Most Americans Earn Less Than 1950 Minimum Wage Standard (REPOST)

[Skull Pilot]

Come on now, houses of today are way better than "back in the day" they are far bigger and more energy efficient and home ownership rates are much higher than in the 50s.

Regarding fireplaces do you have actual numbers on fireplaces or are you just making things up? From this:
Cover story Buyers warm up to homes with fireplaces - Washington Times

"Sixty percent of new homes have at least one fireplace, compared with 36 percent of homes built in the early 1970s, the National Association of Home Builders reports. "

Sure that doesn't tell the story of the 50s back it would have to be a hell of a reversal from the 50s to 70s to back your claim.

Houses today are built like crap. I would take a house built a hundred years ago and maintained over some McMansion any day.

As far as fire places go, the point is that homes were far more independent and self sufficient in the past than they are today. Today, off the grid living is a novelty whereas in the past modern convenience was the novelty.

Hah no they couldn't. At least not if they wanted to do things like eat or have a roof over their head.

You missed the point entirely. If it was so impossible back then, it is only that much worse today with the cost of living far higher and the proce of a car nearly doubled, even after taking inflation into account. My father's generation, almost every single one of my aunts and uncles on both sides of my family bought a brand new car when they were still in high school, or just setting out for college, with their own money earned from part-time work. That is practically unheard of in this day and age for children of blue collar workers. I didn't buy my first new car until I was 26, and even then it was financed. Now if you want to take it a step back one more generation, to the 1950's. My grandfather built his own house with cash on the barrel head. No financing, no mortgage.

You don't know Jack shit.

I own a 200 year old house and I am building a brand new home this year.

My old farmhouse is a bitch to maintain because there is no uniformity in the lumber dimensions or even the spacing of the studs.

My new home will be stronger, more energy efficient and easier to maintain.

And what is your fascination with buying a new car?

A new car is a sucker's purchase. You are much better off buying a 2 year old car with low mileage. At least you won't lose all the value when you drive off the lot.

You might be better off if you actually learned a little bit about money because I can tell you that more money won't help you unless if you don't know what to do with it

You CAN build a good quality house today, but that is not typical construction. Building your own house is really the way to go if you don't want a particle board nightmare.

And again, you are missing the point about buying a car. Yes, a nearly new car is a wiser purchase than brand new. But that's not the point at all.

You don't know anything about typical construction do you?

Most places 2 by 6 is now required and particle board is not used.

 

[pinqy]

And again, you are missing the point about buying a car. Yes, a nearly new car is a wiser purchase than brand new. But that's not the point at all.

Isn't it? A used 2012 anything is better than a 1956 anything (yes, that's arguable for car buffs, but I'm talking solely in terms of features and measurable qualities)
You were talking about standard of living, so the question should be: "Can a current minimum wage earner buy the SAME standard of car that a 1950/s wage earner could make?" The answer is that a current minimum wage earner can afford a better car than a 1950's min wage earner could. And that's better even though it's used.

 

[Jackinthebox]

And again, you are missing the point about buying a car. Yes, a nearly new car is a wiser purchase than brand new. But that's not the point at all.

Isn't it? A used 2012 anything is better than a 1956 anything (yes, that's arguable for car buffs, but I'm talking solely in terms of features and measurable qualities)
You were talking about standard of living, so the question should be: "Can a current minimum wage earner buy the SAME standard of car that a 1950/s wage earner could make?" The answer is that a current minimum wage earner can afford a better car than a 1950's min wage earner could. And that's better even though it's used.

A car is a car. Yes, technologies change. But we are talking about a basic standard comparing the common car of then and now. Cars today may have some nice gadgets, but they are less durable and more costly to maintain. And as I already pointed out, they cost twice as much right off the bat.

 

[SteadyMercury]

You missed the point entirely. If it was so impossible back then, it is only that much worse today with the cost of living far higher

Cost of living is only higher because we want more. Cut off all your subscriptions to netflix, internet, TV, get rid of computers, DVD player, microwave, etc. buy a smaller home if you want to relive the glory days.

and the proce of a car nearly doubled, even after taking inflation into account.

Already pointed out to you, entirely different car where baseline models have stuff the wealthiest couldn't get in their car in previous generations.

My father's generation, almost every single one of my aunts and uncles on both sides of my family bought a brand new car when they were still in high school, or just setting out for college, with their own money earned from part-time work.

Welcome to the world of anecdotal evidence...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Everyones wages are sunk because all Americans need to up their skills and stop complaining ...or the corporations are playing chess and beating all of us to the pass..

It has to be 300 billion Americans all having the same low skills, right?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Cars today may have some nice gadgets, but they are less durable and more costly to maintain.

What do you base this on? I know my car (which isn't even that new anymore) just needs an oil change every 5k miles and a service at intervals that are far greater than we used to do when I was a kid and regular tune-ups were the norm.

What you call "nice gadgets" incudes:

 

[SteadyMercury]

As far as fire places go, the point is that homes were far more independent and self sufficient in the past than they are today. Today, off the grid living is a novelty whereas in the past modern convenience was the novelty.

I don't get this.

You clearly stated "At least back in the day houses still usually had a fireplace." and when it is pointed out with hard data that far more newer homes have fireplaces the correction is waved away with someone missing your point?

I think that was quite related the point, you made a claim to back up your argument, implying houses back in the day had fireplaces whereas today they do not. If this is false why say it?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Cars today may have some nice gadgets, but they are less durable and more costly to maintain.

AAA has been tracking the daily cost to own a car since 1950.

In 1950 it cost 9 cents per day to drive a car 10,000 miles per year.
In 2013 it cost 61 cents per day to sedan 15,000 miles per year, and 46 cents for a small sedan.
Source = Cost of Owning and Operating Vehicle in U.S. Increases Nearly Two Percent According to AAA s 2013 Your Driving Costs Study AAA NewsRoom

According online inflation calculator 9 cents in 1950 is worth 86 cents in 2013.
Source = The Inflation Calculator

Therefore the daily cost of driving a car in 1950 using 2013 dollars is $0.86 x 1.5 (10k vs. 15k) = $1.29, over twice what it costs today. Over the lifespan of a car that would be quite significant.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The answer is that a current minimum wage earner can afford a better car than a 1950's min wage earner could..

Thats hard to prove considering that's todays cars are far more durable thanks to international competition that was led by Japan in the 70's and 80's. Plus, todays cars are very different animals with tons of incredible space age technology never dreamed of in the 1950's like air bags, crumble zones, heated seats, cameras, self-parking, lane departure warning, incredible fuel efficiency, energy recovery, etc etc

 

[Jackinthebox]

You missed the point entirely. If it was so impossible back then, it is only that much worse today with the cost of living far higher

Cost of living is only higher because we want more. Cut off all your subscriptions to netflix, internet, TV, get rid of computers, DVD player, microwave, etc. buy a smaller home if you want to relive the glory days.

and the proce of a car nearly doubled, even after taking inflation into account.

Already pointed out to you, entirely different car where baseline models have stuff the wealthiest couldn't get in their car in previous generations.

My father's generation, almost every single one of my aunts and uncles on both sides of my family bought a brand new car when they were still in high school, or just setting out for college, with their own money earned from part-time work.

Welcome to the world of anecdotal evidence...

Which has nothing to do with the point you missed.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Cars today may have some nice gadgets, but they are less durable and more costly to maintain.

What do you base this on? I know my car (which isn't even that new anymore) just needs an oil change every 5k miles and a service at intervals that are far greater than we used to do when I was a kid and regular tune-ups were the norm.

What you call "nice gadgets" incudes:

Seatbelts don't double the cost of a car. You also have no sense of history, ignoring things like DWI fatalities.

Now as far as car maintenance goes, most repairs and maintenance could be done in the driveway. Today, you have to pay hundreds of dollars just to have a dashboard light turned out in order to pass a state inspection. Your arguments are either ignorant or plainly disingenuous.

 

[Jackinthebox]

As far as fire places go, the point is that homes were far more independent and self sufficient in the past than they are today. Today, off the grid living is a novelty whereas in the past modern convenience was the novelty.

I don't get this.

You clearly stated "At least back in the day houses still usually had a fireplace." and when it is pointed out with hard data that far more newer homes have fireplaces the correction is waved away with someone missing your point?

I think that was quite related the point, you made a claim to back up your argument, implying houses back in the day had fireplaces whereas today they do not. If this is false why say it?

A novelty fireplace in today's McMansions are hardly the same thing as the fireplaces of yesteryear which heated homes and were used for cooking as well. Aside from the simple fact that there are simply many more people today, your data does not account for the practical differences between a novelty fireplace and surviving off the grid, which was common still in the first half of the 20th century. You also don't account for wood stoves, wood furnaces, coal furnaces, etc.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Cars today may have some nice gadgets, but they are less durable and more costly to maintain.

AAA has been tracking the daily cost to own a car since 1950.

In 1950 it cost 9 cents per day to drive a car 10,000 miles per year.
In 2013 it cost 61 cents per day to sedan 15,000 miles per year, and 46 cents for a small sedan.
Source = Cost of Owning and Operating Vehicle in U.S. Increases Nearly Two Percent According to AAA s 2013 Your Driving Costs Study AAA NewsRoom

According online inflation calculator 9 cents in 1950 is worth 86 cents in 2013.
Source = The Inflation Calculator

Therefore the daily cost of driving a car in 1950 using 2013 dollars is $0.86 x 1.5 (10k vs. 15k) = $1.29, over twice what it costs today. Over the lifespan of a car that would be quite significant.

And none of that is based on vehicle technology. Again, people used to save a lot of money doing their own car repairs. Today, that is nearly impossible for anyone who is not a highly skilled and constantly training technician. I know mechanics who have made a career out of car repair who can't keep up with all the tech anymore.

I also see that there must be some critical flaw in the methodology of your source, considering that they also include things like the cost of insurance and gasoline. Insurance wasn't even required in 1950, for example.

All if this is irrelevant anyway, a red herring, to distract from the point that a typical car today still costs twice as much to buy, for whatever reason, making basic individual transportation impossible for a larger section of the working class, or otherwise costing them in other sectors of self-support which they must shortchange to fill the need.

 

[Jackinthebox]

The answer is that a current minimum wage earner can afford a better car than a 1950's min wage earner could..

Thats hard to prove considering that's todays cars are far more durable thanks to international competition that was led by Japan in the 70's and 80's. Plus, todays cars are very different animals with tons of incredible space age technology never dreamed of in the 1950's like air bags, crumble zones, heated seats, cameras, self-parking, lane departure warning, incredible fuel efficiency, energy recovery, etc etc

Domestic cars were compared for a reason. Apples to apples.

All of those bells and whistles may be nice, but unnecessary. I don't need heated seats in order to get to work. Crumple zones mean that my car that costs twice as much to buy, will also be twice as likely to be totaled in modest crash.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

making basic individual transportation impossible for a larger section of the working class,.

dear you are a liberal; so assume you will always be wrong. THere are more cars per capita today than ever before indicating that they are more affordable than ever.

 

[rightwinger]

Sounds like a rightwing paradise

Time for them to blame lazy workers

 

[Jackinthebox]

dear you are a liberal; so assume you will always be wrong. THere are more cars per capita today than ever before indicating that they are more affordable than ever.

One, I am not a liberal, or a conservative, or any other label.

Two, necessity and affordability are two different things. Show me that the percentage of household budget dedicated to their car is lower today than in the past. That is the argument you have to make here.

 

[SteadyMercury]

A novelty fireplace in today's McMansions are hardly the same thing as the fireplaces of yesteryear which heated homes and were used for cooking as well.

Oh bullshit you said they didn't come with them and implied people would freeze without them. A fireplace today, with a chimney can heat and prevent people from freezing.

Aside from the simple fact that there are simply many more people today

Hah what? It was fireplaces per home. You made a statement that implied homes don't have them anymore, and now you appear to be spinning like a top to make up more shit to cover it.

 

[SteadyMercury]

And none of that is based on vehicle technology. Again, people used to save a lot of money doing their own car repairs. Today, that is nearly impossible for anyone who is not a highly skilled and constantly training technician. I know mechanics who have made a career out of car repair who can't keep up with all the tech anymore.

Sure it is, whether you want to admit it or not newer technology has made cars safer, more efficient, and more reliable than ever. You seem to "know" a lot of people or uncles or whatever that give you anecdotal impressions that don't bear out by any better reference than your fond memories.

You said it costs more to maintain a car today, but bottom line the only source I found it was clear it wasn't even close over twice as much to drive a car back in the day.

I also see that there must be some critical flaw in the methodology of your source, considering that they also include things like the cost of insurance and gasoline. Insurance wasn't even required in 1950, for example.

That would probably favor the 1950s car if their calculations at the time didn't include paying for insurance, but I'm sure you have another source right? Something better than AAA like maybe your giddy memories of your cousins driving cars that never needed repair and shot fairy dust out of the tail pipes?

All if this is irrelevant anyway, a red herring, to distract from the point that a typical car today still costs twice as much to buy, for whatever reason, making basic individual transportation impossible for a larger section of the working class, or otherwise costing them in other sectors of self-support which they must shortchange to fill the need.

Actually it seems most of your post is a red herring to distract from almost everything you claim isn't born out by data and is never backed up by any reference other than you. Per capita far more people own cars today than ever before, and far more people own homes, and fireplaes in those homes, and they spend money owning their cars every year, and they get far more house and car when they do buy them.

Go find a graph showing what percentage of income people spent on the essentials of food, clothing, housing, and healthcare 1950 versus today. The only one higher today is healthcare and combined they make up a much smaller percentage because now we spend more money on bullshit like the internet and computer you are using to wax nostalgic about the 1950 when every sat on gold thrones and smiled.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Oh to be back in the good ole days of the 1950s when shit was easy and my uncles each had 17 cars...

from BLS: