- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Minimum wage in the 1970s would be the equivalent of making almost $56,000 a year now
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:16 pm to theunknownknight
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:16 pm to theunknownknight
you can't take a shite outside for under $100. It's so bad today.
0
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:16 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
quote:
It’s just annoying as frick to be told by older generations it’s just as easy, when in fact, it is not.
I think most people such as me are saying the opposite. It's not easy, but it's also never been easy. It's hard work, and it will happen if you want it.
That's the point of my argument. Everything in my original post on the first page is hard work, but it can almost guarantee success.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:20 pm to Techdave
You could have a decent job and not spend money on stupid shite and still not be able to afford to progress your life.
This is one of the most out of touch posts I’ve seen. Bravo
This is one of the most out of touch posts I’ve seen. Bravo
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:26 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
You could have a decent job and not spend money on stupid shite and still not be able to afford to progress your life.
This is one of the most out of touch posts I’ve seen. Bravo
Well then, that person needs to consider changing things. If you have a decent job, then you should be saving money. If you are not saving, then you are living beyond your means. End of story.
I personally know way too many guys that have a "decent job". They all buy boats, side-by-sides, don't have the slightest clue how their 401k works or if they are even putting anything in it. But they got a "decent job"
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:34 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
quote:
I’m on the younger end of posters on the OT(late 20s) and doing fine (CPA), but damn it feels like it would have been easier if I was doing this 20 years ago.
I’m only 10 years older than you and I can accept that I’ve had it much easier than kids today. I locked in a sub 3% interest rate on a house before prices went up drastically. If I bought my house today I’d probably be paying ~1k more per month due to the increase in interest rates and home prices.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:35 pm to Techdave
quote:That might be why you want to say, but that’s not what your argument has been presenting.
I think most people such as me are saying the opposite. It's not easy, but it's also never been easy. It's hard work, and it will happen if you want it.
I’m not saying it’s suppose to be easy. Life is hard. I’m just saying it’s harder now than it was before, and young people are getting squeezed harder and harder. And the reason for that is decision made by older generations.
Your response is that life has always been hard and you need to work hard, but won’t acknowledging that the required level of work is more than it was before and that older generations are the cause of this.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:38 pm to Techdave
quote:
It's not easy, but it's also never been easy. It's hard work, and it will happen if you want it.
And the point of all of our arguments is that hard work gets you less today than in past generations.
And that sucks.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:39 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
There is no need to start a family in your mid 20s or earlier. Having a family is the primary excuse for being alive but it is expensive and it limits your freedom. If it is too late and you already have a family you path is simply harder. It is what it is, bitching about it won't make it any less difficult.
This bs being perpetuated to young people is one of the problems and led us to where we are today - we don't even have a replacement birthrate and you are giving advice to start a family in their 30s and maybe have 1 or 2 kids?
All because having kids is hard - that's straight up pussy shite
How about your generation and the boomer gen take some responsibility on causing housing, childcare , and education to be outrageously expensive
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:40 pm to Salmon
quote:that’s pretty much it
And the point of all of our arguments is that hard work gets you less today than in past generations. And that sucks.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:42 pm to Techdave
quote:
And the supply of land is only shrinking, therefore housing costs will only go up unless the government intervenes in some way to basically directly or indirectly subsidizes.
The largest demographic generation is starting to die off, the generation that owns the most single family homes - so in theory the housing market should be getting better in coming years
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:43 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
quote:
That might be why you want to say, but that’s not what your argument has been presenting.
I’m not saying it’s suppose to be easy. Life is hard. I’m just saying it’s harder now than it was before, and young people are getting squeezed harder and harder. And the reason for that is decision made by older generations.
Your response is that life has always been hard and you need to work hard, but won’t acknowledging that the required level of work is more than it was before and that older generations are the cause of this.
If I implied that its easy, that was not my intention. I'm saying that it is a simple recipe, but it is hard to cook. Meaning it takes effort, trying things outside of the box, leaving your area for better work & more affordable housing. Hell, I drove over an hour to work for about 2.5 years. And probably the hardest part is living beneath your means to be able to save.
Now has it became harder overtime? Which is what I guess the original intent of this topic was about. Perhaps it is harder, I'm not sure. But I personally know way too many people in real life that aren't getting ahead due to their spending habits and unwillingness to make hard decisions. And I guess my frustration lies with that.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:56 pm to Techdave
quote:That’s the part I’m struggling with. Can you really not see that it’s harder now than it was 10,20,30 years ago? There’s all sorts of data out there showing that it is, and many posters in here have provided that data.
Now has it became harder overtime? Which is what I guess the original intent of this topic was about. Perhaps it is harder, I'm not sure.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:58 pm to Midtiger farm
quote:
This bs being perpetuated to young people is one of the problems and led us to where we are today - we don't even have a replacement birthrate and you are giving advice to start a family in their 30s and maybe have 1 or 2 kids?
All because having kids is hard - that's straight up pussy shite
How about your generation and the boomer gen take some responsibility on causing housing, childcare , and education to be outrageously expensive
Life expectancy in the US for men in 1971 was 64.7 years and for women it was 75. in 2026 it is 75 for men and 81.6 for women. If it made sense in 1971 for couples to start a family before they were 30 the math suggests that number is before 40 now.
I fully acknowledge that my generation, and boomers before us, did indeed allow housing, childcare, education and health care costs to become far more expensive than they were when we were in our 20s my friend. In 1980 boomers elected Ronald Reagan and shortly thereafter fell for the "retirement savings scam"....no one can accuse them of being overly bright.
The oldest member of my generation was 15 at the time. There hasn't been a president elected from that Generation yet. There is a chance that changes in the next election cycle and its a good bet that the midterms will see the last wave of boomers being elected in the US....time will tell about my generation but we have indeed failed to make those 4 items any more affordable to date.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 1:58 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
quote:
And the point of all of our arguments is that hard work gets you less today than in past generations. And that sucks.
that’s pretty much it
But would you also agree that we have more advantages than previous generations?
Vehicles and homes have way more safety and convenience features than 60 years ago, much more robust nationwide infrastructure, smart phones, internet, healthcare advances, easier global travel, lower crime rates due to better staffed civil departments
All that stuff costs the average person money directly or indirectly, which no doubt contributes to individual affordability.
So, from one perspective you don't have the house you wanted, but from the other perspective you get a hell of a lot of things they didn't have in the 1970s. Just a thought.
This post was edited on 4/22/26 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:03 pm to Midtiger farm
quote:
The largest demographic generation is starting to die off, the generation that owns the most single family homes - so in theory the housing market should be getting better in coming years
The problem with this is already happening. Their heirs also already have homes so they are prone to selling them quickly to cash buyers (mostly investors) so those who have to wait for closing and who want a due diligence period are shite out of luck. Many Boomer homes will wind up in the hands of the state as their nursing home bills surpass their income. Those homes will most certainly be sold almost exclusively to investors who are in a position to assume risk and renovate etc where traditional buyers are less so.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:06 pm to theunknownknight
Your math is flawed.
You left out the cost of having an 8track tape player and having to constantly replace your favorite tapes.
You left out the cost of having an 8track tape player and having to constantly replace your favorite tapes.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:06 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Minimum wage in the 1970s would be the equivalent of making almost $56,000 a year now
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:21 pm to Techdave
You’re not wrong there. Things aren’t just black and white and I’d agree. People today have advantages older generations didn’t have, and we certainly have access to more luxuries than previous generations did.
The nuance of it comes when drilling down into what I would call required luxuries vs luxuries of choice.
Cars are a good example. Cars these days have nice interiors, sounds systems, heated seats, big screens, larger in size etc. All these different luxuries we didn’t have before, which of course cost more. But I consider these a forced luxury, because car manufacturers aren’t giving you a choice. There is plenty of demand for bare bones trucks, but even a new bottom of the barrel work truck is at least 35k out the door.
A/C in homes is another one. Yes it a luxury that you don’t have to have, but nobody wants to purchase a home with no A/C, so you’d be stuck in your home with little demand if you wanted to sell it.
You are right about choice luxurious. My only counter point to that is that may of the younger generations don’t know a life without them as they’ve become so common place in American society. So you could “blame” them for that, but it’s hard to put the genie back in the bottom for millions of Americans when they have never seen a life without it.
The nuance of it comes when drilling down into what I would call required luxuries vs luxuries of choice.
Cars are a good example. Cars these days have nice interiors, sounds systems, heated seats, big screens, larger in size etc. All these different luxuries we didn’t have before, which of course cost more. But I consider these a forced luxury, because car manufacturers aren’t giving you a choice. There is plenty of demand for bare bones trucks, but even a new bottom of the barrel work truck is at least 35k out the door.
A/C in homes is another one. Yes it a luxury that you don’t have to have, but nobody wants to purchase a home with no A/C, so you’d be stuck in your home with little demand if you wanted to sell it.
You are right about choice luxurious. My only counter point to that is that may of the younger generations don’t know a life without them as they’ve become so common place in American society. So you could “blame” them for that, but it’s hard to put the genie back in the bottom for millions of Americans when they have never seen a life without it.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:25 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Life expectancy in the US for men in 1971 was 64.7 years and for women it was 75. in 2026 it is 75 for men and 81.6 for women. If it made sense in 1971 for couples to start a family before they were 30 the math suggests that number is before 40 now.
There are legitment biological reproducive reasons that pre-35 is the ideal time to be trying to have a kid.
We shouldn't be designing society around IVF
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:37 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
If it made sense in 1971 for couples to start a family before they were 30 the math suggests that number is before 40 now.
quote:so you admit it was your generation’s fault, but your proposed solution is to tell young people to push their biological baby making clock to its limits in order to realistically have a family….
I fully acknowledge that my generation, and boomers before us, did indeed allow housing, childcare, education and health care costs to become far more expensive than they were when we were in our 20s
What
Holy moving the goalpost Batman 
Page 15 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News