2016 Presidential

[farmerbyron]

How many tax cattle are required to work today, in order to maintain our current lifestyle? The welfare programs go hand in hand with our decline.
Two folks working to maintain today's standard of living, compared to one maintaining 1955 standard, and keeping the family unit together is comparing apples to oranges.
It may be - just maybe, that going back to what was successful before, could prove to be successful again.

You know, if you downsized to a 1950s 980sq ft house, cut the cell phones out, cut cable TV and internet, only had one reasonable car, I'd venture a guess that you could live comfortably on one income and have mom stay home. I mean if we are talking apples to apples.

 

[CHenry]

You know, if you downsized to a 1950s 980sq ft house, cut the cell phones out, cut cable TV and internet, only had one reasonable car, I'd venture a guess that you could live comfortably on one income and have mom stay home. I mean if we are talking apples to apples.

Yes you could and you just made my point that todays wages are the same or slightly less than 1950. We should be making more but we are not. Wages have been flat-lining for a long time.

 

[farmerbyron]

Yes you could and you just made my point that todays wages are the same or slightly less than 1950. We should be making more but we are not. Wages have been flat-lining for a long time.

Dafuq you talking about?




Granted the info is about 15 years out of date but it's the best I'm gonna do on my phone.

 

[excat]

You know, if you downsized to a 1950s 980sq ft house, cut the cell phones out, cut cable TV and internet, only had one reasonable car, I'd venture a guess that you could live comfortably on one income and have mom stay home. I mean if we are talking apples to apples.

Not necessarily so. Health care is a huge factor. Health care is a huge burden on families now. At over $10k yearly alone just for a family of 4 for health insurance, it's pretty darn steep. Not just because of the ACA, but health care for most is just not affordable to pay out of pocket like it once was. Sure, it could get expensive, but the prices were still feasible. The inflation in health services is stupid high.

* In 1942, the price for a maternity room at Christ Hospital in Jersey City, NJ was $7.00 per day.[3] Adjusting for inflation, this amounts to $97.29 in 2011 dollars.[4] In 2011, the price for a maternity room at the same hospital was $1,360 per day.[5]

* In 1980, the average price for a typical hospital room in the U.S. was $127 per day.[6] Adjusting for inflation, this amounts to $349 in 2011 dollars.[7]

* In 1988, Mutual of Omaha insurance company paid an average of $270 per day for all types of hospital rooms (such as medical/surgical, intensive care, maternity, etc.). Adjusting for inflation, this amounts to $518 in 2011 dollars.[8] [9] [10]

* In 2002, Mutual of Omaha paid an average of $748 per day for all types of hospital rooms. Adjusting for inflation, this amounts to $943 in 2011 dollars.[11] [12]

* A 2011 survey of eleven hospitals in Ohio (where state law requires hospitals to publish their prices) found that the daily price of a typical hospital room ranged from $688 to $2,425, with the average being $1,393 and the median $1,322.[13]

https://www.justfacts.com/healthcare.asp

Also, with cities spreading out, it's not feasible to only have one car, especially with kids, in the modern world. Families used to live in their neighborhoods back in the 50's and 60's, that just isn't the case anymore. Now on average, you have to commute out of your neighborhood just to get groceries. The days of the corner marts that carried your basic necessitates and grocieries are long gone. I wish we still had them.

 

[CHenry]

Dafuq you talking about?

Dis dafug I'm talking about.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Following the better-than-expected September jobs report, several economic analyses have pointed out the continuing lack of meaningful wage growth, even as tens of thousands of people head back to work. Economic theory, after all, predicts that as labor markets tighten, employers will offer higher wages to entice workers their way.

But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages - that is, after inflation is taken into account - have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course - health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.

According to the BLS, the average hourly wage for non-management private-sector workers last month was $20.67, unchanged from August and 2.3% above the average wage a year earlier. That’s not much, especially when compared with the pre-Great Recession years of 2006 and 2007, when the average hourly wage often increased by around 4% year-over-year. (During the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 8%, 9% or even more year-over-year.)

But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.

 

[John6185]

And I think that the best person should be president/vice-president. The only problem is that we need to throughly research every candidate and not go to the polls and flip a coin o decide who to vote for. This upcoming election is mighty important, the next president is going to have to change the course our nation is headed and he/she is going have to fight the opposition.

 

[John6185]

You know, if you downsized to a 1950s 980sq ft house, cut the cell phones out, cut cable TV and internet, only had one reasonable car, I'd venture a guess that you could live comfortably on one income and have mom stay home. I mean if we are talking apples to apples.[/QUOTE)
And just to venture off the subject, if more moms were at home there would be less crime-if they did their job and husband did his job by working and remaining with the family....but it ain't gonna happen, morals are long gone, people like their big homes and TV and using all their free time running junior and little Sally to baseball, soccer, ballet and piano lessons.

 

[excat]

if more moms were at home there would be less crime-if they did their job and husband did his job by working and remaining with the family....but it ain't gonna happen, morals are long gone, people like their big homes and TV and using all their free time running junior and little Sally to baseball, soccer, ballet and piano lessons.

So people enjoying their life, and having their kids in activities equals no morals....good to know. There sure are a lot of good moral-less people in this world.
So instances where the wife is more qualified and makes more money than the husband, means they have no morals if the husband was to be a stay at home dad?
So the stay at home mom with a 1800 sq ft house has no morals, just because she lives in a big house? or you deem their tv is big? how big is "too" big for you for I lose my morals?

I'm pretty sure I understand where you are coming from, or I hope. It came off poorly and distasteful though.

 

[farmerbyron]

Not necessarily so. Health care is a huge factor. Health care is a huge burden on families now. At over $10k yearly alone just for a family of 4 for health insurance, it's pretty darn steep. Not just because of the ACA, but health care for most is just not affordable to pay out of pocket like it once was. Sure, it could get expensive, but the prices were still feasible. The inflation in health services is stupid high.



Also, with cities spreading out, it's not feasible to only have one car, especially with kids, in the modern world. Families used to live in their neighborhoods back in the 50's and 60's, that just isn't the case anymore. Now on average, you have to commute out of your neighborhood just to get groceries. The days of the corner marts that carried your basic necessitates and grocieries are long gone. I wish we still had them.

You have a good point on healthcare. Granted it is much more advanced than it was during this perceived golden age of america but it has no doubt gone above and beyond the normal scope of inflation. One thing though is that with the ACA subsidies, this impact would be lessened.

About urban sprawl. One big difference between the 1950s and now is that cheap decent cars are abundantly available. Whereas in the 1950s, they were relatively more expensive and the need for a second vehicle was not quite as great.

 

[farmerbyron]

Dis dafug I'm talking about.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
Following the better-than-expected September jobs report, several economic analyses have pointed out the continuing lack of meaningful wage growth, even as tens of thousands of people head back to work. Economic theory, after all, predicts that as labor markets tighten, employers will offer higher wages to entice workers their way.

But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course — health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.

According to the BLS, the average hourly wage for non-management private-sector workers last month was $20.67, unchanged from August and 2.3% above the average wage a year earlier. That’s not much, especially when compared with the pre-Great Recession years of 2006 and 2007, when the average hourly wage often increased by around 4% year-over-year. (During the high-inflation years of the 1970s and early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 8%, 9% or even more year-over-year.)

But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.

The graph I posted was adjusted for inflation as well. I'm not going to argue that things are much more expensive then they used to be but people are paid more than they used to be as well. So is the golden era of the 1950s not good enough anymore? I thought they had a higher standard of living than we do now. Even the lower class now have a higher standard of living than the middle class of yesteryear. Flat screen TVs, cable, smart phones, a/c is damn near a right, etc.


But if we are just going to ***** about how much we are or are not being paid then check out the commodity markets. Right now grains are at the same dollar level as the mid 1990s. Not adjusted for inflation numbers mind you but actually the same dollar amount. Never mind the fact that land, equipment, fertilizer is all at least double what it was 20 years ago.