Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your position is extremely poorly explained - you keep saying it is harder to get ahead, but harder relative to what? The previous generation? And what do you mean by "ahead" - ahead of the previous generation, or ahead of where you would otherwise be?
You say the amount of increase is less for the same amount of effort - again, what do you mean? Do you mean that the purchasing power of the additional income as a result of working hard (over and above the income you would earn by working less hard) is less than the same for the previous generation? Or that the rate of increase in total income is slowing down ?
I am very, very confused as to what you are trying to say in a quantitative sense. Please clarify.
It's WAY harder to get ahead these days. Compared to previous generations, that is.
In the area that I grew up, 2 parents earning an average income could buy a house, raise a family, own 2 cars, put money away for retirement, buy food, clothes, and entertainment for the family, and afford a vacation or 2 per year.
In this generation, to achieve that exact same lifestyle, both parents would have to earn 3x the average!
No iPhones or sushi on that budget, either.
The notion that the average person can achieve 3x the average income through hard work, is ridiculous!
I'm not interested in complaining I'm interested in doing something about it. Big difference.
And what is it that you are trying to do about this? If you want a political solution to achieve your ideals, then you picked the wrong forum. There is a separate forum for politics.
It's WAY harder to get ahead these days. Compared to previous generations, that is.
In the area that I grew up, 2 parents earning an average income could buy a house, raise a family, own 2 cars, put money away for retirement, buy food, clothes, and entertainment for the family, and afford a vacation or 2 per year.
In this generation, to achieve that exact same lifestyle, both parents would have to earn 3x the average!
No iPhones or sushi on that budget, either.
The notion that the average person can achieve 3x the average income through hard work, is ridiculous!
The notion that it takes 3x the national average and two people working is ridiculous. That comes to about $300,000/year. When I was a kid my father had a very well paying job. Even so we could not afford two cars or even two vacations per year. We got most of our clothes for the year at Christmas. I cannot remember about "entertainment". We had a record player and did get a TV eventually. Phone calls to relatives waited until major holidays. Eating out even for fast food was a rarity.
And what is it that you are trying to do about this? If you want a political solution to achieve your ideals, then you picked the wrong forum. There is a separate forum for politics.
There are three things I want to accomplish.
1. educate people about what raising the minimum wage does.
2. Disprove disinformation about what the minimum wage does.
And 3. well that is for another forum.
This forum is for talking about economics with an eye towards investing. An accurate picture of the macro economic situation is needed to invest wisely. Like why are all commodities down at the same time?
In this forum it use to not be possible to mention governing bodies and what they were likely to do as that was considered politics. But what are the governing bodies going to do and how do I invest accordingly?
The fix for the current economic mess is upping the minimum wage a lot, and making it apply to all export workers that the US trades with. It will also keep the large banks from failing. So are they going to get bailed out again? Or are they going to be allowed to fail? Are they going to get the much higher minimum wage they need to be solvent? I try to keep politics in the politics forum and economics here.
The notion that it takes 3x the national average and two people working is ridiculous. That comes to about $300,000/year. When I was a kid my father had a very well paying job. Even so we could not afford two cars or even two vacations per year. We got most of our clothes for the year at Christmas. I cannot remember about "entertainment". We had a record player and did get a TV eventually. Phone calls to relatives waited until major holidays. Eating out even for fast food was a rarity.
I often pick 1970 as a reference year as its my year of birth. As such, its not cherry picked beyond that. So lets look.....
In 1970 the median new house cost $23,400, median income....$7.559 3.09X
in 2010, approx 221,000, median income....47,793 4.6X
in 1970 10% less women were employed, meaning that despite having 10% or more effort being put out, houses have become even more unaffordable. Given that housing is the largest, and most expensive item a person owns, this is pretty significant.
(I used 2010 as that was where a lot of the data tables ended, I don't expect too much difference in the last 5 years-AND 2010 was after the prices had dropped, and were rising again according to the data table....)
Cars?
1970 $3,450 (a tad under half of the yearly income)
2013 $31,500 (a tad OVER half)
Probably the second most expensive item. So again, very significant.
If you will notice houses have grown in size and have way more amenities. I cannot even begin to look at the changes in cars. They are way, way better and more sophisticated. If Detroit still made a 1970 piece of crap, you can bet no one would buy it.
1. educate people about what raising the minimum wage does.
2. Disprove disinformation about what the minimum wage does.
And 3. well that is for another forum.
.......
This sounds like a total political agenda to me. Now if Congress had already agreed to an increase in the minimum wage then discussing the consequences here would make sense. There are a lot of causes I believe in but I consider it inappropriate to discuss them here.
I often pick 1970 as a reference year as its my year of birth. As such, its not cherry picked beyond that. So lets look.....
In 1970 the median new house cost $23,400, median income....$7.559 3.09X
in 2010, approx 221,000, median income....47,793 4.6X
in 1970 10% less women were employed, meaning that despite having 10% or more effort being put out, houses have become even more unaffordable. Given that housing is the largest, and most expensive item a person owns, this is pretty significant.
(I used 2010 as that was where a lot of the data tables ended, I don't expect too much difference in the last 5 years-AND 2010 was after the prices had dropped, and were rising again according to the data table....)
Cars?
1970 $3,450 (a tad under half of the yearly income)
2013 $31,500 (a tad OVER half)
Probably the second most expensive item. So again, very significant.
And then there's the issue of debt. I'm 25 and most people my age have tens of thousands of student loan debt that isn't going away anytime soon. It adds up to over $1 trillion that this nation could've alternately invested and created jobs with. What a colossal waste.
If you will notice houses have grown in size and have way more amenities. I cannot even begin to look at the changes in cars. They are way, way better and more sophisticated. If Detroit still made a 1970 piece of crap, you can bet no one would buy it.
Nothing you are saying changes the underlying FACT. A house is more expensive. A car is more expensive. You can try and fob off how much better off we are due to technological changes. But in the end that doesn't change the underlying facts about what things cost.
in 1970 the automation used to create a car was minor. Today its a large portion of it.
in 1970 making a new home was a much more complex undertaking compared to today. The planning, and equipment used are vastly improved.
Arguably they should be cheaper. BUT....while the actual cost of the building isn't much different, the cost of the lot itself has increased a lot.
This. If you have marketable skills, you will almost certainly have a job. For example, Tech is a booming industry that is just demanding workers at the moment, but most people can't go through it's rigorous college program for a CS degree taking classes like Calc 2 or Physics 2 or the more demanding data type courses.
Only a limited number of students can get CS degrees: that's why they have value. For instance, the admission rate for the CS program at my college was 3%. Calculus and Physics at any worthwhile university are graded on a curve. This idea that "There is opportunity for everyone because everyone can get a CS degree from Cal Tech" ignores the fact that the track into good jobs is structured like a competitive tournament where only a small number can possibly come out on top.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
