- 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 2:40 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:40 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
quote:
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.
Perhaps I should have led with that statement when I first commented on this thread earlier today.
Logging off for a while to get some work done.
Have a good day sir. 
0
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:42 pm to Banned
quote:
Life was so much easier back then ....
Could do the ole magnet on the meter if times where tuff or to stick it to the man.
Could work on your own vehicle
If you gave the cable guy some beer you got free cinemax.
Among other things....
There were SOOOOO many ways to defeat power meters LOL. One of the more elegant involved a lighting contactor hidden in the attic when the service entrance cable ran through the attic from one end of the house to the other.
You could keep your beer and simply remove the filters yourself if you weren't skeered and you would get ALL cable channels.
The offset of working on your own cars is it is far less necessary with modern vehicles. They are just better in every aspect today.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:45 pm to tadman
quote:
Also the average house went from 1500sft to 2600 sft, almost double. If you controlled for inflation and size, you might find that the needed wages are significantly less.
You would find that the needed wages are still more than they were, and that there is not some undiscovered glut of available 1200 sf houses.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:45 pm to Techdave
quote:
This is an additional point I've been trying to make. There are plenty of options that they are not willing to take, that people in the 1970s were willing to take to make things happen.
Not to derail the thread but trades jobs sucked far worse in the 1970s than they do today. They suck today but not like they did in the 70s. Young people today are too smart to be suckered into them even though they are much better today than they were 50 years ago...
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:51 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
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
There are certainly legitimate biologic reasons to have kids before 35....science has mitigated those concerns to some degree. It is certainly riskier but the upside is the parents will likely be in better shape financially. This wasn't an option 50 years ago...the risks were as high, there wasn't the science that mitigated them at all and it was as likely that at least one parent would be dead at 50, usually the father as not.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:54 pm to theunknownknight
Does any of this explain why the music in the 70's was the GOAT?
Posted on 4/22/26 at 2:57 pm to Bayou_Tiger_225
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….
What Holy moving the goalpost Batman
It is also the fault of Boomers and GenX that pushing the biological baby making clock is not as risky as it once was....and the risks are known because of the work done by boomers and GenX and the technology which makes it even safer is the result of the work of both as well. Having kids is damned expensive. If one is struggling to provide housing for themselves at 25 and is complaining about the cost of housing at 25 having a baby is only going to make that person's financial concerns greater, no matter what their biological clock is doing. Science has made it more practical and safer to put off starting a family, it is an individuals deccision to make. Humans are capable of reproducing around the age of 13 or so....society frowns on it because they aren't mature enough to parent a child. If one is financially immature and is struggling to provide housing and the cost of living for themselves the decision to start a family will only worsen that situation. But you do you boo....
Posted on 4/22/26 at 3:15 pm to AwgustaDawg
Technology has made it medically less risky to have geriatric pregnancies, but that doesn’t mean that’s what we should strive for as a society. It’s harder on women. Those women have less babies. Those babies have more health issues. That technology is a bandaid for an economical fracture in our society that the technology is currently masking, not fixing.
We should be working to drive down the cost of living for younger generations to be able to have children on a standard timeline that aligns with our bodies natural biological clock. Not just accepting on its face that this is just the way things are now and first time moms at 33-35 is the new normal.
We should be working to drive down the cost of living for younger generations to be able to have children on a standard timeline that aligns with our bodies natural biological clock. Not just accepting on its face that this is just the way things are now and first time moms at 33-35 is the new normal.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 3:31 pm to Techdave
quote:
It does for a first time homebuyer willing to build equity.
There is no such thing as a $150k house in my zip code.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 3:59 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.
Life expectancy has nothing to do with women's healthy fertility clock
yea more women are having babies in their 40s now successfully thanks to modern medicine but if the US wants to get this birthrate problem solved they need to be having babies in their 20s while married and having 3-5 kids instead of 1-3
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:06 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
It is also the fault of Boomers and GenX that pushing the biological baby making clock is not as risky as it once was....and the risks are known because of the work done by boomers and GenX and the technology which makes it even safer is the result of the work of both as well. Having kids is damned expensive. If one is struggling to provide housing for themselves at 25 and is complaining about the cost of housing at 25 having a baby is only going to make that person's financial concerns greater, no matter what their biological clock is doing. Science has made it more practical and safer to put off starting a family, it is an individuals deccision to make. Humans are capable of reproducing around the age of 13 or so....society frowns on it because they aren't mature enough to parent a child. If one is financially immature and is struggling to provide housing and the cost of living for themselves the decision to start a family will only worsen that situation. But you do you boo....
My friend you are the problem
Get out of here with this shite
The whole issue with American society is its designed to prop up and help the 55-75 year old demographic instead of the 25-55 year old one
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:18 pm to wadewilson
Buy some land and have a small house built on it or put a trailer on it. At least you aren't paying rent for something you'll never own.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:21 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
Oh no 11% on 14k
Keep bitching.
It suits your generation.
You wear it well.
Meanwhile, your peers who realize that life is hard and requires delayed gratification and sacrifice to put oneself into a favorable position will blow right past you. And 2 generations from now, grandkids will bitch about how easy your generation had it.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:23 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
1971
quote:
The median home price = $25,200
quote:
today
quote:
The median home price = $420,000
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:25 pm to meansonny
quote:
Meanwhile, your peers who realize that life is hard and requires delayed gratification and sacrifice to put oneself into a favorable position will blow right past you. And 2 generations from now, grandkids will bitch about how easy your generation had it.
Whoa
Is this a boomer finally understanding that his descendants will have it worse than he did
The world is healing
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:26 pm to theunknownknight
I would love to know what a 1971 house for 25k looked like.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:30 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
Is this a boomer finally understanding that his descendants will have it worse than he did
I think he was suggesting they will bitch regardless, cause they are clueless.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:35 pm to Techdave
Nobody bitches and cries more than boomers when anyone starts talking about revamping ss and medicare - the 2 biggest problems in our national budget
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:37 pm to Midtiger farm
quote:
Nobody bitches and cries more than boomers when anyone starts talking about revamping ss and medicare - the 2 biggest problems in our national budget
Both of those probably need some work.
Posted on 4/22/26 at 4:40 pm to diat150
quote:
I would love to know what a 1971 house for 25k looked like.
Plain as F. Panel walls. Maybe an air conditioner, maybe not. Shitty insulation. No security system. Single pane windows. Cheap laminate counter tops. All carpet
Definitely not comparable to houses of today.
This post was edited on 4/22/26 at 4:43 pm
Page 16 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News