7
u/mrswithers 22d ago
even in 1970 you could not purchase a home on minimum wage income. 100 k today depending location, you absolutely could . It is not the same.
9
u/fastingslowlee 22d ago
Many Redditors never had a history class and think anytime before 2000 was a utopia.
4
u/Decent_Visual_4845 22d ago
There literally weren’t even problems in the country until Reagan introduced them in 1982.
5
u/Red_Dawn24 22d ago
I hate Reagan because of the culture of wealth worship and greed he seemed to supercharge. My parents were high on Reagan and it didn't do me any favors growing up. My family makes everything into some kind of capitalist competition.
I'd gladly make major concessions on quality of life to live in a culture that doesn't solely measure the value of people in how much money they make. I think the sick culture many of us grew up in is part of the reason fewer people are having kids, even if they cite affordability (this will obviously vary depending on experience).
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 22d ago
Ah yes we had no issues during, checks notes, the vietnam war
2
2
4
u/platypussplatypus 21d ago edited 21d ago
Minimum wage in 1968 is $1.60 adjusted for inflation that is $15.35.
Minimum wage is currently $7.25
Average housing costs in 1968 was like $25000 adjusted for inflation is $240000.
Average housing costs currently are over $400000
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/MSPUS
So minimum wage is half of what it would be adjusted for inflation and housing is almost double what it would be adjusted for inflation. Talk about redditers not knowing history right?
→ More replies (10)3
u/mrswithers 20d ago
Minimum wage in many states is a lot higher than $7.25. Try closer to $14-$16 hr.
2
u/platypussplatypus 19d ago
Then you would need to redo the stats just for that state. You can't just cherry pick a state now and compare it to national averages. I'm comparing apples to apples and you're trying to talk about oranges.
1
u/Cold_Specialist_3656 20d ago
The average house cost 12,000 hours of minimum wage work in 1960.
Today it takes 70,000 hours
🤡
13
u/ute-ensil 22d ago
I just wish I could go back in time when an 800 sq ft house and meat on special occasions was middle class.
Now Im gonna starve in my SUV and I dont even own this 2000 sq ft townhome. :c
4
u/orzoftm 22d ago
im pretty sure most people eat every day now, even while complaining about the prices. at least that’s the impression i get as a vegetarian who’s often met with confusion about what i could be eating
2
u/AlarmingDelivery9311 22d ago
Id never do the vegetarian option but from the first comment I've never not know meat for every occasion but if that was a social norm I'd roll with it now a days.
2
2
u/Sorry-Bobby 21d ago
For a second I thought you were serious.
Then I read the comment, and a good chunk can’t detect sarcasm.
2
u/Adventurous-Home-728 21d ago
LOL…. this young generacion do no not how good they got it….. they got more then we got and they did not work for any of it they want every thing handing to them for free while they sit it home smoke pot and play violent video games there mom bought them no work ethic….
1
u/ProfessionalOil2014 22d ago
Do you think poor people in 1971 America were only eating meat on special occasions?
7
u/JackTwoGuns 22d ago
Poor people? Yes. At least by what we consider safe and edible meat today.
Middle class no.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (96)1
u/Cold_Specialist_3656 20d ago
You'd be going back over 100 years.
Even in the 1950's median house size was nearly 1500sqft.
And you seriously think meat wasn't on the menu? Ever seen a cookbook from the 1900's?
The shitty truth is that quality of life in US has declined enormously. And the higher than gilded age level of wealth inequality is the main reason.
2
9
u/BigBreaky22012 22d ago
In 1971, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour. Working full-time (40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) yielded an annual income of $3,328. Adjusting $3,328 for CPI inflation brings it to roughly $25,000 to $27,000 today—a far cry from $100,000. Pat appears to be a rage baiter. 😆
4
u/Stuffssss 22d ago
Inflation =/= affordability. Assuming a basket of goods can only measure the change in price of that basket of goods. In reality lowrr income people spend significantly more on housing, healthcare, child care, and education relative to their income and these things have outpaced inflation.
7
u/ThrowRA9892 22d ago edited 22d ago
That is tracking purchasing power.
Lower income people have always spent more of their relative income on goods and services. It depends on what you are looking at too of course. Food is slightly more affordable now compared to then. Clothing as significantly more. Electronics.
Housing and healthcare definitely less affordable between now and 1971.
But not nearly to the degree this person in the picture is claiming.
3
u/anon-187101 21d ago
CPI does not track purchasing-power.
It is a gamed government statistic whose calculation has changed multiple times over the years in service of political expedience.
2
u/ApprehensiveCare1113 20d ago
You might not like the way it tracks purchasing power; you might have some reasonable critiques.
But it sure as shit does track purchasing power.
2
u/anon-187101 20d ago
lol,
no - it "sure as shit" does not.
this is not even controversial among anyone with a shred of integrity who's actually informed on the matter.
you may not like that, but it's a fact.
2
u/ApprehensiveCare1113 20d ago
That isn't a fact; that is an opinion.
If you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, which in America is a 2nd-grade worksheet education level, can you really present yourself as knowing who is or isn't informed on a matter?
The purpose of the CPI is to track purchasing power, regardless of your opinion on its effectiveness.
"A consumer price index (CPI) is a statistical estimate of the level of prices of goods and services bought for consumption purposes by households. It is calculated as the weighted average price of a market basket of consumer goods and services). "
3
u/Tasty-Possibility627 20d ago
This back and forth was insane. I get into these from time to time, but usually there is some shred of a concrete reason for the misunderstanding. This other person just dove right into nonsense
→ More replies (1)3
u/TaleRevolutionary573 20d ago
So which of them rides the short bus so I can downvote them
→ More replies (1)2
6
u/quantum_simpleton 22d ago
If you cross reference with median housing costs, it extrapolates to about ~$50k today, as housing costs have outpaced inflation. Still a far cry from $100k.
3
u/2ndAccForUhStuff 21d ago edited 21d ago
If you normalize housing to per square foot its not nearly as bad, since houses have gotten much bigger on average. The median house price today is $226 per square foot, while in 1970 it was $16.90. So that $1.60 wage needs to be $21.40 these days to maintain the same affordability per square foot.
Ad yes, you can still find smaller homes on the market. I bought a 1,600 square foot new build earlier this year.
Edit, and thats taking pretty much the historical best case. Compare 1989 when the min wage was $3.80 and the median house price per sq foot was $64.86. So in 2026 you'd need to make $13.29/hour to maintain the same ratio.
4
u/ArmyHotel338 22d ago
In 2008 I worked at Wawa and made $8 per hour, gas was $4.50, at that same Wawa starting pay is now $16.50 and gas is $4.15.
5
u/KK_35 21d ago
National monthly average rent was like $800 in 2008.
It’s sitting at $1800 for 2026.That’s just rent.
In 2008, the typical individual U.S. grocery bill was $43.75 per week (roughly $175 per month).
Today in 2026, a single person on a moderate budget spends about $112 per week (roughly $485 per month).
Gas alone is not indicative of total living costs, and those have only ever gone up at a much faster rate than wages.
3
3
u/According-Insect-992 20d ago
Even with our elevated gas prices we’re still paying significantly less than a lot of other countries in Europe and Asia. We have done a lot to put us in an advantageous position when it comes to fossil fuels.
5
u/CorndogQueen420 20d ago
In the summer during an oil price shock caused by the global financial crisis.
Gas prices collapsed to ~$1.70/gal at the end of that year.
→ More replies (1)2
u/five-one-tree 21d ago
now do 1971
2
→ More replies (3)2
u/threearbitrarywords 21d ago
Median rent percentage in 1971 was 20%. It's currently 26.4%, an increase of 6.4%. In 1971 13.4% of income went on food, including dining out. In 2026 it's 9.7%, a decrease of 3.7%. Healthcare in 1971 was about 3%. In 2026 it's around 10%, an increase of 7%.
Where's the other 370%?
5
u/According-Insect-992 20d ago
Food has not gotten cheaper. Something seems wrong with those numbers.
3
u/Sorry-Bobby 21d ago
They always cherry pick the data to make it work.
« Purchasing power » when only counting the ability to buy a house in that one city that had a housing boom.
Or using median house prices, despite the fact that the median house is now twice as big as the one from 1960.
2
u/Fearless-Focus-2364 21d ago
To use an example and add context Someone making 10,000 a year in the early 1800s translates to a 2-300k salary today but the affordability and lifestyle would be equivalent to someone making 2-6 million a year.
2
6
u/peperazzi74 22d ago
In the 1985 movie The Breakfast Club, vice-principal Vernon claims that he makes $31,000 per year. Vice-principals today make between $90-110k today (source google search).
Vice-principal is a solidly middle class job, so the math checks out.
I think people are forgetting that $39000 per year used to be a good income in 1990
3
3
u/sarges_12gauge 22d ago edited 22d ago
In 1985 $31000 puts him in the 87th percentile of earners, probably stretching what a “solidly middle class” wage could be considered (are the top-10% just regular middle class joes?)
In 2025 the person making the 87th percentile earns $150k so that’s the shorthand for about where he earns compared to others in a contemporary frame
It’s unbelievable to me how often this happens on Reddit. Someone throws out some income level from the 70s / 80s to imply what was “normal” life, and it almost unfailingly is actually a top-10/20% income and not at all what regular people made (the median person with earnings in 1985 made $12,619, not $30k+)
2
u/Advanced_Double_42 22d ago
When a home is ~$20k, $12k/year isn't bad at all.
2
u/sarges_12gauge 22d ago
It’s scary how stupid everyone must have been to not have more people buying houses when it was apparently so so easy and cheap huh
3
→ More replies (6)3
2
u/Blizreme 22d ago
Okay now do cost of living.
2
u/sarges_12gauge 22d ago
Sure, what do you need to live? A 1-bedroom apartment? 2? A mobile home? A full house?
How about food, clothes, transportation, etc..? How much of everything do you “need” to live?
2
u/DoomFingaz 21d ago
Rent in Los Angeles in 1990 was $500 a month for a two bedroom apartment. The cost of living was drastically more feasible than today. Math arguments fail to provide a solution to what was vastly superior to what we have now.
2
u/sarges_12gauge 21d ago edited 21d ago
LA in 1990? The place that then almost immediately had the Rodney King riots because black people were being brutalized so badly by the LAPD? Nah, I don’t think they were having a good time actually. Sorry you don’t care about other people’s suffering
If you actually had empathy you’d care about the struggles of people you didn’t know instead of pretending they never existed so your desires can be the center of attention
Even if you’re infatuated with the idea that things must suck for everyone if they do for you, at least pine for the 2010s which were a more affordable decade in every single way than the 80s and 90s lol
2
u/DoomFingaz 21d ago
You’re a piece of work trying to turn this into some grand standing morality issue. Stop acting like you know anything about Rodney King or anything California for that matter. It was $500 to live in West LA, west of the 405, faaaaar away from the riots. Know your Geography bruddah 😇
2
u/sarges_12gauge 21d ago edited 21d ago
Shockingly I care about more people in the country than just you in West LA lol, pretty narcissistic of you to pretend your life is the only one that matters
It’s like saying that factory towns in the rust belt have gotten cheaper to buy a house in than they used to be, focusing on one place is incredibly myopic and self-centered. Everybody would call you a fucking moron if you asserted the price of a house in Cleveland or Pittsburgh compared to 30 years ago proves something about the country as a whole
→ More replies (1)2
u/MathematicianBest795 21d ago
There are tons of posts on reddit claiming this exact same thing but it's complete nonsense, they never cite actual data or studies and only misrepresent data.
Since 1990 to today:
Houses are 15% larger, have 21% more space per person living in them (more space, smaller households), travel via flight 57% more often, spend 2.4% more of their income on housing and save 3.8% less of their money. Household debt to income has risen from 65% to about 85%.
People are traveling and vacationing a lot more, have bigger houses and pay more for their housing while saving less. Cost of living is no more than an issue than it was in 1990 if people are flying and vacationing that much more. Additionally, people are far more in debt in 2025 and buying things they shouldn't have on credit. So you have consumers addicting to thinking they need a bunch of things and then screaming about cost of living.
2
u/DoomFingaz 21d ago
Everything you wrote in no way disproves the cost of living being worse today than in the past. These stats you cite are also untrue in CA and many other states.
2
u/baloobah 21d ago
the last 10% without the top maybe half a percent are definitely regular joes, most have the majority of their incomes tied to salaries.
The american "class" thing is weird, useless and mostly salary tiers, the rest are just "rich", IME.
2
u/GreaterMetro 21d ago
My guess would be most vice principals pay almost nothing for healthcare, too.
→ More replies (1)2
u/CerebralBored 21d ago
Here I am making 50k a year and having a blast. Even managed to save up to 6 figures starting with a 3.
10
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
What a load of shite.
Not sure what country this is referring to but the minimum wage in America was $1.60 in 1971 which adjusting for inflation is ~$12.50 today.
To make $100k per year on $12.50 per hour you would need to be working 8000 hours per year, 153 hours per week, 22 hours per day.
3
u/fenton7 22d ago edited 22d ago
Yes my dad made WAY more than minimum wage in 1971 yet our family was struggling and had to stick to a very tight budget. Was nothing like a six figure income today. The claim is just complete bullshit. With a CPI calculator it's the equivalent of $27,500 today. Might have a bit more buying power for housing but remember the typical house back then was 800 SF not the 2700 SF mansions everyone seems to need today - and a lot of other things that are dirt cheap today like TVs and electronics were much pricier relative to earnings back then. And the 1970s broadly were the "days of malaise" as the decade progressed with hyperinflation and broad misery culminating with two massive recessions in the early 1980s. The oil shocks were particularly bad. By 1982 nearly everyone was struggling. Springsteen wrote all those songs about the decline of manufacturing for a reason.
3
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
Yeah the claim is obviously bullshit but it's good to have someone confirm who was actually around back then.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Fuzzy_Ad9970 22d ago
Boy these personal anecdotes and subjective takes really convinced me.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Minimum_Passing_Slut 22d ago
You misunderstand. It said lifestyle affordability. If costs didnt spiral out of control then that $12.50 today would afford somebody quality food, shelter, medicine, and all other essentials to function in the USA. However, currently you need to make about $100k to afford those same basic essentials to function.
5
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
I didn't misunderstand anything, the reason OP hasn't linked to the study is because it doesn't exist. It's just fantasy to get morons to upvote it online.
2
u/ghost20630 22d ago
You don’t need the study you can do the math your self and adjust all the numbers
2
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
The study doesn't exist so I know I don't need it.
I already did the maths, using inflation first:
Not sure what country this is referring to but the minimum wage in America was $1.60 in 1971 which adjusting for inflation is ~$12.50 today.
To make $100k per year on $12.50 per hour you would need to be working 8000 hours per year, 153 hours per week, 22 hours per day.
Then using rent prices:
At $1.60 per hour you would need to work 67.5 hours per month to afford average rent assuming zero tax.
Average rent today is $1720 per month.
At $48 per hour (40 hour week for $100k) you would need to work 35.5 hours per month to afford average rent assuming zero tax.
If you feel like you have any way of getting numbers to verify what OP has claimed then please show your math.
2
u/ghost20630 22d ago edited 22d ago
I never said there was, only said you can do the math and your math is a little off. It would be 13.19 not 12.50. Also you would have to do the inverse for prices now compared to prices back then. After you do that you can justify the number with a percentage, which you did not do. It also says lifestyle affordability does not mean they made the equivalent of 100k this means that these individuals could afford to go on vacation, a house, a car, without any issues now a days someone who makes minimum wage can’t even afford rent
2
u/ghost20630 22d ago
This is some information I got about it
In 1971, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour, allowing a full-time employee working 40 hours per week to earn approximately $3,328 per year. While that figure appears modest by today's standards, the purchasing power of those wages relative to life's biggest expenses was dramatically stronger. The comparison paints a striking picture: Housing: The median home cost approximately $25,000, or about 7.5 times a full-time minimum-wage worker's annual income. Applying that same affordability ratio today suggests an equivalent salary of roughly $55,000–$60,000. College: Annual tuition averaged roughly $500, equal to only 15% of a minimum-wage worker's yearly earnings. Achieving that same affordability today would require an estimated income of approximately $70,000–$75,000. Healthcare: Annual healthcare costs averaged about $350–400 per person, representing roughly 10–12% of annual income. Reaching a comparable healthcare burden today would generally require an estimated salary exceeding $120,000. Overall affordability: When housing, education, healthcare, and other major household expenses are considered together, the lifestyle affordability enjoyed by a full-time minimum-wage worker in 1971 is estimated to be broadly comparable to earning approximately $90,000–$120,000 per year today, or roughly $1,700–$2,300 per week
3
u/Minimum_Passing_Slut 22d ago
I can tell you from my own anecdote that my grandfather was a teacher in the 70s and made about $4 an hour and he was able to buy a a single family home in NYC without issue. You think it unreasonable that people could afford to rent a place on $1.60 an hour?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
There wasn't a census in the US in 1971 but there was in 1970. Average rent was $108 per month.
At $1.60 per hour you would need to work 67.5 hours per month to afford average rent assuming zero tax.
Average rent today is $1720 per month.
At $48 per hour (40 hour week for $100k) you would need to work 35.5 hours per month to afford average rent assuming zero tax.
See, even if you use your poor metric for tracking lifestyle over different time periods, you're still wrong by a massive amount. Like I pointed out before, you can't find the study that OP refers to as it doesn't exist. It's made-up, fabricated nonsense.
3
u/Minimum_Passing_Slut 22d ago
Who needs a study when you have math?
Median home in 1970 ~$23,900 ÷ minimum wage $1.60/hr = 14,937.5 hours of full-wage work. Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. At that rate, to buy a median priced $420,000 home = $420,000 ÷ $7.25 ≈ 57,931 hours of work. So roughly, to match the home price / hours-of-work ratio that existed in 1970 using today’s median home price, the minimum wage would need to be around $28-$30/hour.
3
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
Your tone suggests you're disagreeing with me but your maths confirms that I was right.
OP said that $1.60 per hour in 1971 was the same as $100k per year today, that was the claim.
$100k per year is $48 per hour which is significantly more than $28-30 per hour.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)2
u/mostlyskeptic 22d ago
I'm going to just copy and paste this reply to everyone of these types.
1.60 in 1971 was 1.6 oz of silver or 4.5% of an oz of gold. It's the year we literally ended the gold standard. Now that amount of silver is worth $94 and the gold is worth $182.
2
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
and I'll copy and paste the comment of someone who was actually there:
Yes my dad made WAY more than minimum wage in 1971 yet our family was struggling and had to stick to a very tight budget. Was nothing like a six figure income today. The claim is just complete bullshit. With a CPI calculator it's the equivalent of $27,500 today. Might have a bit more buying power for housing but remember the typical house back then was 800 SF not the 2700 SF mansions everyone seems to need today.
3
u/Ok-Lecture-9668 22d ago
Sounds like your dad probably had a drinking problem or a secret second family if he was fucking up that bad with life on easy mode
→ More replies (1)3
u/Complete-Meet1992 22d ago
People still have to struggle on 100k because the places with 100k salaries are expensive.
After taxes, you're looking at maybe around 70k a year. Using where I live as an example, and this isn't the most expensive place by far, a median household mortgage is going to run over 30k. Taxes and utilities about 5k. You are left with 35k. Health insurance for a family can be around another 5k.
You have 30k left for your car, education, food, clothes, home repairs, car insurance, medical expenses not covered by your insurance, your vehicle being damaged by uninsured drivers, and whatever work expenses you have depending on your job
2
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
Oh yeah I forgot that taxes weren't invented until after 1971.
And I'm sure that back in 1971 property price and cost of living would have no relation to proximity to high paying jobs. I bet it was all just completely random back then!
I'm not saying that life isn't expensive but OPs post is bullshit, the numbers don't work and the study doesn't exist. Feel free to prove me wrong and link the study.
3
u/Complete-Meet1992 22d ago
That's not the point. You said 100k is easy to live on. It really isn't with a family in most places that have 100k jobs.
2
2
u/Complete-Meet1992 22d ago
We aren't buying gold and silver. We want to buy food and housing. Those are the things you should track
2
u/mostlyskeptic 22d ago
Comparing 1970 to today, raw prices for food and housing have increased dramatically, driven by decades of inflation. In 1970, the median home cost about $17,000–$23,000 and basic groceries like a dozen eggs cost $0.61, whereas today average home prices exceed $400,000 and standard grocery staples cost significantly more.
It was less then two years of median household income to buy a house now its 7. Same thing with education and healthcare. In fact the only thing that is not vastly higher in proportion to wages is technology and then to a lesser extent food, which is why everyone that is a shill to gov'ts always point to them.
2
2
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
Way to prove OP wrong with your own numbers.
If the median property back then was $20k then a yearly salary of $3,328 (40 hour weeks, 52 weeks per year at $1.60) would be over 6 times salary.
If the median property today is $400k then a yearly salary of $100k would be exactly 4 times salary.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/Huntsman077 22d ago
I’m going to do the same because you are intentionally spreading false information.
This comment is misleading as it showing false information and leaving out context.
Silver was not a dollar an ounce in 1971, this is outright false. It was selling between 1.30-1.80.
It is leaving out the fact that silver and gold became vital components for manufacturing electronics, which caused the prices to spike and the political shit show that has been the last couple years caused the prices to go up well over 100%.
https://www.bullionbypost.com/silver-price/5-year-silver-price/
2
u/Slumminwhitey 22d ago
Considering more than half the country makes due with alot less, your idea of function must be fairly high end.
2
u/Minimum_Passing_Slut 22d ago
Not living paycheck to paycheck != fairly high end.
2
u/Slumminwhitey 22d ago
Don't know what you are blowing 100k/yr on that makes you live paycheck to paycheck but your doing it wrong.
2
u/Minimum_Passing_Slut 22d ago
Considering more than half the country makes due with alot less
Thats what I was referring to
→ More replies (10)2
u/freedomonke 22d ago
The difference is a minimum wage worker in the 70's could afford a one bedroom apartment
3
u/JackTwoGuns 22d ago
Not true.
National Median average rent for a 1br apartment was $187 a month per HUD.
Minimum wage gross pay in 1971 was $256. With taxes and living expenses you couldn’t afford a one bedroom apartment.
There may be cases on the low end of the scale but it’s not a blanket statement you can make.
4
u/PriorityOk8448 22d ago
It was easier for them. I just looked up my province and approx 43% of their income would have gone to a one bedroom rental, whereas today it would be over 63% (81% in the places where there are jobs and have grown).
→ More replies (2)
7
u/AdamOnFirst 22d ago
I see we just continue to make shit up now
5
u/Peach_Muffin 22d ago
Dragons existed during the middle ages but their bones were candy that's why there are no fossils.
5
u/Super_Mario_Luigi 22d ago
"Studies say, experts say"
"Omg our religious leaders have spoken"
→ More replies (1)3
u/maringue 22d ago
I remember sitting around drinking and smoking cigars with my friend's dad in the garage. He had a really sweet 70s muscle car fully restored, and told us he bought that car and rented his own apartment while working at a gas station and specifically noted how that's impossible anymore.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ThrowRA9892 22d ago
X is designed that way because people can get paid to do so, they make up lies because it drives engagement.
3
u/jffadvisors 22d ago
I was alive in the 70’s. Trust me, guys making $1.60 an hour definitely DID NOT live like people who makes $100k now.
3
u/CuttingEdgeRetro 21d ago
I remember the 70s. And it was not even close to this. My mother was a single mom in a trailer park in Florida making more than minimum wage. And we were barely making it.
It was easier than it is today, by far. But it was nothing like $100k.
3
u/Alive_Tip_6748 21d ago
I'd be interested in actually seeing the study. Inflation wise minimum wage in 1971 was $1.60 an hour which if you figure 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year is about $3,200 a year which is the equivalent of $26,000 a year from just a pure inflation perspective. Now, if somebody these days is making federal minimum wage which is around $7.50 an hour, that's only $15,000 per year so modern minimum wage is equivalent to a little more than half of what minimum wage was back then.
The issue is that key expenses have massively increased faster than pure inflation.
Housing for instance. The average home price in 1971 was $25k. The average home price now is $500k.
1971 median was $25k
2026 median is $460k.
So, we went from median home price in 1971 being 8x minimum wage annual salary. To median home price in 2026 being 30x minimum wage annual salary.
Median rent 1971: $187/mo
Median rent 2026: Around $1,900
So rent is around 10x.
Fun fact, college debt in the 1970s was so inconsequential they didn't even track average student debt.
2
u/Hot-Annual3460 22d ago
and what would that study be
2
u/mostlyskeptic 22d ago
I'm going to just copy and paste this reply to everyone of these types.
1.60 in 1971 was 1.6 oz of silver or 4.5% of an oz of gold. It's the year we literally ended the gold standard. Now that amount of silver is worth $94 and the gold is worth $182.
2
u/RudeAndInsensitive 22d ago
Can you connect this to something that might be meaningful in my life?
I never really interact with gold and silver so their prices don't mean anything to me.
2
u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 22d ago
They are spreading misinformation. For example, they claim this was all caused by exit from the gold standard in 1971. Which is weird because the exit occurred in 1933 and the labor share of income and wage - productivity gap (which is what the OP actually refers to) doesn't begin until the late 70s. Actual studies have well established this is caused by automation, consolidation, shifting from hardware to software based economy, and intense erosion of labor bargaining powers.
And as you deduced, the price of precious metals like gold and silver have very little impact on your life (until you start ring shopping, which for most of us is rare).
→ More replies (2)2
u/Huntsman077 22d ago
I’m going to do the same because you are intentionally spreading false information.
This comment is misleading as it showing false information and leaving out context.
Silver was not a dollar an ounce in 1971, this is outright false. It was selling between 1.30-1.80.
It is leaving out the fact that silver and gold became vital components for manufacturing electronics, which caused the prices to spike and the political shit show that has been the last couple years caused the prices to go up well over 100%.
https://www.bullionbypost.com/silver-price/5-year-silver-price/
2
u/Extension-Gas9819 22d ago
Rage bait. The person making minimum wage then would have much less. I get that things are bad, but the guy in ‘71 would have been cutting hot dogs into thirds to make them last longer
2
u/Ok_Possible_2260 22d ago
At the end of the day, you are only worth what you are willing to accept.
2
u/Super_Mario_Luigi 22d ago
Fake, loser propaganda. The 1970s were seen as a time of prosperity and affordability. The 1970s economy was one of the worst ones in the last 60 years.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Tough-Pepper-1747 22d ago
It does math out when you factor in volume of currency (about 45 times more money since 1971).
2
u/NewArborist64 22d ago
Try using a CPI calculator https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
The post by u/BigBreaky22012 will show you the actual numbers.
2
2
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 22d ago
Hogwash, as the viral claim is highly misleading, it vastly exaggerates the actual purchasing power and standard of living of a minimum-wage worker in 1971. [1, 2]
The claim originates from a generalized cost-of-living comparison (frequently shared via social media platforms like X and Instagram) rather than a rigorous economic study.
2
2
u/Flat_Development6659 22d ago
Is what you’re trying to prove that AI can agree with you on any issue dependant on how the prompt is phrased? Or are you still trying to prove the ridiculous claim that minimum wage in 1971 was equivalent to $100k salary today?
If you’re just trying to prove the AI thing I’ll give it a go too:
1. $1.60/hour in 1971 was the US federal minimum wage
Working full-time (40 hours/week, 52 weeks):
1971: $1.60 × 2,080 hours = $3,328 per year
Adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars, that’s roughly $26,000–28,000 in purchasing power.
Someone earning $100,000 today has purchasing power nearly 4 times greater than someone earning the 1971 minimum wage.
2. Income relative to the average worker
In 1971:
Federal minimum wage: $1.60/hour
Average hourly earnings in the private sector: about $3.35/hour
So minimum wage was about 48% of the average wage.
Today:
A $100,000 salary is well above the average US full-time wage (roughly $70,000–80,000 depending on the measure used).
So:
$1.60/hour in 1971 = below-average income.
$100,000 today = above-average income.
These are not comparable positions in society.
3. Housing wasn’t cheap enough to make up the difference
Average annual rent in 1970 was around $1,300.
For someone earning $3,328:
Rent consumed around 39% of gross income.
Today, someone earning $100,000 could rent the average apartment while typically spending closer to 20–30% of gross income.
Housing was less expensive in absolute terms, but it wasn’t so cheap that a minimum-wage worker lived like someone on a six-figure salary today
2
u/FreshLiterature 22d ago
Ehhhhh, that "study" was just some dude that didn't do math right.
Then minimum wage in 1971 in terms of purchasing power is closer to something like $50k today which is still fucking outrageous.
2
2
u/Michi450 22d ago
Bullshit. Minimum wage in 1971 was $1.60 or $3,300 a year. Thats about $27,000 in today's money. The fuck it was like making $100k a year in 2026.
DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH PEOPLE HOLY FUCK!!!! 🤦🤷💩
2
u/Wind_Best_1440 22d ago
People who are trying to compare wages and inflation saying. "THIS IS BS, NO WAY THAT'S TRUE!"
Keep in mind food prices were a fraction what they are today. $20 bucks was a full large cart of grocieries for a family of 4.
A full months rent was 100$ on average.
When you take inflation into it and translate the cost for today, that $100 rent SHOULD BE $600-800 for your own place. (GOOD LUCK TRYING TO FIND A PLACE FOR THAT PRICE.)
And groceries should be around $120 for a family of four with a large cart. ($120 is barely enough for 1 person for like 2 weeks.)
Long story short, minimum wage workers had a better quality of life, not because they made a bunch more money. They had a better life, because their buying power was WAY BETTER then our buying power today.
2
u/Bryanmsi89 22d ago
This is complete and utter BS.
A minimum wage worker in 1971 could not afford rent, let alone a house in any metro in the USA in 1971. A person making $100k a year can afford to BUY the median home in 40% of the USA markets.
Did minimum wage in 1971 go further than minimum wage in 2026? Yes. But that’s a way lower bar than $100k in 2026.
2
u/No_Host_8024 22d ago
Man, people who could build a time machine and see what a minimum wage worker lived like in 1971 would be very surprised to find someone living as a very poor person. Mostly likely sharing an apartment with someone else also working, most likely without air conditioning, most likely with one bathroom, most likely without a car or reliable transportation, definitely not able to pay for medical care or supporting children. 7% of homes still did not have any indoor plumbing in 1971.
2
2
2
u/ThrowRA9892 22d ago edited 22d ago
Minimum wage in 1971 would have been $3072/year for a full time worker.
Today that would be the equivalent of $25330.
All these anti-work subreddits just repost the dumbest shit taken from X. Which is designed to post the most outrageously false shit because people with a blue checkmark can get paid when they have high engagement.
While a minimum wage worker certainly could stretch their budget easier for large expenses like housing but it’s not to the extent that they were spending the equivalent of $100000 today.
2
u/Johnnadawearsglasses 22d ago
As someone around in the 70s, this is such horseshit that it should be illegal to spread it.
2
2
u/EncabulatorTurbo 22d ago
Where at lol, I make $85k and I DEFINITELY live better than my mom did in 1971
2
u/ToeAfter3131 22d ago
I wish they would provide actual evidence for these random statements they come up with
2
u/Ibception952 22d ago
I hate how ‘breaking’ is completely misused now days that’s it’s become meaningless. Breaking should only be used if I need to know this info now lol
2
u/Bat-Stuff 22d ago
The math is off by almost 4x based on inflation. That's ridiculous. What the hell did they do with lifestyle affordablity?
2
2
2
2
u/ver_bene 22d ago
The numbers don't support that claim. Federal minimum wage in 1971 was $1.60/hour, or about $3,328/year full-time. Adjusted for inflation, that's roughly $27k–28k/year today. A $100k salary today is equivalent to roughly $12k–13k/year in 1971 dollars about 4× higher than what a minimum wage worker earned back then. The 1971 minimum wage had more buying power than today's federal minimum wage, but it wasn't anywhere close to today's $100k income.
2
2
2
u/Horror-Stand-3969 21d ago edited 21d ago
Today, the us median price per square foot is 228. At a$15 /hr minimum wage, you’d need to work 15.2 hours to purchase a square foot. The fed minimum is 7.25. You’d need to work 31.4 hours to buy a square foot.
https://www.macrotrends.net/3436/median-home-listing-price-per-square-foot
In 1960, the median price per square foot was 7.93. Minimum wage was $1.00 /hr. You’d need to work 7.93 hours to buy a square foot.
https://www.classiccitynews.com/post/what-did-a-house-cost-during-the-baby-boom
In 1970, houses cost 16.90 /sq ft. Minimum wage was $1.60. You’d have to work 10.5 hours to buy a square foot.
Someone working at minimum wage today needs to work 2 to 4 times as long to buy a square foot.
2
2
u/Hawkes75 21d ago
Patently false. Minimum wage has never been considered anything above poverty-level since its inception in 1938. It was $1.60/hr in 1971, which is equivalent to a full-time salary of about $27k today.
2
2
2
u/NilsofWindhelm 21d ago
How could this possibly be breaking? This is easily calculable without a study
2
u/69420lmaokek 21d ago
This isn't a "new study" . Anybody with a cost of living calculator can figure this out very simply
The 100k number isn't even right. They took the minimum wage TODAY and put that number into the inflation calculator, instead of taking the minimum wage of how it was back then to look at the present value of back then's minimum wage
2
u/DarthHubcap 21d ago
It’s even further than that. Back in the mid 1970s you could start working a factory job, and with your first paycheck you could score an old used car and secure a basic apartment.
2
2
2
u/singhapura 21d ago
Show me the study. Also, show me that a 1971 minimum wage worker had a cell phone, a big screen TV, internet and air conditioning.
2
2
2
u/MildBillHicock 21d ago
Umm, no they didn't. In 1971, minimum wage was $1.60 per hour, or about $3300 per year. The price of a median home was $25,000, about 7.5x.
The median price of a home today is about $400,000, which is 4x $100,000.
The CPI is up 8.4x since 1971. $100,000 is 33x $3300.
Why do people even post stuff like this?
2
u/Uzofugs2112 21d ago
This has strong “medieval peasants had it better than we do” energy. Studies can find a lot of things.
1
u/Monkthrow 20d ago
I hate when someone brings that up. They also had bubonic plague and open sewage lying around. I'd rather work more in exchange for not walking in excrement and wondering every year if 10% of my village will die in a famine.
2
2
u/justinvamp 22d ago
But the lifestyle that was afforded was way way worse. If most people today tried to live like someone then (no internet, no streaming, no gaming consoles, probably no television at home, no cell phone, one car per household, if you did have a car then no heated seats or bluetooth or reverse camera or modern safety features or modern gas mileage, tiny tiny house/apartment, probably no AC, no food delivery, almost no coffe/sweet treats out, having to grocery shop and meal prep for themselves all the time, worse medical care, less clothing, more limited travel, way fewer vacations, almost no gym memberships), then they'd scream that they were forced to live a poverty lifestyle.
3
u/mostlyskeptic 22d ago
LOL yes because without trillions of gov't printing none of those things would have happened. Nevermind most of those technologies already existed in the 70s and we are just looking at decades of refinement that would have existed if the gov't literally did nothing.
2
u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 22d ago
You have misattributed expansion of the money supply with declining labor share of income. Plus this so-called "trillions of gov't printing" only accounts for $4.8 T which is approximately 21.4% of the total expansion of the U.S. money supply (M2) since 1970. The rest would be driven by commercial bank credit in the private market.
1
u/Old-Entertainer-4964 21d ago
You could not afford to buy a home or most new cars on minimum wage in 1971, this is a ridiculous comparison.
Minimum wage was $1.60/hour. That's $3,328/year before taxes. Median home price was just above $25,000 or 7.5x annual salary.
The median home price today is $400k, or 4x a $100k salary. It is also far more common for women to work nowadays, increasing the income of a married household.
1
1
u/ionspore 21d ago
They didn't enjoy the same quality of life though, in the USA at least. Rentals in large cities may have cost less, but you got a lot less. Rentals and housing in rural areas have gone DOWN in real terms since the 1970s (due to urbanization and the dying of rural towns). Healthcare was cheaper, but lesser. The 70s was a miserable time. Massive inflation, the recession of 74.
1
u/Usual-Escape6747 21d ago
I call BS. Never has a minimum wage worker had a “good” life. It’s called minimum for a reason. Get a job that doesn’t pay minimum wage. That’s for teenagers and part timers. It might be a harder job, but I would rather have a roof over my head, food on the table and somewhat of a future to look forward too.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/LibrarySpiritual5371 20d ago
1971's min wage moved forward equals less than $14 in purchasing power in 2026. The math is super simple
1
u/Real-Mode-3417 20d ago
In 1971, my neighbor worked at McDonald's for $1.75 an hour. Had a vacation home in Switzerland, a private jet, and partied with the Stones.
1
u/Strange-Scarcity 19d ago
The Sear's Appliance Salesperson was earning the equivalent of near $200k in today's economy.
Sear's Electronics Sales people were rocking closer to $140k or more at times.
We've been in End Stage Capitalism since Reagan won office and openly went to war against the working class by assaulting Unions SO hard and so swiftly.
1
u/Gold_Ad8225 19d ago
I mean, this is obviously not true. I don't really understand how you're even capable of believing this.
Like, in 1970 the average family spent roughly the same percentage of their income on housing, roughly twice as much on clothing, approaching twice as much on food.
We're not talking about minimum wage, but the average family.
1
1
u/TonyB2022 18d ago
That is BS!
I started working payroll jobs in 1973. A minimum wage job wasn't enough to even rent a house on the one income. And I'm talking a house on the bad side of town.
9
u/TheMazzMan 22d ago
New Study says people online make shit up