The cost of living and economy sucks compared to boomer days

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 53
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,124
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: 24
Posts: 2,594
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: 6,248
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: 12,588
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: 388
Posts: 12,199
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: 2,372
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: 24
Posts: 2,594
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: 7,212
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: 2,372
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: 2,372
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: 2,372
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: 388
Posts: 12,199
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: 24
Posts: 2,594
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: 2,372
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: 24
Posts: 2,594
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: 2,372
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: 24
Posts: 2,594
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: 2,372
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: 2,372
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: 2,372
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: 24
Posts: 2,594
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: 2,372
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: 12,588
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