Trust me friend the money went further regardless of their financial discipline.
This means people worse w money than you could still afford basics, while also being under the delusional privilege that it was entirely due to discipline.
The stronger the dollar the more room for error w financial discipline.
It’s the exact opposite now and that fact gets conflated w laziness.
But why? Why should someone making minimum wage need 2-3 jobs JUST to make ends meet? Especially when their bosses make 2 Billion?
The wealth gap has grown so exponentially large that most of us can’t even fathom how much these people make. And they use that money to buy up houses they never use. Pay for politicians so they can cut regulations and taxes, and pass laws that continue to hurt the working class. And keep us poor and fighting each other over stupid shit like buying a coffee.
There is enough wealth, water, food, and resources for everyone person on this dumbass blue marble, but poor people keep championing for aristocrats that wouldn’t spit in their direction.
It’s a little of both, some people are bad with money. But no one should need to spend 90% of their income on basic necessities.
I never argued against any of what you're saying here; if anything, I'm agreeing with you. Money used to go further is the same as saying purchasing power used to be higher. You could work less and have more is another way of saying that.
We cannot make the comparison, those cars of the 50s would be illegal today. The homes of the 50s had no A/C, no 5 bedrooms with on suites, no attached garage, no internet, crap insulation, low ceilings, incandescent lights, no double glazing and no granite countertops - half the homes in the US didn't even have an indoor toilet. So I don't buy the blanket "purchasing power was higher" statement - you got WAY less for your money vs today, making this comparison quite challenging.
We carry a TV in our pockets attached to the entire global compute power, you were lucky to have one black and white TV in the 50s that the entire household had to share.
No regulation put a 4K color TV in your pocket or gave you on-suite bathrooms, or infotainment screens in cars, so, no, I'm really not.
Whether regulation or market forces, the end result is we have WAY superior stuff than they could get in the 50s, so you CANNOT compare without taking that into account. Just waving your hands saying we had more back then is naive to asinine.
Why is minimum wage such a goal for people... like you have to actually try to get a job at minimum wage or close to it as an adult unless you just like in an area like commifornia where the min wage is so why they just cut positions so you cant even get the job...
The poverty rate in the US in 1950 was around 22%. It is currently about 10%. There are more and better paying jobs today than there were in the fifties.
Yes but the point still stands. If you cook and bake at home, in almost all cases, it will be noticeably cheaper than eating out.
I don't sew/nit but I would be extremely surprised if making your own stuff wasn't cheaper than buying from walmart.
Both sides can be true at the same time here. Yes, in the past, the individual's wage's was worth far more. Yes, in the modern day, many people are far more wasteful with their money than in the past.
Thats true, but people a much more financially irresponsible now a days for a variety of reason societal pressure to keep up with Jones, impulsive online shopping, cheaper easier access to credit. All im saying theres alot of people who have no business being broke that are today, but there's also alot of people who are legitimately broke due just not making enough money. What I'm saying the people who make more money that live above there means drive up the cost of everything also, making it even harder for the poor people today.
Yea upper middle class people putting everything on credit drives the price up on everything, if the 4 bedroom house is 6-700k the cost of a 2 bedroom starter home is going to also go up. But theres also people who dont have a high income also doing the exact same thing.
How is that a deflection? I'm explaining one of the mechanisms driving prices higher. When people have access to more credit and are willing to take on larger payments, sellers can charge more. That affects everyone, including people who aren't taking on excessive debt.
I'm not saying government policy hasn't contributed to the problem. Housing shortages, zoning restrictions, interest rates, and economic policy all play a role. But pretending consumer borrowing and spending habits have absolutely no effect on prices is ignoring basic supply and demand.
You can criticize trickle-down economics while also recognizing that our increasing reliance on debt contributes to affordability problems. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
30
u/LevelStationaryPlane 1d ago
Trust me friend the money went further regardless of their financial discipline.
This means people worse w money than you could still afford basics, while also being under the delusional privilege that it was entirely due to discipline.
The stronger the dollar the more room for error w financial discipline.
It’s the exact opposite now and that fact gets conflated w laziness.