Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › OT: September 2012 Jobs Report “Very Suspicious”
- This topic has 117 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 8, 2015 at 9:00 PM #782779February 8, 2015 at 9:36 PM #782781
scaredyclassic
ParticipantWine and beer are much better quality and cheaper I think. It was hard to get good cheap wine in the 70s. Of course it was hard for me to get alcohol generally as I was underage for a good chunk of those yrs. And had to drink whatever was avaliable.
February 9, 2015 at 12:34 AM #782784CA renter
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Back in 1973, a single-earner family of four, with the single earner working in construction/plumbing/electrical/auto mechanics could live in a safe, clean neighborhood in a SFH in LA. They could own two affordable cars, too. Today, even a two-income family in those same industries, or something similar, would not be able to live in that same house or neighborhood[/quote]
It is worthless to use a single data point of local real estate values as proof of aggregate “purchasing power” arguments. The only thing your “statistic” says is that real estate was cheaper in certain neighborhoods in LA in 1973. That change is influenced far more by demographics than the general economy. Real estate costs more in LA because there are far more people in these areas. Same supply, more demand. There are plenty of cities where real estate is far cheaper today than it was in 1973. The town I grew up in is one of them.
Lots of people live in nice homes today on single incomes – most of the families on my street, most of my relatives. My neighbor, a plumber, has three cars (and any car you buy today is far better than any car that was even available in 1973.)
The question still stands: Other than manly jumpsuits, what is it that people cannot afford today?[/quote]
Did you watch the video where Elizabeth Warren goes into detail about this?
February 9, 2015 at 7:17 AM #782787Anonymous
Guest[quote=CA renter]Did you watch the video where Elizabeth Warren goes into detail about this?[/quote]
I’ve watched plenty of Elizabeth Warren. I believe she has good intentions but she clearly has a bias when presenting her data, and she certainly has no real solutions to the “problem” she emphasizes.
In this thread, I asked a straightforward commonsense question that is relevant to your “diminishing purchasing power” thesis. If you actually have an answer, it should possible to state it in just a few words – at most a few sentences. If the video provides the answer, then post it here.
Thus far you have completely failed to answer the question:
What are examples of things that ordinary folk were buying in 1973 that they cannot afford today?
February 9, 2015 at 9:53 AM #782793ParticipantComicswere cheaper even adjusted for inflation.
February 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM #782796an
Participant[quote=utcsox]The point to bring this thread back is to look back things that were said in 2012. Was BLS faking the number? Was the tax increase and Obamacare prevent business to hire? Was the “real inflation” rate as high as 10% if you factor in food cost?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Of course, now we want to talk about something else….[/quote]The answer is obvious in what way? “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”?
February 9, 2015 at 4:25 PM #782797flyer
ParticipantMy benchmark for rational comparison concerning financial matters (generational or otherwise) is always net worth. What people “appear to have” or are able to “buy” can be very misleading. The net worth figure is far more revealing.
February 9, 2015 at 7:03 PM #782799joec
Participant[quote=harvey]
Thus far you have completely failed to answer the question:What are examples of things that ordinary folk were buying in 1973 that they cannot afford today?[/quote]
Remember that the purpose of internet forums is never to debate or convince anyone of their way of thinking. No one here is going to change what they believe in so it’s really all a waste of time.
That said, I had to answer and say college costs in the 70s were more affordable than now. Back then, you could make a decent living even without a college degree. Good luck with that now for most folks. Ordinary folks could go to college if they wanted to and it was cheap.
Another item is healthcare. Back in the 70s, most people had much cheaper healthcare. I recently paid well over 12k for healthcare for me and my family of 4 and we are all insanely healthy (no smoke/drink/overweight) before Obamacare…
There are plenty of things I feel, but at the end of the day, people tend to look at things only from their view of the world/life/experience. This is why if you read any forum or talk to people, no one seems to “get it” since they only see the world from 1 angle.
I have no good solutions, but in the end, after I’m long gone, if things are bad enough, I think we’ll just end up with some revolution (more likely to happen in various parts of Europe with massively high youth unemployment first than here)…but a few super wealthy people see it and are concerned, but at the end of the day, if people are worst off and pissed off enough, it’ll just lead to more crime and people simply taking what they don’t have. It does no one any good in that type of world.
In America, it’s also easy to get guns so probably in 50 years, it maybe a bad/worst world here, but I’d be long dead so not my problem I guess.
February 9, 2015 at 7:36 PM #782800
svelteParticipant[quote=utcsox][quote=svelte][quote=utcsox]
Relax. This was supposed to be funny. LOL.[/quote]Give me a break! I may have been born at night, but not last night![/quote]
I don’t think anyone will seriously argue that one president record is superior because it created more government sector jobs especially one that is known to shrink the size of the government. I thought that was obvious.[/quote]
Let’s use some logic here: if you really did it for comedic effect, wouldn’t you have included the chart that showed Obama and Reagan added private sector jobs at about the same rate?
That would have really made it obvious you were using sarcasm.
As it stands, you were trying to pull a fast one and had your hand slapped.
February 9, 2015 at 8:04 PM #782801Guest[quote=joec]That said, I had to answer and say college costs in the 70s were more affordable than now. Back then, you could make a decent living even without a college degree. Good luck with that now for most folks. Ordinary folks could go to college if they wanted to and it was cheap.[/quote]
College is more expensive, but not as much as many people claim. In fact, it’s not much:
[quote]Another item is healthcare. Back in the 70s, most people had much cheaper healthcare. [/quote]
This is common flawed comparison. Do you think healthcare in the 70s was the same as it is today? Your health insurance today insures you against a lot more than it did in the 70s. Treatments for the most common killers, cardiovascular conditions and cancer, were not nearly as effective as they are today. It’s just not an apples-to-apples comparison. Sure, you paid less for total healthcare coverage. You got a lot less also.
Bottom line is the world has improved in big ways in the past four decades, and the American Middle class is enjoying the benefits.
February 9, 2015 at 9:22 PM #782803Participant[quote=joec][quote=harvey]
Thus far you have completely failed to answer the question:What are examples of things that ordinary folk were buying in 1973 that they cannot afford today?[/quote]
Remember that the purpose of internet forums is never to debate or convince anyone of their way of thinking. No one here is going to change what they believe in so it’s really all a waste of time.
That said, I had to answer and say college costs in the 70s were more affordable than now. Back then, you could make a decent living even without a college degree. Good luck with that now for most folks. Ordinary folks could go to college if they wanted to and it was cheap.
Another item is healthcare. Back in the 70s, most people had much cheaper healthcare. I recently paid well over 12k for healthcare for me and my family of 4 and we are all insanely healthy (no smoke/drink/overweight) before Obamacare…
There are plenty of things I feel, but at the end of the day, people tend to look at things only from their view of the world/life/experience. This is why if you read any forum or talk to people, no one seems to “get it” since they only see the world from 1 angle.
I have no good solutions, but in the end, after I’m long gone, if things are bad enough, I think we’ll just end up with some revolution (more likely to happen in various parts of Europe with massively high youth unemployment first than here)…but a few super wealthy people see it and are concerned, but at the end of the day, if people are worst off and pissed off enough, it’ll just lead to more crime and people simply taking what they don’t have. It does no one any good in that type of world.
In America, it’s also easy to get guns so probably in 50 years, it maybe a bad/worst world here, but I’d be long dead so not my problem I guess.[/quote]
not entirely true. Pigging ton changed my mind about buying a house.
I honestly am open to changing my mind about virtually anything in the universe.
Except bicycles. I like them.
also the need to be strong. Not willing to debate.
other than that I have no idea what the right way is.
February 9, 2015 at 10:28 PM #782802ParticipantSome interesting facts and figures.
Wealth Gap Between Middle Class and Rich Widest Ever:
“Not only are the middle class suffering from stagnant incomes, their wealth hasn’t grown at all either.
That’s led to the widest wealth gap on record between the middle class and the rich.
The median household net worth of middle-income Americans remained at $96,500 between 2010 and 2013, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center, which looked at Federal Reserve Bank data.
Upper-income households, however, saw their wealth grow to $639,400 last year, up from $595,300.
That means the rich have 6.6 times more wealth than the middle class, a figure that’s grown from 4.1 in 1998 and 3.4 in 1983.
It’s also a record 69 times the wealth of lower-income Americans, who had accumulated only $9,300 as of last year.
Part of the reason for the gap stems from how the rich and the middle class build wealth. The former are more likely to invest in the stock market, which has been on a tear in recent years. The latter have more of their net worth tied up in the housing market, which hasn’t recovered as much.
That’s also why the Great Recession had a bigger impact on the net worth of the middle class. Back in 2007, before the housing crash, the middle class saw its median wealth soar to $158,400.
The rich also haven’t recovered fully from the downturn, but they are a lot closer to their 2007 peak of $718,000.
Looking longer term, the rich have more than doubled the size of their nest eggs over the past three decades, while the middle class have inched up 2.3%.
Pew defines middle income as family of four with a household income between $44,000 and $132,000.
Some 46% of American household fall into middle income under its methodology, which adjusts for family size. Upper-income Americans are those who earn more than $132,000 for a family of four.”
CNNMoney (New York) January 30, 2015: 4:06 PM ET
February 10, 2015 at 12:29 AM #782806Participant[quote=harvey][quote=joec]That said, I had to answer and say college costs in the 70s were more affordable than now. Back then, you could make a decent living even without a college degree. Good luck with that now for most folks. Ordinary folks could go to college if they wanted to and it was cheap.[/quote]
College is more expensive, but not as much as many people claim. In fact, it’s not much:
[quote]Another item is healthcare. Back in the 70s, most people had much cheaper healthcare. [/quote]
This is common flawed comparison. Do you think healthcare in the 70s was the same as it is today? Your health insurance today insures you against a lot more than it did in the 70s. Treatments for the most common killers, cardiovascular conditions and cancer, were not nearly as effective as they are today. It’s just not an apples-to-apples comparison. Sure, you paid less for total healthcare coverage. You got a lot less also.
Bottom line is the world has improved in big ways in the past four decades, and the American Middle class is enjoying the benefits.[/quote]
First, watch the video. She goes into detail about the differences. There is too much information in her video to type in just a few lines here. It’s incredibly important that you watch it because it’s clear that you don’t understand why people are making these claims.
You claim that medical treatment is inferior today, but many people would disabuse you of that notion. Forty years ago, people were treated and rehabilitated in hospitals with trained staff. Today, the cost of rehabilitation has been shifted to the patients’ families (Ms. Warren goes into this, too). People are being sent home with drainage tubes, open incisions that need to be dressed, etc. with only a piece of paper explaining how to care for them (and one can only hope to have a caring, dedicated caretaker with some sort of medical knowledge at home who has nothing else to do). Talk to people who were treated then and now and see what they have to say about your supposed “superior” medical care. Even in cancer treatment, many of the major treatments are the same drugs that were being used decades ago! While there have been some improvements in certain aspects of healthcare, other areas have seen a significant decline in care.
But one of the biggest cost increases is related to housing. While the housing costs in your home state might be lower today (and I’m just taking your word on this), the areas where most of the U.S. population lives is MUCH more expensive than it was 30-40+ years ago. To make matters worse, many jobs now pay the same or less *nominally* than they did ~30 years ago. With this reduced income, people are expected to pay much higher costs for housing, healthcare, education, etc.
You need to watch Elizabeth Warren’s video. No, you do not know more than she does…not even close.
And flyer is absolutely correct about the wealth gap, too. It plays a part in the income gap as well, since unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, more money can be amassed more quickly with which the wealthy can make ever more income.
February 10, 2015 at 7:19 AM #782809Guest[quote=CA renter]There is too much information in her video to type in just a few lines here.[/quote]
I asked for a examples, a few sentences, far less than you actually typed.
Healthcare is not simply more expensive today, it is very different today. By the most basic metric, life expectancy, healthcare is significantly better.
If healthcare is worse for the middle class, then why is everybody living longer?
Real estate costs more because there are more people and the same amount of land. Why is it so hard to understand that?
I’m aware of the “wealth gap” statistics, but don’t see how that translates into the claim that the middle class is worse off than they were forty years ago.
If the middle class is really so much worse off, there should be an abundance of examples of things that are no longer accessible to them. And yet you cannot provide even a few examples to support your claim.
February 10, 2015 at 7:26 AM #782810Participantnot sure if this is an example but my kid is aspiring to be an engineer in a major city and live in a “microapartment” of about 200 sq ft. I thoughtt his was awesome.
does seem to indicate some scaled down expectations…back in the 70s i think he could have easily gotten a 400 sq footer
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.