3 ms·

>I'm not sure that housing/medical/car are more expensive. I don't know about comparing 2010 to 1990, but I do know that if you compare roughly 2000 to 1970, al

• yummyfajitas 16y ago
  No she didn't. According to her data, income rose 75%. Mortgage increased by 70%, but note that houses are bigger and have more amenities. Two cars in the early 2000's costs 55% more than 1 car in 1973. Health insurance increased 60% and pays for far more procedures and treatments than in 1973. Taxes increased 140%. You are confused because she presents the numbers in a strange way. She presents the increase in mortgage/car/health insurance as a percentage increase: [mortgage 2000 / mortgage 1973 - 1] x 100% = 70% increase. She then presents the increase in taxes as a percentage of income: 33% of income in 2000 - 24% of income in 1973 = 9% of income. Her raw data is great, but her presentation is really confusing. I'm rather leery of her conclusions - she is great at gathering data, but terrible at analysis. [edit: really curious why a simple presentation of the data is getting downmodded.]
  • masterj 16y ago
    I'm not sure that housing/medical/car are more expensive. She presents the increase in mortgage/car/health insurance as a percentage increase According to her data, income rose 75%. Mortgage increased by 70% Yes, they are more expensive for the same family in real terms. Essentially, the second income has gone to housing. According to her data, income rose 75% But with an additional person in the workforce. Mortgage increased by 70%, but note that houses are bigger and have more amenities. House size increased, but only marginally, an extra bathroom or bedroom. Health insurance increased 60%, and pays for far more things than in 1973. While I haven't read the book, she said the exact opposite in her talk. That hospitals are sending people home "quicker and sicker" and hospital stays or having a sick worker are much more dangerous and expensive for the modern family due to lack of coverage and the need for the second income. When a child or grandparent gets sick, someone needs to take care of them. In the past this was the stay at home parent, but now a worker must be out of work, but as we've already seen, they need the income in order to make the house payment. She then presents the increase in taxes as a percentage of income: 33% of income in 2000 - 24% of income in 1973 = 9% of income. Taxes increase because the second worker's income is taxed after the first worker's, at a higher rate. And her main point, from what I understood it, is that the need for a second worker in the workforce to keep the same standard of living made the family much less stable and susceptable to tragedy, something presenting the costs as a percentage of family income fails to demonstrate.
    • yummyfajitas 16y ago
      How is a 60% increase in house size marginal (see my other post), but a 70% increase in cost non-marginal? Health insurance in 1970 didn't pay for a huge amount of things that it now pays for. For example, MRIs, viagra, birth control, etc. Far more diseases are treatable. I'd love to see her evidence otherwise. The problem her book raises is that many families take on a riskier financial profile in order to consume more (though given her poor data analysis/presentation skills, I'm obviously skeptical of her conclusions). Her opinion is that costs have risen. Her data shows that costs (besides taxes) have increased less than income.
      • masterj 16y ago
        How is a 60% increase in house size marginal (see my other post) I was quoting her presentation. This 60% increase in housing size is not what the video that I linked to says. All of my points come from this and other interviews I've seen her in. If they are nonrepresentational of her views and data, then that is why, however I sincerely doubt that she would be presenting the opposite views in a presentation of about a book that she presents in the book itself. Health insurance in 1970 didn't pay for a huge amount of things that it now pays for. For example, MRIs, viagra, birth control, etc. Far more diseases are treatable. I'd love to see her evidence otherwise. The specific example she gives is hospital stays for childbirth. I'm out of my element here, so I will say no more about health care. The problem her book raises is that many families take on a riskier financial profile in order to consume more This is the opposite of what she's tried to convey in every video I've seen of her. That people are making smart decisions such as buying houses closer to good schools, which drives up prices for parents with children. That the need for a second worker leads to a riskier financial profile. She says the idea that people are fiscally irresponsible and consuming more simply isn't true. Her data shows that costs (besides taxes) have increased less than income. I don't know why you keep harping on income, as it just isn't the point. The additional worker is. A family needs a second worker, earning a second income, taxed at a higher rate, leaving no one to take care of children or the sick, to have the same lifestyle their parents had with only one parent in the workforce. This need for two workers makes them twice as susceptible to lost income and serious illness. Whether she is right or wrong, I feel you are misrepresenting her argument.