6 ms·

> Yet our citizens now live an astonishing six times better than when I was born. By what metric? From everything I've read the income disparity in America has

by samtp 16y ago

> Yet our citizens now live an astonishing six times better than when I was born. By what metric? From everything I've read the income disparity in America has increased steadily since the 1950s. Are we 6x happier? 6x Healthier? 6x More free?

jakarta 16y ago
You honestly have to ask this question? In the 1950s a significant percentage of our population was without civil rights. Beyond that: Life expectancy at birth: 69.9 to 77.9 (we live longer) Infant mortality: 26.0 to 6.7 (less of us are dead on arrival) % of population over 25 with 4 yrs or more of college education: 7.7% to 29.5% (access to education has improved) Estimated Hourly Wage PPP, 2009 USD: $16.87 to $25.31 (we are making more money) Real labor productivity index (in 1960): 100 to 172.8 (we are more productive)
- blurry 16y ago
  As overdue as it was, women and blacks being able to vote is not "6 times better". 60 years to 80 years life expectancy is not "6 times better". 26 to 7 infant mortality is not "6 times better". 8% to 30% college graduation rate is not "6 times better". Estimated hourly wages have actually fallen drastically, when estimated apples to apples (i.e. adjusted for inflation). Labor productivity is mostly based on advances in technology, and in any event, working harder is hardly the same as being "6 times better" off. In other words, let's stay within the context of what is actually being argued. Plus, it's rude to open your argument with, You honestly have to ask this question? If you have something to say, you can say it without implying that @samtp is too dumb to see the obvious.
  - jakarta 16y ago
    If you want to quibble about his use of the "6 times" figure, go ahead. The fact remains that we live much better today than in 1930, when Buffett was born (during the Great Depression).
    - blurry 16y ago
      If you don't want to "quibble" about it the why do you keep posting? If you think this thread is immaterial, you are free to leave.
      - funthree 16y ago
        I bet the internet makes your life at least 6 times better than what it would have been in 1930.
  - bzbarsky 16y ago
    For what its worth, jakarta's hourly wage number _does_ claim to be adjusted for inflation. I'd love to see references from both of you on the hourly wage numbers.
- powertower 16y ago
  Don't stop there... Language and comprehension skills: Down 76% Happiness index: Down 65% Opinions: Up 435%
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - adamtj 16y ago
    That's not a percentage. It's likely per 1,000 or 100,000 or something.
    - huhtenberg 16y ago
      Yes, it's per 1000.
- abecedarius 16y ago
  There's some double-counting here: life expectancy at birth includes infant mortality. (Taking your figures, 1.35 years of the 8-year life-expectancy difference comes from the infant-mortality difference.)
- samtp 16y ago
  But does any of this equate to a 6x better life? This is extremely subjective, but I'd measure overall happiness, autonomy, and ability to participate in power as key ingredients for a better life. And going by those metrics, I seriously doubt that we are 6x better (or even 2x better). All of the stats that you provided point to Americans being more productive over a longer period of time. People are becoming better at producing and consuming. However, by only looking at these numbers, you ignore what I feel makes us human. I don't think that the ultimate goal in a person's life is to add to their country's GDP. We are more than a cog in a machine. You can point to improvements centered around work, but what about enjoyment and free time? Surely a better life is one where you have more time to enjoy with family and friends, rather than being able to exceed your company's 3rd quarter sales projections.
cema 16y ago
All of that. But also 6x grumpier, it seems.
blurry 16y ago
Average US salary in today's dollars: 1930 - $ 250,000 2010 - $ 50,000 Add to that the declining purchasing power of the dollar, the growing income disparity and the thinning out of the middle and upper-middle class, etc, etc. Average life expectancy in the US: 1930 - 60 yrs 2010 - 78 yrs Clearly, Mr. Buffet's statement is PR rather than fact.
- cheez 16y ago
  I don't understand your salary number. Do you mean that if you earned $250K in 1930, that is equivalent to $50K today? Isn't that good?
  - blurry 16y ago
    The line break disappeared when I posted. With the line break, it was: Average US salary in today's dollars: 1930 - $ 250,000 2010 - $ 50,000 So, no, it's not good. When adjusted for inflation, the average American has about 5 times less purchasing power.
    - cheez 16y ago
      I understand now but you should have some sources to back that up!
waterlesscloud 16y ago
And now you know why income disparity has nothing to do with increases in standard of living.
starpilot 16y ago
Buffett was born in 1930. The US GDP per capita was about $7,200 then, today it is about $42,000 (both values in 2005 dollars from http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/ http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/). Per capita GDP is frequently used to measure standard of living, in addition to per capita income, ref http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.u... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_Unite...
- cheez 16y ago
  Are they using the same methods for GDP in both time periods? I doubt it.
  - epistasis 16y ago
    Per capita is not a great metric, especially since GDP is not distributed per capita across the country, and there are many ways of measuring GDP. Even bad metrics can be better than nothing, and they can also be worse than nothing, but if you're going to quantify it, GDP is probably the only way to go. Based on my limited knowledge of 1930, I'd still much rather be living in 2011. Maybe not 6x, but at least 1.5x more. Back then they didn't even have Turing machines down on paper, much less actual physical hardware...
    - guygurari 16y ago
      There's more than one way to use GDP. I think that, for describing standard of living, median GDP would be better than average GDP (= GDP per capita). Averages are sensitive to outlier performance. This is important when the distribution follows a power law, as in the case of wealth distribution.
- gnosis 16y ago
  I'd be much more interested in seeing the differences in median wealth (for the population as a whole, and broken down by race/ethnicity), adjusted for inflation. The term "wealth" refers to "private assets (such as savings and property) minus debts. It is what you own minus what you owe. In other words, it is net assets. Income, on the other hand, refers to wages, salary, interest that you earn, Social Security benefits, etc." "In the 22 years between 1976 and 1998, the share of the nation's private wealth held by the top 1% nearly doubled, going from 22% to 38%. During those two decades, the size of the overall "wealth pie" grew, but the ownership of that wealth is now more concentrated than at any time since the 1920s." Source: http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.aspx#6 http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.aspx#6 The stats above are kind of dated, but I'd be willing to bet the disparity in wealth between the richest and poorest in America is even more pronounced now. Here is a measure of the increase of "U.S. median family net worth by percentile of net worth" from 1989 to 2007: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/MedianNetWorth2007.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/MedianNet... From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

by samtp 16y ago

jakarta 16y ago

You honestly have to ask this question? In the 1950s a significant percentage of our population was without civil rights. Beyond that: Life expectancy at birth: 69.9 to 77.9 (we live longer) Infant mortality: 26.0 to 6.7 (less of us are dead on arrival) % of population over 25 with 4 yrs or more of college education: 7.7% to 29.5% (access to education has improved) Estimated Hourly Wage PPP, 2009 USD: $16.87 to $25.31 (we are making more money) Real labor productivity index (in 1960): 100 to 172.8 (we are more productive)

blurry 16y ago
As overdue as it was, women and blacks being able to vote is not "6 times better". 60 years to 80 years life expectancy is not "6 times better". 26 to 7 infant mortality is not "6 times better". 8% to 30% college graduation rate is not "6 times better". Estimated hourly wages have actually fallen drastically, when estimated apples to apples (i.e. adjusted for inflation). Labor productivity is mostly based on advances in technology, and in any event, working harder is hardly the same as being "6 times better" off. In other words, let's stay within the context of what is actually being argued. Plus, it's rude to open your argument with, You honestly have to ask this question? If you have something to say, you can say it without implying that @samtp is too dumb to see the obvious.
- jakarta 16y ago
  If you want to quibble about his use of the "6 times" figure, go ahead. The fact remains that we live much better today than in 1930, when Buffett was born (during the Great Depression).
  - blurry 16y ago
    If you don't want to "quibble" about it the why do you keep posting? If you think this thread is immaterial, you are free to leave.
    - funthree 16y ago
      I bet the internet makes your life at least 6 times better than what it would have been in 1930.
- bzbarsky 16y ago
  For what its worth, jakarta's hourly wage number _does_ claim to be adjusted for inflation. I'd love to see references from both of you on the hourly wage numbers.
powertower 16y ago
Don't stop there... Language and comprehension skills: Down 76% Happiness index: Down 65% Opinions: Up 435%
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- adamtj 16y ago
  That's not a percentage. It's likely per 1,000 or 100,000 or something.
  - huhtenberg 16y ago
    Yes, it's per 1000.
abecedarius 16y ago
There's some double-counting here: life expectancy at birth includes infant mortality. (Taking your figures, 1.35 years of the 8-year life-expectancy difference comes from the infant-mortality difference.)
samtp 16y ago
But does any of this equate to a 6x better life? This is extremely subjective, but I'd measure overall happiness, autonomy, and ability to participate in power as key ingredients for a better life. And going by those metrics, I seriously doubt that we are 6x better (or even 2x better). All of the stats that you provided point to Americans being more productive over a longer period of time. People are becoming better at producing and consuming. However, by only looking at these numbers, you ignore what I feel makes us human. I don't think that the ultimate goal in a person's life is to add to their country's GDP. We are more than a cog in a machine. You can point to improvements centered around work, but what about enjoyment and free time? Surely a better life is one where you have more time to enjoy with family and friends, rather than being able to exceed your company's 3rd quarter sales projections.

cema 16y ago

All of that. But also 6x grumpier, it seems.

blurry 16y ago

Average US salary in today's dollars: 1930 - $ 250,000 2010 - $ 50,000 Add to that the declining purchasing power of the dollar, the growing income disparity and the thinning out of the middle and upper-middle class, etc, etc. Average life expectancy in the US: 1930 - 60 yrs 2010 - 78 yrs Clearly, Mr. Buffet's statement is PR rather than fact.

cheez 16y ago
I don't understand your salary number. Do you mean that if you earned $250K in 1930, that is equivalent to $50K today? Isn't that good?
- blurry 16y ago
  The line break disappeared when I posted. With the line break, it was: Average US salary in today's dollars: 1930 - $ 250,000 2010 - $ 50,000 So, no, it's not good. When adjusted for inflation, the average American has about 5 times less purchasing power.
  - cheez 16y ago
    I understand now but you should have some sources to back that up!

waterlesscloud 16y ago

And now you know why income disparity has nothing to do with increases in standard of living.

starpilot 16y ago

Buffett was born in 1930. The US GDP per capita was about $7,200 then, today it is about $42,000 (both values in 2005 dollars from http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/ http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/). Per capita GDP is frequently used to measure standard of living, in addition to per capita income, ref http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.u... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_Unite...

cheez 16y ago
Are they using the same methods for GDP in both time periods? I doubt it.
- epistasis 16y ago
  Per capita is not a great metric, especially since GDP is not distributed per capita across the country, and there are many ways of measuring GDP. Even bad metrics can be better than nothing, and they can also be worse than nothing, but if you're going to quantify it, GDP is probably the only way to go. Based on my limited knowledge of 1930, I'd still much rather be living in 2011. Maybe not 6x, but at least 1.5x more. Back then they didn't even have Turing machines down on paper, much less actual physical hardware...
  - guygurari 16y ago
    There's more than one way to use GDP. I think that, for describing standard of living, median GDP would be better than average GDP (= GDP per capita). Averages are sensitive to outlier performance. This is important when the distribution follows a power law, as in the case of wealth distribution.
gnosis 16y ago
I'd be much more interested in seeing the differences in median wealth (for the population as a whole, and broken down by race/ethnicity), adjusted for inflation. The term "wealth" refers to "private assets (such as savings and property) minus debts. It is what you own minus what you owe. In other words, it is net assets. Income, on the other hand, refers to wages, salary, interest that you earn, Social Security benefits, etc." "In the 22 years between 1976 and 1998, the share of the nation's private wealth held by the top 1% nearly doubled, going from 22% to 38%. During those two decades, the size of the overall "wealth pie" grew, but the ownership of that wealth is now more concentrated than at any time since the 1920s." Source: http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.aspx#6 http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.aspx#6 The stats above are kind of dated, but I'd be willing to bet the disparity in wealth between the richest and poorest in America is even more pronounced now. Here is a measure of the increase of "U.S. median family net worth by percentile of net worth" from 1989 to 2007: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/MedianNetWorth2007.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/MedianNet... From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States