These stories are quiet interesting….
I cant believe these people are doing what they do. Maybe they havent heard of ozbargains?
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/feeling-the-pinch-take-…
Feeling the pinch, struggling people trying to survive
Turd on 08/09/2014 - 11:43
Comments
- 1
- 2
classic start a flame war tactics:
rich vs poor
male vs female
young vs old
dogs vs cat
parents vs childless
cyclist vs driverso many people fall for the wars that these "journalists" make up, and I really hate it when they are wasting peoples time and stressing them and scaring pensioners trying to suggest their pensions will be cut. A lot of people on pensions especially those with mental illness suffer anxiety and its very cruel to stress them out about struggling to afford food if its not definitely going to happen.
come on people they are just pitting you against someone, congratulations you just became a virtual pawn.
The people in that article aren't struggling, they're just idiots.
These idiots are making more than me, how is this possible?
It's not what you earn, it's what you spend.
Any idiot can spend money, but it takes a smart head to save it.
Its knowing the difference between a 'want' and a 'need'
I don't think saving money makes you any smarter, You earn to spend, how you spent your money makes all difference.
Think you've gone off on a tangent there…
Nothing about intelligence there.
The 250k couple shows that in going into debt to 'keep' their lifestyle
No one on this website is struggling. If you have income to buy crap you don't need you are not struggling.
I wouldn't assume that to be true - not everything on this website is "crap you don't need".
Holidays overseas, $200 on snacks, $800pm car loans, $50k loans so that they can maintain a lifestyle.
These people aren't struggling. They are simply spending more than they have, beyond their means. If they learnt to cut back, things would be so much easier. Move further out to pay cheaper rent, get rid of the Mercedes and trade it in for a Corolla, etc.
I'm sick of these articles posting people on six-figure salaries struggling because they cannot control their spending.
The point of such articles is to make a sensation out of nothing. Seems that they achieved the goal with all people discussing it here.
“My husband and I earn close to nearly $245,000 a year and really struggle with the cost of living raising our three and two-year-olds,”
Not to mention the price of Ferrari servicing these days !
@jason101
If you're spending $86k/yr on tax, $60k/yr on childcare, $36k on loan repayments, you're left with $63k for everything else including groceries, gas, electricity, phone, health care and yep car. That must be one old beat up Ferrari you're jealous of.
And no you can't reduce any of the above costs by moving to something cheaper - not if you want to keep earning $245k.
Is that the same as someone living poor on the street? Of course not. But people are just too busy with their own envy to realize that it's becoming impossible for a working family to do well any more.
Oh and no help from the government whatsoever because you're "rich". So rich you probably work an 80hr/week and ask how high when the boss tells you to jump…if you lose that job it'll take you time to move to something cheaper and meanwhile you're going to spiral into debt.
1) They have childcare in Pyrmont
2) Majority of the time it's better to live in your house and pay the mortgage vs doubling rent
3) If they're paying such a high amount on tax + child care, someone should quit their job and the kids can stay at home full time.My parents raised us our entire household (2 kids) growing up in the 90s on a single income of $40,000 which included loan repayments (it was a small mortgage). My mother stayed at home and she cooked all our meals - take away we had once a month. People need to learn to adjust their life style - learn to cook, drink less, compromise over cost v convenience and most important of all be appreciative of the things you have society.
1) They have childcare in Pyrmont
Your point? They have childcare all around Sydney - it's just that $100+/kid/day is the norm. If you had more than 3 kids you could almost afford to hire a live in Nanny for the same as what child care costs.
2) Majority of the time it's better to live in your house and pay the mortgage vs doubling rent
You're stuck in the past. There's a whole generation whose mortgages are so high they should have continued to rent.
3) If they're paying such a high amount on tax + child care, someone should quit their job and the kids can stay at home full time.
That is exactly what we've done but it may yet prove to be a fatal decision to my wife's career. When she goes back to work after raising 2 kids to primary school age she'll have been out of the workforce for 7-8 years. Then there's the risk of being single income. If I get really sick or die or if our relationship were not to last, she's stuffed. We've done this for a number of reasons not the least of which is we want to raise our kids, not have the grow up barely recognizing us. Meanwhile at least her skills aren't completely wasted as she is a primary school teacher, but she'll have a lot of catching up to do IF given the opportunity. Women who's professions aren't related to teaching and childcare will see those skills become irrelevant if they take that amount of time off.
My parents raised us our entire household (2 kids) growing up in the 90s on a single income of $40,000 which included loan repayments… learn to cook, drink less
Yeah and a packet of crisps or a can of coke was 20c back in the 80s when my parents raised me. What's your point exactly? Things are a lot more expensive now. I bought cucumber and tomato at $9.98/kg from Woolies the other day. It can actually be a lot more expensive to home cook now than to buy junk food. Which is just insane, but that's how it's gotten.
And what's drinking got to do with it? I don't drink. My wife might have one or two alcoholic beverages every couple of months. We still aren't rich. Suggesting we're all alcoholics is just pitiful.
And by the way I'm not on anywhere near $245k so please save your envy for someone more deserving. I think you're completely missing the point. The narrative use to be that if you studied and worked hard and lived cleanly you'd get ahead. Not so much anymore. We're busy spiraling into the kind of society where only those born to privilege will be able to live well.
Your point? They have childcare all around Sydney - it's just that $100+/kid/day is the norm. If you had more than 3 kids you could almost afford to hire a live in Nanny for the same as what child care costs.
This ties in with point 2); however childcare is cheaper out of the CBD.
You're stuck in the past. There's a whole generation whose mortgages are so high they should have continued to rent.
This doesn't address my point but you do raise a valid one. Don't buy if you can't afford it.
That is exactly what we've done but it may yet prove to be a fatal decision to my wife's career. When she goes back to work after raising 2 kids to primary school age she'll have been out of the workforce for 7-8 years. Then there's the risk of being single income. If I get really sick or die or if our relationship were not to last, she's stuffed. We've done this for a number of reasons not the least of which is we want to raise our kids, not have the grow up barely recognizing us. Meanwhile at least her skills aren't completely wasted as she is a primary school teacher, but she'll have a lot of catching up to do IF given the opportunity. Women who's professions aren't related to teaching and childcare will see those skills become irrelevant if they take that amount of time off.
One of the hardest issues with the whole situation - the only two options I see in this situation are to keep up with your education and try to work on the side if possible.
Yeah and a packet of crisps or a can of coke was 20c back in the 80s when my parents raised me. What's your point exactly? Things are a lot more expensive now. I bought cucumber and tomato at $9.98/kg from Woolies the other day.
This is OzBargain so I'm not going to go down the path of telling you how to live cheaply; there's a front page for that. Inflation is relative and a single income of $40,000 from 1990 today is roughly $72,000
Source: http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.htmlIt can actually be a lot more expensive to home cook now than to buy junk food. Which is just insane, but that's how it's gotten.
Truth; but thickener and flavours isn't a good value meal.
And what's drinking got to do with it? I don't drink. My wife might have one or two alcoholic beverages every couple of months. We still aren't rich. Suggesting we're all alcoholics is just pitiful.
This wasn't an attack on you in general but society at large - ie "learn to cook" relates to eating out less.
And by the way I'm not on anywhere near $245k so please save your envy for someone more deserving. I think you're completely missing the point. The narrative use to be that if you studied and worked hard and lived cleanly you'd get ahead. Not so much anymore. We're busy spiraling into the kind of society where only those born to privilege will be able to live well.
Wishing people would be more grateful in their life does not make me envious. I'm certainly content with my fill.
Just to build on the point about one partner leaving work. I have done that, but work part time to keep my skills up and remain 'current'. Not possible for everyone or in every career (I do a different job to what I did full time, but am still in the industry) but still an option for a lot of people. The odd bit of contract work, job sharing with another mother, being on-call to cover extended holidays/sick leave, study, start their own business - all are things my mummy-friends have done to remain current and/or bring a bit of extra income in.
Regarding the 'risk' of being on a single income. There is actually some very interesting study in that area. One book about it is called 'The Two-Income Trap' - it is an interesting, if somewhat dated and US-centric, read. They view two incomes as being far more risky than one - if you were to lose your job, or be unable to work your wife could step up to the plate and get a job and bring in the one income you are reliant on. If you were both working and you suddenly couldn't work, your wife wouldn't have the capacity to bring in the two incomes you would be dependent on. You should have income-protection and TPD insurance that protects your family for cases of illness/injury - because chances are in these cases your wife would need to look after you so wouldn't be able to work. For most other situations, being a single income family is actually less risky than being your average dual-income family. The only exception to this would be the dual-income families who are dependent only on a single income…which is very rare I would say.
@YTW:
That's true, in my parents early years my father would work during the day and my mother at night. It really comes down to personal situations but it is possible.
This ties in with point 2); however childcare is cheaper out of the CBD.
Basic supply and demand at work there. Nonetheless even in Sydney's outer west childcare is $100+/kid/day. Do I need to start linking to child care centers?
This doesn't address my point but you do raise a valid one. Don't buy if you can't afford it.
We're all about to be unable to afford. That is the whole point. In any case market forces drive loan repayments in a way that isn't under the control of the buyer. What you've essentially said is every day Australians should no longer buy homes.
One of the hardest issues with the whole situation - the only two options I see in this situation are to keep up with your education and try to work on the side if possible.
Easier said than done when there are rules and regulations about what a teacher must now do to keep their certificate valid. If my wife were to work we'd actually lose money. THAT is inexcusable. You shouldn't be going backwards working in a profession that we all need. Part of the problem is oversupply. Uni entrance ranks for teaching are stupidly low and while it's not a breeze it's not a tough course for most to pass. The other part is all this extra legislation to "protect" children and "measure performance" that takes away a teacher's autonomy and leaves them with a huge workload and much less time to actually teach. That is a tangent but note that the same sort of bureaucratic nonsense is flowing through most industries.
This is OzBargain so I'm not going to go down the path of telling you how to live cheaply; there's a front page for that. Inflation is relative and a single income of $40,000 from 1990 today is roughly $72,000
Source: http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.htmlSo you're saying that on average something that cost $40 now costs $72? Except your utility bills. And health care. And education. And insurance. And car registration. And land rates. And even food. That's just the official inflation rate. There are plenty of adjustments made for out of the ordinary increases. For example when bananas were very expensive after flooding they took them out of the calculation until prices settled.
Truth; but thickener and flavours isn't a good value meal.
We agree on this one for sure.
This wasn't an attack on you in general but society at large - ie "learn to cook" relates to eating out less.
It didn't take it personally as directed at me, but can you see how it might be grating?
Suggesting $63k after tax is somehow a low income is nonsense. Suggesting you can't get a high paying job if you have a longer commute is nonsense.
You are completely correct that it costs a lot if you choose to live a in a very costly part of the city, but don't pretend there is no choice involved.
Approx half of Australia's population aspires to one day have $63k after tax, so you might want to consider why you feel it is an income that is below "doing well".
Do you think a worker on minimum wage doesn't have to ask how high to jump when the boss asks?
$63K after tax, child care repayments and home loan repayments… that's a lot of money. I'll be lucky to clear that, after tax, before child care repayments and home loan repayments. ;)
Suggesting $63k after tax is somehow a low income is nonsense.
Which is why I didn't say that. In fact I said "that isn't living on the street poor" or words to that effect.
Suggesting you can't get a high paying job if you have a longer commute is nonsense.
Where do you want to commute from? There's nowhere in Sydney with affordable housing. That was based on Sydney's median house prices, not outliers in the CBD. If you're not rich, forget the CBD.
You are completely correct that it costs a lot if you choose to live a in a very costly part of the city, but don't pretend there is no choice involved.
How's an hour out of the city? No change form half a million before added expenses.
http://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/top-suburbs/nsw-…If you live to the very edge of the burbs about 1.5hrs out, you can get just below half a mill.
http://www.realestate.com.au/neighbourhoods/richmond-2753-ns…Approx half of Australia's population aspires to one day have $63k after tax, so you might want to consider why you feel it is an income that is below "doing well".
Try again. Median salary 2013 is $72k.
http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/what-is-the-typi…Note that those earning that much are still entitled to govt. assistance. (FTB etc).
Which is why both parents try to work and leave raising the children to strangers. Is it a good thing for us to aspire to be poor?
You need to check some facts, your work is sloppy and it is causing you to draw incorrect conclusions.
$63k after tax is $84,000p.a gross. That is well within the top 20% of full time individual incomes.
Median income gross is about $57,000, from your own link!. You quoted the average, which is much higher because it includes many wealthy high income earners. Both figures before tax, so again, $63k after tax is higher. And you are only counting full time workers in your figures. Part time, unemployed, semi-retired etc. all earn less.
So I stand by half the population aspiring to earn over $63k nett, because it is, in fact, dramatically more than half the population, it is even substantially more than 80% of just the full time workers.
And remember workers pay tax, and only get meaningful gov assistance if they have dependants.
A single or couple will get little besides the possibility of some super low income offset and the occasional $900 when there is a GFC.
As for housing, Auburn, for example, has 2br apartments from around $350k,Bankstown about $380k, Blacktown a bit lower. These are listings on Realestate.com.au today.
Peak hour train trip timetable to Central are 24mins, 31mins, and 37min respectively.
I didn't look up all of them, but you can rent a house in Blacktown for about $360 week.You can live affordably if you choose. But pretending it isn't a choice is silly.
And really, the $63k figure is after they did a lot of their spending. All the other figures apply to people who are likely to have loans to pay off, childcare expenses too.There isn't any way you can spin this except to say these people are remarkably well off, and have chosen to live a very affluent lifestyle because they like it.
It isn't impossible for this working family to do well, they are doing very well already.You need to check some facts, your work is sloppy and it is causing you to draw incorrect conclusions. $63k after tax is $84,000p.a gross.
Please go back and re-read because I think you've completely misread what I said. I was talking about someone on $245k after tax, childcare, mortgage.
…and have you tried raising a family with 4 people in a 2 bedroom apartment? We're heading for what use to be called "3rd world" living conditions.
The point that you're missing completely is that if you live in Sydney a lot of your basic expenses are going to be much higher. And if you're looking for work in a highly paid job depending on what industry you're in your choice of where you live can be very limited. If you need to spend $150k to make $250k, you'll find you're not that well off!
I understood what you wrote. You are defending people on high incomes saying they have little left after their high expenses.
I am pointing out you are wildly mischaracterising what is a reasonable income. Your examples describe somebody with after tax income higher than 4/5ths of the population. You can't keep saying that is in some way modest.If you need to spend $150k to make $250k you are doing quite well. And all your posts are talking about real estate costs, which I agree are very high in many desirable areas.
And having kids sharing a room is hardly on the way to 3rd world conditions.I find it really problematic that people defend high income earners because they have high expenses. This is offensive to people on lower incomes. The people on low and average incomes live in Sydney too. How do you think they feel when you defend somebody earning in the top 2%?
struggling on $245k per year? wtf?
struggling on $245k per year? wtf?
It's not what you earn. It's what you earn minus what you spend in order to earn what you earn. You can make a lot of money and still wind up dirt poor.
just say gross income.
a good cpa can do wonders with tax avoidance. more in your pockets and less in others.
They choose to live in Pyrmont, enough said.
They chose to have kids before they were in a stable/manageable mortgage.
Without those childcare fees alone, if they'd delay kids by 1 year, that's $60k towards a mortgage.
Living 30mins outside the CBD isn't much of a stretch.
Its choices, they've made choices above their manageable means.
Don't they have parents who can take the kids for some of those days? Don't grandparents exists anymore?
Some grandparents live overseas or interstate.
And you're right, some grandparents don't exist anymore. They might have already passed away.
Another one that thinks delaying having children till you're in your 40s and 50s is a good idea…I had my kids in my early 30s and due to health concerns wish I'd done it sooner - At 39 I can't run around with them the way I could have when I was 25. The idea of having them later
30 mins outside the CBD you're still around $580k
http://www.realestate.com.au/neighbourhoods/granville-2142-n…
Loan repayments on a $500k loan over 25 years are still $36k/yr at 5% and will increase when the interest rates come back up.As for grandparents looking after the kids you haven't got a clue how childcare works have you? Certainly in Preschools and for most child care you have to book your spot for an extended period. So if your kid doesn't go because they're sick or visiting grandparents you still pay. Casual childcare is great IF you can find it.
What you've essentially pointed out is that it's becoming unaffordable to have children if you want to live well. You think that's a good thing? Who do you think is going to participate in the economy as the population ages? No wonder we're now being expect to work till 70!
Not all grandparents 'disappear'
It's circumstantial$580k Granville that's pretty nice property, maybe take your standards down?
$500k loan on the above? What a couple didn't/couldn't save before this, you just pop out kids before you have set yourself up. As per the 200k couple with kids, if they'd chosen to delay 1-2 years for kids they would of dented there mortgage by 100k plus, more likely they would of splurged on holidays. A couple/few years isn't 40+ for everyone, if your near that age you SHOULD of had savings.
Its called being selfish and greedy.
There's a HUGE difference between living well and living wastefully, most people in middle/high income bracket live wastefully.
Based on the luxury goods we see on this site, it tells me a lot of members here are living well, but NOT wastefully.
I generally like to disparage the older generations, but one thing they did truly do well was plan ahead and not get in over their heads.
Not all grandparents 'disappear'. It's circumstantial
My mother has been fantastic with our kids being sick this week. Unfortunately she's come down ill too now and has had to stay away. If the grandparents are willing to help out that's fantastic, but you can't expect to always be able to rely on them. Particularly if you delay having kids until you're older. It's one thing to expect a 50-something to help run around after a toddler but quite another for a 70-something.
$580k Granville that's pretty nice property, maybe take your standards down?
That is the MEDIAN price. The middle of the road. Not a "pretty nice property" - just a middle of the line one. By definition half of all properties cost more.
$500k loan on the above? What a couple didn't/couldn't save before this, you just pop out kids before you have set yourself up.
Because we all know that rent is cheap, and companies are lining up to throw money at young people right?
As per the 200k couple with kids, if they'd chosen to delay 1-2 years for kids they would of dented there mortgage by 100k plus, more likely they would of splurged on holidays
You're completely out of touch. Saving half of your before tax income would mean living like a pauper not forgoing holidays.
Its called being selfish and greedy.
Selfish and greedy? You call someone refusing to live like a miser selfish and greedy meanwhile the cost of everything skyrockets despite an official inflation rate of around 3-4%.
There's a HUGE difference between living well and living wastefully, most people in middle/high income bracket live wastefully.
Quite judgemental of you. But what you're suggesting above especially with regards to saving half of what you earn on $200k with no regard for actual living expenses…well it ain't living. What you're actually suggesting is that people work their behinds off but have nothing to show for it.
Based on the luxury goods we see on this site, it tells me a lot of members here are living well, but NOT wastefully.
Nice appeal to the crowd their but disingenuous. On the budget you describe the last thing you should be doing is bargain hunting or splurging on such luxuries as shown here. MOST of the things on Ozbargain are not necessities and if you're trying to save half your before tax income there's no excuse for buying anything from this site.
I generally like to disparage the older generations, but one thing they did truly do well was plan ahead and not get in over their heads.
Well it's easier to plan for owning a home when it's 3x your annual income not 7x or 8x. The difference is they were earning a living wage. Living standands in real terms have declined and are headed further down the plug hole. The only things that have gotten relatively cheaper seem to be tech and gadgets (and we've paid for that in other ways with poor quality gadgets that rarely last)
ummm that 100k figure is based on their child care fees over 2years, ignoring all the other child related costs.
For what they're paying in Pyrmont, they could get much more. You don't jump from apartment to mansion.
You're throwing in a lot of excuses here. This couple has chosen a location/lifestyle beyond there means. If they're struggling how on earth do you think the average wage earner is surviving?
I'm pretty sure you can live a good life and save without living like a miser on 245k
I can relate to this couple because I have friends who are exactly like this couple but without the kids, they have high income, they going on exorbitantly expensive holidays, they live real well - good for them. But they don't save, as soon as they start having kids, they're going to be in the exact same position as the couple in the article.
Refer them to Ozbargain website… Money saved is Income earned :)
I agree!
Why pay retail price when Ozbargain is showing you where to save money.People are generally struggling because they don't have a sense to save money. They live pay check to pay check.
I know quite a few people who do that, and the stuff they spend their money on, they could have lived without it and saved some money. They decide that luxury items = nessessity which then they start complaining how they don't have enough money.
Even the homeless on the streets… I see quite alot of them smoking… I refuse to give money to them, as they will just spend that money buying more smokes.
Refer them to Ozbargain website… Money saved is Income earned :)
At the risk of being banned buying stuff you don't need because it's on sale on Ozbargain is not the way to save money if you're struggling!!!
meh I've spent more money since coming to OzB, but its been worth is in terms of what it has given me. Its exposed me to small luxuries, and wants that I'd never consider before because they were either too expensive or I wasn't aware of them.
…and if you're doing well enough to afford those small luxuries that's a good thing. If you're drowing in debt and struggling to feed your family not so much.
holy crap! i can't believe i just read that lol! what a joke. what a slap in the face for people who really are doing it tough
holy crap! i can't believe i just read that lol! what a joke. what a slap in the face for people who really are doing it tough
The grass is always greener….people hear that someone who earns $70k hears that someone else earns $100k or $150k and they think that if they had that they'd be so much better off. They totally disregard what the other person has to spend and what they have to do to be on that income. The slap in the face is the tall poppy syndrome that's become endemic in Australian culture. It's just another name for envy and it's filthy. People would rather drive other people's incomes down and make their life harder than improve their own lot. Wages have gone down this year and things continue to get tougher. I guess we won't be happy till everyone is below the poverty line.
Ummm no. for you to be the messiah of this whole thread telling everybody the right and wrongs of their belief's and opinions is ridiculous. Mate, you have no idea what I or any of the other people you have replied to have, earn or are going through.
I am basing our opinions on the 3 people, and their story as they were told.
1st story, Earning under $50k a year, fare enough she's got a tough gig, $300/wk on rent, fair enough, 400-500 a week on groceries for 1 person? damn. she could definitely cut down.
2nd story, under 30 and earning over 100k a year. Good on him, he's worked very hard and he's reaping the rewards for his gift, drive and motivation. After tax, earns $5.5k a month, $1k goes to HECS, fair enough, $1k for rent, understandable and pretty good deal, the other stuff is pretty standard, but he can clearly reduce his eating out costs. Unless he is eating out for 2 meals a day everyday, it's quite ridiculous to spend $200 a week on fast food. He could definitely spend $150 on groceries and cut down to about $100 on fast food. Good that he can still offset $1k for hose deposit, but that could easily be $1.5k a month.
3rd story, Their tax threshold would be something to consider, but besides that, if she had to give up work for her kids, would it not have been smart to lower their 'standard of living' to reflect the financial change? allowing your debt to increase to $55k is crazy and not many excuses would qualify. But now she has a full-time job again, so their income would be back over $20k a month, not the $12,500 as estimated. at most, 40-60k would go to childcare. for what they are paying for an apartment atm, they could easily put it toward a mortgage for a home.
What the article isn't telling us is whether Rohit or Jessica has investment properties, which I'm guessing on that buck, they would. Which makes sense (and is smart) as to why they are renting
@andrew exclmtns
Ummm no. for you to be the messiah of this whole thread telling everybody the right and wrongs of their belief's and opinions is ridiculous. Mate, you have no idea what I or any of the other people you have replied to have, earn or are going through.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise I would be mistaken for Christ simply for expressing my opinion on this board.
Everyone else, yourself included has seen fit to criticise others for being wasteful when they earn what they consider to be a good salary. In fact you then proceed to put in your 2 cents on each and every individual. Bet you can't even see the irony, so I'm not wasting another second writing back.
people are responding to the article this thread is about, your adding making up new stuff
@syousef: haha you're a joke. i was trying to prove a point that where you said
I guess we won't be happy till everyone is below the poverty line.
was an incorrect observation and generalisation. But rather than just giving you a smart-ass reply, i explained why i thought the article was a mockery of many millions of hard working middle class citizens here.
I also believe your answers would be correct if in another context, like if every single reply here wasn't direct reply to the article linked, but in this case, it's incorrect. No i can't see the irony, please elaborate, or was that just another try at belittling us again in this public forum?
What does that have to do with the article? There's no mention of
You're beating a different drum mate, you're making up stuff that are not in the article.
As others have pointed out the article is an obvious troll article, designed to point out people living beyond there means.
sorry, was that in reply to me? or @syousef? my reply was in regards to this article linked in the post: http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/feeling-the-pinch-take-…
syousef,
It sounds like he's in a similar situation to the 250k couple, wants to have it all, so is 'struggling'
@Baghern: haha ah k cool ye probs lol. His reply to mine didn't even make sense. he said it was ironic that i would say that those in the article were wasteful with their money, but i listed each one individually wtf? If I'm god with my money (even though i earn quite a deal less than persons 2 or 3, where is the irony?
oh well @Baghern each to their own, we'll live our lives as we see fit
Everyone else, yourself included has seen fit to criticise others for being wasteful when they earn what they consider to be a good salary. In fact you then proceed to put in your 2 cents on each and every individual. Bet you can't even see the irony, so I'm not wasting another second writing back.
I'll just leave their latest article here - goodluck guys! :)
http://www.news.com.au/finance/wall-street-journal-says-fami…
aha holy crap! Here i thought i was living a good life, now to hear I'm earning well below that, i might as well quit life.
I've noticed they have a lot of trolling articles with a 'Cost of Living Survey' where people are asked to put in all of their personal details. I wonder if such information then becomes attached to an advertising cookie. I think it might explain the obsession with these articles on what seems to have become the AU edition of the Huffington Post.
Here a little perspective from a guy who has been through the parenthood thing:
Setting up the nursery
You can spend $10.000 buying everything from specialist baby shops or you can have a comparable set up for less than $500 by shopping wisely on eBay and doing a bit of decorating yourself or enlisted the help of some artistic friends.Schooling
Both my kids went to private school and it was money down the drain. Private schools do not make kids want to learn and sometimes the pressure to perform has a negative demotivating effect. My son never had all the expensive gizmos that his peers had at the private school and looking back I think it was affecting his confidence/self-assurancemeh, regardless of what you choose, if you want something "additional", without extra income coming in, you have to give something up
A lot of high income earners have more choices to have more, but rather than a have an extra few slices, they CHOOSE to have the whole cake.
Most of my high income earning friends are similar to the article here, at the same time most of my income earning friends have more assets ie house(s) because they've made choices within their income.
- 1
- 2
My gut reaction, these people aren't 'struggling', they're just dumb with money!
Typical News Ltd trash piece :)