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.
Ah, the baby boomer myth that $500 flat screen TVs and cell phones are the real reasons. No matter how many statistics and numbers you put in front of these people, they'll still just come back with the same worthless anecdotal nonsense.
Look at a sears catalog from 1980 and see how expensive electronics were relative to incomes. They were MUCH more expensive relative to incomes.
What was much less expensive was : housing, health care, education. Things that are actually important.
But, go back to your "get off my lawn" ism.
You're ignoring quantities though. In past times, a TV might be relatively more expensive, but there was one in the house. We (family of five) have 5 flat screen TVs, each with it's own cable box, plus a Playstation, an X-Box, two Nintendos and three FireTV boxes scattered among them. We've also probably got north of $3k in cell phones, three laptops, three iPads, three Amazon tablets and several Kindles.
I think it's possible to live on one salary...but.
Most "need" that cell phone with all the extras. We need direct tv/dish/cable and all the channels. We need the 72 inch tv. We need to have the heat or ac on all the time. We need those new shoes/fashion clothes. We need the new tattoo. We need all those toys for our kids. We need to go out to eat 3 times a week. We need all that food. We need need need.
I work with some millennials who even need to have their own house cleaned once a week.
I'm an older person but I remember that only my dad worked. We had 3 tv stations, we wore hand me down clothes, we waited till birthday or Christmas for toys. We had a 19 inch tv with rabbit ears, (ask your mom). When we were out of breakfast cereal my mom would say, eat toast, I'm not going to grocery store till next Monday. The AC never came on...didn't have it and in the winter you always wore a sweater and dare not complain.
My folks taught me how to be conservative, and for the most part I've taught this to my kids.
Your anecdote is in complete denial of actual reality of why most families are struggling. But, who am I to expect anyone on the internet to examine actual facts, statistics, numbers. Everything is about how they "feel" or how they perceive things around them, and usually then interpreted in a way that makes them feel superior to someone else. It's sad how thick headed people can be.
My anecdote is this: My dad had junior college education, managed to get a job that supported owning a home, 2 cars that we kept for 10 years, a new TV every 10 years. He paid for most of mine and my siblings state college tuition (which was relative peanuts). He had a pension in a private company. He had 5+ weeks of vacation, cheap medical coverage. My mom only worked part time when we got older and she got bored. A solid, middle class lifestyle with no higher education.
Move forward 30+ years, my wife and I both have graduate level educations, we are in the top 5% of US earners combined. We lead a more upper middle class lifestyle then I did growing up, but considering we are both working and have graduate level educations we are really only a notch above where my family was. I keep my cars for 8-10 years. Little difference there. I still have the spendthrift mentality of my dad, but I'm well aware that a $500 TV purchase that represents .22% of our income has very little material impact compared to: Health insurance for $5K a year that's increasing beyond pay increases, property taxes going up the same, car insurance, utilities, and the GIANT LOOMING BURDEN of college education, even state schools, at $20K+ per year per kid. We'll be fine, I'll be retiring in 10 years no problem and everything will be paid. This isn't about ME (try it some time), I'm thinking about the family making $80K in my area...with kids..."middle class" going through hell just to make ends meet. The guy who could have been my dad 30 years ago.
But you have to really have blinders on..complete myopia, single minded narcissistic purpose to pat yourself on the back to not see how things have changed for the worse.
By "in the past" you mean one car per family that only the husband drives, a small house where multiple kids share bedrooms, no cable, no cell phone, no internet, no eating out, no education debt, no daycare debt, store brand clothes from a Sears catalog that get handed down to siblings and mended by the housewife, a wood stove for heat, no AC, and a family vacation that might be a road trip to a Howard Johnson that had a pool? Most families could live like that today on one income. They just don't want to.
What are we talking about 1940? I grew up in the 1970's with a stay at home mom your analogy is way off from my memory. We had running water, heat, AC and a indoor bathroom! Little House on the Prairie was 150 years ago. We did fine and it seemed like compared to the previous generation we had a lot of stuff.
So now we have a country of obese, ill people who eat junk and fast food all the time and are sedentary. Not everyone but way more than in the 1970's.
I love technology and would not want it to go away but most of it is more of an addiction for most and not a necessity. Not only the technology but having to buy the latest gadget is a huge addiction for many. For me the biggest improvement having more TV channels, as well as internet and satellite radio is being able to see or hear almost all sporting events live. But even with Netflix and cable and going online I still seem to run out of things I really want to watch.
A $500 widescreen today, is like the 19" TV back in the day. It's not the biggest or best.
Remember, years ago most homes only had one TV set in the living room, now it's common to have many more, including each one having its own DVR and a surround sound system.
Buying a 35 inch tube TV was expensive, and it was the biggest TV you could buy at the time. If we consider the cost of inflation, the biggest wide screen is still costing about the same as that 35" did back in the 1980s.
Does this in any way change my point?
Electronics are much cheaper now relative to incomes. Period. Thanks cheap Chinese labor. When somebody says "that millenial is struggling because they have a cell phone"...that person is myopic and/or stupid.
And will do the same thing as Amazon and Costco, elimination of as much of the cost of labor as possible when it becomes economically feasible.
What is your point? Bc you're not coming anywhere close to explaining how companies in same sector targeting the same demographic of shoppers pays widely different wages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Costco charges an annual minimum $60/person (plus tax) membership fee. Perhaps if Walmart charged everyone $60/year to shop there, they could pay a higher starting salary, too.
Costco also gives you a gas rebate that I guarantee eats up more of the membership fee than would go to wages.
What is the rebate? .10/gal for $60 year? Whatever's left goes to covering loss leader goods like their rotisserie chicken and hot dogs. They aren't using $60/yr to pay their workers.
What is your point? Bc you're not coming anywhere close to explaining how companies in same sector targeting the same demographic of shoppers pays widely different wages.
Costco also gives you a gas rebate that I guarantee eats up more of the membership fee than would go to wages.
What is the rebate? .10/gal for $60 year? Whatever's left goes to covering loss leader goods like their rotisserie chicken and hot dogs. They aren't using $60/yr to pay their workers.
Did that person actually say that? What a whopper. And then to put this after saying something anyone with 2 IQ points could dissect as nonsense in 5 seconds.
By "in the past" you mean one car per family that only the husband drives, a small house where multiple kids share bedrooms, no cable, no cell phone, no internet, no eating out, no education debt, no daycare debt, store brand clothes from a Sears catalog that get handed down to siblings and mended by the housewife, a wood stove for heat, no AC, and a family vacation that might be a road trip to a Howard Johnson that had a pool? Most families could live like that today on one income. They just don't want to.
I think that is exaggerating a little. Most middle class families had comfy lives for the time period. They didn't need cell phones or internet because it wasn't real then. They did dream of a space age future, this dream wasn't chaotic or degenerate as the reality is turning out to be - it was more Star Trek and less and Porn Hub and gaming addiction. Things are leaning more toward the dystopian sci-fi of that time than their fantasies of a better world for everyone as a result of technological progress. I don't think they foresaw a future where one income households would be so difficult to achieve, things were supposed to get easier with tech.
It does seem like the wealthy, not just the billionaire level wealthy but upper middle class is hogging a lot of resources and pricing everyone else out. I think we are raising nervous, uber competitive kids that have to keep pushing themselves to keep up. Now competing globally to make it even more difficult. Yes they expect luxuries for this hard work, but sometimes this pressure takes its toll on happiness and quality of life. And it affects how our society works, if you are not a winner, you are a loser. Very little middle ground anymore. Scary.
And Sam's Club pays the same low wages that Wal-mart does, although Wal-mart pays more now than when I worked there. When I worked there I got a whole $7.40/hour. Minimum wage was $7.25.
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?
The question provides it's own answer. Unregulated Capitalism, which is what we pray to in the USA, creates something called the Lowest Common Denominator.
A test was done online about a decade ago where a system was set up so that good writers could bid on writing articles of X number of words. Think of it as an eBay for outsourcing articles on various topics. It was set up as a perfect experiment...for the very reason to find out where in the world people (of skill) would wok for the lowest price...and how much that is.
The USA won. Writers were willing to submit entries for as low as $0.25 an hour.
And this is the general story elsewhere in the economy.
Take a semi-skilled job...or low skilled hard work. My own initial experience.
I worked in the South as a house framer in 1973-74. I made $5 an hour and I was not the crew chief...had no idea how to read blueprints, but could carry lumber and follow instructions for hammering or lifting a wall.
$5 an hour then is $28 an hour today. That's WITHOUT actual wage growth. If the system was so grand, that job would pay $40 an hour today, even if wage growth outpaced inflation by a small amount.
But what does it pay?
"TN - Average Construction Worker salary: $13.51 per hour."
1/3rd of what it should.
There is nothing wrong with women working, of course...and many (most?) should, even if it's volunteer and other efforts that fit in with their lifestyle (a mother, etc.). BUT, the result should be a marked increase in the wealth of the household as compared to that $40 an hour "single laborer".
Unregulated Capitalism is perfect in one way....it can pay those at the top to insulate themselves from the the realities of their society so that they can smugly claim "anyone can do it" and pay themselves on the back.
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?
Too much spending.
I am amazed at the people who have $500K + houses and drive far more expensive cars (I drive a chevy pickup) who make about 1/6th what I do.
Houses used to be much smaller and we got by just fine with them. Now everyone wants a house 3,000 sq ft + and a new BMW.
I noticed growing up that no one minded driving a car for a decade. Now, people get new cars every three years. We never went on trips, yet people of the same income class today take trips all the time.
A few things that can weigh heavily on middle class families, however, is child care costs and the costs of college educations. I really don't see how they are able to afford these expenses and that is tragic.
Over the course of my career, the least I have ever made was $250K, and I actually found that to be "tight", with paying for private elementary schools, ect..... I have to do a reality check and realize that the average American is living paycheck to paycheck and getting the squeeze, which is tragic.
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.
