Upcoming US Election

[Alexiev]

SHow your sources please.

I googled it. You can do the same. Also,"median household income" does not address how many people live below the (arbitrary) "poverty line". (I've lived below the poverty line. For me it was quite a comfortable existence.)

[Sculptor]

The degree of insanity you display is breathtaking.

You know what I said is true.

Accept it.

It's so crazy it's not even wrong. It's just crackers, verbal garbage

[Wizard22]

It's so crazy it's not even wrong. It's just crackers, verbal garbage

That doesn't even mean anything, Scalper...

[Alexiev]

Let's go back to the 1970s

poverty.jpg

Statistics don't say much. First, "below the poverty line" is arbitrary. Who knows whether the goal posts have been moved in the last 50 years?

Second, the population of the U.S. was 203 million in 1970, and 325 million in 2015. So the percentage of people below the arbitrary poverty line was similar. (just looking at the graph without looking up the numbers I'm estimating 38 million in 2015 and 23 million in 1970). That's 11-12%.

But the main point is that this stat is irrelevant to "median household income".

[Alexiev]

In 1970 college age kids were getting killed by the NVA, the Viet Cong, and the U.S. National Guard. Median household income was $9000, adjusted for inflation still slightly lower than today. Life expectancy was 6 or 7 years less than it is now. Inflation was double what it is today.

Of course if you want to die young, you might think the 1970s were better than today. But most of us prefer not to get drafted and sent off to Nam. I didn't watch the video. If people want to post links, how about something to read?

Incorrect, the Baby Boomer generation still own the wealth, and are not giving it up until they die-off, which will begin this decade.

Then, America will enter a new phase, where Inheritance is the primary form of wealth-transfer. This is a paradigm shift, because in every generation and century since the Colonization of the Americas, wealth was earned by the current generations, instead of Inheritance.

When Wealth shifts to Inheritance, Socialist policies tend to takeover, hence the rise of the Liberal-Left and Far-Leftists, Marxists.

It becomes more like the Old World, like 'European' countries and political ideologies.


In the 1970s, most Americans could afford to buy a house, car, have a wife, have children...they cannot do that as of the 2010s, 2020s.

The Middle Class is gone, and no sign of it ever coming back (10 million illegal aliens, under Democrat leadership/policies).

USA is destroyed.

If Americans can't buy houses today it is because they are less frugal than they were 50 years ago. "Necessities" now include: 2 cars, high speed internet; cable TV; air conditioning (thanks, global warming); gaming devices for the kids; shopping at Whole Foods; dinners in restaurants twice a week, etc., etc. The median household income is slightly higher than it was in 1970 -- but what were once considered luxuries are now thought to be necessities.

The middle class is doing fine. I'll grant that high-paying working-class jobs have vanished but, given a global economy, they're not coming back.

[Flannel Jesus]

If Americans can't buy houses today it is because they are less frugal than they were 50 years ago. "Necessities" now include: 2 cars, high speed internet; cable TV; air conditioning (thanks, global warming); gaming devices for the kids; shopping at Whole Foods; dinners in restaurants twice a week, etc., etc. The median household income is slightly higher than it was in 1970 -- but what were once considered luxuries are now thought to be necessities.

You could literally just do a bare minimum amount of research on this and find out the truth. The median income is higher than 1970, and the prices of houses are much much higher than that. Housing prices have increased faster than salaries. Nothing to do with frugality.

[Wizard22]

If Americans can't buy houses today it is because they are less frugal than they were 50 years ago. "Necessities" now include: 2 cars, high speed internet; cable TV; air conditioning (thanks, global warming); gaming devices for the kids; shopping at Whole Foods; dinners in restaurants twice a week, etc., etc. The median household income is slightly higher than it was in 1970 -- but what were once considered luxuries are now thought to be necessities.

The middle class is doing fine. I'll grant that high-paying working-class jobs have vanished but, given a global economy, they're not coming back.

That's just not true.

How much do houses cost now, compared to 1970?

American wealth is changing from Earning to Inheritance.

From the beginning of Colonialism, this represents a shift in Work and Efficiency, New World economics versus Old World economics.

It changes the mentality of a Nation: Individualism (American Protestantism) to Socialism (European Aristocracy).

[Alexiev]

If Americans can't buy houses today it is because they are less frugal than they were 50 years ago. "Necessities" now include: 2 cars, high speed internet; cable TV; air conditioning (thanks, global warming); gaming devices for the kids; shopping at Whole Foods; dinners in restaurants twice a week, etc., etc. The median household income is slightly higher than it was in 1970 -- but what were once considered luxuries are now thought to be necessities.

You could literally just do a bare minimum amount of research on this and find out the truth. The median income is higher than 1970, and the prices of houses are much much higher than that. Housing prices have increased faster than salaries. Nothing to do with frugality.

I just googled it. The median home price (I'm sure different sites vary slightly) 50 years ago was $36k, and today it is $395 k. So the price has gone up slightly more than inflation (which has decreased the value of the dollar about 7 fold since 1974).

But that doesn't say much. Perhaps houses are bigger and better now than they were in more frugal times. Cars (for example) have also gone up in price more than ten fold in that period -- but they're far better now. In the 1970s you could expect a car to run well for 100,000 miles; now it's 200,000 plus. So merely looking at the median price doesn't reveal much. One site I looked at showed that the median square footage for houses bought in 1980 was 1570, in 2023 it was 2380. Although the price per square foot has gone up (even adjusting for inflation), it's not as dramatic as the increases in housing prices in general.

In addition, most houses people buy for $390k are being sold by other people, who get the money. That way, they can buy new, bigger and better houses.

[Alexiev]

That's just not true.

How much do houses cost now, compared to 1970?

American wealth is changing from Earning to Inheritance.

From the beginning of Colonialism, this represents a shift in Work and Efficiency, New World economics versus Old World economics.

It changes the mentality of a Nation: Individualism (American Protestantism) to Socialism (European Aristocracy).

Read my other post. Also, median earning (based on the stats) is the same as it ever was. Housing prices have gone up -- which means that the net worth of home owners has gone up. So you're right that when kids inherit the family home, they inherit more wealth. Why is that so horrible? In general, home ownership has always represented a high percentage of an average individual's net worth (no, I didn't google the percentage, but anyone interested may do so).

[Sculptor]

If Americans can't buy houses today it is because they are less frugal than they were 50 years ago. "Necessities" now include: 2 cars, high speed internet; cable TV; air conditioning (thanks, global warming); gaming devices for the kids; shopping at Whole Foods; dinners in restaurants twice a week, etc., etc. The median household income is slightly higher than it was in 1970 -- but what were once considered luxuries are now thought to be necessities.

The middle class is doing fine. I'll grant that high-paying working-class jobs have vanished but, given a global economy, they're not coming back.

That's just not true.

How much do houses cost now, compared to 1970?

American wealth is changing from Earning to Inheritance.

Okay - so this part is true.
But moronically you blame "the left" because you are programmed to do just that.
When did all this start?
1) Milton Friedman writes on his new economics.
2) The big test case is enacted in Chile by General Auguste Pinochet.
3) Thatcher/ Reagan adopt that system.
4) Result mass unemployment. Drop in workers rights. End to union power. Property price on upward tragectory.
5) Massive increases in inequality as home ownership stretches out of the reach of ordinary people.
6) Mrtgage deregulation. boom bust economics. all increases inequality.
7) Left parties are forced to move to the right as media is owned by the rich and parties have to pay their dues to the likes of Murdoch.
whilst the left mitigate some of the damage, the rich continue to grow richer.
9) Increases in homelessness, more zero hour contracts. less medical insurance.

[Sculptor]

That's just not true.

How much do houses cost now, compared to 1970?

American wealth is changing from Earning to Inheritance.

From the beginning of Colonialism, this represents a shift in Work and Efficiency, New World economics versus Old World economics.

It changes the mentality of a Nation: Individualism (American Protestantism) to Socialism (European Aristocracy).

Read my other post. Also, median earning (based on the stats) is the same as it ever was. Housing prices have gone up -- which means that the net worth of home owners has gone up. So you're right that when kids inherit the family home, they inherit more wealth. Why is that so horrible? In general, home ownership has always represented a high percentage of an average individual's net worth (no, I didn't google the percentage, but anyone interested may do so).

IN 1968 in mum bought a house for £5,500, as a single parent, with a mortage that was 3 times her annual salary. She struggled but was able to buy it on a modest wage with help from my Grandmothers pension to look after the kids.
I sold that house in 2008 for £400,000.
For a person the have bought that same house at 3times their salary they would have had to be earinging £133,333 per annum at a time when the average wage was £28,000.
How many young couples make £130,000 a year? My Mum had a rather ordinary semi-skilled job, which proably would net about £35000 at today's prices.
Why the massive change? Milton Friedman!
This is not "the left"

[Alexiev]

IN 1968 in mum bought a house for £5,500, as a single parent, with a mortage that was 3 times her annual salary. She struggled but was able to buy it on a modest wage with help from my Grandmothers pension to look after the kids.
I sold that house in 2008 for £400,000.
For a person the have bought that same house at 3times their salary they would have had to be earinging £133,333 per annum at a time when the average wage was £28,000.
How many young couples make £130,000 a year? My Mum had a rather ordinary semi-skilled job, which proably would net about £35000 at today's prices.
Why the massive change? Milton Friedman!
This is not "the left"

Obviously, if you want to buy a house in Manhattan, L.A., San Francisco or London you have to fork over the big bucks. ON the other hand, if you want to live in Oklahoma or West Virginia, you can still buy a good house for $150k or far less. I bought my small house for $85k in 1994. It's probably worth $300k today. During that same period, the stock market has gone up 10 fold (standard and poors). IN addition, I've had to pay taxes, interest and upkeep on the house. As more people are working remotely (due to the pandemic and the internet), it might be less necessary to live in areas where housing is expensive.

[commonsense]

If one buys a house for $10,000 and later sells it for $400,000, one can then use the $390,000 profit to buy a lesser house not a bigger and better one.

[Alexiev]

If one buys a house for $10,000 and later sells it for $400,000, one can then use the $390,000 profit to buy a lesser house not a bigger and better one.

You can use the $390k as a down payment, and pay a monthly mortgage (I admit that if you bought a house for $10k, your mortgage payments would have been minimal).

[promethean75]

The home equity scheme is another one of those capital investment privileges that lower class renters can never have. The fact that your home not only doesn't depreciate in value like all other used commodities, but it actually triples in value in twenty years, is something so ridiculous that it becomes fantastic only becuz owning homes and the mortgage system is already so outrageous... so making two hundred thousand dollars in twenty years is so wonderful the once complaining couple that moaned to the bank and realtor when they bought their first house that they've now sold and banked on, totally forget about the outrageousness of the whole housing market and become privileged passive-arrogant petite bourgeois upper middle educated class traitors to the proletarian struggle.