Monday, March 9, 2009

Random Economics (Take two)

About a week ago, my class did a random economic project, not in the sense that we had no idea what was going on, (although for some people that might have been the case), just that we were assigned various personalities to become. I was chosen to be the scenario of the white median, married with two children under five years of age. This meant that my spouse and I made $71 thousand a year, which was over $4,000 a month after taxes. Our task for the project was to complete one month's budget with our given scenario.
At first I was expecting some difficulties, for I knew that in today's economy it can be hard to make ends meet even for families in the middle class. But I was actually pleasantly surprised. After all of my expenses, (and I did have more than I expected) I had over $1,000 to play around with. This money I would have probably put into my savings, but it was money that could go anywhere in my budget. I did have some luxuries that others did not, for example, I said that my children's grandmother would be responsible for them, which meant I did not have to pay for day care, and I also did not have to make car payments. Looking at these luxuries I was able to understand more fully how supply and demand works. If consumers wish to purchase something, technically they should be able to control the price. For example, when choosing the type of clothing you would like to wear you have many choices, some more expensive than others. If every consumer chose to wear inexpensive clothing, than designer labels would be forced to make their products cost less. Unfortunately this system does not work for all of us across the board, which is why we have different levels of competition. For those of us who can afford Burberry, than there are many different high end shops to chooses from, and this will continue to be true, whatever level shopper you may be. For now this system seems to be working, and as long as there is a list of healthy competitors, I believe that the system will continue to work.
There were many things about this project which surprised me. When you live at home, it is so hard to comprehend how much support your parents give you. When I look at my budget for one month, it's the little things that seem to add up. Items like shampoo, or when you want to go out to the movies, or even owning a pet which are just simple little things, but they can really ring up your monthly budget. When I had to pretend to be the responsible adult parent, it was much harder to say what I needed, rather than what I wanted. I was fortunate enough to make enough money to not have to really distinguish that point, but for others in my class it was a very hard decision.
The average family income, for the traditional nuclear family is about $79,966* per year. What I found interesting is that while I was close to making that amount of money per year as the White median, the Hispanic median, and Black median were not close at all. It is still astonishing to me that we are still so segregated at this point in time. In 2005, there were about 2 million people receiving welfare**. This information intrigued me, because the number was so large, but it made me think of something we had discussed in class. When we looked at the income of a person on minimum wage, and the amount of money one could receive on Welfare, the amounts were only off by about $5,000, without tax deductions. I guess that some people might look at what they could potentially make, and what they would receive on welfare, and say that welfare was just easier to manage. There are some benefits, up to a point, for example you don't need for daycare for your children, and you also aren't required to pay taxes. Looking at it from that angle, I could understand choosing to just go on welfare, but to me that option is just a pit, with no way out.

2 comments:

DW said...

Two things come to mind, one is a reminiscence. A colleague at my workplace had a daughter who "had it all figured out." She was going to leave the workforce, at the advice of her boyfriend, because she would be ahead on welfare over working minimum wage. She figured that the cost of owning a car to get to work, the cost of transportation, was the tipping point, and as she wasn't going to work, she wouldn't need the expense. She thought that she would be set for life, and gave no thought to the argument from her father that she would be living off of the sweat and kindness of others. In fact, she returned to the workforce in less than two years, out of boredom, and out of a desire to be able to "do things".

We have an educational system that promotes achievement, and we have, for the most part, felt the feeling of success in our work (even if it is the relief of completing another blog assignment). My argument here is that it would counter your education, and perhaps societal experiences, to switch to a static lifestyle, one with no forward motion. Given this "land of opportunity", you would not forsake all of the choices that could improve you. The personal experiences that have not been positive, and the examples of those who have chosen to be idle, are reasons enough to remain active in the workforce individually, or for your family.

Anonymous said...

It sure is nice to have extra cash to spend at this point in time. Let's say you spend most of it on something you want now. What happens if this cash flow drops dramatically, and a car emergency arises? You no longer have the extra money, and can not spend it on something you need.
While it is wonderful to spend money on yourself every once in a while, one should be mindful of the uncertain future that lurks ahead. Saving now will save you later on.

-Van Der Bur