3 ms·

Comparing living standards over time

• angersock 12y ago
  The big problem with this article is that it is going about things all wrong. $10 in 1964 goes a hell of a lot further than $10 today. The author makes the point that cars were worse, TVs sucked, and basically that consumer goods were worse. I posit that that is not a reasonable metric. Consider this statement: I say I prefer $100k today to $100k in 1964, that being a nominal rather than a real comparison. If you are not convinced, try comparing $1 million or $1 billion (nominal) today to 1964. For some income level, we have seen net deflation. If that preference is made, the author is thinking like a consumer. How much real-estate could you buy for 100K in 1964? How much investing could you do? How much long-term security do you think you could accrue? The problem is very much that, on the lower end ($10), today is worse than 1964. On the middle end, or even the upper-middle class end, investing and long-term positions are harder to maintain as profitably as they once were. Sure, the bars are gilded better than they used to be, but there are more of them and on a smaller cage. (Also, let's set aside issues of gender/race/etc. for this, because that's a whole 'nother discussion in itself. There, at least, we've made some progress. I think.)