Wall Street Protesters

[quote name='dohdough']Spokker brought up the ac example, so I wanted to explain why it was wrong. It's an old argumentative trick to say that poor people aren't poor because they have a bed, radio, tv, clothes, vcr, dvd player, computer, cellphone, etc. But yeah, most things actually cost less.[/QUOTE]

Costing less doesn't equal free (typically).

...and your statement isn't fully correct. Let's look at automobiles - adjusted for inflation, the average price of cars has risen. 30-40 years ago, two-car families were fairly unusual. Now, in most rural areas, it's common for every member of the family who can drive to own a vehicle. This, of course, doesn't even take into account fuel, maintenance and insurance on a vehicle - which any school-age kid can tell you will eat up the vast majority of one's income from a minimum-wage job.

Has the cost of cell phones went down in the past 30-40 years? Sure. But look at the cost of telephone service in general. If you're in a household of four, and each person has a cell phone (because 7 year old Timmy needs his iPhone), you can easily find yourself paying over $200/month in phone bills. I remember my mother freaking out 30 years ago over a $1.50 call to a joke line I made (not really, I think that was an episode of Full House).

Computers don't even really have much of an equivalent to 30-40 years ago... so that would pretty much be an expense that has increased infinitely over what a typical household would have spent 30-40 years ago.
 
*finally adds bob and just keeeps him on ignore* I dont understand how you guys can try and discuss things with him. He raises the most fanatical and stupid points, debetes it briefly and then the second facts are brought in to the equation he starts debating with someone else about something else. He never finished the debate about standard of living and how its propped up by credit cards and loans and instead jumped to the discussion of how the poor are so rich they have cell phones and ACs(lucky them!).
 
Hm.
[quote name='MSI Magus']He never finished the debate about standard of living and how its propped up by credit cards and loans and instead jumped to the discussion of how the poor are so rich they have cell phones and ACs(lucky them!).[/QUOTE]

...from way back on my very first post where I questioned MSI's statement regarding standard of living... said:
30 years ago, someone of your income level (adjusted for inflation, of course)... how many cars would your family have had? Televisions? Cell phones? How many days a week would you have eaten out? Gone to the movies? Would you have had pay-TV service, or just OTA feeds? Internet bill? How many video game systems would someone of your income level have had? Home PC? Washer, dryer, dish washer?
Click to expand...

He's totally right guys. I completely changed the subject from how people today have a different standard of living via the various items they own into talking about how people today have a different standard of living via the various items they own.

I'm tricky like that.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You live in Boston or near there don't you? I live in Atlanta. It's hot as fuck here from like April to October. We had 100 some days of 90+ degrees this past summer.

Plus energy costs vary by area, we've had pretty big increases here the past few years (up 20% or so since I first moved down here).



Magus, you're right that I didn't mean to be negative. I don't think there's anything wrong with your wife supporting you, and agree that it's a stupid double standard in society that males are expected to be the breadwinner. I was just pointing it out as not everyone is a regular here and your situation comes across the wrong way if one is not familiar with your situation.

I do agree that it stinks that it can be hard to have a decent middle class life on $40,000 these days. Cost of living keeps increasing while wages have stagnated for the middle class. Which is why most households have moved to both spouses working as it's just hard to have a quality standard of living on one income unless one spouse is very successful. And even then most still work so they can have more--I'm guilty of that mindset. I make ok money, but would never be interested in marrying/living with a woman who wasn't also successful in her career and making decent money. Having a solid second income to boost standard of living is one of the few tangible benefits I personally see to settling down. :D[/QUOTE]

Well I still keep saying my wife has limitless potential! After she got over her break down and saw the person she really was she has sky rocketed in life. She has worked for 3 different companies and was promoted to management at all 3 within no time and over people that were older, with more experience and had been there longer. She finishes up her degree in a few months so hopefully she can get a job for the $60-$80k people in her field are supposed to make. Her professor has told her too that he recognizes how talented she is and that after she graduates his wife may have a high paying position for her if we will move to Germany.

Funny thing is I think we would just keep living a life of sacrifice, get good and far ahead so we would never have to worry about anything. Even at that point I bet we would not go 100% greed but but go from 70% sacrifice to 50%, enjoy that extra 20% income and donate the rest....at least I hope with money we would be that way ;) But hey with the economy what it is thats getting quite far ahead of ourselves....right now we would just be happy if the economy stays steady and she stays employed at her current salary ;(
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Costing less doesn't equal free (typically).

...and your statement isn't fully correct. Let's look at automobiles - adjusted for inflation, the average price of cars has risen. 30-40 years ago, two-car families were fairly unusual. Now, in most rural areas, it's common for every member of the family who can drive to own a vehicle. This, of course, doesn't even take into account fuel, maintenance and insurance on a vehicle - which any school-age kid can tell you will eat up the vast majority of one's income from a minimum-wage job.

Has the cost of cell phones went down in the past 30-40 years? Sure. But look at the cost of telephone service in general. If you're in a household of four, and each person has a cell phone (because 7 year old Timmy needs his iPhone), you can easily find yourself paying over $200/month in phone bills. I remember my mother freaking out 30 years ago over a $1.50 call to a joke line I made (not really, I think that was an episode of Full House).

Computers don't even really have much of an equivalent to 30-40 years ago... so that would pretty much be an expense that has increased infinitely over what a typical household would have spent 30-40 years ago.[/QUOTE]
A 1996 Honda Accord LX cost $18k in 1996 dollars, which calculated for inflation, is about $26k today. A 2011 Honda Accord LX costs $22k, which when worked backwards, would've cost $15k in 1996.
 
[quote name='dohdough']A 1996 Honda Accord LX cost $18k in 1996 dollars, which calculated for inflation, is about $26k today. A 2011 Honda Accord LX costs $22k, which when worked backwards, would've cost $15k in 1996.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I'll totally admit to randomly googling my sources here, but...

Original statement was "30-40 years ago". So, let's look at 30 years ago....
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1980s.html
In 1980 the average cost of new car was $7,210.00 and by 1989 was $15,400.00
Click to expand...

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
What cost $7210.00 in 1980 would cost $18826.00 in 2010.
Click to expand...

http://www.road-reality.com/2010/07/15/average-new-car-purchase-price-rises-in-2010/
According to a report done by Detroit Free Press, The average purchase prices of new cars has risen from $28,160 in 2009 to $29,217 in 2010, an increase of about 3.75%.
Click to expand...

$29,217 > $18,826

I'd be more interested in seeing average new-car prices than the price of one particular model of car.
 
But gas costs are way up, and insurance has gone up as well. So it's probably a wash at best.

IDK, I'd have to see a lot more data to be convinced that things in net cost less in real $$$ today given how much prices have gone up on things like food, gas, energy, housing etc. Not to mention skyrocketing health insurance premiums etc. I'd think all that stuff would offset things like electronics and cars being cheaper today.

In any case, the fact that non-essential things like electronics have gotten cheaper while essentials like food and housing have increased is problematic in and of itself. Encourages people to waste more money on luxuries at a time that incomes are stagnating and prices on essential goods have risen.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd be more interested in seeing average new-car prices than the price of one particular model of car.[/QUOTE]

Why? That's a poor comparison and proves that either the rich are getting richer, or more people are living beyond their means, not that car prices have risen.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']In any case, the fact that non-essential things like electronics have gotten cheaper while essentials like food and housing have increased is problematic in and of itself. Encourages people to waste more money on luxuries at a time that incomes are stagnating and prices on essential goods have risen.[/QUOTE]

This is another good point - does it really matter if, say, the cost of a PC has decreased dramatically, if the cost of bread and milk has increased? Should you *really* buy that super-cheap $200 all-in-one discount PC or should you save that $200 to pay for the increase in the price of bread and milk?

Has your standard of living dropped, or have your priorities simply changed?
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='elessar123']Why? That's a poor comparison and proves that either the rich are getting richer, or more people are living beyond their means, not that car prices have risen.[/QUOTE]

I would seriously doubt the number/price of cars purchased by the top 1% would really have a major swing on the nationwide average price of a new car purchase.

If 99 people buy a new car at $20,000 and 1 person buys two new cars at $200,000, the average price a a new car is $23,564
 
[quote name='elessar123']Why? That's a poor comparison and proves that either the rich are getting richer, or more people are living beyond their means, not that car prices have risen.[/QUOTE]

Which is why I ignored bob. Because he would rather focus on the fact that poor people have cell phones and prtend its the problem then ever address that even if living standards haven't plummeted its only because our wages are propped up by debt. People now days have two choices, live as though they were poor or wrack up that debt. That was why I used my wife and I as an example, how do you think 2 people living on $40,000 would have lived 30 years ago? How about 50 years ago? It used to be that you could have 2 people on a middle class income live like kings or a whole family live comfortably....now its live in poverty with kids or live a lower middle class(at best)existence for 2. But hey, black people have cell phones and air conditioners so im wrong apparently.
 
What has more impact is people buying cars above their means than in the past. Buying $25,000 Accords or whatever new, instead of buying a cheap used car.

It's part of that stigma of being poor mentioned earlier. People want the shiny new car for a status symbol, even if their budget really only warrants an older used car.

In any case, if you want to examine inflation you really have to compare equivalent goods. Using average cost of cars doesn't really work unless you can show their haven't been changes in trends of buying new vs. used, buying pricier models vs. lower end models etc. over time. Have to make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
 
[quote name='dohdough']A 1996 Honda Accord LX cost $18k in 1996 dollars, which calculated for inflation, is about $26k today. A 2011 Honda Accord LX costs $22k, which when worked backwards, would've cost $15k in 1996.[/QUOTE]

Also horsepower and other goodies have been increasing on what used to be middling cars. An early nineties civic had 90 HP a new one has 150 at least. Apple to apples would be the fit I suppose. Even the sentra is now above the versa for nissan. Also cars last a lot longer with less maitenance than a generation ago.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I would seriously doubt the number/price of cars purchased by the top 1% would really have a major swing on the nationwide average price of a new car purchase.

If 99 people buy a new car at $20,000 and 1 person buys two new cars at $200,000, the average price a a new car is $23,564[/QUOTE]

If 90 people bought $20k cars, 9 people bought $50k cars, and 1 bought two $200k cars, the average becomes $26,238. I never said only the top 1% got richer....
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']What has more impact is people buying cars above their means than in the past. Buying $25,000 Accords or whatever new, instead of buying a cheap used car.

It's part of that stigma of being poor mentioned earlier. People want the shiny new car for a status symbol, even if their budget really only warrants an older used car.

In any case, if you want to examine inflation you really have to compare equivalent goods. Using average cost of cars doesn't really work unless you can show their haven't been changes in trends of buying new vs. used, buying pricier models vs. lower end models etc. over time. Have to make sure you're comparing apples to apples.[/QUOTE]

Its amazing how hung up people are on cars. You are right it really is just a status symbol to try and show people you are better then you actually are. My wife and my car is about 8 years old now and in the next 2-3 years I imagine we will need a new one....but in the mean time our family keeps wigging out on us to get a new one(and have for the last 3 years)because at the very bottom there is the teeny tiniest sign of rust. It actually embarrassed people in our family that WE(not they) drive a car that is standard in performance but substandard in appearance.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Which is why I ignored bob. Because he would rather focus on the fact that poor people have cell phones and prtend its the problem then ever address that even if living standards haven't plummeted its only because our wages are propped up by debt. People now days have two choices, live as though they were poor or wrack up that debt. That was why I used my wife and I as an example, how do you think 2 people living on $40,000 would have lived 30 years ago? How about 50 years ago? It used to be that you could have 2 people on a middle class income live like kings or a whole family live comfortably....now its live in poverty with kids or live a lower middle class(at best)existence for 2. But hey, black people have cell phones and air conditioners so im wrong apparently.[/QUOTE]


You don't have to live as though you're poor on $40,000 in your city though. You go the extra mile on some stuff that's admirable, but not necessary, like paying double your mortgage. You could not do some of that stuff and still live decently without going into debt--even while building up savings.

Also I'd question the wisdom of paying so much extra on the mortgage unless you plan on staying in that house long term, in which case it makes sense to pay it off ASAP to get rid of that expense. If it's short term--with the housing market continuing to fall, I wouldn't want to tie up too much of my money in a house right now with the risk of taking a loss on it when trying to sell it in a couple years.

So if short-term I'd pay around the minimum and save the extra money and maybe use some of it to boost quality of life some. I do that with my student loans right now. I consolidated them to a 25 year payment plan, and just send $50 extra month right now. I will throw some more at it after getting my car paid off early next year. I could work on paying it off sooner, but I just don't see the point vs. using the money for building up savings and having a better quality of life as it's a "good" debt in that it got me my career and the interest rate is relatively low.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Okay, I'll totally admit to randomly googling my sources here, but...

Original statement was "30-40 years ago". So, let's look at 30 years ago....
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1980s.html


http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi


http://www.road-reality.com/2010/07/15/average-new-car-purchase-price-rises-in-2010/


$29,217 > $18,826

I'd be more interested in seeing average new-car prices than the price of one particular model of car.[/QUOTE]
Averages are nice, but means are much better. Regardless, even when comparing different model years, there is much more standard equipment as you move up, so either way, cars are still going to be cheaper now.

[quote name='dmaul1114']But gas costs are way up, and insurance has gone up as well. So it's probably a wash at best.

IDK, I'd have to see a lot more data to be convinced that things in net cost less in real $$$ today given how much prices have gone up on things like food, gas, energy, housing etc. Not to mention skyrocketing health insurance premiums etc. I'd think all that stuff would offset things like electronics and cars being cheaper today.

In any case, the fact that non-essential things like electronics have gotten cheaper while essentials like food and housing have increased is problematic in and of itself. Encourages people to waste more money on luxuries at a time that incomes are stagnating and prices on essential goods have risen.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree with you and there is some balancing going on, but like I said, this is just one of those disingenuous tactics that conservatives use when saying that someone having "luxury" items is not truly poor when all evidence points to that being false. I'm just focusing on shooting down strawmen.;)

100 years ago, people used to complain about impoverished people having radios and hence, couldn't be considered poor because a radio was a "luxury" item. How stupid is that when having a radio is one of the lowest things on the list when trying to mitigate poverty? Having a radio, tv, ac, etc doesn't make someone poor; not being able to find meaningful employment with livable wages through availability or opportunity does.

Perfect example right here:
[quote name='UncleBob']This is another good point - does it really matter if, say, the cost of a PC has decreased dramatically, if the cost of bread and milk has increased? Should you *really* buy that super-cheap $200 all-in-one discount PC or should you save that $200 to pay for the increase in the price of bread and milk?[/QUOTE]
Oh...and pc's are kind of a necessity today...hth.

edit: you guys need to slow down cause I can't keep up with my nyquil doped brain.:D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']What has more impact is people buying cars above their means than in the past. Buying $25,000 Accords or whatever new, instead of buying a cheap used car.

It's part of that stigma of being poor mentioned earlier. People want the shiny new car for a status symbol, even if their budget really only warrants an older used car.

In any case, if you want to examine inflation you really have to compare equivalent goods. Using average cost of cars doesn't really work unless you can show their haven't been changes in trends of buying new vs. used, buying pricier models vs. lower end models etc. over time. Have to make sure you're comparing apples to apples.[/QUOTE]

While I totally agree that buying new vs. buying used can be an example of spending more than your means (then again, buying used can be a money pit as well - although I've personally never owned a new car) - I don't think you can fairly compare like models when looking at technological purchases vs. inflation.

The Mattel Intellivision launched at $299 in 1979. You can buy plug-and-play setups with similar capabilities (although built-in games vs. cartridge slot) now for under $10. Would it be fair to say the cost of gaming has decreased by that huge of an amount in 30 years because you're looking at one model?

It should count for something that no one is really buying Intellivision-level games - the average consumer, when they buy a video game system, is going to get a Wii, PS3 or 360 - which is what one should fairly compare a 1980 video game system purchase to.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You don't have to live as though you're poor on $40,000 in your city though. You go the extra mile on some stuff that's admirable, but not necessary, like paying double your mortgage. You could not do some of that stuff and still live decently without going into debt--even while building up savings.

Also I'd question the wisdom of paying so much extra on the mortgage unless you plan on staying in that house long term, in which case it makes sense to pay it off ASAP to get rid of that expense. If it's short term--with the housing market continuing to fall, I wouldn't want to tie up too much of my money in a house right now with the risk of taking a loss on it when trying to sell it in a couple years.

So if short-term I'd pay around the minimum and save the extra money and maybe use some of it to boost quality of life some. I do that with my student loans right now. I consolidated them to a 25 year payment plan, and just send $50 extra month right now. I will throw some more at it after getting my car paid off early next year. I could work on paying it off sooner, but I just don't see the point vs. using the money for building up savings and having a better quality of life as it's a "good" debt in that it got me my career and the interest rate is relatively low.[/QUOTE]

Yes we could chose not to pay double our mortgage. Problem with that is two fold though. First we have student loans and soon car loans crashing in on us, those two things will most likely soon cost us the extra $350(thats all double the mortgage is) we are putting towards mortgage. Meaning pretty soon we will be making all the same sacrifices but without the benefit of paying our house off in 6 years vs 15. Second we want to have the house paid off as soon as possible because this economy is not getting any better and we want to be flexible. My wife as I said before has a possible job offer in Germany and even if it wasnt Germany we would like to be able to take a solid job wherever we can vs just being tied to Toledo.

Also the way you are proposing we do things would ding credit history and or ensure a life of debt. If we didnt pay off the house then it means a major ding to our credit history. If we live by paying the min on our house and student loans it means paying ass tons extra to interest. We cut about $10,000 off our home loan by paying it off in 6 vs 15 for example.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Having a radio, tv, ac, etc doesn't make someone poor; not being able to find meaningful employment with livable wages through availability or opportunity does.[/QUOTE]

So... let's say you have a super-rich trust fund baby who's mentally incapable of holding down meaningful employment (I'm thinking Paris Hilton). Is she poor by your definition?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The Mattel Intellivision launched at $299 in 1979. You can buy plug-and-play setups with similar capabilities (although built-in games vs. cartridge slot) now for under $10. Would it be fair to say the cost of gaming has decreased by that huge of an amount in 30 years because you're looking at one model?[/QUOTE]

That's still a lame comparison. A car today doesn't have the thousand times more power than a car from 1979. If today's cars have 100,000 horsepower and gets 20000 mpg, then it'd be a fair comparison.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Perfect example right here:[/QUOTE]

So... you're saying that a poor individual shouldn't worry about the increased price of staples for survival and should spend money on extra goods instead?
 
[quote name='dohdough']
I don't disagree with you and there is some balancing going on, but like I said, this is just one of those disingenuous tactics that conservatives use when saying that someone having "luxury" items is not truly poor when all evidence points to that being false. I'm just focusing on shooting down strawmen.;)
[/quote]

Oh, I agree with that part of it. Owning luxuries doesn't mean one isn't poor. It just means they're wasting their limited income on luxuries instead of things like getting out of debt, saving up to move to a better house etc.

Sore point for me as there's a lot of white trash in my extended family that's living in falling apart trailers, yet have DirecTV/Dish Network, smartphones etc. :bomb:



[quote name='UncleBob']
The Mattel Intellivision launched at $299 in 1979. You can buy plug-and-play setups with similar capabilities (although built-in games vs. cartridge slot) now for under $10. Would it be fair to say the cost of gaming has decreased by that huge of an amount in 30 years because you're looking at one model?

It should count for something that no one is really buying Intellivision-level games - the average consumer, when they buy a video game system, is going to get a Wii, PS3 or 360 - which is what one should fairly compare a 1980 video game system purchase to.[/QUOTE]

The intelleivision back in the early 80s was basically the equivalent of the Xbox or whatever today.

I mean an recent year Honda Accord also has a lot more technology and other features than a 1985 Accord. Yet comparing the two models is still an apt comparison as the 1985 Accord was Honda's larger sedan model and the 2011 Accord is their current larger sedan.

Where as the Intellision or Atari 2600 was the full powered gaming console in the early 80s, and the 360/PS3 are the powered gaming console today.

When you make these comparisons you're not considering that the products are identical. You're considering that they hold the same place in the market in their respective time periods. If you wanted a full gaming console in the 1980s you bought an Atari, now you buy a 360 or PS3. If you wanted a full sized sedan in the 1980s, an Honda Accord would be one option, and the current Honda Accord is an equivalent option today.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']My wife as I said before has a possible job offer in Germany and even if it wasnt Germany we would like to be able to take a solid job wherever we can vs just being tied to Toledo.
[/quote]

Owning the house could tie you more as you have all your money tied in it, and thus would probably be less willing to take a loss on it. Vs. if you still owe a lot on it and only care about selling for enough to pay of the mortgage and hopefully have enough left over for down payment on a new place.

Also the way you are proposing we do things would ding credit history and or ensure a life of debt. If we didnt pay off the house then it means a major ding to our credit history. If we live by paying the min on our house and student loans it means paying ass tons extra to interest. We cut about $10,000 off our home loan by paying it off in 6 vs 15 for example.
Click to expand...

IMO nothing wrong with living in debt as long as it's only good debts like student loans (that got you a job), house and car (and both buying things within your means). But everyone has their own views on that. To me, life is short and I'd rather keep the debt while having enough disposable income to have some nice things, be able to travel etc.

Credit rating shouldn't be impacted as long as you're paying all your bills on times. It can get hurt if you're debt to income ratio is too tilted toward debt, but it doesn't sound like that would be an issue for you all.

I'd think about paying a bit less on the mortgage to save up more to buy the new car in a few years. Car loans are worse debt with higher interest rates usually compared to a mortgage or student loans (which is why I'm focused on paying my car off first). So maybe save some towards that? Maybe even save enough to buy a used car with cash and not get a loan at all?

Just a thought. Nothing wrong with just living poor and paying down the debts ASAP if being in debt really bothers you of course.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']When you make these comparisons you're not considering that the products are identical. You're considering that they hold the same place in the market in their respective time periods. If you wanted a full gaming console in the 1980s you bought an Atari, now you buy a 360 or PS3. If you wanted a full sized sedan in the 1980s, an Honda Accord would be one option, and the current Honda Accord is an equivalent option today.[/QUOTE]

But we're not *just* talking about the price of goods - we're talking about people's buying habits as well. If no one is buying Honda Accords, then does the price of it really matter? The average price of a vehicle that's actually purchased is more important (although, admittedly, the random numbers I googled don't necessarily reflect what was being purchased). Even if a 360 is a "full gaming console" at $299 and the PS3 sells for $599 - if everyone buys PS3s (which, as we know now, they didn't), does it really matter that the 360 is half the price if the average consumer is still spending more on their gaming habit?
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Which is why I ignored bob. Because he would rather focus on the fact that poor people have cell phones and prtend its the problem then ever address that even if living standards haven't plummeted its only because our wages are propped up by debt. People now days have two choices, live as though they were poor or wrack up that debt. That was why I used my wife and I as an example, how do you think 2 people living on $40,000 would have lived 30 years ago? How about 50 years ago? It used to be that you could have 2 people on a middle class income live like kings or a whole family live comfortably....now its live in poverty with kids or live a lower middle class(at best)existence for 2. But hey, black people have cell phones and air conditioners so im wrong apparently.[/QUOTE]

Middle class people 30-50 years ago did not live like kings. Their jobs may have been more stable, but something like a fire would be just as devastating to their finances if they didn't have insurance as it would be today.

I don't know why you're dismissing UncleBob's points, because I think they're valid. At least part of the problem is our culture's priorities. Will fixing the economy also fix the problem with people spending more than they can afford? I don't think so.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Middle class people 30-50 years ago did not live like kings. Their jobs may have been more stable, but something like a fire would be just as devastating to their finances if they didn't have insurance as it would be today.

I don't know why you're dismissing UncleBob's points, because I think they're valid. At least part of the problem is our culture's priorities. Will fixing the economy also fix the problem with people spending more than they can afford? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]

Did fire insurance go up on price the same rate as health insurance?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']But we're not *just* talking about the price of goods - we're talking about people's buying habits as well. If no one is buying Honda Accords, then does the price of it really matter? The average price of a vehicle that's actually purchased is more important (although, admittedly, the random numbers I googled don't necessarily reflect what was being purchased). Even if a 360 is a "full gaming console" at $299 and the PS3 sells for $599 - if everyone buys PS3s (which, as we know now, they didn't), does it really matter that the 360 is half the price if the average consumer is still spending more on their gaming habit?[/QUOTE]


It just depends on what you want to look at.

We were talking inflation earlier, and you can't test that with average purchase prices. To look at inflation you have to compare comparable goods in different time periods. It's easy with something like a gallon of milk that stays the same over time. With something like cars, the best we can do is look at the same models or at least same classes of cars (i.e. full sized sedans, compact sedans, pick-up trucks etc.).

If we're just interested in what people are spending on certain types of goods like cars, then sure, looking at average price for purchased cars works. It just can't test inflation as we don't know if any change is due to prices changes, or changes in the types of cars being bought--used vs. new, larger vs. smaller, luxury models vs. standard models etc.

Those are two totally different questions and require different types of data to answer.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Did fire insurance go up on price the same rate as health insurance?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea, but I assume that it didn't. I'm not sure why that's relevant - my point was that middle-class families didn't live in this fantasy world where they had the same lifestyle as the rich, and disasters didn't set them back at all.

Anyway, health insurance is an entirely different issue. IMO, the system is so broken that the only solution is to switch to a government-run system.
 
In any discussion of poverty it's helpful to remind ourselves how it's measured.

The official government measure is based on pretax cash income. Transfers like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are included but not Medicaid, Medicare, in-kind benefits for housing and food or the Earned Income Tax Credit.

For 2002 statistics, the official poverty rate was 12.1%. If you include all government programs, the poverty rate was 8.2%. This relationship is generally stable and both measures would obviously be higher today.

We have a quantitative measure of poverty but more difficult is assessing what it's like to live in poverty. There are certainly people who are hurting in this country through no fault of their own (and shit like SSI is generally non-controversial), but I believe the majority in poverty are there because of the poor decisions they made. Having children you cannot afford keeps a lot of people in poverty. But even these people are able to put up a satellite dish. Taxpayers will rightfully debate whether these people should be able to have a satellite dish while on the public dole.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Did fire insurance go up on price the same rate as health insurance?[/QUOTE]

Better question is does fire insurance take care of your family the same way that health insurance does. 50 years ago you could bank on your insurance for the most part to do what it was supposed to. Now there are so many little loop holes wrote in that they often can get away with screwing you out of your insurance money.

I have seen a few houses around here where people had spray painted nasty messages about their fire insurance company on the charred remains of their house. And I know first hand how health insurance companies frequently screw people out of proper care.

Combine this with again the growth of the 1% and the shrinkage of the middle class that Chiwii and Bob have been ignoring and you have people who are put in a pinched situation. Yes you have insurance but it costs you more and you never know if you can count on it.

Finally you also have the point that 50 years ago even if people didn't live like kings they didn't live too differently from people today....yet they got by on 1 income largely. Again showing how some people picking and choosing the issues they discuss. Again look at my wife and I, we had to give up the kids to get by on one income and live the same life style a family 50 years ago could have maintained easily with 2 kids and 1 working parent.
 
[quote name='chiwii']I have no idea, but I assume that it didn't. I'm not sure why that's relevant - my point was that middle-class families didn't live in this fantasy world where they had the same lifestyle as the rich, and disasters didn't set them back at all.

Anyway, health insurance is an entirely different issue. IMO, the system is so broken that the only solution is to switch to a government-run system.[/QUOTE]

No but again they lived similar life styles if slightly reduced from the ones we lived today, yet they did it with only one parent working and without massive debt hanging over their head. And again they did it without worrying that a heart attack or fire could send them spiraling in to poverty.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... let's say you have a super-rich trust fund baby who's mentally incapable of holding down meaningful employment (I'm thinking Paris Hilton). Is she poor by your definition?[/QUOTE]
How about you read and quote the rest of that paragraph and tell me instead of doubling down on the losing end of an argument trying to outwit me.

[quote name='UncleBob']So... you're saying that a poor individual shouldn't worry about the increased price of staples for survival and should spend money on extra goods instead?[/QUOTE]
Not buying a $200 computer that's on sale won't magically take someone out of poverty.

[quote name='chiwii']Middle class people 30-50 years ago did not live like kings. Their jobs may have been more stable, but something like a fire would be just as devastating to their finances if they didn't have insurance as it would be today.[/quote]
There has always been debt and indulgences in trinkets, but the mechanisms for leveraging debt that exist today, didn't exist 30-50 years ago. There's a lot of revisionism in regards to 50's-80's and you couldn't be more wrong. Having that tv, car, ac, etc meant a lot more back in that time than it does today.

I don't know why you're dismissing UncleBob's points, because I think they're valid. At least part of the problem is our culture's priorities. Will fixing the economy also fix the problem with people spending more than they can afford? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
"Fixing the economy" is a nebulous and empty catchphrase because having jobs is meaningless when there aren't any jobs with decent living wages. The economy IS better when you measure it by GDP and DJI because they've actually grown over the past couple years, but jobs have a net loss. That means that the answer to your question isn't as simple as "cultural priorities" being adjusted to be more thrifty.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']No but again they lived similar life styles if slightly reduced from the ones we lived today, yet they did it with only one parent working and without massive debt hanging over their head. And again they did it without worrying that a heart attack or fire could send them spiraling in to poverty.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with the later point. Most middle class families back then still didn't have huge savings where they could shrug off some type of crisis that racked up huge expenses or left the breadwinner unable to work. They had stable jobs, but many were still one emergency away from bankruptcy.

The rest is certainly true. There were actually secure, union, blue collar jobs 30-40 years ago. So a lot more of the middle class, and even working class, at least had stable employment.

And the cost of living was lower, so it was easier to get by on one income. Though I think the problem today isn't solely increased cost of living and stagnant wages for the middle class. A lot of it is the increased materialism and more focus on consumerism than being frugal and saving money and living below your means.

Now that's just for the middle class primarily, the lower class/working class has really gotten screwed with the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the loss of union jobs in general. It's hard enough to find a stable job and a decent wage even with a college degree today. It's damn near impossible for someone in the lower class without the means to go to college. Though there's no disputing that the rampant consumerism hasn't also hit the lower class and helped lead to some staying in terrible living conditions as they rack up debt on luxuries to fight of the stigma of being poor etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We were talking inflation earlier, and you can't test that with average purchase prices.[/QUOTE]

...except that this whole time we've been discussing the standard of living...?

Inflation is just a piece of that whole puzzle. You are 100% correct, if we're simply talking about inflation, you cannot go off of average prices alone. But we're talking about standard of living - and the choice of lifestyle...
 
For that specific part of the conversation, dohdough and I (and you jumped in) we were solely discussing whether goods had gotten cheaper over time or not. Hence discussing whether cars had gotten cheaper, whether air conditioning has gotten cheaper etc.

The lifestyle choices was another thread that got intertwined in discussing that the problem is really threefold: 1) stagnating wages for the middle class, and loss of blue collar jobs that pay a living wage for the working class; 2) increased cost of living/inflation; 3) lifestyle changes to relying more on debt and getting sucked into consumerism.
 
To be fair, the entire conversation about the cost of goods originally spun out of MSI's now-retracted comment that the standard of living has decreased. I questioned it and we all ended up in a discussion about the cost of goods.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']To be fair, the entire conversation about the cost of goods originally spun out of MSI's now-retracted comment that the standard of living has decreased. I questioned it and we all ended up in a discussion about the cost of goods.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you were arguing that having more "stuff" means that standard of living(of which you've been using as quality of life and yes, there's a difference) has increased. Everyone else was arguing that you're wrong as upward class-mobility has been steadily decreasing for the last 40 years, which also happens to be a factor in quality of living.
 
Agree 100% with that. The poor have more "stuff" for two reasons. 1) Luxury electronic gadgets have gotten much cheaper. 2) The stigma of being poor, combined with consumerism and increased access to debt through easier to get loans and credit cards.

I suppose there is the question of whether having that "stuff" makes poverty more bearable I guess. Before they were still stuck in the ghetto or trailer park etc. and didn't have cable tv and videogames to escape from their shitty existence. :D

So I guess one could argue that standard of living has decreased, but quality of live may have increased some.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Better question is does fire insurance take care of your family the same way that health insurance does. 50 years ago you could bank on your insurance for the most part to do what it was supposed to. Now there are so many little loop holes wrote in that they often can get away with screwing you out of your insurance money.

I have seen a few houses around here where people had spray painted nasty messages about their fire insurance company on the charred remains of their house. And I know first hand how health insurance companies frequently screw people out of proper care.

Combine this with again the growth of the 1% and the shrinkage of the middle class that Chiwii and Bob have been ignoring and you have people who are put in a pinched situation. Yes you have insurance but it costs you more and you never know if you can count on it.

Finally you also have the point that 50 years ago even if people didn't live like kings they didn't live too differently from people today....yet they got by on 1 income largely. Again showing how some people picking and choosing the issues they discuss. Again look at my wife and I, we had to give up the kids to get by on one income and live the same life style a family 50 years ago could have maintained easily with 2 kids and 1 working parent.[/QUOTE]

I haven't been ignoring the fact that the middle-class is shrinking. I mentioned that I didn't like the direction that the country is headed. I just think that it's not so bad being a middle-class American.
 
[quote name='chiwii']I haven't been ignoring the fact that the middle-class is shrinking. I mentioned that I didn't like the direction that the country is headed. I just think that it's not so bad being a middle-class American.[/QUOTE]

For sure people here are still much better off than people in similar social classes in many other countries.

As you note, it's the direction we've been going in recent decades that is more troubling than where we're at currently--at least for the middle class.

There's clearly a lot of cause for concern in the lower/working class with the tremendous lack of jobs that pay a living wage for people without college degrees.
 
So, in this thread, we can agree that:

1) The poor are making less money than before.
2) The poor have more debt than before.
3) The cost of "luxury electronic gadgets" has gone down, while the cost of staples of life have gone up.

So... less income, more debt and higher costs of living on required goods = go buy more cheap electronic crap from China.

Then blame everyone else because you can't afford nicer things.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, in this thread, we can agree that:

1) The poor are making less money than before.
2) The poor have more debt than before.
3) The cost of "luxury electronic gadgets" has gone down, while the cost of staples of life have gone up.

So... less income, more debt and higher costs of living on required goods = go buy more cheap electronic crap from China.

Then blame everyone else because you can't afford nicer things.[/QUOTE]
Actually, a lot of us are blaming those that are making A SHIT LOAD MORE due to them making everyone make less. But like statistics, you're above nuance.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Actually, a lot of us are blaming those that are making A SHIT LOAD MORE due to them making everyone make less. But like statistics, you're above nuance.[/QUOTE]

People are having trouble affording the essentials having dvd players doesnt change that. watch the usual crowd avoid this fact.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Actually, a lot of us are blaming those that are making A SHIT LOAD MORE due to them making everyone make less. But like statistics, you're above nuance.[/QUOTE]

How do you think that should be fixed?
 
[quote name='chiwii']How do you think that should be fixed?[/QUOTE]

No easy way to do it, and it would take a multifaceted approach.

-Incentives to keep businesses in the US, sanctions maybe for taking jobs overseas

-More protections for unions, rather than trying to destroy collective bargaining

Things of that nature to try to stop the erosion of living wage jobs, particularly in the working class sector. Combined with much more investment in inner city and rural areas to address public health issues, the terrible schools systems in these places, the lack of jobs in these areas etc.
 
[quote name='Msut77']People are having trouble affording the essentials having dvd players doesnt change that. watch the usual crowd avoid this fact.[/QUOTE]

Yep. It's just a sore point (even to me to some degree) to see people stuck in poverty having luxuries like satellite TV etc. when they can barely get buy and are on public assistance.

But that fact remains that they money they spend on those luxuries isn't going to get them out of poverty and off public assistance if they didn't spend that money and instead saved it.

My issues with it weren't seeing people stuck in poverty because of wasteful spending on luxuries, but rather seeing extended family have satellite while their kids where going to school in dirty, holey clothing, spending money on beer and cigarettes and thus not having decent food in the house for their kids etc.
 
call it what you will, but the general rise in costs of non-technology based items meeting the lack of increase in median wage is the real issue you're discussing. It's that second part that is often not discussed.
The costs of cars was mentioned which is a rather fascinating bit of math if you're keen on that kind of thing. One can arguably say that the cost has gone up as a Cadilac in the 50's cost less than 1/3rd of what it does today. But the Cadilac of today is by far the superior vehicle in many ways (aesthetics being highly subjective) so the increase in cost is highly justified.

Dohdough's last statement is interesting as it kind of gets at this notion of there being one money and we all have a chunk of it. This is oddly akin to going back to the gold standard.
There's an odd reality happening where that is half true, mainly because nothing has come along in the last 20 years to create more value/economic opportunity. I mean face it, we all owe our lives to Steve Jobs, The Woz, Bill Gates and that other guy for essentially creating a device that led to our modern wonders. The next leap is bound to be renewable energy and we're just now reaching the jump off point. By 2025 that's where the next fortunes will be made. As soon as photovoltiacs become more accessible (5-10 years based on current tech arc) and actually get put to good use (i.e. solar energy as opposed to solar power and such) you'll see the new breed coming in quickly.

I'll spare you the rest of the rant and sum it up as:
Be prepared when the wave comes along.
 
[quote name='chiwii']How do you think that should be fixed?[/QUOTE]
Eat the rich. I'm sure they're tasty.:lol:

I'd also add increasing marginal tax and capital gains tax rates to dmaul's list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top