"This is without precedent in U.S. history"

Quote from hoodooman:

Not true. There were far more single-worker households back in the day.

Real salaries were much higher.
------------------------------------------------

Stop watching Ozzie and Harriet reruns.:D
More...

My grandparents and most of their friends had one breadwinner in the family.

Most workers at my grandfathers business were the sole earner in their household.

How about you?
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

Most acute was off of the 2002 low. Government kept harping about "productivity, above average GDP", "inflation only 1-2%"

TRUTH was that the GDP number was phony-balony... had a high component of inflation in that calculation... MUCH higher than the "don't worry, be happy 1-2%" the government was telling us. (My estimation of inflation during that time was something in the neighborhood of 8%.).

High inflation rate coupled with job outsourcing = "average decline in real wages."
More...

You got it. GDP has been flat/declining for a while. Just paper gains that look good.
 
Quote from achilles28:

You still haven't explained how familys in the 60's got by with one breadwinner. And now, the average family needs two.
More...

Because back then the average family had one breadwinner. Now the average family has two. Therefore, to keep up with the average, two incomes are required.

In between "then" and "now" were a whole bunch of years where a family could get ahead of its peers by having an extra wage earner - this being capitalism, that advantage has been more or less erased by people rushing in to take advantage of it. So now two wage earners just keeps you even.

In addition, because of the increase in real household income, the very definition of "keeping even" has changed. Now it's a McMansion, whereas before it was a bungalow in a LevittTown.

Not very complicated at all, basic market principles.

Re: inflation, your comments are irrelevant until you put together a comprehensive replacement. Until you do, you're just making up numbers to suit your argument.

Cheers.
 
Quote from Random.Capital:

You are on a impressive roll of incorrectness. Inflation-adjusted per capita incomes for the US, in 2006 dollars:

1967 - $12,711

2006 - $26,352
More...


I think you just proved him correct.

12,711 in 1967 is equal to 76,722.68 in 2006 according to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

So how do you call him incorrect while the info you provide supports his claim?

If I bought a Cadillac in 67 for 4k that would be less then 1/3 my annual income.
A 1968 VW Beetle was $1800. 1/7 annual income
 
My grandparents and most of their friends had one breadwinner in the family.

Most workers at my grandfathers business were the sole earner in their household.

How about you?
------------------------------------------

Great statistical sample you have there. Congratulations.

:D
 
I'm in RC's camp.

Things considered "expensive" today-like gasoline, food and apparel were more expensive then. Life before Walmart and China was not consumer heaven. Hell a pair of cheap shoes was a two day salary.

I'm 48. I can remember in the '60's when a solid attendance year for the Chicago Cubs (and for most teams) was a million fans. Today if you don't draw two million, owners are crying in their soup.

I can remember when as a teenager we'd ride the "L" to the parking lots near the CBOT to see an actual Ferrari. Today I can't go a mile without seeing a Bentley. BMW's and Benz's litter the streets like Impala's used to.

Back then "eating out" was a special treat. "Brown bagging" it was a typical lunch. Today, I know people who brag about eating every meal in a restaurant. Not to mention paying for cable, internet. I remember when airline tickets were so expensive fliers dressed like they were going to church.

What IS expensive compared to then? ASSETS!!

Quote from achilles28:

My grandparents and most of their friends had one breadwinner in the family.

Most workers at my grandfathers business were the sole earner in their household.

How about you?
More...
 
Quote from achilles28:


You still haven't explained how familys in the 60's got by with one breadwinner. And now, the average family needs two. Please explain.
More...

I disagree. The average family now WANTS two breadwinners. Why do they WANT two breadwinners? Because they have two SUV's, a brand new LCD flatscreen, and an enormous mortgage to pay for! I suspect that if the average family scaled back and lived 1960's style, they would be able to get by with one breadwinner.
 
Picture time

from Household income blues

A cost of living index would be nice to compare this against, but am having trouble finding one.

hh1.png


rhh1.png


Capitalism, the rich get richer and the poor get told a story about how much better off they are today compared to say 30 years ago. That is funny because incomes during the Carter years stayed ahead of inflation and job growth on an annualized basis saw more jobs created under Carter than Reagan. I don't know how one say your better off today than then unless you really value bullshit gadgets like ipods.
 
My grandparents and most of their friends had one breadwinner in the family.

Most workers at my grandfathers business were the sole earner in their household.

How about you?
-----------------------------------------------------
I went to work for NASA when I was 22 and my take home pay was $67.00 a week.

I retired when I was 50 years old.

How about you.
 
Quote from Rick James:

I think you just proved him correct.

12,711 in 1967 is equal to 76,722.68 in 2006 according to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

So how do you call him incorrect while the info you provide supports his claim?

If I bought a Cadillac in 67 for 4k that would be less then 1/3 my annual income.
A 1968 VW Beetle was $1800. 1/7 annual income
More...

I think the 1967 number of $12,711 has already been converted to 2006 dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top