How’s this statistic? The average credit card debt is $9k/per person in the US. However something like 25% of people have no credit cards and 35% never carry a balance.

And of those in debt, meaning like 40% of people, something like 50% of them have less than $2k. So 50% of the people in debt or 20% of the population have to have an average of $16k debt+. So a smaller population makes the rest of the people look really bad.

Same thing. Are people really not savers? I think we’re going to have to address it soon yes.

But it’s hard to tell because there’s a lot of people still in old-fashioned pensions so they don’t have to save. A lot of government, state, and military workers who have pensions and don’t have to save as much. And those enforced pension savings don’t count as savings.

Granted I don’t know if it’s enough or it should be counted on. But I know my counsin in the military is counting on his 50% salary for life!

So he’s saving less than what is reccomended. He plans on 20 years and out and then working another government job to “double” dip.

So it’s hard to say if people are really not saving enough. We have to see how the lack of pensions, which really started in the 1980s plays out. And pension are almost extinct in private sector now, except a few companies.

people should hurry up and come to jesus with their personal consumption behaviors. if not, people are going to continue over extending themselves, and in the end, there won’t be mechanisms to prop up the economy or provide some sort of way out for them and their debt. the US is running out of options for the current mess. i fear that the reliance on the govt in future econimic crisis, especially with negative savings and increased personal debt, will make people think that the govt can do it again in future credit crunches. the end result is people who are responsible, who do save, who live within their means will be penalized heavily, because their years of working hard and savings will be worth little to nothing. so, yes, i believe people now should be forced to lose everything, so in the future those who are responsible don’t have to lose everything to save irresponsible people.

here’s a nice read
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26645137

I have contended that this economic downturn will hopefully be a come to jesus good thing if it forces people to start opening their eyes. at the same time, the continued bailouts, and i believe things would definitely be different it weren’t election year, i fear will not force people to change behavior. the focus everywhere you read seems to be focused on everything but personal responsibility. this is the troubling part.

I think that your media is showcasing the worse of the worse, but the average family isn’t in that circumstances and they are trying.

They didn’t have the same basis as others but are still moving forward. And trying. You seem to think that they should all hurry and take responsibility.

Perhaps they are. But the only people you think represent them are the ones personified by the media.

i agree, delayed gratification gives you time to consider and reconsider whether you want to spend the money.

most people depend on two incomes to qualify for a home, and most assuredly this was the case for the past 10 years when people over extended their credit to get into too much home than they couldn’t afford. again, this mortgage mess wouldn’t have been caused if this weren’t the case. I know far more people who rely on two incomes to buy a house than on one. you may be able to afford your mortgage on one income, I don’t know, i have no idea about your financials. at the same time, to suggest that i can afford something is equally presumptuous considering you have no idea about my finances other than we make between $100k-$200k per year.

second, home ownership consists of more than your mortgage payment. is there a point where home ownership cost and renting could meet? yes. i never said that it wasn’t possible to rent at the same cost of home ownership; however, in general renting costs less in expenditure than home ownership. i never contended that buying a house cannot be done on one income nor was it wrong to be done on one income. however, for me, i consider many other factors besides the cost of the home such as retirement savings or some other major savings, then i would forgo wanting to buy a house. a house isn’t an end all.

again, there are plenty of people who buy a house on one income, there are plenty of people buy on two incomes, there are plenty more who buy a house and have no other savings, either. if the exception to the rule was not an exception, we would not have negative savings rates in this country. i have no idea about the people you know, i don’t know if you are inimately aware of the whole financial picture of the people you know either. i know that more people are prone to lie about their true financial situation than not. they may all in fact have no debt, have a mortgage that they can afford, have retirement savings, have an emergency fund, pay for health insurace, and have savings for everything else too, or they may not. i can say one thing for certain, though, is that there are far more people who can not. again, mortgage mess and zero to negative savings rate both indicate my point.

I’m not being high and mighty at all, although i can see how you would think that if you are picking and choosing what to focus on. I never said that my experiences or the people I know represent the entire human race in aggregate. you seem to like to pick and choose what you want to focus on and not take what i’ve written in context. i use my personal example, and I’m not alone in it, as demonstration that it can be done. There are plenty of people out there who focus their efforts on blaming others rather than focusing on their consumption problem and saying that it cannot be done when it can be done. just read any of the media outlets that are doing exposes on how the economy is affecting them. they read as an expose on it’s not my fault. Just like I didn’t expect other people to pay for my indiscretions, i do not think it is right for me or anyone else to have to pay for the indiscretions of others now. that’s not high and mighty at all. that is just being fair.

I’ve given plenty of suggestions on how people learn personal responsibility. I’ve been pretty consistent, in contending that the economic situation is far more a function of bad personal consumption than of any other factor. I would say that if anyone makes a blanket statement that people don’t know the basic of you don’t spend more than you earn, they misrepresent people as a whole. People aren’t that stupid, or perhaps you are suggesting they are? The issue is that people who have overextended themselves ignored the basic principles they knew and over consumed. ok, there are plenty of lenders and creditors out there who made it attractive and easier for them to consume, but at the end of the day, it was a personal choice. lenders and creditors even make it painful, if you do go over your credit limits, if you do bounce a check, if you do keep a rolling balance, if you do not pay on time, etc. They obviously aren’t making it painful enough since those fees are the highest source of revenue generated from credit. What I simply do not understand is why people want to blame high interest rates, high over limit fees, high late fees, cash advance places as the problem. We’ve had plenty of congressional hearings on these topics, and hey here is a clever idea. don’t have a rolling balance, don’t pay late, don’t over draft, don’t spend more than you earn and those fees and interests won’t be an issue. however, the problem is that there are far more people in our society blaming the creditors, when it is they who have control over whether or not they get hit with a late fee, over draft fee, interest, etc.

are there exceptions? of course they are, and i continually suggest there are. you seem to consider the exception the rule though.

I think that he’s teaching that delayed gratification will allow you to get what you want.

Does it work? It can. Can it be enough? It could.

But instead Tim you complain non-stop about affording things and people can’t afford it. They can’t afford it in the book according to Tim, which I haven’t seen published yet.

But maybe they can. Who the heck knows? We haven’t gotten all their privvy info like inheritances, trusts, etc.

So yes, you make all this money and you spent a ton. And paid it back. Now you feel like you are high and mighty making all this money and that you can only buy a house on one salary. I hate to break it to you many people buy homes only on one salary, I know quite a few.

We’re paying it on one salary our mortgage and bought it that way. Cracks me up that it’s “unaffordable”. Renting is just as unaffordable then because it costs just as much to rent.

Like I said in another post, you like to only look after yourself and preach personal responsibility without giving suggestions on how people can learn personal responsibility.

if most financial gurus are saying anyone can afford anything you want, they are idiots. i doubt that most financial gurus would be this naive or wreckless to suggest such a thing. Moreover, making a generalized statement like that is simply absurd.

when did dave ramsey become the sayer of all things? trading up a car every two years and getting hit by depreciation is stupid, especially if the pure numbers don’t even work.

i don’t thing there is necessarily a right or wrong way to trade up so long as you can afford to do so. At the same time, though, you have to be able to put personal desires and urges aside at times and not get the newest and greatest thing and/or wait to get enough saved to buy quality. Every two years would really depend on the item you are trading up. I don’t think you can make a flat timeframe for which to trade up on everything.

I’m the same with cars. I bought a “nice” car right out of college, a slightly used luxury auto, but I intend to drive it for at least 10 years as well. If I’d bought a “beater” I’d want to move up soon, and then over the same 10 yr period I would probably spend the same amount of money driving 3 increasingly nice cars as I will have driving my one really nice car (which I bought in cash, so I’m not considering finance charges here).

Is there a diffrence bewteen trading up like Dave Ramsey suggests in cars every 2 years or buying much better in one fell swoop?

No one really knows. BUT stop whining about not affording it. According to most personal finance gurus you can afford anything you want. If you decide it’s important.

Like a car every two years is possible.

And if you have two kids renting a 2 bedroom apartment. You don’t need a house even to rent. YOU can make do even living with family if you really wanted to save money and buy a home or a new car, etc.

I’ve never listened to what others say. And renting is a great option especially when you move a lot. Why do you think military personal rent? But do they need to rent a house? Why rent something nicer when something cheaper will do?