My husband and I are looking to buy a decent house in a decent neighborhood for a reasonable price, but we're having trouble finding such a thing. There are decent houses in decent neighborhoods, but their prices are not reasonable. For all that housing prices have fallen over the past few years, I believe that they still have further to go.
How can I say this when houses have already lost anywhere from 20 to 60% of their values? Because they were inflated to more than that during the bubble, and incomes haven't risen significantly over the last decade.
Here's the thing. According to the Wall Street Journal, a household shouldn't plan to spend more than 28% of its gross monthly income on mortgage/property taxes/maintenance/PMI. (This is a fairly common rule of thumb.) In 2000, the median household income in Nashua, NH (where we're looking) was $51,969. Let's assume that household also had a monthly debt load of $500 (between car payments, student loans, and credit card minimum payments), and savings sufficient to put down 20% of the purchase price. Using the Wall Street Journal's mortgage calculator, that household income would qualify to purchase a home that cost up to $141,365*. In 2000, the median house in Nashua only cost $132,200, so the average household could purchase the average house, and then some. In 2009 (the most recent year covered by city-data), the median household income in Nashua had risen to $58,789. Using those same assumptions, that household could purchase a home that cost up to $181,942*. That's a problem, since the average house in Nashua in 2009 cost $248,500. In order for the average household to purchase the average house at that price, the median household income would need to be closer to $69,000. Even assuming our household is completely debt free, the maximum house they could afford would be $205,997, still well below the median. Neither housing prices nor incomes have changed much since 2009.
As much as sellers and realtors don't want to admit it, a house (or anything else, for that matter) is only worth what a purchaser will pay for it. As long as the average house is out of reach for the average purchaser, it's overpriced. Unless incomes go up significantly in the very near future, housing prices still have a ways to fall. In Nashua, it's looking like another 27%.
Maybe my husband and I are better off continuing to rent for now.
* I assumed a 30 year fixed mortgage at 8% in 2000 and 5.5% in 2009, both of which are historically accurate. The tax rate was roughly 2.1% in both years.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Merry Christmas!
Shortly after Thanksgiving, everyone in my house came down sick and stayed that way for several weeks. Needless to say, that delayed our Christmas preparations.
Christmas shopping wasn't a problem; we don't go overboard with presents for our kids so we already had most of them purchased, with a few clicks online finishing up the job. But we haven't been able to decorate until now.
Add to that the fact that we've moved so often over the past few years, and we haven't really decorated for Christmas since 2008. We had a Christmas tree for our son's first Christmas (which, since he was only eight months old, he obviously doesn't remember), but our daughter's never seen one in her own house. This year we decided to put one up, but we discovered over the weekend that our Christmas tree stand got left behind in one of the four moves we've had since we last used it.
Have you ever tried to find a Christmas tree stand the week before Christmas? My husband went to several stores to discover that they were sold out, and called even more only to be told the same thing. When I went out looking, I found more of the same, plus in some cases I had to walk around store employees removing Christmas decorations from the shelves to make room for their next wave of inventory (thankfully they're not yet putting out pink and red heart-shaped objects for Valentine's Day--that'll probably come in about two weeks).
Removing Christmas inventory the week before Christmas? You know the classic song, "The Twelve Days of Christmas?" Those twelve days start on December 25 and continue through January 5, the night before Epiphany. That's the traditional celebration of Christmas, with Advent being the four weeks leading up to Christmas. I realize that the stores have been selling Christmas since before Halloween, but some of us actually try to celebrate Advent, and keep Christmas for Christmas. Even if we hadn't been sick, our decorating would have happened only a few days sooner than it did. So while the stores may be tired of it, some of us are just getting started.
Fortunately the evening was saved by Home Depot. They had a few tree stands left, so I was able to save my husband from having to try to 'build' something to hold up the tree that was dejectedly sitting on our porch. Furthermore, the cashier at Home Depot actually wished me a "Merry Christmas." Not "Happy Holidays," but a real "Merry Christmas." It was so refreshing to hear! And then I also got a "Merry Christmas" from the clerk at the store in the mall that sold me a lighted star tree topper (another item that's hard to come by a week before Christmas).
It's common and even expected for Christians and quasi-Christians to lament about the consumerism of Christmas, how early the stores start selling it, and the decline of the religious meaning of the holiday. We hear so much about how people who aren't religious Christians get offended when wished a "Merry Christmas," insisting instead on "Happy Holidays," which supposedly honors Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Conspicuous Consumption Day, and whatever else people choose to celebrate around the end of December. Now I agree that it's a bit foolish and insensitive for a sales clerk to wish a Merry Christmas to a customer purchasing a menorah, but in the absence of something so obvious, what's wrong with wishing a Merry Christmas to someone who is purchasing Christmas paraphernalia?
Chanukah has always been its own holiday, and should certainly be respected. Kwanzaa was originally created "as an alternative to Christmas," and Conspicuous Consumption Day is clearly a secular hijacking of the religious holiday. As such, I think it's perfectly appropriate to wish a "Merry Christmas" to anyone engaging in celebrating Christmas in any way, even if they've appropriated various aspects of the Christmas celebration for a holiday of their own creation. Does this mean that every purchase between Thanksgiving and Christmas should automatically be met with a "Merry Christmas?" Not necessarily. But anyone buying Christmas decorations (trees, ornaments, yard lights, etc.), Christmas cards (any card that doesn't specifically call out Chanukah or Kwanzaa), a ton of toys, or anything featuring snowmen, Santa Claus, Thomas Kinkade artwork, or old-fashioned people skating or riding in horse-drawn sleighs is fair game.
So to the clerks who wished me a "Merry Christmas" last night--thank you! Please keep up the good work! You might slightly offend someone who wants to celebrate Christmas without acknowledging its origins as a religious holiday, but you also might bring some joy and hope to a Christian who is trying to remember that Christmas is the celebration of God's breaking into human history by sending his Son to achieve salvation for us all. It's amazing how just calling the holiday by its right name can go such a long way towards helping with that.
Christmas shopping wasn't a problem; we don't go overboard with presents for our kids so we already had most of them purchased, with a few clicks online finishing up the job. But we haven't been able to decorate until now.
Add to that the fact that we've moved so often over the past few years, and we haven't really decorated for Christmas since 2008. We had a Christmas tree for our son's first Christmas (which, since he was only eight months old, he obviously doesn't remember), but our daughter's never seen one in her own house. This year we decided to put one up, but we discovered over the weekend that our Christmas tree stand got left behind in one of the four moves we've had since we last used it.
Have you ever tried to find a Christmas tree stand the week before Christmas? My husband went to several stores to discover that they were sold out, and called even more only to be told the same thing. When I went out looking, I found more of the same, plus in some cases I had to walk around store employees removing Christmas decorations from the shelves to make room for their next wave of inventory (thankfully they're not yet putting out pink and red heart-shaped objects for Valentine's Day--that'll probably come in about two weeks).
Removing Christmas inventory the week before Christmas? You know the classic song, "The Twelve Days of Christmas?" Those twelve days start on December 25 and continue through January 5, the night before Epiphany. That's the traditional celebration of Christmas, with Advent being the four weeks leading up to Christmas. I realize that the stores have been selling Christmas since before Halloween, but some of us actually try to celebrate Advent, and keep Christmas for Christmas. Even if we hadn't been sick, our decorating would have happened only a few days sooner than it did. So while the stores may be tired of it, some of us are just getting started.
Fortunately the evening was saved by Home Depot. They had a few tree stands left, so I was able to save my husband from having to try to 'build' something to hold up the tree that was dejectedly sitting on our porch. Furthermore, the cashier at Home Depot actually wished me a "Merry Christmas." Not "Happy Holidays," but a real "Merry Christmas." It was so refreshing to hear! And then I also got a "Merry Christmas" from the clerk at the store in the mall that sold me a lighted star tree topper (another item that's hard to come by a week before Christmas).
It's common and even expected for Christians and quasi-Christians to lament about the consumerism of Christmas, how early the stores start selling it, and the decline of the religious meaning of the holiday. We hear so much about how people who aren't religious Christians get offended when wished a "Merry Christmas," insisting instead on "Happy Holidays," which supposedly honors Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Conspicuous Consumption Day, and whatever else people choose to celebrate around the end of December. Now I agree that it's a bit foolish and insensitive for a sales clerk to wish a Merry Christmas to a customer purchasing a menorah, but in the absence of something so obvious, what's wrong with wishing a Merry Christmas to someone who is purchasing Christmas paraphernalia?
Chanukah has always been its own holiday, and should certainly be respected. Kwanzaa was originally created "as an alternative to Christmas," and Conspicuous Consumption Day is clearly a secular hijacking of the religious holiday. As such, I think it's perfectly appropriate to wish a "Merry Christmas" to anyone engaging in celebrating Christmas in any way, even if they've appropriated various aspects of the Christmas celebration for a holiday of their own creation. Does this mean that every purchase between Thanksgiving and Christmas should automatically be met with a "Merry Christmas?" Not necessarily. But anyone buying Christmas decorations (trees, ornaments, yard lights, etc.), Christmas cards (any card that doesn't specifically call out Chanukah or Kwanzaa), a ton of toys, or anything featuring snowmen, Santa Claus, Thomas Kinkade artwork, or old-fashioned people skating or riding in horse-drawn sleighs is fair game.
So to the clerks who wished me a "Merry Christmas" last night--thank you! Please keep up the good work! You might slightly offend someone who wants to celebrate Christmas without acknowledging its origins as a religious holiday, but you also might bring some joy and hope to a Christian who is trying to remember that Christmas is the celebration of God's breaking into human history by sending his Son to achieve salvation for us all. It's amazing how just calling the holiday by its right name can go such a long way towards helping with that.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Education, Standardized Tests, and Idiocy
In principle, I'm no fan of standardized tests as the be-all and end-all of measuring academic achievement and predicting future success. I think they have their place, but at best they can only be one tool among many to gauge whether a student is progressing acceptably in school. I believe that the current trend of schools 'teaching to the test' in order to 'prove' that they're good schools and thus receive necessary funding is a horrible disservice to students, teachers, and the future of this nation.
But I have to admit that that opinion is largely uninformed.
You see, I went through a Massachusetts public school system before the MCAS was introduced. I vaguely recall taking something called the California Achievement Test (yes, in Massachusetts) every few years, but those scores were for informational purposes only. Along with most of my peers I took the SAT as part of my college entrance efforts, and I'm embarrassed to admit that my combined score didn't even break 1000. But that didn't matter because I was unmotivated, and ended up on the eight-year, work-my-way-through-night-school plan (see previous post), choosing schools more on affordability, geography, and convenience of schedule than prestige or quality.
So standardized tests have not been a significant part of my educational career.
But I read something yesterday that simply appalled me.
Earlier this week the Washington Post had a piece about a school board member in a major district who took the standardized tests for 10th grade math and reading. It was later revealed that the district was in Florida, and the test in question was the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). This board member self-describes as having a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credits toward a doctorate. He helps "oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities." He admits that of the 60 questions in the math section, he didn't know the answer to a single one of them, and was only able to guess correctly on 10 of them. On the reading section, he scored a mere 62%. He dismissed the argument that the information would have been fresher in his mind had he currently been in high school, pointing out instead that "A test that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that could possibly be true of the test I took."
This seems to be a pretty compelling statement against the usefulness of the FCAT. But as much as I'm predisposed against standardized testing, I had trouble believing that the test could be that disconnected from reality. So I took it myself.
I can't say with certainty that I took exactly the same test this highly educated and highly successful school board member did. But I went to the Florida Department of Education website where I was able to download the test booklets for the 10th grade math and reading tests from 2006. The math section had 58 questions, and the reading had 45. I answered (or tried to answer) all 58 of the math, but I disregarded the essay questions on the reading section because I had no way to objectively score them. The test booklet failed to provide a couple of necessary readings (due to copyright permissions not being available for an electronic format), so I also disregarded the questions based on those. (I later discovered that the necessary readings were reproduced in the answer booklet--I left them out anyway because I didn't want to risk seeing the correct answers in the course of my reading.) So in the end I answered the 35 remaining multiple choice questions I could reasonably be expected to answer.
I have no idea how this school board member manages to enjoy the level of success he claims, because I think he must be an idiot.
I hated math in school. I barely passed Algebra I and II, and only passed Geometry after I had to revisit it in summer school. I took two accounting classes and one statistics class in college, back about 15 years ago. Yes, I did deal with numbers in my first career in finance, but that was mostly arithmetic, and I left that field over 12 years ago. Of the 58 questions in the test, I answered 43 of them correctly. Very few were wild-ass guesses. Most of them, if I didn't know the answer immediately, I was able to figure it out with the information provided.
Of the 35 reading questions, I answered 35 of them correctly.
With the exception of some of the geometry, most of the math problems could be solved through simple arithmetic and/or common sense. Basic observation and problem-solving skills. Someone like me, who doesn't remember a single formula from high school math and doesn't do unusual amounts of math in work life (I'm a stay-at-home mom of toddlers--we're still working on counting to 20!), was able to score 74%. The school board member with his $3 billion budget scored 17%. The skill I employed most frequently in solving these problems was determining what of the information provided was important to figuring out the solution, and what could be disregarded. I don't care what line of work you're in, that is a necessary skill for functioning as an adult in today's world.
As far as the multiple-choice questions on the reading test are concerned, all you have to do is read the short piece and answer the questions. There is no assumption that you are intimately familiar with obscure pieces of literature, or even that you know the technical jargon necessary to grammatically deconstruct a sentence. All you have to do is demonstrate that you understand what you just read, both the content and the intent. Why does intent matter? It matters if you want to be able to tell the difference between an opinion piece and an instruction manual. It matters if you expect to be able to understand the difference between the story of one person's success in entrepreneurship and a boiler-plate business plan.
Granted, I didn't answer the essay questions. Let's assume I did, and let's assume I missed all four. That would have dropped my 100% down to 89%. The school board member, with all his advanced degrees, scored 62%. He reasons that the test is unfair because “On the FCAT, [the students] are reading material they didn’t choose. They are given four possible answers and three out of the four are pretty good. One is the best answer but kids don’t get points for only a pretty good answer. They get zero points, the same for the absolute wrong answer. And then they are given an arbitrary time limit. Those are a number of reasons that I think the test has to be suspect.”
First of all, I challenge his claim that three of the four answers are "pretty good," but let's put that aside for now. In real life, can we expect that we'll only ever have to read and understand things that we choose to read? (No, I don't feel like reading the Instruction Booklet for my 1040, so I just won't bother filing my taxes this year.) In real life, can we expect that 'partial credit' will be given for an answer that's 'pretty good' but not necessarily the 'best'? (Well, you've read the detailed job description and I've really enjoyed interviewing you. You missed the mark a little bit on what skills we're looking for, but you were pretty close, so we'll give you this other job, instead.) In real life, can we expect that we'll be given unlimited time to comprehend a set of instructions or absorb some basic information necessary for what we're doing? (You need three months to understand the policies laid out in our employee handbook before you start work? No problem; we'll keep you on full salary while you figure it out!)
I still don't think standardized tests should be given the level of importance they currently enjoy, but if the FCAT is indicative of what's being expected of 10th graders across the country, I think it's doing a pretty good job of measuring how well kids are learning how to learn. Based on the two tests I took, students aren't being expected to memorize a bunch of trivia that they'll never use in adulthood; they're being expected to filter information, determine its value, and be able to understand written communication. In adulthood you don't have to know everything, but you do need to know how to find whatever information you need. And you can't do that if you can't determine what is relevant and what isn't, discern the difference between opinion, bias, and fact, or understand what a paragraph is even saying.
I'm not worried about students taking the FCAT. I'm worried that we live in a world in which an adult who is unable to pass the FCAT is on the school board, and is able to function as a leader at a company with 22,000 employees and a capital and operating budget of $3 billion. Are the expectations of functioning--even successful--adulthood really so low?
No wonder this country's in trouble.
But I have to admit that that opinion is largely uninformed.
You see, I went through a Massachusetts public school system before the MCAS was introduced. I vaguely recall taking something called the California Achievement Test (yes, in Massachusetts) every few years, but those scores were for informational purposes only. Along with most of my peers I took the SAT as part of my college entrance efforts, and I'm embarrassed to admit that my combined score didn't even break 1000. But that didn't matter because I was unmotivated, and ended up on the eight-year, work-my-way-through-night-school plan (see previous post), choosing schools more on affordability, geography, and convenience of schedule than prestige or quality.
So standardized tests have not been a significant part of my educational career.
But I read something yesterday that simply appalled me.
Earlier this week the Washington Post had a piece about a school board member in a major district who took the standardized tests for 10th grade math and reading. It was later revealed that the district was in Florida, and the test in question was the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). This board member self-describes as having a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credits toward a doctorate. He helps "oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities." He admits that of the 60 questions in the math section, he didn't know the answer to a single one of them, and was only able to guess correctly on 10 of them. On the reading section, he scored a mere 62%. He dismissed the argument that the information would have been fresher in his mind had he currently been in high school, pointing out instead that "A test that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that could possibly be true of the test I took."
This seems to be a pretty compelling statement against the usefulness of the FCAT. But as much as I'm predisposed against standardized testing, I had trouble believing that the test could be that disconnected from reality. So I took it myself.
I can't say with certainty that I took exactly the same test this highly educated and highly successful school board member did. But I went to the Florida Department of Education website where I was able to download the test booklets for the 10th grade math and reading tests from 2006. The math section had 58 questions, and the reading had 45. I answered (or tried to answer) all 58 of the math, but I disregarded the essay questions on the reading section because I had no way to objectively score them. The test booklet failed to provide a couple of necessary readings (due to copyright permissions not being available for an electronic format), so I also disregarded the questions based on those. (I later discovered that the necessary readings were reproduced in the answer booklet--I left them out anyway because I didn't want to risk seeing the correct answers in the course of my reading.) So in the end I answered the 35 remaining multiple choice questions I could reasonably be expected to answer.
I have no idea how this school board member manages to enjoy the level of success he claims, because I think he must be an idiot.
I hated math in school. I barely passed Algebra I and II, and only passed Geometry after I had to revisit it in summer school. I took two accounting classes and one statistics class in college, back about 15 years ago. Yes, I did deal with numbers in my first career in finance, but that was mostly arithmetic, and I left that field over 12 years ago. Of the 58 questions in the test, I answered 43 of them correctly. Very few were wild-ass guesses. Most of them, if I didn't know the answer immediately, I was able to figure it out with the information provided.
Of the 35 reading questions, I answered 35 of them correctly.
With the exception of some of the geometry, most of the math problems could be solved through simple arithmetic and/or common sense. Basic observation and problem-solving skills. Someone like me, who doesn't remember a single formula from high school math and doesn't do unusual amounts of math in work life (I'm a stay-at-home mom of toddlers--we're still working on counting to 20!), was able to score 74%. The school board member with his $3 billion budget scored 17%. The skill I employed most frequently in solving these problems was determining what of the information provided was important to figuring out the solution, and what could be disregarded. I don't care what line of work you're in, that is a necessary skill for functioning as an adult in today's world.
As far as the multiple-choice questions on the reading test are concerned, all you have to do is read the short piece and answer the questions. There is no assumption that you are intimately familiar with obscure pieces of literature, or even that you know the technical jargon necessary to grammatically deconstruct a sentence. All you have to do is demonstrate that you understand what you just read, both the content and the intent. Why does intent matter? It matters if you want to be able to tell the difference between an opinion piece and an instruction manual. It matters if you expect to be able to understand the difference between the story of one person's success in entrepreneurship and a boiler-plate business plan.
Granted, I didn't answer the essay questions. Let's assume I did, and let's assume I missed all four. That would have dropped my 100% down to 89%. The school board member, with all his advanced degrees, scored 62%. He reasons that the test is unfair because “On the FCAT, [the students] are reading material they didn’t choose. They are given four possible answers and three out of the four are pretty good. One is the best answer but kids don’t get points for only a pretty good answer. They get zero points, the same for the absolute wrong answer. And then they are given an arbitrary time limit. Those are a number of reasons that I think the test has to be suspect.”
First of all, I challenge his claim that three of the four answers are "pretty good," but let's put that aside for now. In real life, can we expect that we'll only ever have to read and understand things that we choose to read? (No, I don't feel like reading the Instruction Booklet for my 1040, so I just won't bother filing my taxes this year.) In real life, can we expect that 'partial credit' will be given for an answer that's 'pretty good' but not necessarily the 'best'? (Well, you've read the detailed job description and I've really enjoyed interviewing you. You missed the mark a little bit on what skills we're looking for, but you were pretty close, so we'll give you this other job, instead.) In real life, can we expect that we'll be given unlimited time to comprehend a set of instructions or absorb some basic information necessary for what we're doing? (You need three months to understand the policies laid out in our employee handbook before you start work? No problem; we'll keep you on full salary while you figure it out!)
I still don't think standardized tests should be given the level of importance they currently enjoy, but if the FCAT is indicative of what's being expected of 10th graders across the country, I think it's doing a pretty good job of measuring how well kids are learning how to learn. Based on the two tests I took, students aren't being expected to memorize a bunch of trivia that they'll never use in adulthood; they're being expected to filter information, determine its value, and be able to understand written communication. In adulthood you don't have to know everything, but you do need to know how to find whatever information you need. And you can't do that if you can't determine what is relevant and what isn't, discern the difference between opinion, bias, and fact, or understand what a paragraph is even saying.
I'm not worried about students taking the FCAT. I'm worried that we live in a world in which an adult who is unable to pass the FCAT is on the school board, and is able to function as a leader at a company with 22,000 employees and a capital and operating budget of $3 billion. Are the expectations of functioning--even successful--adulthood really so low?
No wonder this country's in trouble.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Do College Students Have Justification for Joining the 'Occupy' Movement?
I've seen a lot of comments about the 'spoiled trust fund kids' who 'expect to be handed everything on a silver platter' and 'don't want to work for the things they have.' And other such statements. These are usually posted by people who proudly brag about the fact that they worked their way through college and now have a good job and a nice house that they earned through their own hard work with no handouts from anyone.
Good for you.
Times have changed.
I too worked my way through college. I vividly remember the days of working 60 to 70 hours per week between two jobs (one full-time dead-end job and one nights-and-weekends retail job), supporting myself in a should-have-been-condemned apartment in a pretty scary neighborhood, taking one night course at a time because it's all I could afford and all I had time for. I was destroying my health by eating nothing but Ramen noodles and instant oatmeal, because it's all I could afford. I handwashed my laundry in the bathtub because I couldn't afford to go to the laundrymat. I even counted the squares of toilet paper I used, in an effort to reduce how often I had to buy more. Eventually things got better when I was hired at a job with a future, one that would help me achieve that future by paying for the rest of my bachelor's degree. Of course, I was hired with an education waiver, so they could fire me if I didn't actively pursue my degree, and they emphasized that 'slow and steady' would not win the race. I had to finish that degree as soon as possible. So yes it was paid for, but I finished it by working full-time during the day and going to school full-time at night. It took me eight years of working my ass off to finally get my four-year bachelor's degree.
I know that luck was just as big a part of it as my own hard work was. And college students today aren't as lucky.
I've been appalled by some of the reactions to the pepper-spray incident at UC Davis last week. In many cases, the protesters were characterized as I listed in my introductory paragraph, and also lumped in with all the Occupy protesters everywhere, particularly those few bad apples who are causing trouble in some of the larger gatherings. (Apparently since there are a small handful of true trouble-makers giving the protesters a bad name in New York, the police were justified in pepper-spraying a group of students peacefully sitting on a pedestrian-only walkway on a college campus in California. Or so the argument goes.) The UC Davis crowd were trying to be clear that while they shared much in common with the other Occupy movements, some of their grievances were particular to them, specifically the issue of more tuition increases.
To those of you who proudly talk about how you worked your way through college, please consider the following numbers from the UC Davis website for an in-state undergraduate student who began her studies as a freshman in 2008.
Tuition and fees (excluding books, room, board, and other incidentals) per academic year:
2008/2009 - $9,496.60
2009/2010 - $10,989.95
2010/2011 - $13,079.91
2011/2012 - $15,123.36
You who so proudly worked your way through school, did you have to deal with a 59% increase in tuition between your freshman and senior years? I can tell you, no, you didn't. UC Davis was kind enough to provide historical information on their website going back as far as 1994. So let's assume that's when you started working your way through college.
1994/1995 - $4,099.00
1995/1996 - $4,554.00
1996/1997 - $4,262.00
1997/1998 - $4,331.50
If you started working your way through college before 1994, then your costs were even lower.
Now let's assume that you worked at California's minimum wage forty hours per week for twelve weeks during the summer, and twenty hours per week for thirty-six weeks during the school year, leaving four weeks of unpaid sick and vacation time each year (because let's face it, if you're working for minimum wage, you don't get paid time off). You would have earned (before taxes):
1994/1995 - $5,100 ($1,001 more than your tuition)
1995/1996 - $5,700 ($1,146 more than your tuition)
1996/1997 - $6,180 ($1,918 more than your tuition)
1997/1998 - $6,900 ($2,568.50 more than your tuition)
Today's senior who's worked the same number of hours at today's minimum wage in California (which has remained steady at $8.00 per hour since 2008) has earned (before taxes) $9,600 per year. That is:
2008/2009 - $103.40 more than her tuition
2009/2010 - $1,389.95 less than her tuition
2010/2011 - $3,479.91 less than her tuition
2011/2012 - $5,523.36 less than her tuition
So where you would have had $6,633.50 in the bank upon graduation, today's senior will be $10,289.82 in debt for doing exactly what you did.
And let's not even talk about what it cost you to buy your house in 1998 compared to today.
Starting school in 2008, that student probably figured that she could mostly work her way through school. It would be tight, and she might have to take on a little debt, but nothing too difficult to pay off with the increase in wages she's sure to see upon graduation. But each year her costs went up astronomically, forcing her to either take on more and more debt, or else cut her losses with nothing to show for it, and no hope of getting the higher-paying job that would enable her to pay off the debt she'd already incurred. What exactly is she supposed to do? What did you do when you were faced with that situation? Oh wait, that's right. You were never faced with that situation.
So before you start waxing eloquent about how hard you worked for the things you have, and how these lazy kids should do the same, consider that the world they live in is very different from the one you did. Let go of your self-righteousness, and consider that they might actually have something legitimate to protest.
Good for you.
Times have changed.
I too worked my way through college. I vividly remember the days of working 60 to 70 hours per week between two jobs (one full-time dead-end job and one nights-and-weekends retail job), supporting myself in a should-have-been-condemned apartment in a pretty scary neighborhood, taking one night course at a time because it's all I could afford and all I had time for. I was destroying my health by eating nothing but Ramen noodles and instant oatmeal, because it's all I could afford. I handwashed my laundry in the bathtub because I couldn't afford to go to the laundrymat. I even counted the squares of toilet paper I used, in an effort to reduce how often I had to buy more. Eventually things got better when I was hired at a job with a future, one that would help me achieve that future by paying for the rest of my bachelor's degree. Of course, I was hired with an education waiver, so they could fire me if I didn't actively pursue my degree, and they emphasized that 'slow and steady' would not win the race. I had to finish that degree as soon as possible. So yes it was paid for, but I finished it by working full-time during the day and going to school full-time at night. It took me eight years of working my ass off to finally get my four-year bachelor's degree.
I know that luck was just as big a part of it as my own hard work was. And college students today aren't as lucky.
I've been appalled by some of the reactions to the pepper-spray incident at UC Davis last week. In many cases, the protesters were characterized as I listed in my introductory paragraph, and also lumped in with all the Occupy protesters everywhere, particularly those few bad apples who are causing trouble in some of the larger gatherings. (Apparently since there are a small handful of true trouble-makers giving the protesters a bad name in New York, the police were justified in pepper-spraying a group of students peacefully sitting on a pedestrian-only walkway on a college campus in California. Or so the argument goes.) The UC Davis crowd were trying to be clear that while they shared much in common with the other Occupy movements, some of their grievances were particular to them, specifically the issue of more tuition increases.
To those of you who proudly talk about how you worked your way through college, please consider the following numbers from the UC Davis website for an in-state undergraduate student who began her studies as a freshman in 2008.
Tuition and fees (excluding books, room, board, and other incidentals) per academic year:
2008/2009 - $9,496.60
2009/2010 - $10,989.95
2010/2011 - $13,079.91
2011/2012 - $15,123.36
You who so proudly worked your way through school, did you have to deal with a 59% increase in tuition between your freshman and senior years? I can tell you, no, you didn't. UC Davis was kind enough to provide historical information on their website going back as far as 1994. So let's assume that's when you started working your way through college.
1994/1995 - $4,099.00
1995/1996 - $4,554.00
1996/1997 - $4,262.00
1997/1998 - $4,331.50
If you started working your way through college before 1994, then your costs were even lower.
Now let's assume that you worked at California's minimum wage forty hours per week for twelve weeks during the summer, and twenty hours per week for thirty-six weeks during the school year, leaving four weeks of unpaid sick and vacation time each year (because let's face it, if you're working for minimum wage, you don't get paid time off). You would have earned (before taxes):
1994/1995 - $5,100 ($1,001 more than your tuition)
1995/1996 - $5,700 ($1,146 more than your tuition)
1996/1997 - $6,180 ($1,918 more than your tuition)
1997/1998 - $6,900 ($2,568.50 more than your tuition)
Today's senior who's worked the same number of hours at today's minimum wage in California (which has remained steady at $8.00 per hour since 2008) has earned (before taxes) $9,600 per year. That is:
2008/2009 - $103.40 more than her tuition
2009/2010 - $1,389.95 less than her tuition
2010/2011 - $3,479.91 less than her tuition
2011/2012 - $5,523.36 less than her tuition
So where you would have had $6,633.50 in the bank upon graduation, today's senior will be $10,289.82 in debt for doing exactly what you did.
And let's not even talk about what it cost you to buy your house in 1998 compared to today.
Starting school in 2008, that student probably figured that she could mostly work her way through school. It would be tight, and she might have to take on a little debt, but nothing too difficult to pay off with the increase in wages she's sure to see upon graduation. But each year her costs went up astronomically, forcing her to either take on more and more debt, or else cut her losses with nothing to show for it, and no hope of getting the higher-paying job that would enable her to pay off the debt she'd already incurred. What exactly is she supposed to do? What did you do when you were faced with that situation? Oh wait, that's right. You were never faced with that situation.
So before you start waxing eloquent about how hard you worked for the things you have, and how these lazy kids should do the same, consider that the world they live in is very different from the one you did. Let go of your self-righteousness, and consider that they might actually have something legitimate to protest.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Announcing Quiet Devotions!
Through this blog I've been writing about a variety of issues, and it's been a fun experience for me. But when I think about what kind of writing I'm likely to make a career out of, I keep coming back to religion. So while I'll keep this blog as a sort of catch-all (and definitely an outlet for my political rants!), I'm going to be putting more of my effort into establishing myself as a religious writer.
To that end, I'm please to announce Quiet Devotions. According to the daily lectionary in the back of Evangelical Lutheran Worship, tomorrow begins daily readings for Year B. So beginning tomorrow, Quiet Devotions will feature a brief reflection and prayer based on one of the daily readings. If you're looking for something to help focus your personal prayer life, I encourage you to subscribe to that page.
In the future I'll publish other religious resources as well, but for now I'm just going to keep up with the devotionals. I hope you'll find them helpful and thought-provoking!
To that end, I'm please to announce Quiet Devotions. According to the daily lectionary in the back of Evangelical Lutheran Worship, tomorrow begins daily readings for Year B. So beginning tomorrow, Quiet Devotions will feature a brief reflection and prayer based on one of the daily readings. If you're looking for something to help focus your personal prayer life, I encourage you to subscribe to that page.
In the future I'll publish other religious resources as well, but for now I'm just going to keep up with the devotionals. I hope you'll find them helpful and thought-provoking!
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
A Modern Psalm of Lament From a Former Pastor
I spent this past weekend at a women's retreat at Camp Calumet in West Ossipee, NH. I signed up through my church, and it was a good opportunity to get to know some of the other women I see every Sunday, but don't get to talk to or interact with very much. I was a little nervous, because I don't do large groups very well, and I don't make friends very easily.
But I'm really glad I went.
If you've been reading my posts for a while, then you know that I'm struggling to recover from a toxic and unhealthy congregation where I served as solo pastor. I've known intellectually that I was emotionally and spiritually harmed by that experience, but I don't think I realized the depth of that pain until this weekend.
The theme of the weekend was "Psalms: Prayers of the Heart." The chaplain, Rev. Elaine Hewes, led us in an exercise where we wrote our own psalm, either of lament or of thanksgiving/praise (or some mixture of both). Not surprisingly, I had a lament in me. Quite surprisingly, however, the act of writing this psalm touched a raw, painful place deep within me, and I started crying. Bawling. Big, choking sobs. In the middle of a crowded room full of strangers. I got up and ran to the bathroom, where I tried to pull myself together. When I thought I had, I went back into the hallway, where I found two women from my church waiting for me, wanting to make sure I was OK. Just seeing the look of concern on their faces made me lose it all over again, and the next thing I knew I was being embraced and comforted by women whose names I didn't even know (their scarves were blocking their name tags), but such knowledge was completely unnecessary right then.
I was in a much better place after that, and I think it might have been the first real step in my healing, nearly two years after the damage was done. Not only did it help me realize some things about the nature and the depths of my own woundedness, but it also served to show me that the church is not exclusively the domain of the selfish, vicious, treacherous, and abusive personalities that caused such harm at my last call.
So for what it's worth, here is my modern psalm of lament, written by a former pastor. It's in the basic form of an acrostic, though you'll see I took a few liberties (poetic license) when necessary.
But I'm really glad I went.
If you've been reading my posts for a while, then you know that I'm struggling to recover from a toxic and unhealthy congregation where I served as solo pastor. I've known intellectually that I was emotionally and spiritually harmed by that experience, but I don't think I realized the depth of that pain until this weekend.
The theme of the weekend was "Psalms: Prayers of the Heart." The chaplain, Rev. Elaine Hewes, led us in an exercise where we wrote our own psalm, either of lament or of thanksgiving/praise (or some mixture of both). Not surprisingly, I had a lament in me. Quite surprisingly, however, the act of writing this psalm touched a raw, painful place deep within me, and I started crying. Bawling. Big, choking sobs. In the middle of a crowded room full of strangers. I got up and ran to the bathroom, where I tried to pull myself together. When I thought I had, I went back into the hallway, where I found two women from my church waiting for me, wanting to make sure I was OK. Just seeing the look of concern on their faces made me lose it all over again, and the next thing I knew I was being embraced and comforted by women whose names I didn't even know (their scarves were blocking their name tags), but such knowledge was completely unnecessary right then.
I was in a much better place after that, and I think it might have been the first real step in my healing, nearly two years after the damage was done. Not only did it help me realize some things about the nature and the depths of my own woundedness, but it also served to show me that the church is not exclusively the domain of the selfish, vicious, treacherous, and abusive personalities that caused such harm at my last call.
So for what it's worth, here is my modern psalm of lament, written by a former pastor. It's in the basic form of an acrostic, though you'll see I took a few liberties (poetic license) when necessary.
Accept me, O Lord,
because your people have not. A
congregation of your followers sought to
destroy my marriage and my faith.
Every day I live with the pain,
feeling their rejection, and my failure to
guide them back to your ways.
Have mercy on me, Abba.
Ignite my faith where it has dimmed, and show me your
justice.
Keep my family together.
Let those who have strayed from you but call themselves by your name
make right their wrongs, and
know that what they say and what they do matters.
Open my heart, O Lord, and heal the
pain that lives there.
Quiet my demons, and
restore my faith.
Show me your faithful, your forgiven people who remain
true to your path,
unable to be perfect, but
very loving, very giving.
Where are you, Lord?
Explain how this can happen in
your Church.
Zeal is yours, Lord. I'm waiting for you to show it.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
What Do the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want?
There have been a lot of snarky articles written about the Occupy Wall Street protesters (and their clones in cities across the United States), characterizing them as freeloaders, lazy college drop-outs, bored trust fund kids, unemployed people who would rather complain than work, etc. Most of my research is done online, so I can read the readers' comments on most of the articles about the Occupiers. Most of those comments are even snarkier than the articles. A popular way to discredit the protesters is to point out that they don't have a unified message, a platform, or specific goals that can be addressed.
Full disclosure: I am not one of the protesters. I do not speak for them. I've not discussed with any of them what their goals or objectives are. I do support them, and I'm doing so by publicizing what I can about them and, occasionally, dropping off a load of blankets, sleeping bags, and other needed supplies to the Occupy Boston crowd in Dewey Square.
I do not have a profile on the We Are the 99% webpage, but I am the 99%. And this is why I'm supporting the protesters.
Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office released a report about income disparity between 1979 and 2007. The New York Times sums up the report's findings this way: Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% of earners saw an increase of 275% in their after-tax incomes. The next 19% (or the remainder of the top 20%) saw an increase of 65% of after-tax income. The next 60% saw an increase of just under 40%, and the bottom 20% saw an increase of just 18%.
Remember, we're not talking about overall wealth growth, so the argument that wealth begets wealth doesn't apply here. This is a strict after-tax income-to-income comparison. Yes, things like capital gains are included, but that only applies if an asset is sold. The value of assets that one continues to own such as a house or investment portfolios is not included. Things like Social Security payments are included in these numbers.
Looking at Table A-1 from the CBO Report, the real dollar increases are as follows (earnings include wages, capital gains, and 'Transfers' such as Social Security, and after federal taxes are deducted):
Someone earning $15,411 in 1979 was earning $18,979 in 2007, an increase of $3,568.
Someone earning $22,851 in 1979 was earning $29,769 in 2007, an increase of $6,918.
Someone earning $30,341 in 1979 was earning $42,202 in 2007, an increase of $11,861.
Someone earning $51,613 in 1979 was earning $81,135 in 2007, an increase of $29,522.
And someone in the top 1%, earning $115,965 in 1979 was earning $252,607 in 2007, an increase of $136,642.
One might argue that the higher-paying jobs increased in complexity more than the lower-paying jobs, thus justifying a greater increase in salary over the years. That is a valid point. But consider the following information as well:
While some of the protesters may want perfect income equality, most of us are only trying to have a chance. We can't do that if incomes are not keeping up with the cost of living. The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the three unalienable rights of [hu]man[ity]. Americans are not guaranteed a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle, and I believe in hard work and personal responsibility. Safety nets should be in place to prevent starvation and depravity, but not ensure comfort. But in the last thirty years, hard work and personal responsibility are no longer enough to achieve 'happiness' (or, as I define the term in this context, the 'American Dream'). To list 'pursuit of happiness' as an unalienable right must mean that the achievement of said happiness is possible for ordinary people willing to put in the effort, and right now it's not.
I realize that the world is changing, and we are now in a 'knowledge economy.' Presumably that means knowledge is the key to success. The logical course then seems to be to prioritize higher education: i.e. if you want to succeed, go to college and get a degree. In 1979 the average in-state tuition (including room and board) for a state school was $2,327 for the academic year. In 2007 that same year's worth of tuition, room, and board cost $13,589, an increase of 484%. Families in the bottom 99% can't save the money to pay for their kids' college education, and the kids who borrow the money won't earn enough at their non-top-1% jobs to be able to pay those loans back. The American Dream has become a pipe dream.
What do the Occupy Wall Street protesters want? They want people to realize what is going on. They want people to realize that many of us are following the same rules as the much-vaunted 'Greatest Generation' followed, but the game has changed, and following those rules will no longer earn you the comfortable, middle-class lives our grandparents lived. Following those rules now earns you a house with an underwater mortgage, a job that demands annual pay-cuts while the company is declaring record profits, the risk of having that job taken away from you at any moment, fewer (if any) health and retirement benefits, and ever-growing credit card debt just to keep food on your table.
The protesters are not politicians. They don't have a platform. They don't have a neat three-point plan. They don't have the answers. And they're not supposed to. No one elected them to get or keep the country on the right track. They are protesting the fact that the people who were elected to do so by and large owe their political power to the corporate and special interests who funded their campaigns, and it's those corporate and special interests that they're representing. The protesters are not trying to 'hurt' banks or corporations or politicians. They are trying to get banks and corporations and politicians to be accountable for their actions, and if that accountability is interpreted as 'hurt,' then I'd say there's definitely something wrong that needs to be fixed.
There's something wrong when those who are elected to represent the people can only make it to election day with the help of the rich and powerful.
There's something wrong when banks give oversized mortgages to underqualified borrowers, and sell securities backed by those mortgages as good investments, and also sell - as good investments - credit default swaps betting that those mortgages will fail.
There's something wrong when CEOs make decisions that cost thousands of people their jobs, cause millions of people to lose money on investments, and get paid multimillions of dollars as a severance package for a job poorly done.
There's something wrong when banks and corporations make mistakes and receive taxpayer-funded bailouts, but when individuals make mistakes they're told to suck it up, and are accused of being greedy, lazy, and irresponsible.
There's something wrong when interest rates punish those who behave responsibly and live within their means, but reward those who finance their spending and risky investments with other people's money.
And there's something terribly wrong when Americans look at other Americans who are exercising their rights and, more importantly, fulfilling their civic duty to question the actions of their leaders, and call them lazy, stupid, spoiled, freeloaders, etc.
It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job. It's a depression when you lose yours. If you're not part of that top 1%, just wait: your depression will come. The numbers have proven that it's just a matter of time.
You are the 99%, whether you like it or not.
Full disclosure: I am not one of the protesters. I do not speak for them. I've not discussed with any of them what their goals or objectives are. I do support them, and I'm doing so by publicizing what I can about them and, occasionally, dropping off a load of blankets, sleeping bags, and other needed supplies to the Occupy Boston crowd in Dewey Square.
I do not have a profile on the We Are the 99% webpage, but I am the 99%. And this is why I'm supporting the protesters.
Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office released a report about income disparity between 1979 and 2007. The New York Times sums up the report's findings this way: Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% of earners saw an increase of 275% in their after-tax incomes. The next 19% (or the remainder of the top 20%) saw an increase of 65% of after-tax income. The next 60% saw an increase of just under 40%, and the bottom 20% saw an increase of just 18%.
Remember, we're not talking about overall wealth growth, so the argument that wealth begets wealth doesn't apply here. This is a strict after-tax income-to-income comparison. Yes, things like capital gains are included, but that only applies if an asset is sold. The value of assets that one continues to own such as a house or investment portfolios is not included. Things like Social Security payments are included in these numbers.
Looking at Table A-1 from the CBO Report, the real dollar increases are as follows (earnings include wages, capital gains, and 'Transfers' such as Social Security, and after federal taxes are deducted):
Someone earning $15,411 in 1979 was earning $18,979 in 2007, an increase of $3,568.
Someone earning $22,851 in 1979 was earning $29,769 in 2007, an increase of $6,918.
Someone earning $30,341 in 1979 was earning $42,202 in 2007, an increase of $11,861.
Someone earning $51,613 in 1979 was earning $81,135 in 2007, an increase of $29,522.
And someone in the top 1%, earning $115,965 in 1979 was earning $252,607 in 2007, an increase of $136,642.
One might argue that the higher-paying jobs increased in complexity more than the lower-paying jobs, thus justifying a greater increase in salary over the years. That is a valid point. But consider the following information as well:
- Cost of a new house
- 1979 - $58,100
- 2007 - $308,775
- 431% increase
- Average rent for a two-bedroom apartment
- 1979 - $280
- 2007 - $1,368
- 389% increase
- Cost of a loaf of bread
- 1979 - $.35
- 2007 - $1.25
- 257% increase
- Cost of a gallon of gasoline
- 1979 - $.86
- 2007 - $2.80
- 226% increase
- Cost of a dozen eggs
- 1979 - $.85
- 2007 - $1.75
- 106% increase
- Cost of a gallon of milk
- 1979 - $1.62
- 2007 - $3.27
- 102% increase
While some of the protesters may want perfect income equality, most of us are only trying to have a chance. We can't do that if incomes are not keeping up with the cost of living. The Declaration of Independence lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the three unalienable rights of [hu]man[ity]. Americans are not guaranteed a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle, and I believe in hard work and personal responsibility. Safety nets should be in place to prevent starvation and depravity, but not ensure comfort. But in the last thirty years, hard work and personal responsibility are no longer enough to achieve 'happiness' (or, as I define the term in this context, the 'American Dream'). To list 'pursuit of happiness' as an unalienable right must mean that the achievement of said happiness is possible for ordinary people willing to put in the effort, and right now it's not.
I realize that the world is changing, and we are now in a 'knowledge economy.' Presumably that means knowledge is the key to success. The logical course then seems to be to prioritize higher education: i.e. if you want to succeed, go to college and get a degree. In 1979 the average in-state tuition (including room and board) for a state school was $2,327 for the academic year. In 2007 that same year's worth of tuition, room, and board cost $13,589, an increase of 484%. Families in the bottom 99% can't save the money to pay for their kids' college education, and the kids who borrow the money won't earn enough at their non-top-1% jobs to be able to pay those loans back. The American Dream has become a pipe dream.
What do the Occupy Wall Street protesters want? They want people to realize what is going on. They want people to realize that many of us are following the same rules as the much-vaunted 'Greatest Generation' followed, but the game has changed, and following those rules will no longer earn you the comfortable, middle-class lives our grandparents lived. Following those rules now earns you a house with an underwater mortgage, a job that demands annual pay-cuts while the company is declaring record profits, the risk of having that job taken away from you at any moment, fewer (if any) health and retirement benefits, and ever-growing credit card debt just to keep food on your table.
The protesters are not politicians. They don't have a platform. They don't have a neat three-point plan. They don't have the answers. And they're not supposed to. No one elected them to get or keep the country on the right track. They are protesting the fact that the people who were elected to do so by and large owe their political power to the corporate and special interests who funded their campaigns, and it's those corporate and special interests that they're representing. The protesters are not trying to 'hurt' banks or corporations or politicians. They are trying to get banks and corporations and politicians to be accountable for their actions, and if that accountability is interpreted as 'hurt,' then I'd say there's definitely something wrong that needs to be fixed.
There's something wrong when those who are elected to represent the people can only make it to election day with the help of the rich and powerful.
There's something wrong when banks give oversized mortgages to underqualified borrowers, and sell securities backed by those mortgages as good investments, and also sell - as good investments - credit default swaps betting that those mortgages will fail.
There's something wrong when CEOs make decisions that cost thousands of people their jobs, cause millions of people to lose money on investments, and get paid multimillions of dollars as a severance package for a job poorly done.
There's something wrong when banks and corporations make mistakes and receive taxpayer-funded bailouts, but when individuals make mistakes they're told to suck it up, and are accused of being greedy, lazy, and irresponsible.
There's something wrong when interest rates punish those who behave responsibly and live within their means, but reward those who finance their spending and risky investments with other people's money.
And there's something terribly wrong when Americans look at other Americans who are exercising their rights and, more importantly, fulfilling their civic duty to question the actions of their leaders, and call them lazy, stupid, spoiled, freeloaders, etc.
It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job. It's a depression when you lose yours. If you're not part of that top 1%, just wait: your depression will come. The numbers have proven that it's just a matter of time.
You are the 99%, whether you like it or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)