As I read this thread, I see I’m correct. There is no hope for mankind.
People are brainwashed.
Some think this current issue is a holy war. All I see is a bunch of flag wavers.
I think the never ending drive of industry and technology have doomed freedom for humans. The social and cultural disintegration of the west wont support a nation with our founding principals. I love this country, but im not particularly hopeful.
Bootlickers gonna bootlick
“s0cIiAlisM”
What? You think I’m ok with that COVID bs?
In the 60s a TV cost $400, or $4,750 in today’s dollars. Or 8 weeks of work for the average earner in the 60s.
That’s one thing that has actually gotten cheaper the equivalently priced TV is only now about a month of average gross salary ($4935 is monthly gross average in the US).
Yay technology.
But you must consider that in the 1960’s you didn’t “need” a TV for every room in the house.
1 Like
Most people i know certainly don’t have that. I have 2 in my entire house. and I really only have 2 because one was a gift.
BTW, for today’s money equivalent of 4750 I could buy about 10 decent size basic televisions or 2-3 really nice ones…
1 Like
But what most people have today is a monthly bill for pay TV.
My house had “rabbit ears” in the 1960’s. All shows were free. Operational costs were limited to the cost of electricity to power the TV. MOST households cannot say that. More “necessary” money needed to exist.
1 Like
This highlights the concept of comparative over consumption.
A quick search shows numerous, if not most available TVs for sale, cost less than that $4,750.
I just did a quick search on Amazon for fun, and found a 32” Insignia 720p High Definition Smart TV with voice controls and…… in color for $79. On sale from a regular price of $129.
This is a significantly better TV than you could’ve had in the 1960’s, and for less money.
As an aside, I’m curious how many families as a percentage comparison had TVs in the 1960’s vs today, but in any case choosing to buy a $4,750 TV is not a valid comparative argument.
1 Like
Exactly, comparing the two eras as an apples to apples equivalent is kind of silly unless it’s for absolute essentials like housing and food.
The other things are “essential” for functioning in modern society but not for “survival” (in the most basic sense of the term). Food and housing cost as a percent of monthly income are so much higher than they were during the 60s-80s.
Food went up by approximately 26% on average over the last 3.5 years. Few people’s average wage increased by that same amount.
(https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-grocery-prices-increased-since-140029491.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJ6xephM8wDozQGAuQEtx0lWwH4lZPfXDR56_72y3oFVRNl24etZizkK34VIgpRmcG_IbIkNIzdaZlWKT5Sqr5l1Q1jA2XaXeBYZBkiu1K9PexVmrW6uMrXi7SO8FAHd-Cg09TBhuP99qYyyXMzCjrpQSo1s0cldrND9MEN1uiYT)
That means a grocery bill of $200/week for your family in Nov 2020 has increased in just the last 3.5 years to $252/week or $2704/year to buy the exact same foods. Most people i know did not receive a wage increase of nearly that amount even over that period. That’s assuming there is no sales tax on groceries (there still is in a lot states).
The only way to make the argument that “stuff costs the same, people are just inherently consuming more” is if wages kept pace with essential item inflation. Does one really think people didn’t buy extra things 50 years ago (hint - they bought property - which is why no one can afford it now)?
And don’t forget, there was only one phone in the house
my parents bills in the 70s…and there were five kids, dad was a truckdriver and mom worked in the school cafeteria
mortgage
one car payment
electric bill
phone bill (one phone on the wall)
groceries
no A/C…only heat thru a furnace and we also had a fireplace
1 Like
But understanding total budget allocation, optional spending increases & offsets isn’t silly if the conversation is about the general affordability of life.
True, but since a larger portion of budget now must go to housing and food there is less percentage to save or spend.
Unless you’re saying what I am saying that life is more expensive then we agree.
My largest point is that the consumer is a contributor to the high costs of housing. I take some of the blame. I bought a larger house than I “needed.”
Why were large neighborhoods of homes between 1,000 to 1,200 sq ft being built in the 1960’s, where now there are few new houses being built with less than 2,000 sq ft and a 2 car garage? If the consumer demanded small houses, smaller houses would be being built.
Clearly, the developer wants to maximize his profit per acre and isn’t eager to be the one that builds small housing neighborhoods. Or to build houses that don’t need central heat and AC.
I get the continuous move to the suburbs. People are moving away from the poorer areas, assuming their new suburb locations are safer. And if the prices are high enough, they can segregate themselves from the less fortunate.
On average wages have increased about 20% since 2020. That is less than the 26% food prices have increased, but it’s not that different.
We have lost buying power, but not by a crazy large amount. I think a lot has to do with the sticker shock of simply seeing much higher prices on everything all the time, while an increased paycheck is only seen every couple weeks (generally).
IMO, housing is getting too expensive for younger generations, and that is a real problem. No amount of realistic cutting consumerism will fix that (let alone the economic impact of reduced consumerism). But, I also think runaway consumerism is a real problem here.
1 Like
1200 sq foot homes in southern CA are almost a million dollars. AC, T.V’s and other gadgets are not the issue.
2 Likes
Everything that costs money is part of the issue. Do you insist on buying specific brand of shoes? Or you buy the lowest price shoes?
I try to buy the highest quality I can afford for most things and cheap out when I can/should. Either I buy a decent $100+ pair of dress shoes that lasts many years or I cheap out and by the $35 dollar crap pair on Amazon (which I have done in the past). That crap pair wears out in 6 months. Within a year and a half I have had to spend more than on the nice pair.
It’s a hidden tax on the less fortunate. I thankfully have the ability to buy a nice pair of shoes when I need them. Many cannot, so they get stuck spending money on cheap shoes over and over because it’s all they can afford at a given time.
This is true for many things. It’s not simply about buying cheaply.
I have never thrown $100 away on a pair of shoes. I usually find a deal where I can buy one, get one half price, My top price has been $59 (plus another for about $30.)
I have never bought a pair of shoes that I didn’t try “those” exact shoes on before paying for them. Hence, I don’t Amazon shoes.
Anytime you buy any “designer” anything you are contributing to the problem.