4 ms·

According to the graphic with the story (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/10/opinion/10op.graphic.ready.html http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/

According to the graphic with the story (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/10/opinion/10op.graphic.ready.html http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/10/opinion/10op.gr...) the 50th percentile American had a fridge, a stove, electricity, and a radio. There's a lot more stuff to buy, and people value the convenience and utility of other stuff (Cell phone, washer, computer, internet) a lot.

byrneseyeview 19y ago
In that case, I don't see why this is so bad. They value efficiency, so they borrow money and pay back the debt by working harder and more efficiently. I can see how investing in a refrigerator, stove, computer, and internet access would be worth it even if you put them all on a credit card at 20%; I wouldn't have a job without a computer and internet access, and I wouldn't have time to work without refrigerated food. Since this chart is careful not to adjust for age, we don't know if this is a story about 20somethings borrowing to start a family, 50somethings earning a lot of money at their peak careers, and 70somethings living off of the interest in their retirement accounts. In other words, this kind of chart could portray a totally egalitarian society in which everyone earns the same amount over a lifetime, but they earn it at different times. Thanks for adjusting the chart so there's no way to know that, NYT! I'm glad your writers don't have an agenda I should worry about!
- pchristensen 19y ago
  Yep, it's a fascinating graphic that hides as much as it reveals. And you could pry my home computer, my internet, my washer/dryer, and my microwave from my cold dead fingers. Actually, out of the 16 items listed in the bottom chart, I could probably do without telephone, radio, vcr, color tv, cell phone, and dishwasher. Auto, stove, and AC grudgingly (depending on where I lived). But my wife would never agree to that!
asdflkj 19y ago
There is more stuff, but it's also cheaper. It's possible that all of the "essential" stuff now costs less in percentage of income than all of what was considered essential then cost then. There are actually very few goods and services that objectively increase your productivity or quality of life. Almost all of them were already mentioned in this thread. The rest are bought for social status or out of delusion. Edit: I am only talking about things that are bought by general public. If you are rich, there are certainly worthwhile things to spend your money on, like travel.

byrneseyeview 19y ago

In that case, I don't see why this is so bad. They value efficiency, so they borrow money and pay back the debt by working harder and more efficiently. I can see how investing in a refrigerator, stove, computer, and internet access would be worth it even if you put them all on a credit card at 20%; I wouldn't have a job without a computer and internet access, and I wouldn't have time to work without refrigerated food. Since this chart is careful not to adjust for age, we don't know if this is a story about 20somethings borrowing to start a family, 50somethings earning a lot of money at their peak careers, and 70somethings living off of the interest in their retirement accounts. In other words, this kind of chart could portray a totally egalitarian society in which everyone earns the same amount over a lifetime, but they earn it at different times. Thanks for adjusting the chart so there's no way to know that, NYT! I'm glad your writers don't have an agenda I should worry about!

pchristensen 19y ago
Yep, it's a fascinating graphic that hides as much as it reveals. And you could pry my home computer, my internet, my washer/dryer, and my microwave from my cold dead fingers. Actually, out of the 16 items listed in the bottom chart, I could probably do without telephone, radio, vcr, color tv, cell phone, and dishwasher. Auto, stove, and AC grudgingly (depending on where I lived). But my wife would never agree to that!

asdflkj 19y ago

There is more stuff, but it's also cheaper. It's possible that all of the "essential" stuff now costs less in percentage of income than all of what was considered essential then cost then. There are actually very few goods and services that objectively increase your productivity or quality of life. Almost all of them were already mentioned in this thread. The rest are bought for social status or out of delusion. Edit: I am only talking about things that are bought by general public. If you are rich, there are certainly worthwhile things to spend your money on, like travel.