Back to the Way We Were
With today's economy, we too have pulled in the purse strings and are now only buying what we need. Gone is wasteful and useless spending. Having grown up on the brink of the big spending boom, I have reflected back to those years and made the discovery how little one really needs. I look around my own home and think "God, why did we buy all this stuff?" We worked so hard to obtain what we have and now I ask "WHY?" I kid my better half saying that now I could be happy living in a one room shack--with a clean bed, a coffee pot, a pile of books and a helluva good beach chair (preferably in Hawaii). Our home is lovely and comfortable. My closets are stuffed with clothes and beautiful high-heeled shoes and handbags. My jewelry boxes are jammed packed. I am grateful for my treasures (thank you Jeff) but have made the discovery that I really could have done without.
I thought back to the days when I was growing up. My Mom handled the family finances and did a remarkable job. Mom only allowed us to have what we needed, not what we wanted. It was difficult for me at times when my friends had so much more and I was so envious. But now, looking back, it just wasn't so bad after all.
I had a close girlfriend who was an only child and her parents were well off. Needless to say, she was spoiled and had the best of everything. Every season, she required a totally new wardrobe as "you can't wear something for more than one season.'" And, every season, I couldn't wait to buy her "old" wardrobe from her. It afforded me a much larger wardrobe because of her low prices, and the clothing was made of quality materials and I was a happy kid with that. I bought everything from her, winter coats to swimsuits, and then, I too had the best. As for shoes, my Mom insisted on new shoes. Having a narrow foot shoes commanded higher prices, so I was given the choice "a pair for dress or a pair for school". Most of the time, my choice was white bucks or saddle shoes.
I can remember when Scotch tartan plaid "reversible" skirts came out in the late 50's. The skirts were made of a high quality, lightweight, woolen fabric and were beautiful. They were stitched down at the hips a few inches thus matching up the plaid accordingly -one side showed the dark side and the reverse side showed the light side (rich chocolate brown and light taupe). They were $60.00 and my friend had five. I begged (and I mean really begged) my Mom for just one. We went to the store and she was so indignant about paying $60.00 for one skirt. Nothing mattered but the price tag. So she gave me an option-I could have two $30.00 cheap reversible skirts or none. I took the two skirts but hated them. The other skirt, I would have worn forever.
I remember when we went on vacations and drove to North Bay, Ontario. We stopped to eat at family restaurants (no fast foods then) and we all chose our meals basically by the price--this afforded us the ability to have more money for something else. There were no credit cards either and the cash had to last for everyone for a week.
In the later years we went to Florida on my Dad's CNR passes and we would get around Miami and Miami Beach via public transportation. It was just a given and rental cars were not an option. We stayed at a nice small hotel on the beach that had a "kitchenette" so we could save money by preparing our own food. My Mom always stretched a dollar as far as it would go. For entertainment, we occasionally sprang for a round of miniature golf but basically, it was the beach. My dad would wake me just before sunrise so we could go to the shore and see what gifts the sea deposited for us during the night. We would find sea creatures, towels and lots of bathing cap straps. It was like a treasure hunt and we sure had fun.
I also remember Saturday nights at home. We made it a special night for TV. Mom would go to our local A&P Grocery store, and our treat for the night was a 29-cent bag of Jane Parker Potato Chips. Back then, it was a large bag and we couldn't wait to share the treat. Our TV was a very small screen in a big box--where the horizontal lines would jump up and down until Dad adjusted the antennae. We didn't watch much TV as Dad worried about burning out the tube, so it was special when we did.
As for the purchase of our TV, Dad went "Over the River" (Niagara Falls, NY) for forty-eight hours. If you spent the allotted time, you were allowed to bring back a certain dollar amount duty free. We had friends there, so he had free lodging. He purchased our "new" TV from a used appliance store. Before we had our own TV, we would sometimes stand outside our local appliance store to watch their TV in the window.
As for my spoiled girlfriend--they had a TV as soon as they were available. Her parents were like second parents to myself and about six other kids. Of course, their house was our hub for a lot of reasons. We had half of the basement to play in; we had old costumes from a dance studio to put on our own recitals; a portion of the yard to plant flowers and then we would charge others to get into "our garden" and lots of other things. Her Dad took us on hikes, tobogganing (even pulling us behind his car) and he kept us all busy. They were generous providing lunches etc for us too. They enjoyed us as much as we enjoyed and loved them. Her Dad always referred to us as "Boys." Part of the "boys" yearly routine was to go to a certain area and gather black walnuts. We would gather bushels full and then take them back to his house and spread them all over the yard to dry. After they dried, we had the job of removing the shriveled skins from the walnuts. Every year I went home with pitch black hands stained by the walnuts and Mom would cuss him out but I didn't care. Hey, it was fun. Then in the winter, prior to watching "I Remember Mama" and "Kukla, Fran and Ollie" on TV her Dad would say "OK boys, lets go" and we would all march down to the basement, sit in a circle (in our own little chairs) with him in the middle. He had an anvil and a hammer and would crack us each about ten walnuts and drop them into our little baskets. Then we would all scurry upstairs, sit in a line on the floor in front of the couch to watch TV and eat our treats that we had gathered earlier that year.
Mom walked everywhere to pay the bills in person. She saved money by not taking the bus and having to purchase postage stamps. I don't ever remember her having a checking account back then.
Dad would ride his bike to work thus saving miles on the car and gas. Dad also did his own maintenance and repair work on our car, house, etc. Like he would say in later years, "times were tough and if you didn't know how to do something, then you learned." Dad paid no one to do anything as he did it himself.
Our other forms of entertainment were friends and family gatherings. They took turns playing cards at each other's home. The kids would eventually fall asleep on the couch until it was time to leave. At midnight the host would supply a small luncheon consisting of all homemade goodies. They would talk and laugh until the wee hours of the morning. Sundays were usually reserved for family visits--someone was always dropping by and Mom always prepared a special Sunday dinner. Homemade pies always finished off the event. The aroma of homemade pies, cakes, cookies always perpetuated our home. The importance in our life then was family and friends, not our worldly possessions and life was so much less complicated. How I wish at times that we could go back to this simple life.
When I was growing up, I viewed our life as being "Poor" and that we just weren't as lucky as some people, especially my spoiled girlfriend. I was envious of her and some of my other "privileged" classmates. However, now with today's economy, I look back with a different kind of envy and I think to myself "Ya know--that wasn't such a bad way to live after all." At this age, I now look at my early years as being wealthy--leaving me priceless memories. We too have now reverted to buying what we need and not what we want and I find it rather refreshing.
What a great narrative! Thanks. I enjoyed reading this. It does seem like our lives used to be simpler and more real in the past.
July 26, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoyable read!
Mind you, if we accept the fact that we must live in this capitalist society for the moment, in this economy pinching pennies is the last thing you should do.
Buying smart is one thing, of course, and maybe spending money on public transport (or really anything except gasoline) is an option, and maybe now is a good time to pay a little extra to your utility company for renewable energy guarantees. But each penny that you "save" is out of the economy and out of someone else's pocket.
Just as companies are making things worse for themselves by firing people (who is going to buy their stuff with no income?), consumers are making things worse by curtailing their patronage.
July 26, 2009 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Karl: Thanks for reading my blog. I agree with you somewhat, however, my blog was mainly about getting back to a simpler, more sustainable way of life. I appreciate your comments.
July 26, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your analysis here, Karl, even if a bit surprised it comes from you of all people. ;O)
The notion that withholding consumption is the wrong thing to do at this time is predicated upon a belief that our present economic system is at all sustainable. Our present situation shows in fact that it is not.
At its core, joaneliz' post talks about the early days of the consumer economy. The economy grew as the middle class became empowered to purchase cars, take vacations, eat meals at restaurants, purchase clothing, etc. - all with monies that were earned as "disposable income." Such an economy could continue to grow in only one of two ways:
1.) The middle class would continue to increase the disposable income they received via pay raises (mainly), or;
2.) The middle class would gain access to credit, or the "Gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" means of purchasing consumer goods.
The first system would allow the middle class to participate in the benefits of the growing economy. What a concept! And this is where things started, with the growth of the labor union movement in particular driving the increasing wealth of the middle class. You saved for major purchases, setting aside money in your family budget for purchase of that car, new boat, vacation, new TV, or whatever. And every few years, you received a pay increase that allowed you to expand the "disposable income" portion of the family budget. The middle class family participated greatly in the growth of the economy, but they did so as an "owner" of that economy, taking from it their rightly portion of the "profit" and other benefits that economy provided.
We soon devolved into a credit economy, however, wherein it no longer was necessary for middle class earnings to increase for them to participate in the purchasing of consumer goods. Wages went stagnant, but these were replaced by plastic cards and other easy access to credit that instilled an illusion of growing wealth among the middle class. Each household did its part of supporting the growing economy through "deficit spending," even as the degree to which they were afforded credit was astoundingly unsustainable long-term.
To joaneliz's point about the "good ol' days," she discusses a period when there was most generally only one wage earner per household. The maintenance of the social and family and neighborhood networks she addresses were accomplished mainly by the "stay at home" wife/mother (Sorry! No intent at being sexist here, only accurate.). This feature of middle class life was increasingly diminished or outrightly abandoned as the credit crunch and increased participation in the consumer economy made it necessary for both spouses in a family to "bring home the bacon." (As a side note, the impact on single parent households would become increasingly disastrous.)
Think about the change this represents. A wholesale move that places BOTH parents into the workplace is not something that occurs without major consequences for the individual family and society at large. Yet, it did occur as we responded to the pressures felt in confronting the increasing unsustainability of this credit economy.
This credit economy has collapsed. We have no other coping strategies left at our disposal. The "house value as ATM" charade is over. Credit is no longer available. In fact, the lending institutions are increasingly calling in their markers. Unemployed workers are finding jobs at greatly reduced wages if they can in fact find any work at all. Bankruptcies are being recorded in record numbers as even the "gainfully employed" determine that their present wages will not accommodate the credit deficits that can no longer be papered over with additional debt.
The individual consumer is right to withdraw from the circus that is this economy, even as the withdrawal of consumers as a whole from the larger economy exacerbates the present problems experienced as the death throes of this credit economy.
What this does, however, is hasten the realization that this patient cannot be saved. We will not experience any kind of significant economic recovery until we once again provide family-supporting jobs for the middle class; until we accept as fact that exporting jobs does not increase "productivity" in our domestic economy; that, ultimately, the consumer must be reinstalled as the rightful "owner" of this economy before we can have any hope at all that we are engaged in a dynamic, healthy, and GROWING domestic economy.
And so I agree with joaneliz that we need to get back to a simpler life. And I agree with you that we can help the economy by spending whatever disposable income we can afford. But I know in the end that this present economic crisis will not be truly fixed until the middle class can gain the benefits of their participation in the economy through increased actual wealth rather than the illusion of wealth they have been afforded through credit and its deferment of payments for purchases made.
(I apologize for the length of the comment here. I perhaps should have considered writing it as a separate post.)
July 26, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You definitely should post this separately!
I hasten to point out that I cannot much criticise the ideal of a simpler way of living, something I failed to adequately highlight. Perhaps "sustainable" is a better term, and my inartful "smart" another.
I think I am one of the minority of realists in my little econo-political spectrum, which means I can observe the current economic "system" without convulsive suggestions of what the burgeoisie can go do with itself ;)
So long as we insist upon this borderline unsustainable capitalist economy and its perpetual boom-crash cycles, spending as much as possible is the best option. In doing that, however, there may be some choices more sustainable than others.
The only part in your treatise that I take exception to is the focus on the "middle class." You are certainly not among the most reverential thereof, or bestow it some near-mythical qualities that many politicians do (because everyone likes to think of themselves as middle class), but overall in this day and age I simply cannot accept the thought that -- even in a capitalist system -- there is an acknowledged group below the middle. That is a different discussion, though.
July 26, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take your point. But it's funny that in thinking about the "middle class" in this regard, I include the minimum wage worker as perhaps the most important. The increase in the minimum wage will definitely be realized in the economy as increased consumption, for it is the poor among us who have the greatest degree of "deferred consumption," even of necessities in way too many cases. That money will be spent. The multi-million dollar bonuses on Wall Street? Not so much.
July 26, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the minimum wage workers are "middle class," then there really is no class below in my mind, as the homeless, drifters and other people on the fringes of the society cannot be considered a group for this purpose. (Although you would have a huge disparity between the low and top ends of this demography.)
I suppose the malleability of the term is one of my objections to it...it seems to mean something different to everyone (which, again, is probably why it is such a popular term with politicians.)
July 26, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your mistrust of the term "middle class" is valid for reasons stated. It works here, albeit as an inelegant stand-in for "consumer" or some other more appropriate term. I will consider other options if I decide to re-do this as a separate blog. Thanks for the discussion and the thoughtful critique.
July 27, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
SleepinJ - This is the most concise and understandable explanation of the credit economy that I've ever read!
But how is it that minimum wage workers are considered middle class? Isn't that social mobility without the monetary part? :-)
Speaking of upward mobility, I haven't seem much discussion of that here. Maybe it's because there isn't any, anymore. Which goes along with everything you said.
July 26, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with the puppy and ... whatever Karl is (a pillow-case?). This is really good, Sleepin. Well put, clear, and succinct. Should be a post.
July 26, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Obey! I consider these words to be particularly high praise coming from you and seashell and Karl. It also inspires me to TRY to make time to create a blog post on this topic.
There are so many ways we have gone backwards in our enjoyment of "The American Dream." Much is self-inflicted, such as our willing compliance to pursue an increasing array of consumer goods on credit.
But we have been played for suckers as well. Politically, we've been victimized by sleight of hand artists who convince us that the business of politics is all about patriotism, religion, guns, and abortion while the real political game is played against us by those who would rob us blind.
Where is the outrage? Even now, we see the insurance/health industry owners of this government buying their way to the wholesale sell-out of our interests. Again, where is the outrage?
Where is the outrage? This is the question that haunts me, especially now as we witness the insurance/health industry owners of this government boldly buying their way to a major sell- out of our interests once again.
Again, where Is the outrage?
July 27, 2009 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apologize for double posting of last paragraphs. Tried to submit comment via IPhone. Clumsy!
July 27, 2009 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forgiven! Now, back to writing that post ... :-)
July 27, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A trip down memory lane...
Much of my time growing up on the West Side of Chicago comes to life in your story. Of course, we lived with (and then upstairs of) my grandparents, and a Chicago brick two-flat full of people provided a rich, textured, if sometimes fractious environment to grow up and learn about life and people.
People need to re-enter the discussion. We live in a society, not an economy. And societies are made of families, and families are made of people.
July 26, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
OG: I agree with you. This generation has lost a great deal especially as families become more spread out. Thanks for your response.
July 26, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep thinking of the logistics of pulling a toboggan full o' kids behind a car: brake very carefully. Thanks for sharing Joan.
July 26, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm thinking it probably ain't such a tricky exercise. Sounds like good training for negotiating Chicago rush hour traffic! No brakes. Tailgating. All in a day's drive for so many of the kamikaze commuters.
July 26, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My story of standing on the Addison platform in the middle of the Kennedy heading downtown in the morning and the insane behavior I saw - even in the days before cell phones: Men shaving, women applying makeup, people reading the newspaper, and I have heard though not personally seen stories of women putting on their hose while driving. And people eating things that required utensils...
July 26, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I forgot the single worst driver I've ever seen...
I was heading into DT Chicago on the Ike. Some distance ahead of me, some dimwit from a largely rural state came to a dead stop in the left lane with his right blinker on, thinking he was somehow going to make it off at an exit ramp.
July 26, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have actually seen a woman trying to struggle into her pantyhose while in her position behind the wheel stuck in traffic on the inbound Edens. And very careful, too, to not spill the coffee that she placed on the console beside herself because (apparently) the cupholders were full.
July 26, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahahhaahahha. I am speechless. hahaha
July 26, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you never drove in Chicago, DD. Speechless is for the good days.
July 26, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguel: The tobogganing thing was pretty stupid and believe me, he did hear about it from my Mom. However, we were kids and we thought it was great fun. Thanks for your response.
July 26, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joaneliz: I agree that we need surprisingly little, and that the fewer material goods we have -- at least in number as compared to quality -- the more readily we can achieve "the incredible lightness of being."
I was given the opportunity to be ahead of the recession curve when a hurricane took care of my material acquisitiveness overnight a few years ago. I can attest that there is nothing like digging sodden, black mod-encrusted treasures out of fly-infested seaweed muck for weeks to realize that all that tangible things -- no matter how beautiful -- are just that.
Thank you, Joaneliz, for enumerating the real joys to be shared with family, friends and community. It's so important in stressful times to emphasize the positive. Thank you for your example.
July 26, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you WW for your comments. I can't imagine digging out from a hurricane. We had an experience here two years ago with the installation of a new roof. After the old shingles were removed, a storm ripped through causing our second floor ceilings to collapse from the heavy rain. Even though that was on a much smaller scale, it sure points you in the direction of what really is important. And, I think getting older one tends to see things in a different perspective.
July 26, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good essay Joan. A personal story with broader implications. Which really is always the implication of personal stories. ha!!!
We, Americans, were 'lured' into a different model of living. Ads for new fantastic clothes washers, dish washers, color tvs, bigger color tvs, flatter screen tvs............
Here is a card. It says 7% interest. Hell I can afford that. Pretty soon its 17% interest with additional 'fees'. So easy to purchase what you cannot afford and 'they' gotchya.
Good post.
July 26, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks DD: Yes, I can remember my first credit card. It took me a long time to use it and when i did, I thought "Wow, this is alright." Credit cards can be demons in disguise and they do suck you in.
July 26, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this blog, Joan - such a trip down memory lane - you did a great job of reminding me how different life was back then - simpler and very wholesome. Wonderful read.
July 26, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Maggie. Yes, and I think that perhaps life was even more enjoyable then. The fact that most Moms stayed at home and Dad worked played a big roll in our upbringing. I remember in school if you got into trouble, your dad was waiting for you when you got home. I think one learned their manners and what was and what wasn't acceptable.
July 26, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of when I grew up in the 50s and 60s. I won't go into details but your narrative was very close to my own.
What I will say is this. My father was a High School Guidance Councilor so our income was not fantastic by any stretch of the imagination. What I also remember is that nobody we knew lived in an ostentatious manner regardless of their income.
Through his job and our hobbies we knew people from all sorts of occupations. Doctors, Lawyers, Factory workers. You name it. But none of them "spent like sailors". The first person I can remember having a color TV was my grandfather. And it was used and needed a new picture tube.
I don't remember anyone diving anything except middle of the road American Cars.
It was a very different time. But remember. Nearly everyone from that time had gone through the depression of the 30s and I think this had a big effect on the way they lived.
C
July 26, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know living through the Great Depression had a big effect on the way my parents' generation lived and thought. One of my vivid memories of Christmas and birthdays was opening the presents very carefully - untie the ribbon never cut it, never tear the wrapping paper, and store all of the ribbon and paper for reuse next year. I still feel a shiver run up my spine when I hear tearing paper - fifty years later. And my parents by that time were not in a financial position where that much economizing was essential any more.
July 26, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there is a big difference between having what you need compared to what you want.
Of course not everyone had what they needed while growing up.
And it wasn't about being envious cause children that are poor more likely feel ashamed then envious.
And even today I can tell when I see young children walking to school without the proper winter coat and how they seem to look at the ground while walking alone, that we can't ever forget what we need to do for them.
July 26, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a well written and interesting blog, joaneliz!
From what I've read on other blogs with urban tilts, there is movement today towards downsizing. As it turns out, the draw towards McMansions with 3000+ square feet, 50 acre lawns, long commutes just to reach a grocery store and nothing else around except other identical houses has peaked. Now there is a reverse exodus towards the city, which almost automatically means less square feet and therefore less stuff.
This can only be a good thing in my opinion, although what to do with huge empty suburban tracts is a monster headache lurking in the wings.
July 26, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up on a farm and until I was 13 or 14 I thought people were poor if they didn't have 3 vegetables on the table for dinner. Honestly. I remember going to the "rich" kid's house for a sleep over and there was only one vegetable on the table and I felt so sorry for her. I insisted that I give her a gift for Christmas and her birthday even if it was something of my own for several years afterward.
July 26, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink