Median Male Worker Makes Less Now Than 43 Years Ago

[Self Employed Youth]

Is that why my granddad could buy a house, car and keep a wife and 4 children without needing any state benefits?

Whilst I can't buy nor keep any after paying the rent?

[MongerOfDoom]

the median income of male workers was $32,844, it has since risen declined to $32,137 as of 2010. So injustice all around.

What a load. Would you want the standard of living common decades ago for an extra $700? You would be reduced to reading HPC on a B&W TV screen for a start.

All the data shows is that incomes are broadly stable if you happen to use a deflator with a massive amount of uncertainty and then compound it over a long time.

[alexw]

What a load. Would you want the standard of living common decades ago for an extra $700? You would be reduced to reading HPC on a B&W TV screen for a start.

All the data shows is that incomes are broadly stable if you happen to use a deflator with a massive amount of uncertainty and then compound it over a long time.

All the data shows is that from 1968-2010 as productivity has increased, of all of the extra wealth created none of it has gone to the male worker and all of it has been creamed off by an elite few.

edited to correct for right wing nutjob propaganda bias

Edited September 13, 2011 by alexw

[LJAR]

What a load.

+1

look at the standard of living and calculate what it now costs to live like someone did in 1968.

you would live in a smaller house, probably not have a car, or consumer durables, let alone electronics.

Families in poverty now have a better standard of life than the average family did in 1971.

Ask someone who was alive then what it was like and the answer will not be "better than now"

[Dorkins]

look at the standard of living and calculate what it now costs to live like someone did in 1968.

you would live in a smaller house, probably not have a car, or consumer durables, let alone electronics.

Families in poverty now have a better standard of life than the average family did in 1971.

Ask someone who was alive then what it was like and the answer will not be "better than now"

The things that are worse now are things that are not as easy to see as cars and televisions: job security or the ease of getting a new job, the age at which the average worker can get a house large enough to have a family in, whether it is necessary to have two working adults in the house. It could be argued (along the lines of Maslow's hierarchy of needs) that these things are actually more fundamental to human comfort and happiness than consumer electronics and foreign holidays.

[okaycuckoo]

Barry Ritholz has been strong on this theme recently - better source and more moderate than zerohedge.

[wonderpup]

the median male is now worse on a gross, inflation adjusted basis, than he was in... 1968!

So that trickledown thing has worked out really well then.

The argument that people today have more toys somewhat misses the point- if people can't afford a decent home, or to turn on the heating and oven or even increasingly to put food on the table then a host of cheap techno gadgets made by Chinese slaves doesn't count for much.

The reality is that the things people really need are getting more and more inaccessible to more and more people- even as productivity is rising and corporate profits are high- so it's true to say that Globalisation worked well for some- but in the west most of the benefit was gained by the rich.

[wonderpup]

Ask someone who was alive then what it was like and the answer will not be "better than now"

My dad was alive then- he worked for Fords. He raised four kids, kept his wife at home, had holidays, a good wage, lifetime job security and now enjoys a good company pension at the age of 89.

What chance do you reckon the young of today have of having a life like this?

No chance, most of them. For them it will living at home till they're 38, selling their souls to live in a shoebox made of crap, running from one part time/contract/short term job to the next, never knowing when or if they will have work next year and at the end of it no pension or a pension that has been looted by every passing politician or banker who fancied a dip.

Live in debt slavery, die in poverty and spend the time in between scurrying like a demented rat to survive while billions of others compete with you for the scraps the top 1% leave on the table.

Better then than now- oh yes. Unless your'e a banker or some other parasite. For the ordinary person the future is all downside.

[miko]

+1

look at the standard of living and calculate what it now costs to live like someone did in 1968.

you would live in a smaller house, probably not have a car, or consumer durables, let alone electronics.

Families in poverty now have a better standard of life than the average family did in 1971.

Ask someone who was alive then what it was like and the answer will not be "better than now"

Don't be blined by the consumer durables. They have got cheaper due to mass production that is why everyone has them , it is not a case of everyone now earning so much they can afford expensive items.

Take the average family now where both adults work and there is maybe half the children in that family 2 instead of 4 . Look at their income and outgoings . Then take the second earner's money out and go back to just one working adult then double the two kids back to four . In most cases they won't be able to afford the roof over their heads never mind the bills and food .

The anomaly is the ones living in so called poverty that you say have a better standard of life than the average family did in 1971 . That is because their housing cost's including council tax are met for them and the consumer durables are as cheap for them as everyone else. Their standards might have gone up but for everyone else two wages are now needed instead of one.

I was alive then and can give you some comparisons .

My Dad worked my Mum did not , the mortgage was fk all as they had had the fariy god mother of wage inflation in the 10 years since they had bought their house and they only bought it with my Dads salary taken into account. There were four kids in my family and we lived in a 3 bed semi just outside London . We were surrounded by familys all doing the same 2/3 or 4 kids was the norm though there were a few familys with 5 or 6.

Yes we did have passed down clothes and just one pair of shoes bought new every school term. Holidays were in this country and self catering more often than not . Sweets maybe twice a week . Birthdays were no great event but Christmas was very special and we got plenty.

I remeber the school holidays lazy days spent over the park ( which was free ) a few trips out maybe a few £ spent. So material things were not that great but when we did get them we enjoyed them and no one can ever take the excitment of Christmas away from me that I had as a kid , maybe as I did not get that much during the year I really appreciated what I did get. Speaking to a woman I know the other week who is 55 she said

" I was so excited at Christmas I nearly pissed my knickers " I can identify with that.

In all my childhood I was never a latch key kid and my Mum was always there when we came home from school HOW MUCH IS THAT WORTH ?

No one I grew up with ever got repossessed , or had parents with debt that led to bankruptacy and I bet most familys had no debt other than the mortgage and therefore no debt stress.

Today the kids are shunted to child minders come home from school to empty homes have fewer siblings to play with and learn with . They might have loads of gadgets , toys and the latest trainers but I bet they would want more time with their parents and see more strain and pressure on their parents than we ever did. One guy I worked with came back from christmas one year and was right dissapointed as all the treats he bought and prepared for his kids did not raise an eyebrow never mind a sense of excitment as the kids have so many things nothing material means anything ( those kids will never know the excitment I knew at christmas ) .

In answer to your question better than now ? YES YES YES.

Edited September 13, 2011 by miko

[bmf]

+1

look at the standard of living and calculate what it now costs to live like someone did in 1968.

you would live in a smaller house, probably not have a car, or consumer durables, let alone electronics.

Families in poverty now have a better standard of life than the average family did in 1971.

Ask someone who was alive then what it was like and the answer will not be "better than now"

If I started working in 1971 I'd have a house paid off by now and plenty of savings. But I started working later - I earn in the top 5% of salaried workers and still have to rent.

There is more money now but it's being transferred from the young generation straight into the pockets of older people via BTL and PAYE pensions that we won't get, no matter what they assure us of now.

If I could buy one thing it'd be a time machine.

[bmf]

Don't be blined by the consumer durables. They have got cheaper due to mass production that is why everyone has them , it is not a case of everyone now earning so much they can afford expensive items.

Take the average family now where both adults work and there is maybe half the children in that family 2 instead of 4 . Look at their income and outgoings . Then take the second earner's money out and go back to just one working adult then double the two kids back to four . In most cases they won't be able to afford the roof over their heads never mind the bills and food .

The anomaly is the ones living in so called poverty that you say have a better standard of life than the average family did in 1971 . That is because their housing cost's including council tax are met for them and the consumer durables are as cheap for them as everyone else. Their standards might have gone up but for everyone else two wages are now needed instead of one.

I was alive then and can give you some comparisons .

My Dad worked my Mum did not , the mortgage was fk all as they had had the fariy god mother of wage inflation in the 10 years since they had bought their house and they only bought it with my Dads salary taken into account. There were four kids in my family and we lived in a 3 bed semi just outside London . We were surrounded by familys all doing the same 2/3 or 4 kids was the norm though there were a few familys with 5 or 6.

Yes we did have passed down clothes and just one pair of shoes bought new every school term. Holidays were in this country and self catering more often than not . Sweets maybe twice a week . Birthdays were no great event but Christmas was very special and we got plenty.

I remeber the school holidays lazy days spent over the park ( which was free ) a few trips out maybe a few £ spent. So material things were not that great but when we did get them we enjoyed them and no one can ever take the excitment of Christmas away from me that I had as a kid , maybe as I did not get that much during the year I really appreciated what I did get. Speaking to a woman I know the other week who is 55 she said

" I was so excited at Christmas I nearly pissed my knickers " I can identify with that.

In all my childhood I was never a latch key kid and my Mum was always there when we came home from school HOW MUCH IS THAT WORTH ?

No one I grew up with ever got repossessed , or had parents with debt that led to bankruptacy and I bet most familys had no debt other than the mortgage and therefore no debt stress.

Today the kids are shunted to child minders come home from school to empty homes have fewer siblings to play with and learn with . They might have loads of gadgets , toys and the latest trainers but I bet they would want more time with their parents and see more strain and pressure on their parents than we ever did. One guy I worked with came back from christmas one year and was right dissapointed as all the treats he bought and prepared for his kids did not raise an eyebrow never mind a sense of excitment as the kids have so many things nothing material means anything ( those kids will never know the excitment I knew at christmas ) .

In answer to your question better than now ? YES YES YES.

Well done sir! In a capitalist country the one way to enslave people is debt. I want to live a frugal life, work a bit, pay my way and spend time with my kids. I don't have that option. Debt is the one way to make us serfs if the rules of the game are dictated by capitalism (and though I like capitalism this isn't true capitalism as the state takes so much and distorts housing prices).

[Wait & See]

At least the boomers are all kicking the bucket. The leeches that they are.

Happy to wait for a better world, once they've all done one.

[Self Employed Youth]

If I started working in 1971 I'd have a house paid off by now and plenty of savings. But I started working later - I earn in the top 5% of salaried workers and still have to rent.

There is more money now but it's being transferred from the young generation straight into the pockets of older people via BTL and PAYE pensions that we won't get, no matter what they assure us of now.

If I could buy one thing it'd be a time machine.

It is not going to the old people, they are about to be screwed more than the youth have been. It is going to the landowners. Unearned wealth is rife, I can stand here and say HONESTLY there are some (quite a lot of) jobs I CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE.

[Wait & See]

Well done sir! In a capitalist country the one way to enslave people is debt. I want to live a frugal life, work a bit, pay my way and spend time with my kids. I don't have that option. Debt is the one way to make us serfs if the rules of the game are dictated by capitalism (and though I like capitalism this isn't true capitalism as the state takes so much and distorts housing prices).

Don't get into debt then. Listen to me, a shitty new buid isn't worth more than about 10k and even then, most of them look over priced. Same with shitty Mondeos and other crap cars. Ain't worth a toss, the lot of it.

The best thing you can do is say no to all the consumerist rubbish. Fecking made in China shite!!

[bmf]

It is not going to the old people, they are about to be screwed more than the youth have been. It is going to the landowners. Unearned wealth is rife, I can stand here and say HONESTLY there are some (quite a lot of) jobs I CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE.

Can you provide evidence that money paid to (presumably hereditary) land owners is greater than PAYE pension payments and the transfer of wealth as young people pay £500K for a house a boomer bought for far less when adjusted for inflation?

Put me in charge and I'd sort out hereditary land owners via land taxes but it wouldn't be the first thing on my list. Perhaps you can enlighten me and I'll bump it up the list if I'm made King :-)

[bmf]

Don't get into debt then. Listen to me, a shitty new buid isn't worth more than about 10k and even then, most of them look over priced. Same with shitty Mondeos and other crap cars. Ain't worth a toss, the lot of it.

The best thing you can do is say no to all the consumerist rubbish. Fecking made in China shite!!

I'm not in debt, thanks. I'm paying a fortune in rent while I wait for my country to return to sanity. Better happen soon or I'm off. In the meantime I'm saving shitty GBP as prices rise and rise to protect home owners.

[Norbert]

I'm not really interested in the "quality of life" argument. E.g. colour TVs, computers blah blah blah. I'd sooner have a comfortable 70s house, a secure 9 to 5 job (not with mountains of unpaid overtime), a Ford Cortina, an occasional walk in the park and a happy family, than a load of Chinese tat and foreign holidays.

The thing is, no matter how frugal I am, I can only aspire to a 40m² one bed flat on my salary alone. A salary, which incidentally I don't think is too bad. Add to that I have bugger all job security.

Someone said above that houses have got bigger. The ones I can afford haven't. That would be smaller than the (very small) house that my parents bought in the 60s.

[Wait & See]

I'm not in debt, thanks. I'm paying a fortune in rent while I wait for my country to return to sanity. Better happen soon or I'm off. In the meantime I'm saving shitty GBP as prices rise and rise to protect home owners.

I agree, the dirty "house prices only ever go up" brigade should be shown the poor house for being fecking idiots. There really was no excuse for paying an overinflated price for a falling down shithole by lying to a scum bank, because they wanted to take andvantage of a shitty bubble that was about to blow everyone away. Beyond pathetic!!

Fecking muppet bastards, the HPI mob really are. They'll get their's though. Have no doubt.

[Self Employed Youth]

Can you provide evidence that money paid to (presumably hereditary) land owners is greater than PAYE pension payments and the transfer of wealth as young people pay £500K for a house a boomer bought for far less when adjusted for inflation?

Put me in charge and I'd sort out hereditary land owners via land taxes but it wouldn't be the first thing on my list. Perhaps you can enlighten me and I'll bump it up the list if I'm made King :-)

Do you have a choice to pay £500k of 22:59 13/9/2011 £ for a house?

Do you have a choice to determine whom should own the land?

[MongerOfDoom]

(along the lines of Maslow's hierarchy of needs) that these things are actually more fundamental to human comfort and happiness than consumer electronics and foreign holidays.

So roughly where does decent healthcare come in the hierarchy?

BTW, those who say that the current under 40s (give or take) will get a much worse deal than the generation before them are right. But it's not because their earnings are so very different. It's just that their predecessors dumped an enormous amount of debt on them, and consumed the borrowed money.

Edited September 13, 2011 by MongerOfDoom

[Self Employed Youth]

I'm not really interested in the "quality of life" argument. E.g. colour TVs, computers blah blah blah. I'd sooner have a comfortable 70s house, a secure 9 to 5 job (not with mountains of unpaid overtime), a Ford Cortina, an occasional walk in the park and a happy family, than a load of Chinese tat and foreign holidays.

The thing is, no matter how frugal I am, I can only aspire to a 40m² one bed flat on my salary alone. A salary, which incidentally I don't think is too bad. Add to that I have bugger all job security.

Someone said above that houses have got bigger. The ones I can afford haven't. That would be smaller than the (very small) house that my parents bought in the 60s.

Brother Greenandpleasant land I have no job, yet I have a 47m^2 flat (without counting the attic). You need not slave away to acquire a paper deed of ownership backed up by a government and state which is incapable of paying it's dues. Drop the obsession with owning a 'property' and your life shall improve.

[bmf]

Brother Greenandpleasant land I have no job, yet I have a 47m^2 flat (without counting the attic). You need not slave away to acquire a paper deed of ownership backed up by a government and state which is incapable of paying it's dues. Drop the obsession with owning a 'property' and your life shall improve.

got kids youngster?

[Self Employed Youth]

So roughly where does decent healthcare come in the hierarchy?

BTW, those who say that the current under 40s (give or take) will get a much worse deal than the generation before them are right. But it's not because their earnings are so very different. It's just that their predecessors dumped an enormous amount of debt on them, and consumed the borrowed money.

Do you seriously think I and my peers are prepared to pay off their debt?

[Self Employed Youth]

got kids youngster?

Not that I know of.

[bmf]

Do you have a choice to pay £500k of 22:59 13/9/2011 £ for a house?

Do you have a choice to determine whom should own the land?

I don't understand that answer, but I'm guessing it's a "no".