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.
This is because the corporations convinced the dummed down population that the only group that was supporting them, UNIONs, was bad for them, when the reality was that UNIONs were bad for the corporations. All the supportive things that we all enjoy like the 5 day work week, and medical care were produced by Unions. How many of you think that corporate greed would have done that for you?
Bull!
The benefits cited evolved because of advances in technology, and in the education necessary to manage it; labor unions had little to do with the process -- sometimes fought it
Theres's the tale of an exchange between an engineeer promoting a change, and a die=hard British sluggard opposing it that went something like this.
Unionist: Will this thing make more millionaires?
Engineer: Not right away, but over the long run, it will.
Unionist: Then I'm against it!
Proof again that whilee it might be a good thing for labor unions, stupid people should not breed!
This is because the corporations convinced the dummed down population that the only group that was supporting them, UNIONs, was bad for them, when the reality was that UNIONs were bad for the corporations. All the supportive things that we all enjoy like the 5 day work week, and medical care were produced by Unions. How many of you think that corporate greed would have done that for you?
It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize. -- Theodore Roosevelt
Bull!
The benefits cited evolved because of advances in technology, and in the education necessary to manage it; labor unions had little to do with the process -- sometimes fought it
Theres's the tale of an exchange between an engineeer promoting a change, and a die=hard British sluggard opposing it that went something like this.
Unionist: Will this thing make more millionaires?
Engineer: Not right away, but over the long run, it will.
Unionist: Then I'm against it!
Proof again that whilee it might be a good thing for labor unions, stupid people should not breed!
His post was excellent and right on the money.
The world he's talking about was 20th century earth. You're describing a fantasy world as you wish it to be, but never was.
The world he's talking about was 20th century earth. You're describing a fantasy world as you wish it to be, but never was.
No ..... he's beating a dead horse, failing to recognize that most advances, both technological and entrepreneurail, arose from the efforts of individuals; few made it very far, but those who did (Gates, Bezos and Brin/Page, for example, did so with the help of a structure that permitted organization of their ideas on a wider scale -- and the fruits of those efforts will, for the most part, eventually wind up under the control of non-profit financial institutions.
Even if we succumb to the belief that unions can benefit people of average means (and I strongly doubt this argument -- the most successful unions benefit workers who are trusted with the control of larger accumulations of capital, and actually have skills to "sell") the benefits accrue mostly to the fortunate few of lesser skills in nations with a better-developed societal "safety" net. or those favored by temporary distortions in the global economic balance. Case in point; U S and Canada after World War II.
Over the long run, such advantages will always be competed away.
And all the headaches.
Repairs. Maintenance.
Taxes. All the utility bills. Furnishings. Decorating. Redecorating. Refurnishings.
Remodels.
The bolded is voluntary. Before I got married I spend maybe $20 a month on "decorating" and would have been content without much improvement in my house's aesthetics. I remodeled the house when I bought it and got them to lower the price as a result. I would be fine not updating it for 20 years. The previous owner didn't change anything from the late 80s, early 90s stuff that was in it. My wife is the one that demands things be decorated and furnished fashionably.
These are costs that I associate more with marriage than home-ownership.
Renters have to pay their own utilities or pay them in the form of rent. Same with maintenance, taxes and repairs. Do you think that's NOT built into rent? There is something to be said for not being on the hook for repairs, etc... but I never had a landlord that took good care of the place anyway. I'd report mold, broken appliances, etc... and maybe in 2-3 weeks some shady handyman would do a shoddy job patching it. Or at one apt. literally kicking the a/c unit until the compressor cycled on. THAT was a call I made about once every 6 weeks, since the kicking repair never lasted.
If I rented my current house, I would be paying double per month what I do. Rent has skyrocketed in my area in the last 3 years. I'm glad I bought when I did... they had raised my rent at my old apartment by 30% in a year and I sensed I needed to get out. I had no idea it would rise another 60% on top of that, so I'm glad I bought. In an era of rent increases, a fixed-rate mortgage is gold.
It's true. Also, eat cheaply with desserts like jello and lunch of Bologna sandwiches on white bread. Now we eat lots of imported, fancy, and expensive items. We ate much more cheaply in the past. People also used to drive a car until it fell apart, instead of getting new ones constantly.
People's expectations have shifted:
-much smaller houses, smaller lots, possibly 1car garage
-one vehicle that's older
-very little spent on technology
-use of cash and not credit
-eat more canned and frozen items
-smaller portions
-eat out once a month
We wouldn't want to go back to the past. We all enjoy the modern lifestyle, but it does come at a cost. Delayed home ownership is one of those things that come along with spending more of our incomes on pleasure.
You're wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, but YOU ARE MISTAKEN.
Those items you've listed are NOT what's causing households problems. Most of your items on that list have fallen. Food costs have risen commensurate with CPI. The "pleasure" items you're talking about have dropped in their per-unit cost, BY A LOT.
Services have gone up immensely, more than negating the savings we get from communications & technology bargains. Namely, the problems are health care, child care, and education. Crap is cheap. Services are expensive.
I really don't understand how old people do not understand this. Crap is cheap. Smartphones and LED TV's are made by Asian sweatshop wage-slaves. It's crap, and it's cheap as a result. What part of that don't you get?
Services have gone up immensely, more than negating the savings we get from communications & technology bargains. Namely, the problems are health care, child care, and education. Crap is cheap. Services are expensive.
I really don't understand how old people do not understand this. Crap is cheap. Smartphones and LED TV's are made by Asian sweatshop wage-slaves. It's crap, and it's cheap as a result. What part of that don't you get?
The comparison is not just "costs" but also "what was purchased."
There was relatively little health care in the 50s. Much of what we expect in health care today wasn't available in the 50s and wasn't even expected. Almost nobody got more than the most cursory "pre-natal health care." Kids did not get taken to a doctor for "childhood diseases." Even something as serious as stepping on a nail and piercing my foot did not result in a visit to a clinic. Being bitten by a dog did not result in a visit to a clinic. From my my teens I may have seen a doctor four times, including my birth.
Child care? Mothers stayed at home, or grandmothers were at home, or aunts. There was no such thing as a "child care center."
Education? College was relatively inexpensive...but it was also unnecessary for most people.
We have merely manufactured a society to make "necessary" the very things that are so expensive.
The comparison is not just "costs" but also "what was purchased."
There was relatively little health care in the 50s. Much of what we expect in health care today wasn't available in the 50s and wasn't even expected. Almost nobody got more than the most cursory "pre-natal health care." Kids did not get taken to a doctor for "childhood diseases." Even something as serious as stepping on a nail and piercing my foot did not result in a visit to a clinic. Being bitten by a dog did not result in a visit to a clinic. From my my teens I may have seen a doctor four times, including my birth.
Education? College was relatively inexpensive...but it was also unnecessary for most people.
We have merely manufactured a society to make "necessary" the very things that are so expensive.
Indeed. The doctor would make housecalls for $5-10 ($40-90 in today's dollars), use his stethoscope, tell Grandpa that the ol' ticker wasn't working like it used to, prescribe bed rest and maybe some alka seltzer at night. That was basically what the doctor told my great-grandfather and he died from a heart attack less than a year later.
Quote:
Child care? Mothers stayed at home, or grandmothers were at home, or aunts. There was no such thing as a "child care center."
Actually there were child care centers during WWII for the women that had go to work. Preceding that, there were "settlement houses" staffed mostly by volunteers that took care of kids for the lower classes whose women had to work. Or the kids just made do on the street or went to work themselves. Maybe we should have seen that one coming. Although I don't consider a society that tells women they can't do much else except be wives or mothers as a particularly desirable one.
In any case, it's not like we can close the pandora's box down. People expect that health care should actually do something... that they should be educated to actually do the jobs the economy demands.
HOWEVER, if you look at the charts I used, these egregious increases are since the 1990s, not the 1950s, so what's going on is not only the consequence of feminism or technology improvements.
Another huge medical cost saver in the 50s was tobacco. Most of the WWII gen were smokers.
My dad was a 2 pack a day Camel smoker. He dropped dead of an aneurysm at age 49. No more health care expenses needed for him.
Now people linger a lot longer. Medical technology keeps them going to their 80s. That's expensive stuff.
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.
