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.
Yet, perhaps, but not the kind people are thinking about. This seems to be a slo-mo stairstep process that started back in 1980 or maybe even 1970.
More like mid-1960s when middle class tax rates started to increase due to the new welfare/"Great Society" programs going into effect at that time. Somebody has to pay for those.
Financial industry skyrocketed in the past decades, thanks to "privatize the profits, socialize losses" paradigm backed by the tax collecting might of the Federal government, this lead to economy where really big money is made in speculating on various financial derivatives. Real (physical) economy is for the losers if "wealth" can be created in credit swap trade.
Big money buys a lot of power, bought up politicians pushed for low taxes on capital gains. Low taxes on capital gains + deregulation + skyrocketing derivative trading (that exceeds "physical" GDP many times over) = mushrooming super rich class of absentee investors, as well as the rise of the class of CEO mavericks and financial wizards who (supposedly) can deliver superb returns on investments, rain or shine, and thus they deserve their 100 millions + compensation packages. The rise of the financial wizards with their 100+ millions plus compensation packages imposed upward "pressure" on compensation packages of the "real economy" corporate brass. Since the bulk of "growth" was happening in the financial sector, "real" industries had to squeeze their workers harder to ensure 13%/year raises for their top management.
The common enemy is finance or more broadly the FIRE sector. The whole political paradigm is a shame. In the debates neither of allowed candidates even mentioned the housing bubble of financial bailouts. They brought up GM which at least makes something you can drive.
(....)...Cost of living is really kind of a misnomer, especially if you look at it going back to the '50s. Houses are bigger, two- and three-car households are the norm, eating out, huge wardrobes, 200 channels of TV, vastly improved medicine... If you went back to a '50s standard of living, the COL really wouldn't be that high.(...)
This is very true.
A typical American two-car household with 20-mile commutes to work is probably spending a good $15,000 + annually on their transportation convenience alone when all vehicle ownership and operation costs are included. And those extra bedrooms and large living room, fancy basement, fancy kitchen, etc. can easily cost another $15,000 + annually when all costs (both hidden and obvious) associated with owning that house are included and the difference is taken net of costs of a more modest house typical of the 1950s.
Add in take-out food habits and the belief that everyone "deserves" a vacation at least once or twice a year, and it starts to become less and less mysterious how a family of today can make absurdly good money by 1950's standards and yet feel like it's so painful keeping up with the bills.
A typical American two-car household with 20-mile commutes to work is probably spending a good $15,000 + annually on their transportation convenience alone when all vehicle ownership and operation costs are included. And those extra bedrooms and large living room, fancy basement, fancy kitchen, etc. can easily cost another $15,000 + annually when all costs (both hidden and obvious) associated with owning that house are included and the difference is taken net of costs of a more modest house typical of the 1950s.
Add in take-out food habits and the belief that everyone "deserves" a vacation at least once or twice a year, and it starts to become less and less mysterious how a family of today can make absurdly good money by 1950's standards and yet feel like it's so painful keeping up with the bills.
I can remember when many families only owned 1 car.
In my opinion, there is really only one reason for the decline discussed in this article; outsourcing of american jobs. When American companies discovered the advantages of shipping the middle and upper middle class jobs to India and China, that started the beginning of the end for the USA. When a guy who was making between $50K and $90K sees his job outsourced and is now forced to apply for a job as a burger flipper at McDonalds, this has two effects; first you have reduced this guy's spending power (which has negative conotations for the companies that depended on this guy spending both directly and indirectly) and secondly, this guy has now displaced that high school dropout who now has no chance of being a burger flipper because McDonalds can now hire a PHd at $7.25 instead. So now everyone feels downward pressure on their earnings which leads to all the bad news discussed in this article.
This is why it's disappointing when article discusses solutions yet does not mention a word about outsourcing. Everything else from raising/lowering taxes etc is all fluff. Until you address the number one issue we are all just marking time on the titanic till it sinks.
A typical American two-car household with 20-mile commutes to work is probably spending a good $15,000 + annually on their transportation convenience alone when all vehicle ownership and operation costs are included. And those extra bedrooms and large living room, fancy basement, fancy kitchen, etc. can easily cost another $15,000 + annually when all costs (both hidden and obvious) associated with owning that house are included and the difference is taken net of costs of a more modest house typical of the 1950s.
Add in take-out food habits and the belief that everyone "deserves" a vacation at least once or twice a year, and it starts to become less and less mysterious how a family of today can make absurdly good money by 1950's standards and yet feel like it's so painful keeping up with the bills.
Here it is: Ultra high net-worth families from across the country are putting their money together to structure substantial real estate portfolios in anticipation of an upswing in that sector.
That upswing is productive economy who would like to use but now have to pay these worthless job destroying leaches more for it in rents and mortgages.
I can remember only one person working for that car.
Me too, back when tax rates on the middle class were not obscene.
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.
