12 ms·

All the factors you cite mean the number I provided is an overestimate. If you have any evidence we work harder than before, cite it. Even so I'm sure they wil

All the factors you cite mean the number I provided is an overestimate. If you have any evidence we work harder than before, cite it. Even so I'm sure they will be an increase in Joe Average's consumption, but is that because Joe Average has more buying power than a worker in the 60s, or because they have to spend more to stay afloat, as everything's more expensive, That's definitely not the case, since the numbers I cited are adjusted for inflation. To determine whether average Joe has more buying power, simply compare the goods and services available to him to those of his parents. That's a clear win - when I was a kid, avocados were an expensive luxury to be consumed only once in a while, and I was often bored with nothing to read.

coldtea 10y ago
>That's definitely not the case, since the numbers I cited are adjusted for inflation. Inflation adjustment doesn't take into account costs that are prevalent in an era but totally absent in another: like internet access, cellphone bills, and such. Nor how much one not puts into their retirement account / savings to spend on daily needs. If it was just supposed to be relative to the past, we would all be content for living better off than the pilgrims. Who needs a fridge, for example, when they didn't have any either? So, if we have fridges now and stuff, and even the garbage man has a cellphone, it's all dandy. Empirically, people older than you that have lived throughout those decades know the numbers a bogus as an indicator of purchasing power, whether they were inflation adjusted or not. One could buy a house with a regular blue collar job as a household's single earner back in the 50-60s. Today, and for a few decades, not so much. Same for things such as college education. You could pay for it back in the day by working laughable gigs by today's standards. So whether you can have "avocados" or not, if you can't as easily have a house, an education, or a steady job, is a moot point. Note how: "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today". http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Inflation adjustment doesn't take into account costs that are prevalent in an era but totally absent in another: like internet access, cellphone bills, and such. I'm glad you've agreed with me that life has done nothing but get better. We're all winners, whereas by modern standards our parents were all losers. As for the other things you bring up, basically none of the facts fit your story. Homeownership has ranged from 64% to 69% since the 60's, but houses are twice as big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Historic_U.S._Homeownership_Rate,_as_of_2014.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S... http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope... Apparently there's no difficulty owning a home. College enrollments (as a % of new graduates) has done nothing but climb. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100428.png https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100428.png Note how: "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage That's because we get more non-wage benefits and fewer dollars per hour. Real compensation per hour has done nothing but rise. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB Why not google these facts before making nonsensical arguments?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I'm glad you've agreed with me that life has done nothing but get better. We're all winners, whereas by modern standards our parents were all losers. Only in the sense that being a loser with a cellphone makes you a winner over a winner in the 60s without a cellphone. But I don't think "availability/access to gadgets and avocados" is of primary concern when one considers whether "life getting better" over access to housing, steady employment, healthcare access, savings, and other such things. An example of this "winning": In 2015, when researchers Ann Case and Angus Deaton discovered that death rates had been rising dramatically since 1999 among middle-aged white Americans, they weren't sure why people were dying younger, reversing decades of longer life expectancy. In a follow-up to their groundbreaking 2015 work, they say that a lack of steady, well-paying jobs for whites without college degrees has caused pain, distress and social dysfunction to build up over time. The mortality rate for that group, ages 45 to 54, increased by a half-percent each year from 1999 to 2013. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/52108333... >College enrollments (as a % of new graduates) has done nothing but climb. That's the problem of numbers, they say nothing without context. Though this one is so obvious I'm not sure it's worth discussing. Isn't it obvious for example that college enrollments have mainly climbed because getting by (getting a job above minimum wage) without one is not as easy as it was in decades past, and are thus becoming de facto mandatory? Remember those "middle age despair deaths" I mentioned above? "But whites with college degrees haven't suffered the same lack of economic opportunity, and haven't seen the same loss of life expectancy." And isn't it also obvious that this "climbing of college enrollments" is happening only with increased student debt (from even 0 back in decades past), that has reached enormous amounts for millions of people? If people in the 40s and 50s has a gun in their head to get a college degree to find a job, and if they took huge loans to be able to afford it, then they would have the same percentage of "climbing college enrollments" too... >That's because we get more non-wage benefits and fewer dollars per hour. Real compensation per hour has done nothing but rise. Yeah, wonder what these millions of working class losers are complaining about... Entitled scum, the whole lot of them...

coldtea 10y ago

>That's definitely not the case, since the numbers I cited are adjusted for inflation. Inflation adjustment doesn't take into account costs that are prevalent in an era but totally absent in another: like internet access, cellphone bills, and such. Nor how much one not puts into their retirement account / savings to spend on daily needs. If it was just supposed to be relative to the past, we would all be content for living better off than the pilgrims. Who needs a fridge, for example, when they didn't have any either? So, if we have fridges now and stuff, and even the garbage man has a cellphone, it's all dandy. Empirically, people older than you that have lived throughout those decades know the numbers a bogus as an indicator of purchasing power, whether they were inflation adjusted or not. One could buy a house with a regular blue collar job as a household's single earner back in the 50-60s. Today, and for a few decades, not so much. Same for things such as college education. You could pay for it back in the day by working laughable gigs by today's standards. So whether you can have "avocados" or not, if you can't as easily have a house, an education, or a steady job, is a moot point. Note how: "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today". http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Inflation adjustment doesn't take into account costs that are prevalent in an era but totally absent in another: like internet access, cellphone bills, and such. I'm glad you've agreed with me that life has done nothing but get better. We're all winners, whereas by modern standards our parents were all losers. As for the other things you bring up, basically none of the facts fit your story. Homeownership has ranged from 64% to 69% since the 60's, but houses are twice as big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Historic_U.S._Homeownership_Rate,_as_of_2014.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S... http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope... Apparently there's no difficulty owning a home. College enrollments (as a % of new graduates) has done nothing but climb. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100428.png https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100428.png Note how: "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage That's because we get more non-wage benefits and fewer dollars per hour. Real compensation per hour has done nothing but rise. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB Why not google these facts before making nonsensical arguments?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I'm glad you've agreed with me that life has done nothing but get better. We're all winners, whereas by modern standards our parents were all losers. Only in the sense that being a loser with a cellphone makes you a winner over a winner in the 60s without a cellphone. But I don't think "availability/access to gadgets and avocados" is of primary concern when one considers whether "life getting better" over access to housing, steady employment, healthcare access, savings, and other such things. An example of this "winning": In 2015, when researchers Ann Case and Angus Deaton discovered that death rates had been rising dramatically since 1999 among middle-aged white Americans, they weren't sure why people were dying younger, reversing decades of longer life expectancy. In a follow-up to their groundbreaking 2015 work, they say that a lack of steady, well-paying jobs for whites without college degrees has caused pain, distress and social dysfunction to build up over time. The mortality rate for that group, ages 45 to 54, increased by a half-percent each year from 1999 to 2013. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/52108333... >College enrollments (as a % of new graduates) has done nothing but climb. That's the problem of numbers, they say nothing without context. Though this one is so obvious I'm not sure it's worth discussing. Isn't it obvious for example that college enrollments have mainly climbed because getting by (getting a job above minimum wage) without one is not as easy as it was in decades past, and are thus becoming de facto mandatory? Remember those "middle age despair deaths" I mentioned above? "But whites with college degrees haven't suffered the same lack of economic opportunity, and haven't seen the same loss of life expectancy." And isn't it also obvious that this "climbing of college enrollments" is happening only with increased student debt (from even 0 back in decades past), that has reached enormous amounts for millions of people? If people in the 40s and 50s has a gun in their head to get a college degree to find a job, and if they took huge loans to be able to afford it, then they would have the same percentage of "climbing college enrollments" too... >That's because we get more non-wage benefits and fewer dollars per hour. Real compensation per hour has done nothing but rise. Yeah, wonder what these millions of working class losers are complaining about... Entitled scum, the whole lot of them...