U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [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 06-16-2017, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
1,283 posts, read 1,073,411 times
Reputation: 1569

Advertisements

Uhhuh, thanks for letting me know (ahem)... the homes were not that cheap when considering our salaries, cars, insurance, and NYS taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2017, 11:21 AM
 
12,490 posts, read 7,595,879 times
Reputation: 4755
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkeith View Post
Uhhuh, thanks for letting me know (ahem)... the homes were not that cheap when considering our salaries, cars, insurance, and NYS taxes.
The 70's (early 70's), in my opinion, was the apex of our real standard of living as a country. It ended the era where a single male could earn enough to take care of his nuclear family without the spouse having to work. Factory workers made good wages and had great benefits. Home ownership for African Americans in Detroit was the highest rate in the nation. Teachers salaries in Michigan were among the highest in the nation. Michigan was one of the highest wage states in the country and it did not have a really high cost of living like on the coast. However, the 70's is when Nixon went off the gold standard, since then, our standard of living has been increasingly the product of debt expansion and not earning expansion. I think gas prices skyrocketed too....as I seem to remember there being gas lines and such.

The Jimmy Carter years is when things went sour.....not saying that it was the fault of Carter, but rather the things that allowed us to ascend to such a high median standard of living as a nation......were falling apart by the early 70's....which is why we went off the gold standard. So depending on when in the 70's the average person was attempting to buy a house......it was one of the best of times to be able to afford one....not so much the Jimmy Carter years with the "stagflation" ....stagflation(at least the inflation part) was the consequence of going off the gold standard, in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Metro Detroit
1,786 posts, read 1,932,106 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Digby Sellers View Post
That's rough, but most professions do not stagnate at mid-career like yours did. I would say yours is the exception to the rule for 4-year degreed professionals with several years of experience.

Marketing Manager is a pretty common job title within my profession, and using your same online tool it shows a median salary of $94,000 for Detroit. Maybe slightly high, but I think that's a pretty accurate median/average for someone with a bachelor's and 5-7 years of expeirence. That's probably in the range what mid-career accountants, engineers and other professionals are making, if not higher. The demand for existing and new builds in exurbs like South Lyon is still red hot and being fueled by these professionals.

I think you're just projecting your personal experience again.
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally passive-aggressive or unintentionally tactless, but I'm going to simply indicate that seeing one's average salary increase by about 50% from age 24 to age 30 is not considered "stagnant" - also I feel like you ignored literally my entire post in order to make this seemingly passive-aggressive remark about my career and income. Please address the issues.

Among those being that while the 94k you seem to believe is a common salary, the average salary of a 25-34 year old is $39,416, according to Business Insider. Do you propose this person earning 39k is able to afford a similar lifestyle in 2017 as the average wage earner could afford in 1977? We're talking about early-career here, not mid-career. Do you believe that one income of 40k could afford to build a new home? Do you believe that two incomes of 40k could afford to build a new home and afford kids, including daycare costs? If so, please detail how this is reasonable, because I'm willing to adjust my budget.

But since I'm obviously getting defensive here, I'm going to own it and simply point out that the median income for an accountant is $68,150, for a civil engineer is $83,540, and for a geoscientist is $89,170. Indicating that this is "rough" is somewhat offensive, and entirely absurd. In 10-15 years I will likely earn in the (inflation adjusted) range of 89k; at 30 years old I do not, nor do I know a single person my age who does earn this kind of salary without a medical degree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 12:30 PM
 
2,173 posts, read 2,817,432 times
Reputation: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally passive-aggressive or unintentionally tactless, but I'm going to simply indicate that seeing one's average salary increase by about 50% from age 24 to age 30 is not considered "stagnant" - also I feel like you ignored literally my entire post in order to make this seemingly passive-aggressive remark about my career and income. Please address the issues.

Among those being that while the 94k you seem to believe is a common salary, the average salary of a 25-34 year old is $39,416, according to Business Insider. Do you propose this person earning 39k is able to afford a similar lifestyle in 2017 as the average wage earner could afford in 1977? We're talking about early-career here, not mid-career. Do you believe that one income of 40k could afford to build a new home? Do you believe that two incomes of 40k could afford to build a new home and afford kids, including daycare costs? If so, please detail how this is reasonable, because I'm willing to adjust my budget.

But since I'm obviously getting defensive here, I'm going to own it and simply point out that the median income for an accountant is $68,150, for a civil engineer is $83,540, and for a geoscientist is $89,170. Indicating that this is "rough" is somewhat offensive, and entirely absurd. In 10-15 years I will likely earn in the (inflation adjusted) range of 89k; at 30 years old I do not, nor do I know a single person my age who does earn this kind of salary without a medical degree.
Passive aggressive? You went on a full on Bernie-bro rant about how your profession doesn't pay enough. And then you went on to say that no one was buying new builds in newer suburbs. I was merely pointing out that YOUR world is not the only one that exists, and that there are plenty of younger, successful people with families in the area who are able to afford these things. The same point I made when you refused to believe the objective reality of an affordable housing shortage because of your PERSONAL experience.

See my point above about a loser's mentality.

The average salary for a 25-34 year old isn't of much use if its not adjusted for education levels, since college grads average 56% percent higher earnings than high school grads.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...cord/96493348/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit
1,786 posts, read 1,932,106 times
Reputation: 3554
But it was fact based. Your responses have used passive aggression and ad hominem attempts. Of course people still buy new builds. My bad if I indicated I believed otherwise, but the article which spawned this entire thread is about a lack of them in comparison to generations prior. My post was to indicate the lower availability is due to lower demand. The discussion in economics is to clarify why. Young people can't afford a $291,000 new build in 2017 like they could afford the $49,000 ones in 1977, educated or not.

Not only have wages not kept up with prices, but retirement, healthcare, and student loans have increased the disadvantage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 01:12 PM
 
12,490 posts, read 7,595,879 times
Reputation: 4755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Digby Sellers View Post
Passive aggressive? You went on a full on Bernie-bro rant about how your profession doesn't pay enough. And then you went on to say that no one was buying new builds in newer suburbs. I was merely pointing out that YOUR world is not the only one that exists, and that there are plenty of younger, successful people with families in the area who are able to afford these things. The same point I made when you refused to believe the objective reality of an affordable housing shortage because of your PERSONAL experience.

See my point above about a loser's mentality.

The average salary for a 25-34 year old isn't of much use if its not adjusted for education levels, since college grads average 56% percent higher earnings than high school grads.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...cord/96493348/
Well....my question about the article is whether or not the median pay of college grads is rising faster than the rate of inflation, post the great recession. To say that the group has experienced a pay increase could be deceiving. Just because you are making more money does not mean that you can buy more, if your pay increase does not match the rate of which prices went up.

I do not think that there is any question that you are better off with a college degree than not, but a lot of people with college degrees are taking jobs that people without college degrees used to get, such as bartenders, waitresses, waiters, etc. It's not really that the economy is creating all these new highly skilled jobs that require degrees. Rather, like I said, its just that jobs that used to go to high school graduates are being done by people with college degrees who cannot find work in their matriculated discipline. That leaves the people who never went to college and who used to could get descent paying jobs to take lesser paying less desirable jobs....thus the gap increases.

One final thought. Is there a STANDARD as to when an occupation can require a college degree? I mean, if you really want to filter the pool of applicants, you start doing credit checks and requiring college degrees, however, this does not mean that a person with marginal credit and a good learning aptitude, but no college degree, cannot be a great value added with proper training. Why do you need a college degree if the company is going train you? I have a college degree, but I was sent to extensive training when I started with my first company. Once I got that experience......I was still constantly taking training, paid for by the company. If you are in a STEM profession.....you are constantly learning new stuff....and the employer does not send you back to college to learn it either.

Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-16-2017 at 01:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 01:18 PM
 
2,173 posts, read 2,817,432 times
Reputation: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
Well....my question about the article is whether or not the median pay of college grads is rising faster than the rate of inflation, post the great recession. To say that the group has experienced a pay increase could be deceiving. Just because you are making more money does not mean that you can buy more, if your pay increase does not match the rate of which prices went up.

I do not think that there is any question that you are better off with a college degree than not, but a lot of people with college degrees are taking jobs that people without college degrees used to get, such as bartenders, waitresses, waiters, etc. It's not really that the economy is creating all these new highly skilled jobs that require degrees. Rather, like I said, its just that jobs that used to go to high school graduates are being done by people with college degrees who cannot find work in their matriculated discipline. That leaves the people who never went to college and who used to could get descent paying jobs to take lesser paying less desirable jobs....thus the gap increases.
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 01:22 PM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
37,918 posts, read 27,273,225 times
Reputation: 35077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
The 70's (early 70's), in my opinion, was the apex of our real standard of living as a country. It ended the era where a single male could earn enough to take care of his nuclear family without the spouse having to work. Factory workers made good wages and had great benefits. Home ownership for African Americans in Detroit was the highest rate in the nation. Teachers salaries in Michigan were among the highest in the nation. Michigan was one of the highest wage states in the country and it did not have a really high cost of living like on the coast. However, the 70's is when Nixon went off the gold standard, since then, our standard of living has been increasingly the product of debt expansion and not earning expansion. I think gas prices skyrocketed too....as I seem to remember there being gas lines and such. .




You do understand this 50s-70s boom was an unprecedented and artificial boom that was never sustainable and should never have occurred in the first place, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 01:23 PM
 
2,173 posts, read 2,817,432 times
Reputation: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
But it was fact based. Your responses have used passive aggression and ad hominem attempts. Of course people still buy new builds. My bad if I indicated I believed otherwise, but the article which spawned this entire thread is about a lack of them in comparison to generations prior. My post was to indicate the lower availability is due to lower demand. The discussion in economics is to clarify why. Young people can't afford a $291,000 new build in 2017 like they could afford the $49,000 ones in 1977, educated or not.

Not only have wages not kept up with prices, but retirement, healthcare, and student loans have increased the disadvantage.
The lower availability is in existing homes, not new builds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2017, 01:28 PM
 
12,490 posts, read 7,595,879 times
Reputation: 4755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Digby Sellers View Post
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
Its easy to find stuff by googling it. Nearly half of college grads are underemployed. But they
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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