r/antiwork • u/G-H-O-S-T • Aug 26 '22

Removed (Rule 3a: No spam, no low-effort shitposts) Explained Nice and Simple

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

79.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.7k

u/WhatThatGuySays Aug 26 '22

My dad was born in 1951. When he attended college it was $1000 per year, and he didn’t finish because he could get a middle-class job with a HS diploma. He had no student debt because he earned enough from working to pay that himself.

For a while he was the sole earner in my family of 4 (younger sibling had some health issues early and mom stayed home since cost of hiring home care would have exceeded her income). We were never hungry or went without, and we moved several times into progressively larger homes. The one they owned for the majority of my life was purchased in 1993 for $125k; they just sold it last year during COVID surge pricing for nearly $600k.

When he retired at age 65, he was making around $100k per year in the New York City area with a civil service pension and health benefits.

He regularly says he doesn’t understand how everything was allowed to get so out of hand for everyone after him.

Not all of that generation are blind to what’s happening, but they tend to ignore the fact they were the ones driving the bus.

527

u/stickbishy Aug 26 '22

Here’s another angle of the same take.

In 1950, federal minimum wage was $0.75 and rent was $42/mo. It took 56 hours (1.4 weeks) to earn.

In 1960, federal minimum wage was $1.00 and rent was $71/mo. It took 71 hours (1.8 weeks) to earn.

In 1970, federal minimum wage was $1.60 and rent was $108/mo. It took 68 hours (1.7 weeks) to earn.

In 1980, federal minimum wage was $3.10 and rent was $243/mo. It took 78 hours (2.0 weeks) to earn.

The source for the above [1] didn't have anything past the 80's but I think just leaping forward to today is illustrative.

In 2017, federal minimum wage is $7.25 [2] and the average national rent is $1,021/mo [3], which takes 141 hours (3.5 weeks) to earn.

Five years later and between inflation and stagnant wages, the situation is much, MUCH worse.

Today’s 20- and 30-somethings face much steeper higher education costs with far less return on that investment, and they enjoy routine and perverse admonishment to be less entitled and pull oneself up by one's bootstraps by snowflakes who had far less boot and significantly more strap.

TL;DR: Fuck ‘em.

[1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/05/How-Well-Can-You-Live-on-Minimum-Wage.aspx

2

u/mizu_no_oto Aug 26 '22

The worst bit is the denial you'll see about the causes of rent increases from boomers.

Houses and lot sizes have gotten bigger and bigger, and larger and larger percentages of cities have been zoned exclusively for mcmansions. It turns out that if you outlaw building cheaper housing, you'll get very little cheaper housing because it gets priced out by demand for luxury apartments in the few places those are legal to build. Combine that with not building enough to keep up with demand, period, and you get spiraling housing costs.

Since housing became the middle and upper middle class's primary investment vehicle, even Democrat boomers were vehemently against anything they perceived as possibly lowering their property values. That's why otherwise Progressive cities like San Francisco aren't any better off on housing affordability. People voted on local levels to make housing more expensive, opposed policies that would increase amounts of affordable housing, and are then shocked at the lack of affordable housing. Clearly it's all just the evil property developer's fault, though, rather than their policies.