re: I'm sick of people saying the middle class is worse off than 4 decades ago.

quote:

---

It's not cherry picking numbers, long distance phone calling was not a requirement in 1970

---

OK

quote:

---

Yes we called long distance back during land lines and it was expensive, but it was absolutely not a requirement to live

---

OK. Irrelevant to my point.

quote:

---

These two things are not at all equal despite your assertion otherwise.

---

I didn't assert they were equal. In fact, THAT is my point. You gain a GREAT DEAL MORE from this "necessary expense" today than you did in 1970.

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

quote:

---

Ownership implies capability to actually buy a home, which then implies that their is enough economic opportunity to buy such said home. Do you not agree with that? The price per sqft in said 1970 home is drastically lower than a 2017 sqft price.

---

So, you are attempting to assert that in 1970, people were more capable of buying a home, but just didn't?

quote:

---

Just looked it up: The median cost of a home in Nov 1970 was $23,500. As of Feb 2016, the median cost to own a home in the US is 349,400

---

So, in other words, the median of a 1970 home was $150,495 in today's dollars.

quote:

---

Now, I wouldn't claim to be a master of economic projection, but I am an Engineer and I can clearly see that $349,400 is CLEARLY larger than $23,500. So since you know everything apparently, explain that gap.

---

Well, as above points out, you left out a key metric. I would think an engineer would be aware of that needed metric.

We also know that 1970 home for $150K in TODAY's dollars had a LOT fewer features than the median home has today. BUT, you can absolutely STILL buy a home today with the same level of features. Do I have to explain the implications of that to you?

quote:

---

Yes they have greater value, but that cost is passed onto the consumer and therefore driving up the cost of said vehicle. Wages haven't climbed at all at the same rate of CoL and inflation so what is Joe the Plumber supposed to do when a Camry now costs 30K or more?

---

Again, you really gotta work on that time value of money thing. Just sayin.

quote:

---

Hint. Your household income comparison is wrong. You have a clear case of tunnel vision

---

Do you even know why the household income measure is wrong? Are you even going to maybe ask?

quote:

---

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

---

You are implying that if we went back to 1970 that we wouldnt know how to cope. Well that's simply not true. Your job more than likely isn't one of a global scale like most fortune 500's are now. Systems then were made for then.

Assuming that you have no idea about 2017 Technology, you would make things work as intended in 1970.

There is no correlation between a person working in 1970 and a person working in 2017. They are mutually exclusive to the point that most jobs do not operate like that anymore. The only thing they have in common is that still commute in some way to it.

And hey, since 1970 was so goddamned comfortable, can any of you explain why home ownership rates and car ownership rates in 1970 were a crack lower than they are today?

Or, maybe you can explain why vehicle ownership per capita in 1970 was about 300 fewer vehicles?

Those dudes just didn't know how much discretionary income they had!! Those idiots!

quote:

---

I don't agree with welfare at all, but you're living in a dream world if you can't see that the modern world is more expensive to live in on a relative basis than previously

---

Then why didn't the people in 1970 buy cars or homes at the same rate?

Were they just unaware of how well off they were compared to you?

quote:

---

So, you are attempting to assert that in 1970, people were more capable of buying a home, but just didn't?

---

Nope, all im saying is that there are less people capable in 2017 of buying a home period. Not comparing time scales there.

quote:

---

So, in other words, the median of a 1970 home was $150,495 in today's dollars.

---

150k < 350k

I know a lot of folks who could swing 150k right now.

quote:

---

Well, as above points out, you left out a key metric. I would think an engineer would be aware of that needed metric.

We also know that 1970 home for $150K in TODAY's dollars had a LOT fewer features than the median home has today. BUT, you can absolutely STILL buy a home today with the same level of features. Do I have to explain the implications of that to you?

---

I'll ignore the personal attack.

Where can you buy an 150k home thats not in the hood or "warzone." I mean we can deep dive into the social economical things if you want. People genuinely don't want to live in the ghetto and well prices in City centers are higher than 150k easily as well as suburbs. It's easy to argue absolutes, but this is a factor into people's buying decisions.

quote:

---

Again, you really gotta work on that time value of money thing. Just sayin.

---

Changing prices into Today's dollars just proves my point....it costs less than the MSRP of a vehicle today period. People have finite resource (money). You can only buy so many things. When those things become exuberant in cost. You can't have said things. When those things are required in most cases to have a job, aka a car/phone/net. This becomes a problem.

quote:

---

Do you even know why the household income measure is wrong? Are you even going to maybe ask?

---

Do you truly believe the Average American makes 19.30/hr?

Fine. The list Michigan posted about today's things in dollars is debatable.

quote:

---

I'll ignore the personal attack. Where can you buy an 150k home thats not in the hood or "warzone." I mean we can deep dive into the social economical things if you want. People genuinely don't want to live in the ghetto and well prices in City centers are higher than 150k easily as well as suburbs. It's easy to argue absolutes, but this is a factor into people's buying decisions.

---

Dude, you can't complain about personal attack when you tried to pass off 23K vs 350K

And, neat trick how you again ignored that the 350K house bears little resemblance to the 23K house you speak of.

As for where you can buy that 150K house, you might want to ask yourself why such a house doesn't exist and yet home ownership rates TODAY are a crack higher than they were in 1970.

Pull away from your argument and just examine that for a second. Please.

quote:

---

Changing prices into Today's dollars just proves my point....it costs less than the MSRP of a vehicle today period. People have finite resource (money). You can only buy so many things.

---

Yep. And, apparently, in 1970, they had less left over to buy cars and homes. Unless you have some other cool explanation.

quote:

---

can any of you explain why home ownership rates in 1970 were a crack lower than they are today?

Or, maybe you can explain why vehicle ownership per capita in 1970 was about 300 fewer vehicles?

Those dudes just didn't know how much discretionary income they had!! Those idiots!

---

Hmmm idk maybe because most people were still living in city centers and didnt require a vehicle to get to and from? Most women stood home with the family. Most interstates being fully connected and intertwined in the early to late 70's.

Again these are social economic ideas you are failing to deploy here.

Most families were single income households during the times preceding the 1970's and the 1970's. Quite simply there was not a need or requirement for a second vehicle.

Fast forward to today. You see my point?

Now you are just trying to be an asshat.

Household income in total income generated by a home. That includes all patrons. So that 19.30/hr number becomes even more cringe worthy if you are assuming 2 or more person income level.

quote:

---

Household income in total income generated by a home. That includes all patrons. So that 19.30/hr number becomes even more cringe worthy if you are assuming 2 or more person income level.

---

Household income has been dropping recently even though wages, while not great, have gone up.

Looking back at my post regarding marriage rates, do you grasp it yet?

Here. I'll help.

If you had 100 people. Each make 1000 a year. There are 50 men and 50 women. They're all married.

What's the household income?

Now, make 25 of them get divorced.

Change nothing else.

Tell me their household income.