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.
Everyone wants to talk about how houses cost only 14k-30k in the 60's and now they are hundreds of thousands...yet incomes in the 60's were low. My dad got hired on as a commercial airline pilot in 1966 and his salary was 500.00 mo (with a wife and 4 kids). He took 2 part time jobs in addition to being a pilot to make it work...taught flying and also changed oil at a gas station)and on probation with airline for a year. Todays young people don't even considervtrying to get a 2nd job. Now commercial pilots make hundreds of thousands a yr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga
granted this article is over 4 years old, but the above bolded is not the usual.
$500 a month in 1966 is the equivalent of $46,500 today. As Uggabugga pointed out, starting wage of commercial airline pilots is roughly $22,000 a year. The pilots making big bucks are flying long-haul flights on major airlines after many years. Many come from an Air Force background and have thousands of hours of flight time. Most commercial pilots flying regional airlines would make more money as a bus driver in their nearest town.
The fact that your dad could support himself, much less a wife and four kids, on the equivalent of $46,500 is huge. Where in the US could one do that now, even with a few part time gigs on the side? In many places, you would qualify for poverty benefits.
The thing about housing costs is that there's a risk/reward aspect to it.
Houses are an investment. People who got in "early" and bought a home 30-50 years ago are reaping the benefit of their investment.
If house prices were to fall dramatically, then obviously it would be a bad thing for these people. So, there are winners and losers in either scenario.
Most families can't live on single income anymore because of past and present decisions.
IF at least one spouse had received a good education and/or training for a career with a good earnings, benefits, and a good future; and IF they had decided to postpone starting a family until the main breadwinner had a firm footing in his or her career and they had good savings; and IF they decided to forego expensive homes, cars, clothing, and electronics, then most people would be able to afford to have one spouse be a stay-at-home caregiver to any children they would have. (The exceptions would be those cases in which there was a major catastrophe of some kind, such as a major illness or accident.)
Unfortunately, MOST people do not make wise decisions. (And I'm not pointing fingers here, as it wasn't until I reached my mid-50's that my good decisions outnumbered my bad!)
Last edited by katharsis; 02-13-2019 at 12:58 PM..
The point is that you're insinuating that because companies like Costco can afford to pay higher wages then all companies can do the same.
And that's simply just not the case.
Some people seem to forget that millions of people are employed by small business that only have a few employees and operate on a much different business model than a huge corporation like Costco.
If your argument is that the reason you CAN'T do something is b/c of your price-point and target demographic, then the counter argument that disproves your excuse is pointing to a company delivering at the same price point and target demographic that is doing what you said you can't do.
At this point, you should find a different excuse for why Walmart doesn't pay comparable wages to Costco/Target instead of shifting goal posts to small business, mom & pop shops.
Most families can't live on single income anymore because of past and present decisions.
IF at least one spouse had received a good education and/or training for a career with a good earnings, benefits, and a good future; and IF they had decided to postpone starting a family until the main breadwinner had a firm footing in his or her career and they had good savings; and IF decided to forego expensive homes, cars, clothing, and electronics, then most people would be able to afford to have one spouse be a stay-at-home caregiver to any children they would have. (The exceptions would be those cases in which there was a major catastrophe of some kind, such as a major illness or accident.)
Unfortunately, MOST people do not make wise decisions. (And I'm not pointing fingers here, as it wasn't until I reached my mid-50's that my good decisions outnumbered my bad!)
Add another one to the masses previously mentioned.
Of course politicians do not control wages, anymore than they determine the numbers of employees hired, the wages paid, or the products and services the tens of thousands of private businesses provide.
Politicians control public policy which shapes the economy. We currently have policies which devalue education, yet education is the key to high paying jobs. Look at our president - he is clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, cannot write a cogent sentence, and refuses to read anything more than a comic book version of security briefs - this is hardly a role model that sends the message that being well educated is a positive thing. He has a Secretary of Education that wants to dismantle our public education system and privatize it. And rather than fostering industries that are the strength and the future of America, and where the higher paying jobs will lie, he props up dying industries that are in competition with low wage countries. It is no wonder we no longer have a flourishing middle class.
The fact that your dad could support himself, much less a wife and four kids, on the equivalent of $46,500 is huge. Where in the US could one do that now, even with a few part time gigs on the side? In many places, you would qualify for poverty benefits.
You bring up a sore point, My dad supported a family of seven (and my mom was a SAHM) on less than $100 a week in the mid-60's, but we lived in an inexpensive apartment in a working-poor neighborhood, we had mostly pasta, pot pies, and cheap cereal to eat, we wore secondhand clothes, we had one car, and our only recreation was TV and going to the local park. (A BIG treat was ice cream.) My parents probably could have qualified for some kind of welfare, but they had too much pride to apply for it.
So, I don't think anyone is saying that it was EASY to live on just one (relatively poor) salary, but it was possible.
P.S. And my mom used cloth diapers which she laundered herself.
This question is not specific to the US, but if capitalism brings so much wealth (and it does) why can´t families survive on a single income anymore like in the past when usually only men worked and women were not in the workforce?
Reagan's trickle down hasn't happened yet. Many people I know made more money back then and even had time off with pay.
This question is not specific to the US, but if capitalism brings so much wealth (and it does) why can´t families survive on a single income anymore like in the past when usually only men worked and women were not in the workforce?
Back in the 1950s, people 'survived' on one or zero cars. They had one TV, one vacuum cleaner, sometimes a phone. They didn't eat out much. There wasn't any fast food. They often rented. Their homes were small.
Today's poorest person would consider the 1950s' standard of living as third-world.
It's so simple it borders on childish fantasy. The reason families can't support themselves on one income is bc Republicans have consistently sabotaged workers ability to earn a share of the productivity gains of the last 50 years.
According to the GOP:
Minimum wage workers don't deserve more than subsistence living even though they're making record profits for their companies.
Blue color workers don't deserve to unionize even though they're making record profits for their companies.
Salaried employees don't deserve to earn OT even though they're making record profits for their companies.
Actually, it's this kind of Marxist thinking that keeps people poor.
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.
