“For
Your Most Kind Consideration: Approval, Satisfaction, Happiness, And…Joy!”
10/10/12
Part
IV of V
(when
‘need’/fulfillment, is bound up in a desire for security…just how much of our
perceived ‘happiness’ involves owning ‘stuff’?)
[While
statistics may be dry, and facts may be boring, and ‘numbers’—by themselves—are
often skewed to sway one’s favor to a particular point of view…yet, all—if
stated plainly, and with honesty, may yet provide valuable insights as to
problem areas, leading to possible solutions. ‘Zahc’]
To my always dearest, most wonderful friends, and
ever-kind, and loyal readers,
I must confess that in part III of this series of
diary entries, I spent the majority of it bitching, complaining, and moaning;
nothing less than a gigantic and circular rant, without direction, education,
or…solution.
As such—although I do feel that so many people share
my angst—mere posturing is evident of a more personal, reactive response, that
really accomplishes nothing, save to annoy.
My basic premise—if it could be so stated as
such—was that, for some, little known, or hardly understood reason or reasons,
especially over the past five years or so, my ‘steady and reliable’ S.S.D.I.
income gradually became increasingly unable to meet my needs. Thus affecting a very personal sense of
satisfaction (one might even say, ‘happiness’).
Arguably, this income/expenses ratio is affected by
many discretionary, and reactive variables, such as payment of
regularly-incurred monthly ‘bills’ (utilities), ‘necessities’ (food, shelter,
medication, laundry), assumed ‘necessities’ ([C.N.A assisted showers, house
cleaning, lawn care, in my case], automobile payments, car insurance),
unforeseen expenses (doctor, emergency room, ambulance, medicine co-pays not
covered in plan formularies, appliance replacement, plumbing costs, etc.),
voluntary variable spending (pet care, pet medication, clothing, school costs,
entertainment), and—perhaps, voluntary, discretionary spending (charitable
donations, cigarettes, alcohol, extra items for the house, etc.),
and—finally—voluntary, discretionary, unnecessary, or, ‘wasteful’ expenditure
(that, I leave fully to your own admission!).
Further, that a clear distinction between, ‘need-oriented’
spending, and, ‘want-oriented’ spending should be made. For while spending for, ‘wants’, may bring us
a sense of happiness, however tenuous, spending for, ‘needs’—on the other
hand—ensure our very survival.
Overall, though, while I knew—quite beyond
question—that my ‘fixed’ income was becoming less and less able to meet even my
changing, and growing ‘needs’.
In part, I attributed this to changes in the
marketplace, including rising food costs, rate increases of utility bills,
increased cost of medical care, fairly recent—but marked—increases in pet care,
etc., things about which I felt I had no control over.
And, my very dear friends, I would not be completely
honest with you if I did not—in no, small measure—apportion the blame to
myself, regarding supposed ‘excesses’ in spending typifying a ‘weak character’.
After all, I do not actually ‘need’ three showers a
week, when one or two would suffice in the maintenance of mere hygiene. As
nutrition, I do not need coffee, sweetener, bottled water, Arizona
decaffeinated, diet iced tea (!), microwave-ready pot pies, etc.
I definitely do not need to smoke cigarettes!
For that matter, in regard to the meeting of minimal
‘needs’, there are a lot of things I really don’t need, but want, I suppose.
But in reading diary entries, PM’s, notes, and
discussion threads at MDJunction, I saw—clearly—that I was not alone. I have read about the inability to buy needed
medication, the high cost of shelter, the reduction of nutritional ‘choices’,
and a general, growing inability to survive, much less ‘thrive’.
And we—at MDJunction—are not alone in this
perception of, and actual decline in ‘want spending’, to, ‘need spending’, and
a more than apparent decrease in overall quality of life, and a concurrent
increase in hopelessness, frustration, and…focused, and unfocused rage.
I hoped that there would be statistics out there
which would give clear evidence of this decline, while contaminating the
results, and subsequent inferences with as little personal bias as possible.
And that such statistics could be easily referenced
by anyone who wanted to research them, and subsequent extrapolations that
anyone with a free afternoon, and a pen and tablet of paper could easily
replicate.
In order to measure how we—at present—are faring, we
must look to history, and specific points in time. Thus, we may then be able to plot on a
space/time graph the degree of apparent, economic health, by comparing income
to expenses.
I used—for a ‘base line’ indicator of income—minimum
wage, and then calculated it hourly, weekly, and then, yearly.
As for expenditure, I chose perhaps the two,
largest-ticket items that most affect the average American, namely, the average
price of a new car (and, number of years, using minimum wage required for
complete payment), and, the average price of a new home (and, again, the number
of years, using minimum wage, necessary to purchase in full).
For my time line reference, I used the years 1938,
1971, and, finally 2010-12.
I chose the 1938 as that was the year our government
enacted the, “Fair Labor Standards Act”, which for the first time mandated a
minimum wage (for all government and regular employees), defined the average
work ‘week’ as 40 hours, and—incidentally—did much to eliminate ‘child labor’,
which—frankly—surprised me! I had
thought child labor had been abolished long before that.
The year 1938 is also germane, as the Country was
probably at its economic worst during the ‘Great Depression’, of 1929-1941, which,
by the way was finally resolved by the outpouring of government funds never
before seen, and…our entry into WWII.
I did arbitrarily use the year, 1971, for
reference. For one, it is a year more or
less mid-point between 1938, and 2012.
On a personal basis—though—I was seventeen years old, and began my
first, almost full time, ‘adult’ job, working as a ‘ward clerk’ at Tarpon
Springs General Hospital. For the then—princely—sum of $1.71 an hour!
Finally, that I used the year, 2012, really, speaks
for itself.
Plotting all these separate factors on a graph—at
least roughly—will help give evidence of personal income/expenditure, and
payment, over time, and—hopefully will help illustrate financial health, and
consequently—by inference—the general level of perceived satisfaction and
happiness/unhappiness derived there from.
Alright, my very dearest, and most patient friends,
here we go….I think the results will very-much surprise you.
Year : 1938
1971 2012
Av. Min.
Wage, in
Hours: $0.25 $1.60 $5.67
Weekly: $10.00 $64.00
$306.80
Yearly:
$400.00 $3,200.00 $15,340.00
----------------------------------------------------------
Av. Price/
New Car: $763.00 $3,010.00
$30,748.00
----------------------------------------------------------
Time To
Purchase:
1.53 yrs. 1.48 yrs. 2.20 yrs.
----------------------------------------------------------
Av. Price/
New Home: $3,900.00/
$10,600.00/$212,300.00
Time To
Purchase: 7.80 yrs.
3.31 yrs. 13.84 yrs.
Further, according to the U.S. Census, and the
Federal Board of Labor, and Vital Statistics, regarding the population of the
United States, and the percentage of unemployed workers for the years in question:
1938:
Population:
132,164,569
Unemployment:
19.00%
1971:
Population:
203,392,031
Unemployment: 4.90%
2012
Population:
308,745,538 (as per 2010 census)
Unemployment: 9.60%
Of particular note,
Percentage increase in Minimum Wage:
From 1938—1971:
+640 %
From
1971---2012: +453 %
Percentage increase, price of new car:
From 1938---1971:
+410%
From
1971---2012: +1,020%
Percentage increase,
price of new home:
From
1938---1971: +210%
From 1971---2012:
+2,005%
‘Location!,
Location!, Location!
Where the data stands up, and where it must
inevitably fail, and how it affects any successful subsequent calculable and
even inferential conclusions that one might make:
After hours, and hours, and hours of careful
consideration, and much consequent gritting of teeth and hair-pulling, even at
the beginning, I realized that—in order to try to compare, ‘apples to apples’,
that I would have to rely upon information gathered from different, appropriate
Government agencies for ‘average’ national standards that were replicable, and
easily found by anyone interested in doing so.
Income—as we know it—is so ‘individual specific’, as
it is the present, and on-going result of education, experience, opportunity,
and location.
And so—regarding any Federally calculated, National
Average Income—I chose to use Minimum Wage, as it WAS possible to chart an
averaged income for the years in question, and thus regarding minimum
wage—alone—replicable, percentage in increase over time was possible.
In the same vein, for the ‘average’ cost of a new
car, and the ‘average’ price of a new home, I again looked to Federal
estimations in order to be able to chart changes in dollar amounts, as well as
estimated time—in years—how long it would take to purchase the above items,
given the chosen standards for minimum wage.
In a number of ways, the ‘estimates’ arrived at are
unrealistic, and—in consequence—false.
For example, few minimum wage earners are able to use 100 % of their
incomes to purchase a car, or a house…or—really—anything.
Many other—again—‘individual specific’ expenditures
have to be considered, such as payments for utilities, groceries, education, clothing,
medical care, etc.
These factor—alone—‘contaminate’ any attempt at
statistical analysis; however, the calculation of these ‘other expenditures’,
and the subtraction of them from available wage actually make the estimated
pay-off times very much longer, as per amount of money needed to
buy—outright—either a new car, or a new home!
And, in my calculations of, and comparisons of
income using minimum wage, I had to restrict my analysis to, ‘gross’, rather
than, ‘net’, income. I could never, ever
hope to factor in an individual’s income tax obligation.
In my defense—should I need one—is that, for many of
our working populace, ‘minimum wage’ is the gold standard, against which any
actual income may be compared.
It must also
be said that while income is ‘individual-specific’, the prices of new homes are
very much, ‘location-specific’.
Having relied upon the Federal ‘average’ price for a
new home in 2011 (in particular, as not all the data is in, or compiled fully
for 2012), for my own benefit, I wanted to see—in general—what $212,300.00
would buy.
According to the latest H.U.D. figures for 2010, the
‘average’ new home:
1)
Is about 1,300 sq./ft.
2)
3--bedrooms
3)
2—bathrooms
4)
1—combined living room/dining
room/family room area, (also referred to as an, ‘open plan’, a ‘keeping room’,
or, ’gathering room’).
5)
1—kitchen (which also contains an ‘eat
in’ area).
6)
1--2-car garage
Frankly, my very dearest friends, this amazed
me. I had previously ‘imagined’ that
somehow, the sum of $212,300.00 would have meant:
1)
A very much larger home, with larger
rooms, and bigger closets.
2)
At least four, spacious and airy
bedrooms
3)
At least two, ‘full’ bathrooms ( one being in
the so-called ‘master bedroom, larger, with double sinks, a tub AND a separate
shower, and—perhaps—a small, separate, enclosed space for the toilet), and one,
‘half-baths’ (sink and toilet, only) for ‘guests’.
4)
A separate ‘formal’ living room,
‘formal’ dining room’, a large family room with fireplace. Lots of built-ins, and storage space.
5)
A larger kitchen, perhaps with
stand-alone, island, service counter, and separate ‘breakfast’ nook; new, up-to-the-minute
appliances.
6)
A convenient, separate ‘laundry’ room,
with sink, storage, outside-facing window and/or door, washer and dryer.
7)
No less than a two-car garage, maybe
even a three-car garage, with built-ins for storage, and (although this IS
stretching it, a full, or at least half-bath).
And, as has been
mentioned before, the price of a new home is very ‘location’ specific.
In Manhattan—for
instance--$212,300.00 wouldn’t even get one in the door! Neither would it in San Francisco. And, probably not in Miami, Denver, Houston,
Atlanta, or Los Angeles, either.
For a genuine,
‘eye-opening’ education on real estate, I found an excellent site: www.Trulia.com
. You must first register, which is
free, and sign in creating a password.
After that, you need
only type-in the town, or city in question.
You will then be
presented with an uneven array of homes, condos, and lots, for example, of all
ages, conditions, states of foreclosure, size, and prices.
To seek some
kind of necessary relevance, one can choose how these many, ‘properties’ are,
‘rated’, from—for instance—price, highest to lowest; price, lowest to highest
(there IS a big difference!), properties with greatest or most recent price
increase, or reduction, in percentage; or…those advertised properties with the
most photographs.
I have spent hours at a time for weeks and weeks at
this site going from location to location just to ‘see’ what’s out there.
And, for some sense of, ‘grounding’, or ‘reality
basis’, I occasionally type the town in which ‘I’ live, New Port Richey,
Fl. And even here, there are surprises!
First if all, it must be said that New Port Richey
is—at best—a small, middle to lower class town in an overall ‘poor’
County. Its residents tend to live in
similar-income clusters. Unemployment is
high, as are the aggregate number of those—like myself—who are one disability.
At least as good third of the town’s extended
populace live in mobile homes of varying degree of habitability.
There are—however—a number of ‘gated communities’,
and, water-front properties that have
direct access to the Gulf Of Mexico.
Income—as you may well-imagine—slides all over the
board, but the disparity of apparent wealth is particularly great. Some of this wealth is reflected by retirees,
notably from northern States, or entrepreneur-generated income.
Of those who are employed, a large percentage work
at minimum wage, or even—in the case of waitpersons in the Food Industry
(exempt from minimum wage requirements), who earn—on rough average--$5.00 an
hour.
Crimes tend to run to domestic violence cases,
child-neglect, robbery, petty armed assault, or D.U.I’s.
There is a decided homeless population, which cannot
be statistically figured in any way that is really accurate.
New home construction--in light of the collapse of
the real estate market—continues, but at a very-much reduced pace. Still, the apparent, median price of a new
home—here—remains at about $185,000.00.
And they—too—follow closely to estimated national standards.
However…
On the real estate site, ‘Trulia’, when I typed-in
New Port Richey, Fl., I discovered—as the most expensive of properties listed—a
three-story, almost brand-new, beach house directly fronting the Gulf; it had
sweeping vistas, spacious rooms, four or five bedrooms, if memory serves, and
provisions to garage four cars.
It had at least one fireplace, and probably had at
least three, if not four bathrooms. The
kitchen was enormous, and had practically every convenience imaginable.
And the price tag: $7,359,000.00, m.o.l. !!!! It might as well be, ‘o.m.g.’ !!!!
And yet, on the other end of the spectrum, I could
show you a 3-bedroom, 3250 sq. ft. property, in foreclosure, for $1,000.00 !!!!
In the nearest, ‘semi-metropolitan’ city—Tampa—I
discovered, in a gated, secure community—overlooking a golf course, for
Heaven’s sake—for $10,000.000.00, larger than a small college.
And—although I am digressing madly—as you search around
the Country, you might quite understandably—in new homes—expect Las Vegas to
have the gold medal in ‘flash and trash’ excess. But, no.
I urge you to use, ‘Trulia’, and type in ‘Atlanta,
Ga.
For there, among the category of ‘most expensive’ is
a fairly newly built estate, for the sum of $19,000.000.00. Of course, it has everything imaginable known
to man. It is requisitely enormous.
But in all truth, my very dearest friends, I found
this ‘house’ to be compellingly obscene, with, ‘too much of everything’, taken
to unknown heights. It is inhuman in
scale, and hideous in design, and, in furnishings.
By the way, there’s a ‘virtual’ video tour that can
be taken which will really give one the feel of ostentatious excess, and utter,
financial bombast.
“Who”, you might well ask, “could possibly afford to
purchase and maintain this ‘pile of stone’?”
You certainly don’t see a Warren Buffet stepping up to the plate to take
ownership.
And with that—my very dearest, dearest friends, I
shall close for now, having spent the lion’s share of yesterday, and today in
an agony of pain and illness.
I hope to be able to make some sense,
and—perhaps—draw some realistic, and, hopefully, understandable, helpful, and
consoling conclusions, next, in part V, the final chapter, as it were, in this
series.
Please
know I think of you often, and wish you safe, well, and…happy!
And,
as always, please, please know that I love you dearly!
‘Zahc’/Charles
