And “household income” definition also changed: at the time the most common was that only the man of the household was working. So I’d say we are down to a quarter of what was earned then.
I think the most important context is minimum wage.
In 1982 a full-time job making $3.35 an hour is pulling in approx $6,700 a year. Or 14% of the price of a house.
In 2022, that same worker, working the same number of hours at minimum wage $7.25 an hour is bringing in $14,500 a year. Or 3.5% the price of a house.
The same for groceries. THAT is the fucked up part. It’s what happens when people seem OK with 50 trillion dollars going from the bottom 90% to the top 1% over the past several decades.
They’re already going crazy with inflation. We’ve got nothing left to lose by trying it. And when teenage burger flippers at McDonald’s are making 50 an hour, you can go to your boss and ask for a raise with a very good argument. How would you like to make 80 or 100 an hour?
Well, yeah. But honestly, I like what I do. So, I’m not sure I’d ask for a lot more than minimum in that case. Of course, that would change as inflation goes nuts and prices go crazy… But still. The first few months of that would be awesome.
My argument would probably be along the lines of: I make x% above minimum wage, so it seems fair that I should continue to make x% above minimum. Now that the minimum wage is $50/hr, I calculate my fair wage as $y/hr.
I don’t think I’d get that full amount, but it would set up a foundation for the rest of the wage negotiation. Right now, at my current job, I believe (if my math is right) I’m around 205% of minimum wage, so if it suddenly went to $50/hr, I would be seeking around $102/hr or so. But behind the scenes, I’d settle for like $80/hr.
I’ll add a caveat that I’m not in the USA, and the minimum wage where I am is much more than the US minimum wage. If our minimum wage was closer to the US minimum wage, I’d be closer to 350% or more.
I don’t expect anyone to know this off the top of their heads, but do things seem any better from a global perspective over that same time period? e.g. are there so many fewer kids dying from malnutrition that on average a citizen of Earth chosen at random is likely to be better off?
Yes. We can be as doom and gloom as we want, but the world overall is infinitely better than it was even looking 25 years ago. There’s a lot of fucked up shit going on, but there are far fewer people dying of starvation and crushing poverty than ever in human history.
Fun fact: most statistics regarding global standard of living (access to water, schooling, etc.) peaked shortly before covid and have gone down again in recent years.
Also, much of that improvement happened in China.
I think that’s a little unfair of a comparison. The average house price in the US is $495k. The average house price in Ohio is $273k. Let’s take Brooklyn for example. In the 80’s houses were cheap in comparison to today. Ohio in the 80’s were probably on par for what they are today. There was no silicon valley in the 80’s. You didn’t have as much of the super rich mega mansions back then. So yeah, it’s going to sway the numbers.
If we’re going to have super rich mega mansions, then we should be taking care of everyone at a proportionate rate. If we’re not, then the tax for the rich is too low.
I agree the inflation would not be a huge deal but only if incomes had kept up. Couples are struggling to exist today doing two jobs (or more) each of which could have supported a small family just decades ago.
Home prices vary wildy depending on location and size of the home. It does not seem unreasonable that someone could spend $200 a week on groceries and live in a $200K home.
So the real question is how did pay in the most common industries keep up with inflation. I don’t think anyone is disputing costs rising at comparable rates. It’s our ability to keep up as earners.
Combining your comment with this sibling reply, you could say that individual income didn’t drop by 1/2 relative to the cost of a house; it dropped by 3/4.
Income hasn’t kept up with inflation, so you have a widening gap
The prices may be proportional, but the average “purchasing power” has decreased. Most family units have more than a single income now, but they still struggle.
Inflation goes up (which devalues our income), but our wages have gone up much slower… so we have a widening gap of “purchasing power” that people’s budget can feel
The “prices” may be proportional, but the ability to afford them is certainly not
Damn I’ve seen some really stupid takes on here but this one is really something special. Cherry picking the numbers here is so obvious and the ones that you ignore, like income, so blatant that I’m unsure how this isn’t flagged as straight up misinformation. That’s not even the stupidest part though believe it or not. Why would you even try to cook the books like this to make it seem like there’s nothing wrong with the home cost situation? How could trying to convince people of this fantastical situation possibly benefit you?
So maths time…
If that cart is a weeks of groceries, it takes 1250 weeks of groceries to buy a house in 1980.
According to a 2024 USA today article the average family with kids spends $331 per week on groceries.
If the groceries per house ratio stayed the same, a house would be $413,750 in 2024.
I dunno seems pretty proportionate.
That’s not the issue.
Average annual household income in the US in 1980 was $20,020- 42% of a house (average cost of a house in the US in 1980 was actually $47K).
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1982/demo/p60-132.html
Average annual household income in the US in 2022 was $74,580- or 18% of a $412K house.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html
And “household income” definition also changed: at the time the most common was that only the man of the household was working. So I’d say we are down to a quarter of what was earned then.
Damn. That’s some depressing perspective right there.
I think the most important context is minimum wage.
In 1982 a full-time job making $3.35 an hour is pulling in approx $6,700 a year. Or 14% of the price of a house.
In 2022, that same worker, working the same number of hours at minimum wage $7.25 an hour is bringing in $14,500 a year. Or 3.5% the price of a house.
The same for groceries. THAT is the fucked up part. It’s what happens when people seem OK with 50 trillion dollars going from the bottom 90% to the top 1% over the past several decades.
I mean, that minimum wage should be higher though.
At the same time, if you doubled it, it would still be half as much of a percentage of a house.
No matter which way we slice this up, were fuckkkkkkked
Yeah minimum wage should be quadrupled at the least. But I think the US should have a 50 dollar minimum wage.
50? Wow.
That’s more than I make. I mean, I’m not opposed to the idea, but it would be an excuse from every capitalist out there to go crazy with inflation.
We’d probably end up worse off on the end but I wouldn’t mind as much because my house is already mortgaged.
Imagine how much more you’d make if minimum was 50
They’re already going crazy with inflation. We’ve got nothing left to lose by trying it. And when teenage burger flippers at McDonald’s are making 50 an hour, you can go to your boss and ask for a raise with a very good argument. How would you like to make 80 or 100 an hour?
Well, yeah. But honestly, I like what I do. So, I’m not sure I’d ask for a lot more than minimum in that case. Of course, that would change as inflation goes nuts and prices go crazy… But still. The first few months of that would be awesome.
My argument would probably be along the lines of: I make x% above minimum wage, so it seems fair that I should continue to make x% above minimum. Now that the minimum wage is $50/hr, I calculate my fair wage as $y/hr.
I don’t think I’d get that full amount, but it would set up a foundation for the rest of the wage negotiation. Right now, at my current job, I believe (if my math is right) I’m around 205% of minimum wage, so if it suddenly went to $50/hr, I would be seeking around $102/hr or so. But behind the scenes, I’d settle for like $80/hr.
I’ll add a caveat that I’m not in the USA, and the minimum wage where I am is much more than the US minimum wage. If our minimum wage was closer to the US minimum wage, I’d be closer to 350% or more.
I don’t expect anyone to know this off the top of their heads, but do things seem any better from a global perspective over that same time period? e.g. are there so many fewer kids dying from malnutrition that on average a citizen of Earth chosen at random is likely to be better off?
Yes. We can be as doom and gloom as we want, but the world overall is infinitely better than it was even looking 25 years ago. There’s a lot of fucked up shit going on, but there are far fewer people dying of starvation and crushing poverty than ever in human history.
Dope
The fight continues
Fun fact: most statistics regarding global standard of living (access to water, schooling, etc.) peaked shortly before covid and have gone down again in recent years.
Also, much of that improvement happened in China.
I think that’s a little unfair of a comparison. The average house price in the US is $495k. The average house price in Ohio is $273k. Let’s take Brooklyn for example. In the 80’s houses were cheap in comparison to today. Ohio in the 80’s were probably on par for what they are today. There was no silicon valley in the 80’s. You didn’t have as much of the super rich mega mansions back then. So yeah, it’s going to sway the numbers.
If we’re going to have super rich mega mansions, then we should be taking care of everyone at a proportionate rate. If we’re not, then the tax for the rich is too low.
deleted by creator
I feel like it’s implying a standard of living. You got more for less, you owned a home. Maybe only one of the family was employed for that life.
Income. Everything else can be proportional, but if income isn’t, we’re fucked.
I agree the inflation would not be a huge deal but only if incomes had kept up. Couples are struggling to exist today doing two jobs (or more) each of which could have supported a small family just decades ago.
Furthermore:
So the real question is how did pay in the most common industries keep up with inflation. I don’t think anyone is disputing costs rising at comparable rates. It’s our ability to keep up as earners.
so, by his numbers, we’re paying over 50% more for food and houses.
But they’re equally more expensive, so we’re getting screwed two ways, not just one.
They also did it on a single income back then.
Combining your comment with this sibling reply, you could say that individual income didn’t drop by 1/2 relative to the cost of a house; it dropped by 3/4.
The ratio of interest isn’t groceries:housing, it’s income:CoL
The first ratio may have stayed rather consistent, but the second has not.
Inflation vs income
Income hasn’t kept up with inflation, so you have a widening gap
The prices may be proportional, but the average “purchasing power” has decreased. Most family units have more than a single income now, but they still struggle.
Inflation goes up (which devalues our income), but our wages have gone up much slower… so we have a widening gap of “purchasing power” that people’s budget can feel
The “prices” may be proportional, but the ability to afford them is certainly not
So now please do the comparison to income, based on what you think these people bring home.
It never said it was a week’s worth of groceries.
Its a reasonable assumption. Most of the visible foods are bulky items that are not stacked efficiently to be visible to the camera.
Damn I’ve seen some really stupid takes on here but this one is really something special. Cherry picking the numbers here is so obvious and the ones that you ignore, like income, so blatant that I’m unsure how this isn’t flagged as straight up misinformation. That’s not even the stupidest part though believe it or not. Why would you even try to cook the books like this to make it seem like there’s nothing wrong with the home cost situation? How could trying to convince people of this fantastical situation possibly benefit you?
it’s not dumb at all.
that is, I don’t see what he’s saying is good or bad, just “food and housing have stayed a similar ratio”. Which is interesting.
But we should be wondering at the cost of groceries at the very least.
You don’t think it’s dumb to say that housing prices currently are proportionate and make sense?