Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are basically babbling nonsensically at this point.Of course they are spending more, because purchasing power has declined drastically.
The article was bullshit, they used a productivity multiplier of 4.25 to generate the attention grabbing headline.They broke it down in the article which was the OP.
His numbers pull of a magic trick. From his source ="We are working harder and longer for less."
Just to make sure we're on the same track, got numbers?
(I'll look at them tomorrow --- lol --- bedtime for an old man)
As usual your claims don't pass the sniff test. From graph below, per capita car ownership was about 0.3 in 1950, and about 1.2 in modern times.There are more cars per capita today out of necessity, not affordability. Back in 1950, most homes only had one car because the mother was a homemaker. Today, everyone in the household has to work, and needs a car to get to and from the jobs.
Let's take a look at this, since if we've learned anything from this thread it is that you'll say whatever pops into your head regardless of whether it is fact or anecdote presented as fact.My first job, I could afford more than 4 gallons of gas to get to and from work. Today, that same job will only get you about 2 gallons of gas.
Nope.Now granted, I am not saying that there were no poor people in the 50's. But things are a lot worse today.
silly liberal lie given that there are more cars per capita today than in 1950. Also, the concept is stupid given that standards of living go way up with the huge technological progress. THe only thing that can prevent living standards from going up with new inventions is liberal soviet interference.
This is Econ 101, class one day one.
There are more cars per capita today out of necessity, not affordability. Back in 1950, most homes only had one car because the mother was a homemaker. Today, everyone in the household has to work, and needs a car to get to and from the jobs.
Sure, we now expect to have a flat screen and a cellphone, but that is not different than in 1950 having "new" inventions like a television tube set and a landline telephone.
You are basically babbling nonsensically at this point.Of course they are spending more, because purchasing power has declined drastically.
That graph shows percentage of income spent on necessities over time. It has been demonstrated that despite your claims to the contrary people earn more money now, own better things, and spend less of their money on the basics.
The article was bullshit, they used a productivity multiplier of 4.25 to generate the attention grabbing headline.They broke it down in the article which was the OP.
Fact = people make more money today (inflation adjusted) than in 1950. You claiming otherwise is both absurd and dishonest.
As usual your claims don't pass the sniff test. From graph below, per capita car ownership was about 0.3 in 1950, and about 1.2 in modern times.
You cannot explain 4 times higher car ownership by the increase in dual-income households.
Let's take a look at this, since if we've learned anything from this thread it is that you'll say whatever pops into your head regardless of whether it is fact or anecdote presented as fact.
Cost of gas in 1950: $0.20
Cost of gas today: $3.00 (I realize is closer to $2.00 in many places but since volatile we'll round way up)
Inflation calculator says that makes the 1950 gas $1.91 in 2013 dollars. However when you throw in fuel economy being twice as good, it is far cheaper today for someone on miniimum wage to keep gas in their car:
too stupid of course, you have admitted that there are far more cars today per capita which then could only be possible if people could afford those cars which you said they could not!
Sure, we now expect to have a flat screen and a cellphone, but that is not different than in 1950 having "new" inventions like a television tube set and a landline telephone.
You don't need to be an economist to see how rich the middle class just got by looking at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 10 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, color matched front loader washing machines, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 6 burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Netflix boxes, jet skis, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion spent Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies, 44 million taking plane flights over 2012 holiday, $500 billion spent on Christmas 2012.
The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.
I think the solution is more to do with limiting the ceo's, the board and the super rich from taking the profit away from the workers. A minimum wage is a half measure, but a important as it stops them from paying even lower wages, but we can see it doesn't go far enough. My advise is to Tie the lowest paid employee and ceo by percentage....What we need to do is drain the wealth down to the workers.
I support 10.75 per hour for the minimum wage.
Sorry dude but despite your attempts to argue with personal anecdotes and fond memories, the hard data proves you wrong every time.I don't know what country you live in, but where I live, basics like gasoline have quadrupled just since I entered the job market as a teenager. Even adjusting for inflation, I can only get about HALF as much gasoline to get me to and from a min wage job, for every hour worked.
The fact that productivity has increased isn't in dispute. You using it to skew wages and purchasing power is dishonest.Productivity has increased by more than 400%. That is not dishonest, that is a fact. If the money from increased productivity is drained from the economy rather than being reinvested in it, you will seize-up the economy. Which is what is happening now.
There are far more cars per worker, so your claim there are just more cars because more people need them to go to work makes no sense. If there used to be 0.8 cars per worker, and now there are 1.2 cars per worker then you cannot support a claim there are more cars just because there are more people who need to work.I said out of necessity, not simply dual income households.
Prove it.There is also a MUCH higher percentage of workers living in areas where there is no, or insufficient public transport than in the past. Owning a car is not a luxury when it is a necessity.
The fact that productivity has increased isn't in dispute. You using it to skew wages and purchasing power is dishonest.Productivity has increased by more than 400%. That is not dishonest, that is a fact. If the money from increased productivity is drained from the economy rather than being reinvested in it, you will seize-up the economy. Which is what is happening now.
For you to believe your article you must also believe that someone who one day improved productivity while working the same hours for same wage somehow magically lost purchasing power. That isn't true, and that is why your silly linked article falls short.
Really? The 16 year old kid at the Subway near my house needs 36k per year to live with his parents and go to high school? I sure hope he buys a nice skate board.On the other hand, I do believe that employers have a responsibility to pay their workers enough to live on, without social subsidies of any kind. That figure was $17.47/hr x 40 in 2012..
