5 ms·

Now that I’m a bit older (29) it’s fascinating to reflect back on my childhood and teenage years in the context of economic trends. I’ve been interviewing my gr

Now that I’m a bit older (29) it’s fascinating to reflect back on my childhood and teenage years in the context of economic trends. I’ve been interviewing my grandpa to make a biography of his life and it’s mind-blowing to hear about how different the 50s were. A teacher (grandpa) and a part-time worker (grandma) supporting 2 babies and a senior (great grandma), yet still able to buy a home in Millbrae and a plot of land in Tahoe (which my family still has to this day). And then the decline of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and I put the histories of my mom and dad and their generation into that context. It brings a whole new dimension to my understanding of them.

mertd 8y ago
We also got this little thing called Prop 13 in California between then and now. That and we figured out how to make really tiny transistors and the entirely new industry set up shop here.
- kaycebasques 8y ago
  For sure, there’s myriad factors. And the Bay Area has its own unique history. My main idea is that studying economic history has provided a rich layer of new understanding about the lives of my family.
  - newsoul2019 8y ago
    As someone who is not from the Bay Area, lives currently in the Bay Area, is not wealthy, and from a family that is not wealthy: I spend a lot of time ( too much time ) trying to figure out how everyone around me is wealthy. There are a lot of paths to wealth. The most common elements are previous family wealth, hard work, frugality, but also really good long-term decision making ( keep the first house you buy forever ) and skills that can't be taught (sheer will and ambition).
almost_usual 8y ago
My grandpa became a multi-millionaire even though he dropped out of middle school. Born into a working class German family where no one really valued education. Good luck doing that now. Grammar edit, guess we still don't value education.
- barbecue_sauce 8y ago
  He became a multi-millionaire in middle school?
  - thealfreds 8y ago
    Most certainly meant to write 'even though he dropped out...'. Though that would certainly be something.
  - droithomme 8y ago
    > He became a multi-millionaire in middle school? Quite doable now for the enterprising middle-schoolers making ASMR and unwrapping videos.
- nscalf 8y ago
  I don't think I understand your point. The majority of multi-millionaires aren't that way because they got a good education and worked a standard job. Most are because they made good investments, started a company, or were born into money. Dropping out of middle school is pretty unrelated to this if you're a smart, enterprising person.
  - Kinnard 8y ago
    Don't forget luck!
rayiner 8y ago
The article is misleading in an important respect. While real wages haven't budged much (they certainly haven't declined), benefits, which are tax-advantaged relative to wages, have increased quite a bit. For example, while wages rose 3% since 2000, benefits rose 22%: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us.... The changes you're talking about regarding quality of life more have to do with increased costs for housing in developed coastal areas. A teacher and a part-time worker can still afford to raise a family today, they're just doing it in Texas or Iowa rather than the Bay Area. You can buy a beautiful 3BR house in a good school district in Des Moines (and frankly, tons of other places in America) for a bit over $200k.
- refurb 8y ago
  This is key. Total compensation is way up compared to 1973. It's just real average wages that haven't budged much.
- rubyn00bie 8y ago
  Ummmm no. Healthcare costs have gone up dramatically, completely negating the increase in benefits coverage: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-on-a-per-capita-basis-health-spending-has-grown-substantially_2017 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... If anything, including benefits, you have less than you did at the start of the millennium. Though reading the article you linked, I'd be pretty surprised if insurance costs in the USA are not suppressing wages. In other words, the health care industry in the USA is doubly stealing from those in it. It's flat out affordable, and may be why you didn't get a raise...
- danans 8y ago
  > The article is misleading in an important respect. While real wages haven't budged much (they certainly haven't declined), benefits, which are tax-advantaged relative to wages, have increased quite a bit. For example, while wages rose 3% since 2000, benefits rose 22%: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us.... Despite the article not mentioning benefits, the primary reason for the increase in benefit costs is the skyrocketing increase in cost of healthcare (which is mentioned in the article you provided), which we know has inflated faster than the CPI for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_prices_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_healthcare_cost_panel_v1.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_prices_in_the_Unit... The only other significant component of employer-provided benefits, retirement contributions, has if anything been cut back via defined contribution plans of today (i.e. 401ks), rather the generous defined-benefit (AKA pension) plans of the past. And things like transportation subsidies, etc are marginal compared to healthcare expenditures. So it's not as if the increase in employers' benefit spending is being experienced by most workers as in increase in utility. Therefore, the spirit of the article, which is that workers have received little real[1] value from the GDP increases of the last 40 years, is still correct. What the article doesn't address, but your article does, is the fact that wages are recovering unequally, with most of the gains going to the highest earners. 1. I'm not counting ever cheaper electronics and entertainment in my definition of "real".
refurb 8y ago
A teacher (grandpa) and a part-time worker (grandma) supporting 2 babies and a senior (great grandma), yet still able to buy a home in Millbrae and a plot of land in Tahoe (which my family still has to this day) I can guarantee you right now, you could buy a home and a plot of land that will be out of reach for most people 40 years from now. The question is - where will that be? Your grandparents probably had no idea Millbrae and Lake Tahoe would be as popular as they are today. Hell, in the 1970's, people were leaving SF in droves as people wanted to get out of big cities.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > Hell, in the 1970's, people were leaving SF in droves as people wanted to get out of big cities. Yeah but they were moving to the peninsula and the south bay, e.g. Millbrae, San Mateo, and San Jose. That's what my family did in the post-WWII period along with many others.
- uxp100 8y ago
  Lake Tahoe has been popular way longer than you are giving it credit for. It's had tourists for over a hundred years, and Squaw Valley hosted the Olympics in 1960.
  - refurb 8y ago
    I don’t disagree, but the wealth in the Bay Area has increased significantly just in the past 20 years. That probably took Lake Tahoe from “expensive” to “astronomical”.
- kaycebasques 8y ago
  For sure. Millbrae was farmland back then. My grandpa grew up in SF and had never heard of it. And it took 8 hours to get to Tahoe from SF. One difference is they didn’t have to think about whether it would pan out in the long run. They needed a bigger house. They could get one 15 minutes away from SF, where my grandpa was stationed at the time.
tathougies 8y ago
I guess I find the shock that this worked out rather strange. My parents immigrated to this country 30 something years ago. My dad was a salesman and my mother a teacher and they managed to raise two children, send us to private school (catholic, so cheaper than others), pay for music lessons, support my grandparents and aunt who lived with us for a while, and sponsor my entire family. And they owned their home and bought land. The fact is that americans are not very frugal people and waste their money. If immigrants who came to this country in the 80s managed to do this, there is no excuse for a native born American. My mother even went to college again because her degree wasnt accepted and she wanted to be a teacher. Thrift and sacrifice go a long way
- wavefunction 8y ago
  >no excuse for a native born American Racial disparities along with systemic racism could provide an explanation. Attained education levels as well. Just some thoughts.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    Immigrants' racial makeup would, on average, predispose them to more systematic racism (in the negative direction) than native-born Americans, no? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
    - thelock85 8y ago
      The comment is vague, but I interpreted systemic racism as a function of slavery > failed reconstruction > black codes > sharecropping > 100-year effort to legislate the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments > Civil Rights Act of 1965 > manipulating property titles/deeds to circumvent legal protections around right to own property > mass incarceration... small points debatable, but clear historical and empirical through line since late 18th century. EDIT: All of these things affect immigrants of color (who may come from worst circumstance) but they have a “blank slate”, not fighting a legacy.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
My grandfather supported nine kids on a single government salary and he took them on a vacation to Cape Cod every year. He was a compliance auditor for a federal agency. He wasn't the only person like this. His experience is totally unremarkable. It's just amazing how well off everyone was back then.
- paulryanrogers 8y ago
  Had a grandfather who was a cookie salesman and lived comfortably, even buying a cottage and boat. I suspect it was just a bubble though since his parent's generation were mostly farmers working 12 hour days.
segmondy 8y ago
A teacher in 1950 is not the same as a teacher in 2019. There were less teacher's then, the value was more. We will be saying the same for programmer's too. In 2019 a programmer made a lot of money, but in 2089 a programmer can't afford a roof over their head...

mertd 8y ago

We also got this little thing called Prop 13 in California between then and now. That and we figured out how to make really tiny transistors and the entirely new industry set up shop here.

kaycebasques 8y ago
For sure, there’s myriad factors. And the Bay Area has its own unique history. My main idea is that studying economic history has provided a rich layer of new understanding about the lives of my family.
- newsoul2019 8y ago
  As someone who is not from the Bay Area, lives currently in the Bay Area, is not wealthy, and from a family that is not wealthy: I spend a lot of time ( too much time ) trying to figure out how everyone around me is wealthy. There are a lot of paths to wealth. The most common elements are previous family wealth, hard work, frugality, but also really good long-term decision making ( keep the first house you buy forever ) and skills that can't be taught (sheer will and ambition).

almost_usual 8y ago

My grandpa became a multi-millionaire even though he dropped out of middle school. Born into a working class German family where no one really valued education. Good luck doing that now. Grammar edit, guess we still don't value education.

barbecue_sauce 8y ago
He became a multi-millionaire in middle school?
- thealfreds 8y ago
  Most certainly meant to write 'even though he dropped out...'. Though that would certainly be something.
- droithomme 8y ago
  > He became a multi-millionaire in middle school? Quite doable now for the enterprising middle-schoolers making ASMR and unwrapping videos.
nscalf 8y ago
I don't think I understand your point. The majority of multi-millionaires aren't that way because they got a good education and worked a standard job. Most are because they made good investments, started a company, or were born into money. Dropping out of middle school is pretty unrelated to this if you're a smart, enterprising person.
- Kinnard 8y ago
  Don't forget luck!

rayiner 8y ago

The article is misleading in an important respect. While real wages haven't budged much (they certainly haven't declined), benefits, which are tax-advantaged relative to wages, have increased quite a bit. For example, while wages rose 3% since 2000, benefits rose 22%: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us.... The changes you're talking about regarding quality of life more have to do with increased costs for housing in developed coastal areas. A teacher and a part-time worker can still afford to raise a family today, they're just doing it in Texas or Iowa rather than the Bay Area. You can buy a beautiful 3BR house in a good school district in Des Moines (and frankly, tons of other places in America) for a bit over $200k.

refurb 8y ago
This is key. Total compensation is way up compared to 1973. It's just real average wages that haven't budged much.
rubyn00bie 8y ago
Ummmm no. Healthcare costs have gone up dramatically, completely negating the increase in benefits coverage: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-on-a-per-capita-basis-health-spending-has-grown-substantially_2017 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... If anything, including benefits, you have less than you did at the start of the millennium. Though reading the article you linked, I'd be pretty surprised if insurance costs in the USA are not suppressing wages. In other words, the health care industry in the USA is doubly stealing from those in it. It's flat out affordable, and may be why you didn't get a raise...
danans 8y ago
> The article is misleading in an important respect. While real wages haven't budged much (they certainly haven't declined), benefits, which are tax-advantaged relative to wages, have increased quite a bit. For example, while wages rose 3% since 2000, benefits rose 22%: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us.... Despite the article not mentioning benefits, the primary reason for the increase in benefit costs is the skyrocketing increase in cost of healthcare (which is mentioned in the article you provided), which we know has inflated faster than the CPI for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_prices_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_healthcare_cost_panel_v1.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_prices_in_the_Unit... The only other significant component of employer-provided benefits, retirement contributions, has if anything been cut back via defined contribution plans of today (i.e. 401ks), rather the generous defined-benefit (AKA pension) plans of the past. And things like transportation subsidies, etc are marginal compared to healthcare expenditures. So it's not as if the increase in employers' benefit spending is being experienced by most workers as in increase in utility. Therefore, the spirit of the article, which is that workers have received little real[1] value from the GDP increases of the last 40 years, is still correct. What the article doesn't address, but your article does, is the fact that wages are recovering unequally, with most of the gains going to the highest earners. 1. I'm not counting ever cheaper electronics and entertainment in my definition of "real".

refurb 8y ago

A teacher (grandpa) and a part-time worker (grandma) supporting 2 babies and a senior (great grandma), yet still able to buy a home in Millbrae and a plot of land in Tahoe (which my family still has to this day) I can guarantee you right now, you could buy a home and a plot of land that will be out of reach for most people 40 years from now. The question is - where will that be? Your grandparents probably had no idea Millbrae and Lake Tahoe would be as popular as they are today. Hell, in the 1970's, people were leaving SF in droves as people wanted to get out of big cities.

twblalock 8y ago
> Hell, in the 1970's, people were leaving SF in droves as people wanted to get out of big cities. Yeah but they were moving to the peninsula and the south bay, e.g. Millbrae, San Mateo, and San Jose. That's what my family did in the post-WWII period along with many others.
uxp100 8y ago
Lake Tahoe has been popular way longer than you are giving it credit for. It's had tourists for over a hundred years, and Squaw Valley hosted the Olympics in 1960.
- refurb 8y ago
  I don’t disagree, but the wealth in the Bay Area has increased significantly just in the past 20 years. That probably took Lake Tahoe from “expensive” to “astronomical”.
kaycebasques 8y ago
For sure. Millbrae was farmland back then. My grandpa grew up in SF and had never heard of it. And it took 8 hours to get to Tahoe from SF. One difference is they didn’t have to think about whether it would pan out in the long run. They needed a bigger house. They could get one 15 minutes away from SF, where my grandpa was stationed at the time.

tathougies 8y ago

I guess I find the shock that this worked out rather strange. My parents immigrated to this country 30 something years ago. My dad was a salesman and my mother a teacher and they managed to raise two children, send us to private school (catholic, so cheaper than others), pay for music lessons, support my grandparents and aunt who lived with us for a while, and sponsor my entire family. And they owned their home and bought land. The fact is that americans are not very frugal people and waste their money. If immigrants who came to this country in the 80s managed to do this, there is no excuse for a native born American. My mother even went to college again because her degree wasnt accepted and she wanted to be a teacher. Thrift and sacrifice go a long way

wavefunction 8y ago
>no excuse for a native born American Racial disparities along with systemic racism could provide an explanation. Attained education levels as well. Just some thoughts.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  Immigrants' racial makeup would, on average, predispose them to more systematic racism (in the negative direction) than native-born Americans, no? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
  - thelock85 8y ago
    The comment is vague, but I interpreted systemic racism as a function of slavery > failed reconstruction > black codes > sharecropping > 100-year effort to legislate the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments > Civil Rights Act of 1965 > manipulating property titles/deeds to circumvent legal protections around right to own property > mass incarceration... small points debatable, but clear historical and empirical through line since late 18th century. EDIT: All of these things affect immigrants of color (who may come from worst circumstance) but they have a “blank slate”, not fighting a legacy.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

My grandfather supported nine kids on a single government salary and he took them on a vacation to Cape Cod every year. He was a compliance auditor for a federal agency. He wasn't the only person like this. His experience is totally unremarkable. It's just amazing how well off everyone was back then.

paulryanrogers 8y ago
Had a grandfather who was a cookie salesman and lived comfortably, even buying a cottage and boat. I suspect it was just a bubble though since his parent's generation were mostly farmers working 12 hour days.

segmondy 8y ago

A teacher in 1950 is not the same as a teacher in 2019. There were less teacher's then, the value was more. We will be saying the same for programmer's too. In 2019 a programmer made a lot of money, but in 2089 a programmer can't afford a roof over their head...