U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-24-2018, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,310 posts, read 13,432,534 times
Reputation: 14217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup View Post
Spending patterns were much different. In the 50's we spent 1/3 of our income on food, now it's under half that. Clothing declining 10%.
Yes, and that was true up through the 1970s.

Many Middle-Class families went meatless one to three nights a week, because the price of meat was quite high. Even when they did eat meat, it really wasn't meat, it was pork brains, cow tongue, beef or pork kidneys, beef or pork livers, hog maws, chitlins, beef tripe or chicken gizzards, hearts and livers.

The Standard of Living has definitely increased, as Middle-Class families rarely go meatless, and they actually eat real meat, instead of offal.

It's important to factor in such things.

You cannot compare televisions today with televisions in the 1970s.

TVs today are cable-ready, have internal antennae, have Dolby sound, and many other features, like remote control and split-screen that TVs in the past did not have.

Same with cars. Cars in the 1970s did not come standard with radio or CD player or satellite radio, did not have power-steering or power brakes, did not have power windows or door-locks, did not have heated or electric seats, did not have electronic mirrors, did not have a media console, and did not have many other features standard on today's cars.

So, many things actually cost less, not more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2018, 06:56 PM
 
65,829 posts, read 67,139,137 times
Reputation: 44094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Yes it will take an S load of money. But don't forget - and this is very important - the per capita HC costs for the general population is much lower on average than Medicare. Just based on the attendant medical risks of age alone.
i have not seen studies but the flip side is most of the sickly ,accident prone and unhealthy are already weeded out by medicare age over decades prior
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2018, 07:43 PM
 
11,774 posts, read 6,098,356 times
Reputation: 21695
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i have not seen studies but the flip side is most of the sickly ,accident prone and unhealthy are already weeded out by medicare age over decades prior
Sort of. The people with chronic behavior-related health issues end up on Medicaid. Other than elderly poor long term care, that’s the big Medicaid money sink. Generally, they don’t live long enough to use much Medicare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2018, 09:34 PM
 
8,373 posts, read 3,546,650 times
Reputation: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i have not seen studies but the flip side is most of the sickly ,accident prone and unhealthy are already weeded out by medicare age over decades prior
Nah. Boomers will be the largest Medicare group ever.

https://www.ccwdata.org/web/guest/me...ollment-charts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 04:04 AM
 
65,829 posts, read 67,139,137 times
Reputation: 44094
that is because so far boomers are the largest group . because the herd has already been thinned those that make it that far are generally healthier . a 65 year old man has very good odds of seeing 83 and a woman of seeing 86 . that is a lot longer than odds from birth which is 79.50 . that is because so much of the herd has had the sick and weak die off .

now you have a small window left and each year after that 50% point more and more boomers die . so compared to the general population from birth it seems to me you have weeded out the bulk of the sick and weak by 65 as well as now have a smaller window before more and more die .

Last edited by mathjak107; 11-25-2018 at 04:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 09:09 AM
 
8,373 posts, read 3,546,650 times
Reputation: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
that is because so far boomers are the largest group . because the herd has already been thinned those that make it that far are generally healthier . a 65 year old man has very good odds of seeing 83 and a woman of seeing 86 . that is a lot longer than odds from birth which is 79.50 . that is because so much of the herd has had the sick and weak die off .

now you have a small window left and each year after that 50% point more and more boomers die . so compared to the general population from birth it seems to me you have weeded out the bulk of the sick and weak by 65 as well as now have a smaller window before more and more die .
If most younger people die quick and cheap, then the above might have some merit. Gun shots and car crashes, suicides are examples of relatively cheap deaths.

But the reality is more and more old folks moving forward in time. And that is mainly a result of demographics, and also medical technologies. So even more chronic disease patients. And more and more complex and expensive medical treatments, meds and procedures.

https://www.prb.org/aging-unitedstates-fact-sheet/

So no matter how many are getting weeded out when young, we stii will have more and more older age medical risks on the horizon. And the medical risks of the typical aged person is so much higher than the young.That is where the big money continues to lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,539 posts, read 1,377,547 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Interesting opinion piece in the Wash Post by Robert Samuelson.

That said, he is being a bit misleading about the CBO data. Samuelson points to CBO data which show inflation adjusted household income growth from 1979 to 2015 (most recent year available).

First, much of the income gain reported for the period is due to more work per household, primarily due to more women working. The typical "household" in 1979 had far fewer dual earners.

Second, the bulk of the income gains occurred prior to 2000. From 2000 to 2015, the income gains are far more paltry.

Third, the CBO data includes the value of transfers from government. These clearly have risen, most importantly from the increased availability and cost of health care provided through Medicaid, subsidies on the health care exchanges, and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program).

I think people can be forgiven for not recognizing this as an increase in their income. First, much of the increased expenditure is due to the higher fees charged by providers. Most people probably don't feel richer because Medicaid is now paying more money to drug companies and surgeons.

The other point is that most people actually don't have high health care expenses. The government's payments are mostly for the 5–10 percent of the population that does have large health care expenses. If you are reasonably healthy, then you are not seeing a direct benefit from this government expenditure.

So to accurately describe the story for the last fifteen years, incomes have stagnated and the government has substantially increased its share of health care spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 05:26 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 587,166 times
Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Yes, and that was true up through the 1970s.

Many Middle-Class families went meatless one to three nights a week, because the price of meat was quite high. Even when they did eat meat, it really wasn't meat, it was pork brains, cow tongue, beef or pork kidneys, beef or pork livers, hog maws, chitlins, beef tripe or chicken gizzards, hearts and livers.

The Standard of Living has definitely increased, as Middle-Class families rarely go meatless, and they actually eat real meat, instead of offal.

It's important to factor in such things.

You cannot compare televisions today with televisions in the 1970s.

TVs today are cable-ready, have internal antennae, have Dolby sound, and many other features, like remote control and split-screen that TVs in the past did not have.

Same with cars. Cars in the 1970s did not come standard with radio or CD player or satellite radio, did not have power-steering or power brakes, did not have power windows or door-locks, did not have heated or electric seats, did not have electronic mirrors, did not have a media console, and did not have many other features standard on today's cars.

So, many things actually cost less, not more.
Mircea, everyone has their own taste. Beef tongue to me is a preferable but a less affordable delicacy.

You post of middle-income standards of living as definitely having improved. The proportion of our population segment within the median income bracket are being reduced while the population of 3/5 lesser earners is increasing.
For those within the second quintus, (i.e. second fifth) of our nation’s income earning segments, there’s apparently lesser opportunities and greater difficulties to improve your family’s financial status.

Years ago, there were many areas within the USA that received less than excellent TV reception. The most common condition was TV signals being reflected by structures to provide double images, (i.e. ghosts) on your TV screen. Now in those free, less optimum signals can no longer be captured “rabbit ear” antennas. You must pay, and pay well for cable, (which originally implied a promise of lesser or no commercial interruptions).

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,310 posts, read 13,432,534 times
Reputation: 14217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
You post of middle-income standards of living as definitely having improved. The proportion of our population segment within the median income bracket are being reduced while the population of 3/5 lesser earners is increasing.
You're wrong. In 1990, 79% of workers earned $30,000 or less, while today only 48% of workers earn $30,000 or less.

Your claim is only true if 79% of workers still made $30,000 or less today, but they don't.

Incomes are rising, and they're rising faster than the rate of all forms of Inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 10:22 PM
 
10,385 posts, read 5,035,459 times
Reputation: 6926
I don’t know about eating less meat before 1970s, but my husband’s family usually had a Sunday roast. So they definitely eat meat regularly. His family is from the UK, not as well off as in USA, I supposed. I think they are middle class, but owned home in the London suburb area, reasonably tony area, only on one income. Mom never worked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top