The cost of living and economy sucks compared to boomer days

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 73
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,328
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Savant
The cost of living is way out of whack.
Standard of living has increased.

The average house now is 400k
That's because they've gotten bigger.

Education costs tens of thousands when before it's a few hundred or thousand
Because it leads to higher pay.

The minimum wage in the 70s was 15 bucks after inflation and is only 7 and change now. Wages just tread water and have barely gone up after inflation over decades.
Real compensation has increased, matching the rise in productivity.

Healthcare was was less now it's 18% of our gdp, which also isn't competitive with other countries who spend half as much and cover everyone with less wait times and better in general.
Life expectancy has continued to rise.
I don't know why, but you are going gang busters on rationalizing a poor running economy and government. 

you say healthcare is okay even though we spend twice as much as other countries and way more than we use to, because life expectancy has increased. ok, sure, that helps justify it a bit. but even libertarians and conservatives who want to provide everyone healthcare have healthcare plans that would significantly reduce the size our or healthcare bloat. why not advocate that? both parties have good ideas to reduce costs, there's no reason to rationalize leaving it the way it is just because life expectancy has risen. plus, even by that metric, the USA is away behind other countries on life expectancy too, yet every other developed country provides healthcare to everyone at half the cost with shorter wait times in general. 

you are also rationalizing on education too. just because education leads to higher paying jobs doesn't mean the outrageous cost is justifiable. in boomer days, schools were funded like k through 12, so education was super cheap also like they do in some other countries. the conservatives privatized it and put the pressure on individual students, ballooning costs. we could go back to that model or we could outlaw student tuition loans and only have student pay a percent of their income. these would be bring costs down, or at least to a managemenable level. there's no reason it has to be so unmanageable. 

where on earth do you get that compensation has risen to match productivity? do a basic Google search. if the minimum wage had increased with productivity, it'd be above twenty bucks an hour. there's no reason it should be half of what it was after inflation compared to the 70s. 

houses have gotten bigger but that stilll doesn't justify the costs of 400 freaking thousand on average. there's a housing shortage so instead of rationalizing the costs yet again, you should be promoting building more houses. there's lots of ways to put downward pressure on housing costs that don't involve hand outs, you should be coming up with ideas instead of rationalizing. 

you say standard of living has increased, sure, even poor people can have a decent life as long as they can work 40 hours a week, mostly... but that doesn't justify all the things that we could easily bring the costs down on being so out of reach compared to boomer days. you're a smart guy, instead of rationalizing so much, you should be coming up with solutions. 
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,268
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@n8nrgim
both parties have good ideas to reduce costs, there's no reason to rationalize leaving it the way it is just because life expectancy has risen
The topic is "compared to boomer days." Just because it's suboptimal now doesn't mean it was better then.

the conservatives privatized it and put the pressure on individual students, ballooning costs
Why do you put ballooning costs on colleges being private? More likely it's because jobs now require more expertise, as evidenced by rising productivity and compensation

where on earth do you get that compensation has risen to match productivity?
I linked to here

if the minimum wage had increased with productivity, it'd be above twenty bucks an hour. 
Most people are paid more than the minimum wage. Min wage is not a representative picture of wages overall.

houses have gotten bigger but that stilll doesn't justify the costs of 400 freaking thousand on average
Per square foot, the cost is the same in today's money

there's lots of ways to put downward pressure on housing costs that don't involve hand outs
Which still doesn't support the argument that the boomer days were better than today

so out of reach compared to boomer days
Again, if standard of living increased, then things are better than in boomer days. Sure it could be better, but that's not the topic that was raised.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@n8nrgim
you say standard of living has increased, sure, even poor people can have a decent life as long as they can work 40 hours a week, mostly... but that doesn't justify all the things that we could easily bring the costs down on being so out of reach compared to boomer days. you're a smart guy, instead of rationalizing so much, you should be coming up with solutions. 
Only Americans are complaining about the rising cost of living and other amenities. Yet immigrants are crossing the border in the thousands without a single complaint.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,786
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Human waste is perhaps an inevitable consequence of the process.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Human waste is perhaps an inevitable consequence of the process.
Yes. The inevitable consequence of innovation is human value being reduced compared to the value of things. This is why with rise of technology, life didnt get any better. In fact, the most technologically advanced nations have highest suicide rates and just general misery of population.
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Savant
houses have gotten bigger but that stilll doesn't justify the costs of 400 freaking thousand on average
Per square foot, the cost is the same in today's money

These are the kinda dumb gotcha proofs you always see from libertarians. Wylted or Swag had one a while back about how universal healthcare would produce worse health outcomes for you guys because you have more heart attacks than everyone else. A random ass article with some numbers in it and sold. The price of land has exploded, the price of materials has exploded. Look in any realtor's window and shithole houses have a half a mil price tag. People have lifetime debt like they never did before. But houses have gotten bigger on average. Here's a graph. Sold. Try build your parents house for 15k today. Adjust for inflation.

How does a house twice as big add a lifetime of debt to the cost? 
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,268
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@badger
These are the kinda dumb gotcha proofs you always see from libertarians. A random ass article with some numbers in it and sold.
If you don't like graphs or statistics, even ones you don't seem to disagree with, then it's unclear to me what kind of information you are looking for.

People have lifetime debt like they never did before. 
Debt is easier to access, sure. I suppose we could ban credit cards, but I prefer to allow people to make those decisions on their own. Student loans are probably a big factor, but there's a lot of earning potential there if you choose a high-paying degree. See increases in total compensation.


Try build your parents house for 15k today.
Building from scratch will cost more, but I could get one the same size for around the same price, accounting for inflation.

How does a house twice as big add a lifetime of debt to the cost? 
It costs more because it's bigger. Why would it not? Is the issue that people are forced to buy large houses?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,340
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
The minimum wage in 1970 was $1.60/hr. and now it is $7.25/hr. The average house in FL in 1970 was $15,000. 
So now it should be $67,969.  Today,The average home value in Florida is $386,892
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Savant
If you don't like graphs or statistics, even ones you don't seem to disagree with, then it's unclear to me what kind of information you are looking for.

Don't have any problem with graphs or statistics in general. I'm just pretty sure this one is a scam. First of all, no mention of land cost. Second, I don't see it justified anywhere why square feet and price should be a linear relationship. Most of that is empty space. You're getting very little added cost for moderate increase of size for plumbing, electrical, permits etc. The article picks out one upward trending number and we're supposed to just stop whining about having to take on a lifetime of debt so that we can call a place home.

Building from scratch will cost more, but I could get one the same size for around the same price, accounting for inflation.
No chance. When was the last time you looked in a realtor's window? 

See increases in total compensation.
Another obvious scam of an article.
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
It's definitely some corporate interest think tank spitting out these shitty articles right? I just don't know how you lot buy it in the face of such obvious absurdity. 
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Debt is easier to access, sure. I suppose we could ban credit cards, but I prefer to allow people to make those decisions on their own.
So we all rent forever but debt free? Good one.

Absurd.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
@badger
we're supposed to just stop whining about having to take on a lifetime of debt so that we can call a place home
45% of Americans dont own a home.

45% of Americans pay rent because they cant even buy home.

The prices of houses and homes are so good that 45% of Americans dont have a house or home. They pay rent.

Thats half of your country living under rent and not having a home.

But sure, you guys can pretend that you are living better than ever, even tho suicide rates disagree.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,268
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@badger
Most of that is empty space. You're getting very little added cost for moderate increase of size for plumbing, electrical, permits etc. 
You need plumbing and electrical over a larger area. More lights, bathrooms, etc. 80% of new homes have 2 or more bathrooms, compared to half of new homes with only one bathroom in 1975.

no mention of land cost
This means that the cost of the building itself per square foot is going down, since the cost of the house includes the cost of the land it's built on.

we're supposed to just stop whining about having to take on a lifetime of debt
What debt are you forced to have for an entire lifetime?
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Savant
This means that the cost of the building itself per square foot is going down, since the cost of the house includes the cost of the land it's built on.
You're dreaming. Where is this accounted in your article?

You need plumbing and electrical over a larger area. More lights, bathrooms, etc. 80% of new homes have 2 or more bathrooms, compared to half of new homes with only one bathroom in 1975.
I'm an electrician from a family of tradesmen. (Well, previously an electrician.) The first few hundred square feet of a new home is massively more expensive than any additional square foot.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,268
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@badger
You're dreaming. Where is this accounted in your article?
The purchase price for homes includes the cost of land. Hence why homes on more expensive land are more expensive.

I'm an electrician from a family of tradesmen. (Well, previously an electrician.) The first few hundred feet of a new home is massively more expensive than any additional square foot.
Residential energy demand has gone up pretty consistently.

I'll also note that real wages have gone up, even if you ignore other forms of compensation.
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Savant
The purchase price for homes includes the cost of land. Hence why homes on more expensive land are more expensive.
Your point here is that houses are only more expensive because they're bigger. Your article talks about the cost of building a new house. There is no mention whatsoever of the land it is built on. A glaring omission. 

So the government hands us all a plot of land and we have nothing to whine about. We'll build what we like on it.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,268
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@badger
Your article talks about the cost of building a new house.
Where? It talks about the "size of new houses built" and energy efficiency, but not the cost to build a house. It just refers to median prices and "paying for homes," which include the cost of the land.
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
So show me where it's factored in?
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I can't find any nice stats on the increase of price of residential plots in America. Apparently the price of agricultural real estate has doubled in the last ten years, we can go off that. How is this obviously massive cost in buying a house not even mentioned in your shitty article?
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Pretty sure cost per square foot is construction costs and that's why it's not mentioned. A shitty, misleading article.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,268
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@badger
The chart is from the Census Bureau, so not likely to be intentionally misleading. Costs of building homes aren't always advertised publicly, so how would they even get that data?
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
https://www.census.gov/construction/soc

It's the construction cost.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,786
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Hey Flower.

U.S. Population in 1970...204000000

U.S. Population in 2025...347000000

104 days later

yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 267
0
2
4
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
4
-->
@badger
Not sure how you write this and think it makes any sense at all. People - that being every young person - should just not want homes? That's the solution? Housing prices, cost of schooling, medical debt in the case of the US - has all skyrocketed. We live in an economy that caters to the super rich. It's crazy debt and scraping by for everyone else. No financial security. Few lucky enough to have a house before middle age. Something is very wrong. 
Savant is correct. Owning a home will increase demand for more homes, and this means the house prices increase.

Do you own a home? You may be adding to the problem.

The economy caters to all of us, you included. Have you tried living without it? 
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 267
0
2
4
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim
Don't you pay attention to lib talking points or the news? The cost of living is way out of whack. The average house now is 400k, whereas in the 70s it was way less even after inflation. Education costs tens of thousands when before it's a few hundred or thousand, cause they privatized colleges. Healthcare was was less now it's 18% of our gdp, which also isn't competitive with other countries who spend half as much and cover everyone with less wait times and better in general. The minimum wage in the 70s was 15 bucks after inflation and is only 7 and change now. Wages just tread water and have barely gone up after inflation over decades.
You are sad that you did not get to be a boomer.

31 days later

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,340
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Remember that each USA taxpayer now owes $274,000 on the US Debt.
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 742
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@badger
It's an irrelevant point. We're better off than we were in ancient Greece too. Humans figure shit out, it makes our lives better. The cost of living is still way out of whack like OP says. Housing prices are way higher than they should be owing to some people having way more money than they deserve. Something is broken. The average person's life is stress and debt like it never was before. 
That's only half the problem. Investment firms and rental companies buying homes is a huge problem in the US because they focus on smaller single-family homes and starter homes. So instead of a new family starting to build equity on their first home purchase to eventually spring for a larger house later on, they are being bled dry by rent. Some of these regional rental companies have been absorbed by giant investment firms like Blackstone, a company which was sweeping in with cash 10-30% over market price to snap up homes a few years back. During Covid the amount of such homes purchased by investors instead of as domiciles shot up by around 80% iirc, fed by low interest rates and huge cash injections into Wall Street. Now over a quarter of the market is held by investors, and as I mentioned these investments disproportionally consist of less expensive homes.

Personally, I think that the executives and boards of these companies should be executed in very creative ways. Maybe make a gameshow out of it. Then ban property ownership for all corporations and non-citizens, and make owning more than, say, four homes cost prohibitive via the tax structure for individuals. Foreign investment and immigration also put a huge amount of pressure on the housing market, and can lead to significant property destruction.
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,466
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Skep I think you might be the only American with a brain. Please do dig up more of my posts. I went at it on wealth inequality a while back and got nothing out of these lot. Maybe the issue needs your poetry.
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 742
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@badger
Skep I think you might be the only American with a brain. Please do dig up more of my posts. I went at it on wealth inequality a while back and got nothing out of these lot. Maybe the issue needs your poetry.
Unfortunately, libertarians are overrepresented among Americans who talk about politics online, and many of them are congenitally incapable of parsing even the slightest bit of nuance. It's often a very autistic, beep-boop way of seeing the world. Couple that with the arrogance that comes with thinking that you've discovered a simple set of rules/principles that explain everything, and you've got a complete inability to see past your own nose. I know, I suffered from the same condition once upon a time. The people who are basically either Fox or MSNBC drones are even worse - I've become convinced that at least half of those are bots, and the other half might as well be.

Most Americans aren't retarded. They see this shit for what it is. There's just no political outlet for that kind of thinking - the closest thing in my lifetime was Trump, who was more of, as Michael Moore put it, a Molotov cocktail thrown at the establishment. Something is definitely coalescing around him though, it will be interesting to watch whether it is subsumed by the beltway status quo or not.

A large chunk of people didn't care about January 6th because we knew that the vast majority of the assholes (Rs and Ds) cowering in that chamber sold their constituents down the river a long time ago. Only boomers who still watch corporate media were massaged into any sort of outrage. To the rest of us, it was just a criminally lame party thrown in the world's most expensive whorehouse.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,155
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
I’ve looked into the boomer vs millennial and younger debate at length and both sides totally past each other. I think everyone misunderstands the demographic and economic history of the situations. 

Contrary to the memes, boomers weren’t all handed a 3,000 sq foot house on the coast as soon as they turned 22. To Savants point, homes back then were smaller, interests rates were higher, the expectations for “the good life” were a lot lower. For example, International vacations didn’t happen for almost anyone, like 1% of people even had a passport into the 80s. Boomer office culture was an absolute nightmare, often six days a week during busy times and two weeks PTO was the standard. Also for late silents/early boomers close to a double digit percentage of men were in the Vietnam war, often against their will. It wasn’t a utopia they came into at all 

But they were much more in charge from the very beginning than subsequent generations were. If you compare the number of babies born from 1946-1964 with the US population in 1946, baby boomers ended up being 54% of the initial population from when they were born. Thats INSANE for any generation. For millennials that number is 29%. The tenor of society was set by them basically as soon as they came of age in a way people before or since didn’t experience 

The problem is to a large extent the boomers themselves but not through fault of their own.  When they were young, they didn’t have to compete for resources and status with an extremely large and almost unimaginably wealthy cohort. Not only were the youth a much much larger percentage of the total than they are now, the older generations at that time typically weren’t wealthy, they had social security payments which were lower than today and the lucky ones had small private pensions. Stock investing was something the middle class just didn’t have access to, and there hadn’t really been the real estate bubbles we see now. They were much more in charge economically and demographically, things catered to them. When the boomers were in their 20s and 30s if they wanted to buy a house they typically werent competing with WWII generation people who could drop $600k cash from one of their retirement accounts. Such a thing would be unthinkable. But it’s something current youth do have to face. With the demographic pyramid inverting further it’ll probably get worse