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.
The notion that there is a giant collusion among all employers to artificially hold down wages, which is essentially the claim in the original post, is ridiculous.
She also thinks $3 was minimum wage in 1965 when it was $1.25. Apparently she's not a sticker for details.
In 1965, the speed limit where I lived (central Calif,) was "Reasonable & Prudent" during daylight hours. This means it was perfectly legal to fly past a CHP at 150mph, as long as it was "reasonable & prudent" on biased ply tires and drum brakes...
Comparing 1965 with today, is like comparing 1965 with today. (Sounds like a "Yogi-ism!")
EDIT~ The gasoline Shell marketed in 1965?
Regular was 96 octane
"Super" Shell was an even 100 octane
In 1965 when you graduated from high school, you could read and write and work fairly advanced mathematics. If you graduate today, maybe you can read and almost unlikely that you can write in entire grammatically correct sentences, and you can't work any math at all without using your phone as a calculator and only then if the problem is all set up for you.
In 1965, there were manufacturing jobs that needed skilled workers. In 2022, all of those manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas because American workers priced themselves out of the market, and you can lay some of that blame at the feet of the unions.
Many business are still offering retirement benefits. Those didn't go away with the union jobs.
2/3 of Americans can still afford to buy a house and with the other third, some can't buy, but some don't want to buy. What was the percentage of homeowners vs renters in 1965?
Truth. It's a failing that we even let these people graduate.
Not even close. You make things up to fit your various narratives. You've talked yourself into a couple of boxes just in this thread.
How ironic you accuse me of making things up when you post no data to support your position. Your accusation is as hollow as a pumpkin on Halloween.
Here, let me school you and the rest of the naysayers on the facts.
Comparing housing affordability between 1960 and recent years:
In 1960, the median home cost $11,900, while the median income was $5,600, indicating a price-to-income ratio of 2.1.
By contrast, in 2019 the median home cost $240,500 with an estimated median income of $68,703, a price-to-income ratio of 3.5.
In 1960, 68% of Americans could afford a home.
In 2020, only 49% of Americans could afford a home.
The median house of 1960 would cost just $104,619 in 2020 dollars, far below the actual cost of $240,500, meaning housing costs have increased by 229%.
Median household income has only grown by 140% in that same time period, from $49,232 (2020 dollars) in 1960 to $68,703 today.
Alexis Cardarella's tweet may be dramatic and somewhat exaggerated, but like I said, "she has a point."
The facts are beyond dispute: it is substantially more difficult for young people today to buy a home and make ends meet than in 1960.
How ironic you accuse me of making things up when you post no data to support your position. Your accusation is as hollow as a pumpkin on Halloween.
Here, let me school you and the rest of the naysayers on the facts.
Comparing housing affordability between 1960 and recent years:
In 1960, the median home cost $11,900, while the median income was $5,600, indicating a price-to-income ratio of 2.1.
By contrast, in 2019 the median home cost $240,500 with an estimated median income of $68,703, a price-to-income ratio of 3.5.
In 1960, 68% of Americans could afford a home.
In 2020, only 49% of Americans could afford a home.
The median house of 1960 would cost just $104,619 in 2020 dollars, far below the actual cost of $240,500, meaning housing costs have increased by 229%.
Median household income has only grown by 140% in that same time period, from $49,232 (2020 dollars) in 1960 to $68,703 today.
Alexis Cardarella's tweet may be dramatic and somewhat exaggerated, but like I said, "she has a point."
The facts are beyond dispute: it is substantially more difficult for young people today to buy a home and make ends meet than in 1960.
As you need links...........
No idea where your numbers are coming from. The Fed. St. Louis says median income vs. home cost across 1960 was just under 5x.
Money aside, I do see more of a trend of people opting out of having babies. I don't think it's due to the cost of having kids as much as it is the inert DESIRE to have them. Many of my friends who are childless make more than I do. Even for myself, I don't desire a large family mostly because of the stress in doing so and because I want to be a little more selfish. Having 1 is hard enough, 3-4 babies you start to lose yourself a bit. I've seen it in my own family.
With that being said, millenials tend to be more "selfish" in how they live so a house or a baby doesn't really match well with that lifestyle. Houses tie you down to a location by removing your mobility, same as kids.
It's not a huge surprise to me that this trend exists and I can imagine it will continue to accelerate.
In 1965 you could graduate from high school and more likely than not you'd have a union job with a pension. Single earner families were common, they could afford a modest home and a car. Not today.
Today's economy ... real wages ... where people say, "I'm not doing this anymore."
People like you decided to exploit Chinese semi-slave and slave labor on cheap credit, while producing next to nothing with your own hands.
Elliot has....misstated.... a quite a few numbers and facts in his thread.
I stand corrected on my estimate of union membership. However, I am 100% correct on 1960 vs. today housing cost and income. Source: the U.S. Census.
I wrote >> In 1960, the median home cost $11,900, while the median income was $5,600, indicating a price-to-income ratio of 2.1.
"For the country as a whole, the average (median) income of families in 1960 was $5,600" -- source, US Census dot gov, link is here
Median home price of $11,900 is found on the top line of US Census table here
I wrote >> in 2019 the median home cost $240,500 with an estimated median income of $68,703, a price-to-income ratio of 3.5.
"The nation's homeowners reported a median home value of $240,500 in 2019, according to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS)" link
"Median household income was $68,703 in 2019" -- Census Bureau, link here
I posted the facts correctly and they are beyond dispute: it was easier for a Boomer to buy a house in 1960 than for a millennial to buy one today. This is a fact. The economic, political and social factors that have caused this shift is open to debate.
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.
