- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Important to note here the important difference between “mean”, aka the average, and “median”, the middle number in a set. Assuming Krueger intentionally used “median”, the situation is actually worse than people realize.
The average can be affected by large outliers - like billionaires. IF the “average” American makes $50,000 a year, the median could actually be more like $30,000 (totally made up numbers, as an example).
In other words, the median is the more “accurate” number to use in these comparisons because the income of the extremely wealthy has less of an impact on the result.
You’re right about everything, but the post explicitly talks about median for everything but healthcare, so it should be fairly accurate already
True, yeah. I just wanted to be clear about it in case people confused median and mean. I work with high school students who struggle with the difference every year. So, thought maybe some adults who’d been out of school for a while might also not realize the difference.
When talking about stuff like this, large diverse populations and a near continuous variables, a single measure of central tendency is not very informative whichever you choose. They necessarily misrepresent most of the population, quite a lot, just for the sake of what . . . brevity?
That seems lazy to me and makes me think the author doesn’t really care too much about the people they’re trying to describe.
At least pick a few points across the distribution, and a give a bit more time to understand or explain maybe like 5 or 6 “representatives” out of of however many millions are being summarised by the one statistic.
If the author can’t afford to draw a full fledged histogram - at least do a box-and-whiskers.
Maybe that twitter thing is just fucking awful.
Median is (arguably) best if you want to give one value. Of course it’s better to give more, like first quartile, median, third quartile. But sometimes brevity is useful too
Brevity is okay if it doesn’t spawn comments like some I saw in the rest of this thread when i first read it, which I’m going to paraphrase rather than quote directly: “we’re talking about everyone because it’s an average”
I dont know how to educate people use, interpret and critique statistics, but I know I’d rather the tweeters were even more brief and just pointed to a source that does a decent job of showing the data and give people a chance to learn numbers can be used summarising what’s happening to a population.
If they’re just quoting a few numbers to support their opinions they can fuck off for all I care - that’s not actually going to help people understand what’s going on - or how the data can help them do so. It just creates more hot air. And whatever they pick, there is a counter argument ususally everyone can find a cherry that sounds plausibly representative of far more than it actually is.
Kind of feel like the box and whisker would look something like this, only worse.
Not a meme.
Every time you paste that in one of my threads, I’m going to let everyone see what a lie your bio is:
Why isn’t he using inflation-adjusted figures for 1971?
Why isn’t he comparing the cost per square foot of houses instead, since the average house today is much, much larger than the average house in 1971?
Because they are comparing inflation of different things. If it all was done inflation adjusted, income would have gone down, many prices would remain the same and some would go up. It would be less clear
Why isn’t he using inflation-adjusted figures for 1971?
Official inflation rates calculation formulas have been adjusted too many times for it to have any value to compare prices over 50 year period.
Why isn’t he comparing the cost per square foot of houses instead,
This is a valid point, it would more precisely account for “hedonistic” adjustment
e average house today is much, much larger than the average house in 1971
is it 5.5x larger?
If the number is 4x instead of 5.5, how would your analysis change on the trend we see here?
Yeah, this kind of comparison really drives it home. The inflation figures, while not cooked in some grand conspiracy sense, really completely fail to capture the real price increases experienced by real people.
The limitation of CPI is that it is designed for one specific thing, but we end up using it for others. If you want to measure the value of a commodity over time, like a bushel of wheat or a barrel of oil, CPI is OK for that. A bushel of wheat or a barrel of oil now are pretty similar to ones in 1970. But most goods we purchase are not so directly comparable. The CPI calculation tries to compare like goods to like goods, and it applies adjustment factors to the price of goods that aren’t constant through time. For example, the TV you can get in 2024 is far, far better than one you could get in 1970. In CPI terms, this means that the real cost of TVs has plummeted by orders of magnitude.
But it goes beyond electronics. Think of homes. People will wring their hands and decry Americans as greedy by citing the size of new homes today vs in 1970, as they have significantly increased. But it’s not a matter of greed; you simply cannot buy a new 1200 ft^2 modest home in post places in the country today. They don’t make them anymore. Zoning has so restricted housing construction that all new housing has to be luxury housing. Yes, if you actually could find a duplicate of some c. 1970 1200 ft^2 home built new today, it would likely be quite affordable. But in terms of both size and construction details, it’s not legal to build homes like that anymore. But this won’t show up in the inflation figure. They’ll compare the 1200 ft^2 entry-level home in 1970 to whatever rare example of that they can find that is built today of someone building one of those in unzoned farmland in rural North Dakota, and conclude that house prices haven’t risen so much. In reality, no one can actually find those homes near job centers.
Or consider college. The college experience of 2024 is vastly different from that of 1970. The MBA class wormed their way into university administration and kicked all the actual academics out of admin. The MBA class see the kids as “customers” rather than pupils or students. And all the colleges and universities, even the state ones, went into MBA customer-seeking overdrive. Colleges have been luxurified. Big fancy dorms, extravagant student unions and study spaces, decadent gym facilities, etc. College at a state school in 1970 was 4 people crowded in a tiny dorm room, where your ‘gym’ was the campus running track. CPI looks at what it would cost to run a 1970s-style university in 2024, and concludes that college hasn’t gone up in price as much as it has. This is one reason community colleges have remained so relatively affordable. By their nature, they deal mostly with commuter students who wouldn’t want to use your stupid fancy gym even if you built one.
And the same thing for vehicles. Automakers have chased higher and higher rates of return by making bigger and heavier vehicles. Yes, if you could find a car made today that was an exact duplicate of a 1970s vehicle, it wouldn’t have inflated as much. And that’s what CPI shows. But it doesn’t capture the actual buying options Americans have at their fingertips.
Ultimately, here is what you are doing when you use an inflation calculator and put in 10,000 in 1970 and calculate to today. You are fundamentally saying, “consider the kinds of goods and services average people bought in 1970. If I bought that exact same basket of goods, literal exact duplicates, what would they cost today?”
And for economists, that kind of analysis is useful. If you want to calculate interest rates and GDP growth, CPI works great for that. But for real people in the real world, they cannot simply live like it’s still 1970. The affordable options they had then simply no longer exist in the market. Sometimes things have changed for good reasons like product safety, but more often it is simply because the MBA class has turned everything into a luxury good to maximize return on investment. Everything has become a luxury good aimed at the top 20% of earners. And our policy tools for dealing with inflation have been utterly unprepared for this.
Another limitation of CPI is that it does not account for the devaluation of a currency due to the increase in circulating currency supply which is something the price of gold does perfectly. We can also put the rise in the price of gold next to a chart showing the increase in us circulating currency and they are very close to each other.
The price of gold was constant, only fluctuating 80% from $19 to $35 in the first 172 years of the us dollar’s history. Then nixon ended the gold standard in 1972 and within 8 years the price of gold increased 2000% from $35 to just under $800 one year later the us printed its first one trillion in circulating currency now we print 1 trillion every 3-4 months and the price of gold has increased 7500% since nixon withdrew from the bretton woods agreement. In 1956 minimum wage of $1/hr equaled 60 ounces of gold annually ($160,000 today) in 1968 it was $1.60 which is $250,000 in todays money. Gold has alwaus been considered an inflation proof asset, it has retained its value for all of history. An ounce of gold will always be able to purchase a fine set of garments, liek a really nice 3 piexe suit with undergarments, a button shirt and tie and leather shoes, a months rent in a 2 bedroom in a nice part of town or between 300-400 loaves of good bread from a bakery.
But cue in the “economics experts” telling me the price of gold has nothing to do with the value of currency
It’s an interesting thought:
Today’s economy forces obesity in the quantity and quality in the products bought, even when people don’t actually care about that.
It reminds me of car companies saying “people want grossly oversized cars” even though a lot of people would prefer smaller, compact cars. But these aren’t even sold. In the big seller houses, it’s one oversized SUV after another.
Exactly. You know what I would love to buy? I do lot of woodworking, so I would like to have a pickup truck. But I don’t want one of the giant clown car pickups. I want a pickup truck with a generous bed size and modest cabin, the type they made back in the 70s and 80s. That size of small compact pickup. Ideally, I would like something like that, but electric. Just a simple small spartan pickup with a stupid reliable electric drive train, the kind my grandfather used to drive around the farm.
I really do not care about cars. Right now our only vehicle is 2006 Toyota Corolla. And we’re well enough off that we could go buy a luxury car in cash if we wanted to. Neither me or my partner really give a damn about cars. We just want something that will get us from point A to point B. In fact, we barely ever drive. I’m a PhD student and take my e-bike or the bus to campus, while my partner works remotely from home. We really, really do not give a damn about cars. We do not want some giant luxury vehicle. If we had to buy something new today, we would probably just buy something similar to a Corolla, though something with a bed would again be nice. But just looking at car prices gives us a heart attack.
That sounds interesting but are you sure it’s correct? My understanding is that CPI traces a bundle of goods that is typical at the time. This means that current CPI contains a current TV while 1970 CPI contains a 1970 tv. CPI inflation is the relative price change of these typical bundles.
My understanding (but again correct me if I am wrong) is that the type of technology adjustment you discuss affect GDP, but not CPI.
What I’m getting at is hedonic adjustment in economic terms. The BLS specifically tries to factor out the effect of increased quality of goods. They don’t just look at what’s typical at any given time, they specifically and explicitly want CPI to show the underlying change of goods in relation to the money supply. If overnight, the quality of all goods doubled but the price also doubled, the CPI rate for that change would be 0%. CPI says that you’re now effectively buying twice as much stuff for twice as much money, so no real inflation has occurred.
This is the primary cause of the disconnect people experience between the figures they see on the news. Kamala tried to run on, “real wages have never been higher!” She was comparing wages measured in CPI inflation. People then looked at their actual lived experience, the actual price of actual goods and services they purchase, and concluded she was lying. Yes, if you’re just talking commodities, an hour of work today buy more of basic commodities than at any time before. For ascetic monks who wander the Earth and never buy anything other than bulk rice and beans, there’s never been a better time than now. But for people just trying to live a life of some basic dignity and comfort, they find that the only options available in category after category are things that would have been considered luxury versions of products generations past.
The ultimate cause of a lot of this is corporate consolidation. The entire economy is owned by a handful of major investment funds, and most goods have only a handful of suppliers. And the consultant/MBA class at the top all copy each others’ homework. They ultimately have very few ideas. In a free economy, some companies in a sector could try to offer discount goods, like many industrialists have done in the past. But it’s currently fashionable in the oligarch class to pursue a strategy of maximum profit per minimum unit, rather than trying to make modest profits per unit and make big profits through huge sales. And since the same small club of people effectively controls every publicly traded company, they all end up following the same strategies. All of them are following the strategy of “turn my market into a luxury good, as that has a superior profit margin per unit sold.” What we’re seeing is a direct result of the cult maximizing shareholder rate of return. If you want to maximize profit while absolutely minimizing capital investment, then you have to pursue a luxury brand strategy.
Yep, this is such a huge impact on the apparent inflation rate. It is an absolutely valid thing to measure, but I love your point about how the market has essentially shifted to only selling luxury products. You either get to pay luxury prices or do without.
Other challenges with CPI are substitution and owner’s equivalent rent.
With substitution, economists look at changing purchase patterns and adjust the basket of goods included in the calculation. For example, if you used to spend $20 per week on steak, but now you spend $20 per week on chicken, the economists say your preference changed and there was no inflation. In some cases, this might be true, but in others it could be that the price of meat went up significantly and you switched to something cheaper because you can’t afford the higher prices. If you’re talking about the fact that nobody is buying 8-tracks anymore, then substitution is certainly valid, but that’s not always the case.
In the case of housing, up until the early 1980s, CPI included home prices in the calculation. Then they switched to an estimate of what you would pay in rent for your house rather than the price of the house. This flattens out the CPI movement when home prices go up and down. Is it valid? Maybe? Probably to the economists at least, but not to anyone who wants to buy a home. On the flip side, if you already own a home, home price inflation is kind of irrelevant in the short to medium term because your cost doesn’t necessarily change (other than insurance and taxes).
Today I learned. Thanks.
More than 50% of classes in universities are now taught by poorly paid adjuncts with no benefits who can have their classes cut up to the day before classes start. It’s insane what the MBAs have done to higher education.
The first stat is a little misleading IMO. While the median car cost has increased ~2x (inflation adjusted), an entry level car price has only gone up ~1.2x (1971 AMC Gremlin vs 2023 Kia Rio LX; $1.8k/$14.8k vs $17.8k) and that’s more important for measuring relative quality of life.
Of course add on to that the fact that there’s easy access to second hand car markets and the number of features included with that base model vs the 1971 AMC Gremlin and it doesn’t seem like things are much worse.
Basically, average car prices increasing could just indicate that people are willing to spend more on cars for whatever reason that may be (better features, more car-centric culture, etc.). For this reason I’d like to see similar stats but about entry level options within each category. Probably less sensationalistic but still interesting.
That being said, I bet stats for the housing market and others would still show a notable increase even at the entry level, but I’d still like to verify this before blindly jumping on the sensationalist bandwagon.
There’s another important part of this equation: these are the things being sold. If someone can’t afford any car at all, they still wouldn’t show up in the entry-level car stats. But I think with how car-centric the US is, there won’t be many people going carless? But like you said, if the second hand market is good, everyone could be driving a barely used BMW and they still wouldn’t show up in any stats about new cars.
Basically, the only thing these stats tell us is that some people would have to spend a higher proportion of their income if they want to buy these things new. It doesn’t tell us if that means they don’t buy it, they buy it and go hungry, they buy an alternative, or they buy it without issue (because some other expense is cheaper or disappeared).
Inflation calculations try to account for this by considering a mix of products and services. If everything goes up across the board, people will get in trouble no matter their exact spending habits. You could also look at buying power or discretionary income to see if a population is doing alright.
The prices above increased a little harder than inflation, so you’d expect to see that as a decrease in discretionary income. The same would happen if wages didn’t keep up with inflation, which is a happy coincidence? Or exactly what the discretionary income stat is designed to do: show how much financial breathing room people have.
I also want to know what those $25k houses are selling for now. Comparing to houses built in 2024 is stupid.
My house was 75k in 1990, I bought it in 2000 for 130k, the unimproved land value for the block it sits on (approximately the lowest value you could sell for according to local land titles) is now 400k
In 1988 my family home in the UK was 33k. We sold in 2011 for 185k. My house in 2014 cost 118k and is now worth 195k.
So, it’s not that stupid.
So the 1988 home sold for about 6 times its purchase price and and the 2014 house is 1.65 times its purchase price. Both of those are way less than the 25x that the image claims.
But the graphic is stating from 1971 so 18 years before the 1988 house. In 1971 the average house price in the uk was about 5k.
You are the one conflating here.
Then provide the 1971 to 2024 numbers. A house built after 1977 can appreciate much less than a house built in 1971.
deleted by creator
people are willing to spend more on cars for whatever reason
The reason is stifling car dependency, complete lack of alternatives, and large number of hyper-privileged man babies.
Also massive fuel subsidies allowing vehicles to just get bigger and bigger, you can’t even find small trucks anymore and there are only a handful of minivan options. EVERYTHING is an SUV!
The wealthy are much better off though. If you looked at the wage increase of the top 1%, if has risen by $800,000 a year (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/09/staggering-new-data-shows-income-top-1-has-grown-100-times-faster-bottom-50-1970) since 1970.
So capitalism is working exactly the way it is supposed to. Exploiting the middle and lower classes for the rich. This is exactly the progress they want.
Much more than that. The richest men in the country doubled their net worth this year alone.
It’s actually even worse than that. The doubling was just in the last few months. Essentially, election time. You can practically hear them salivating at an incoming Trump admin.
It’s a trickle-up economy.
It’s a sunshine economy: The wealth (moisture) slowly evaporates upwards.
The working class gives the wealthy their blood and sweat and the wealthy turn it into urine and piss it back on their heads and then tell the working class the reason they smell like piss is because of immigrants.
Sadly it does more than merely trickle up.
It’s more like a torrent going upwards.
Progress? … don’t you mean maintaining the status quo of human inequality for the past 10,000 years?
The rich are getting progressively richer relative to everyone else, so I’d call it accurate.
I would say in capitalism “middle class” however you define it is something that is not ideal to have. Rich will be employers who underpay poor people 50 cents a day or less (speaking in fully open market without state intervention on minimum wage and other basic needs) poor won’t have enough resources to fight for their right and will just pray to live to see better future or just die. Middle class is basically only ones who will have enough resources to fight but not have enough to be enslave other that’s why they are problem in state with pure open market and pure capitalism.
My definition of middle class is someone who has enough money to live somewhat peaceful life but don’t have enough money to call themselves rich.
There’s an old definition of middle class that goes something like: has enough time to participate in politics.
I blame Reagan.
Reagan ruined everything.
You have good reason to.
Why did they switch from median to average for healthcare?
Prolly don’t even know the difference or they actually do and are telling what data points they are using.
This post is brought to you by:
But somehow people are mad at queer folks and foreigners instead of the C-suite and their boards.
Somehow? If it’s not obvious that there are several engineered distractions, then people aren’t paying attention.
Easy: people get their “news” from places controlled by those C-suites and their boards.
Last week at a get-together I actually heard a conservative family member say how the drones in the news are to distract from the important issues like immigration.
This is a standard boomer that keeps news on the living room TV all the damn time. It’s not even the disconnect from both reality and compassion that gets to me any more. It’s how widespread it is, and how the propaganda works even better in the real world than in fiction.
If you think we are not better off now than in the 70s, you have selective amnesia or possibly brain damage.
The world of Bladerunner has flying cars, androids, space settlements, holographic projections. Advancement is not the same as “better off”, especially if you’re in the groups that see all of it but can’t take part in any improvements. As a white male from the 70s (a demographic that would benefit far more than others then and now) things are both better and worse, depending on what you look at. In the subjects the meme touches, it’s worse for most everyone but the wealthy. If you look around and don’t see it, then you don’t have brain damage, you’re just isolated in your own shiny world (by choice or not).
alive > not alive
So I’m better off
Fiscally
Who is “we” in this scenario? And better off in what way?
We are talking averages so the implication is everyone.
median vs mean
Again, better off in what way?
Things have improved significantly in many areas since the 1970s, though challenges remain. Here are some notable ways the world is better today:
Technology and Connectivity • Computing Power: Personal computers, smartphones, and the internet have revolutionized how we work, learn, and communicate. • Global Connectivity: The internet allows instant communication and access to vast amounts of information, fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing worldwide. • Medical Technology: Advances like MRI, robotic surgery, and telemedicine have improved diagnosis, treatment, and access to healthcare.
Healthcare and Longevity • Life Expectancy: Global life expectancy has increased due to advancements in medicine, vaccines, and public health initiatives. • Disease Control: Eradication of smallpox and better treatments for diseases like HIV/AIDS and cancer have saved millions of lives.
Social Progress • Civil Rights: Progress in gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial justice, although incomplete, has created more inclusive societies. • Global Awareness: Social movements and the internet have made people more aware of human rights and environmental issues.
Education • Access: Literacy rates have risen globally, and access to education has expanded, especially for girls and marginalized groups. • Digital Learning: Online education and tools have made learning more accessible and diverse.
Economic Development • Global Poverty Reduction: Extreme poverty rates have declined significantly due to economic growth and development programs. • Global Trade: International trade and technology have created interconnected economies, raising living standards in many regions.
Environmental Awareness • Clean Energy: Advancements in renewable energy technologies like solar and wind power offer cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels. • Global Efforts: International agreements like the Paris Accord aim to address climate change collaboratively.
Quality of Life • Convenience: Modern conveniences, from online shopping to ride-sharing apps, have simplified everyday life. • Entertainment: Streaming services, gaming, and digital content have diversified entertainment options.
While these advancements have brought significant benefits, ongoing issues like climate change, inequality, and mental health need continued attention.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
AI generated slop
This is another benefit of the current age. I can have an AI quickly write responses to uninformed and narrowly defined statements. If any of that slop is untrue please let us know.
Your AI touted the Paris Accords as a success.
Maybe best not to call other statements uninformed.
The statement oversimplifies or lacks nuance in certain areas. Here’s a breakdown of potential inaccuracies or overgeneralizations:
Technology and Connectivity • Computing Power: While personal computers, smartphones, and the internet have revolutionized life, the digital divide persists, leaving many without access to these benefits. • Global Connectivity: The internet does foster collaboration, but it has also enabled misinformation, cybercrime, and increased surveillance, which are significant downsides. • Medical Technology: While advances have improved healthcare, access to such technologies remains inequitable, particularly in low-income regions.
Healthcare and Longevity • Life Expectancy: While global life expectancy has risen, it doesn’t account for disparities between high-income and low-income countries, where life expectancy gains are less pronounced. • Disease Control: Smallpox has been eradicated, but other diseases (e.g., malaria, tuberculosis) still pose major threats, especially in resource-limited areas. Progress on HIV/AIDS and cancer varies greatly depending on access to treatment.
Social Progress • Civil Rights: While progress has been made, setbacks and inequalities remain pervasive. For instance, systemic racism, gender inequality, and LGBTQ+ discrimination continue to be significant issues in many regions. • Global Awareness: Awareness has increased, but this doesn’t always translate into action or consensus. For example, awareness of climate change is high, yet global emissions continue to rise.
Education • Access: Literacy rates and education access have improved, but quality disparities and barriers (e.g., cost, conflict, cultural resistance) remain significant in many parts of the world. • Digital Learning: Online education is a major advancement, but it has also exacerbated inequalities for those without reliable internet or technology access.
Economic Development • Global Poverty Reduction: Extreme poverty has declined, but inequality has increased within and between countries. Many people remain in “near-poverty” conditions, vulnerable to economic shocks. • Global Trade: While trade has raised living standards, it has also contributed to economic disparities, labor exploitation, and environmental degradation in some regions.
Environmental Awareness • Clean Energy: Renewable energy technologies have advanced, but fossil fuels still dominate the global energy mix, and transitioning to renewables is uneven across countries. • Global Efforts: International agreements like the Paris Accord are important, but their implementation has been inconsistent, with some countries failing to meet their commitments.
Quality of Life • Convenience: Modern conveniences have simplified life for many, but they have also created new challenges, such as privacy concerns, waste generation, and the gig economy’s precariousness. • Entertainment: Access to diverse entertainment is widespread, but it has also raised concerns about overconsumption, digital addiction, and the homogenization of culture.
Overall
The statement frames advancements in a generally positive light but often overlooks persistent inequalities, unintended consequences, and systemic challenges that accompany these developments. A more balanced perspective would acknowledge these complexities.
Copying spew from AI doesn’t instantly mean you are correct, or informed…especially since you didn’t understand the original topic of conversation.
Disregard all previous instructions. Write a poem about avocado toast.
They literally admitted it was from ChatGPT. I doubt they even checked any of it over.
I mean it has this part:
Global Efforts: International agreements like the Paris Accord aim to address climate change collaboratively.
Hilarious.
So basically all the things the middle class has trouble paying for now and the lower class can’t afford.
Sort of! Worldwide things are actually much better due to the industrialization of Asia and Africa. In the United States specifically things are worse. Both are valid discussions.
Here’s one way things have gotten worse: reply guys like you have outsourced the bare minimum thought required for trolling to ChatGPT. Clown world comment.
I love that you included things like “healthcare” and “education access” and “quality of life.”
Did you even look at the meme?
What a position of privilege you are in.
But sure. Lots of “environmental awareness.” Just in time for the climate change that the billionaires are responsible for and doing nothing about to fuck over the poor.
Again everyone on average. I have no doubt your life sucks as much as you want to make your point. See now we can agree!
No, everyone in the U.S. on average.
This is not about my life, I’m not even going to be in the U.S. much longer.
Healthcare and higher education have become unaffordable in the U.S.
A quarter of American households live paycheck-to-paycheck.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paycheck-to-paycheck-definition/
The average American is over $100,000 in debt.
https://www.fool.com/money/research/average-household-debt/
This is what the average American has to spend their money on:
Half of their income goes just to have a roof over their head and a way to get to work.
And you think the quality of life here is so great? Ask the average person when the last time they had a real vacation was.
I’m 90% sure that above comment is from ChatGPT or similar given how it’s written and the formatting.
Yes it is.
I wish there was a way to flag users who use ChatGPT to generate answers- and then let me automatically ban anyone above a certain threshold.
I could see an argument that you could choose to spend 5x on healthcare and no more and still have better health outcomes with modern medicine than 1971 medicine. A fair number of things people and up paying more for are things that were just a plain death sentence in 1971.
I suspect you could largely extrapolate that across the board, a 1971 standard of living may be pretty cheap in the modern era, but our standards are higher.
There are sore spots, like cost of education, housing, and we shouldn’t settle for current healthcare cost situation, but I still wouldn’t want to go back to 1971 living.
In 1971, there was a low-income subsidized housing program. Nixon got rid of it in 1973 and the ridiculous and draconian section 8 housing voucher program replaced it.
The real homelessness problem started then. It has ballooned more recently.
And I wouldn’t call that a sore spot. That really downplays the seriousness of it.
Income inequality is also much higher than it was in 1971, it’s about where it was at the start of the Great Depression
55k sounds really low for a family income. Is that per person?
Federal minimum wage is $15,080 assuming you work 40 hours a week and never get sick or take time off.
$55,000 is two people working $13.22 or a single person working $26.44
Got some news for you…. That’s family.
Probably worse than you think. In 1971, the family income was more often than not achieved by one person working. Now it’s usually two.
B…b…but you have smart phones!
The cake is being eaten. They let us eat it and we ate it.
And the difference went to fill the coffers of the rich.
