FWIW unions didn't want 40 hour weeks, weekends off, paid holidays, end of child labor just out of the goodness of their hearts, but they realized labor costs were mainly based on supply and demand. Reducing supply drives up rates.
Illinois 15 dollar/hr incremental raise
- Thread starter Vern_in_IL
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Would you prefer what was done in the next step of National socialism in Germany in the 30's and 40's where they got rid of the mentally disabled and the handicapped in medical institutions? After all, they were supported by the money from the rich.
I'm not the one advocating socialism...
I don't think you understood my point. The next step to get rid of the handouts is to get rid of the people who need them. How long do you think the handicapped would survive if you got rid of social security disability?
Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that people seem to fail to think where the logical conclusions of their policy proposals lead.
It's one thing to criticize and propose drastic solutions, it's another to propose something that will actually work. So far I see absolutely nothing that would work. It's just like yelling at the clouds.
Actually, the next step to get rid of the handouts is to stop giving them to people who are able to work so they HAVE to work. Also, I said those who absolutely can't work (the disabled) should be taken care of...
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Would you prefer what was done in the next step of National socialism in Germany in the 30's and 40's where they got rid of the mentally disabled and the handicapped in medical institutions? After all, they were supported by the money from the rich.
I'm not the one advocating socialism...
I don't think you understood my point. The next step to get rid of the handouts is to get rid of the people who need them. How long do you think the handicapped would survive if you got rid of social security disability?
Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that people seem to fail to think where the logical conclusions of their policy proposals lead.
It's one thing to criticize and propose drastic solutions, it's another to propose something that will actually work. So far I see absolutely nothing that would work. It's just like yelling at the clouds.
Actually, the next step to get rid of the handouts is to stop giving them to people who are able to work so they HAVE to work. Also, I said those who absolutely can't work (the disabled) should be taken care of...
I should rephrase my stock post just above. About 50 % of Americans own no stocks. The top 1% own about 38 %. The top 20% own about 92% of stocks.
Yes when you invest money initially you earned it. But if you get gains on that investment that money wasn't gained thru the investors work as a general rule unless you bought company stock. It is usually gained thru the work of others that helped make the company successful.
Yes when you invest money initially you earned it. But if you get gains on that investment that money wasn't gained thru the investors work as a general rule unless you bought company stock. It is usually gained thru the work of others that helped make the company successful.
"The reality is the vast majority of stockholders and investors are the wealthy not employees or retirement funds."
Curious as to the source for this. Institutional investors are the vast majority of trading activity, now many of those trades are their investing for individuals, but I'd be curious to the source info for the split between the upper X percent and retirement funds, etc.
Curious as to the source for this. Institutional investors are the vast majority of trading activity, now many of those trades are their investing for individuals, but I'd be curious to the source info for the split between the upper X percent and retirement funds, etc.
Originally Posted by ZZman
..
Why give rich people an ever increasing piece of the pie when they can't eat what they already have. Why not spread the pie out to some of the others who are hungry and could use it. They can still have a huge piece but why not share ?
..
Are you telling me people wouldn't still be rich and extremely comfortable on that?
Would we not have a better and kinder society if wealth inequality was smaller . In a 70% consumer driven society I say yes.
EXACTLY, WELL SAID!
Proof of this is to look at decades gone by when folks had bigger pieces of the pie and there weren't the issues we have today with society. They go hand and hand.
..
Why give rich people an ever increasing piece of the pie when they can't eat what they already have. Why not spread the pie out to some of the others who are hungry and could use it. They can still have a huge piece but why not share ?
..
Are you telling me people wouldn't still be rich and extremely comfortable on that?
Would we not have a better and kinder society if wealth inequality was smaller . In a 70% consumer driven society I say yes.
EXACTLY, WELL SAID!
Proof of this is to look at decades gone by when folks had bigger pieces of the pie and there weren't the issues we have today with society. They go hand and hand.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZZman
In simple terms money doesn't grow on trees. It comes from somewhere. For businesses owners/CEO's and investors etc it comes from people. Investors don't work or earn their money. The workers do the work. Business owners and CEOs don't run the company by themselves. They have workers that help them. They have customers that make them wealthy. It is a cycle, a circle. You need them all to succeed.
Why give rich people an ever increasing piece of the pie when they can't eat what they already have. Why not spread the pie out to some of the others who are hungry and could use it. They can still have a huge piece but why not share ?
I could set an arbitrary amount if you wish. I think anyone making more than 100 times the median income of the average American doesn't "need" any more than that per year in income. So billionaires are way over the "need" threshold.
Are you telling me people wouldn't still be rich and extremely comfortable on that?
Would we not have a better and kinder society if wealth inequality was smaller . In a 70% consumer driven society I say yes.
What you want is Socialism, pure and simple. Along with the ability it brings for the government to seize personal property and assets for redistribution. Here is your guy. He's as convinced of your method as you are.
In simple terms money doesn't grow on trees. It comes from somewhere. For businesses owners/CEO's and investors etc it comes from people. Investors don't work or earn their money. The workers do the work. Business owners and CEOs don't run the company by themselves. They have workers that help them. They have customers that make them wealthy. It is a cycle, a circle. You need them all to succeed.
Why give rich people an ever increasing piece of the pie when they can't eat what they already have. Why not spread the pie out to some of the others who are hungry and could use it. They can still have a huge piece but why not share ?
I could set an arbitrary amount if you wish. I think anyone making more than 100 times the median income of the average American doesn't "need" any more than that per year in income. So billionaires are way over the "need" threshold.
Are you telling me people wouldn't still be rich and extremely comfortable on that?
Would we not have a better and kinder society if wealth inequality was smaller . In a 70% consumer driven society I say yes.
What you want is Socialism, pure and simple. Along with the ability it brings for the government to seize personal property and assets for redistribution. Here is your guy. He's as convinced of your method as you are.
Why is it always ALL or NOTHING. Folks that want a tad bit more are immediately labelled as wanting to be completely socialist and that they want all the riches wealth when that isn't the case.
There is a problem when a handful of families have strangleholds on the majority of the wealth meanwhile the rest of the world struggles to get by or starves depending on the country and the global economy is piling on debt and suffering as a result?
Is it so much to ask for the top classes to loosen their death grip on the hoarding just by 1 belt notch?
No one is saying they can't have more than the rest but that is needs to be more balanced than it is today.
There is a problem when a handful of families have strangleholds on the majority of the wealth meanwhile the rest of the world struggles to get by or starves depending on the country and the global economy is piling on debt and suffering as a result?
Is it so much to ask for the top classes to loosen their death grip on the hoarding just by 1 belt notch?
No one is saying they can't have more than the rest but that is needs to be more balanced than it is today.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
....Proof of this is to look at decades gone by when folks had bigger pieces of the pie and there weren't the issues we have today with society.
And tell us please, when exactly was this utopia of, "decades gone by"?
....Proof of this is to look at decades gone by when folks had bigger pieces of the pie and there weren't the issues we have today with society.
And tell us please, when exactly was this utopia of, "decades gone by"?
In "decades gone by", people EARNED their "piece of the pie". They didn't expect the government to steal it for them from someone else. You didn't have people leeching off the government with every social program known to mankind. People pulled their own weight. The only people back then who received benefits from Social Security were the people who actually contributed and paid into those programs.
And there was no Medicare, Obama Care, Welfare, Food Stamps, and all the rest of the government dependent nonsense that started in 1965 with the, "Great Society". All of which have improved nothing, except to make people less dependent on themselves, and more on the government that is going bankrupt trying to pay for it all.
Kids worked their way through college, instead of taking out loans, only to default on them. All the while screaming how the government, "owes them" a free education, job, house, health care, along with everything else they think they deserve. That they base only on the fact they consume oxygen. Back then people paid their own way, and those who came here from south of the border did so legally. And they obeyed our laws when they got here.
Today it has all changed into a free for all, that is bankrupting this nation. And none of it is going to be paid for by, "taxing the rich". Who as of last year, the top 1 percent of accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. Yeah, the "decades gone by" were pretty good years alright, because people provided for themselves. Then came liberalism. And look what happened.
And there was no Medicare, Obama Care, Welfare, Food Stamps, and all the rest of the government dependent nonsense that started in 1965 with the, "Great Society". All of which have improved nothing, except to make people less dependent on themselves, and more on the government that is going bankrupt trying to pay for it all.
Kids worked their way through college, instead of taking out loans, only to default on them. All the while screaming how the government, "owes them" a free education, job, house, health care, along with everything else they think they deserve. That they base only on the fact they consume oxygen. Back then people paid their own way, and those who came here from south of the border did so legally. And they obeyed our laws when they got here.
Today it has all changed into a free for all, that is bankrupting this nation. And none of it is going to be paid for by, "taxing the rich". Who as of last year, the top 1 percent of accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. Yeah, the "decades gone by" were pretty good years alright, because people provided for themselves. Then came liberalism. And look what happened.
What was once possible in the good all days, it is no longer possible. Today's companies have way to much leverage in our government.
If you think, those so call officials represent us, keep on dreaming.
If you think, those so call officials represent us, keep on dreaming.
Originally Posted by LazyDog
What was once possible in the good all days, it is no longer possible. Today's companies have way to much leverage in our government.
It's not because of the corporations or government. Most people today are financial idiots, who can create nothing for themselves but debt. Under capitalism the wealthy achieve power. Under socialism the powerful achieve wealth.
What was once possible in the good all days, it is no longer possible. Today's companies have way to much leverage in our government.
It's not because of the corporations or government. Most people today are financial idiots, who can create nothing for themselves but debt. Under capitalism the wealthy achieve power. Under socialism the powerful achieve wealth.
Even more nonsense is this false narrative you always hear coming from the, "Tax The Rich!", mantra the liberal left is always screaming and carrying on about. How the tax rate in the 50's was 90%. Along with how they want this country to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear. When everything was much more "fair". And how everyone got, "their piece of the pie". It's just more fabricated foolishness that simply isn't true, and never was.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by StevieC
....Proof of this is to look at decades gone by when folks had bigger pieces of the pie and there weren't the issues we have today with society.
And tell us please, when exactly was this utopia of, "decades gone by"?
-How many folks can leave high-school and find a good paying lifer job with benefits? Today it takes a degree and verifiable experience in most cases and working for a long time in hopes of getting there not to mention post-secondary education costs as well.
-Houses today require 2 incomes not 1 to buy in most places and forget about raising a large family on just one income and buying that house like it used to be.
-Cost of living in proportion to income is nowhere near the ratio it used to be. You can see this in disposable income rates which have gone done largely since the 1970's and wages having remained flat since 40 years ago as well.
-Don't get me started on the scam of Shrink-Flation either... Same price but less in return for that money. That has also played into skewing the inflation rate HUGE and no one talks about it.
It's no coincidence with wages being flat for the past 40 years, disposable income down largely versus the 1970's that debt has exploded. Surely the whole population doesn't have a shopping problem.
Originally Posted by StevieC
....Proof of this is to look at decades gone by when folks had bigger pieces of the pie and there weren't the issues we have today with society.
And tell us please, when exactly was this utopia of, "decades gone by"?
-How many folks can leave high-school and find a good paying lifer job with benefits? Today it takes a degree and verifiable experience in most cases and working for a long time in hopes of getting there not to mention post-secondary education costs as well.
-Houses today require 2 incomes not 1 to buy in most places and forget about raising a large family on just one income and buying that house like it used to be.
-Cost of living in proportion to income is nowhere near the ratio it used to be. You can see this in disposable income rates which have gone done largely since the 1970's and wages having remained flat since 40 years ago as well.
-Don't get me started on the scam of Shrink-Flation either... Same price but less in return for that money. That has also played into skewing the inflation rate HUGE and no one talks about it.
It's no coincidence with wages being flat for the past 40 years, disposable income down largely versus the 1970's that debt has exploded. Surely the whole population doesn't have a shopping problem.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by billt460
In "decades gone by", people EARNED their "piece of the pie". They didn't expect the government to steal it for them from someone else. You didn't have people leeching off the government with every social program known to mankind. People pulled their own weight. The only people back then who received benefits from Social Security were the people who actually contributed and paid into those programs.
And there was no Medicare, Obama Care, Welfare, Food Stamps, and all the rest of the government dependent nonsense that started in 1965 with the, "Great Society". All of which have improved nothing, except to make people less dependent on themselves, and more on the government that is going bankrupt trying to pay for it all.
Kids worked their way through college, instead of taking out loans, only to default on them. All the while screaming how the government, "owes them" a free education, job, house, health care, along with everything else they think they deserve. That they base only on the fact they consume oxygen. Back then people paid their own way, and those who came here from south of the border did so legally. And they obeyed our laws when they got here.
Today it has all changed into a free for all, that is bankrupting this nation. And none of it is going to be paid for by, "taxing the rich". Who as of last year, the top 1 percent of accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. Yeah, the "decades gone by" were pretty good years alright, because people provided for themselves. Then came liberalism. And look what happened.
No one is asking for the pie to be stolen... What is being asked for is a fair wage in comparison to living costs today for the same effort expended as it was back then like those of yester-year had it. Wages have been flat for the last 40 years and that is the problem all while the upper classes have accumulated so much wealth it's disgusting. AGAIN, they can have more than the rest but the bottom classes should be fairly compensated in comparison to living costs and that isn't happening today like it used to decades ago. PERIOD.
In "decades gone by", people EARNED their "piece of the pie". They didn't expect the government to steal it for them from someone else. You didn't have people leeching off the government with every social program known to mankind. People pulled their own weight. The only people back then who received benefits from Social Security were the people who actually contributed and paid into those programs.
And there was no Medicare, Obama Care, Welfare, Food Stamps, and all the rest of the government dependent nonsense that started in 1965 with the, "Great Society". All of which have improved nothing, except to make people less dependent on themselves, and more on the government that is going bankrupt trying to pay for it all.
Kids worked their way through college, instead of taking out loans, only to default on them. All the while screaming how the government, "owes them" a free education, job, house, health care, along with everything else they think they deserve. That they base only on the fact they consume oxygen. Back then people paid their own way, and those who came here from south of the border did so legally. And they obeyed our laws when they got here.
Today it has all changed into a free for all, that is bankrupting this nation. And none of it is going to be paid for by, "taxing the rich". Who as of last year, the top 1 percent of accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. Yeah, the "decades gone by" were pretty good years alright, because people provided for themselves. Then came liberalism. And look what happened.
No one is asking for the pie to be stolen... What is being asked for is a fair wage in comparison to living costs today for the same effort expended as it was back then like those of yester-year had it. Wages have been flat for the last 40 years and that is the problem all while the upper classes have accumulated so much wealth it's disgusting. AGAIN, they can have more than the rest but the bottom classes should be fairly compensated in comparison to living costs and that isn't happening today like it used to decades ago. PERIOD.
Originally Posted by Silverado12
FWIW unions didn't want 40 hour weeks, weekends off, paid holidays, end of child labor just out of the goodness of their hearts, but they realized labor costs were mainly based on supply and demand. Reducing supply drives up rates.
Actually I don't think so:
-Children malnourished and tired and stressed and scared around machines makes for many accidents? (my step dad started work in the mines at 16)
-burned out adults working 80+ hours with no day to rest makes for really dangerous operator conditions around machines and sometimes they take out others with them?
-apprenticeship programs made sure people learned it the right way the first time. Not all good professional trades are good teachers.
FWIW unions didn't want 40 hour weeks, weekends off, paid holidays, end of child labor just out of the goodness of their hearts, but they realized labor costs were mainly based on supply and demand. Reducing supply drives up rates.
Actually I don't think so:
-Children malnourished and tired and stressed and scared around machines makes for many accidents? (my step dad started work in the mines at 16)
-burned out adults working 80+ hours with no day to rest makes for really dangerous operator conditions around machines and sometimes they take out others with them?
-apprenticeship programs made sure people learned it the right way the first time. Not all good professional trades are good teachers.
Originally Posted by StevieC
How many folks can leave high-school and find a good paying lifer job with benefits?
Anyone who wants to attend a good trade school. Of which there are thousands nationwide. Blue collar trades are starving for qualified plumbers, electricians, machinists, carpenters, tool & die makers, welders, name it. But kids today don't want that. So they take out student loans to get degrees they can't find work in when they graduate. Who's fault is that? Do you see kids rioting on the campuses of trade schools?
Originally Posted by StevieC
Houses today require 2 incomes not 1 to buy in most places.
That's because people buy too big of homes, and have nothing to put down on them. So they borrow too much to buy them. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average size of a new single-family American residence in 1950 was 983 square feet. Today, it is nearly 2500 square feet. As home sizes ballooned over that time, family size shrank. The fact is today you have one person living in almost the same sq. footage that an entire family had in the 50's. So you end up having fewer people today who are living in bigger, more expensive homes they can't afford. Who's fault is that?
https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/...ize-and-the-irresponsible-american-dream
Originally Posted by StevieC
Cost of living in proportion to income is nowhere near the ratio it used to be. You can see this in disposable income rates which have gone done largely since the 1970's and wages having remained flat since 40 years ago as well.
That's simply more B.S. as well. Today people are wasting money, buying more junk than ever before. In the 50's people were lucky to have ONE car and a TV. Today they have driveways full of them, and televisions in every room. Today, every kid standing on most every corner waiting for the school bus has a smart phone, laptop, and an X-Box. With games scattered everywhere at $60.00 a pop. In the 50's they were lucky to have a bicycle and a pair of roller skates.
People today are "disposing" of their income all right. It's why they don't have any. They buy everything they see three fold. And when they don't have the cash, they simply whip out the plastic. Credit card debt per family in this country is at all time highs. With most of it revolving with minimum payments, and sky high interest rates.
People can't get ahead today because of their uncontrollable wants, coupled with their self induced financial stupidity. Then, when it all comes tumbling down around them, they all start doing what your reading right here. They blame the government, corporations, the "system", and everything else they can think of besides themselves.
How many folks can leave high-school and find a good paying lifer job with benefits?
Anyone who wants to attend a good trade school. Of which there are thousands nationwide. Blue collar trades are starving for qualified plumbers, electricians, machinists, carpenters, tool & die makers, welders, name it. But kids today don't want that. So they take out student loans to get degrees they can't find work in when they graduate. Who's fault is that? Do you see kids rioting on the campuses of trade schools?
Originally Posted by StevieC
Houses today require 2 incomes not 1 to buy in most places.
That's because people buy too big of homes, and have nothing to put down on them. So they borrow too much to buy them. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average size of a new single-family American residence in 1950 was 983 square feet. Today, it is nearly 2500 square feet. As home sizes ballooned over that time, family size shrank. The fact is today you have one person living in almost the same sq. footage that an entire family had in the 50's. So you end up having fewer people today who are living in bigger, more expensive homes they can't afford. Who's fault is that?
https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/...ize-and-the-irresponsible-american-dream
Originally Posted by StevieC
Cost of living in proportion to income is nowhere near the ratio it used to be. You can see this in disposable income rates which have gone done largely since the 1970's and wages having remained flat since 40 years ago as well.
That's simply more B.S. as well. Today people are wasting money, buying more junk than ever before. In the 50's people were lucky to have ONE car and a TV. Today they have driveways full of them, and televisions in every room. Today, every kid standing on most every corner waiting for the school bus has a smart phone, laptop, and an X-Box. With games scattered everywhere at $60.00 a pop. In the 50's they were lucky to have a bicycle and a pair of roller skates.
People today are "disposing" of their income all right. It's why they don't have any. They buy everything they see three fold. And when they don't have the cash, they simply whip out the plastic. Credit card debt per family in this country is at all time highs. With most of it revolving with minimum payments, and sky high interest rates.
People can't get ahead today because of their uncontrollable wants, coupled with their self induced financial stupidity. Then, when it all comes tumbling down around them, they all start doing what your reading right here. They blame the government, corporations, the "system", and everything else they can think of besides themselves.
Originally Posted by StevieC
No one is asking for the pie to be stolen... What is being asked for is a fair wage in comparison to living costs today for the same effort expended as it was back then like those of yester-year had it.
The problem is not really that wages are too low per se, but that the cost of living is too high. Housing, for example: my parents bought a house on one manual-worker's income, while buying the same house today would require two professional incomes.
Since the 90s--and particularly the mid-00s--the world has been flooded with massive amounts of cheap credit, which has pushed up the cost of living while governments pretend inflation is low, to reduce wage rises. At the same time, more and more jobs have been shipped to China, India and other relatively poor countries, thereby reducing the ability of Westerners to demand wage rises.
Globalism and artificially low interest rates with fiat money are the real problems. You don't fix those by demanding that people get paid more than they're worth, because their employers will ship the jobs abroad (thanks to globalism) or automate them (thanks to low-interest credit).
No one is asking for the pie to be stolen... What is being asked for is a fair wage in comparison to living costs today for the same effort expended as it was back then like those of yester-year had it.
The problem is not really that wages are too low per se, but that the cost of living is too high. Housing, for example: my parents bought a house on one manual-worker's income, while buying the same house today would require two professional incomes.
Since the 90s--and particularly the mid-00s--the world has been flooded with massive amounts of cheap credit, which has pushed up the cost of living while governments pretend inflation is low, to reduce wage rises. At the same time, more and more jobs have been shipped to China, India and other relatively poor countries, thereby reducing the ability of Westerners to demand wage rises.
Globalism and artificially low interest rates with fiat money are the real problems. You don't fix those by demanding that people get paid more than they're worth, because their employers will ship the jobs abroad (thanks to globalism) or automate them (thanks to low-interest credit).
Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by StevieC
No one is asking for the pie to be stolen... What is being asked for is a fair wage in comparison to living costs today for the same effort expended as it was back then like those of yester-year had it.
The problem is not really that wages are too low per se, but that the cost of living is too high. Housing, for example: my parents bought a house on one manual-worker's income, while buying the same house today would require two professional incomes.
Since the 90s--and particularly the mid-00s--the world has been flooded with massive amounts of cheap credit, which has pushed up the cost of living while governments pretend inflation is low, to reduce wage rises. At the same time, more and more jobs have been shipped to China, India and other relatively poor countries, thereby reducing the ability of Westerners to demand wage rises.
Globalism and artificially low interest rates with fiat money are the real problems. You don't fix those by demanding that people get paid more than they're worth, because their employers will ship the jobs abroad (thanks to globalism) or automate them (thanks to low-interest credit).
They created the problem they can fix the problem or the pitchforks WILL come for them and we are close.
Originally Posted by StevieC
No one is asking for the pie to be stolen... What is being asked for is a fair wage in comparison to living costs today for the same effort expended as it was back then like those of yester-year had it.
The problem is not really that wages are too low per se, but that the cost of living is too high. Housing, for example: my parents bought a house on one manual-worker's income, while buying the same house today would require two professional incomes.
Since the 90s--and particularly the mid-00s--the world has been flooded with massive amounts of cheap credit, which has pushed up the cost of living while governments pretend inflation is low, to reduce wage rises. At the same time, more and more jobs have been shipped to China, India and other relatively poor countries, thereby reducing the ability of Westerners to demand wage rises.
Globalism and artificially low interest rates with fiat money are the real problems. You don't fix those by demanding that people get paid more than they're worth, because their employers will ship the jobs abroad (thanks to globalism) or automate them (thanks to low-interest credit).
They created the problem they can fix the problem or the pitchforks WILL come for them and we are close.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by billt460
In the 50's people were lucky to have ONE car and a TV. Today they have driveways full of them, and televisions in every room.
Cars probably cost about as much as they did in the 50s in real terms. But TVs are so cheap that they're pretty much diposable items. My parents rented a TV because it was too expensive and unreliable to buy. I can buy a reasonable TV with about a day's salary.
Quote
Today, every kid standing on most every corner waiting for the school bus has a smart phone, laptop, and an X-Box. In the 50's they were lucky to have a bicycle and a pair of roller skates.
Smart phone: $200 for a decent Android.
Laptop: $300 for something usable.
X-box: looks like it's around $300.
So, all together, those things probably don't cost that much more in real terms than the things a kid might have had back then (that girl with the iPhone, MacBook and X-box Super-Fancy L33t Edition probably had a pony in the old days). The biggest expense for most parents would probably be the phone contract, unless you give them a pay-as-you-go. Which probably makes sense, to stop the kid chatting on the phone all day.
Quote
People today are "disposing" of their income all right. It's why they don't have any. They buy everything they see three fold. And when they don't have the cash, they simply whip out the plastic. Credit card debt per family in this country is at all time highs. With most of it revolving with minimum payments.
Yet I was reading the other day that retailers are worried because Millennials don't want to buy 'stuff'.
In the 50's people were lucky to have ONE car and a TV. Today they have driveways full of them, and televisions in every room.
Cars probably cost about as much as they did in the 50s in real terms. But TVs are so cheap that they're pretty much diposable items. My parents rented a TV because it was too expensive and unreliable to buy. I can buy a reasonable TV with about a day's salary.
Quote
Today, every kid standing on most every corner waiting for the school bus has a smart phone, laptop, and an X-Box. In the 50's they were lucky to have a bicycle and a pair of roller skates.
Smart phone: $200 for a decent Android.
Laptop: $300 for something usable.
X-box: looks like it's around $300.
So, all together, those things probably don't cost that much more in real terms than the things a kid might have had back then (that girl with the iPhone, MacBook and X-box Super-Fancy L33t Edition probably had a pony in the old days). The biggest expense for most parents would probably be the phone contract, unless you give them a pay-as-you-go. Which probably makes sense, to stop the kid chatting on the phone all day.
Quote
People today are "disposing" of their income all right. It's why they don't have any. They buy everything they see three fold. And when they don't have the cash, they simply whip out the plastic. Credit card debt per family in this country is at all time highs. With most of it revolving with minimum payments.
Yet I was reading the other day that retailers are worried because Millennials don't want to buy 'stuff'.
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by StevieC
How many folks can leave high-school and find a good paying lifer job with benefits?
Anyone who wants to attend a good trade school. Of which there are thousands nationwide. Blue collar trades are starving for qualified plumbers, electricians, machinists, carpenters, tool & die makers, welders, name it. But kids today don't want that. So they take out student loans to get degrees they can't find work in when they graduate. Who's fault is that? Do you see kids rioting on the campuses of trade schools?
Originally Posted by StevieC
Houses today require 2 incomes not 1 to buy in most places.
That's because people buy too big of homes, and have nothing to put down on them. So they borrow too much to buy them. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average size of a new single-family American residence in 1950 was 983 square feet. Today, it is nearly 2500 square feet. As home sizes ballooned over that time, family size shrank. The fact is today you have one person living in almost the same sq. footage that an entire family had in the 50's. So you end up having fewer people today who are living in bigger, more expensive homes they can't afford. Who's fault is that?
https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/...ize-and-the-irresponsible-american-dream
Originally Posted by StevieC
Cost of living in proportion to income is nowhere near the ratio it used to be. You can see this in disposable income rates which have gone done largely since the 1970's and wages having remained flat since 40 years ago as well.
That's simply more B.S. as well. Today people are wasting money, buying more junk than ever before. In the 50's people were lucky to have ONE car and a TV. Today they have driveways full of them, and televisions in every room. Today, every kid standing on most every corner waiting for the school bus has a smart phone, laptop, and an X-Box. In the 50's they were lucky to have a bicycle and a pair of roller skates.
People today are "disposing" of their income all right. It's why they don't have any. They buy everything they see three fold. And when they don't have the cash, they simply whip out the plastic. Credit card debt per family in this country is at all time highs. With most of it revolving with minimum payments.
People can't get ahead today because of their uncontrollable wants, coupled with their self induced financial stupidity. Then, when it all comes tumbling down around them, they all start doing what your reading right here. They blame the government, corporations, the "system", and everything else they can think of besides themselves.
Quote
The Bottom Line:
Taken together, these figures indicate that, while the average person is still making the same amount of money when accounting for inflation, prices for many of the daily necessities have gone up considerably, which means that each dollar earned does, in fact, buy less than it did 20 years ago.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ent-cost-living-compare-20-years-ago.asp
Quote
Millennials buying their first home today will pay 39% more than baby boomers who bought their first home in the 1980s, according to Student Loan Hero.
While millennials have benefited from a 67% rise in wages since 1970, this increase hasn't kept up with inflating living costs. Rent, home prices, and college tuition have all increased faster than incomes in the US, according to research conducted by Student Loan Hero.
https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-cost-of-living-compared-to-gen-x-baby-boomers-2018-5
Originally Posted by StevieC
How many folks can leave high-school and find a good paying lifer job with benefits?
Anyone who wants to attend a good trade school. Of which there are thousands nationwide. Blue collar trades are starving for qualified plumbers, electricians, machinists, carpenters, tool & die makers, welders, name it. But kids today don't want that. So they take out student loans to get degrees they can't find work in when they graduate. Who's fault is that? Do you see kids rioting on the campuses of trade schools?
Originally Posted by StevieC
Houses today require 2 incomes not 1 to buy in most places.
That's because people buy too big of homes, and have nothing to put down on them. So they borrow too much to buy them. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average size of a new single-family American residence in 1950 was 983 square feet. Today, it is nearly 2500 square feet. As home sizes ballooned over that time, family size shrank. The fact is today you have one person living in almost the same sq. footage that an entire family had in the 50's. So you end up having fewer people today who are living in bigger, more expensive homes they can't afford. Who's fault is that?
https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/...ize-and-the-irresponsible-american-dream
Originally Posted by StevieC
Cost of living in proportion to income is nowhere near the ratio it used to be. You can see this in disposable income rates which have gone done largely since the 1970's and wages having remained flat since 40 years ago as well.
That's simply more B.S. as well. Today people are wasting money, buying more junk than ever before. In the 50's people were lucky to have ONE car and a TV. Today they have driveways full of them, and televisions in every room. Today, every kid standing on most every corner waiting for the school bus has a smart phone, laptop, and an X-Box. In the 50's they were lucky to have a bicycle and a pair of roller skates.
People today are "disposing" of their income all right. It's why they don't have any. They buy everything they see three fold. And when they don't have the cash, they simply whip out the plastic. Credit card debt per family in this country is at all time highs. With most of it revolving with minimum payments.
People can't get ahead today because of their uncontrollable wants, coupled with their self induced financial stupidity. Then, when it all comes tumbling down around them, they all start doing what your reading right here. They blame the government, corporations, the "system", and everything else they can think of besides themselves.
Quote
The Bottom Line:
Taken together, these figures indicate that, while the average person is still making the same amount of money when accounting for inflation, prices for many of the daily necessities have gone up considerably, which means that each dollar earned does, in fact, buy less than it did 20 years ago.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ent-cost-living-compare-20-years-ago.asp
Quote
Millennials buying their first home today will pay 39% more than baby boomers who bought their first home in the 1980s, according to Student Loan Hero.
While millennials have benefited from a 67% rise in wages since 1970, this increase hasn't kept up with inflating living costs. Rent, home prices, and college tuition have all increased faster than incomes in the US, according to research conducted by Student Loan Hero.
https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-cost-of-living-compared-to-gen-x-baby-boomers-2018-5
Last edited:
- Status
