3 ms·

... also, the 2014 number is with two incomes, expensive and shitty healthcare, unaffordable real estate, and ridiculous college tuitions.

maxerickson 12y ago
That is the narrative of anger. On the other hand, there are 113 million households and 155 million people in the work force, so 2 incomes isn't typical for a household (It's only possible for ...oops). Edit: (This ignores people collecting benefits or retirement payments, but I guess those aren't bleak signals. It makes the statement I had made about 1/3 nonsense though.) Much of the care that makes medicine expensive simply wasn't available in the 1960s, so is a hard sell as a regression (you know, trauma care, the huge improvements in care for heart disease, the huge improvements in treatment of cancer, the panoply of drugs that treat conditions that may or may not exist, etc). Real estate is expensive in many cities, but in towns, you can't sell a 2,000 square foot house, never mind selling it at a price resembling expensive. Real estate pricing is a symptom of other things going on in the economy, not a particularly huge problem all on its own. Mean student debt runs less than $30,000 and activists won't even report the median. Pointing out what is wrong (if anything significant...) with this article might make for some good discussions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/09/24/five-myths-about-college-debt/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/09/2... None of that means I think that the U.S. system of paying for health care is sensible or that I am opposed to figuring out a better way to make education available or anything like that.
- paletoy 12y ago
  in 2010 , "fewer than one in three (28.7 percent) children now have a stay-at-home parent, compared to more than half (52.6 percent) in 1975" [1] With regards to healthcare ,health care in other places in the world is just as good and much cheaper. And about real estate: isn't finding a good job while living in a small town quite a big problem ? [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-paycheck-couples-are-quickly-becoming-the-norm/2012/04/18/gIQALSzlRT_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-paycheck-couples-...
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The interesting thing to figure out about the 2 income family thing is how much of it is people choosing to work and how much of it is people working out of necessity. A lot of things have happened in the past 50 years to change how people are making the choice. I have to concede that I haven't provided evidence to dismiss economic necessity as a driver of the change. For healthcare, I tried to frame it in terms of things not having gotten worse. That isn't anything to be terribly proud of, but an angry claim about health care in the U.S. declining since the 1960s needs an awful lot of evidence and should probably be quite specific. There are lots of reasons I think a facile comparison of expense isn't very interesting, but a big one is that high end medicine (test all the things) doesn't have much impact on things like medicaid or access to antibiotics.
    - paletoy 12y ago
      Max, surely healthcare(at the level available at the time) was much more affordable in 64. Just at the share of healthcare as part of GDP(which rises at maybe double than inflation for a long time) - the general inequality in society.And people in general are angry about this affordability issue, while greatly appreciating the miracles of medicine(reflected in high end medicine). Also some people are angry about the somewhat lacking quality of medicine. And they are probably right - more affordable/equitable healthcare can be had while still having high quality medicine. And the problem with quality in healthcare is also a problem we can solve much of through better tools and procedures.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  No, that is the narrative of twice as much work for the same compensation, and of the working class missing out on all of the productivity gains of the last 40 years. >Much of the care that makes medicine expensive simply wasn't available in the 1960s, so is a hard sell as a regression So was it only that medical care that increased in cost, or was it all medical care? >Real estate pricing is a symptom of other things going on in the economy, not a particularly huge problem all on its own. I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. >Mean student debt runs less than $30,000 and activists won't even report the median Is this supposed to be a low number compared to the numbers from 50 years ago? And your reference, while attacking the use of the mean as deceptive, intentionally conflates the amount of debt that a student has when he/she leaves university with the cost of education.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Right, it's a narrative. What are the numbers? It's clear enough that the working class has gotten the short end of the stick over that time period, but some actual exposition of what has happened is more interesting than declarations that something happened (that's pointed more at the first post I replied to, not at your response). Real estate in general isn't all that expensive. The fact that desirable jobs are concentrated has driven up prices in some areas; if employment were better in general, those jobs would likely be (relatively) less desirable and it is likely the price pressure would relax. Coming at it from a different direction, the price of housing in San Francisco or Brooklyn simply isn't relevant to an awful lot of people (edit: which sounds dismissive of the problems it causes for people local to those areas; that isn't what I was trying to do, I was talking about the many millions far away from those metros). The positions cast in that article are definitely the weaker part of it. But $30,000 of debt is not a huge liability to take on in order to gain access to a better career path. I don't mean to argue against reducing it, I'm just not convinced it is outrageous.
- TwiztidK 12y ago
  > Mean student debt runs less than $30,000 and activists won't even report the median. Most of the people I knew in college weren't paying for it themselves, a parent or other relative covered most of it. The students who were paying for everything always had the standard $27,000 in Stafford loans plus whatever else they needed in a different type of loan. I know many people who exceeded $50K in student loans. I'm not saying my experience is the norm, but the commonly posted student loan figures can be very misleading for either side.

maxerickson 12y ago

That is the narrative of anger. On the other hand, there are 113 million households and 155 million people in the work force, so 2 incomes isn't typical for a household (It's only possible for ...oops). Edit: (This ignores people collecting benefits or retirement payments, but I guess those aren't bleak signals. It makes the statement I had made about 1/3 nonsense though.) Much of the care that makes medicine expensive simply wasn't available in the 1960s, so is a hard sell as a regression (you know, trauma care, the huge improvements in care for heart disease, the huge improvements in treatment of cancer, the panoply of drugs that treat conditions that may or may not exist, etc). Real estate is expensive in many cities, but in towns, you can't sell a 2,000 square foot house, never mind selling it at a price resembling expensive. Real estate pricing is a symptom of other things going on in the economy, not a particularly huge problem all on its own. Mean student debt runs less than $30,000 and activists won't even report the median. Pointing out what is wrong (if anything significant...) with this article might make for some good discussions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/09/24/five-myths-about-college-debt/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/09/2... None of that means I think that the U.S. system of paying for health care is sensible or that I am opposed to figuring out a better way to make education available or anything like that.

paletoy 12y ago
in 2010 , "fewer than one in three (28.7 percent) children now have a stay-at-home parent, compared to more than half (52.6 percent) in 1975" [1] With regards to healthcare ,health care in other places in the world is just as good and much cheaper. And about real estate: isn't finding a good job while living in a small town quite a big problem ? [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-paycheck-couples-are-quickly-becoming-the-norm/2012/04/18/gIQALSzlRT_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-paycheck-couples-...
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The interesting thing to figure out about the 2 income family thing is how much of it is people choosing to work and how much of it is people working out of necessity. A lot of things have happened in the past 50 years to change how people are making the choice. I have to concede that I haven't provided evidence to dismiss economic necessity as a driver of the change. For healthcare, I tried to frame it in terms of things not having gotten worse. That isn't anything to be terribly proud of, but an angry claim about health care in the U.S. declining since the 1960s needs an awful lot of evidence and should probably be quite specific. There are lots of reasons I think a facile comparison of expense isn't very interesting, but a big one is that high end medicine (test all the things) doesn't have much impact on things like medicaid or access to antibiotics.
  - paletoy 12y ago
    Max, surely healthcare(at the level available at the time) was much more affordable in 64. Just at the share of healthcare as part of GDP(which rises at maybe double than inflation for a long time) - the general inequality in society.And people in general are angry about this affordability issue, while greatly appreciating the miracles of medicine(reflected in high end medicine). Also some people are angry about the somewhat lacking quality of medicine. And they are probably right - more affordable/equitable healthcare can be had while still having high quality medicine. And the problem with quality in healthcare is also a problem we can solve much of through better tools and procedures.
pessimizer 12y ago
No, that is the narrative of twice as much work for the same compensation, and of the working class missing out on all of the productivity gains of the last 40 years. >Much of the care that makes medicine expensive simply wasn't available in the 1960s, so is a hard sell as a regression So was it only that medical care that increased in cost, or was it all medical care? >Real estate pricing is a symptom of other things going on in the economy, not a particularly huge problem all on its own. I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. >Mean student debt runs less than $30,000 and activists won't even report the median Is this supposed to be a low number compared to the numbers from 50 years ago? And your reference, while attacking the use of the mean as deceptive, intentionally conflates the amount of debt that a student has when he/she leaves university with the cost of education.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Right, it's a narrative. What are the numbers? It's clear enough that the working class has gotten the short end of the stick over that time period, but some actual exposition of what has happened is more interesting than declarations that something happened (that's pointed more at the first post I replied to, not at your response). Real estate in general isn't all that expensive. The fact that desirable jobs are concentrated has driven up prices in some areas; if employment were better in general, those jobs would likely be (relatively) less desirable and it is likely the price pressure would relax. Coming at it from a different direction, the price of housing in San Francisco or Brooklyn simply isn't relevant to an awful lot of people (edit: which sounds dismissive of the problems it causes for people local to those areas; that isn't what I was trying to do, I was talking about the many millions far away from those metros). The positions cast in that article are definitely the weaker part of it. But $30,000 of debt is not a huge liability to take on in order to gain access to a better career path. I don't mean to argue against reducing it, I'm just not convinced it is outrageous.
TwiztidK 12y ago
> Mean student debt runs less than $30,000 and activists won't even report the median. Most of the people I knew in college weren't paying for it themselves, a parent or other relative covered most of it. The students who were paying for everything always had the standard $27,000 in Stafford loans plus whatever else they needed in a different type of loan. I know many people who exceeded $50K in student loans. I'm not saying my experience is the norm, but the commonly posted student loan figures can be very misleading for either side.