Are you as appalled as I am?

[Flur]

Many people who aren't worried now will be directly effected as the economic situation worsens, and just about all the expects agree that it is going to continue to worsen before it starts to get better.

Buying a car 'better' than volunteering in a soup kitchen? I find that logic to be debatable, but yes both acts can help our world in their own ways. Unfortunately not all people can afford to buy new cars anymore...or even used cars for that matter.

What keeps the economy going is spending. For example, if a bunch of people shop at Target this year, Target will have a good year, won't have to lay anyone off. This keeps jobs. People who have jobs are more likely to spend and continue the cycle. So every time someone with the means to do so spends money, they are helping to ward off further economic downturn.

The "experts" are actually fueling the economic downturn, by telling people it's going to get worse. This causes people to hold their money, which means less spending and more layoffs.

So, yeah, spending money allows people to keep their jobs, which allows them to keep their homes, which keeps them from becoming homeless and needing to go to soup kitchens. Which would you rather have, a job or a bowl of soup?

[Biciclista]

a spending economy? I'm supposed to keep spending to keep Walmart afloat?
and you don't see anything wrong with that idea?
the spending economy doesn't work. There have been less skilled jobs every year in the USA for about 20 years now. Lots of jobs in retail, yeah, THAT's a great career for someone.
Do you know that saving used to be considered virtuous? that PRESIDENTS used to tell us to save money?
The proof of how artificial this idea can be seen easily. At the slightest scare, we quit spending.
why? because we don't need that stuff. People are still buying essentials. If you take a look you'll see that grocery stores aren't laying folks off.
But maybe we're not buying that third pair of shoes, that extra sweater, all those toys those kids aren't going to want after they take them out of the package?
It's all STUFF that we don't need. Look, I'm as guilty as the next person, I have more bikes, shoes, sweaters, books, and even cars than I need!

Don't spend. Save.

[Zen]

Do you know that saving used to be considered virtuous? that PRESIDENTS used to tell us to save money?

When I was in elementary school we had stamp books, kind of like those for S & H Green Stamps, but these were for Savings Bonds.

Not a bad idea.

[badgercat]

I'm not sure that I have anything super insightful to add to this conversation... i just wanted to add that ALL perspectives have been very interesting to read.

As an aside to the "savings" path this thread seems to be on now, though, put my name in the "twenty-something who understands the value of a dollar and hard work" column. Sadly, based on what I see in many people my age (and people not my age, for that matter), it's not a very long column.

Right now, I'm in debt for the first time in my life (unless you count when I borrowed money from my parents and grandpa to buy my first and only car), and it's one student loan taken out in my own name to help me pay for graduate school. I was able to take out a small loan thanks to the money I've been working for and SAVING since I started working in high school. Granted, I had a lot of financial help from my parents when I was in college, but that's what allowed me to put that money in the bank, which is allowing me to avoid the starving-grad-student stereotype now.

Too often, I see peers stiffing roommates on utility bill payments, not chipping in much for tip at a group dinner outing, or not offering gas money for a long drive because they're "broke," but thinking nothing of going out and spending $50 on a DVD box set the day it comes out or $100 on a new dress. I just can't relate to that. If I have the money to buy a new video game, I have AT LEAST that much money to donate to a charity or to shop at a local business instead of Wal-Mart or whatever.

Now, I'm no financial saint. I have my little spendy vices here and there... but the fact remains that I've been a credit-card holder for about 7 years now, and have NEVER ONCE charged more than I could pay off, in full, in that same month. It would never occur to me to spend money that I don't have on a... TV or something.

Now I'm just rambling. I guess where I'm going with this is yes, far too many Americans are gluttonous consumers. But liking to splurge a little on restaurant trips and bicycles and even, yes, fancy cars and being a responsible consumer don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

What keeps the economy going is spending. For example, if a bunch of people shop at Target this year, Target will have a good year, won't have to lay anyone off. This keeps jobs. People who have jobs are more likely to spend and continue the cycle. So every time someone with the means to do so spends money, they are helping to ward off further economic downturn.

The "experts" are actually fueling the economic downturn, by telling people it's going to get worse. This causes people to hold their money, which means less spending and more layoffs.

So, yeah, spending money allows people to keep their jobs, which allows them to keep their homes, which keeps them from becoming homeless and needing to go to soup kitchens. Which would you rather have, a job or a bowl of soup?

Well I don't agree with this. It's the basis of the theory that has been put into effect for years now, but we are now seeing where it leads. It's an over-simplified idea that is no longer working very well because of many complex factors.

First of all, the average American has OVERSPENT and has large credit card debts, car loans, mortgages, college loans, and other debts already.
They owe overblown mortgage payments which were poorly calculated at way beyond their means. Some are already losing their homes or having to sell their homes in order to downsize or rent. (I know a couple of friends already who are now forced to sell their homes, people who never had money problems before, people whose businesses have dropped off by 50% over the past year, and they simply can no longer continue making their mortgage payments- they have already gone through much of their savings trying to keep the mortgage payments going despite losing jobs and getting sick without health insurance.)
This has been going on for a while now.

Many people are without health insurance now and simply DON'T HAVE the money for it. (I can barely afford mine now at $475/month for myself). Only the wealthy can now afford to send in $100-150 per WEEK for health insurance, or those with jobs that have great benefits (such jobs are harder and harder to find nowadays). People are LOSING THEIR JOBS or are having to take two or more part time jobs (with no benefits or health insurance of course) in order to buy food and pay rent.

Sure there are plenty of people who are not yet feeling any financial pain and there are some who won't for one reason or another. Yet these are people whom I do not consider to be of average income or in average situations. They are well off. They say we should all buy more things. ....buy more things with what?- credit cards that are already over loaded with debt??
Should I get my tooth crown fixed this month and make my next health insurance payment and give my daughter $200 so she can make her rent this month between jobs, or should I go and spend that $1500 on Christmas presents?? Gee, what a hard decision!

Most Americans are in hock already up to their eyeballs (our grandparents would have been horrified by the debts people now considered 'average').
And the solution is to spend more, charge more new stuff on our credit cards and take out more new car loans? Sounds lovely, but it doesn't sound much like the planet I live on.

[Eden]

Yeah - I can't agree that spending more will help our economy either...
especially not spending at big discount stores like Wal-Mart or Target...

Yes, technically those places create jobs, but they are low paying, often benefit-less jobs that cannot support a family.... If you buy from those places you are mostly sending your money overseas and into the pockets of the few very rich people who own those companies (or at very least large amounts of their stock...)

That we no longer have much real manufacturing in this country is a more of the problem... we don't make what we buy any more, which means fewer jobs that require a skill and pay better. If you really feel you should buy something to support the economy at least try to find something that was made here and buy it from a local small business.

[Flur]

Yeah - I can't agree that spending more will help our economy either...
especially not spending at big discount stores like Wal-Mart or Target...

Yes, technically those places create jobs, but they are low paying, often benefit-less jobs that cannot support a family.... If you buy from those places you are mostly sending your money overseas and into the pockets of the few very rich people who own those companies (or at very least large amounts of their stock...)

I can't speak for Walmart, but I can say this is absolutely not true for Target. Trust me, my husband (who works for Target, along with most of our local friends) does not have a low-paying, benefit-less job that can't support a family. It's supporting both of us right now, and has been since July. And if we had kids, we'd still be getting by without my income. And I've gotten my benefits through Target since we moved here for him to work at Target 4 years ago. They're pretty good, actually.

Target's a public company. That means that anyone can buy stock in it, not just the rich. Check your 401k, there's a good chance that Target stock is included in one of your mutual funds, which means YOU own Target.

[Zen]

I'm afraid to look at my 401k

[Crankin]

I know I am lucky. I have very good benefits through my husband's work that we only pay $180.00 a month for. I was able to quit my well paying job to go back to school, without really changing my lifestyle. I did get a loan for the 18K tuition, but I will pay those back as soon as I graduate. This is the first time in my life that I don't have to work. Yes, I am depending on my husband's salary, but when I was younger and had the opportunity to switch careers, it would have meant a major sacrifice for the whole family. I couldn't do it.
I have never been in a Walmart. There is just something about that place that is creepy. Target, well, I used to go there in AZ, 20 years ago, and haven't been in one since.
Our 401ks have tanked, but they will recover. We are using the downturn to put our money into stocks that are really low but have potential. My husband plans to work for at least 10 more years, maybe longer and I plan to continue my new career at least on a part time basis until I am pretty old. Well, at least until I am 65, maybe longer. I think I would go crazy without working.
One thing to consider is that we are all at different stages of life. I worked for 30 years and for about 10 of those years I also worked a second job in a health club. I also taught religious school. I guess what I am trying to say is that I will keep spending my money, because I feel like I have paid my dues. I don't have any debt except my mortgage and a second mortgage. I am not going to change what I do based on the fact that others are having issues. I just wish that the media would stop talking about how bad it is, because whenever some "announcement" comes out, you can almost feel the panic. It feels planned to me...

[Eden]

I don't think anyone here is begrudging a person that has a comfortable life, or even a luxurious one.... but rather finds tasteless having so much you can't possibly use it all or feeling superior because of the stuff you have rather than the stuff you are made of.... (ala the Lexus ads..)

[Pax]

I don't think anyone here is begrudging a person that has a comfortable life, or even a luxurious one.... but rather finds tasteless having so much you can't possibly use it all or feeling superior because of the stuff you have rather than the stuff you are made of.... (ala the Lexus ads..)

Well said.

BTW - For anyone who might be interested in sharing the wealth...Kiva.org is one of many great ways to do it.

[Flur]

Now that I'm thinking about it, most of my friends have rings in the aforementioned price range. In NYC/Northern Jersey at the time we all got engaged (about 5 years ago) that was the ballpark price for a close-to-flawless 1-to-1.25 carat diamond with a nice setting and maybe a few side stones, and this was the standard size ring unless you were rich (rich by NY/NJ standards, that is). Yes, I said standard size. This is the average ring that most girls got, which was then followed by more major jewelry when each child was born (birthing gifts) and a larger "engagement" ring later, often as an anniversary present. This is the custom. It is what it is, and there's a lot of peer pressure to stick with it (see below). Yes, they're all still married. None of them set a minimum, it's what their husbands did because it's what all their friends did.

DH and I had a nice ring picked out in this ballpark, not because I put a minimum, and not because we could afford it, but because this was what everyone did so we did it too. But when DH told his family that he wanted to marry me, they gave him heirloom stones passed down from his grandmother. This is what he proposed with. The main stone is substantially smaller than the NY standard (but still a nice size, IMHO), but these were a gift from my husband's family with the intention that they be given to me. That means so much more to me than any amount of money he could have spent.

I had a woman outright insult my ring because of its size. No joke. She was DH's hairdresser. She called my center stone a "cute little baby stone" and implied it was not up to her standards. A number of women made faces to the same effect. I also had a good friend insult my wedding band (which I picked because it went nicely with my engagement ring) because of the diamond size. She said that my ring was "nice, but I want a ring that looks like a wedding ring." She picked out a very similar ring with much larger diamonds in it. Seriously. Everything that was said just made me more happy to have what I had.

Apparently to many women size does matter. Is this because of DeBeers? Maybe, I don't know for sure. All I know is that when a couple takes a few years to pay off the cost of the engagement ring after they are married, something is probably off.

[Irulan]

Apparently to many women size does matter. Is this because of DeBeers? Maybe, I don't know for sure. All I know is that when a couple takes a few years to pay off the cost of the engagement ring after they are married, something is probably off.

The whole "ring=3 month salary" thing is a construct invented by the diamond industry many many years ago as a marketing tool.

Many companies, Tiffany included, are now taking a much closer look at where things are coming from. Not just the stones, but the precious metals too.

Again, if you are interested in getting educated on this topic ( diamonds) the book I recommended before is excellent reading.

[Biciclista]

DH and I had a nice ring picked out in this ballpark, not because I put a minimum, and not because we could afford it, but because this was what everyone did so we did it too. But when DH told his family that he wanted to marry me, they gave him heirloom stones passed down from his grandmother. This is what he proposed with. The main stone is substantially smaller than the NY standard (but still a nice size, IMHO), but these were a gift from my husband's family with the intention that they be given to me. That means so much more to me than any amount of money he could have spent.

I had a woman outright insult my ring because of its size. No joke. She was DH's hairdresser. She called my center stone a "cute little baby stone" and implied it was not up to her standards. A number of women made faces to the same effect. I also had a good friend insult my wedding band (which I picked because it went nicely with my engagement ring) because of the diamond size. She said that my ring was "nice, but I want a ring that looks like a wedding ring." She picked out a very similar ring with much larger diamonds in it. Seriously. Everything that was said just made me more happy to have what I had.

Apparently to many women size does matter. Is this because of DeBeers? Maybe, I don't know for sure. All I know is that when a couple takes a few years to pay off the cost of the engagement ring after they are married, something is probably off.

Well, good for you for not succumbing to the madness. And the audacity of people to insult you because your heirloom family ring was not as big as they thought was appropriate. Such madness. That's right, you've reminded me of why I left NJ!!!!

[jobob]

I had a woman outright insult my ring because of its size. No joke. She was DH's hairdresser. She called my center stone a "cute little baby stone" and implied it was not up to her standards. A number of women made faces to the same effect. I also had a good friend insult my wedding band (which I picked because it went nicely with my engagement ring) because of the diamond size. She said that my ring was "nice, but I want a ring that looks like a wedding ring." She picked out a very similar ring with much larger diamonds in it. Seriously. Everything that was said just made me more happy to have what I had.

Get out!!! How silly. Well, they'd have a grand old time picking apart my set! The small emerald-cut sapphire ring (fwiw, it's a very nice deep blue stone) is paired with the plainest gold band possible. The jeweler did jazz it up by putting a small curve in the band to follow the contour of the sapphire's setting.

I think it's simplicity suits me perfectly.

And I love the fact that you have a heirloom ring. That makes it so much more meaningful.