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.
Whenever people try and compare cheap flat screen TVs of today to wooden console color TVs from the 80's, I can only shake my head.
A wooden console TV of the past consisted of hundreds of resistors, capacitors, inductors, transistor tubes and lots of labor to assemble that together.
With a flat screen TV today, you have a couple Integrated Circuits that replace all that along with an LCD panel. Very few parts involved.
The cost of TVs in the past and and an LCD TV of today are not even in the same ball park.
The average family today should have a Giant Home Projection Theater system if we compare the costs and labor that went into a wooden console TV back then.
True. Either way a TV was relatively way more expensive in the good old days.
So in other words those who say that people have 2 incomes to pay for cell phones and TVs are idiots.
Because they are breeding before they can afford to feed them.
In the past, it was a social stigma to collect welfare and other social welfare. Yet today many of the poor are "breeding" with the intention of getting more money from a screwed up system that has responsible working couples holding off on having a kid/s "until they can afford them", yet paying for other irresponsible breeders to be paid for out breeding them.
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?
People don’t live simply any more like they used to. They always have to drive fancy cars, live in larger houses and live the rich life.
You mean like Walmart? Let's take a look at that...
The obvious question is WHY does the middle class and below even buy Apple or Android products when by doing so they're quite obviously just putting extra money into Apple's and Google's CEOs' and shareholders' pockets?
Uh...without even trying, you illustrate the opposite of points you may be attempting to make!
"Apple is one of the biggest job creators in the United States, responsible for over 2 million jobs across all 50 states."
OK, so number one, Apple is providing REAL JOBS, not minimum wage.
It makes the USA look good (cream of the crop)...
Even middle class and lower people work at BestBuy, fix iphone screens and computers and do lots of other things where they make a buck from the apple eco-system. Consider Apple Music, Apps, itunes, etc...and the number of people related to all of that (that make an economic benefit) is in the many millions.
People also know that Apple is Patriotic in a REAL way...no, not in the flag waving way, but in terms of their CEO and company values. I won't go into them here...you can look them up.
On the other hand, Wal-Mart has worked the System and paid people less...so society had to make up the difference.
If that wasn't enough, you "wall" types need to know something. Wal-Mart is something that the illegal Employers could probably not exist without. That is, their workers need places to buy stuff really cheap so their terrible wages can stretch. You can't work the pants off a person who isn't fed well.
The middle and lower buy Amazon Fire usually...which is Google, of course. If they buy Apple is it used. The certainly aren't lining up for $1250 phones or 3K maxed out MBPs.
No. It enables those at the top to exit and make room for everyone else who needs to work to earn their living up to and including entry level workers. How you're unaware of that is a complete mystery.
You speak as if the vast majority of wealth is not held by a small percentage and yet it is. The only way for your story above to pan our is if there is greater economic equality, but there isn’t. On some level you know this. On some level you know that unearned income, and specifically rent seeking economics, increases inflation, which derails your premise entirely because living becomes unaffordable for too many.
Quote:
Not at all, and it's odd that you somehow think you have the ability to assess the accuracy of that assertion. Quite odd.
I’m just using common sense while taking economist Stiglitz’s on point argument into account. That, and I’m looking around past my own nose and watching and listening. Some things make sense and others don’t. Like the argument that people are just gluttonous for things when they’re living in 4-600 sq ft apartments. That makes no sense.
In the past, it was a social stigma to collect welfare and other social welfare. Yet today many of the poor are "breeding" with the intention of getting more money from a screwed up system that has responsible working couples holding off on having a kid/s "until they can afford them", yet paying for other irresponsible breeders to be paid for out breeding them.
`
My Irish neighbor was one of 10 kids...all lived in the same room (house had three rooms).
I'm sure they used lots of social and church (catholic) free stuff.
He's a multi-millionaire now.
My wife and I had children before we knew anything about affording them. I happen to think that's a natural way to go, but whatever floats your boat. The great generations we are talking about (single income families) didn't wait until they had 100K in the bank and a nice house before having children.
This is a social subject and has absolutely zero to do with why wages are almost 1/2 of what they were in many places (adjusted for inflation). If we adjust for productivity, they are even vastly lower.
My dad supported us 3 on his union supermarket job. But back then we had no cell phones, no cable TV, no netflix, no Fortnite, etc. In the evenings after school you went out and played, or read a book, or studied. There was no Fortnite subscription or social media to waste time on.
Cost of living and inflation have surpassed middle class wages.
In the 1950s - 1960s my grandfather supported his wife and 7 kids with his middle class factory job at Pfizer. Today you can can hardly afford to support yourself with a similar job and salary adjusted for inflation.
Exactly. People used to be able to live on minimum wage, rent used to be affordable. That's just not the case anymore.
Big companies and corporations used to feel a responsibility toward their employees and their communities. Now, corporations just care about the bottom line and their shareholders. So they have depressed wages for years in order to improve their profits. Capitalism doesn't work well when the only motivation is money. The idea of being a good corporate citizen has faded, and so have the fortunes of the middle class people working for those corporations. I just heard today that the wage gap between the rich and poor in this country has not been this wide since the 1920s.
My dad supported us 3 on his union supermarket job. But back then we had no cell phones, no cable TV, no netflix, no Fortnite, etc. In the evenings after school you went out and played, or read a book, or studied. There was no Fortnite subscription or social media to waste time on.
Read the thread. It situation has nothing to do with Fortnite subscriptions. My goodness people.....
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.
