Comments on: Are we Living Larger or Living Differently? (Part 2)

By: Are we Living Larger or Living Differently?

Are we Living Larger or Living Differently? — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:04:56 +0000

[...] living larger and living differently part 2, for more thoughts and conclusions on how we’ve changed. This post deals with: … and [...]

By: erik

erik — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:23:39 +0000

I think it’s easy to improve the way you live when your household income increases. Sometimes, dual incomes are a curse because you were perfectly content living the way you were on one income and now the extra income entices you to get a bigger house, get a new car, and buy some new stuff. I think we have to be careful of balancing our lifestyle with our savings strategy. If you do that, then you can live comfortably and save a good chunk of cash.

By: Minimum Wage

Minimum Wage — Tue, 29 May 2007 14:39:13 +0000

I’m not living larger, I’m living smaller. In real terms, I earn less today than I did in 1980.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 27 May 2007 18:53:56 +0000

I don’t get the purpose of the article or the question. it would only apply if one equates living a full life based upon stuff as Liz mentioned in the article. the comparisons just don’t match up either. it would be more useful to compare percentage of income to those expenses.

By: Ted Valentine

Ted Valentine — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:49:34 +0000

LazyMan – I’ve owned a house built in the 1920 and one built 5 years ago. New construction does not have less maintenance than an old house. In fact new construction may cost more to maintenance. Things used to be built to last. Now they are built to be consumed and disposed so you have to buy a new one.

By: pfodyssey

pfodyssey — Fri, 25 May 2007 05:09:28 +0000

* The decision to have or not have dual incomes is more often the natural result of making a choice about the lifestyle you want to live…whether it be materially (ex: large house), financially (ex: be secure, retire early, etc), or emotionally (don’t want to just stay home and raise the children). Typically, it will be a combination of the three with varying weights on each.

* I agree with Cami about larger houses…it is more often a matter of “want” as opposed to “need”. I think this can also be extended to RateLadder’s comment about living in the Bay Area…you may in fact need two jobs to live in that area at a certain level of housing…but you don’t have to…you WANT to…it’s a choice. Beyond the basics of food, shelter, etc…it always becomes a want question…it’s just how far along the spectrum.

By: Lazy Man

Lazy Man — Fri, 25 May 2007 04:51:18 +0000

I was looking for a house about 18 months ago, but I wanted new construction as I’m not handy. I was told that they don’t make homes under 2000 square feet, because it wasn’t as profitable to do so. So maybe for some their want is a new home and they forced into the bigger one.

By: cami

cami — Fri, 25 May 2007 03:31:11 +0000

As far as housing goes, I think that the desire to live larger came first, but I think that it crept up on us slowly. When we have a bigger house, we have to spend more money decorating it, heating and cooling it, and maintaining it. I actually wrote a post on this a week or so ago (it’s here if you want to read it: http://www.greenmindedwallet.com/wpdb/2007/05/15/live-small-so-you-can-live-large/). I read articles all the time about people who need to buy a bigger house because 2000 sqft isn’t adequate for starting a family, that’s not a need, that’s a want.

By: RateLadder.com

RateLadder.com — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:44:09 +0000

Or your startup has already had a liquidity event.

By: RateLadder.com

RateLadder.com — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:41:28 +0000

I don’t think it is possible to live in the bayarea without roommates or at least two jobs… I should clarify slightly… The bay area meaning anywhere that can get to the mid peninsula in an hour excluding any free housing one can find in the mountains.

By: Lazy Man

Lazy Man — Thu, 24 May 2007 16:44:42 +0000

Fab Female, I’m just bringing back what Biz Markie created (at least I think he did).

By: Fab Female

Fab Female — Thu, 24 May 2007 16:30:10 +0000

“A collective ‘oh snap!’” You just made my morning and created a killer catchphrase. :)

By: Ted Valentine

Ted Valentine — Thu, 24 May 2007 14:45:19 +0000

I almost responded to part 1 because most of you reasoning was attributed to two people working. The ultimate answer is “both”. We live differently and larger.

Let me tell you that it is a fact people choose larger lifestyles because of dual incomes. I have 3 small children. We live on 1 income and I make just over an “average” salary. We chose to have mom at home raising our own kids because those are our values. We made this decision before we were married and planned accordingly.

We could have a much bigger house, drive new cars, eat out more often, have more cable channels, and afford expensive vacations if my wife worked. Instead, we have chosen what we feel is best for our children and eschewed those material rewards. We have all we need, and the pressure to “upscale” everything is ever present. We feel our children, and society indirectly, will ultimately be rewarded with our decision to live 1970s large instead of 2007 large.