X had a brutal job market as we were heavily outnumbered by a large supply of more experienced Boomers that made it so that companies didn't need to hire junior folks much less pay them well. There are also now SO MANY more ways to make extra cash today that weren't available then in terms of investments and side business hustles.

Every generation has challenges. All of us had it easy compared to the generations before that which were dealing with going to war and the Depression where often you were rich if you could eat 3 meals a day. Perspective is everything. When you have an obstacle you just need to find a new way to get around it instead of banging your head against it.

I agree with most this. Not all of it.

I graduated from A&M in spring 97. I had a job lined up a couple months before. I switched employers a year later to a very significant compensation increase. Then I did again about 18 months later. I just don't recall the job market being brutal. Seemed like there was opportunity everywhere. Maybe that is just my recollection of things.

That said, I think what we are seeing right now is more than just "every generation has their challenges". Again, how does one wrap their brain around the fact that my wife and I could get a newly built home in Pflugerville, 23 years ago, for $132k, and now that same home, much further out, is $350k? That's not a challenge, that's about impossible for a young married couple.

That is my concern as a conservative. I want young people to date, fall in love, marry, be faithful, have children, and build lives together. I genuinely want this for young people. It is the way. It's the foundation of happiness and security in life. Owning a decent home in a safe community is paramount to this. IMO of course. I hate that this has become so out of reach for so many young people.

And yes, of course, Y and Z need to grow up and stop voting for dems/liberals.

fightintxag13 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

There was a survey that dropped saying something like 70% of people earning 170k a year live pay check to pay check and worry about income.

---

There is literally NO WAY that can be true! 70%????????

---

Thats not 70% of Americans, thats 70% of the employed under $170k.

The true number is probably close to 90% of total Americans.

I would bet only 1-in-10 Americans actually try and save money. The rest spend it faster than they make it.

---

50% of Americans literally have nothing (that is $0 for the mathematically challenged) in retirement. The average nest egg for the remaining 50% is $40-80K so I can believe that survey.

Very few people save while the vast majority live paycheck to paycheck regardless of income level.

These stats are why you are going to get the Great Reset because many people are just going to throw in the towel because they can't keep up with their own life. Everyone getting downgraded and operating at the same base subsistence level is going to look good for many. IOW, if I can't live that way then no one else should get to either - make us all equal.

---

The median net worth for those 55-64, those entering retirement age, excluding home equity, is $88k.

$88k!

Over half the country is absolute toast.

---

Holy **** that's frightening! I'm 32 and already well over double that number. My wife and I also make quite a bit less than $175k most years. The biggest advantage we have though is that we live in a very rural town, so the cost of living is pretty cheap. However, we also limit our spending on eating out because we have to drive to another town to be able to eat at a restaurant. That alone makes a huge difference.

---

That's great!

One thing that might be good about that stat is delayed SS. Most folks won't be able to take early SS because of the income reduction limit. That means SS will be deferred until full SS for many which means closer to death. That should give the program a bit of breathing room.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

There was a survey that dropped saying something like 70% of people earning 170k a year live pay check to pay check and worry about income.

---

There is literally NO WAY that can be true! 70%????????

---

I don't find it all that surprising. Most people buy more house than they can afford and waste money on a depreciating asset in vehicle purchases, among other examples of not living within their means.

I've mentored a number of young newlyweds and have told them all that just buying less house than you can get approved for, and not chasing after new cars, will eliminate a whole lot of future financial stress.

I'm not surprised that 70% (or even much more than that) of the entire population, live paycheck to paycheck. But 70% of those making $170k??????

I will also add that we currently have 3 vehicles. '16 GMC Sierra that I bought for work and work leases from me. It has nearly 200,000 miles on it. We bought a '13 Buick Enclave in 2020 for $25k for my wife to haul kids around in. I also drive my wife's car that she brought into our marriage to and from work and leave the pickup at work. It's a 2012 Kia Forte that has no trade in value (hail storm totaled it, but it runs fine), and gets nearly twice the mileage my pickup gets.

I've been thinking about starting to look for another car similar to the Forte because it's such a damn good deal for us right now that I think it's the way to go even with my next vehicle purchases. Keep a quality pickup at work and use a beater to commute while still collecting the company lease.

I bought my brand new Chevy Silverado Custom in August 2019 for $27k

My wife wants a new car and her SUV we are looking at is 73k

Stop the insanity.

DTP02 said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

There was a survey that dropped saying something like 70% of people earning 170k a year live pay check to pay check and worry about income.

---

There is literally NO WAY that can be true! 70%????????

---

I don't find it all that surprising. Most people buy more house than they can afford and waste money on a depreciating asset in vehicle purchases, among other examples of not living within their means.

I've mentored a number of young newlyweds and have told them all that just buying less house than you can get approved for, and not chasing after new cars, will eliminate a whole lot of future financial stress.

---

This is the biggest thing that drives me crazy about young and/or lower income people. I see a ton of them driving a nice vehicle and my first thought is, "You already make so little money, and you decide to essentially burn it up as fast as you can by buying one of the most dangerous combinations of an expensive and rapidly depreciating asset in our society.

doubledog said:

---

In other news...
The cost of a big mac meal is pushing 10 bucks...
Thank you Joe Biden.

---

They are keeping supply low to keep prices high

Duh.....

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

I bought my brand new Chevy Silverado Custom in August 2019 for $27k

My wife wants a new car and her SUV we are looking at is 73k

Stop the insanity.

---

Tom

My wife was driving an Infiniti QX60 for about four years. My older boy got his license in Nov 2021 and he started driving the Infiniti (we got him an F150 a few months later but that's not the point). Anyway, I needed to get my wife a new car and we went back to Infiniti, and checked out Lexus as well. On a whim we we stopped by the Acura dealership in north Austin. She test drove an RDX and we absolutely loved it. And, I got off the hook easier than I did years before on the Infiniti. I think the Acura was out the door at about $50k, maybe less. And La Princessa loves it. Sexy, fun, high performance little SUV. Check them out.

Plus I have to keep her in smaller SUVs because she is a terrible driver and tends to hit stationary objects, like my garage doors or other cars.

Urban Ag said:

---

I agree with most this. Not all of it.

I graduated from A&M in spring 97. I had a job lined up a couple months before. I switched employers a year later to a very significant compensation increase. Then I did again about 18 months later. I just don't recall the job market being brutal. Seemed like there was opportunity everywhere. Maybe that is just my recollection of things.

That said, I think what we are seeing right now is more than just "every generation has their challenges". Again, how does one wrap their brain around the fact that my wife and I could get a newly built home in Pflugerville, 23 years ago, for $132k, and now that same home, much further out, is $350k? That's not a challenge, that's about impossible for a young married couple.

That is my concern as a conservative. I want young people to date, fall in love, marry, be faithful, have children, and build lives together. I genuinely want this for young people. It is the way. It's the foundation of happiness and security in life. Owning a decent home in a safe community is paramount to this. IMO of course. I hate that this has become so out of reach for so many young people.

---

By '97 the economy was buzzing and the age gap with the Boomers was getting wider. It was more of an issue with the older Xers. Market was very hard when I graduated in '93, I was one of the few folks I knew who had a job out of school and it was terrible pay and limited opportunity. Companies could be uber selective and internships were very rare as we were coming out of a recession. Late '90s was boom times and I was rolling along by then until 2001 when it ran into a brick wall.

Completely agree with the importance of owning a home and encouraging people to marry and have kids. Life is pretty damn empty for most people otherwise even though it is very hard to see it when you are young. As you age everything else seems so secondary and superficial by comparison. That said there are easy ways to fix this but they aren't going to happen with Democrats running things. They want young people (especially women) to stay single and marry their jobs or become dependent on the government as their husband. They want their votes and to control them. That too will create opportunities for those who are smart enough to look outside the box and take some risks.

Believe me I worry about this as well, I've got 2 sons one in college and one a Junior in HS. I've done all I can to prepare them to be ready to a world that is going to be unfair to them and to overcome obstacles. They are both studying fields that will have strong demand under pretty much any coming scenario and pay well and they both have learned practical skills like welding, machinery, and auto repair on the side. They both have learned how to save and buy their first vehicles as well (though Dad helped). Life is taking responsibility and making good choices while realizing sometimes it still isn't fair. Still we are all incredibly blessed and have so much to be thankful for compared to just about anyone else living on this planet. It's all perspective.

Well said

Urban Ag said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

I bought my brand new Chevy Silverado Custom in August 2019 for $27k

My wife wants a new car and her SUV we are looking at is 73k

Stop the insanity.

---

Tom

My wife was driving an Infiniti QX60 for about four years. My older boy got his license in Nov 2021 and he started driving the Infiniti (we got him an F150 a few months later but that's not the point). Anyway, I needed to get my wife a new car and we went back to Infiniti, and checked out Lexus as well. On a whim we we stopped by the Acura dealership in north Austin. She test drove an RDX and we absolutely loved it. And, I got off the hook easier than I did years before on the Infiniti. I think the Acura was out the door at about $50k, maybe less. And La Princessa loves it. Sexy, fun, high performance little SUV. Check them out.

Plus I have to keep her in smaller SUVs because she is a terrible driver and tends to hit stationary objects, like my garage doors or other cars.

---

I'd love that option but I have a 2 and 6 mo th old and we are planning for 5/6 kids.

So I have to seek out a Catholic Assault Vehicle (CAV). My wife also said no industrial van… yet.

It is sad how so many progressive policies mostly hurt the lower classes, which are the ones most likely to continue to vote progressive.

Roger that Ghostrider

I wish you great success in not pulling out

Urban Ag said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I truly don't know how most families survive day to day and I have no idea how we haven't collapsed yet.

---

Picked my younger boy up from football practice yesterday. Was driving by a new development a few miles from our house. They had just put up this huge sign that says "starting in the mid $300's". I'm looking at these houses they've just built or are building and not one of them is bigger or appears better than the new home the wife and I bought in North Austin, 23 years ago almost to the day, for $132k.

Captain Obvious moment is that wages/compensation are pretty much only slightly better than they were two decades ago, when my wife and I could easily afford our first home and then some.

This is not good.

---

Those homes are a lot more energy efficient than your home (and was it brand new 23 years ago?). They'll spend a lot less on utilities (assuming you've done zero upgrades to your home).

Wages are much higher than 20 years ago. Starting salaries for people graduating college right now in a lot of professions almost double what they were in 2003. Just the last two years wages have gone up crazy high (esp. part time workers). So has the price of everything else but wages are not flat from 20-years ago.