The American Dream, or X + Y = Z

Okay so I opened this can o' worms, so I might as well keep it rolling. In part, because I honestly don't know how people interpret my posts and it's nice to get a glimpse of that, but also because sometimes it feels like I have all these thoughts about things no one ever wants to talk about. In our society, we are taught not to talk about how much we make (or don't make), or how much we save (or don't save), or how we make financial decisions for the future. Those conversations are only allowed with a financial advisor... who you are paying...

Back on topic. I don't think Steve is confused, and in fact he calls out two very important facts. First, for most people, Time = Money. And second, everyone has a definition of their standard of living. That right there is a worthwhile question. What is my definition of standard of living? (a question I'm currently pondering, aka, I don't have a full answer).

But for the sake of the following argument, let's make some assumptions. First, let's assume there is a minimum amount of money a family might need to survive day to day, X. Next, assume that most people define their standard of living as some value above X, namely Y (In other words, defining standard of living purely as a dollar amount greater than surviving pay check to pay check). Finally, there is the actual money earned by a family, Z.

Ideally, X + Y = Z. And in my life, right now I feel like that is the case. As Steve says, if I lower Z in order to "buy time", something else has to give. X or Y has to go down to compensate, which I seem unwilling to do. So what makes up X and Y? The easiest way to define them is to say that X makes up the basic necessities (shelter, food, clothing, transportation) and Y makes up "everything else".

Is it possible to lower both X and Y? Sure... X can be lowered in small amounts by smarter shopping, barging hunting, garage sailing, or good will. Or in large amounts by choice of shelter, both location and size. Am I willing to move to an unsafe neighborhood, in a run down house/apartment just to lower X? No, not really... But can I really afford to live in an affluent neighborhood like Apple Valley? Maybe not... As a side note, since I don't make car payments, my transportation portion of X is already minimized.

What about Z? Are there options for keeping Z constant? Sure... Two options that I can think of. First, I could make more money, and than work less keeping Z constant. Or Andrea could work as well, to compensate for the amount Z would go down by my working less. The reality is that Andrea would not be able to enter the work force making what I make now, thus would have to work somewhere around 2 to 3 times the hours that I give up to keep Z constant. (not to mention cost of day care, which would increase X) So I gain 10 hours and Andrea loses 20-30... that doesn't seem like a good trade off either.

Finally we come to Y. The hardest to define, because it encompasses everything from retirement saving, college funds (or any education expense), vacation planning, and yes, to even buying shit you don't need (shameless Fight Club quote). In most cases, when the value of Z goes down, Y is typically the first to go down with it. Now we have the crux of the problem. If I were in theory, able to lower Z by 25%, by lowering my hours to 30 (25% of 40), what would that cost me in terms of Y?

And now we've come full circle to the very first post that I made. Solving the problem of "what would that cost me in terms of Y"... is in fact, SOLVING THE WRONG PROBLEM! (aka, Dilbert) The REAL problem worth solving, is how do I keep Z constant but lower the amount of time required? (Or an even better, how do I increase Z while at the same time, decreasing to the amount of time required?) And to the source of my angst...

The fact that I don't think I'll ever have a million dollar idea, or find some way to work outside the system, or make the system work for me, or that my fear of the unknown keeps me working as hard as I can, because who knows when Z suddenly becomes 0?

Lastly, to one last point that Steve mentioned. Moving closer to work (or working closer to home) is in fact, a way to keep Z constant but lower the amount of time required, thus partially solving the better problem. And the truth is, it's something we've totally talked about and I believe will happen in time. (1-5 years maybe?) But obviously the timing right now is horrible, given the current state of the housing market.

(addition) Okay so since this might be the longest post I've ever made, I might as well extend it. I also wanted to point out something that is painfully obvious to Andrea when reading these posts, and that is the fact that my desire for more time is also somewhat motivated by selfish desires, as eluded to in my previous comment about "wanting it all". I want enough time to where I don't constantly feel like I have to choose who gets my freetime between myself, Andrea, and Megan. But that's a whole different equation. :-)