7 ms·

> 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”

> 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.
  - anshumankmr 5y ago
    An example of this is the change to automatic transmission from manual has increased costs. People could have voted with their dollars but manual is (unfortunately) on its way out in America. In a way, they have as it seems vast majority of people buying new cars want automatic but the segment who prefer manual were unable to convince others to buy manual. This also came with a caveat as automatic is more expensive to manufacture and repair.
    - redisman 5y ago
      I mean it’s just not something most people find appealing. Shifting gears. I’d rather have the car handle that. What is the pro of manual transmission? I used to have those cars in the EU and thought it was just an annoying extra thing I have to pay attention to when driving.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > What is the pro of manual transmission? 1. enjoyment 2. keeps you awake 3. more reliable 4. more control in stuck or slippery conditions 5. thieves don't know how to drive them 6. the kids are terrified of it and won't ask to borrow it 7. can push start the car 8. can restart the car while moving if the engine stalls 9. can coast 10. can drop the clutch and get off the line faster when drag racing against some teen at the traffic light 11. get to enjoy double clutching and mastering heel-toeing and pretending you're an F1 driver 12. The Cat cannot reach the clutch pedal, frustrating its plans for putting me in the trunk and depositing me in the Kat Fud Factory 13. you can nurse the car home and to the shop with a broken gearbox. With an automatic, it's a tow truck every time 14. the sheer joy of a winding mountain road, a powerful V8, picking the gear for the next turn, managing the traction and engine speed, etc.
        anshumankmr 5y ago
        The main thing is that manufacturing it is cheaper than automatic and thus the cost to buy it is cheaper. In a longer term, it will also save money on repairs being neeeded.
  - unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
    Cars are much more reliable now than they were in the 1970s, and they can drive more miles. They have to because services are distributed and it's super expensive and disruptive to sell an owned-residence.
    - vermilingua 5y ago
      Do you have any sources for that claim? Anecdotally I believe that to be entirely false, but if there are studies you’ve read that back you up I’d love to read them.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Here is one JD Power survey although you'd probably have to dig to find numbers over a longer period of time. In my experience, it's clearly true overall. In the 1970s, say, you're probably looking at a car in the snow belt lasting 5 years because of rust and 100,000 miles was generally considered very high mileage.
        greedo 5y ago
        That's because the majority of cars bought in the snow belt during the 70's were American made, and US car quality was terrible during this period.
        ghaff 5y ago
        My family tended to have European cars and they were just as bad.
  - unpolloloco 5y ago
    This is a clear example of regulation making cars more complex! In the 70s, there were no crumple zones, airbags, backup cameras, traction control, lighting intensity requirements, or a whole host of other things that are mandated today. Those things do cost money. That said, this is also a clear shift in consumer demand too - a 1970s $3500 car is going to be a sedan, small, and pretty featureless. Compare that to a $20k Corolla today - which is the same proportion of median income that the $3500 car was in the 70s. It's larger, more reliable, safer, and has a whole bunch more features.
- meragrin_ 5y ago
  Housing is also more heavily regulated today. Various places have different regulations for hurricanes, earthquakes, and other things.
throwaway6734 5y ago
Isn't it possible that the average salary is skewers due to more women entering the work force today than in the past?
wonderwonder 5y ago
I think the important numbers here are the salary and housing cost ones. In 1970 the average house could be purchased for less than 2 years of salary. Today it costs 5.8 years of salary. The cost of housing has sky rocketed relative to income. Housing is the largest bill for the vast majority of people and it eats a massive portion of their take home. Likewise the cost of a vehicle has seen a very large increase percentage wise and very often transportation is the 2nd or 3rd largest cost for a family. So if housing and transportation costs are vastly more expensive then its stands to reason that financial pressure has increased proportionally on most people reducing quality of life. Arguments about 'having cell phones' means we are better off now make no sense. Another thing to consider with that argument is all of those cell phones are built in China where most manufacturing jobs have fled leading to the collapse of an industry that used to fuel the middle class and could comfortably provide a living and sense of pride for so many people.
- treis 5y ago
  >think the important numbers here are the salary and housing cost ones. In 1970 the average house could be purchased for less than 2 years of salary. Today it costs 5.8 years of salary. But no one pays cash for their house. They get a mortgage and so the monthly mortgage payment is (mostly) what matters. Back in the 70s you're paying 10%+ on your mortgage while today it's more like 3.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    27 years to save for a deposit for a house in Auckland
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The reason rates were so high was because of interest. Back then you could expect your income to increase so the interest wasn't as bad as the nominal rate.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    That is true, but somehow elides the reality that even if interest rates were zero, you would still end up having to "divert" 5.8 years of median salary to own a median house in 2021, which has significant implications for lots of other aspects of life, particularly but not limited to retirement.
DebtDeflation 5y ago
>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 Also, health care/insurance costs. Growing up as a kid in the 1970s/1980s in a blue collar household, my father's job provided health insurance at a far lower % of salary than is common today and with minimal out of pocket costs for receiving care. Also, retirement. Back then most companies provided defined benefit (pension) plans rather than defined contribution (401K) plans - you put in your years and then you retired at a decent % of final salary for life.

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.
- anshumankmr 5y ago
  An example of this is the change to automatic transmission from manual has increased costs. People could have voted with their dollars but manual is (unfortunately) on its way out in America. In a way, they have as it seems vast majority of people buying new cars want automatic but the segment who prefer manual were unable to convince others to buy manual. This also came with a caveat as automatic is more expensive to manufacture and repair.
  - redisman 5y ago
    I mean it’s just not something most people find appealing. Shifting gears. I’d rather have the car handle that. What is the pro of manual transmission? I used to have those cars in the EU and thought it was just an annoying extra thing I have to pay attention to when driving.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > What is the pro of manual transmission? 1. enjoyment 2. keeps you awake 3. more reliable 4. more control in stuck or slippery conditions 5. thieves don't know how to drive them 6. the kids are terrified of it and won't ask to borrow it 7. can push start the car 8. can restart the car while moving if the engine stalls 9. can coast 10. can drop the clutch and get off the line faster when drag racing against some teen at the traffic light 11. get to enjoy double clutching and mastering heel-toeing and pretending you're an F1 driver 12. The Cat cannot reach the clutch pedal, frustrating its plans for putting me in the trunk and depositing me in the Kat Fud Factory 13. you can nurse the car home and to the shop with a broken gearbox. With an automatic, it's a tow truck every time 14. the sheer joy of a winding mountain road, a powerful V8, picking the gear for the next turn, managing the traction and engine speed, etc.
      - anshumankmr 5y ago
        The main thing is that manufacturing it is cheaper than automatic and thus the cost to buy it is cheaper. In a longer term, it will also save money on repairs being neeeded.
- unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
  Cars are much more reliable now than they were in the 1970s, and they can drive more miles. They have to because services are distributed and it's super expensive and disruptive to sell an owned-residence.
  - vermilingua 5y ago
    Do you have any sources for that claim? Anecdotally I believe that to be entirely false, but if there are studies you’ve read that back you up I’d love to read them.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Here is one JD Power survey although you'd probably have to dig to find numbers over a longer period of time. In my experience, it's clearly true overall. In the 1970s, say, you're probably looking at a car in the snow belt lasting 5 years because of rust and 100,000 miles was generally considered very high mileage.
      - greedo 5y ago
        That's because the majority of cars bought in the snow belt during the 70's were American made, and US car quality was terrible during this period.
        ghaff 5y ago
        My family tended to have European cars and they were just as bad.
- unpolloloco 5y ago
  This is a clear example of regulation making cars more complex! In the 70s, there were no crumple zones, airbags, backup cameras, traction control, lighting intensity requirements, or a whole host of other things that are mandated today. Those things do cost money. That said, this is also a clear shift in consumer demand too - a 1970s $3500 car is going to be a sedan, small, and pretty featureless. Compare that to a $20k Corolla today - which is the same proportion of median income that the $3500 car was in the 70s. It's larger, more reliable, safer, and has a whole bunch more features.
meragrin_ 5y ago
Housing is also more heavily regulated today. Various places have different regulations for hurricanes, earthquakes, and other things.

throwaway6734 5y ago

Isn't it possible that the average salary is skewers due to more women entering the work force today than in the past?

wonderwonder 5y ago

I think the important numbers here are the salary and housing cost ones. In 1970 the average house could be purchased for less than 2 years of salary. Today it costs 5.8 years of salary. The cost of housing has sky rocketed relative to income. Housing is the largest bill for the vast majority of people and it eats a massive portion of their take home. Likewise the cost of a vehicle has seen a very large increase percentage wise and very often transportation is the 2nd or 3rd largest cost for a family. So if housing and transportation costs are vastly more expensive then its stands to reason that financial pressure has increased proportionally on most people reducing quality of life. Arguments about 'having cell phones' means we are better off now make no sense. Another thing to consider with that argument is all of those cell phones are built in China where most manufacturing jobs have fled leading to the collapse of an industry that used to fuel the middle class and could comfortably provide a living and sense of pride for so many people.

treis 5y ago
>think the important numbers here are the salary and housing cost ones. In 1970 the average house could be purchased for less than 2 years of salary. Today it costs 5.8 years of salary. But no one pays cash for their house. They get a mortgage and so the monthly mortgage payment is (mostly) what matters. Back in the 70s you're paying 10%+ on your mortgage while today it's more like 3.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  27 years to save for a deposit for a house in Auckland
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The reason rates were so high was because of interest. Back then you could expect your income to increase so the interest wasn't as bad as the nominal rate.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  That is true, but somehow elides the reality that even if interest rates were zero, you would still end up having to "divert" 5.8 years of median salary to own a median house in 2021, which has significant implications for lots of other aspects of life, particularly but not limited to retirement.

DebtDeflation 5y ago

>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 Also, health care/insurance costs. Growing up as a kid in the 1970s/1980s in a blue collar household, my father's job provided health insurance at a far lower % of salary than is common today and with minimal out of pocket costs for receiving care. Also, retirement. Back then most companies provided defined benefit (pension) plans rather than defined contribution (401K) plans - you put in your years and then you retired at a decent % of final salary for life.