The Steady and Perpetual Decline in the Standard of Living

[Subyman]

I'm inclined to think the average age of people on this forum is ~25, so life experience with the OPs claims goes out the window. If we look at GDP/capita (which is an indicator, but not a true measure of the standard of living) we see that it has steadily risen since the 1940's.

You can review one of the most comprehensive GDP databases in the world by Angus Maddison here: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/index.htm

 

[BoberFett]

Low margins on those so people dont build em in addition to many areas wont approve them. So yeah kinda is. Poor ppl belong in apartments renting.

Approval is a problem of government, not the market. And if smaller homes were in demand and larger ones were not that's what would be built. Margins don't make the market. If the margins aren't there to support the market, the price will increase until the margin works for the supply side. People have to live somewhere.

 

[tcG]

Part of my issue is that standard of living shouldn't just be slowly getting better or staying constant, it should be growing by leaps and bounds due to the wonders of a modern economy, technological progress, etc. The dollars you are getting paid with should be able to buy more and more goods, not less.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I'm inclined to think the average age of people on this forum is ~25, so life experience with the OPs claims goes out the window. If we look at GDP/capita (which is an indicator, but not a true measure of the standard of living) we see that it has steadily risen since the 1940's.

You can review one of the most comprehensive GDP databases in the world by Angus Maddison here: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/index.htm

Check out the GDP of China, does that amount coincide with the average standard of living?

Correlating GDP to average living is... well.... hilarious.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Part of my issue is that standard of living shouldn't just be slowly getting better or staying constant, it should be growing by leaps and bounds due to the wonders of a modern economy, technological progress, etc. The dollars you are getting paid with should be able to buy more and more goods, not less.

You're still living in that fantasy world where robots do everything for humans :whiste:

 

[tcG]

You're still living in that fantasy world where robots do everything for humans :whiste:

The trend has certainly been toward increased mechanization of manufacturing processes, more efficient production through larger economies of scale, and productivity gains from global trade. These things have resulted in extremely cheap and efficient large-scale production which should theoretically result in much higher standards of living for the average person.

 

[Cerb]

your first two paragraphs disagree with your last one, which is the thrust of your post. what is 'reasonable' may change but increasing expectations of 'reasonable' are still increases in the standard of living.

No, it does not. The thrust of my post is that things owned are far less important to standard of living than those things which been decreasing: leisure and health.

What is reasonable is widely available health care. It has been decreasing is availability.

What is reasonable is enough time off to keep work-related stress from becoming work-related disease. Hours worked hasn't been going down, not has sick time or vacation time been trending higher.

What is reasonable is the cost of living--not gadgets--not rising faster than incomes, which have been stagnant, so that people have more chances to save, invest in their educations of over time, etc.. It's been creeping up, instead, for at least a couple decades, now.

 

[Attic]

Of course the answer is income inequality. Income inequality has grown more substantial since the 50s. Number of complicated reasons beyond corporate greed to be considered, but corporate greed and the perverse effects of WS on businesses are the standouts.

Quality of life has improved, though the required work hrs to pay for it has increased as well.

The standard of living is a rising tide in the States, it benefits everyone and it is rising. Issue being discussed between the left/right is who should benefit the most and what's the cost to society if we don't get the answer correct.

Looking at healthcare/housing/transportation (not public)/food costs, the average worker is unable to pay for these same basic needs to the extent he was in the 1950's (left out she intentionally). As a result we now have families that require two workers to afford the same basic needs (using average income numbers) to pay for what one worker could in the 50's. It is correct to say that the basic needs have improved, but so have their relative costs to the average wage. I'm not convinced with the efficiency improvements to manufacturing that as a society we got this one right over the last 50 years.

It is not too much to expect that quality of life should improve without the need to work 1.5-2x as much today compared to the 50's, to afford the improvement. Ideally as a society we'd work the same as we did in the 50's and benefit from a rising tide, not be out of breath (with a partner) trying to stay afloat.


But looking forward we have a wave of baby boomer retirees, a college age population carrying massive debt w/ lowest job prospects in years, and a precarious national debt resting solely on the FED's ability to artificially lower interest payments (finite solution) to allow us to service that debt. So should be thankful for what we have now, if Obama doesn't get this right and get congress to work with instead of against him, then quality of life for many is not going to improve no matter how hard you work.

 

[Subyman]

Check out the GDP of China, does that amount coincide with the average standard of living?

Correlating GDP to average living is... well.... hilarious.

Chinas GDP per capita is 8400. The US is 48000. I think you need to reread my post. It is an indicator, but not a true measurement.

 

[nehalem256]

Looking at healthcare/housing/transportation (not public)/food costs, the average worker is unable to pay for these same basic needs to the extent he was in the 1950's (left out she intentionally). As a result we now have families that require two workers to afford the same basic needs (using average income numbers) to pay for what one worker could in the 50's. It is correct to say that the basic needs have improved, but so have their relative costs to the average wage. I'm not convinced with the efficiency improvements to manufacturing that as a society we got this one right over the last 50 years.

How many cars do you think people owned in the 1950s?

If food costs are higher why is obesity also higher now?

And you do realize that the rise in the # of 2 worker families predates any "decline" in living standards?

 

[Olikan]

How many cars do you think people owned in the 1950s?

If food costs are higher why is obesity also higher now?

And you do realize that the rise in the # of 2 worker families predates any "decline" in living standards?

man, the standards of living have increased since ever... few people had a horse in middle age....even fewer people had fire at stone age...

a car already is easy to get, just like fire and a horse ...

the thing is....it was easyer in 50s for someone buy a car, than is today for someone buy a helicopter

 

[OverVolt]

man, the standards of living have increased since ever... few people had a horse in middle age....even fewer people had fire at stone age...

a car already is easy to get, just like fire and a horse ...

the thing is....it was easyer in 50s for someone buy a car, than is today for someone buy a helicopter

Well we know who isn't actually participating in the current economy right now.

Last I checked people weren't complaining about not being able to buy helicopters but the cost of living rising meanwhile wages are stagnant. Helicopters aren't on the radar at all. Its like you are stuck in the 1980's or 1990's economy mindset. Living off investments from the 90's are we?