8 ms·

> Remember in 1963 only the man was working, and typically supported 4 kids, a wife and often parents in the home. This is a ridiculous exaggeration: the avera

> Remember in 1963 only the man was working, and typically supported 4 kids, a wife and often parents in the home. This is a ridiculous exaggeration: the average US household was 3.7 people in the 1960s, not over 6[1]. There are good reasons to hold politicians to task for recent abnormally high inflation. But this comment is more of an atavistic fever dream of the past than an expression of those reasons. Edit: another source puts it at 3.3[2]. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a-family-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a... [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h...

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
>> Remember in 1963 only the man was working, and typically supported 4 kids > This is a ridiculous exaggeration: the average US household was 3.7 people The avg figure in your rebuttal doesn't well reflect the commonality of large US households in the 20th century nor their change during that time. According to US Census data, the % of US families with 4 or more children fell 10fold during 20th century. Early 1900s: About 35% Early 1910s: About 26% Early 1920s: About 23% Early 1930s: About 19% Early 1940s: About 18% Early 1950s: About 21% Early 1960s: About 21% Early 1970s: About 10% Early 1980s: About 5% Early 1990s: About 3% Early 2000s: About 3% Early 2010s: About 3% Multiple refs inc: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED231528.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED231528.pdf
tonymet 3y ago
the average lifespan in the middle ages was 35 too. does that mean there were no old people?
- abduhl 3y ago
  No, but the “typical” person isn’t old. Just like the “typical” man didn’t support 6 people in the 1960s.
  - tonymet 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      These are the US Census Bureau's numbers. If you're going to contradict the US Census Bureau, then you're going to need to provide some actual sources here. Without that, this is low-effort trolling.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  Your comment explicitly mentions averages. It's a matter of basic fact that the average working-age male in 1963 was not supporting 5 other people with his salary.
  - tonymet 3y ago
    They are not census statistics they are an amateur assembling statistics using public census data. The methods are not published
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      The method is listed in the description below the statistics. Again: if you think these numbers are suspect, you are encouraged to find a different citation that contradicts them. Without that, your complaints are unsubstantiated.
      - tonymet 3y ago
        [flagged]
kcplate 3y ago
Ok putting the fever dream aside, even at 3.7 people per household the 1963 to 2024 numbers as it relates to income vs cost of living is pretty eye opening. You are not really disproving the general point by getting fussy over the numbers.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  The current average US household has 3.1 members. There’s an important discussion to be had about cost of living and stagnant wages despite productivity, but as I said in another comment: that conversation needs to be factually grounded. Vague reactionary handwringing about the good old days isn’t going to cut it, especially when the good old days weren’t all that great by contemporary standards (or for contemporary American demographics).
  - kcplate 3y ago
    You still haven’t addressed the greater point. Instead you are fixating on the accuracy of least important number in the point the original commenters post. I suspect it’s because it’s the only one you can pick at. The point being can the average single income household of 3.x in 2024 afford house, car, groceries, etc at the same ability as the average single income family household of 3.x in 1963?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - notjoemama 3y ago
    If we’re to correct the exuberance of emotion then this reactionary reply doesn’t fit either. On the topic, I found this informative: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=1 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=1 “ $1 in 1963 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $10.21 today, an increase of $9.21 over 61 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.88% per year between 1963 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 920.69%.” Also: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1964/demo/p60-043.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1964/demo/p60-04... “ The median income of all families in 1963 was about $6,200; but for families headed by college graduates, the median was $9,700. The median for all families was about $290, or 5 percent, higher than in 1962. Consumer prices rose during this period by about 1 percent; therefore, not all of this amount represented a net gain in purchasing power for the average family.1 Median family income in current dollars has more than doubled in the postwar period (from about $3,000 in 1947 to about $6,200 in 1963). This rise was accompanied by a gradual upward shift of families on the income scale. However, consumer prices have risen substantially during this period so that only about three-fifths of the increase in current-dollar incomes represented an increase in real income. In terms of constant (1963) dollars, median family income increased from $4,200 in 1947 to $6,200 in 1963. This increase was less pronounced than the increase in current-dollar income, but it was nevertheless substantial.”
4death4 3y ago
The average household also includes empty nesters and people who have moved out yet haven't started a family yet. The average number of children per family in the 60s was 2.3, which means quite a few families had 3 or 4 children.
- bugbuddy 3y ago
  According to our experience of the last 7 years, we should expect interest rate cuts, tax cuts, and more fiscal expansion either at the same time or in some sequence. Each of them will help solve our problem. There is no fiscal conservative left in America.
  - voisin 3y ago
    > There is no fiscal conservative left in America. Truer words have never been spoken. Fiscal conservatism died with Reagan.
    - sanp 3y ago
      Yes, Reagan the fiscal conservative who tripled the deficit and national debt: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_reaganomics.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/e...
      - imtringued 3y ago
        Greek austerity imposed by Germans had resulted in the doubling of debt as percentage of GDP.
        Rinzler89 3y ago
        Which Germans imposed Greek austerity? AFAIK Greek austerity was imposed by Greece's major creditors, but Germany was only one of many.
        3y ago
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> There are good reasons to hold politicians to task for recent abnormally high inflation. Well, maybe 25% for the budget deficits. The Fed is responsible for 75%. They keep over-goosing the economy. They keep saturating the money supply. That devaluing is what inflation reflects. That is your money is worth less (and appears like prices going up).
shrubble 3y ago
You can listen to Bing Crosby's Christmas album, to the song "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas", where the parents having 4 children (household size thus 6) is described, as an anecdotal supporting note... since it was a popular song for the masses, 4 kids was not seen as unusual.
- thebigman433 3y ago
  You cant seriously be comparing actual cited stats for household size to lyrics from a song that was popular?
  - shrubble 3y ago
    I specifically stated it was anecdotal... here are the census stats in graph form however: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/fm-3.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat... ; 2.5 kids plus 2 adults is 4.5 in the household.
    - thebigman433 3y ago
      4.5 in the household is very specifically not 4 kids, like you claim is common. Just an insane random hill to die on
      - shrubble 3y ago
        You're deliberately misunderstanding. Have a nice day.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Why not? Stats are numbers compiled for someone at some point. A song this popular is a snapshot into how people lived and perceived themselves back then. A measurement of sorts. A disagreement between the two is a good indicator that the stats are suspect, or not the right stats to be looking at
TeMPOraL 3y ago
That's missing forest for the trees. The more important part is that average 3.7 people household was a single-income one. I would rather disagree with GP's: > My point is that inflation isn’t abstract and it isn’t a law of nature. It’s a deliberate approach to stealing your prosperity while you cheer it on. A lot of the inflation, including how suddenly a single-income household isn't a viable option for most people in the West, is market working as intended - quickly consuming any surplus money, should it suddenly become greater than 0 on average, and slowly eating into any value that isn't bare-minimum strictly necessary to move a product.
- michaelt 3y ago
  > That's missing forest for the trees. However, when a person is making a post saying "don't trust those dodgy manipulated numbers" and offering alternative numbers, their post is a lot less convincing if their numbers are also dodgy
  - tarsinge 3y ago
    I didn’t get they said the numbers were dodgy or manipulated. Don’t make the typical straw man when discussing inflation that people challenging the current formula for CPI are challenging the underlying data and so are conspiracists. The point is the relevance of the indicator. In fact the very article is about a different value if we take an older formula.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      A number can be dodgy and manipulated without being outright fraudulent. And in politics it's rare someone will outright lie - I'm sure you've heard the term "lies, damn lies and statistics". For example, during the pandemic the UK government set itself a target for covid testing, then proudly announced that they'd hit their target - but it turned out they were not counting the number of tests processed in labs but instead the number of test kits sent out by mail regardless of whether they were received, returned, or processed - allowing them to declare success before increasing lab capacity. It's not outright fraudulent, but it's questionable and errs in a politically convenient direction - that's a dodgy number. And as I understand it, the claim in this discussion is that the government changed the definition of inflation, in a way that made the number lower? And that it now doesn't accurately reflect what it purports to reflect? Sounds like dodgy manipulated numbers to me.
littlestymaar 3y ago
This, and also the myth that only the men used to work and provide for the needs of their family: while is was true in the growing middle class it wasn't the case in the popular class at all.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

>> Remember in 1963 only the man was working, and typically supported 4 kids > This is a ridiculous exaggeration: the average US household was 3.7 people The avg figure in your rebuttal doesn't well reflect the commonality of large US households in the 20th century nor their change during that time. According to US Census data, the % of US families with 4 or more children fell 10fold during 20th century. Early 1900s: About 35% Early 1910s: About 26% Early 1920s: About 23% Early 1930s: About 19% Early 1940s: About 18% Early 1950s: About 21% Early 1960s: About 21% Early 1970s: About 10% Early 1980s: About 5% Early 1990s: About 3% Early 2000s: About 3% Early 2010s: About 3% Multiple refs inc: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED231528.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED231528.pdf

tonymet 3y ago

the average lifespan in the middle ages was 35 too. does that mean there were no old people?

abduhl 3y ago
No, but the “typical” person isn’t old. Just like the “typical” man didn’t support 6 people in the 1960s.
- tonymet 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    These are the US Census Bureau's numbers. If you're going to contradict the US Census Bureau, then you're going to need to provide some actual sources here. Without that, this is low-effort trolling.
woodruffw 3y ago
Your comment explicitly mentions averages. It's a matter of basic fact that the average working-age male in 1963 was not supporting 5 other people with his salary.
- tonymet 3y ago
  They are not census statistics they are an amateur assembling statistics using public census data. The methods are not published
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    The method is listed in the description below the statistics. Again: if you think these numbers are suspect, you are encouraged to find a different citation that contradicts them. Without that, your complaints are unsubstantiated.
    - tonymet 3y ago
      [flagged]

kcplate 3y ago

Ok putting the fever dream aside, even at 3.7 people per household the 1963 to 2024 numbers as it relates to income vs cost of living is pretty eye opening. You are not really disproving the general point by getting fussy over the numbers.

woodruffw 3y ago
The current average US household has 3.1 members. There’s an important discussion to be had about cost of living and stagnant wages despite productivity, but as I said in another comment: that conversation needs to be factually grounded. Vague reactionary handwringing about the good old days isn’t going to cut it, especially when the good old days weren’t all that great by contemporary standards (or for contemporary American demographics).
- kcplate 3y ago
  You still haven’t addressed the greater point. Instead you are fixating on the accuracy of least important number in the point the original commenters post. I suspect it’s because it’s the only one you can pick at. The point being can the average single income household of 3.x in 2024 afford house, car, groceries, etc at the same ability as the average single income family household of 3.x in 1963?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- notjoemama 3y ago
  If we’re to correct the exuberance of emotion then this reactionary reply doesn’t fit either. On the topic, I found this informative: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=1 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=1 “ $1 in 1963 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $10.21 today, an increase of $9.21 over 61 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.88% per year between 1963 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 920.69%.” Also: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1964/demo/p60-043.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1964/demo/p60-04... “ The median income of all families in 1963 was about $6,200; but for families headed by college graduates, the median was $9,700. The median for all families was about $290, or 5 percent, higher than in 1962. Consumer prices rose during this period by about 1 percent; therefore, not all of this amount represented a net gain in purchasing power for the average family.1 Median family income in current dollars has more than doubled in the postwar period (from about $3,000 in 1947 to about $6,200 in 1963). This rise was accompanied by a gradual upward shift of families on the income scale. However, consumer prices have risen substantially during this period so that only about three-fifths of the increase in current-dollar incomes represented an increase in real income. In terms of constant (1963) dollars, median family income increased from $4,200 in 1947 to $6,200 in 1963. This increase was less pronounced than the increase in current-dollar income, but it was nevertheless substantial.”

4death4 3y ago

The average household also includes empty nesters and people who have moved out yet haven't started a family yet. The average number of children per family in the 60s was 2.3, which means quite a few families had 3 or 4 children.

bugbuddy 3y ago
According to our experience of the last 7 years, we should expect interest rate cuts, tax cuts, and more fiscal expansion either at the same time or in some sequence. Each of them will help solve our problem. There is no fiscal conservative left in America.
- voisin 3y ago
  > There is no fiscal conservative left in America. Truer words have never been spoken. Fiscal conservatism died with Reagan.
  - sanp 3y ago
    Yes, Reagan the fiscal conservative who tripled the deficit and national debt: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_reaganomics.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/e...
    - imtringued 3y ago
      Greek austerity imposed by Germans had resulted in the doubling of debt as percentage of GDP.
      - Rinzler89 3y ago
        Which Germans imposed Greek austerity? AFAIK Greek austerity was imposed by Greece's major creditors, but Germany was only one of many.
        3y ago

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> There are good reasons to hold politicians to task for recent abnormally high inflation. Well, maybe 25% for the budget deficits. The Fed is responsible for 75%. They keep over-goosing the economy. They keep saturating the money supply. That devaluing is what inflation reflects. That is your money is worth less (and appears like prices going up).

shrubble 3y ago

You can listen to Bing Crosby's Christmas album, to the song "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas", where the parents having 4 children (household size thus 6) is described, as an anecdotal supporting note... since it was a popular song for the masses, 4 kids was not seen as unusual.

thebigman433 3y ago
You cant seriously be comparing actual cited stats for household size to lyrics from a song that was popular?
- shrubble 3y ago
  I specifically stated it was anecdotal... here are the census stats in graph form however: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/fm-3.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat... ; 2.5 kids plus 2 adults is 4.5 in the household.
  - thebigman433 3y ago
    4.5 in the household is very specifically not 4 kids, like you claim is common. Just an insane random hill to die on
    - shrubble 3y ago
      You're deliberately misunderstanding. Have a nice day.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Why not? Stats are numbers compiled for someone at some point. A song this popular is a snapshot into how people lived and perceived themselves back then. A measurement of sorts. A disagreement between the two is a good indicator that the stats are suspect, or not the right stats to be looking at

TeMPOraL 3y ago

That's missing forest for the trees. The more important part is that average 3.7 people household was a single-income one. I would rather disagree with GP's: > My point is that inflation isn’t abstract and it isn’t a law of nature. It’s a deliberate approach to stealing your prosperity while you cheer it on. A lot of the inflation, including how suddenly a single-income household isn't a viable option for most people in the West, is market working as intended - quickly consuming any surplus money, should it suddenly become greater than 0 on average, and slowly eating into any value that isn't bare-minimum strictly necessary to move a product.

michaelt 3y ago
> That's missing forest for the trees. However, when a person is making a post saying "don't trust those dodgy manipulated numbers" and offering alternative numbers, their post is a lot less convincing if their numbers are also dodgy
- tarsinge 3y ago
  I didn’t get they said the numbers were dodgy or manipulated. Don’t make the typical straw man when discussing inflation that people challenging the current formula for CPI are challenging the underlying data and so are conspiracists. The point is the relevance of the indicator. In fact the very article is about a different value if we take an older formula.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    A number can be dodgy and manipulated without being outright fraudulent. And in politics it's rare someone will outright lie - I'm sure you've heard the term "lies, damn lies and statistics". For example, during the pandemic the UK government set itself a target for covid testing, then proudly announced that they'd hit their target - but it turned out they were not counting the number of tests processed in labs but instead the number of test kits sent out by mail regardless of whether they were received, returned, or processed - allowing them to declare success before increasing lab capacity. It's not outright fraudulent, but it's questionable and errs in a politically convenient direction - that's a dodgy number. And as I understand it, the claim in this discussion is that the government changed the definition of inflation, in a way that made the number lower? And that it now doesn't accurately reflect what it purports to reflect? Sounds like dodgy manipulated numbers to me.

littlestymaar 3y ago

This, and also the myth that only the men used to work and provide for the needs of their family: while is was true in the growing middle class it wasn't the case in the popular class at all.