U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [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)
 
Old 08-05-2012, 08:13 AM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,691,065 times
Reputation: 4769

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
not to mention the fact that you seem to think that the average person actually had servants
For this to work the servants would have to have servants too, otherwise at least half the people aren't average.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Even plain old common sense should have told you that a brand new house was NOT $5 - I mean come on!
Come on dude, someone who buys bread for $7 a loaf can surely buy a home for $5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2012, 08:24 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,291 posts, read 33,642,226 times
Reputation: 14175
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
I'd respond to all this nonsense but it appears slackjaw has already done so, so there's not a lot of reason to repeat it. About all I need to add is that ANYONE who actually thought you could buy a brand new bungalow for $5 (as you did) - when the item for sale for that price was merely the house PLAN (not to mention the fact that you seem to think that the average person actually had servants) - is not really qualified to argue ANYTHING about economics.


As for your silly graph - you DO realize that the author of that chart (R. C. Sahr) is NOT an even an economist (he's a Political Science professor) - not mention that the chart is so vague it really doesn't show anything and has nothing really to back it up.

And as I said, anyone who seems to think that you could buy a brand new bungalow for $5 clearly has NO UNDERSTANDING of what the cost of items were back then so you are not really in a position to be taken seriously in that regard. Even plain old common sense should have told you that a brand new house was NOT $5 - I mean come on!


Ken


It takes the same amount of gold, to buy a loaf of bread and to buy property as it did in 1900.

It is the printed paper IOU, that has become worth-less and less. So, it now takes more paper to buy the same thing.


The US Constitution clearly states what our money is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,868 posts, read 22,743,057 times
Reputation: 7167
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post

Yeah its almost impossible to compare something like incomes over different eras, especially as far back as the 1800s when far fewer people even had an income. Some had farms, some worked on farms for room and board, some were slaves and worked to not feel a whip crack on their back, etc. but I think one can make a claim on overall standard of living then vs. now and it isn't even close. As I said one can easily simulate the lifestyle of someone pre-civil war era and it usually involves getting rid of a lot of stuff that we take for granted which makes our lives more comfortable.
Yup.
In 1790 - 90% of the labor force was farmers - living a simple but hard life.
In 1840 - 69% of the labor force was farmers - again, living that same simple but hard life
As time when by and the nation developed and technology increased less and less farmers were needed to produce food and more and more workers were needed in the city factories so a huge migration from the countryside to the cities took place. so...
In 1860 - 58% of the labor force was famers - again, living that same simple but hard life
1870 - 53%
1880 - 49% (still nearly half the workers in the country were farmers)
All the way down to today - when farmers comprise about 2% of the labor force.

Agriculture in the Classroom

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 08:31 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,868 posts, read 22,743,057 times
Reputation: 7167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
It takes the same amount of gold, to buy a loaf of bread and to buy property as it did in 1900.

It is the printed paper IOU, that has become worth-less and less. So, it now takes more paper to buy the same thing.
That might be, but SO WHAT?
Gold is just a commodity - and a volitile one at that. Sometimes it goes up in value - sometimes it goes down. Over the last few years gold prices have skyrocketed - but prior to that it was flat for 20+ years and in the year prior to that prices crashed and in the year prior to that they skyrocket. Gold prices move around - just like ANY other commodity.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 08:50 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,291 posts, read 33,642,226 times
Reputation: 14175
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
That might be, but SO WHAT?
Gold is just a commodity - and a volitile one at that. Sometimes it goes up in value - sometimes it goes down. Over the last few years gold prices have skyrocketed - but prior to that it was flat for 20+ years and in the year prior to that prices crashed and in the year prior to that they skyrocket. Gold prices move around - just like ANY other commodity.

Ken

That is what happens when gold is traded on an open market and no longer considered money.
We are all Keynesian's now!

Yet it is gold that has been the hedge for counterfeiting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 11:50 AM
 
Location: SC
9,038 posts, read 14,295,322 times
Reputation: 3493
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
That might be, but SO WHAT?
Gold is just a commodity - and a volitile one at that. Sometimes it goes up in value - sometimes it goes down. Over the last few years gold prices have skyrocketed - but prior to that it was flat for 20+ years and in the year prior to that prices crashed and in the year prior to that they skyrocket. Gold prices move around - just like ANY other commodity.

Ken
NO KEN YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG. As Ron Paul has explained OVER AND OVER AD Nauseum in fact as has Peter Schiff, gold only maintains its value or purchasing power. An ounce of gold has always been able to buy the same thing no matter how much an oz you have to pay for it. An ounce of gold will buy a quality man's suit. Owning gold is just a hedge against inflation.

If you bought gold back when a Brooks Brothers suit was $200 you probably paid $200 for an oz of gold. Gold has NEVER fluctuated as far as that goes.

What is volatile is the stupid Federal Reserve note that your bankster friend helicopter Ben keeps printing as if it is going out of style! As he does that the money supply expands; the dollar buys less; prices of tangible goods go up and the price of gold also goes up commensurately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 12:37 PM
 
Location: SC
9,038 posts, read 14,295,322 times
Reputation: 3493
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
You have to understand the nation was still expanding. Schools in the rural outreaches of the nation at the time, did not have schools.

Once the nation was no longer expanding and transportation speed increased, the ability to get an education increased for all.
Thank-you BentBow.

Besides I'm not talking about the people who weren't educated then. I'm talking about comparing the people who WERE educated then with our supposedly educated kids and adults today who are the product of the "wonderful" (not) educations we've been getting which just keep getting worse--not better. There is a GIGANTIC DIFFERENCE. Kids could THINK back then. They could SPELL. They knew grammar. They read books. They could write WELL.Their brains weren't anesthetized and programed by hours of video games and watching TV.

They knew the difference between "your" and "you're" which few people on this forum have a clue about. They knew Latin and Greek! Colleges of today graduate relative Morons compared to what they did over 100 years ago. There is NO COMPARISON.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 12:52 PM
 
Location: SC
9,038 posts, read 14,295,322 times
Reputation: 3493
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
No, I'm not missing the point your entire premise leans on the country being more prosperous and having a better standard of living 150 years ago and that simply isn't true. Today people are more comfortable with more amenities and things we take for granted that only the wealthy could dream of back then. ..................................
.
You ARE missing the point. Back then LOTS of people including lots of the working class had houses and families and only ONE of them had to work to keep that standard of living. Forget about the fact that middle class families had maids. Today you need TWO incomes just to make ends meet. Few if any middle class families have maids today and two incomes are needed to pay the maid if they have one. Few if any upper middle class families have maids let along full staffs and chefs like they did back then.

And comparing amenities is ridiculous.
What you are calling "amenities" don 't even cost us that much anymore. You can get your stupid iPad and wide screen TV for next to nothing these days. They enjoyed whatever were the state of the art amenities back then as we do today. They wouldn't have WANTED a TV or a computer then. Their horses and carriages were a lot more expensive to keep up I bet.. than a car is. Some of the small wooden sailboats they had back then would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build today. They had CULTURE they had BOOKS theatre, music, art which only a few of us partake in today because most of us can't afford it or are so dumbed down we aren't even interested in it. They had a heck of a lot better quality of food than we do today even if they did grow it themselves AND they had fewer chronic and degenerative diseases than we do today. They weren't STRESSED OUT like we are today. Today some of us aren't even ALLOWED to grow our own food as it is AGAINST THE LAW thanks to Obama's "Food Safety Modernization Act" which is nothing about safety and does nothing good for the American public.

There is NO COMPARISON. Their quality of life was better back then and cost them a heck of a lot less to get a heck of a lot more than it costs us today.

Last edited by emilybh; 08-05-2012 at 01:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 01:31 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,592 posts, read 12,303,644 times
Reputation: 15491
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh View Post
You ARE missing the point. Back then LOTS of people including lots of the working class had houses and families and only ONE of them had to work to keep that standard of living. Forget about the fact that middle class families had maids. Today you need TWO incomes just to make ends meet. Few if any middle class families have maids today and two incomes are needed to pay the maid if they have one. Few if any upper middle class families have maids let along full staffs and chefs like they did back then.

And comparing amenities is ridiculous.
What you are calling "amenities" don 't even cost us that much anymore. You can get your stupid iPad and wide screen TV for next to nothing these days. They enjoyed whatever were the state of the art amenities back then as we do today. They wouldn't have WANTED a TV or a computer then. Their horses and carriages were a lot more expensive to keep up I bet.. than a car is. Some of the small wooden sailboats they had back then would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build today. They had CULTURE they had BOOKS theatre, music, art which only a few of us partake in today because most of us can't afford it or are so dumbed down we aren't even interested in it. They had a heck of a lot better quality of food than we do today even if they did grow it themselves AND they had fewer chronic and degenerative diseases than we do today. They weren't STRESSED OUT like we are today. Today some of us aren't even ALLOWED to grow our own food as it is AGAINST THE LAW thanks to Obama's "Food Safety Modernization Act" which is nothing about safety and does nothing good for the American public.

There is NO COMPARISON. Their quality of life was better back then and cost them a heck of a lot less to get a heck of a lot more than it costs us today.
I do not agree at all with your revision of history.

Average working people had to work 12 to 14 hours a day. Working class families very often took in "boarders" just to pay the rent on their modest apartments and row-houses. In the cities they lived in crowded tenements or rented rooms.

For example, permit me to discuss the lives of Pennsylvania coal miners from the earlier part of the industrial revolution ... 1830's to 1840's up until WW1. The miners worked extremely dirty and dangerous conditions for 12 to hours a day, in the winter months they never saw the sun - they were in the mines before dawn and out after dark. They lived in the flimsy crummy wooden houses - shacks, really - the coal company provided for them without even running water. The wives took in boarders. Everything had to be purchased at the company store - at inflated prices. Most of the miners were in perpetual dept to their employers, who supplied not only their jobs but housing. The boys were put to work 10 to 12 hours a day in the collieries as young as age 8. They were called "breaker boys". (see picture below). The parents wanted their kids to go to school ... but survival meant putting the kids to work for every penny.

May I suggest you visit Eckley Miner's Village near Hazleton, PA, which interprets the lives of the coalminers? You can see the actual wood shacks they lived in.

My great grandparents worked in factories called "sweat shops." They had no safety rules, no overtime time, no health insurance, no vacation time, nothing. Like in the bigger cities across America they lived in tenements.

May I suggest you visit the New York Tenement Museum in the lower east side of Manhattan, which interprets the lives of the tenement dwellers?

Women usually did not work, because there was job discrimination and women would not be hired for a lot of the jobs they can hold today. A married woman in those days had her hands full just doing housework which was so much more arduous than it is today. Just doing the laundry was a grueling all day task as clothes were washed by hand.

What was life expectancy in 1900?

What was infant mortality and child mortality in 1900? Look at Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis - both wealthy men - they had 4-5 children each and yet only one child of each lived to see adulthood.


Last edited by Clark Park; 08-05-2012 at 01:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,781 posts, read 23,770,080 times
Reputation: 6180
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh View Post
You ARE missing the point. Back then LOTS of people including lots of the working class had houses and families and only ONE of them had to work to keep that standard of living. Forget about the fact that middle class families had maids. Today you need TWO incomes just to make ends meet. Few if any middle class families have maids today and two incomes are needed to pay the maid if they have one. Few if any upper middle class families have maids let along full staffs and chefs like they did back then.

And comparing amenities is ridiculous.
What you are calling "amenities" don 't even cost us that much anymore. You can get your stupid iPad and wide screen TV for next to nothing these days. They enjoyed whatever were the state of the art amenities back then as we do today. They wouldn't have WANTED a TV or a computer then. Their horses and carriages were a lot more expensive to keep up I bet.. than a car is. Some of the small wooden sailboats they had back then would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build today. They had CULTURE they had BOOKS theatre, music, art which only a few of us partake in today because most of us can't afford it or are so dumbed down we aren't even interested in it. They had a heck of a lot better quality of food than we do today even if they did grow it themselves AND they had fewer chronic and degenerative diseases than we do today. They weren't STRESSED OUT like we are today. Today some of us aren't even ALLOWED to grow our own food as it is AGAINST THE LAW thanks to Obama's "Food Safety Modernization Act" which is nothing about safety and does nothing good for the American public.

There is NO COMPARISON. Their quality of life was better back then and cost them a heck of a lot less to get a heck of a lot more than it costs us today.
Emily, you are just way off the mark here.

The standard of living 50, 100 or 150 years ago was much worse than it is today, not even a close call. Often workers put in 10+ hour days, doing jobs that destroyed their health.

It is easy to veryify, just take a look at the lifespan statistics for any point in time and compare it today. Also, look at how the daily life was lived, no air conditioning, fewer (or no) cars for personal transportation, limited or no TV, no computer (or internet), and so on.

My own family had multiple families living in a rented home back in the early 1900's, and this wasn't a rare situation.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:14 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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