this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
952 points (96.9% liked)

4chan

4253 readers
90 users here now

Greentexts, memes, everything 4chan.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 78 points 9 months ago (6 children)

$1,731 in today's USD is $37,392. That new car would be $18k, rent was just over $500. There's places in the US where average rent is close to that, and I bet if we removed NYC and the Bay area the national average wouldn't be super far off.

Education and staples are where you're getting drilled on a daily basis. Harvard costs many times the average national income rather than being a fraction of it.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 64 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Someone's overlooking the low low cost of buying a house back then. Essentially 2 years of salary. Housing where I live is now 20 years of median salary and about 19 years of average salary, and far more once you consider a loan.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Didn't overlook it, I simply didn't comment on it. You also have to be careful about comparing where you personally live and the national average. Because the national average includes a lot of places that are shockingly poor.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 18 points 9 months ago

Median price of a (not new construction) house in the US as of November 2023 is 387k. Using the $3900 in the OP, that's about 83k today. The average home price in 2023 is apparently 492k. Either way, it's waaaaay higher than 1938

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

Okay. Let’s go local on a market. Chose San Antonio because it’s been fairly steady over the years and has a decent cost of living compared to other places…

Average Salary: approx $55,000 Average Home Price: approx $300,000

So you would still need 5.5 years for a home compared to just over 2 years. And that’s assuming the gross, not net and entire paycheck. You can still pick most places in the US that are out in rural nowhere and the inflation is plainly obvious, it’s just the degree may change a bit.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago (4 children)

House sizes have also ballooned. The average home size in 1949 was ~900 sq ft, whereas a new home now is ~2500 sq ft. It was still cheaper, but those homes prices are for a lot less house than people are imagining.

[–] ApexHunter@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Not to mention changes in wiring, plumbing, materials, insulation, engineering, finishes, appliances, etc.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My relatively small house (~1200 sq ft) was built in 1950 and is currently appraised at $550k, so it's not just house size. Granted, I live in a highly-desirable west coast city and the lot is worth more than the house itself, but the point remains.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I agree, it’s definitely not just house size. But still, I’m not sure that your one data point anecdote is very meaningful. Desirable areas were more expensive in the 1950s too.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 9 months ago

True, however, the concentration of wealth has meant that desirable areas are far more out of reach for the middle class than they were in the 1950s when unionization was at an all-time high and the difference between a highly-educated professional vs a skilled tradesman was more a matter of what kind of car they drove and how big their house was rather than what we see now which is working people being priced out of entire markets.

I got lucky because my wife and I bought our house when the neighborhood we're in was still seen as the ghetto. We bought it because it was the only thing we could afford and it was relatively close to my wife's parents, but since then the neighborhood has rapidly gentrified and our property value has gone way up.

This wouldn't be an issue in a country wherein wealth is not so egregiously concentrated at the top.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Larger houses are due to many factors. Weren't a lot of power tools around in 1949, and houses were heated by cast iron radiators and coal burning furnaces.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes that’s the point. We’re wealthier and more productive now and can consume some of that extra wealth. I am pointing out that we’re not comparing like for like.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

Right now, most people are poorer than their counterparts from fifty years ago.

Take away technological advances like computers and cell phones that that would have occurred anyway and look at things like work hours and quality of life.

Hunter Thompson's "Hell's Angels" has a great chapter on the economics of being a biker/hippie/artist circa 1970. An Angel could work six months as a union stevedore and have enough money to hit the road for two years. A part time waitress could support herself and her musician boyfriend.

As late as 1980, 'middle class' was defined as one high school graduate supporting a family of four. After three terms of Reaganomics 'middle class' was two college grads working full time. Also, $1 million in 1980 was still a vast fortune and nowadays it's what a rich guy pays for a party.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago

That's a lot of difference, really. Makes me wonder if this is needed, considering that the average household size had decreased from 3.33 in 1960 to 2.51 in 2023

So it was 270 ft²/person or less before, now it's about 1000 ft²/person

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (4 children)

There’s places in the US where average rent is close to that, and I bet if we removed NYC and the Bay area the national average wouldn’t be super far off.

Sorry but I think you're mistaken or several years out of date. I live in a midwestern city that overall has pretty reasonable cost of living. I also used to be a Property Manager for one of the bigger national companies. Our class B properties here were ~$800 for a 1 bedroom up until Covid, $1050 for a 2 bedroom. Now they're 1300 for a 1 bedroom and 1600 for a 2 bedroom. House prices around here have done the same thing. I think it's 800+ to be in a trailer park.

[–] JDubbleu@programming.dev 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Not to mention people saying, "just ignore every major metro in the US which happens to make up a majority of the population" in response to housing being expensive is ignoring that most people are dealing with housing being way too fucking expensive. Like sure if I go buy a plot of dirt with a house 2 hours from a major population center then of course it'll be affordable. Too bad there's 0 jobs out there and 0 reason to live in the sticks for most people.

274 million people live in or near population centers, with only ~57 million living in rural areas. We can't just ignore that the places with most of the people are becoming unaffordable due to draconian zoning policy and lack of government push for more housing.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

I always crack up when folks like Sarah Palin say they represent 'the real America.'

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 3 points 9 months ago

Yeah the small town (less than 15k population) I live in is getting close to $1k/mo for a 2br apartment and just 5 years ago it was about $500/mo for a 2br apartment

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

2br in Austin are around 1500 rn for decent ones. 775/mo per person is doable

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago

I bet if you looked at the average in your area, it'd be below $800. Now, whether any of those units would ever become available without the current occupant dying? That's another question entirely. I think COVID was an excuse for the entire economy to go stupid, but the utter lack of new housing everywhere has a lot to do with why costs are nuts. Especially in cities. Here on the east coast if you're in literally any city, you're paying out the ass. But the second you leave the city you can find decent places at decent prices still.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I avoid the official income averager for just that reason. It skews to make things look like they aren't as bad as they really are.

If you just look at the prices of houses and labor, you get a much different story.

Back in 1960, minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the average house was $11,000.00. A high school grad could buy a house.

Or, think of it this way. The 'offical' rate tells us that $1 million in 1960 would be $10 million today.

In 1960, $1 million meant a Beverly Hills mansion, a half dozen luxury cars, and enough left over to buy a block of businesses.

Today, $10 million will get you a condo in Manhattan.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Certainly the effectiveness of a dollar has decreased, which is why this post is interesting. It includes several elements of normal life to contrast against that average income per person.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Quick history of how Conservative policies destroyed the middle class. Lyndon Johnson thought he could deliver a knockout blow to the Viet Cong with a massive build up. Instead he got caught in a quagmire. LBJ was afraid to raise taxes, so he printed tons of paper money to pay for the huge bombing campaign the Pentagon promised would wipe out the VC. Nixon ran as a pro-peace and anti-inflation candidate. He doubled down on LBJ's bombings.

Meanwhile, the old US factories were working 24/7 to supply the steel the war needed plus make enough to keep American businesses supplied. Germany and Japan couldn't buy US steel and started building their own plants. When the Arab Oil boycott hit the US was screwed twice over. We had to keep making bombs and suddenly Toyotas and VWs were a great deal. That's how we got the Rust Belt and the death of Detroit.

The War ends, inflation is still awful, and Jimmy Carter gets caught up in the Iran hostage mess. Reagan gets in and the party goes into high gear. In 1980, middle class still meant one income to pay for a family of four, even if a lot of housewives had been forced to go to work. In 1980, $1 million was still considered a great fortune. By 1992, the two job family is the norm, but thanks to Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy $1 million is what a rich guy pays for a party.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Also the parties realign during this period with conservative southern Democrats going to the Republican party and fully embracing the idea that government is the enemy rather than a potential force for good in people's lives. The subtext being that if you're poor, it's your fault and rich white men should be left alone to run big businesses however they want.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

The new Republicans hated the Civil rights Act so much that they filled local swimming pools with concrete rather than open them up to the entire population.

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/06/15/archives/court-says-cities-may-close-pools-to-bar-racial-mix-54-ruling-backs.html

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Not sure who this was for, but it probably should have been a comment on its own. It's more about the original post than my comments.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The average income, according to a quick search, was $975. Comparing this to the current US median wage of $32k (and keep in mind the 1937 figure is arithmetic mean, the median was likely lower), incomes went up at a rate far beyond inflation as well. Not everything is affected equally. Though without living in the US and mostly guessing from prices here I'd guess many things on the list went up even more, like movie tickets.

The same search also suggested that the 1937 average wage was 25% lower than the 1932 one, so it seems 1937 was actually a pretty shit year.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We owe the last two generations a big thank you for the absurd cost of housing right now. They made it a major portion of their wealth, and they prevented new housing from being added. People my parents' age were able to buy a house while waiting tables and being teachers. You couldn't even afford a down payment on a house where I live with that kind of income.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Can we stop the generational blame game? Its just not fucking helpful and its maddening how its become such a big distraction from actually placing blame where its needed.

The people who make these problems are the people we vote for. From your local community to the highest office/power in your country.

Because current generation people who follow old dogma are just as responsible as old generation people if they are voting for the same shitty policies/practices.

We KNOW this. The GOP, as an example, has young people that arent old enough yet to vote who believe in their bullshit.

Same with all the religious fucktards and by god it seems they are crawling out of every nook and cranny.

~~And one more thing to consider on this.~~

Measles is making a comeback because of YOUNG people being fucking idiots who believe the bullshit they are fed. Is this their fault? Or the fault of the status quo? Go on a dating site. Look at how many young people are still antivax. Its apalling and the covid antivaxers of all walks of life are a good example(just my opinion) of how our leaders, if we let them do whatever they want without consequence, will make decisions that are good for them but bad for everyone else.

Its people who make decisions only caring about short term results who are also selfish people are the ones who fuck over the vast majority of everyone who isnt them.

What i would like to see is blaming the institutions and people who are usitilizing the mechanisms of our torment to continually degrade the experience we should all be having into the one we are having.

Blaming boomers or zoomers for all of the problems we have is just not helpful and only divides the suffering masses and prevents us from. Wanting to help each other. There are some individuals who hold a lot of the blame for the problems we have. But most of the problems we have are from a million small changes and influences working towards empowering power for the financial benefit of power. And money is always a form of power and always has been. When money gets to do what it wants then we all will suffer the consequences that are often not realized until well after the actions were taken.

Unless we want to start over from scratch we going to have to shift from just blaming those who came before and start future proofing the decisions that will need to be made in the future.

We need to start thinking planning and making sacrifices not for today or the next 5 years but 25 to hundreds of years in the future.

We need new visions of what the world should look like today but we cant do that without understanding how we arent all better off already.

Sorry for the rant. Im sure i didnt make a lot of sense but i hope anyone reading this will at least one time will make a difference in how they would have treated someone because of the different generation they are part of and help bring us all together instead of dividing us further, or just keeping to our separate groups

Edit. Got onto ramble and it didnt end up being just one more thing

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Can we stop the generational blame game?

No. You seem to think I'm a young person. I'm not. Don't need to lecture me about things I see at town hall meetings.

[–] Neil@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

I'd like to smoke whatever you're smoking.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah and that 18k car in 1938 was a fucking death trap. Now u can get a newer car for price that that is 1000x safer.

No one wants to pay for progress

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Not all of this is down to progress. Look at the cost of that college education. Look at the cost of a house. Manufacturing has also made vehicle production massively more efficient.