Disposable Income Gone

DivingDuck

somefeen wrote: »

They need to teach more about money management in schools I reckon.

This should be a compulsory subject given the same weight as Literacy and Maths.

Budgeting, basic household maintenance, simple nutrition, etc. Everyone should know how to feed themselves, do a wash, forecast expenditure and the like. It's absolutely shocking that we don't consider these things to be worthwhile enough to teach to our children except via optional subjects that aren't sufficiently practical a lot of the time.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Aspire to be like the business owners instead of begrudging them.

Many of them also started out on the bottom rung.


Success rarely comes over night, years of graft, dedication and calculated risk taking are involved.

server down

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Mayne your should ask them not to spend 800 euro on their I phones while making the billionaires more billionairey.

Nonsense argument. The iPhone and other smart phones probably save money as people don’t need to buy music but instead stream it, buy a camera, buy dvds but instead Netflix (which is the price of a dvd per month), no need for alarm clocks, gps systems etc.

That’s not where disposable income is going.

server down

893bet wrote: »

If in Ireland and earning min wage you are close to, if not in the top 1%.

Those stats are way out of date.

Dohnjoe

DivingDuck wrote: »

This should be a compulsory subject given the same weight as Literacy and Maths.

Budgeting, basic household maintenance, simple nutrition, etc. Everyone should know how to feed themselves, do a wash, forecast expenditure and the like. It's absolutely shocking that we don't consider these things to be worthwhile enough to teach to our children except via optional subjects that aren't sufficiently practical a lot of the time.

And maybe a little more emphasis on history and economics - to give people some actual perspective and avoid threads like this

Growing up in the eighties it was rust-bucket cars, second hand clothes, crap roads, crap healthcare, no jobs, low quality food/goods on the shelves, smog, holidays always involved a ferry and a tent, getting a TV was a big deal, etc, etc.. but according to some it's "much harder" now

server down

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I must be a fooking magician. 70 quid a day on ****e, fools and their money...

Of course nobody does that. A taxi everyday? Going out every day? A takeaway everyday?

Even lunch every day or coffee every day is unusual.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

server down

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Another myth. Cheaper property and cheaper education, apart from that just about every other metric was worse.

Not true st all. I’ll post an Elizabeth warren video on just how hollowed out the American “middle class” is when I find it.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

somefeen

server down wrote: »

Nonsense argument. The iPhone and other smart phones probably save money as people don’t need to buy music but instead stream it, buy a camera, buy dvds but instead Netflix (which is the price of a dvd per month), no need for alarm clocks, gps systems etc.

That’s not where disposable income is going.

To be fair, I can do all that on a phone I bought for 150 two years ago. I think he means people that spend 800 or more a year on a new phone. That's hardly saving money.

DivingDuck

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And maybe a little more emphasis on history and economics - to give people some actual perspective and avoid threads like this

Growing up in the eighties it was rust-bucket cars, second hand clothes, crap roads, crap healthcare, no jobs, low quality food/goods on the shelves, smog, holidays always involved a ferry and a tent, getting a TV was a big deal, etc, etc.. but according to some it's "much harder" now

I remember being excited about going to McDonalds when I was a child. McDonalds! Because it was a bi-annual activity, at best. The concept of takeaways multiple times a week or month would have blown my tiny mind. You might get to stop into the local chippy once every couple of weeks if you were lucky.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the fact that young people today have a more convenient lifestyle— they should. We did; our parents had a much harder time of it compared to those of us now in our thirties and forties. My parents and their siblings have told me horror stories of a lifestyle genuinely unimaginable to children today: never mind no iphones, there were no house phones. In some cases, no running water or electric!

Every generation must have it easier than the one before. That's what progress means. The current generation have plenty of challenges we didn't face: the housing crisis, the disappearance of the "forever" job, social media stress, etc. But they've certainly got plenty of benefits we'd never have imagined. To say that because the current generation have different challenges to us doesn't mean they have more.

server down

draiochtanois wrote: »

You have no idea how much engineers in San Francisco make.

Typically total compensation for an engineer (hardware or software) would start at $160,000 cash bonus of $20,000 - $50,000 and RSU (shares) of $100,000 over 4 years

Doesn’t mean they can afford a mortgage. That’s the problem. Those salaries should be immense. Instead it’s all going up the chain on rent. Trickle down, flow up.

server down

somefeen wrote: »

To be fair, I can do all that on a phone I bought for 150 two years ago. I think he means people that spend 800 or more a year on a new phone. That's hardly saving money.

Every year isn’t the average though. Anyway it’s not a significant reason for lack of disposable income.

(In fact it’s probably the case that people spend less on phones now then they did in the 80’s).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Idbatterim

After the Celtic Tiger building boom, the Irish government drove up the cost of constructing new housing with a slew of new building regulations, to the point where it now costs twice as much per square meter to build residential housing in Ireland as it does in Germany. The government also limited how much people can borrow on mortgages, with new restrictions designed to protect the banks

the cost of construction here is ridiculous and something that needs to be addressed. What does not need to be addressed is allowing the sheep to borrow more money that simply drives prices higher... Its designed to protect the banks and the people!

Mrs OBumble

Going out 3 times a week isn't normal OP.

When I started work I heard a very good phrase regarding "pints with the boys" every night: notice that the boss doesn't do it. Thats why the boss is the boss and the boys are just the boys.

valoren

You get what you focus on.

For example, I'm interested in watches. I browsed dedicated sites daily a few years ago. Guess what? I suddenly had a collection of watches as I was focused on it and spent money on watches I liked on those sites. I got what I focused on. I lost interest, stopped the daily visit and I haven't spent a cent on a watch since. That principle works in every interest and hobby.

If you want to focus on increasing disposable income then you'd focus on making a budget. You'd watch you're outgoings carefully, you'd cut down on unnecessary bills, you curtail instant gratification and you'd then have more disposable income.
But people don't do that obviously. They want disposable income anyway. As the older generations would say; you've got to cut your coat according to your cloth. Certain expenses can't be cut obviously but everything you spend your money on is subjective.

And guess what? Businesses and the billionaires focus on exactly that.

How is it that so few manage to acquire most of the wealth? Because they knew how. Is it fair to condemn someone for achieving something because they knew how? Is it fair to take back from those who succeeded, when it's earned fairly and give it back to people who can't or won't succeed? My guess is it would find it's way back in no time and the cycle could be repeated.

whisky_galore

DivingDuck wrote: »

This should be a compulsory subject given the same weight as Literacy and Maths.

Budgeting, basic household maintenance, simple nutrition, etc. Everyone should know how to feed themselves, do a wash, forecast expenditure and the like. It's absolutely shocking that we don't consider these things to be worthwhile enough to teach to our children except via optional subjects that aren't sufficiently practical a lot of the time.

Parents were supposed to impart this, why aren't they doing that now?

Plus all of the above is now easily found with the smartphone that almost everyone has in the palm of their hand, there really is no excuse.

server down

valoren wrote: »

You get what you focus on.

For example, I'm interested in watches. I browsed dedicated sites daily a few years ago. Guess what? I suddenly had a collection of watches as I was focused on it and spent money on watches I liked on those sites. I got what I focused on. I lost interest, stopped the daily visit and I haven't spent a cent on a watch since. That principle works in every interest and hobby.

If you want to focus on increasing disposable income then you'd focus on making a budget. You'd watch you're outgoings carefully, you'd cut down on unnecessary bills, you curtail instant gratification and you'd then have more disposable income.
But people don't do that obviously. They want disposable income anyway. As the older generations would say; you've got to cut your coat according to your cloth. Certain expenses can't be cut obviously but everything you spend your money on is subjective.

It’s amazing all the mind contortions people have to go through to ignore the elephant in the room - rent.

Maybe it’s because a lot of Dubliners don’t rent.

Nothing you says there increases disposable or discretionary income. It just budgets it.

valoren

server down wrote: »

It’s amazing all the mind contortions people have to go through to ignore the elephant in the room - rent.

Maybe it’s because a lot of Dubliners don’t rent.

Nothing you says there increases disposable or discretionary income. It just budgets it.

So the OP's point is that their income should be higher than it is? Because it is only being kept and hoarded by the 1% to make themselves wealthier and they should instead just distribute it back....?

So they can then spend the increase in income in M&S and can no longer scavenge like vermin in Aldi?

Dohnjoe

server down wrote: »

It’s amazing all the mind contortions people have to go through to ignore the elephant in the room - rent.

Maybe it’s because a lot of Dubliners don’t rent.

Nothing you says there increases disposable or discretionary income. It just budgets it.

Based on the market

People are renting out properties for those prices because people are taking them. People are selling properties for those prices because people are buying them

We spend a higher proportion of our income on rent/property - we also spend proportionately less elsewhere.

e.g. when I was growing up, a luxury car was a rarity - now they are everywhere.

Despite spending relatively more on rent/property we are still better off than we were a generation or more ago.

server down

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Based on the market

People are renting out properties for those prices because people are taking them. People are selling properties for those prices because people are buying them

There is literally no wisdom in just repeating free market mantras. People really don’t want to be paying the private rent they are paying but the alternative is homelessness.

We spend a higher proportion of our income on rent/property - we also spend proportionately less elsewhere.

e.g. when I was growing up, a luxury car was a rarity - now they are everywhere.

That’s a contradiction.

Despite spending relatively more on rent/property we are still better off than we were a generation or more ago.

The op thinks that’s not true of renters in Dublin - I agree.

server down

valoren wrote: »

So the OP's point is that their income should be higher than it is? Because it is only being kept and hoarded by the 1% to make themselves wealthier and they should instead just distribute it back....?

So they can then spend the increase in income in M&S and can no longer scavenge like vermin in Aldi?

The op said he thinks disposable income is lower for people in their twenties. He means discretionary. Disposable is income post tax. Discretionary is income post tax and essentials - rent, heating, food (within reason) , electricity etc.

It doesn’t matter what you do with that discretionary income. Being frugal - while necessary - doesn’t give you more discretionary income, the reverse logics applies. Less discretionary income leads to more frugality. You still have the same discretionary income though.

Dohnjoe

server down wrote: »

There is literally no wisdom in just repeating free market mantras. People really don’t want to be paying the private rent they are paying but the alternative is homelessness.

???

We'd all rather pay less - what is your point here? Complaining about how much Irish people are charging for rent or you are proposing workable alternatives?

That’s a contradiction.

We are spending a lower proportion of our income on e.g. food that we used to in the past. No contradiction at all. In some areas we are spending relatively more, in others we are spending relatively less.

jimmycrackcorm

hurler32 wrote:

Looking at some of my younger colleagues and across industries generally it seems younger people starting out in Work have little to no disposable income.

What's the whinging about? It was the same for me when I started working 30 years ago.

I just never imagined such a thing as avocado on toast then so I never realised how bad it was.

thelad95

thelad95 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

350 quid a week on that, nice!

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Huge amount of conflating going on there tbh.
The "new standards" argument is a complete distraction, not by you specifically. In Eindhoven there are 3 bed houses for under 300k within a few km of the city centre proper. The government even pays towards them in some cases. They're of a much, much higher quality than what's built under the "too hard standards" set here.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Funnily enough, I'm 38, and find that managing the disposable income has become a little bit more difficult, and I feel a degree of it has come as part of the drive to be a 'cashless society'.

I remember in my first part time job while I was in college, I got about 120 pounds cash in an envelope and it had to do me for everything, anytime I opened my wallet, it was a instant reminder of how much I had left between now and payday.

The increase use of contactless, apple & android pay, revolut, paypal, takes a lot of the immediate awareness away from people. Online banking is grand, but its not unusual to log on of a monday morning and see a lash of small charges from whatever odds and ends were got over the weekend. Its very easy to fritter it away in small, seemingly innocuous transactions, and then be surprised when you grab the calculator and add it all up.

Idbatterim

The government even pays towards them in some cases. They're of a much, much higher quality than what's built under the "too hard standards" set here.

in terms of "standards" I am referring to apartments. This dual aspect and over the top lift ratio massively increases prices. These are deemed of so important, but obviously they dont give a **** about sound proofing etc in apartments!

storker

Having a car eats into disposable income in a big way, never more so than when someone's paying off a car loan. When you lump tax, insurance and fuel onto it, your disposable income starts to look like a game of Pac-Man.

In relation to cars, and phones, and holidays (hen/stag nights abroad!!!), a lot of people are pushing themselves close to the edge.

I do have sympathy, however, for those hammered by high house prices and rents, and I don;t think shrugging shoulders and saying "Oh well, it's the market, what can you do?" is really good enough.

DivingDuck

whisky_galore wrote: »

Parents were supposed to impart this, why aren't they doing that now?

Plus all of the above is now easily found with the smartphone that almost everyone has in the palm of their hand, there really is no excuse.

They don't know themselves? They're too busy? They can't be arsed? All of the above? You could say the same about everything we teach in school: you can learn maths and science and other languages through an app, so why do we bother teaching them?

If kids aren't taught these skills —and more importantly the value of these skills— when they're young, they will never prioritize them. A few people here and there will seek to better themselves, but on the whole, the majority of people need to be exposed to routines and concepts from an early age to internalize them. Any concepts. Kids that grow up in a house watching their parents struggle to pay every bill will themselves struggle not to end up the same way.

Of course parents should be teaching their children these things, but the obvious reality is that they're not, or we wouldn't have the issues we do. IMO, taking a few hours a week away from History, Geography, PE, Religion, etc. and devoting them to things like Nutrition, Personal Budgeting, Understanding Taxes & Pensions, and Home Maintenance would be well worth doing, and far more useful to both society and the individual.

The amount of information I learned in school which I've had zero reason to call upon since the day I put down my pen at the end of the Junior/Leaving Cert could quite literally fill books. I can look up how a glacier forms a valley on Wiki in two minutes if I want or need to know, but getting kids to learn the importance of planning and taking care of themselves, today and for the future, isn't something that can easily be taught by a website.