5 ms·

> "But the average American house today has twice as much square footage per person than in 1985... Expenditures on housing are increasing--but the number of ve

> "But the average American house today has twice as much square footage per person than in 1985... Expenditures on housing are increasing--but the number of vehicles per household has also gone up since 1985. The cost of college has gone up, but the percentage of people attending college has also doubled in that time frame. Colleges, moreover, are far more luxurious than in 1985." > "...it's actually extremely hard to figure out how to precisely measure changes in standard of living over time." indeed, those kinds of increases are of "questionable utility", and thus not relevant to the standard of living discussion. rather than the fed's definition of inflation, it's important to look at the basket of essential goods (and more house and more cars ain't it) when we consider the economic tide for the majority of americans.

rayiner 7y ago
It's highly relevant to the author's specific methodology. The author is not "look[ing] at the basket of essential goods" and comparing their cost over time. He's comparing household expenses to a single man's earnings over time. That overlooks that, as women's earning power increases, couples might choose to spend that money on more housing, more cars, etc. I grew up in an 1,100 square foot house with 1 car. My mom was a stay-at-home wife and my family could afford to live on just my dad's income. My wife and I, by contrast, earn about the same amount. But we can't afford to live on just my income. We have chosen to spend my wife's income to increase our standard of living. So we have a 3,000 square foot house and 3 cars. Under the author's methodology, my earning power has gone backward compared to my dad. But his analysis completely misinterprets the situation.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I can't not ask. Why do you have 3 cars?
  - kasey_junk 7y ago
    It is very common for families of 2 drivers to have 3 or more cars. My brother in law has his truck, his project truck, his commuting car and his wife’s car for instance. Frankly that’s not a lot weirder than me owning 1 car. He likely drives each of his cars as frequently as I do mine.
    - nate_meurer 7y ago
      Yeah that's me. My wife and I each have our daily drivers (Honda Accord and VW Golf TDI), which we use every day. We also have an old Honda Odyssey for long road trips with kids and dogs, and a Ford Ranger for my side work in building and maintenance. Except for the TDI, these are all cheap cars bought used for between $2000 and $5000. They have non-overlapping roles that can't be consolidated into a car that's anywhere near as cost effective as the four are separately. Not yet anyway. To me, cars are like knives. It doesn't make sense for me to have just one or two, because my needs are so varied.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      The answer was even weirder than I thought! They only have one driver in the family! Rayiner has 3 cars! :)
  - rayiner 7y ago
    One family car for shuttling the kids to/from school, one commuter car, and my pre-wife and kids car we keep around because we have family visit pretty often. We’re somewhat unusual in that we have an au pair to drive the kids around, but on the flip side, my wife can’t drive so we share a ride to work.
- clairity 7y ago
  i'll just point to the last paragraph of the introductory section of the author's (oren cass's) companion article[0]: > "In 1985, the COTI stood at 30—the median male worker needed thirty weeks of income to afford a house, a car, health care, and education. By 2018, the COTI had increased to 53—a full-time job was insufficient to afford these items, let alone the others that a family needs. A generation ago, the worker could be confident in his ability to provide his family not only with the basics of food, clothing, and shelter, but also with the middle-class essentials of a house, a car, health care, and education. Now he cannot. Public programs may provide those things for him, a second earner may work as well, or his family may do without, while his television may be larger than ever. The implications of each are surely worth pondering. But the fact that he can no longer provide middle-class security to a family is an unavoidable economic reality of the modern era." what i called "basket of essential goods" is his COTI (cost of thriving index). more housing and more cars are exactly beside the point. he's making an argument about what it takes to be secure and solidly middle class in the US, not about having more stuff, which is beyond the "thriving point". and he also encompasses your point that the average american (male) can no longer reach that "thriving point", because the average american (male) would need more than a year's wages in a year. but he's not actually talking about you, an upper- (or possibly upper-middle-) income earner, but rather the solidly middle class american (male). [0] https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-cost-of-thriving/ https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-cost-of-thriv...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The author isn’t using a basket of goods approach because he’s not even attempting to keep the basket the same. The author isn’t looking at what it costs to “provide middle class security” he is looking at what people actually spend.

rayiner 7y ago

It's highly relevant to the author's specific methodology. The author is not "look[ing] at the basket of essential goods" and comparing their cost over time. He's comparing household expenses to a single man's earnings over time. That overlooks that, as women's earning power increases, couples might choose to spend that money on more housing, more cars, etc. I grew up in an 1,100 square foot house with 1 car. My mom was a stay-at-home wife and my family could afford to live on just my dad's income. My wife and I, by contrast, earn about the same amount. But we can't afford to live on just my income. We have chosen to spend my wife's income to increase our standard of living. So we have a 3,000 square foot house and 3 cars. Under the author's methodology, my earning power has gone backward compared to my dad. But his analysis completely misinterprets the situation.

tptacek 7y ago
I can't not ask. Why do you have 3 cars?
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  It is very common for families of 2 drivers to have 3 or more cars. My brother in law has his truck, his project truck, his commuting car and his wife’s car for instance. Frankly that’s not a lot weirder than me owning 1 car. He likely drives each of his cars as frequently as I do mine.
  - nate_meurer 7y ago
    Yeah that's me. My wife and I each have our daily drivers (Honda Accord and VW Golf TDI), which we use every day. We also have an old Honda Odyssey for long road trips with kids and dogs, and a Ford Ranger for my side work in building and maintenance. Except for the TDI, these are all cheap cars bought used for between $2000 and $5000. They have non-overlapping roles that can't be consolidated into a car that's anywhere near as cost effective as the four are separately. Not yet anyway. To me, cars are like knives. It doesn't make sense for me to have just one or two, because my needs are so varied.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The answer was even weirder than I thought! They only have one driver in the family! Rayiner has 3 cars! :)
- rayiner 7y ago
  One family car for shuttling the kids to/from school, one commuter car, and my pre-wife and kids car we keep around because we have family visit pretty often. We’re somewhat unusual in that we have an au pair to drive the kids around, but on the flip side, my wife can’t drive so we share a ride to work.
clairity 7y ago
i'll just point to the last paragraph of the introductory section of the author's (oren cass's) companion article[0]: > "In 1985, the COTI stood at 30—the median male worker needed thirty weeks of income to afford a house, a car, health care, and education. By 2018, the COTI had increased to 53—a full-time job was insufficient to afford these items, let alone the others that a family needs. A generation ago, the worker could be confident in his ability to provide his family not only with the basics of food, clothing, and shelter, but also with the middle-class essentials of a house, a car, health care, and education. Now he cannot. Public programs may provide those things for him, a second earner may work as well, or his family may do without, while his television may be larger than ever. The implications of each are surely worth pondering. But the fact that he can no longer provide middle-class security to a family is an unavoidable economic reality of the modern era." what i called "basket of essential goods" is his COTI (cost of thriving index). more housing and more cars are exactly beside the point. he's making an argument about what it takes to be secure and solidly middle class in the US, not about having more stuff, which is beyond the "thriving point". and he also encompasses your point that the average american (male) can no longer reach that "thriving point", because the average american (male) would need more than a year's wages in a year. but he's not actually talking about you, an upper- (or possibly upper-middle-) income earner, but rather the solidly middle class american (male). [0] https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-cost-of-thriving/ https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-cost-of-thriv...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 7y ago
  The author isn’t using a basket of goods approach because he’s not even attempting to keep the basket the same. The author isn’t looking at what it costs to “provide middle class security” he is looking at what people actually spend.