4 ms·

It mostly didn't for the past 50 years though: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/23410.jpeg https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/23

It mostly didn't for the past 50 years though: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/23410.jpeg https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/23410.jpeg That's the whole problem, nobody would care if they could afford the same standard of living as their parents.

simianwords 1y ago
> nobody would care if they could afford the same standard of living as their parents This is untrue - the consumption patterns (after accounting for inflation) of the bottom 20% in 2025 are way higher than in 1970s. Almost 60-70% higher. Almost everyone is better off today than before. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59510 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59510 has some clues. I encourage you to do your own research on it. Try to answer this question: are we as a society materially better off today than 50 years ago? Surprisingly your image while it doesn't show the full picture, still shows that the living standards haven't reduced.
- lm28469 1y ago
  "b-bu-but people can buy more slop and chinese gadgets, why aren't they happy?" That's how you sound... they're unhappy because they can't afford a house or kids, because jobs are increasing precarious and unstable, &c. not because toilet paper and avocados are now 5% cheaper than in 1949 My (unskilled, uneducated) grandpa worked in the same place his whole life, afforded 4 kids and a flat on one income. I'm in the top 10% earners, so is my wife, I can't afford a flat that would be big enough for 2 kids.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    This is a different argument from real wages having not increased for 50 years, which is false.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    They can't afford kids because of a totally different reason. The poorest countries have the highest fertility rates. The richest ones the lowest. Yes housing is proportionally higher but home ownership is pretty much constant https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N Crucially the cost of everything else has come down dramatically to balance for rise in home prices. > I'm in the top 10% earners, so is my wife, I can't afford a flat that would be big enough for 2 kids. This is true but this is not because CEO wages are rising but despite it. IMO this is happening because people moved to the cities and enough houses were not built in time (you try to answer the question as to why). Your grandfather probably lived in a rural part of the country and could afford a big house where there was no demand - something you can still do now. There is another reason housing prices have also gone up which is not talked about often - while prices of other things reduced people had more to spend on other things. They chose to put remaining on housing because.. well where else would you put it?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - bumby 1y ago
      Kids are generally an asset in poor countries and a liability in rich ones. That doesn’t negate the fact that those distinctions are drawn from societal causes. >home ownership is pretty much constant I’m not convinced this metric is as good as you imply. It may just imply people are more buried in debt. If you look at the proportion of debt-to-GDP, household debt went from ~15.8% in the 1940s to peaking at 128% just before the financial crises, and settling to lower levels since then. There’s a difference between “owning a home” and “living in the banks collateral”
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  Please do the "things are better off today" bit with hospital services, college tuition, and child care.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    Let’s be holistic and look at life expectancy? And child mortality? Also look at percentage of people who have degrees from universities? I agree things didn’t get uniformly better but it is clear that today is more preferable to live in than 50 years ago.
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      No. Look at them directly. In terms of value and cost. Switching the rubric to fit the argument is dishonest.
      - simianwords 1y ago
        You switched the rubric first. The real consumption has gone up and cost of living has come down. Other things have gone up because things are not uniform. Shall we stick to real disposable income as the rubric?
        kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Even if we accept your changing the rubric, that fails to reflect reality too. The gap between wages and cost of living has continued to increase[1]. I'm unsure why you would want to change the rubric to something that doesn't support your claims. What level of evidence would change your mind? 1. https://archive.is/Uaw4c https://archive.is/Uaw4c
        simianwords 1y ago
        I can't be analysing stuff from a think tank with 2 to 10 employees. If you have more credible sources from bigger institutions I would be happy to look at it. I hope you can understand how this complicates things because every subject has many sides to it.. of course its worth looking at all but I do put my threshold at slightly larger institutes.
mothballed 1y ago
How crazy would it be if the final departure from the gold standard in 1971 meant that the average person with little financial or other education just totally lost their most meaningful 1 dimension metric of how much their wage goes up so it became way easier to pull the wool over their eyes. Not that it was totally accurate before, but the ability to use USD value alone as a measure of your Y/Y wage changes really went off the rails about 50 years ago. It's not the only factor, of course.

simianwords 1y ago

> nobody would care if they could afford the same standard of living as their parents This is untrue - the consumption patterns (after accounting for inflation) of the bottom 20% in 2025 are way higher than in 1970s. Almost 60-70% higher. Almost everyone is better off today than before. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59510 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59510 has some clues. I encourage you to do your own research on it. Try to answer this question: are we as a society materially better off today than 50 years ago? Surprisingly your image while it doesn't show the full picture, still shows that the living standards haven't reduced.

lm28469 1y ago
"b-bu-but people can buy more slop and chinese gadgets, why aren't they happy?" That's how you sound... they're unhappy because they can't afford a house or kids, because jobs are increasing precarious and unstable, &c. not because toilet paper and avocados are now 5% cheaper than in 1949 My (unskilled, uneducated) grandpa worked in the same place his whole life, afforded 4 kids and a flat on one income. I'm in the top 10% earners, so is my wife, I can't afford a flat that would be big enough for 2 kids.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  This is a different argument from real wages having not increased for 50 years, which is false.
- simianwords 1y ago
  They can't afford kids because of a totally different reason. The poorest countries have the highest fertility rates. The richest ones the lowest. Yes housing is proportionally higher but home ownership is pretty much constant https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N Crucially the cost of everything else has come down dramatically to balance for rise in home prices. > I'm in the top 10% earners, so is my wife, I can't afford a flat that would be big enough for 2 kids. This is true but this is not because CEO wages are rising but despite it. IMO this is happening because people moved to the cities and enough houses were not built in time (you try to answer the question as to why). Your grandfather probably lived in a rural part of the country and could afford a big house where there was no demand - something you can still do now. There is another reason housing prices have also gone up which is not talked about often - while prices of other things reduced people had more to spend on other things. They chose to put remaining on housing because.. well where else would you put it?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bumby 1y ago
    Kids are generally an asset in poor countries and a liability in rich ones. That doesn’t negate the fact that those distinctions are drawn from societal causes. >home ownership is pretty much constant I’m not convinced this metric is as good as you imply. It may just imply people are more buried in debt. If you look at the proportion of debt-to-GDP, household debt went from ~15.8% in the 1940s to peaking at 128% just before the financial crises, and settling to lower levels since then. There’s a difference between “owning a home” and “living in the banks collateral”
kelseyfrog 1y ago
Please do the "things are better off today" bit with hospital services, college tuition, and child care.
- simianwords 1y ago
  Let’s be holistic and look at life expectancy? And child mortality? Also look at percentage of people who have degrees from universities? I agree things didn’t get uniformly better but it is clear that today is more preferable to live in than 50 years ago.
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    No. Look at them directly. In terms of value and cost. Switching the rubric to fit the argument is dishonest.
    - simianwords 1y ago
      You switched the rubric first. The real consumption has gone up and cost of living has come down. Other things have gone up because things are not uniform. Shall we stick to real disposable income as the rubric?
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        Even if we accept your changing the rubric, that fails to reflect reality too. The gap between wages and cost of living has continued to increase[1]. I'm unsure why you would want to change the rubric to something that doesn't support your claims. What level of evidence would change your mind? 1. https://archive.is/Uaw4c https://archive.is/Uaw4c
        simianwords 1y ago
        I can't be analysing stuff from a think tank with 2 to 10 employees. If you have more credible sources from bigger institutions I would be happy to look at it. I hope you can understand how this complicates things because every subject has many sides to it.. of course its worth looking at all but I do put my threshold at slightly larger institutes.

mothballed 1y ago

How crazy would it be if the final departure from the gold standard in 1971 meant that the average person with little financial or other education just totally lost their most meaningful 1 dimension metric of how much their wage goes up so it became way easier to pull the wool over their eyes. Not that it was totally accurate before, but the ability to use USD value alone as a measure of your Y/Y wage changes really went off the rails about 50 years ago. It's not the only factor, of course.