This post sparked several excellent comments, but the exchange between Holly A. and Cees Van Barnevelt was particularly outstanding. Holly’s comment was more political analysis than ethics (not that there’s anything wrong with that) but CVB’s response touched on two ethics issue that get short shrift today: 1) the fact that Donald Trump is indeed a patriot, is addressing matters as he promised to address them, 2) his popularity and power is mostly due to that, and not some kind of mindless cult of personality. (That was Obama.)
Here is Holly’s Comment of the Day on the post “Why Do So Many Democrats and Progressives Think Punishing Americans For Their Opinions and Beliefs Is Ethical Conduct?,” followed by CVB’s retort:
***
CVB: “My first question is what you mean about the Republicans unraveling today? I see the Trump administration getting quite a lot of work done, and fulfilling the promises made during the election. Are you referring to Congress?”
ME: Good question. I see the Democrats as unraveling externally, the Republicans as unraveling internally. Hence the disintegration of the former is easily observable, while the latter still looks quite sound. Congress has managed to pass legislation in record time and with a slim majority, which is a considerable feat! And yes, the Trump administration has also been busily at work with some clear accomplishments in line with campaign promises. What I see as the structural unraveling at the core of the GOP is the transformation of what used to be a party with a reasonably coherent set of values (as articulated by JM) into a personality/strongman cult in which loyalty/submission to the leader trumps adherence to values and attention to the priorities of their constituents. While they are in power, this looks like unity and strength. But what will things look like in the post-Trump era? Succession issues are one of the ways empires fall apart and companies fail. However, whether this supposition is correct will await the next chapter.
CVB: “My second question is what you see as the signature crisis of this time?”
ME: Even better question! I don’t actually think we have a single signature crisis. Instead we seem to have multiple crises. One is the extreme wealth disparities and the associated power of billionaires, the political corruption facilitated by Citizens United, and the affordability crisis fueling a very deep and broad anger at elites, including the government (which is mostly populated at the top levels by the very or extremely wealthy). I see this as somewhat similar to the Robber Baron era. This crisis can theoretically be addressed by political means, and we are a wealthy country so we actually COULD afford to have a more broadly prosperous and economically secure citizenry but I expect this crisis will get worse before that happens. Another one is global: the transition from a more stable climate regime to a less stable climate regime (IMO it really matters not, re weather consequences, whether and to what degree this has been affected by the industrial revolution). More extreme and destructive fires, floods, the rise in sea level, etc. are making life more precarious and unpredictable in physical terms, as the wealth disparity crisis is making life more precarious in economic terms for more and more people. The immigration crisis is another one, which I anticipate will get worse as the volume of climate refugees increases, exacerbating the internal displacement of people from cities unable to cope with sea level rise.
***
And here’s is CVB’s response…
***
I will respond to the first point.
My view is that Trump is a transformational leader of the GOP, and the GOP has been a party in transformation since the Presidential election of 2016.
The Trump style GOP has a platform that is different than that of the old style GOP of GWH Bush, GW Bush, Mitt Romney and John McCain at a number of points:
- Foreign policy has become focused on national interest as top priority, and the idealism of the GW Bush administration (nation building, regime changes, changing hearts and minds in the Middle East) has been set aside.
- Trump is less beholden to the economic pieties dating back to the Reagan era. Example: tariffs. Old style GOP is more beholden to the interest of businesses, whereas MAGA style conservatism is most focused on the interest of the people of the USA. MAGA style economic policy is phasing out “laissez faire” style classical liberalism dating back to to time of the robber barons and Calvin Coolidge and championed by Ronald Reagan, and moving in the direction of a more activist and populist economic policy that would satisfy traditional style blue collar labor unions.
- The style of doing politics is different. The old style GOP politicians were gentlemanly losers who cared more for comity and decorum, and not enough fight in them to deliver on the issues important to the base. Trump is a fighter, and although it does not always look nice, his style is definitively effective in delivering results.
Aside from that, and in line with past GOP tradition, Trump is robustly patriotic and pro law and order. Although Trump is less outspoken on matters that interest family value tradcons, he still deserves credit for the Dobbs decision which resolved the issue of abortion away from the GOP at a federal level, and allows the GOP on other issues such as DEI and woke extremism on all matters “trans” such as males in women’s sports.
This has resulted in a change of the GOP electorate, namely a move of blue collar workers away from the Democrats to the Republicans, making the GOP the party of the common people who earn less than six figures, while the Democrats have become the party of the coastal elites earning more than six figures.
As Trump’s emphasis on immigration enforcement benefits people with low skills on the labor market, and reduces crime, the GOP will become more attractive to minorities in poor neighborhoods who want to escape poverty and welfare. This gives the GOP an opportunity to increase his base among blacks and Hispanics, as last elections showed.
There are still a lot of old-style GOP in congress with seniority and power (Cornyn, Graham, Thune; Tillis and McConnell will leave in 2026) who will be slowly phased out in coming elections.
Trump will be out in 2028, and it looks there is a great candidate for a successor: Vice President JD Vance. Besides that, there are a couple of governors and senators who may be good candidates such as DeSantis, Cruz. The GOP definitively have a better field than the Democrats.
As Trump has achieved major successes in Congress as well (e.g. the Big Beautiful Bill), the GOP seems to be well-positioned for the future.
Regarding the personality cult, I do not think there is one and there surely will not be after 2028. His outsized public presence is a direct result of the Trump Derangement Syndrome of the Democrats.
***
It’s me, your old pal the ethicist. I have to make a couple of points.
- Holly’s billionaire trope is a Leftist talking point (Hello, Bernie!) and a lame one. I don’t care how much money billionaires make or have; if they use their money the way, say, Elon Musk does, I’m grateful for them. Wealth is not a zero sum game; that billionaires have a lot doesn’t mean that the rest of the public has less.
- Transformational Presidents always leave a vacuum in their absence: Washington did, Jackson did, FDR did and Reagan did. However, often parties continued to thrive even with vastly less popular and charismatic successors (Truman, Bush). Trump’s version of the GOP is based on policies and not personality; moreover it is more clearly distinguishable from the lunatic Left than it has been in decades. Trump will not be hard to replace. A President under the age of 70 will be refreshing.
- There is no evidence of “more extreme and destructive fires, floods, the rise in sea level, etc” because of cliamte change, as multiple studies have shown repeatedly. Nor is there any evidence of “climate refugees.” People come to the United States illegally because it’s the best place to raise a family and to build a happy and successful life, not to escape rising tides.
Ethics Alarms 
I will thank Jack for the honor of the COTD.
I too thought the exchange was quite good. I was pleased to see Sarah’s commentary on climate as part of the overall discussion.
Without using the word “trope” to describe the disparity of income/wealth in the US, I would like to point out that any disparity is caused not by sinister forces at work to keep the poor at the mercies of the elite. Such disparities are a function of personal behavior.
If we define wealth as the net sum of what is owned and what is owed on the purchase of what is owned and income as the transfer of wealth from one owner to another, we can deduce that the majority of the disparity is a function of individual choices. For the most part, wealth or loss of wealth is derived from consensual exchange from consumer to producer either directly or indirectly through some intermediary. Consumer’s trade their incomes for goods and services. Consumers who choose to save some of their money in order to invest it in income producing assets will build wealth and those who consume more than their incomes will find themselves in a chronic state of living paycheck to paycheck. This is a choice they alone make.
To accumulate wealth you must spend your money on things that create income streams that do not require you to be more than incidentally involved in the creation of that income stream. For example, if you decide to buy a $60K pickup truck or some other status creating item your decision prevents you from spending that same amount of money on income creating assets. Conversely, if you decide to drive a $2500″beater” you have at least several hundred dollars a month to buy income income generating assets.
For the majority of persons who choose to have a closet full of designer clothes bought using a credit card will find that they become indentured to those who make their conspicuous consumption possible. Never use a credit card unless you can pay it off in full each month and never get cash advances – they will bleed you dry.
The point is that those who avail themselves of the free or low cost opportunities early in life like attending class regularly, using public transportation, brown bagging instead of charging their lunch on a credit card will tend to be more inclined to defer consumption and accumulate wealth along with the ability to learn techniques to grow their wealth more rapidly. Those who spend time learning to create value for themselves and others should not be condemned for the decision that led to their personal wellbeing.
If we want to look at disparate wealth let’s first start with federal employees and those who provide services to the federal government. I have a hard time fathoming how the four or five counties that surround Washington, DC are the richest counties in America. What is it they produce that people will readily give their dollars to acquire? Or, are we using debt to indenture future generations in order to create a permanent ruling class?
“For example, if you decide to buy a $60K pickup truck or some other status creating item your decision prevents you from spending that same amount of money on income creating assets. Conversely, if you decide to drive a $2500 ″beater” you have at least several hundred dollars a month to buy income income generating assets.”
This is exactly the kind of cheese-wheeling I was talking about. Forget for a moment that 18-25 year olds aren’t buying trucks like they used to, period. Do you know how many trucks are available for $2500 or less in America? I Just looked on Autotrader: There’s about 300. Some of them don’t run. How many people could do what you’re talking about before supply ran out? And what then?
But the real question is: When did buying a new truck become economically crippling and unattainable? The price of a new F150 in 1980 was $6,000. I bought a new, very basic, F150 in 2008 for $21,000. The exact same truck has a base price of $80,000 in 2025. You’re right: That’s not responsible to buy. But it’s indicative of how much harder it is for kids now.
This isn’t a matter of personal choices. If the average kid today did the exact same things that the average kid did 40 years ago, they’d be dying in ditches en masse. This is a matter of their life choices being incredibly narrowed and stunted. The ever more narrow series of choices that actually lead to success is starting to resemble perfection.
HT
This is not “cheesewheeling” as you called it. Before I get to my explanation as to why, I was not comparing any particular vehicles other than price. Moreover my example could have been simply the price differential between a new baseline Chevy or a baseline Lexus or it could be a used vehicle costing 20K or an older unit at 10K. The point is that young people have different sets of expectations as to minimum standards. Neither of my vehicles are younger that 15 years old because I choose not to pay for frills I neither need or add value.
With that said, you cannot buy equivalent vehicles today cars and trucks today are subject to higher levels of regulatory control. In 1980, if you had an FM radio that was a luxury as was A/C and and automatic transmission. There was no such thing as side curtain airbags or other crash mitigating technologies available. All these things add to cost.
I should point out that in 1980 a person earning 21K was considered median family income and that was at a time when two earner families existed but not as much as today. Today the median household income is just shy of 67K and you can buy a home in many places for under 250K. Median home values are substantially higher at about 400K because some wealthy people want opulence beyond simply high end finishes. I will not argue that home prices relative to income do not have a higher multiple. In 1980 the median home price was about 37K which meant that with a median income of 21K the multiple was under 2 and today that multiple is a bit around 4 depending on the area. However, in 1980 the average mortgage rate was double digits and today the cost of financing the home is about a third of what it was in 1980. Furthermore, many existing homeowners profited handsomely from the rapid inflation of the late seventies and early eighties which doubled the price of the property in just a few years. Asset appreciation continued at a pace of about 3.2 percent so those middle class folks that bought before 1976 won the homeowner lottery by cashing in on rapid appreciation and then refinancing the home when Paul Volcker choked of the economy causing interest rates to come hurtling earthward.
The fact of the matter is that prices have gone up because people and government demand certain minimums in things purchased. Do you think that when government imposes lead mitigation requirements in rental properties that the costs do not get passed on to the person who gets the actual value of the service. Who should pay for environmental remediation; consumers who got value from the product that created the effluent that later was determined to be a hazard or the maker who did not price in the costs of remediation.
If young buyers are taught to want stainless steel appliances and high end finishes in their new 2500 square foot home with the large yard or that condo that overlooks something special that is also within walking distances to shopping and nightlife, do you think that the demand for that limited supply does not escalate prices. Is it possible that when 15 -20 million people from other nations flood the zone for housing that housing prices won’t rise when developers see a dramatic uptick in demand and must to spend thousands of dollars to get basic approvals to begin large scale construction projects that also require them to build a certain percentage of low/moderate income properties in that plan
You are right that not all of this is directly tied to human choices but all are tied to those choices at least indirectly. Young people vote and if they vote for more regulations then they must be willing to incur the cost of these regulations.
You said, “If the average kid today did the exact same things that the average kid did 40 years ago, they’d be dying in ditches en masse. This is a matter of their life choices being incredibly narrowed and stunted. The ever more narrow series of choices that actually lead to success is starting to resemble perfection.”
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Do you mean that if the kids had to do without something like a $1200 smart phone or a NetFlix account it would devastate them? How would they be “dying in ditches en masse”. If their life choices are stunted it is because they have been taught that they deserve something without real sacrifice.
In 1980, I was that 24 year old kid. I worked from the time I was 15 to get the resources to acquire “stuff”. I borrowed money to buy trucks that created income for me. I paid for help that created more income than they cost me. It was not easy and I struggled as an entrepreneur for several years before selling my business to pay for college. I chose to go to a community college where the price was about $23/credit hour and then a state school which cost me about $1,500/semester and that included fees and books. I worked through college and commuted. The MBA that I earned in 1995 cost me about what the tuition at the community college is today and I paid for that one course at a time for five years. There were no frat parties for me and no social climbing opportunities were to be had. I did without many things and it bothered me that I could not participate socially like others but I came out of it and profited from not being indentured to Citibank or some other financial institution as so many of my contemporaries were.
Today’s tuition at Hagerstown Community College were I paid $23/credit hour in 1980 as an in county resident.
Fees
I calculate that the basic cost per credit hour (not including course specific add on fees) comes to 142 dollars per credit which may be comparatively cheaper that other schools to the AA or AAS degree conferred but it is considered less valuable today than 45 years ago and costs 617% more whereas a modest 1500 square foot home is still more affordable on a dollar for dollar basis than that degree and the home increases in value.
Who is gouging whom?
Everything is a choice and every dollar saved can be invested in wealth creating assets.
Before I get started on the rest of that…..
“This is not “cheesewheeling” as you called it.”
I made the term up, so I get to define what it is or isn’t. Cheeswheeling is when you’re old and out of touch, unable to understand that regardless of why it is that kids legitimately have it harder than you do, they do. And they will, regardless of how strongly you assert how it was back in your day. You got yours in the way back when, paid $20,000 and a wheel of cheese for your first home, prevented the next generation from doing the same things you did, and then blamed them for it when they tried something different.
And you are ABSOLUTELY cheesewheeling.
“I was not comparing any particular vehicles other than price.”
The math is worst on Trucks, but it’s not good on anything. Homes and cars, the two big purchases people made as a symbol of status have had their prices decouple from earnings. The kids didn’t do that.
“With that said, you cannot buy equivalent vehicles today cars and trucks today are subject to higher levels of regulatory control.”
I don’t care why they can’t afford a truck. The fact is: They cannot afford a truck. The kids didn’t push these standards or ask for these frills. And at this point, they don’t care about them because they’ll never own them.
“I will not argue that home prices relative to income do not have a higher multiple.”
This is all that really mattered from what you wrote. The kids didn’t build the homes that are or aren’t on the market. They didn’t commoditize home prices. They didn’t NIMBY low cost housing out of cities. They didn’t cash in from housing booms. But now they’d have to get insured mortgages with minimum down payments because SoMeOnE crashed the sub-prime market. Spoiler: It wasn’t the kids.
“If young buyers are taught to want stainless steel appliances and high end finishes in their new 2500 square foot home with the large yard or that condo that overlooks something special that is also within walking distances to shopping and nightlife, do you think that the demand for that limited supply does not escalate prices.”
Real question: Have you ever talked to someone under the age of 30? America is big, and I know there’s going to be some entitled shit in a city somewhere that actually thinks like that, but this is so divorced from the average reality of their experience that it’s legitimately funny to me. I know people literally dreaming about buying a 600 square foot bachelor pad that butts up against a 7-11 and maybe by the time they’re 40 they’ll have saved up the damage deposit for it.
“I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Do you mean that if the kids had to do without something like a $1200 smart phone or a NetFlix account it would devastate them? How would they be “dying in ditches en masse”. If their life choices are stunted it is because they have been taught that they deserve something without real sacrifice.”
I’m sorry… Netflix? In the 80’s people had cable, and cable in the 80’s cost more then than Netflix does now in dollars unadjusted for inflation. When I said that if todays kids were making the same decisions that your generation made, they’d be dying in ditches, I meant that as a generation you were famous for making shitty choices, they just didn’t hurt you as much.
“In 1980, I was that 24 year old kid.”
This is the least surprising thing I’ve read today, and I don’t apologize for saying so.
“I worked from the time I was 15 to get the resources to acquire “stuff”…. [Blah Blah Blah]”
Do me a favor… No. Do yourself a favor: Make a budget. Find an add in the local paper for someone starting out, figure out what they’d pay, assume you got the job, and model out a budget. Figure out what the take-home would be. If the job required school, figure out what the student loans would be. Find a used car, use the payment calculator on their site, figure out the payment. Find a home in your town, figure out what the monthly payments would be, and how much the down payment would be… Come back to us with how many years you’d have to eat ramen and cut your own hair before you could make the down payment.
It doesn’t matter why the kids are so fucked. It matters that they’re so fucked. And if you create a system where they cannot participate, you shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t.
I am taking your challenge. I have looked around my town and chosen one of the lowest paying full time jobs that requires no experience or schooling and has benefits. That was a full time clerk at a gas station, a job for which there are multiple openings. I took out the average amount for taxes, which is actually a little high, given that I used a national average and I live somewhere without state income taxes, but hey, it makes the numbers tighter. I have found an apartment with the utilities included. I found a used car from a reliable brand that is newer than the one I currently drive, but cheaper too. I found car insurance and kept it to collision only. I am putting down internet. I also put in a generous spending budget, more than I spend today on an average month, so that if I forgot something, it could easily come out of groceries and spending ($125 a week for a single person). I certainly didn’t eat that well on my own dime starting out. I did not have TV growing up, so I think that spending on that, when I’m paying for internet is silly. Everything is based off of an average of 4 weeks a month, to keep the math easy. Also, as we are a small town, there aren’t that many places to spend money on entertainment if you are on a budget, so they’d take advantage of the free music academy events, the parks, and the churches.
This leaves around $300 a month to save for a down payment. $3600 a year.
I have also priced out a house, at $200,000. The down payment is $40,000 for no PMI, which was always my goal, but is more than most people pay. I am assuming that this kid never saved a penny from anything like a summer job, allowances, or birthday/Christmas gifts, nor did anyone in their family encourage savings. Therefore, it would take 134 months or 11 years to save for a down payment on a house, with no raises, promotions, much less using the experience from this job to move onto the other jobs on the list that pay significantly more after two years of experience. This also does not include emergencies. There are also a lot of higher paying jobs that this person could have applied for, that if they had any high school summer work experience would have paid more, including this job, which I took at the lowest possible rate.
Now, a more reasonable approach is to say that two months worth of savings have to go to the things that need replaced, especially if we are assuming this kid has no family who would buy him socks. So let’s drop the savings to $3,000 a year. That makes 13 years to save for a 20% down payment if you never got a raise.
I don’t think this is unreasonable. Realistically, in our town, this kid would do this for a few years, put away a couple thousand, and get on the next time the railroad, refinery, or oil rigs were hiring, and start making serious money. You could usually afford a small house or a family sized handyman special by 25 easy.
What have I done wrong with this analysis?
Sorry, you think working for 13 years to save up for a down payment on a $200k house is reasonable?
Did you include gas and phone bill?
Also, 200k for a house is really cheap but did you include closing costs?
Marisa,
I did not include gas or phone. I thought the $125 groceries and spending a week covered that well. For a decent smartphone from Tracphone, you can by a 1 year 2000 minutes, texts, and 10 GB data for $100 if you watch the sales. This is pretty cheap when divided over a year $8.34 a month, and if you are careful to work on Wifi as much as possible, you can get by for most of a year on this. My father does this every year. He used to top off his data every couple of months, with $5-10 top offs, but has since put internet in his house, and thus hasn’t had to top off yet this year.
The car I chose in this scenario is currently sitting on the local lot, and is known for longevity and high mileage, meaning that unless you are traveling a lot, you can get by with about $50 a month for gas. If you are in a savings mindset, you don’t travel much. I know that when I was 18-22, I traveled away from my town about 3 times a year. If you wanted a cheaper car, you could probably get someone to drive you down to Cheyenne, Ft. Collins or Denver (these rides are requested all the time on the town Facebook page), and buy something cheaper, that would put more money in your pocket for gasoline, but we only have very few cars on the lot in town today, so that was outside the parameters of the challenge.
Now, a house priced at a maximum of $200,000, in my town, gives you 30 options, according to Realtor.com, most of which are cheaper than $200,000, so closing costs would be accounted for in that price, and was accounted for in the one I picked. Of the 30 options, I ignored five of the houses, as they were too high for closing costs to be accounted for. The one I picked, a house on the market today for $189,900 (assuming $10,000 for closing, which is awfully high around here), has 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2,000 sqft, and a 9,000 sqft lot. I used a short-cut in the process, because this still comes in at about $200,000. As I was recently house hunting, I have been in that house, and know that the basement is definitely in need of work, but the upstairs has just been nicely remodeled. There is a not insignificant yard. The house is just a block away from the house I bought at 26 (my husband was 29) and not in a bad neighborhood.
As for the thirteen years, did you see all the caveats I put on that number? I said that this person is taking the lowest possible wage for the job, as they have no experience. There is a reasonable presumption that you would get raises. Heck, I chose a lower paying job on the board, where even Walmart pays more. In addition, I said that with one or two years under their belt, they would be eligible for other jobs that paid more from the same job board. There were lots of jobs that required two years experience. Finally, I said that this person would likely get a job with the railroad, oil rigs, or refinery once those jobs opened up. They do not have any jobs open right this moment, as they only hire a few times a year. As a previous refinery employee, I know that starting salary there is almost three times this salary, and we hired lots of people straight out of high school. Oil field jobs make refinery jobs look low paying, and while the railroad is not nearly as nice as the refinery for starting salary, the benefits are immense, and we are still talking around twice this salary for a beginner. However, the challenge said to pick a job that was available, and this is the wrong season for those jobs.
The 13 years is a worst case scenario for an intelligent and frugal person. As I said, it is far more likely that this person will take some of the many opportunities a starter job can give and have a house by 25. As I said above, I was 26 before I bought my house.
I don’t actually see the problem with this. I don’t necessarily think we should expect to have a house right out of high school, but this is hardly an unreasonable life to live. We also should not expect a beginner job to pay for the high life. Beginner jobs are just that, jobs to get you started so you can get higher paying ones as you gain experience and knowledge.
I mean…. It’s hard to say, because the only things you gave numbers for ended up being $800/month (food and savings). I don’t know how much the wage was, I don’t know what the car payment was, I don’t know what the rent was, and I don’t know how much the insurance was.
But I can point out what’s missing.
There’s no phone, so they aren’t talking to anyone. There’s no gas, so they aren’t going anywhere. At $125/week this person is never going to eat a steak. This person isn’t going to date, Isn’t going to have kids, Isn’t going to have the internet, isn’t going to watch TV. They are going to sit in an empty room, because there’s never going to be furniture, and be perfect for 11 years, until they turn 30, and then realize their math didn’t include the tax on the sale or the land transfer fee, and probably do it for two more.
This also fails to take into account that in the 11 years it’ll take, property values will probably appreciate about 50%, and they’ll have to wait another 5 years, at which point property values will have increased another 25%, adding another two years, and so on and so forth. The erudite monk of a man might end up getting his keys by 40.
At which point the only reason he won’t have swallowed a gun is because he wouldn’t have been able to buy one.
But let’s ignore that all for a second, because we’ll just use your math and not sweat the small stuff like having a life…. Freedom 70? Be perfect, buy a house at 30, pay it off at 70? That’s the plan? That’s reasonable to you? That’s what you did?
Ok, here’s the numbers. $13.50 an hour job, with 40 guaranteed hours, but little expected overtime. 4 weeks a month, 40 hours a week is 2160 a month. 14% of that goes to income taxes by Google, so he keeps $1846.80 as net income. As a note, this job has benefits, like health insurance and sick time, as well as paying for a certain number of college classes if you can go online to a community college (the nearest one of those is 100 miles away from us).
The most expensive 2 bedroom apartment at Spruce St is $700 a month, assuming you do not qualify for reduced rent based on income, though this income would most likely qualify. This includes all your utilities and is furnished.
The car is a $12,000 car, financed at $220 a month according to the website after putting in fake info about this kid with no credit or money. It is a Nissan Ultima with 75,000 miles. These are cheap cars to fuel, if you don’t travel much. I sure as heck didn’t travel much from 18-22, leaving town around 3 times a year. One could easily get by on $50 of gas a month, which for that car is two fill-ups.
Car insurance for an 18 year old male in my town who pinches pennies and only gets collision was quoted at 264 a year, or 22 a month.
Internet, at Starlink Light, is 80 a month. There is a promotion going on that allows you to get the equipment for free, assuming you know someone who can give you a referral. As this gives the person who gives the referral a free month, you can spam people with requests and get that referral code easily. I assume the kid has a computer, since the middle and high schools requires that all kids have a computer to do their homework on and gives them to those who can’t afford them.
I said that spending (which includes groceries) was $125 a week. That is $500 a month, for a single person. My family of seven sure as heck does not spend $500 per person, per month on spending and groceries. We’d be broke. I put together a fairly simple grocery list for a month, by planning out meals for a month. There wasn’t a lot of fancy stuff on there, but there was a fairly balanced meal plan, with all the food groups, and not playing the sales, far nicer and healthier than I ate at this age. I also included non-food items like laundry detergent, toilet paper, etc. The amounts of some of this would not need to be repurchased every month, as a single person does not use an entire bottle of EVOO in a month. Heck, we don’t use an entire bottle of EVOO every month with our family, so there is some savings to be had. This came in at just under $325, and I didn’t keep the kid to ramen and spaghetti. If you were in a savings mindset, you would pinch this grocery list much harder. That leaves $175 a month for other spending. With $50 for gas, we are at $125. If you buy a Tracphone on sale, you can get a smart phone with 1200 minutes, 1200 texts, and 10 GB data for $100 for a year. This is EXACTLY what my dad does. He never runs out of texts or minutes, and if you are frugal and only use your phone on WiFi, which is free in a huge number of places, you don’t need much data. It is simple to text people to hang out, or call for small stuff and not use up your minutes, but hey, let’s toss on a $10 top up a month, which is a lot of extra time. $100 over a year is $8.34, rounding to $8.50 which is the number we will use for budgeting. So, $125-(8.5 +10)= $106.5 extra spending/cushion each month.
The math is simple. 1846.8-700-220-80-22-500=324.8. I rounded down to 300 to give a little more cushion.
One of the main problems with this challenge is that we are ignoring that this job has the potential for raises and that you can get a higher paying job in two years, once you have the experience for anything else on the board. Assuming you can only live off of 13.50 an hour for the rest of your life is silly. This is a starter job, not a job you stay at forever. This kid, if they have the sense God gave a gnat, will watch for openings in the big three in our community, which have starter salaries above $22 an hour (lowest possible position with guaranteed overtime) with top salaries for a starter position at $40 an hour, knowing that if you work hard and put in the time and effort, you will get raises and promotions, like everyone else who actually is devoted to the position.
The other things you say he is missing out on are preposterous. Eating steak, or even eating out, is a privilege that most people I know don’t do very often. Dating does not have to cost a penny, and for most of my dating experience, did not. My husband took me out to eat only a few times over the years we dated. Instead, he made me ramen or potatoes and we watched movies from one of our collections or played video/card/dice games (the video game system came from his childhood, as most people do not start out with nothing at 18). Internet was one of the items I covered and once you have internet, who needs TV? I don’t have TV today, nor have I ever.
Yes, this person may have to wait a few years to get married and have kids. Given that this assumes an 18 year old, one can only hope they do so. But again, if you have a halfway decent work ethic and the willingness to look for better jobs once you have some work experience, you will start bringing home the bacon. This is a STARTER job, not a long term one. I said thirteen years because your challenge assumes this person is unable to do more than a basic job, for life.
Also, I can tell you that my husband and I can recall many people from our pasts who got a girl pregnant, married her, worked their tails off, pinched every penny, and figured out life by 30 or so, where they lived a reasonable, if not frivolously expensive life.
I do not know where this sounds like not having a life. This sounds exactly like a life to me, and most of my recommendations come from how I have lived and for the most part, still do live. If you are a sports person, you can go to high school sports games. My state has no professional teams, so that’s not an option anyway. If you are a music person, the high school and middle school give free concerts, and the Music Academy brings in free or cheap music several times a year. The town has a big social event every Thursday night in the summer, called Music in the Park, where you can go and socialize for free and listen to bands. Churches have social events, and there are always volunteer groups around the town that you can join if this isn’t enough social interaction for you, all of which costs nothing but time. If you like theatre, the high school does a play every year, that does cost, but less than the movie theatre, so you can save up the $7 for that. They are trying to get a play each semester, and hopefully the new theatre teacher will make that happen. Then you have to save up for two $7 tickets a year. If you like nerdy things like DnD, there are several groups that let you join and the preferred cost is a bag of chips every other week, and if you can’t afford that, they will still let you play. If you like to hike or camp, it gets a little spendier, as you will need to pay for the gas to drive to the mountains a few times a year. What else is there in life? Seriously, what else do you need to do to have a life?
You ask if that is what I did. I can’t say it is exactly what I did, but I can say that, until my husband and I got the higher paying jobs, it is very close. I studied more than this kid would, so I had a lot less free time, and pinched pennies pretty hard, spending almost no money for most of my 18-22 stretch, but I did have a full-ride academic scholarship to the state university that I earned with a lot of hard work, and is still available to kids today. My room and board were covered as part of my scholarship, so I traveled almost not at all, walking a few miles to the grocery store half of the time, went to no events that cost money, and bought practically nothing. As for the mortgage, as a millennial, I can say that it is what I am doing. (I just bought a new house last month because of a move and a need for a place that can handle five kids.) If we do not pinch pennies a bit and make extra payments on the house, we will have a mortgage until we are in our seventies. So we pinch pennies and make extra payments. Despite being a stay-at-home, homeschooling mother, I do gig work to bring in a little extra. I try very hard to keep my costs down, but as my husband makes really good money now, after years of making less, I do splurge on occasional niceties like new music for my instruments, games to play, and craft projects to do. However, this was not something that I did much of, outside of birthdays and Christmases, for many years.
So no, I don’t see how this is a problem, nor how this person is living as a monk. This is very similar to how most people in my experience live, unless they get on with the oil fields, railroad, or refinery right off the bat, when they buy a house within one to two years, buy a new pick-up truck, buy a camper, a four wheeler, a snow machine, and spend every night at the bar, with some debt, but not crippling debt that they could pay back easily if they didn’t keep buying the latest models.
I forgot to mention that I did take into account the fees on the house. Here is what I said to Marissa, who asked the same thing.
“Now, a house priced at a maximum of $200,000, in my town, gives you 30 options, according to Realtor.com, most of which are cheaper than $200,000, so closing costs would be accounted for in that price, and was accounted for in the one I picked. Of the 30 options, I ignored five of the houses, as they were too high for closing costs to be accounted for. The one I picked, a house on the market today for $189,900 (assuming $10,000 for closing, which is awfully high around here), has 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2,000 sqft, and a 9,000 sqft lot. I used a short-cut in the process, because this still comes in at about $200,000. As I was recently house hunting, I have been in that house, and know that the basement is definitely in need of work, but the upstairs has just been nicely remodeled. There is a not insignificant yard. The house is just a block away from the house I bought at 26 (my husband was 29) and not in a bad neighborhood.”
Which state is this?
Wyoming.
https://humbletalent.substack.com/p/cheesewheelin-in-wyoming
Welcome.
I think my comment went to spam. Anyway, I too thought the exchange was exemplary.
It did, don’t know why, but its up.
“Example: tariffs. Old style GOP is more beholden to the interest of businesses, whereas MAGA style conservatism is most focused on the interest of the people of the USA.”
I think this is a fig leaf covering up a particularly ugly hammer scar… Even if that’s the intention, the reality is different. And the Republican talking points on this aren’t informed. I’m uncomfortable over how far into a reality where things like facts and math doesn’t matter to Republicans, and calling them a cult of Trump is more reasonable now than I think it was four years ago.
Tariffs can be a vehicle to rehome production, if the possibility of rehoming production exists. But if domestic production is impossible because the resource doesn’t exist inside the continental US, or the climate isn’t appropriate to growing a product, then tariffs are just a tax on consumers. I’ve banged the drum on Canadian Potash; Potash mines don’t exist in America. Russian Potash is expensive to import. Regardless of whether you’re hurting Canadians by shifting to Russian imports (you aren’t actually) or not, you’re also hurting Americans. The price of Potash has gone up, which increases the price of fertilizer ad that increases the price of food. Food production is a two to three year cycle, so expect food prices in 2027 to start inflating again, and be prepared to thank Trump for it. Putting 25% tariffs on Venezuelan imports because they don’t buy as much American exports as America buys coffee is another: They don’t care. Venezuela is a third world country – They could not possibly buy as enough American product to offset their exports. More, America can’t grow coffee anywhere except Hawaii, Hawaii couldn’t possibly grow enough coffee to meet domestic demand, and Trump has tariffed every coffee producing nation on Earth. Which means that he’s effectively taxed coffee an additional 25%.
While you could argue that some of the pain Trump is causing Americans could be for long term gains, like rehoming aluminum production, the reality is that because of the indiscriminate nature of his tariffs, he’s not only actively hurting Americans, but he’s needlessly hurting Americans, and has set up a domino effect that will continue to hurt Americans for years. Tariffs aren’t the problem, tariffs are a tool that can be used as leverage when you’re trying to force a goal.
Well, Jeff, the goal might not be economic. Sure. Articulate the goal then.
“Wealth is not a zero sum game; that billionaires have a lot doesn’t mean that the rest of the public has less“
This is not as true now as it used to be, mostly because of the economics of debt. The example used to be granite countertops: Granite countertops are a luxury commodity. There are only so many of them, production of them in the short term is finite. If the earnings of everyone increased 15% overnight, you might sell more granite countertops, at least to the point where you ran out, but then the next batch would just be more expensive to match the new earnings reality, because price is a function of demand and supply.
The problem is that because of the ease of credit, people are already getting the granite countertops, which aren’t actually granite countertops, they’re a stand-in for other things, not all of which are luxuries. We don’t have a supply side issue, because people are already buying the products, we have the expectation that people will drive themselves into debt. And so the competing interests aren’t really supply and demand anymore, it’s debt verses equity.
And billionaire profits, both in terms of percentage and gross value, has never been higher in the history of ever. This isn’t an argument against capitalism, or for communism, it’s an argument against corporatism. This isn’t sustainable. If you don’t give kids the opportunity to participate in capitalism, they will reject it. Don’t believe me, well… You don’t have to, it’s already happening, and just like it doesn’t matter if you believe in God because he believes in you, your belief isn’t necessary for reality to happen. If kids don’t see the American dream as attainable, they aren’t going to try for it. Why should they? Why sacrifice what small pleasures the can get if they end up in the same place? If someone bought avocado toast every day for the entire year, and spent $1000 on it, they would have to forgo that and instead save it for about 40 years in order to get the down payment for an insurable mortgage in rural Iowa. This wasn’t true 20 years ago, and it’s getting worse. When you compare the average home price to the average earnings, the curves have been separating for generations. The bootstraps have snapped. It doesn’t matter if you were able to work two jobs and bought your house for $10,000 and a wheel of cheese back in 1960, if kids today did exactly what kids did back in your time, they would be dying in ditches en masse, because while it’s possible to succeed, even without intergenerational wealth, success requires an amount of effort and luck significantly different from what it used to. The number of choices in the pick-your adventure that leads to a good resolution are ever fewer, and eventually all pages will turn bad.
And while that’s not all the fault of billionaires, they don’t help, and neither do the cheese-wheelers who have commoditized home ownership.
“Trump’s version of the GOP is based on policies and not personality.“
I don’t know that this is true. I couldn’t articulate a principle that they wouldn’t be willing to throw away for political convenience. And I can’t think of something so bad that his cult would reject him for it. Can you? Be honest. The current iteration of Republicans are almost indistinguishable from Democrats. American politics are a matter of pointing out that your opponents are worse than you without making any effort to prove that you are worthy.
HT, we can of course have a discussion about the merits of Trump’s economic agenda, such as tariffs and the OBBB. I am with you on tariffs by the way, as I have argued previously on a number of posts on EA.
I think those discussions on the merits of a political issue miss the point of the post, which addressed which of the two political parties is in a better shape. And my observation is that the GOP is doing pretty well. And that is not the same as agreeing with everything they stand for.
Being vindicated in politics is more important than being right. Ronald Reagan was right on the economy, and his policies were vindicated by an economic boom and favorable election results. I believe Paul Ryan was right on the economy as well in 2012. But by then the GOP’s economic message had run stale, and the GOP was in a terrible state running on the vapors of Reagan’s philosophy.
Trump’s economic philosophy is different. He is not beholden to the pieties of the Reagan era, and the economic theories of Milton Friedman. He is also not beholden to the “chamber of commerce” constituency who favor the interest of business, are globalist and in favor of treaties like NAFTA, and who are in favor of free exchange of goods, ideas, and people. The Wall Street Journal in the 1990 went so far as to propose a constitutional amendment with five words “There shall be open borders”, as they saw unrestricted immigration as good for business and the labor market.
Trump’s philosophy is more protectionist, like the philosophy of old-style Democrats favored by labor unions. He is not a globalist, but prioritizes the interests of the USA. An explicit goal of Trump is to restore manufacturing in the USA. His immigration policies are following suit. The intend of Trump’s policies is definitively to give an economic perspective to blue collar workers and to low skill workers whose jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries, or are performed by illegal immigrants. And as the elections and polls indicate is that the people of the USA are picking up on that.
Will Trump’s policies be vindicated in the long run? Although I am skeptical about tariffs, the stock market has not crashed, as some predicted.
About Republicans being interchangeable with Democrats, how do you apply that to Jasmine Crockett, AOC, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley? The philosophical and cultural chasm of both parties is fast and widening.
And I do not understand all the points commenters raise against billionaires; my impression is that these are mere talking points based on fixed pie thinking, envy, and external locus of control thinking, with a belief in an almighty government who needs to redistribute wealth via taxes. I have no issue with Bill Gates being extremely wealthy, as I am now typing out this post on a laptop running on Windows. Billionaires have generated wealth for others, and a lot of jobs.
I think those discussions on the merits of a political issue miss the point of the post, which addressed which of the two political parties is in a better shape.
This is fair… There’s no argument about it: The Dems are in disarray. But does that really matter? If the Democrats weren’t so damned awful, and we actually had to compare Trump against something in the neutral-good spectrum, he’s awful. We’re actively experiencing the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Trump’s philosophy is more protectionist, like the philosophy of old-style Democrats favored by labor unions. He is not a globalist, but prioritizes the interests of the USA. An explicit goal of Trump is to restore manufacturing in the USA. His immigration policies are following suit. The intend of Trump’s policies is definitively to give an economic perspective to blue collar workers and to low skill workers whose jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries, or are performed by illegal immigrants. And as the elections and polls indicate is that the people of the USA are picking up on that.
I’m sorry, but some of this doesn’t exist in reality. The polls show his approval rating on the economy down 20 points since he started his tariff debacle in March. Again, people don’t trust Trump on this, they just REALLY don’t trust Democrats. If you were running against a party that hadn’t fully given in to their worst elements, you’d be getting shellacked in the midterms.
And what’s frustrating is that I agree with you on some of this, figuring out a way to revitalize the manufacturing sector would be good. Taking a hard line against immigration will help… But it’s like Americans can’t help but choose to do things in the most ham-fisted retarded way possible. Why can’t you have representation that just does the obvious, good things?
More frustrating is that you kind of had that in Trump the first time around; His tax plan was brilliant, it inverted the tax inversion with Canada, which also “hurt” Canada in that it slowed our rate of American investment, but it was the obvious and right thing to do.
Again, for the record: You want to re-home steel and aluminum production? Sure… The logistics of the power grid and a couple other things will take generational investment, but at least it’s not facially absurd. There is no potash or coffee production in the continental United States. Those are only two of the things that you have to import, they are both related to food. Trump could, with a wave of his pen, reduce coffee prices, which have built in those tariffs since March, but he chooses not to. Please, explain to me why, in terms that don’t include “mysterious ways”.
The current iteration of Republicans are almost indistinguishable from Democrats.
This statement is incomprehensible. I can’t think of a period since the Civil War when the two parties have been more philosophically, ethically and psychologically distinct.
Use context clues:
“I couldn’t articulate a principle that they wouldn’t be willing to throw away for political convenience. And I can’t think of something so bad that his cult would reject him for it. Can you? Be honest. The current iteration of Republicans are almost indistinguishable from Democrats.”
I used to say that Democrats didn’t have principles past “whatever got them in power”. I still believe that, but now I think that Republicans aren’t any different.
Family values? Please. Free market capitalism? Nah. Free Speech? I mean, Democrats are worse, but Trump’s Republicans aren’t great.
I don’t actually believe that Trump was in the Epstein files, but if it comes out that he was, I absolutely expect fully half the party to actively become pro-pedophile.
Please, tell me: What are the guiding principles of the Republican party right now?
HT, I thought I was cynical about politics, but I am afraid you are racing off the deep end on cynicism.
First be careful about terms like principles when talking politics. Principles are non-negotiables, and in compromises are an essential feature of politics, which require that you may have to prioritize practical outcomes and power over ideological considerations. Instead of ideological considerations I could also use the term values.
One examples of differences between values and principles: feminists have principles on how to handle sexual harassment. However during the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton feminists supported Clinton in order to safeguard the right to abortion. The value of a women’s unfettered right to abortion was way more important for feminists than principles on how to handle a clear case of sexual harassment. Values carry much more weight in politics than principles (and ethics). Politics is guided by values and goals, not by principles or ethics.
I hope you agree that the values of professed by the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are vastly different. Which party supports DEI, affirmative action, gender affirmative care for minors? Which party tends to favor traditional marriage and gender roles? Do both parties have the same view on immigration? On taxation? The answers are so obvious that your claim that “The current iteration of Republicans are almost indistinguishable from Democrats” is absurd. It may be true that GOP politicians have betrayed their base in the past, and that lust for power and personal animus have played a role in that, but that is not enough to prove your statement.
I wish that Republicans and Democrats were a little more indistinguishable, and were able to reach across the isle, and make deals that are good for the country, like in 1964 when Republicans and Democrats were able to pass the Civil Rights Act. That was in an era when both political parties were far less identified by core values and platforms than today (e.g. both parties had ardent liberals and conservatives, voters were less ideologically aligned with a party, the overlap on key issues such on foreign policy and national identity was far greater, and elections were far more fluent and unpredictable). But sadly enough polarization has grown so big that it ruins Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners, breaks up families, and makes dating between an R and D nigh impossible.
I’m going to highlight this differently than you did:
“I hope you agree that the values professed by the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are vastly different.”
Sure! They profess different things, they’re pandering to different bases. They think their pandering will land them in power, from which they will do things that they want to do because it is Their Turn To Eat.
But you know what you didn’t do in all that? List a single principle that Republicans share right now.
You alluded to family values. Please… Trump’s on his third marriage and stepped out on his wife constantly. Trump being a slut was the permission needed for Republicans to finally admit that they don’t care about family values. Now, I personally don’t care, I don’t live a traditional lifestyle, I never pretended to care, but are you really going to stand there and profess to me that the Republican party stands on family values in any way other than in comparison to the Democrats?
Family values is one of the areas where both the GOP politicians and the GOP base are shifting to the middle. Many churches have been moving to a more liberal view on homosexuality as well, and I am not even going to talk about the high divorce rates among evangelical Christians. So there is even a difference between professed values and lived values of individuals who make up the base of the parties. Somebody who is divorced a couple of times, and dallies with prostitutes and porn, may still acknowledge the wisdom of living up to Biblical values on sex and relations. Also, forgiveness is a virtue, both for spiritual and practical reasons (hope this answers your remark about Trump’s multiple marriages).
So my expectation is the emphasis of the GOP on traditional family values will have changes. To be specific, I do not expect a strong push with a GOP majority in favor of a repeal of the Obergefell decision; although some voices on the Federalist and Daily Wire may still argue for this. There are a couple of reasons for this. Reason one is that a number of politicians are quite liberal on social values. Trump is one of them. He is a former Democrat. Scott Bessent, who heads the Department of Treasury is openly gay. The opinion in the base is shifting too as they are aware the gay rights have been an 80/20 issue in disfavor of the traditional Christian views on marriage.
When it comes to transgenderism, there is no light between the administration and both of his base. And as this issue also corresponds with other issue such as views about the right of parents, and public education, I do not see the Democrats and Republicans come close on this issue anytime soon.
So my basic point on difference between values between Democrats and Republicans still stand, namely that Democrats and Republicans, both party and base, have different values. However there is always a lag between the values of the base and the party establishment. Also as values change over the years, and as the party base changes as well, the party establishment has to follow suit. This is only one of the reasons why looking at politics in terms of principles is not helpful, as principles are rigid and do not allow for a flux in values.
I disagree.
You can’t say that one side’s values are better than the other when both sides would immediately set fire to every single one of their sacred cows if they thought it would get them ahead. You can say that they’re different, and that you’re more aligned with one over the other, but does that really matter if they’ll dump those values the moment it becomes convenient to do so?
The party doesn’t stand for anything right now.
I made the point earlier that while I don’t think Trump’s name will actually be in the Epstein files in a damaging way (it might be in there because they were both New York billionaires and they navigated a lot of same circles, but I don’t expect him to have taken the Lolita Express). But if it was, I fully expect that a large portion of his base would start pedo-splaining.
Again…. What do you think the hard lines are in the Republican Party? What could Trump do that would actually sink him?
I don’t know the answer, because I really do believe that the Republican party has gotten very culty over the last election cycle. Right now, the Republican Party seems to value whatever Trump says, regardless of their prior positions.
“The problem is that because of the ease of credit, people are already getting the granite countertops, which aren’t actually granite countertops, they’re a stand-in for other things, not all of which are luxuries. We don’t have a supply side issue, because people are already buying the products, we have the expectation that people will drive themselves into debt. And so the competing interests aren’t really supply and demand anymore, it’s debt verses equity.“
HT
The ease of credit facilitates choices it is not making the choice. These choices impact demand which puts upward pressure on prices. The new higher prices induce greater production of that good or service. The choice between debt versus equity where equity is defined as ownership is still a choice made by human beings.
From your commentary on this issue I get the distinct impression that you believe that these purchase decisions are compelled by third parties. I would suggest these decisions are predicated on learned behaviors for immediate gratification. We used to call this keeping up with the Joneses.
Do you think that this would be the situation if the Boomers had lived through the Great Depression and suffered the costs of rationing during WW2 and raised their children in an era of deprivation? I believe the young have lived privileged lives and are unprepared to deal with the realities of modern life because others have insulated them from reality.
“Do you think that this would be the situation if the Boomers had lived through the Great Depression and suffered the costs of rationing during WW2 and raised their children in an era of deprivation? I believe the young have lived privileged lives and are unprepared to deal with the realities of modern life because others have insulated them from reality.“
You are so out of touch it is painful.
Prices on things that made up the American dream are unattainable, making the American dream functionally dead. The rate of home ownership for people 18-25 has never been lower in the history of ever. Prices are entirely divorced from earning or equity, real estate has been commoditized, and there is no math to make it work. Hell… A new F150 in 1980 was $6000. In 2008 it was $20,000. In 2025 it is $80,000. Wages went from about $40,000 to $50,000 to $60,000. Which meant that the average Average Earnings to New Truck ratio went from 6.67 to 2.5 to 0.75. And then truck loans are done up over 5 years.
Never mind the math on home ownership, when did vehicle ownership become unattainable?
They’ll never own a home, they’ll probably never buy a new vehicle, the number of people that are 30 and living at home has never been so high, they can’t even for relationships, because who wants to take a partner home to their parent’s place and no amount of lifestyle change will change that. But they can buy a phone and smear a fruit on bread…. “Privileged”. I wish you were in the same room as I was so that you could hear the amount of acidic scorn with which I say the word.
You want to talk about The Boomers? The Boomers are by equity and ease of life the most privileged batch of people to have existed in the entire history of humanity. They grew up beloved and narcissistic in a way that pales anything the Zoomers can aspire to, because the Zoomers learned their habits from watching their parents but don’t have the capital to back it up. The Boomers rode every system they went through hard and put them away wet: They built schools when the boomers went to school, and then watched them crumble when they were done. They inflated house prices to the point of unattainability. They inflated the stock and bond markets to the point where bailouts have been necessary to keep their retirement funds afloat, but I have no idea why we bothered to do that because they refused to retire until long past their expiration dates, so the job market didn’t meaningfully open up until Covid pressed the issue. They don’t volunteer like their parents did, because why on Earth would they give their time away for free? And the idea that someone might touch entitlement programs now that the Boomers are approaching their draw?
Spin that wheel of cheese.