13 ms·

> most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. There are

> most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. There are many pitfalls with measuring long-term inflation. How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone? These modern technologies make peoples lives much better and were somewhere between impossible and impossibly expensive in the 1970s so an inflation metric can’t really take their price changes (from infinity to cheap) into account. Another is quality. Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today. I think it is important to note that talking about long term inflation is different, and perhaps harder, than talking about short-term inflation which is what the OP is about.

hvidgaard 5y ago
What good is new tech if you cannot afford to buy a house or a new'ish car for the minimum wage, even if you live frugal and save?
- passerby1 5y ago
  Are metaverse gonna replace lack of owning a house (and travel) soon? /s
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    Don't even jest, I heard something similar told at work without the /s part.
    - erwincoumans 5y ago
      That sounds similar to The Matrix.
  - helpfulmandrill 5y ago
    Maybe you could just live in a coffin and jack into a more spacious metaverse simulation of an apartment /s
    - throw1234651234 5y ago
      lol, this will actually happen.
      - helpfulmandrill 5y ago
        An apartment that comes with total surveillance. Like Alexa on steroids. How do we get off this train?
    - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
      You just described japan.
- nickpp 5y ago
  For example, it lets you live in a less expensive city and work remotely wherever you want. Also it allows you to learn and raise your earning potential. Finally modern transportation options less expensive than cars like e-bikes and e-scooters allow you to commute easier.
  - thinknboutstuff 5y ago
    Genuinely curious, are you or were you lower class in America? Sure, some people can benefit from remote work. But remote work is also not typically minimum wage. And to access those higher wage jobs, you’ll certainly need access to capital to invest in education. Have you considered using an e-bike in the US? This could only be feasible in a minority of situations… It sounds like a techie meme of what life could be, but is certainly not.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      I am not American. I come from zero money but lucked out with a stable family that highly valued education. They sacrificed a lot for it but they strongly believed that you can improve your lot in life through hard work and perseverance. I share those believes and am living proof they work.
  - selfhifive 5y ago
    Thus funneling more wealth to the already wealthy. That's the point. The average is okay but the distribution of wealth is messed up.
  - confidantlake 5y ago
    90% of the US you would get killed on your commute if you tried to use an e-bike or e-scooter.
- ricardobayes 5y ago
  I saaw that happening in Budapest. Every young person has a new iPhone and wearing new sneakers, but living with parents.
  - sigmaprimus 5y ago
    yeah and most of those parents have been refinancing their homes to support their spoiled children. That is going to end real soon and many of those kids are going to witness their parents lose their homes and become impoverished due to their lazy yet extravagant lifestyles.
    - ricardobayes 5y ago
      It's not about spoiled children, I see janitors walking around with 800 euro phones here. It's just a psychological way for low earning people to 'keep up with the Kardashians'. AS they can't buy cars or houses they buy gadgets.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        It’s amusing to me to contemplate that I work in tech and buy 1-2 year old iPhones for $300-500. I’m glad so many people have to have the very latest and so recycle great tech for 50+% discounts.
        dzhiurgis 5y ago
        So how is the $50 per month savings is going to help you buy that $1M home?
      - pydry 5y ago
        I saw this in Myanmar. There were people living in mud huts but they had smartphones. I also had the same thought - it's the one luxury they can actually afford if they save up. I dont really get how people can look at that and think that these people are better off than a middle class 1950s US family. It's insane.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  The statement was that most Americans are significantly worse off now than [their equivalents in] the 1970s. Do you claim that most Americans fit your description of someone living on minimum wage or are you trying to argue against a point I wasn’t trying to make? I’m not saying there aren’t problems but even someone with a very low income who is forced (by American life) to run a car for a lot of their money is unlikely to be using a car from the 70s (50 years old) and more likely to use something from the 90s or 00s less safe and efficient than cars of today but still better than cars of the 70s.
- sigmaprimus 5y ago
  Many people have a misguided belief that home ownership was easy in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s. Yes the prices were lower and maybe the cost/average income ratio was lower but I can attest to the fact that it was no easy feat even back then. Plenty of people lost their homes, renters had far less rights and although when looking at things through averages seems to indicate a better off middle class, the wages of the top 10% middle class (Mostly Unionized) were propping up a huge amount of the middle class that were grinding it out living paycheck to paycheck with none of the social safety nets currently in place. I find it incredulous that so many people are blind to what is coming in the next few years, there is a huge sense of entitlement and victimhood based on some idea that the world was easier back then. We are coming out of what I consider almost 35 years of prosperity resultant from "Winning" the cold war but a reconning is right around the corner. I don't expect many to take my advise but if I was in debt, renting a home and unemployed, I would stop bitching about minimum wage and would be finding a job real fast, the days of help wanted signs in every window are about to end.
  - CraigJPerry 5y ago
    >> maybe the cost/average income ratio was lower There’s no maybe about it. In the 70s, average house sale price was 4x the average salary. Today it’s 8x. How many lattes would you need to have skipped to have bought two homes at the time you bought your first? How many holidays would you have needed to skip to pay two mortgages while you were paying one? That is the scenario - well except todays generation would only have one house at the end of the day, not two.
    - sigmaprimus 5y ago
      My house is currently valued at 100K USD that is not an unreachable goal. It might not be right next to your favorite coffee shop but that just one of the sacrifices You make when You want to own a home. BTW in the 70s we didn't have lattes, it was just plain old coffee and what is this holiday's thing You are talking about? It sounds like something the privileged think they are entitled to.
  - nly 5y ago
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Is it reasonable to expect that a minimum wage earner should be able to afford to buy a house and a newish car? Were minimum wage earners doing that in 1970?
  - PickledHotdog 5y ago
    Yes they were
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      The minimum wage went up to $1.45/hr in Feb, 1970. 2000 hours of that would be $2900. I used the following assumptions: 7.5% fixed-30, median house $17K, down payment of 20%. That was unaffordable by a factor of almost 2x. The house that seemed affordable with no car payment was a little over $9K (down payment of $1800). Adding in a $50/mo car payment took the affordable house down to a little over $8K, less than half the price of the median home in 1970. Was there a minimum wage worker sometime in 1970 who bought a house and a newish car? I'm sure there was. Was it typical to do so? I don't think so. Refs: http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29590190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29590190 , https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/new-house-calculator.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/new-house-cal... (I used a 10x multiplier, so I modeled in the calculator someone making $14.50/hr, a median house of $170K rather than $17K, etc, and then divided them by 10 to cite the figures above.)
      - deathanatos 5y ago
        If I apply the same calculation today, on a minimum wage of $7.25… Wage: $7.25/h per-month affordable: $362.50 median home price: $374,900 3.519% fixed, 30-yr 20% down required monthly payment -> $1,350 which is unaffordable by a factor of almost 4x. In fairness, the comment chain you're responding to is talking about the thing you're responding to in your comment, but I think the increase in unaffordability at the minimum wage still speaks to the problem: while it wasn't likely to allow home ownership in the past, but it's even less possible now, and that translates up into the higher wages where people then might have afforded a home, but cannot now. Plenty of maps have been drawn to show that minimum wage can't even afford to rent median 1-bed apartments.
bserge 5y ago
Yeah, the Internet, computer and smartphone, so you can get addicted and drown in fear and anxiety. Safer cars because you smash yours on the regular. Gas was cheaper. Bigger houses (using worse materials) to store more useless shit. Also they all cost more because of size.
throwawaycities 5y ago
> I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. The answer to the question of “are we better of than we were in 19xx” is somewhat subjective. Take your points: cars are faster/safer/more comfortable/more fuel efficient and houses are bigger and better. Ok so cars and houses are better today than 1970, but how does that relate to us? 1970 Average salary/median house cost/median rent/new car: $9,870/$17,000/$108/$3,542 2020 Average salary/median house cost/median rent: $56,310/$329,000/$1,463/$45,031 So yes cars are better, houses are bigger now than 1970; however, people and households are less likely to afford these things, and are significantly more indebted now than 1970. Also there is the elephant in the room of college loans which were essentially non-existent in 1970, but have indebted 10s of millions of kids, nearly 1 million of them default on those loans ever year, financially ruining their lives (good luck getting that car loan, mortgage, credit check on a apartment).
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I have a circa 1970 car, and a modern car. The 1970 car is very cheaply built, and is mechanically simple. The quality, complexity, and sheer number of parts of a modern car has increased enormously. Much of that is due to regulation, most every aspect of a car is heavily regulated today. None of this comes for free.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the reasons the modern car has more parts and is not mechanically simple is not the boogeyman of regulations (although I suppose it could have caused some things like say seat belt alerts and airbags) but rather feature creep in the automotive industry, and computerization of everything.
    - nindalf 5y ago
      The people who dislike something will see it everywhere and blame it for everything. Regulation especially is very versatile as a scapegoat.
    - 5y ago
efaref 5y ago
Internet connections cost poor people nothing in 1970 because they weren't necessary and could happily live their lives without one. The real item we're looking at here is *communication*, which was cheap: the stamp you needed to send in the form for your taxes cost a few cents. You could get away with using payphones for the few phone calls you absolutely needed to make. In 2021, internet connections and cellphones are both expensive and mandatory if you want to participate in modern society. Your minimum wage job probably texts you your schedule, so if you don't have a cell phone, you can't even work. Many government forms have been moved online, with legacy options either unavailable or poorly services. Payphones are all but gone. If you're lucky to have a local library then maybe you can get some time on a decrepit computer with slow internet access, but the majority of the poor rely on their cellphone for internet access.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  An internet connected smartphone is not equivalent to the postal service (plus a pay phone or landline I guess). It may be that you use a computer or something else for the things that most people use smartphones for, wand so don’t realise how much they cover. You also didn’t mention having to go to the library (distance + fuel/car/travel costs + more time) for information, finding jobs from newspaper advertisements or word of mouth. But the claim I was disagreeing with is that most Americans are worse off now than in the 70s and the description “most Americans” does not match the sort of very poor people whom you describe. So I feel this comment is only partially relevant
  - sirspacey 5y ago
    I’m curious - what personal experience with poverty in the USA do you have? I’ve found that shapes people’s perspective on the topic significantly.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - markvdb 5y ago
dgb23 5y ago
Technology has been advancing yes. And in some cases it enabled a group of people, like us, to become more independent/free. Many of us literally own their means of production, and the market is in the favor of labor. For now. But let’s not pretend like that’s true for everyone, nor that technology is a panacea for social and economic problems.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
You can't eat a smartphone, you can't sleep in an internet connection, you can't do your nursing job through a computer. Formal education is more expensive. A balanced diet is harder to get, and more expensive. Housing is more expensive near your work. But gas as well if you live far from it. Today's people debt is higher, and you can't easily work one job, raise a family, and afford education plus buy a home. It was more common in the 70'.
- black_13 5y ago
  My mother supported us with a blue collar job and I was able to attend college in the 80s on grants. None of that could happen now. Its worse now. And the lack of opportunity is a dangerous to our democracy. I see parallels between this period and Weimar Germany.
- monopoledance 5y ago
  Let's not forget securities. Today most people live in some state of constant existential dread, because they know, if they somehow lose the flat, they can't afford a new contract; they can't plan long term, as their job isn't safe (although, that point is in interesting turmoil right now, /r/antiwork and all); they can't work towards a pension plan; ... The promise of salvation past generations had with their working lifestyle doesn't hold truth anymore. I think that's why we see more "new religions" popping up right now, like conspiracy narratives, new nationalism, "white man identities" (the group without a distinct identity in the past; their self-efficacy experiences seem to be in decline, too), the MLM-fantasy of self-employment/all-in hacks/dire fight for "untapped markets" (podcasts, porn, stock market ...). Late stage capitalism.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Oh come on. People were literally starving in the US in the 60s-70s. Not really something that is easy to happen nowadays, even if it is difficult to get a balanced diet.
  - NoGravitas 5y ago
    One in 9 people in the US suffers from food insecurity (not having regular access to adequate meals). During the height of the disruptions from the pandemic last year, one in 4 households experienced food insecurity. Sources: https://sail.gmu.edu/program/hunger-banquet-2021/hunger https://sail.gmu.edu/program/hunger-banquet-2021/hunger https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-the-u-s-by-the-numbers https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-...
tsimionescu 5y ago
> Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today. What good does this do to someone with nowhere to live and that can't drive to work?
mercy_dude 5y ago
> How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone? This is the elitist fallacy that somehow having access cheap smartphones and plastics mostly manufactured in China at the back of our working class jobs make your life better while all else indicates life expectancy and quality of life across the board is declining for majority of Americans. Many Americans including my millennial generation feels we are worse off than our parents generation. How does having cheap access to internet makes the quality of your life better if I may ask? Does it help with the ballooning cost of housing prices throughout the country? Or healthcare? Or education for that matter? These are three basic costs and they all have gone over 100% in most cities in a decade or so. Not to say people are more lonely and isolated than they ever have been.
- montblanc 5y ago
  > How does having cheap access to internet makes the quality of your life better Whoa that's a bit of a reach no? How about the ability to drive around with GPS? Or stay easily in touch with family living far away? Taking photos of your baby and having it stored on the cloud for free? The ability to learn almost anything for free? I'm not saying it's all great, it isn't, but we can't deny the benefits.
  - deadbunny 5y ago
    > How about the ability to drive around with GPS? Maps, and the ability to read them. > Or stay easily in touch with family living far away? Phones, you know good old land lines > Taking photos of your baby and having it stored on the cloud for free? Why do I need physical photos stored in the cloud? > The ability to learn almost anything for free? Have ya heard of libraries? Does technology make these more convenient? Absolutely. Does it make them materially better? Not in my opinion.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      I'm fairly convinced that having to do things as you described was better for mental health as well. The always on, always connected lifestyle has big downsides.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
did you know that in the 70s no matter how poor you were you could make a phone call for just ten cents even if your cell phone was out of power! >and more fuel efficient more fuel efficient is only of interest if you are talking about how much it costs to run a car. Cars are more fuel efficient now than they were in the 1970s because it costs so much more to run them. Funny enough of course that increase in prices started in the 1970s. https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-automobiles/average-gas-prices-through-history/ https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-...
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Most working class people who own a car are interested in running that car and the associated costs. (It’s not likely a museum piece for them.)
montblanc 5y ago
> most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s > I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. In terms of mental health, job security, stability (e.g marriage/divorce rates) they may very well be worse off.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Physical health as well. Obesity has exploded since the 1970s. Normal weight people are already a minority.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  Divorce rates and abortions exploded in the 70s and have been coming down since then
whoisjohnkid 5y ago
There’s a lot of pitfalls measuring inflation in general especially when you add tech to the mix. Technology is known to be deflationary; getting faster and cheaper over time. This is how some fast food prices have been mostly staying the same; though even here you sometimes see shrinkflation. It’s unfortunate that there’s so much politics around the inflation numbers, things that are deflationary are deliberately used to reduce the inflation numbers. If something is too inflationary it either stops being measured or new ways of measuring are introduced that reduces the numbers.
prepend 5y ago
It’s also hard to measure environmental factors like air quality is better now than in the 70s (thanks unleaded gas). The challenge is when specific areas that are worse off (wages) are lumped together with a general negativity (we’re worse off). I wish there were better metrics, but at least we have tools like CPI. It’s just so tempting to use these data for the wrong analyses and conclusions.
newshorts 5y ago
If you value material possessions only then your right. However, the past generations in my family were able to have one working parent and still provide for the family. I have a wonderful “tech job” and still need my wife to work fill time so we can raise our two kids and we still can’t purchase a house. Anecdotally, I don’t understand how we are better off, but you are correct; the tvs are much higher resolution in 2021.
jimbokun 5y ago
> These modern technologies make peoples lives much better That's true in some ways, but in other ways these technologies make our lives better in the same way Heroin does. > Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today. Do you think these things are tied to meaningful improvements to people's overall happiness, mental and physical health, and well being?
- massysett 5y ago
  Absolutely yes. I'm happier because my bathroom has two sinks so my wife and I can get ready for work at the same time. I'm happier because my house has more than one toilet so that I don't have to wait because someone is sitting on the only available toilet. I'm happier because my car has air conditioning. I'll absolutely be happier if an airbag saves my life, and infinitely happier than that if one saves my wife's life or my kid's life. Yes. Technology and wealth makes our lives better and makes us happier. Yes.
thedragonline 5y ago
>I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. What you think of this graph? https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ Because by my reading, it looks like the average American is not reaping the gains of this country's GDP output by a significant margin.
greedo 5y ago
I think it's more useful to compare work requirements. In the 1970s, a family could be supported by a single earner. A house, a car, and college for the kids assuming they had decent grades. Today, that's largely impossible for the majority of Americans. Even with two incomes, (and the subsequent lower quality of life for any kids in the family), it's a huge challenge.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
You don't even need to compare to tech that didn't exist. How many projects apartments from 1970 would you have to combine to assemble a full suite of working appliances and utilities. Now run that same test for the rural shacks and early mobile homes. How many of those people owned cars, a decent set of seasonally appropriate clothing, got their nails done, ate fresh produce out of season, etc. etc. etc? Now run that comparison for 2021. We're a fuckton richer. But proportional increases in the amount of our income sapped by shelter, education and medical care have more or less cancelled out all the gains in material wealth.
newaccount2021 5y ago
> I think this is obviously false only because you believe access to cheap laptops is more important than access to affordable homes
VoodooJuJu 5y ago
> How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone? These modern technologies make peoples lives much better Completely ridiculous. I don't need internet or smartphones to live and they don't make my life better. I need food, shelter, and some transportation, and the point is: these things have become much more difficult to afford each year since 1970.
treespace88 5y ago
We are much worse off when measuring the amount of time it takes to hit milestones. At what age are people moving out, having children, buying a home, retirement? The age for all of this has gone up massively. Because it takes much longer to earn enough money to afford to do these things.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
> I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. It is not OBVIOUSLY false. Look at education costs relative to the cost of living. Consider that your only recourse to a decent salary is through higher education, since the middle class union job is dead (and REALLY dead for someone young since all the ones that do exist are held by older people that sold out the younger generation in successive union negotiations). You really think housing is cheaper or better now? I'm assuming you live in silicon valley. The only thing built is "bigger and better" because that is MORE EXPENSIVE and people have to PAY MORE for it. Nobody builds 'affordable housing' which you are obliquely criticizing people for not choosing. There is no choice for 'affordable housing': all of it that exists is occupied. That's why there is a housing shortage and rental shortage in practically every major urban market. And then there is health care... Food has dropped in quality even if one argues it has maintained cost parity. Jobs are far worse that they used to be. Like food, the number of jobs is cooked to seem the same, but the quality of the job is far worse, which leads me to... A great deal of consumer cost advantages have been due to globalization/arbitrage of foreign near-slave-labor. The cost of better consumer goods is destruction of the middle class and US manufacturing. All the major milestones of the happy capitalist worker's lifetime are all very very very much more expensive or worse. All of these structural degradations to the US are being propped over with financing shenanigans such as low interest rates. The Pandemic is all that on steroids. All those shenanigans are sensitive to disruption. COVID is pushing our currency manipulation/control to the brink.

hvidgaard 5y ago

What good is new tech if you cannot afford to buy a house or a new'ish car for the minimum wage, even if you live frugal and save?

passerby1 5y ago
Are metaverse gonna replace lack of owning a house (and travel) soon? /s
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Don't even jest, I heard something similar told at work without the /s part.
  - erwincoumans 5y ago
    That sounds similar to The Matrix.
- helpfulmandrill 5y ago
  Maybe you could just live in a coffin and jack into a more spacious metaverse simulation of an apartment /s
  - throw1234651234 5y ago
    lol, this will actually happen.
    - helpfulmandrill 5y ago
      An apartment that comes with total surveillance. Like Alexa on steroids. How do we get off this train?
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    You just described japan.
nickpp 5y ago
For example, it lets you live in a less expensive city and work remotely wherever you want. Also it allows you to learn and raise your earning potential. Finally modern transportation options less expensive than cars like e-bikes and e-scooters allow you to commute easier.
- thinknboutstuff 5y ago
  Genuinely curious, are you or were you lower class in America? Sure, some people can benefit from remote work. But remote work is also not typically minimum wage. And to access those higher wage jobs, you’ll certainly need access to capital to invest in education. Have you considered using an e-bike in the US? This could only be feasible in a minority of situations… It sounds like a techie meme of what life could be, but is certainly not.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    I am not American. I come from zero money but lucked out with a stable family that highly valued education. They sacrificed a lot for it but they strongly believed that you can improve your lot in life through hard work and perseverance. I share those believes and am living proof they work.
- selfhifive 5y ago
  Thus funneling more wealth to the already wealthy. That's the point. The average is okay but the distribution of wealth is messed up.
- confidantlake 5y ago
  90% of the US you would get killed on your commute if you tried to use an e-bike or e-scooter.
ricardobayes 5y ago
I saaw that happening in Budapest. Every young person has a new iPhone and wearing new sneakers, but living with parents.
- sigmaprimus 5y ago
  yeah and most of those parents have been refinancing their homes to support their spoiled children. That is going to end real soon and many of those kids are going to witness their parents lose their homes and become impoverished due to their lazy yet extravagant lifestyles.
  - ricardobayes 5y ago
    It's not about spoiled children, I see janitors walking around with 800 euro phones here. It's just a psychological way for low earning people to 'keep up with the Kardashians'. AS they can't buy cars or houses they buy gadgets.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      It’s amusing to me to contemplate that I work in tech and buy 1-2 year old iPhones for $300-500. I’m glad so many people have to have the very latest and so recycle great tech for 50+% discounts.
      - dzhiurgis 5y ago
        So how is the $50 per month savings is going to help you buy that $1M home?
    - pydry 5y ago
      I saw this in Myanmar. There were people living in mud huts but they had smartphones. I also had the same thought - it's the one luxury they can actually afford if they save up. I dont really get how people can look at that and think that these people are better off than a middle class 1950s US family. It's insane.
dan-robertson 5y ago
The statement was that most Americans are significantly worse off now than [their equivalents in] the 1970s. Do you claim that most Americans fit your description of someone living on minimum wage or are you trying to argue against a point I wasn’t trying to make? I’m not saying there aren’t problems but even someone with a very low income who is forced (by American life) to run a car for a lot of their money is unlikely to be using a car from the 70s (50 years old) and more likely to use something from the 90s or 00s less safe and efficient than cars of today but still better than cars of the 70s.
sigmaprimus 5y ago
Many people have a misguided belief that home ownership was easy in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s. Yes the prices were lower and maybe the cost/average income ratio was lower but I can attest to the fact that it was no easy feat even back then. Plenty of people lost their homes, renters had far less rights and although when looking at things through averages seems to indicate a better off middle class, the wages of the top 10% middle class (Mostly Unionized) were propping up a huge amount of the middle class that were grinding it out living paycheck to paycheck with none of the social safety nets currently in place. I find it incredulous that so many people are blind to what is coming in the next few years, there is a huge sense of entitlement and victimhood based on some idea that the world was easier back then. We are coming out of what I consider almost 35 years of prosperity resultant from "Winning" the cold war but a reconning is right around the corner. I don't expect many to take my advise but if I was in debt, renting a home and unemployed, I would stop bitching about minimum wage and would be finding a job real fast, the days of help wanted signs in every window are about to end.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  >> maybe the cost/average income ratio was lower There’s no maybe about it. In the 70s, average house sale price was 4x the average salary. Today it’s 8x. How many lattes would you need to have skipped to have bought two homes at the time you bought your first? How many holidays would you have needed to skip to pay two mortgages while you were paying one? That is the scenario - well except todays generation would only have one house at the end of the day, not two.
  - sigmaprimus 5y ago
    My house is currently valued at 100K USD that is not an unreachable goal. It might not be right next to your favorite coffee shop but that just one of the sacrifices You make when You want to own a home. BTW in the 70s we didn't have lattes, it was just plain old coffee and what is this holiday's thing You are talking about? It sounds like something the privileged think they are entitled to.
- nly 5y ago
sokoloff 5y ago
Is it reasonable to expect that a minimum wage earner should be able to afford to buy a house and a newish car? Were minimum wage earners doing that in 1970?
- PickledHotdog 5y ago
  Yes they were
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    The minimum wage went up to $1.45/hr in Feb, 1970. 2000 hours of that would be $2900. I used the following assumptions: 7.5% fixed-30, median house $17K, down payment of 20%. That was unaffordable by a factor of almost 2x. The house that seemed affordable with no car payment was a little over $9K (down payment of $1800). Adding in a $50/mo car payment took the affordable house down to a little over $8K, less than half the price of the median home in 1970. Was there a minimum wage worker sometime in 1970 who bought a house and a newish car? I'm sure there was. Was it typical to do so? I don't think so. Refs: http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.html , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29590190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29590190 , https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/new-house-calculator.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/new-house-cal... (I used a 10x multiplier, so I modeled in the calculator someone making $14.50/hr, a median house of $170K rather than $17K, etc, and then divided them by 10 to cite the figures above.)
    - deathanatos 5y ago
      If I apply the same calculation today, on a minimum wage of $7.25… Wage: $7.25/h per-month affordable: $362.50 median home price: $374,900 3.519% fixed, 30-yr 20% down required monthly payment -> $1,350 which is unaffordable by a factor of almost 4x. In fairness, the comment chain you're responding to is talking about the thing you're responding to in your comment, but I think the increase in unaffordability at the minimum wage still speaks to the problem: while it wasn't likely to allow home ownership in the past, but it's even less possible now, and that translates up into the higher wages where people then might have afforded a home, but cannot now. Plenty of maps have been drawn to show that minimum wage can't even afford to rent median 1-bed apartments.

bserge 5y ago

Yeah, the Internet, computer and smartphone, so you can get addicted and drown in fear and anxiety. Safer cars because you smash yours on the regular. Gas was cheaper. Bigger houses (using worse materials) to store more useless shit. Also they all cost more because of size.

throwawaycities 5y ago

> I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. The answer to the question of “are we better of than we were in 19xx” is somewhat subjective. Take your points: cars are faster/safer/more comfortable/more fuel efficient and houses are bigger and better. Ok so cars and houses are better today than 1970, but how does that relate to us? 1970 Average salary/median house cost/median rent/new car: $9,870/$17,000/$108/$3,542 2020 Average salary/median house cost/median rent: $56,310/$329,000/$1,463/$45,031 So yes cars are better, houses are bigger now than 1970; however, people and households are less likely to afford these things, and are significantly more indebted now than 1970. Also there is the elephant in the room of college loans which were essentially non-existent in 1970, but have indebted 10s of millions of kids, nearly 1 million of them default on those loans ever year, financially ruining their lives (good luck getting that car loan, mortgage, credit check on a apartment).

WalterBright 5y ago
I have a circa 1970 car, and a modern car. The 1970 car is very cheaply built, and is mechanically simple. The quality, complexity, and sheer number of parts of a modern car has increased enormously. Much of that is due to regulation, most every aspect of a car is heavily regulated today. None of this comes for free.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the reasons the modern car has more parts and is not mechanically simple is not the boogeyman of regulations (although I suppose it could have caused some things like say seat belt alerts and airbags) but rather feature creep in the automotive industry, and computerization of everything.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    The people who dislike something will see it everywhere and blame it for everything. Regulation especially is very versatile as a scapegoat.
  - 5y ago

efaref 5y ago

Internet connections cost poor people nothing in 1970 because they weren't necessary and could happily live their lives without one. The real item we're looking at here is *communication*, which was cheap: the stamp you needed to send in the form for your taxes cost a few cents. You could get away with using payphones for the few phone calls you absolutely needed to make. In 2021, internet connections and cellphones are both expensive and mandatory if you want to participate in modern society. Your minimum wage job probably texts you your schedule, so if you don't have a cell phone, you can't even work. Many government forms have been moved online, with legacy options either unavailable or poorly services. Payphones are all but gone. If you're lucky to have a local library then maybe you can get some time on a decrepit computer with slow internet access, but the majority of the poor rely on their cellphone for internet access.

dan-robertson 5y ago
An internet connected smartphone is not equivalent to the postal service (plus a pay phone or landline I guess). It may be that you use a computer or something else for the things that most people use smartphones for, wand so don’t realise how much they cover. You also didn’t mention having to go to the library (distance + fuel/car/travel costs + more time) for information, finding jobs from newspaper advertisements or word of mouth. But the claim I was disagreeing with is that most Americans are worse off now than in the 70s and the description “most Americans” does not match the sort of very poor people whom you describe. So I feel this comment is only partially relevant
- sirspacey 5y ago
  I’m curious - what personal experience with poverty in the USA do you have? I’ve found that shapes people’s perspective on the topic significantly.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- markvdb 5y ago

dgb23 5y ago

Technology has been advancing yes. And in some cases it enabled a group of people, like us, to become more independent/free. Many of us literally own their means of production, and the market is in the favor of labor. For now. But let’s not pretend like that’s true for everyone, nor that technology is a panacea for social and economic problems.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

You can't eat a smartphone, you can't sleep in an internet connection, you can't do your nursing job through a computer. Formal education is more expensive. A balanced diet is harder to get, and more expensive. Housing is more expensive near your work. But gas as well if you live far from it. Today's people debt is higher, and you can't easily work one job, raise a family, and afford education plus buy a home. It was more common in the 70'.

black_13 5y ago
My mother supported us with a blue collar job and I was able to attend college in the 80s on grants. None of that could happen now. Its worse now. And the lack of opportunity is a dangerous to our democracy. I see parallels between this period and Weimar Germany.
monopoledance 5y ago
Let's not forget securities. Today most people live in some state of constant existential dread, because they know, if they somehow lose the flat, they can't afford a new contract; they can't plan long term, as their job isn't safe (although, that point is in interesting turmoil right now, /r/antiwork and all); they can't work towards a pension plan; ... The promise of salvation past generations had with their working lifestyle doesn't hold truth anymore. I think that's why we see more "new religions" popping up right now, like conspiracy narratives, new nationalism, "white man identities" (the group without a distinct identity in the past; their self-efficacy experiences seem to be in decline, too), the MLM-fantasy of self-employment/all-in hacks/dire fight for "untapped markets" (podcasts, porn, stock market ...). Late stage capitalism.
whimsicalism 5y ago
Oh come on. People were literally starving in the US in the 60s-70s. Not really something that is easy to happen nowadays, even if it is difficult to get a balanced diet.
- NoGravitas 5y ago
  One in 9 people in the US suffers from food insecurity (not having regular access to adequate meals). During the height of the disruptions from the pandemic last year, one in 4 households experienced food insecurity. Sources: https://sail.gmu.edu/program/hunger-banquet-2021/hunger https://sail.gmu.edu/program/hunger-banquet-2021/hunger https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-the-u-s-by-the-numbers https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-...

tsimionescu 5y ago

> Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today. What good does this do to someone with nowhere to live and that can't drive to work?

mercy_dude 5y ago

> How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone? This is the elitist fallacy that somehow having access cheap smartphones and plastics mostly manufactured in China at the back of our working class jobs make your life better while all else indicates life expectancy and quality of life across the board is declining for majority of Americans. Many Americans including my millennial generation feels we are worse off than our parents generation. How does having cheap access to internet makes the quality of your life better if I may ask? Does it help with the ballooning cost of housing prices throughout the country? Or healthcare? Or education for that matter? These are three basic costs and they all have gone over 100% in most cities in a decade or so. Not to say people are more lonely and isolated than they ever have been.

montblanc 5y ago
> How does having cheap access to internet makes the quality of your life better Whoa that's a bit of a reach no? How about the ability to drive around with GPS? Or stay easily in touch with family living far away? Taking photos of your baby and having it stored on the cloud for free? The ability to learn almost anything for free? I'm not saying it's all great, it isn't, but we can't deny the benefits.
- deadbunny 5y ago
  > How about the ability to drive around with GPS? Maps, and the ability to read them. > Or stay easily in touch with family living far away? Phones, you know good old land lines > Taking photos of your baby and having it stored on the cloud for free? Why do I need physical photos stored in the cloud? > The ability to learn almost anything for free? Have ya heard of libraries? Does technology make these more convenient? Absolutely. Does it make them materially better? Not in my opinion.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    I'm fairly convinced that having to do things as you described was better for mental health as well. The always on, always connected lifestyle has big downsides.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

did you know that in the 70s no matter how poor you were you could make a phone call for just ten cents even if your cell phone was out of power! >and more fuel efficient more fuel efficient is only of interest if you are talking about how much it costs to run a car. Cars are more fuel efficient now than they were in the 1970s because it costs so much more to run them. Funny enough of course that increase in prices started in the 1970s. https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-automobiles/average-gas-prices-through-history/ https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-...

sokoloff 5y ago
Most working class people who own a car are interested in running that car and the associated costs. (It’s not likely a museum piece for them.)

montblanc 5y ago

> most Americans are significantly worse off since the 1970s > I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. In terms of mental health, job security, stability (e.g marriage/divorce rates) they may very well be worse off.

inglor_cz 5y ago
Physical health as well. Obesity has exploded since the 1970s. Normal weight people are already a minority.
throwaway6734 5y ago
Divorce rates and abortions exploded in the 70s and have been coming down since then

whoisjohnkid 5y ago

There’s a lot of pitfalls measuring inflation in general especially when you add tech to the mix. Technology is known to be deflationary; getting faster and cheaper over time. This is how some fast food prices have been mostly staying the same; though even here you sometimes see shrinkflation. It’s unfortunate that there’s so much politics around the inflation numbers, things that are deflationary are deliberately used to reduce the inflation numbers. If something is too inflationary it either stops being measured or new ways of measuring are introduced that reduces the numbers.

prepend 5y ago

It’s also hard to measure environmental factors like air quality is better now than in the 70s (thanks unleaded gas). The challenge is when specific areas that are worse off (wages) are lumped together with a general negativity (we’re worse off). I wish there were better metrics, but at least we have tools like CPI. It’s just so tempting to use these data for the wrong analyses and conclusions.

newshorts 5y ago

If you value material possessions only then your right. However, the past generations in my family were able to have one working parent and still provide for the family. I have a wonderful “tech job” and still need my wife to work fill time so we can raise our two kids and we still can’t purchase a house. Anecdotally, I don’t understand how we are better off, but you are correct; the tvs are much higher resolution in 2021.

jimbokun 5y ago

> These modern technologies make peoples lives much better That's true in some ways, but in other ways these technologies make our lives better in the same way Heroin does. > Compared to the 70s, a new car is faster, safer, more comfortable, and more fuel efficient. Similarly, most houses are bigger and better in America today. Do you think these things are tied to meaningful improvements to people's overall happiness, mental and physical health, and well being?

massysett 5y ago
Absolutely yes. I'm happier because my bathroom has two sinks so my wife and I can get ready for work at the same time. I'm happier because my house has more than one toilet so that I don't have to wait because someone is sitting on the only available toilet. I'm happier because my car has air conditioning. I'll absolutely be happier if an airbag saves my life, and infinitely happier than that if one saves my wife's life or my kid's life. Yes. Technology and wealth makes our lives better and makes us happier. Yes.

thedragonline 5y ago

>I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. What you think of this graph? https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ Because by my reading, it looks like the average American is not reaping the gains of this country's GDP output by a significant margin.

greedo 5y ago

I think it's more useful to compare work requirements. In the 1970s, a family could be supported by a single earner. A house, a car, and college for the kids assuming they had decent grades. Today, that's largely impossible for the majority of Americans. Even with two incomes, (and the subsequent lower quality of life for any kids in the family), it's a huge challenge.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

You don't even need to compare to tech that didn't exist. How many projects apartments from 1970 would you have to combine to assemble a full suite of working appliances and utilities. Now run that same test for the rural shacks and early mobile homes. How many of those people owned cars, a decent set of seasonally appropriate clothing, got their nails done, ate fresh produce out of season, etc. etc. etc? Now run that comparison for 2021. We're a fuckton richer. But proportional increases in the amount of our income sapped by shelter, education and medical care have more or less cancelled out all the gains in material wealth.

newaccount2021 5y ago

> I think this is obviously false only because you believe access to cheap laptops is more important than access to affordable homes

VoodooJuJu 5y ago

> How much did an internet connection cost in the 1970s? What about a computer? What about a smartphone? These modern technologies make peoples lives much better Completely ridiculous. I don't need internet or smartphones to live and they don't make my life better. I need food, shelter, and some transportation, and the point is: these things have become much more difficult to afford each year since 1970.

treespace88 5y ago

We are much worse off when measuring the amount of time it takes to hit milestones. At what age are people moving out, having children, buying a home, retirement? The age for all of this has gone up massively. Because it takes much longer to earn enough money to afford to do these things.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

> I think this is obviously false and hurts the credibility of the rest of this comment. It is not OBVIOUSLY false. Look at education costs relative to the cost of living. Consider that your only recourse to a decent salary is through higher education, since the middle class union job is dead (and REALLY dead for someone young since all the ones that do exist are held by older people that sold out the younger generation in successive union negotiations). You really think housing is cheaper or better now? I'm assuming you live in silicon valley. The only thing built is "bigger and better" because that is MORE EXPENSIVE and people have to PAY MORE for it. Nobody builds 'affordable housing' which you are obliquely criticizing people for not choosing. There is no choice for 'affordable housing': all of it that exists is occupied. That's why there is a housing shortage and rental shortage in practically every major urban market. And then there is health care... Food has dropped in quality even if one argues it has maintained cost parity. Jobs are far worse that they used to be. Like food, the number of jobs is cooked to seem the same, but the quality of the job is far worse, which leads me to... A great deal of consumer cost advantages have been due to globalization/arbitrage of foreign near-slave-labor. The cost of better consumer goods is destruction of the middle class and US manufacturing. All the major milestones of the happy capitalist worker's lifetime are all very very very much more expensive or worse. All of these structural degradations to the US are being propped over with financing shenanigans such as low interest rates. The Pandemic is all that on steroids. All those shenanigans are sensitive to disruption. COVID is pushing our currency manipulation/control to the brink.