3 ms·

What 2021-2024? Check the prices of the flagship 1975 Ferrari, the flagship 1975 Hasselblad camera, or, I don't know, a 1975 Cessna 182 in reference to median

What 2021-2024? Check the prices of the flagship 1975 Ferrari, the flagship 1975 Hasselblad camera, or, I don't know, a 1975 Cessna 182 in reference to median 1975 household income. Then check it again for 2026. Oh, but we have GPS, Amazon Prime, and doomscrolling now. Thanks, I'd rather take the Cessna.

saxenaabhi 2mo ago
with a much higher chance of dying in 1975 Cessna 182? I suspect most rational consumers won't. Because of safety improvement they aren't comparable goods.
- Tostino 2mo ago
  What improvements in GA since 1975? They are very slow to change from what I understand. There are a ton of airframes from that era still flying today. I mean, yeah at the top end things have gotten nicer.
  - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
    >What improvements in GA since 1975? They are very slow to change from what I understand. Which is exactly why they make a great comparison point. Harder to get bad faith sidetracked by "but your modern car has airbags" and "but your modern house is marginally bigger" type commentary when the actual product has barely changed.
- sssilver 2mo ago
  My friend, the 2026 Cessna 182 is basically the same airplane as it was in 1975, with digital screens instead of analog gauges, except now it costs about $750,000. That's a whopping $735,000 increase over its base price of ~$15,000 USD back in 1975 for a brand-new airplane. I promise, those avionics aren't worth $735,000. We've just gotten much, much poorer. EDIT: Heck, if this doesn't convince you, here's another set of numbers: 1. $15,000 of 1975 dollars is about ~$95,000 of 2026 dollars 2. A heavily used 1975 Cessna 182 today costs about $150,000
- ang_cire 2mo ago
  > with a much higher chance of dying in 1975 Cessna 182 Tell me you're not a pilot without telling me...
infofarmer 2mo ago
The most jarring effect is to look at incomes in ounces of gold before and after 1971. Explains a lot of things.
- toomuchtodo 2mo ago
  Workers have become ~90% more productive over the last forty years, and received very little of that value, while the US throws off ~$5T in profits per year to shareholders. There is a reason socialism has become palatable politically recently to the electorate, and will continue to be until the labor situation changes.
  - MattDamonSpace 2mo ago
    Most Americans are shareholders, I’m all for spreading the wealth but don’t ignore why there’s so much to spread. Americans reinvest for profit
    - toomuchtodo 2mo ago
      Factually inaccurate as it relates to equity exposure (“shareholders”). There is no evidence of “wealth spreading” beyond a token gesture. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-owns-americas-wealth/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-o... https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2025/june/the-state-of-us-household-wealth https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2025/june/the-state-of... > The top 10% of households by wealth had $8.1 million on average. As a group, they held 67.2% of total household wealth. The bottom 50% of households by wealth had $60,000 on average. As a group, they held 2.5% of total household wealth. > The top 20% of households by income had $4.3 million in wealth on average. As a group, they held 71.1% of total household wealth. The bottom 20% of households by income had $180,000 in wealth on average. As a group, they held 3% of total household wealth. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-9... Top 10% owns 93% of equities. Middle class wealth is primary residence real estate, representing roughly 60% to 80% of total household wealth. > In any event, stock market booms have traditionally produced the largest rewards for those who are already wealthy. That's because the wealthiest US households have most of their assets tied up in equities, while most middle-class families have their assets tied up in housing, researchers said in a 2020 study. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of Americans held just 1% of all stocks in the third quarter of 2023. https://eig.org/whos-left-out-of-americas-retirement-savings-system/ https://eig.org/whos-left-out-of-americas-retirement-savings... > The latest data show that 42.0 percent of full-time working Americans do not have access to retirement plans, 44.1 percent do not participate, and 50.5 percent do not receive an employer match. (Note that these figures are for employed workers between the ages of 18 and 65, excluding government and self-employed workers.) https://www.gao.gov/financial-security-older-americans https://www.gao.gov/financial-security-older-americans > Even for those who do have access, traditional defined benefit pensions have become much less common as defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, have become the primary type of retirement plan. This shift has increased the risks and responsibilities for individuals in planning and managing their retirement. Yet research shows that many households are ill-equipped for this task and have little or no retirement savings. As of 2022, about half of households with a worker age 55 and older had no retirement savings, and 32% had no retirement savings or a defined benefit plan.
rexpop 2mo ago
I'm sorry—vapid trappings of conspicuous consumption? You've just named three vacuous toys, whereas GPS and e-commerce deliver real value to working people. Doomscrolling, I agree, is a devastatingly poor substitute for a real civic life.
- dnautics 2mo ago
  everyone can cherry pick data to whatever economic conclusion they seek
- sssilver 2mo ago
  The whole point is that it is not to the "working people" that the "real value" is "delivered". The real people got the crumbs and were told to appreciate it. Almost all of the value went to those who one might call "unreal" people.
  - tayo42 2mo ago
    Gps didn't provide value to regular people?
    - sssilver 2mo ago
      it absolutely did. Those were the crumbs I was referring to. It enrages me, because "they" took all the value, and told us "my god, how immoral and vulgar it would be of you to covet the vapid trappings of conspicuous consumption! Instead, how wonderful it is that you can drive your car from your house to our offices in the morning, and our businesses in the evenings, avoiding traffic in service of shareholder value, while teaching our systems everything about yourself, so that we can market even more goods and services to you, even more insidiously, all thanks to GPS!" They told us this while driving the Ferraris and flying the private airplanes. And so many of us now come and say "oh, how immoral -- desiring an object of desire! Isn't it so nice that we can now build shareholder value more productively using GPS?" Sorry, but no. It isn't nice.
      - rexpop 2mo ago

saxenaabhi 2mo ago

with a much higher chance of dying in 1975 Cessna 182? I suspect most rational consumers won't. Because of safety improvement they aren't comparable goods.

Tostino 2mo ago
What improvements in GA since 1975? They are very slow to change from what I understand. There are a ton of airframes from that era still flying today. I mean, yeah at the top end things have gotten nicer.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago
  >What improvements in GA since 1975? They are very slow to change from what I understand. Which is exactly why they make a great comparison point. Harder to get bad faith sidetracked by "but your modern car has airbags" and "but your modern house is marginally bigger" type commentary when the actual product has barely changed.
sssilver 2mo ago
My friend, the 2026 Cessna 182 is basically the same airplane as it was in 1975, with digital screens instead of analog gauges, except now it costs about $750,000. That's a whopping $735,000 increase over its base price of ~$15,000 USD back in 1975 for a brand-new airplane. I promise, those avionics aren't worth $735,000. We've just gotten much, much poorer. EDIT: Heck, if this doesn't convince you, here's another set of numbers: 1. $15,000 of 1975 dollars is about ~$95,000 of 2026 dollars 2. A heavily used 1975 Cessna 182 today costs about $150,000
ang_cire 2mo ago
> with a much higher chance of dying in 1975 Cessna 182 Tell me you're not a pilot without telling me...

infofarmer 2mo ago

The most jarring effect is to look at incomes in ounces of gold before and after 1971. Explains a lot of things.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago
Workers have become ~90% more productive over the last forty years, and received very little of that value, while the US throws off ~$5T in profits per year to shareholders. There is a reason socialism has become palatable politically recently to the electorate, and will continue to be until the labor situation changes.
- MattDamonSpace 2mo ago
  Most Americans are shareholders, I’m all for spreading the wealth but don’t ignore why there’s so much to spread. Americans reinvest for profit
  - toomuchtodo 2mo ago
    Factually inaccurate as it relates to equity exposure (“shareholders”). There is no evidence of “wealth spreading” beyond a token gesture. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-owns-americas-wealth/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-o... https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2025/june/the-state-of-us-household-wealth https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2025/june/the-state-of... > The top 10% of households by wealth had $8.1 million on average. As a group, they held 67.2% of total household wealth. The bottom 50% of households by wealth had $60,000 on average. As a group, they held 2.5% of total household wealth. > The top 20% of households by income had $4.3 million in wealth on average. As a group, they held 71.1% of total household wealth. The bottom 20% of households by income had $180,000 in wealth on average. As a group, they held 3% of total household wealth. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-9... Top 10% owns 93% of equities. Middle class wealth is primary residence real estate, representing roughly 60% to 80% of total household wealth. > In any event, stock market booms have traditionally produced the largest rewards for those who are already wealthy. That's because the wealthiest US households have most of their assets tied up in equities, while most middle-class families have their assets tied up in housing, researchers said in a 2020 study. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of Americans held just 1% of all stocks in the third quarter of 2023. https://eig.org/whos-left-out-of-americas-retirement-savings-system/ https://eig.org/whos-left-out-of-americas-retirement-savings... > The latest data show that 42.0 percent of full-time working Americans do not have access to retirement plans, 44.1 percent do not participate, and 50.5 percent do not receive an employer match. (Note that these figures are for employed workers between the ages of 18 and 65, excluding government and self-employed workers.) https://www.gao.gov/financial-security-older-americans https://www.gao.gov/financial-security-older-americans > Even for those who do have access, traditional defined benefit pensions have become much less common as defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, have become the primary type of retirement plan. This shift has increased the risks and responsibilities for individuals in planning and managing their retirement. Yet research shows that many households are ill-equipped for this task and have little or no retirement savings. As of 2022, about half of households with a worker age 55 and older had no retirement savings, and 32% had no retirement savings or a defined benefit plan.

rexpop 2mo ago

I'm sorry—vapid trappings of conspicuous consumption? You've just named three vacuous toys, whereas GPS and e-commerce deliver real value to working people. Doomscrolling, I agree, is a devastatingly poor substitute for a real civic life.

dnautics 2mo ago
everyone can cherry pick data to whatever economic conclusion they seek
sssilver 2mo ago
The whole point is that it is not to the "working people" that the "real value" is "delivered". The real people got the crumbs and were told to appreciate it. Almost all of the value went to those who one might call "unreal" people.
- tayo42 2mo ago
  Gps didn't provide value to regular people?
  - sssilver 2mo ago
    it absolutely did. Those were the crumbs I was referring to. It enrages me, because "they" took all the value, and told us "my god, how immoral and vulgar it would be of you to covet the vapid trappings of conspicuous consumption! Instead, how wonderful it is that you can drive your car from your house to our offices in the morning, and our businesses in the evenings, avoiding traffic in service of shareholder value, while teaching our systems everything about yourself, so that we can market even more goods and services to you, even more insidiously, all thanks to GPS!" They told us this while driving the Ferraris and flying the private airplanes. And so many of us now come and say "oh, how immoral -- desiring an object of desire! Isn't it so nice that we can now build shareholder value more productively using GPS?" Sorry, but no. It isn't nice.
    - rexpop 2mo ago