- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/30/25 at 1:37 pm to Hussss
The “depression” part sounds inflammatory but this is actually a more common thesis than people think. Suicide and drug use have exploded in that time period. The birth rate has fallen off a cliff and housing has become unaffordable. You’re a little bit isolated from it living in flyover country but life isn’t great on the coasts these days.
Also, it hasn’t affected the upper middle class in any meaningful way. The impact has mostly been on the working class that don’t have meaningful assets.
Also, it hasn’t affected the upper middle class in any meaningful way. The impact has mostly been on the working class that don’t have meaningful assets.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 1:38 pm to lynxcat
quote:
Maybe a stupid question...why do real wages need to increase? I understand not wanting real wages to decrease but what if they just hold serve year after year and the standard of living that those real wages are affording continues to improve....
The problem comes in if there is asymmetry in price increases. I think the average American “feels” poorer because two major household expenses, housing and medical insurance, have vastly outpaced inflation, and therefore, real wages.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 1:41 pm to Joshjrn
People really need to dig in to monetary inflation versus main street inflation (CPI etc). Everyone thinks inflation can all be thrown in to one monthly fed data point but it’s infinitely more complicated and pernicious than that.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 1:59 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I think the average American “feels” poorer because two major household expenses, housing and medical insurance, have vastly outpaced inflation, and therefore, real wages.
That and the fact that the vast majority of people who've gotten a degree and entered the workforce in the past decade or so likely have a gigantic line item in their monthly budget for student loan payments.
I've touched on it in other threads, but there has been a massive shift over the last 40 years in the costs of necessities and luxuries.
The luxury items that were crazy expensive relative to income back in the 80s are practically pennies now by comparison. Whereas the necessities that were widely affordable back then are out of this world expensive now by comparison.
a couple of tvs, a microwave and a computer was the equivalent of like a year's rent back in the 80s. Those same items today are closer to a few weeks' rent today.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 2:23 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
The luxury items that were crazy expensive relative to income back in the 80s are practically pennies now by comparison. Whereas the necessities that were widely affordable back then are out of this world expensive now by comparison.
That’s a really good observation that I hadn’t considered before. Cell phones, computers, huge TVs, blazing fast internet, all previously marks of the very wealthy, are now relatively inexpensive. While things like housing, insurance, groceries have all gotten crazy expensive.
It creates a bit of a weird paradigm in which “forgoing luxuries to focus on necessities” doesn’t make the necessities markedly more affordable, plus you take the psychological hit of feeling like you’re depriving yourself for no reason.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 2:37 pm to Joshjrn
It's the basis of the disconnect that boomers have with "kids these days"
Back when they were coming up, foregoing luxury items was a reasonable and viable way to save up for a down payment or better house other large purchase.
2 tvs, a cellphone, a microwave and a personal computer were the same price as a 20% down payment on the average american home back in 1985.
Those items come out to like 2k or so today, which is less than 1% of the price of the average american home today.
The older group doesn't understand that it generally isn't the 3-4k a year in "luxury" spending that's keeping young people from buying a house and starting families. It's the 40-60k in necessity spending.
Back when they were coming up, foregoing luxury items was a reasonable and viable way to save up for a down payment or better house other large purchase.
2 tvs, a cellphone, a microwave and a personal computer were the same price as a 20% down payment on the average american home back in 1985.
Those items come out to like 2k or so today, which is less than 1% of the price of the average american home today.
The older group doesn't understand that it generally isn't the 3-4k a year in "luxury" spending that's keeping young people from buying a house and starting families. It's the 40-60k in necessity spending.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 2:52 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:
frick those dudes.
It wasn’t them who dealt the fatal blow in your example.
It was us. We should look in the mirror.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 3:21 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
I've touched on it in other threads, but there has been a massive shift over the last 40 years in the costs of necessities and luxuries.
The luxury items that were crazy expensive relative to income back in the 80s are practically pennies now by comparison. Whereas the necessities that were widely affordable back then are out of this world expensive now by comparison.
a couple of tvs, a microwave and a computer was the equivalent of like a year's rent back in the 80s. Those same items today are closer to a few weeks' rent today.
This is also something those clamoring for a higher minimum wage don't understand. They'll talk about cost of living versus wage when the MW was first put into place, but will also not see (or ignore) that back in 1938 far more people were agrarian than they are now (less need to buy groceries when you were already growing them), many did not have electricity (and if they did, they didn't use much of it), municipal water, vehicle notes, vehicle insurance, cell phones, data plans, etc.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 4:01 pm to Bard
quote:
This is also something those clamoring for a higher minimum wage don't understand. They'll talk about cost of living versus wage when the MW was first put into place, but will also not see (or ignore) that back in 1938 far more people were agrarian than they are now (less need to buy groceries when you were already growing them), many did not have electricity (and if they did, they didn't use much of it), municipal water, vehicle notes, vehicle insurance, cell phones, data plans, etc.
I don’t see your connection. The argument for a minimum wage to support the cost of living seems pretty straightforward.
The argument always goes off the rails when someone chimes in about minimum wage jobs are for teenagers, or the other extreme who declare it would just result inflation times infinity.
If we read between the lines, there’s a consensus of dislike for the concept of a true minimum wage because it would result in significant wage compression. If a true minimum wage was established, there’d be a lot of unhappy people because everyone knows businesses won’t increase everyone else’s salaries relative to the minimum wage boost. If anything they will just supplement the minimum wage increase at the expense of the middle management budget.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 4:20 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:Unfortunately that simply is not true. It's not a matter of understanding. It is a matter of, given the same problem set, the current approach would be inconceivable.
The older group doesn't understand
For example, the student loan line-item you referenced is something that would be inconceivable to previous generations. It wouldn't be inconceivable because of the tremendous expense. It would be inconceivable because of unconsidered alternatives involved.
E.g., Instead of taking on massive student debt, one could do 4yrs in the military and get out on the GI Bill. Instead of taking on massive debt, one could live at home, get a part time job, do two years at a community college, then enroll in a 4yr school as junior. Etc. Those were decisions accepted and exercised by previous gens, albeit at lower cost exposure. Because for those preceding generations and their families, even the lower cost exposures were completely unaffordable.
It's why the number of college grads grew by leaps and bounds after the GI Bill went into effect. Prior to the GI Bill, if one could not afford to attend university, one simply pursued other avenues. The concept of taking on debt to attend school simply did not enter the psyche for the most part until Gen-Y.
So when you say the "older group doesn't understand," you should know experience teaches the importance of ROI. The "older group" has the benefit of experience. So the majority of those "don't understand" older folks would regard a college student taking on thousands and thousands in debt for a basically useless BA/BS as painfully shortsighted (to be kind).
Is that "older group" wrong?
Posted on 5/30/25 at 4:53 pm to NC_Tigah
Ehh I’m not here to bash on boomers but they definitely expanded the narrative that college was essential for success. If you want to date the daughter of an affluent 65 year old boomer, he’s going to be a lot more excited if you tell him you’re a college graduate. It’s a bit of a social status indicator. Like you come from a good family.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 5:13 pm to beaverfever
quote:Are you sure? Turn on, tune in, drop out ????
Ehh I’m not here to bash on boomers but they definitely expanded the narrative that college was essential for success.
quote:Success, or potential for success, is the source of excitement for any Dad in that scenario. Paul Allen, Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg were all dropouts. OTOH, a BS in BioChem or BA in EnglishLit with no related subsequent plan is less than inamouring.
he’s going to be a lot more excited if you tell him you’re a college graduate
quote:Multifactorial, but coming from a good family is VERRRY different than getting an unusable degree, w/o a plan or any apparent executable ambition.
Like you come from a good family.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 5:16 pm to Hussss
Posted on 5/30/25 at 5:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So when you say the "older group doesn't understand," you should know experience teaches the importance of ROI. The "older group" has the benefit of experience
Your experience was paying less than 20k in today’s dollars for a bachelor’s and a post-grad degree.
“We would have never taken on 10s of thousands in debt”
Lmao no shite dude you could go to a highly regarded university and get a 4 year degree for 3 grand.
quote:
It would be inconceivable because of unconsidered alternatives involved.
This is especially rich considering how pissed many of your PT brethren got whenever the biden admin would announce loan forgiveness pursuant to PLSF.
quote:300 bucks a semester in tuition was completely unaffordable? That’s pathetic.
Because for those preceding generations and their families, even the lower cost exposures were completely unaffordable.
It was 10x more affordable then than it is now. You realize that, right? A degree from LSU in 1980 would be about 8k in 2025 dollars. It’s over 6k just to get 15 credit hours at LSU today.
Hell just yesterday some dumbass on the OT broke down the 200k she paid for her out of state son to attend LSU
Eta: it’s also noted that you latched on to the student loan part if my comment and glossed over the overarching point that the affordability of necessities like housing, healthcare, food and utilities etc vs luxury items has flipped in the last 40 years. Take a look at virtually any thread talking about housing prices or the fact that young people are waiting longer than ever to start families and you’ll see a plethora of the older group saying young people could buy a house if they just dropped the 20/month netflix and stopped getting a new cellphone every 3 or 4 years.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 5:29 pm to cadillacattack
The money is broken. It’s only going to get worse. Untethering fiat from gold was an unforgivable sin.
It’s ironic that this is the money board and money is almost never discussed.
It’s ironic that this is the money board and money is almost never discussed.
This post was edited on 5/30/25 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 5/30/25 at 5:57 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:you people are so blind and clueless. go back to sleep.
Looking back almost 25 years from the event, it's pretty incredible how effective those attacks were against the US, and the world as a whole, too. We are still recovering from the attack, and I don't know if we ever will.
frick those dudes.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 6:04 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:You are not listening ... WHICH IS A BIG PROBLEM!
Lmao no shite dude you could go to a highly regarded university and get a 4 year degree for 3 grand.
For "the older group" "3 grand" was out of reach for their families!
With or without a loan!
Are we clear?
But more accurately, cost of attendance of "highly regarded universities" ran ~5x that rate at about $15K/yr in the 80's
$15K/yr was simply an inconceivable expense.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 6:09 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:Yep. Pathetic indeed. But those of us in that pathetic situation were still proud as hell of our family, our achievements, our potential. But yeah, looking back, by today's comparison, we were financially pathetic.
300 bucks a semester in tuition was completely unaffordable? That’s pathetic.
Posted on 5/30/25 at 6:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But more accurately, cost of attendance of "highly regarded universities" ran ~5x that rate at about $15K/yr in the 80's
This is the issue nobody addresses. Whenever there’s an article about student debt they always interview a student from Columbia who’s working on their graduate degree in social work, or NYU for film studies.
The reality is that it’s not about achieving useful degrees at reasonable prices, it’s about prestige.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News