15th Jan 2013, 11:06
Stop and consider what a "nice" house meant in the 1950s compared to what a "nice" house means today. In the 1950s, which people point to as the cream of living, a house might have been a thousand square feet or less. Now people feel as though they have a right to live in a 7,000 square-foot McMansion or they will be shown crying on a CNN special about poverty in America.
Also, compare the family car (singular) to the multiple cars owned by families today. People have leveraged themselves into debt by buying stuff that they have been told is supposed to make them happy, instead of living within their means and actually being happy. What an empty life it must be to define your personal value by the size of your flat screen TV or by whether your car has an SE or LX on the trunk.
There is nothing wrong with wanting nice things, but nobody "deserves" nice things. You earn them by being financially responsible and working hard. People no longer accept that if you want to be driving a Mercedes when you're 45, you may have to make the best of driving a a beater when you're 25, and bulking up those savings for 20 years. Immediate gratification is not the key to long-term happiness.
15th Jan 2013, 07:10
Since you are likely to be making less, this is what I did. When I qualified for a new home, I didn't borrow the maximum to what the bank would lend me. I went half. Then you can do things and not be tapping into credit cards. And being squashed into a little beater to drive around in. It's not what you make, it's what you spend. I downsized myself, not work. And it's paid for. Utilities are less, commute is shorter. Many people want all house. If that's your thing, fine. I'd rather own my cars and home. And there are those that have 2 strong incomes coming in that can afford nice transportation. Maybe this isn't a fair comment, but most guys do not need a big new home. I like a balance of nice things, and can drive a nice car too.