The Declining real cost of living in America

[charrison]

linkage

It is a 1997 document, but I doubt if you factored in todays costs there would not be a radical difference in the numbers. It is worth reading the entire thing as it computer the cost of items in time one has to work to by something.

a few examples
a fridge in 1916 required3100 hours, today it takes only 68 hours.
dishwasher 1913 required 460 hours, today it takes only 28
and
a 1908 model T required 4700 hours of labor
a 1955 auto required 1638 hours of labor
a 1997 ford taurus requred 1365 hours of labor

Read it all.

 

[Meuge]

I don't know what's so interesting or suprising - the living standard has gone up in the past 100 years - it's not really a discovery of any sort.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

One of the most interesting items is that nobody wants a 1997 Taurus . . . they can scarcely sell a 2005 taurus.

It's an interesting approach but an almost totally academic exercise. It has no bearing on the REAL cost of living.

Items that I did not see mentioned:
1) healthcare
2) childcare
3) housing

At least for #1 and #3, there's a HUGE difference just in the past 10 years . . . leading to a substantial increase in the real cost of living.

He was certainly right about 1997 being a good year . . . and go figure those books weren't even cooked.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
One of the most interesting items is that nobody wants a 1997 Taurus . . . they can scarcely sell a 2005 taurus.

WEll they still sell lots of the taurus, but they are mainly fleet sales.

It's an interesting approach but an almost totally academic exercise. It has no bearing on the REAL cost of living.

Well we do have to work real hours, so i would say it does have at least some bearing on reality.

Items that I did not see mentioned:
1) healthcare
2) childcare
3) housing

You really should brush up on your readin skills.

1. Was not it was more expensive in worked hours, but also much better
2. IF it is there, I missed it too.
3. You even missed the pictures...


Read the entire thing next time!

At least for #1 and #3, there's a HUGE difference just in the past 10 years . . . leading to a substantial increase in the real cost of living.

He was certainly right about 1997 being a good year . . . and go figure those books weren't even cooked.

There probably have been big changes in those the past 10 years.MOre so with medical than housing.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Well, I remember when auto financing was for 24 or 36 months, no options longer than that, and people still managed to buy cars. I remember a house payment for a 3 bedroom home in a very nice neighborhood being less than a week's take home pay for a rubber shop worker. I remember when a gallon of gas was 1/5 of the hourly minimum wage.

Pretty much of a joke comparing costs to a time when there was an extremely small market for electrical appliances (when electricity was not widespread), or autos (when there were few roads or service stations).

There are tens of millions of people in this country who will never be able to buy a new car or a house. I have been a supervisor in some non-union factories and seen thousands of them over the years myself.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Commercial space flight have just started. In 50 years it will probably cost as much as a busticket now, but at the moment it costs millions. Try buying the latest available technology, just like the items you mentioned were the latest of the latest in those days.

The US army has become much cheaper if you follow your line of reasoning too, after all a 1 or 2 propellor plane costs a lot less now compared to the cost during WW I. So military planes now can't be costing more, right?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Well, I remember when auto financing was for 24 or 36 months, no options longer than that, and people still managed to buy cars. I remember a house payment for a 3 bedroom home in a very nice neighborhood being less than a week's take home pay for a rubber shop worker. I remember when a gallon of gas was 1/5 of the hourly minimum wage.

And according th the article in 1997, it took the average working less than 6 monutes of work to afford a gallon of gas. It has not doubt ticked up a bit since then. And according the same article, homes are larger with more creature comforts, while require less time worked per square foot.

Pretty much of a joke comparing costs to a time when there was an extremely small market for electrical appliances (when electricity was not widespread), or autos (when there were few roads or service stations).

There are tens of millions of people in this country who will never be able to buy a new car or a house. I have been a supervisor in some non-union factories and seen thousands of them over the years myself.

Another person who did not read the article at all.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Well, I remember when auto financing was for 24 or 36 months, no options longer than that, and people still managed to buy cars. I remember a house payment for a 3 bedroom home in a very nice neighborhood being less than a week's take home pay for a rubber shop worker. I remember when a gallon of gas was 1/5 of the hourly minimum wage.

Pretty much of a joke comparing costs to a time when there was an extremely small market for electrical appliances (when electricity was not widespread), or autos (when there were few roads or service stations).

There are tens of millions of people in this country who will never be able to buy a new car or a house. I have been a supervisor in some non-union factories and seen thousands of them over the years myself.

Don't forget that now almost all of the working class families are 2 income families and they still can't afford that new house or car.

Real progress!!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
One of the most interesting items is that nobody wants a 1997 Taurus . . . they can scarcely sell a 2005 taurus.

It's an interesting approach but an almost totally academic exercise. It has no bearing on the REAL cost of living.

Items that I did not see mentioned:
1) healthcare
2) childcare
3) housing

At least for #1 and #3, there's a HUGE difference just in the past 10 years . . . leading to a substantial increase in the real cost of living.

He was certainly right about 1997 being a good year . . . and go figure those books weren't even cooked.

How does healthcare from 1900 compare to healthcare today?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
One of the most interesting items is that nobody wants a 1997 Taurus . . . they can scarcely sell a 2005 taurus.

It's an interesting approach but an almost totally academic exercise. It has no bearing on the REAL cost of living.

Items that I did not see mentioned:
1) healthcare
2) childcare
3) housing

At least for #1 and #3, there's a HUGE difference just in the past 10 years . . . leading to a substantial increase in the real cost of living.

He was certainly right about 1997 being a good year . . . and go figure those books weren't even cooked.

How does healthcare from 1900 compare to healthcare today?

If you don't get it you could die. DUHHH!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Well, I remember when auto financing was for 24 or 36 months, no options longer than that, and people still managed to buy cars. I remember a house payment for a 3 bedroom home in a very nice neighborhood being less than a week's take home pay for a rubber shop worker. I remember when a gallon of gas was 1/5 of the hourly minimum wage.

Pretty much of a joke comparing costs to a time when there was an extremely small market for electrical appliances (when electricity was not widespread), or autos (when there were few roads or service stations).

There are tens of millions of people in this country who will never be able to buy a new car or a house. I have been a supervisor in some non-union factories and seen thousands of them over the years myself.

Don't forget that now almost all of the working class families are 2 income families and they still can't afford that new house or car.

Real progress!!

Who said you had to buy a new car? In 1908 plenty of people didn't even own a car, let alone 2 or 3.

Real progress!

 

[Tom]

what kind of dishwasher could you get in 1913 ?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Tom
what kind of dishwasher could you get in 1913 ?

That's like asking 'what kind of a jet aircraft could you get in 1913'... let's keep our comparisons to comparables.

 

[5150Joker]

All that matters is the cost of housing which has skyrocketed. Imagine if all of you had a paid off house right now, how much higher would your disposable income be?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Tom
what kind of dishwasher could you get in 1913 ?

A blonde, brunette, or redhead. Take your pick.

FS

 

[Jaskalas]

This topic is a farce.

The cost of living has grown a lot larger than wages have. It is slow, creeping up and must be measured over a period of time. Simply pointing out some extraordinarily expensive objects when they were brand new technology and not mass produced does not represent the cost of living back then. Trying to present it as such is a complete lie.

Oh, gee, if we have two cars today we must be in luxury! No, we need multiple vehicles so both parents can work different jobs at the same time. Cars today are the horses of the 1800s and we struggle to keep them.

Anyone saying we?re better off today needs an insane asylum.

 

[jackschmittusa]

charrison

TextAnd according th the article in 1997, it took the average working less than 6 monutes of work to afford a gallon of gas

lol....Talk about not reading! You quote 6min on average. I quoted 1/5 of the minimum wage. I don't think the minimum wage is the average by a long shot.

And for reference, I am talking of remembering from the 50s and 60s. Back then, families could afford to buy a car and a home on a single income. Home sizes were constrained by lot sizes in the cities at the turn of the century, not price anyway. It wasn't until the widespread move to the suburbs allowed by cars (and the supporting infrastructure for them) that you could get bigger lots and houses.

And back then, most people went to a GP for health care. He was affordable and trustworthy and you might be the only doctor besides a general surgeon until he retired and recomended a replacement. He may well have charged what he knew you could afford and accepted payments for large expenses (without a negative credit report that cost you more money).

I do live in the "Rust Belt", and I contend that the average guy has a lot tougher time today than 50 or 60 years ago.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
This topic is a farce.

The cost of living has grown a lot larger than wages have. It is slow, creeping up and must be measured over a period of time. Simply pointing out some extraordinarily expensive objects when they were brand new technology and not mass produced does not represent the cost of living back then. Trying to present it as such is a complete lie.

Oh, gee, if we have two cars today we must be in luxury! No, we need multiple vehicles so both parents can work different jobs at the same time. Cars today are the horses of the 1800s and we struggle to keep them.

Anyone saying we?re better off today needs an insane asylum.

So you're saying we're no better off today than we were in the late 19th and early 20th century?

 

[BBond]

The cost of living is falling due to the corresponding drop in the standard of living for most Americans.

Living in the street has its advantages. It's cheap and there's plenty of room.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: BBond
The cost of living is falling due to the corresponding drop in the standard of living for most Americans.

Living in the street has its advantages. It's cheap and there's plenty of room.

Rather than sitting around on the forums complaining about the declining standard of living in America, why aren't you out in the real world creating jobs so those poor homeless people can afford a place to live? All you left wing zealots do is complain but never present any real solutions.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: BBond
The cost of living is falling due to the corresponding drop in the standard of living for most Americans.

Living in the street has its advantages. It's cheap and there's plenty of room.

Rather than sitting around on the forums complaining about the declining standard of living in America, why aren't you out in the real world creating jobs so those poor homeless people can afford a place to live?

My working days are over.

Why aren't you out "in the real world" instead of enforcing bush propaganda here? Or is spreading bush propaganda your real world?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
One of the most interesting items is that nobody wants a 1997 Taurus . . . they can scarcely sell a 2005 taurus.

It's an interesting approach but an almost totally academic exercise. It has no bearing on the REAL cost of living.

Items that I did not see mentioned:
1) healthcare
2) childcare
3) housing

At least for #1 and #3, there's a HUGE difference just in the past 10 years . . . leading to a substantial increase in the real cost of living.

He was certainly right about 1997 being a good year . . . and go figure those books weren't even cooked.

How does healthcare from 1900 compare to healthcare today?

The major advances in preserving life and improving the quality of life were sanitation, water treatment, and the development of vaccines. Much of what we call healthcare today is focused on fixing the problems we inflict upon ourselves:
1) emissions in the water, land, and air
2) excess macronutrient consumption
3) inadequate micronutrient consumption
4) sedentary lifestyles
5) violence . . . granted I'm sure we were pretty violent in 1900 . . . but we've got better weapons today

As for the OP . . . dude that thing was 40 friggin' pages. Maybe you've got that much time to waste but people actually depend on me.

But let's just do the pix and graphs:
1) p5: that calculation is toodles . . . the work equivalent-price makes no sense for most of those products . . . in part b/c a machine makes them now OR it's not the same item.

2) p6: average hourly wages is also odd since there's ample data that real wages have been stagnant since 2001. In a global economy, the pressure on wages is most definitely downwards in a country like the US. Unfortunately, it's also one of the few countries where MOST people experience a greater burden from healthcare costs.

3) p7: food items are hokey unless you eat like my family. We buy every item on that list except sugar. American's eat out ALOT it shows in our waistlines but it also shows up in the real cost of food. There's +/- in production, transport, and purchase/end use compared to a century ago but Cox/Alm analysis is sophomoric in that it ignores the reality of how we eat. Obviously, you cannot calculate backwards b/c much of what most Americans eat . . . didn't exist a century ago.

4) p7 also has a KFC effect but let's move on

5) p8 anybody that's purchased a home in many major markets over the past 5 years will tell you . . . it ain't 1997. 1956 median price (14,500) 1996 (140,000) 2006 (213,000). The truth is most Americans pay alot more but live in less house per unit sqft . . . in part b/c the house is just big (not lived in) and in part b/c most American families have TWO people working to try to afford the mortgage.

The table has a couple of bozos: I doubt only 18% of Americans had refrigerators in 1997, considering what we put in microwaves . . . 85% is a two steps backwards, garage door opener?

6)p9: energy is WAY off considering it's a lot more expensive in 2006 compared to 1997.

7)p12-13: Much like houses we buy ALOT more but may only use marginally more . . . in my book that makes it more expensive not less. People live farther away from where they work (so they can afford to buy a home) and are really feeling the pinch as fuel prices increase. As for the cars we drive . . . they are safer (due to regulations) but we pay for a lot of bloat (e.g. high hp) and waste (e.g. weak fuel economy).

8)p15: coast to coast flight . . . $209? Must be on Southwest . . . with three connections . . . and a redeye.

9) There's a definite squeeze in higher education. The cost to attend is rising fast while the benefit (still substantial) is shrinking between high school and college grad . . . that's not a good trend.

10) p17 has a host of items that are less expensive but are extracting a horrible toll on our society . . .

Most of the NOTES at the end reflect the clear biases of the authors. But it would be interesting to see an updated version for 2006 . . . still suspect considering the methological weaknesses . . . but definitely interesting.

Wow . . . some of those people . . . what am I saying . . . all of those people are ugly. But I bet they have good credit.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
As for the OP . . . dude that thing was 40 friggin' pages. Maybe you've got that much time to waste but people actually depend on me.

Maybe you should learn not comment until you read it all then

But let's just do the pix and graphs:
1) p5: that calculation is toodles . . . the work equivalent-price makes no sense for most of those products . . . in part b/c a machine makes them now OR it's not the same item.

Irellevent. The work equivelent normalized the inflation of products and the wages.

2) p6: average hourly wages is also odd since there's ample data that real wages have been stagnant since 2001. In a global economy, the pressure on wages is most definitely downwards in a country like the US. Unfortunately, it's also one of the few countries where MOST people experience a greater burden from healthcare costs.

This being a 1997 document, your comments are somewhat irrelevent as well. There was very strong wage growth in the 1990s. And yes wages have been somewhat stagnent the last few years(health care costs eating up wage increases), but that is not a trend that will continue long term.

3) p7: food items are hokey unless you eat like my family. We buy every item on that list except sugar. American's eat out ALOT it shows in our waistlines but it also shows up in the real cost of food. There's +/- in production, transport, and purchase/end use compared to a century ago but Cox/Alm analysis is sophomoric in that it ignores the reality of how we eat. Obviously, you cannot calculate backwards b/c much of what most Americans eat . . . didn't exist a century ago.

Yes, but it can be calculated what we did spend on food then and now, and we are spending less on food today. This is not even a debatable topic.

4) p7 also has a KFC effect but let's move on

Eh? KFC effect?

5) p8 anybody that's purchased a home in many major markets over the past 5 years will tell you . . . it ain't 1997. 1956 median price (14,500) 1996 (140,000) 2006 (213,000). The truth is most Americans pay alot more but live in less house per unit sqft . . . in part b/c the house is just big (not lived in) and in part b/c most American families have TWO people working to try to afford the mortgage.

And houses have gotten larger, with more creature conforts, and less people living in them. If people are having problems affording them, it is because they chose to spend more, not less.

The table has a couple of bozos: I doubt only 18% of Americans had refrigerators in 1997, considering what we put in microwaves . . . 85% is a two steps backwards, garage door opener?

This is a new house sold with a fridge. Yes damn near everyone has a fridge.

6)p9: energy is WAY off considering it's a lot more expensive in 2006 compared to 1997.

I would agree on naturgal gas and heating oil related prices. Everything else has not changed a great deal

7)p12-13: Much like houses we buy ALOT more but may only use marginally more . . . in my book that makes it more expensive not less. People live farther away from where they work (so they can afford to buy a home) and are really feeling the pinch as fuel prices increase. As for the cars we drive . . . they are safer (due to regulations) but we pay for a lot of bloat (e.g. high hp) and waste (e.g. weak fuel economy).

Once again, these are options peope have decided to take. Fuel effecient cars do exist to make those long commutes so they could have a big house in the burbs.

8)p15: coast to coast flight . . . $209? Must be on Southwest . . . with three connections . . . and a redeye.

No expert on such flights, but it was probably possible at at that time.

9) There's a definite squeeze in higher education. The cost to attend is rising fast while the benefit (still substantial) is shrinking between high school and college grad . . . that's not a good trend.

So we gotta ask ourselves. Is college providing what our students need?

10) p17 has a host of items that are less expensive but are extracting a horrible toll on our society . . .

Once again choices that a consumer makes.

Most of the NOTES at the end reflect the clear biases of the authors. But it would be interesting to see an updated version for 2006 . . . still suspect considering the methological weaknesses . . . but definitely interesting.

Not sure what biases you are seeing in the notes. ANd yes it would be interesting to see a 2006 edition.

Wow . . . some of those people . . . what am I saying . . . all of those people are ugly. But I bet they have good credit.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Well, I remember when auto financing was for 24 or 36 months, no options longer than that, and people still managed to buy cars. I remember a house payment for a 3 bedroom home in a very nice neighborhood being less than a week's take home pay for a rubber shop worker. I remember when a gallon of gas was 1/5 of the hourly minimum wage.

Pretty much of a joke comparing costs to a time when there was an extremely small market for electrical appliances (when electricity was not widespread), or autos (when there were few roads or service stations).

There are tens of millions of people in this country who will never be able to buy a new car or a house. I have been a supervisor in some non-union factories and seen thousands of them over the years myself.

Don't forget that now almost all of the working class families are 2 income families and they still can't afford that new house or car.

Real progress!!

Who said you had to buy a new car? In 1908 plenty of people didn't even own a car, let alone 2 or 3.

Real progress!

2 jobs requires 2 cars, even if one of them is a junker. You really need trolling lessons, you seem to be losing your touch ever since the delay scandel.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Well, I remember when auto financing was for 24 or 36 months, no options longer than that, and people still managed to buy cars. I remember a house payment for a 3 bedroom home in a very nice neighborhood being less than a week's take home pay for a rubber shop worker. I remember when a gallon of gas was 1/5 of the hourly minimum wage.

Pretty much of a joke comparing costs to a time when there was an extremely small market for electrical appliances (when electricity was not widespread), or autos (when there were few roads or service stations).

There are tens of millions of people in this country who will never be able to buy a new car or a house. I have been a supervisor in some non-union factories and seen thousands of them over the years myself.

Don't forget that now almost all of the working class families are 2 income families and they still can't afford that new house or car.

Real progress!!

Who said you had to buy a new car? In 1908 plenty of people didn't even own a car, let alone 2 or 3.

Real progress!

2 jobs requires 2 cars, even if one of them is a junker. You really need trolling lessons, you seem to be losing your touch ever since the delay scandel.

2 jobs does not require 2 cars, but it does make it easier. However I think people should ask themselves why they require 2 jobs.