The Shrinking Middle Class in America

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually I'm fairly certain that color TV was pretty common in 1970, and may have already been present in more than half of TV owning homes. It certainly was where I lived, but southwest Virginia certainly wasn't the most prosperous area in the country.

[Jon Miller]

If you recognize this issue, I can't see how you tie material possessions or other hedonistic pursuits to happiness at all?

I mean, the statement that you can't make intertemporal comparisons of happiness via reported happiness is completely ridiculous.

JM

[Jon Miller]

BTW, I got rid of most of my games/things and don't intend to get new ones. I realized that I was just as happy playing a single game as I was playing 100.

And if I start having friends who want to go paintballing/etc instead, then I could see myself getting rid of EVE/etc too.

JM
(I actually do have more than a single game, and occasionally even buy a new one, but that is to play with particular friends/etc, which is a lot closer to happiness than having a game or a fancy computer/etc.)

[Jon Miller]

BTW, stealing is bad not because you have intrinsically harmed my happiness (although you can, if you steal enough), but because it is my property and not yours.

Additionally, the process of being stolen from creates unhappiness that is independent of the material possession/etc.

I do get a bit upset if I get 100$ stolen from me. I just shrug my shoulders if something breaks/etc that costs 1000$.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

hahaha you'd prefer earning more dollars even if it'd buy you less goods? congrats, you're an idiot if so.

The entire contention is that it would not buy you "fewer goods" [when considering their aggregate real value].

what the flying ****. what is your argument here? that you'd prefer to have $10 which would be able to buy 50 pounds of bread rather than $1 which would be able to buy 100 pounds of bread, since you can also use that $10 to buying a cell phone which wouldn't be available in 1970?

I'd prefer $30k with which I can buy the food, clothing, and shelter I need and with which I can get stuff like computers and Internet access, to $7k with which I can buy, perhaps, more of the food/clothing/shelter but where those other goods are completely unavailable for purchase.

Which you would know if you had even barely skimmed the thread.

i honestly can not understand what are you trying to achieve by discrediting CPI here. sure, it's not the perfect index in keeping track of consumer good prices wrt inflation, but it's by far the best available.

No, what's even better [more accurate] is actually looking at the basket of goods you can buy with the median wage in year A and comparing it to the basket of goods you can buy with the median wage in year B, and then deciding which basket you would prefer.

[Kuciwalker]

HOWEVER, I checked out gapminder.org and it says that for the US in 1960, the average woman had 3.59 children. Check it out yourself (children per woman):

Presumably, the average woman would be married so that's 5.5 people per household in 1960.

That doesn't even make sense. I'm betting the average woman in 1960 wasn't married to another woman. Moreover, children die, which for 1960 knocks off .1-.2 from your number.

[Hauldren Collider]

That's kind of a loaded question Kuci, IMO. The only people who would say yes to such a hypothetical situation are those that are deeply dissatisfied with their current lives.

THAT'S THE POINT

[Hauldren Collider]

No, what's even better [more accurate] is actually looking at the basket of goods you can buy with the median wage in year A and comparing it to the basket of goods you can buy with the median wage in year B, and then deciding which basket you would prefer.

Our grandfather often says his favorite measure of inflation is how much a turkey sandwich costs from one year to the next.

[ShaneWalter]

THAT'S THE POINT

No, that isn't the point.

What I'm saying, was that most people would not wish to be in a different time frame unless they are dissatisfied with their lives; simply believing their life is worse now than it was in the 1970's won't even be significantly considered in the answer to the question unless they also are deeply dissatisfied with their life.

Would I want to go back to the 1970's? No, of course not, but that doesn't mean that I think I'm better off now than I would be if I lived in the 70's, it just means I'm happy with what I have and where I am right now.

[ShaneWalter]

That doesn't even make sense. I'm betting the average woman in 1960 wasn't married to another woman. Moreover, children die, which for 1960 knocks off .1-.2 from your number.

Married to another woman? He's saying if the average woman has 3.59 kids, then the average family should be 3.59 kids plus mother plus father = 5.5 people.

[Kuciwalker]

Please note that I've carefully avoided asking "would you rather live in this time period or that time period", since that introduces a whole host of considerations not relevant to the problem of comparing the real value of $[1970]7k to $[2004]30k, such as social issues. I've consistently and specifically been asking "would you rather have the stuff you could have bought in 1970 with $7k, or the stuff you could have bought in 2004 with $30k".

[Kuciwalker]

Married to another woman? He's saying if the average woman has 3.59 kids, then the average family should be 3.59 kids plus mother plus father = 5.5 people.

You're right, I'm stupid. Mea culpa.

[Jaguar]

Actually I'm fairly certain that color TV was pretty common in 1970, and may have already been present in more than half of TV owning homes. It certainly was where I lived, but southwest Virginia certainly wasn't the most prosperous area in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_television#Adoption

Oh well look at that, I am right again. I'm awesome.

[Boris Godunov]

Al: I don't think it's "nitpicking" to ask that you use real numbers instead of ones you have just made up. As I and others showed, the numbers you've made up are frequently wrong, so that right there should tell you that you need to provide real data to make your calculations.

Regarding housing costs, it was *you* who chose to compare a modern-day 2-bedroom apartment to housing costs from the 1970, I was just going with that. And again, I'm not convinced $1000 is the national average for a 2-bedroom apartment in an average area. I had a pretty nice 2-bedroom place in Astoria, New York City for $1250/month, and NYC is definitely vastly above the national average in terms of rent costs.

No, it is ridiculous. The Indians I was friends with who thought all prices int he US were expensive and sent home 400$ a month on a salary that I could barely survive on didn't spent 60$ a month on food, they spent closer to 100$.

And they didn't even buy onions usually!

JM

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, considering there's actual statistical data showing the average American spends far less on food than you are asserting.

Consider two facts: 1) the area in which you live likely has higher prices than average, and 2) your Indian friends spend more that typical because ethnic specialty foods in the US cost more than widely-available foods.

The second point is something I have observed directly. I go to Indian grocery stores regularly to purchase food, and their items are always considerably more than you'd pay for standard "American" food items in a supermarket. Ethnic stores import most of their foodstuffs from overseas so they are "authentic," and that results in a considerably larger cost.

[Jon Miller]

My friends were too cheap to go to ethnic stores, generally.

And still doesn't change the fact that my (US) friend who was too cheap to go to taco bell spent 6$ per day.

JM