- 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: I'm sick of people saying the middle class is worse off than 4 decades ago.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:01 am to ShortyRob
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:01 am to ShortyRob
I guess I'll repeat a few realities.
You should stop comparing costs from 1970 to 2017 because doing so incorrectly pretends that you are talking about the same items. Just because a thing has the same or a similar name doesn't make it the same item. A few examples but BY NO MEANS AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST because that would take 10,000 words.
1)In my neighborhood, a house that is 3500 sf with custom kitchen, hardwood floors etc etc. Basically, all brand new, goes for around $400K. Homes today are on average 1000 sf larger but it isn't just square feet.
So, if you built in my neighborhood a 25sf home with linoleum floors, laminate countertops, low end cabinets, a 1 car garage etc etc. ALL of which would have been STANDARD for a new home in 1970, what do you figure it would cost me today?
So, when you compare new home prices then to now, you're not really comparing the same products.
2)The same applies to cars on steroids.
3)And, you just sound silly when you compare phones then to a cell phone now. I mean, that's just not even the same product. You might as well compare a 1970 phone to the telegraph although frankly, THAT would be a closer comparison.
This is why you can't friggin really discuss life now vs 1970 without talking about lifestyle and comfort.
And for those saying, "well you can't remove the current items because they still cost". I don't remove them. I point out you can't act like they don't exist when you're talking about just dollars.
Hell. To live in 1870 didn't require jack shite for money. If we did the exact same comparisons everyone uses to whine about now vs 1970, 1870 would look even MORE awesome!
Yet, you'd rather be a poor frick today than in the top 5% in 1870.
You guys have fun looking at cost and comparing 1970 to today through a straw but like so many other things, if some congressman actually passed a law that suddenly reverted this nation to the exact economic conditions of 1970, the American people would burn Washington to the ground.
You should stop comparing costs from 1970 to 2017 because doing so incorrectly pretends that you are talking about the same items. Just because a thing has the same or a similar name doesn't make it the same item. A few examples but BY NO MEANS AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST because that would take 10,000 words.
1)In my neighborhood, a house that is 3500 sf with custom kitchen, hardwood floors etc etc. Basically, all brand new, goes for around $400K. Homes today are on average 1000 sf larger but it isn't just square feet.
So, if you built in my neighborhood a 25sf home with linoleum floors, laminate countertops, low end cabinets, a 1 car garage etc etc. ALL of which would have been STANDARD for a new home in 1970, what do you figure it would cost me today?
So, when you compare new home prices then to now, you're not really comparing the same products.
2)The same applies to cars on steroids.
3)And, you just sound silly when you compare phones then to a cell phone now. I mean, that's just not even the same product. You might as well compare a 1970 phone to the telegraph although frankly, THAT would be a closer comparison.
This is why you can't friggin really discuss life now vs 1970 without talking about lifestyle and comfort.
And for those saying, "well you can't remove the current items because they still cost". I don't remove them. I point out you can't act like they don't exist when you're talking about just dollars.
Hell. To live in 1870 didn't require jack shite for money. If we did the exact same comparisons everyone uses to whine about now vs 1970, 1870 would look even MORE awesome!
Yet, you'd rather be a poor frick today than in the top 5% in 1870.
You guys have fun looking at cost and comparing 1970 to today through a straw but like so many other things, if some congressman actually passed a law that suddenly reverted this nation to the exact economic conditions of 1970, the American people would burn Washington to the ground.
1
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:01 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Meh. You could say the same thing about air conditioning - but people did it for thousands of years.
It CAN be done. It would just be pretty tough and inconvenient. That's an argument that folks get a net return on the expense. Doesn't make it not an expense - one that just a generation ago, we didn't have - even in the 1% (much less the lower middle class).
Now - "internet access" is considered a basic human right by the left, akin to breathable air and drinkable water. But, that's a discussion for a different time.
bullshite. Without the internet and a cell phone, you're essentially unreachable and it would be impossible to apply for any job. Yes you can go with cheap dialup and a cheap cell phone plan/cheap phone, but they are absolutely requirements if you want to live in the modern world. Unlike air conditioning, you almost cannot function without these two things because many programs and such are now only offered online and many companies have gone fully paperless. You do not have a choice here anymore.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:02 am to Vander
quote:
Unlike air conditioning, you almost cannot function without these two things because many programs and such are now only offered online and many companies have gone fully paperless. You do not have a choice here anymore.
So, in other words, you get A LOT more for your money now and life is made immensely easier.
Thanks for helping.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:03 am to Bourre
quote:
You mean 2 sources of income is better than one?
It has a lot more to do with the inability of divorcees to accumulate long term wealth. Divorce eats up money and assets like nothing else.
Citing divorce as one of societies biggest problems is an area where the social conservatives are right for the wrong reasons. Divorce being bad for America is related to its economic impact.
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 9:05 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:04 am to llfshoals
quote:
As someone who has been paying taxes and trying to support a family for those 4 decades....You're full of shite.
4 decades ago, if you wanted to tell HTM that, you'd have had to send him a letter. Hand written. With a stamp.
Now, you can tell him 1000 times in the same time frame........for less money than sending HTM that one hand written letter.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:09 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
It has a lot more to do with the inability of divorcees to accumulate long term wealth. Divorce eats up money and assets like nothing else.
I've been putting this off but, this post is a good time to point out that the direct comparisons of household income people have used in this thread to justify their absurd beliefs about how much better things were.........yeah.........those numbers don't tell them what they think they tell them.
Here's a little math quiz for all the whiners in the thread.
The numbers you are using are HOUSEHOLD income. So, keeping that in mind, a few facts.
1)There were more married couples with kids in 1963 than there were in 2014. No, I didn't say higher rate. I said more......period.
2)The rate of marriage today is lower than in 1970 also.
Since the numbers you are comparing 1970 to 2017 are HOUSEHOLD income numbers, do you understand the implications of what #1 and #2 above do to those numbers?
I'll answer in a few
This post was edited on 3/14/17 at 9:09 am
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:09 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Some of those items listed were just making there way into American homes in 1959. You would expect their cost to be inflated and subsequently decline as mass production and mass purchases kicked in.
In 1973 people were paying $100.00 for the electronic game Pong. I'm not sure if consumer goods is the best way make this point.
In 1973 people were paying $100.00 for the electronic game Pong. I'm not sure if consumer goods is the best way make this point.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:09 am to ShortyRob
Funny you talk about housing when home ownership is on a decline.
Funny the other guy talks about not needing a cell phone and laptop with internet access when clearly you either don't work a high level white collar job or are a shite boss. Literally the first two things I got from my on-boarding at my company is a company cell phone and laptop. Your job wants you in the seat 24/7 if you actually mean anything to them now a days.
Funny SRob talks about cars on steroids. That's because of the last 16 or so years of Federal Legislation requiring so many new things to be added to the base set of a vehicle. The most recent item is backup cameras.
SRob clearly you live in a bubble but thats all good.
Funny the other guy talks about not needing a cell phone and laptop with internet access when clearly you either don't work a high level white collar job or are a shite boss. Literally the first two things I got from my on-boarding at my company is a company cell phone and laptop. Your job wants you in the seat 24/7 if you actually mean anything to them now a days.
Funny SRob talks about cars on steroids. That's because of the last 16 or so years of Federal Legislation requiring so many new things to be added to the base set of a vehicle. The most recent item is backup cameras.
SRob clearly you live in a bubble but thats all good.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:09 am to Erin Go Bragh
quote:See my post just above yours
In 1973 people were paying $100.00 for the electronic game Pong. I'm not sure if consumer goods is the best way make this point.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:11 am to ShortyRob
No knock intended to HTM, but frankly, his detractors in this thread are correct. Using consumer goods as his arbiter is the improper argument for this discussion.
In other words, he's right, just not for the right reason.
In other words, he's right, just not for the right reason.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:11 am to ShortyRob
quote:
See my post just above yours
I just did. As usual you beat me to the point
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:12 am to 50_Tiger
quote:Interestingly, housing isn't just about ownership. Do you want to know what the home ownership rate was in 1970?
Funny you talk about housing when home ownership is on a decline.
quote:What's funny about that? Does that mean that the cars don't actually have much greater value? LOL
Funny SRob talks about cars on steroids. That's because of the last 16 or so years of Federal Legislation requiring so many new things to be added to the base set of a vehicle. The most recent item is backup cameras.
quote:Hint. Your household income comparison is wrong.
SRob clearly you live in a bubble but thats all good.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:12 am to ShortyRob
quote:
So, in other words, you get A LOT more for your money now and life is made immensely easier.
Thanks for helping.
What? No, that wasn't my point at all. My point was is that these two things are additional expenses that people did not have in the past. That is, you can add cell phone and internet to utilities as requirements of living.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:13 am to Vander
quote:They are also additional benefits that people didn't have in the past. Just sayin
What? No, that wasn't my point at all. My point was is that these two things are additional expenses that people did not have in the past
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:15 am to ShortyRob
quote:
They are also additional benefits that people didn't have in the past. Just sayin
Something cannot be a benefit when it is a requirement to live. Yes they provide things that were not available years ago, but you cannot live in the modern world without them so they are not really benefits so much as they are necessary expenses.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:16 am to ShortyRob
I should also point out that in 1970, the typical long distance rates amounted to about $17 an hour.
Called your relatives 4 times per month or your kid at college? That likely meant you were pushing or breaking $100. in 1970 dollars!
But hey, let's all just use the cherry picked numbers that those who want you think you're being fricked hand you.
Called your relatives 4 times per month or your kid at college? That likely meant you were pushing or breaking $100. in 1970 dollars!
But hey, let's all just use the cherry picked numbers that those who want you think you're being fricked hand you.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:18 am to Vander
quote:LOL. Oh really.
Something cannot be a benefit when it is a requirement to live
quote:It's not either or man.
Yes they provide things that were not available years ago, but you cannot live in the modern world without them so they are not really benefits so much as they are necessary expenses.
If you're going to say, "I could have had this lower expense in 1970", then I'm going to point out, you could have had less benefit.
I mean, your car is a necessity today but it sure as frick is a benefit too. If I have to explain that to you, go look at pics of 1900.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:19 am to ShortyRob
You'll notice that like I have been doing in this thread from the start, I'm not saying there aren't new expenses or that it isn't expensive.
I'm saying that all you whining fricks would shite star shaped Frisbees if I forced you to trade your level of comfort in life TODAY for the level you pine for from 1970.
I'm saying that all you whining fricks would shite star shaped Frisbees if I forced you to trade your level of comfort in life TODAY for the level you pine for from 1970.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:19 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Yea back in the 50's and 70's a college education didnt cost as much either. I spend much more than the cost of a washing machine every month on student loans for my wife and I.
Posted on 3/14/17 at 9:22 am to ShortyRob
quote:
I should also point out that in 1970, the typical long distance rates amounted to about $17 an hour.
Called your relatives 4 times per month or your kid at college? That likely meant you were pushing or breaking $100. in 1970 dollars!
But hey, let's all just use the cherry picked numbers that those who want you think you're being fricked hand you.
It's not cherry picking numbers, long distance phone calling was not a requirement in 1970. Yes we called long distance back during land lines and it was expensive, but it was absolutely not a requirement to live. These two things are not at all equal despite your assertion otherwise.
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News