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.
Looking at real wages (purchasing power) and the unemployment rate is hardly "complex analytics" it is simply using actual data instead of anecdotes and notions.People are simple.... there's no need to bury the truth in complex analytics. Boys and girls in the 50's and 60's grew up with one paycheck and some left over. In the past 70 years since the need has become 2 paychecks plus ...
This is easy to identify. The wage earners of today were the children of yesterday...they are aware.
Hahah... I'd argue one is a partisan hack of their instinctive reaction is attempting to link an opinion to an administration.Haha ... A typical administration puppet.
If you want to talk about nebulous...speaking in terms of real wages is about as nebulous as you can get.
Claim as they might to adjust for inflation they always miss the mark and quite on purpose IMO. The only true currency that can be measured decade after decade in terms of comparative effort is the man-hour. You don't need any complex math to understand that what used to take 40 man hours per capita family unit now takes 80 to 100 for less security, less purchasing power and a smaller share of prosperity. There are a lot of reasons for that...not all of them are evil or bad...but collectively people in general are very well aware of the financial stress they are facing and the constant inference of paradise economy does nothing but piss them off.
Of course.... consumption is always a factor. Who said it wasn't? That does not change anything at all. The fact remains that the man-hour input for basic survival is more than twice what it was 70 years ago. Interestingly it has also surpassed that of the industrial revolution in the 1850's to 1920's which stood at about 70 per family.Looking at real wages (purchasing power) and the unemployment rate is hardly "complex analytics" it is simply using actual data instead of anecdotes and notions.
70 years ago the average home was 900 sq feet, today it is closer to 2,500. The average household owns more cars despite fewer people, and those cars are far more efficient and safe than before. You have a computer in your pocket.
You implied consumption wasn't a factor when you attempted to compare the cost of living today with the cost of living from 70 years ago without considering how much more people consume.Of course.... consumption is always a factor. Who said it wasn't? That does not change anything at all. The fact remains that the man-hour input for basic survival is more than twice what it was 70 years ago. Interestingly it has also surpassed that of the industrial revolution in the 1850's to 1920's which stood at about 70 per family.
Sorry but your numbers just don't measure up. The average spend on housing costs here in the Northeast is 40% plus and getting worse all the time. Homelessness is on the rise and has increased nearly 200% over the past year according to local numbers not reflected in the politically cleansed numbers sources you tend to gravitate to.Regarding the ridiculous notion that the basics are trending less attainable 70 years ago:
View attachment 817959
For those keeping score at home, that would be:
(Food+housing+clothes+healthcare)
1900 = 85% of personal spending
1950 = 68% of personal spending
2003 = 55% of personal spending
www.census.gov
Note AveMarica has facts, and justoffal's cite does not dispel them.Sorry but your numbers just don't measure up. The average spend on housing costs here in the Northeast is 40% plus and getting worse all the time. Homelessness is on the rise and has increased nearly 200% over the past 12 months in this region. Additionally modern spending also includes something that you completely neglected in your early century numbers .. credit. You cannot exclude the cost of credit in modern cost of living expenditures.
Americans spend up to 50% of their income on rent, reveals Harvard study
Harvard study unveils concerning rent payment challenges for Americans, citing the rise of "luxury" buildings as one of the main reasons.scoop.upworthy.com
I recommend you get a better source... Or suffer the same reputational fate of the ridiculous government agencies that obtusely continue to tell people everything is great as they're going broke and going hungry.
You counter data with scary headlines that dispute nothing I've posted.I recommend you get a better source... Or suffer the same reputational fate of the ridiculous government agencies that obtusely continue to tell people everything is great as they're going broke and going hungry.
Actually they're more than headlines if you look closely the statistics you are crying about are in them .... The information you posted is nothing more than a collection of politically cleansed misrepresentations.You counter data with scary headlines that dispute nothing I've posted.
Clearly you are one of those people who is locked into their worldview, dismisses any data that runs counter as false/incorrect, and is incapable of actually supporting your argument with anything more than clickbait titles you desperately google up.
You fail.
Are you sure? All the rest of his numbers are garbage what makes you think this one isn't also?AveMarica has justoffal's number, yes.
How exactly is that data politically cleansed?Actually they're more than headlines if you look closely the statistics you are crying about are in them .... The information you posted is nothing more than a collection of politically cleansed misrepresentations.
Ahh back to non-measurable blatherings about "average financial plight", hilarious from the guy who rejects any and all actual data as politically cleansed because he lacks any real argument to stand on.The fact that you completely ignore the cost of credit as part of the modern COL tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge of the subject which is obviously limited to political jargon and not truly concerned with the intrinsic reality of the average financial plight facing The broad sector of Median income Americans.
I almost feel guilty.AveMarica has justoffal's number, yes.
Capitalism is like a rotten bridge that is regularly painted over. It is bound to collapse and kill many people under the rubble. But, as in the case of a rotten bridge, no one knows when it will collapse: it may collapse tomorrow, or it may stand for another ten years.
"In Switzerland, marijuana will be distributed free of charge to the willing, writes DW.You're describing communism.
Why don't you look at FIVE years ago?Looking at real wages (purchasing power) and the unemployment rate is hardly "complex analytics" it is simply using actual data instead of anecdotes and notions.
70 years ago the average home was 900 sq feet, today it is closer to 2,500. The average household owns more cars despite fewer people, and those cars are far more efficient and safe than before. You have a computer in your pocket.
"In Switzerland, marijuana will be distributed free of charge to the willing, writes DW.
The experiment is conducted by the authorities of Zurich and 2100 volunteers. The goal is to understand what will happen if people just give out small doses of the drug. In the future they plan to establish control over the quality of marijuana in the country..."
Life in a capitalist dystopia
Ahh so when you were talking about boys and girls growing up in the 50s, and how much easier things were 70 years ago, you actually meant FIVE years ago? Obviously you are trying to make data match your bias instead of having an open mind and learning something.Why don't you look at FIVE years ago?
