Yup, kids, we in America and in fact ALL over the world have LOTS to be thankful for...this is the BEST time in history to be alive...the kings of old would marvel at the standard of living that even a very modest income can now attain. To wit:

http://reason.com/archives/2018/11/2...faster-cheaper

Better, Faster, Cheaper

Americans have more wealth than we could have ever imagined.

Ronald Bailey, December 2018

"The living standards of Americans have vastly improved during the past 50 years, with the quality of available consumer products steadily rising even as their prices have steeply fallen.

In 1968, Americans could buy a top-of-the-line 19.3-cubic-foot refrigerator for $499.95. In 2018 dollars, that's $3,695. Today, consumers can purchase a 21-cubic-foot Kenmore with external water and ice dispenser for $999.99 at Sears€”a 73 percent price drop, in real terms.

The downward trend in television prices has been even more dramatic. In 1968, an Admiral Color 23-inch TV cost $349.95, or about $2,586 today. Consumers had to walk across the room to switch between three national networks. Best Buy now sells a 24-inch smart TV for $139.99€”nearly a 95 percent price reduction. It comes with a remote as well as instant access to more TV shows, internet programming, and films than a person could watch in a lifetime.

A 5,000-Btu air conditioner in 1968 was advertised at $99 ($800 in 2018 dollars). Walmart will today sell you a Frigidaire 5,000-Btu unit for $129.99, amounting to an 84 percent drop in price.

The first countertop microwave oven available for domestic use was the Amana Radarange in 1967, priced at $495 ($3,793 now). Today, a Hamilton Beach countertop microwave at Walmart€”1,000 watts, 1.1 cubic feet€”will run you $75. That's a 98 percent drop in price.

When Texas Instruments introduced the TI-2500 "Datamath" consumer calculator in 1972, it weighed 12 ounces and cost $149.99 ($920 in 2018 dollars). Today, the company's solar-powered TI-30X IIS Scientific Calculator weighs 4.8 ounces and will calculate trigonometric functions, square roots, logarithms, and linear regressions. Walmart offers it discounted at $8.88. Ignoring the huge increase in functionality, that is a drop of 99 percent.

One very crude way to measure just how much improved technology has increased consumer well-being would be to consider the discount en masse. To purchase a refrigerator, a color TV, a record player, an air conditioner, a microwave, and a calculator roughly five decades ago, the average family would have had to spend $12,155 in today's dollars. Buying similar (though vastly improved) products today would cost just $1,404. That's a reduction in real prices of more than 88 percent. And of course, virtually every household now has at least one cellphone and/or computer€”two categories of products that could not have been acquired for any amount of money in 1968. Americans have more wealth than we could have ever imagined..."

</>

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:55:25 -0800 (PST), GM
> wrote:

>
>Yup, kids, we in America and in fact ALL over the world have LOTS to be thankful for...this is the BEST time in history to be alive...the kings of old would marvel at the standard of living that even a very modest income can now attain. To wit:

I've recently seen footage of Detroit, St Louis, New York and LA that
told me that there are many countries where people are better off than
in the US. Parts of those cities are absolute hellholes that you'd
expect in the 3rd world.

On 11/20/2018 8:55 PM, GM wrote:
>
> Yup, kids, we in America and in fact ALL over the world have LOTS to be thankful for...this is the BEST time in history to be alive...the kings of old would marvel at the standard of living that even a very modest income can now attain. To wit:
>
> http://reason.com/archives/2018/11/2...faster-cheaper
>
> Better, Faster, Cheaper
.. Americans have more wealth than we could have ever imagined..."

Absolutely. I think back at some of the appliances I bought many years
ago and it was quite a stretch back then, now just chump change.

I'd like to still have the $16/month heating bill though. That has gone
up slightly.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On 11/20/2018 8:55 PM, GM wrote:
> >
> > Yup, kids, we in America and in fact ALL over the world have LOTS to be thankful for...this is the BEST time in history to be alive...the kings of old would marvel at the standard of living that even a very modest income can now attain. To wit:
> >
> > http://reason.com/archives/2018/11/2...faster-cheaper
> >
> > Better, Faster, Cheaper
> . Americans have more wealth than we could have ever imagined..."
>
> Absolutely. I think back at some of the appliances I bought many years
> ago and it was quite a stretch back then, now just chump change.

When we were growing up, one of the "wonder" things that was predicted for the future was "TV you can HANG on a WALL...!!!" Well, that came true, and now those TV's are indeed so cheap as to be disposable...I still remember the TV repairman, and those tube tester thingies at hardware stores...

Even when I was in college in the 70's, only a few well - off kids in the dorm had a small portable B/W teevee, in today's dollars those were over $500.00, and purchasing power was much less...


> I'd like to still have the $16/month heating bill though. That has gone
> up slightly.


True, fuel has gone up...but is that cost not balanced out somewhat by increased energy and other efficiencies all 'round...

This kind of stuff reminds me of my grandfather, he was born in rural downstate Illinois (Buffalo Prairie IL, to be exact) in 1876. He was born into a world of poverty, disease, darkness, isolation, you traveled via a horse cart on a rutted trail, his life was tied to the rhythm of the seasons and the sun rising and setting; no electricity, germ theory of disease unknown, and cars, planes, radio, modern sanitation and thousands of other things were far in his future. He passed 90 years later, in 1966. He had a modern air - conditioned home, and he loved watching the Miss America Pageant, live from Atlantic City on his Motorola console color TV. His life was lengthened and enhanced by modern medicine, he traveled a bit (he and his brother bought a new 1954 Ford and drove out to Yellowstone Park...) - and he was one of the first State Farm Auto Insurance agents in the state, back in the 1920's...

Yeah, I worked half a year doing odd jobs as a kid so as to afford a small Sears Silvertone reel - to - reel tape recorder; even though it only had 3 1/4 reels, it was something to strive for...in 1966 I think it was $39.95, a large sum back then...'bout $250.00 in present currency.

Anyways, nostalgia...but I still think we live in the best of times. You are an engineer, Ed, you've been blessed to see this "March of Progress"...

--
Best
Greg

On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 9:11:25 PM UTC-6, GM wrote:
....
> This kind of stuff reminds me of my grandfather, he was born in rural downstate Illinois (Buffalo Prairie IL, to be exact) in 1876. He was born into a world of poverty, disease, darkness, isolation, you traveled via a horse cart on a rutted trail, his life was tied to the rhythm of the seasons and the sun rising and setting; no electricity, germ theory of disease unknown, and cars, planes, radio, modern sanitation and thousands of other things were far in his future. He passed 90 years later, in 1966. He had a modern air - conditioned home, and he loved watching the Miss America Pageant, live from Atlantic City on his Motorola console color TV. His life was lengthened and enhanced by modern medicine, he traveled a bit (he and his brother bought a new 1954 Ford and drove out to Yellowstone Park...) - and he was one of the first State Farm Auto Insurance agents in the state, back in the 1920's...
....

The Best of times and the WORST of times!!

Sad to hear how so many became relatively wealthy while KILLING THE PLANET or facilitating killing the planet because of Petroleum! Not saying anything at all bad about your Grandpa, Greg. We all take advantage of whatever financial opportunities this perverted ole paradigm of Planet Killers we humans have become! :-(

John Kuthe, RN, BSN, Cannabis Nurse wannabe!

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:11:22 -0800 (PST), GM
> wrote:

>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2018 8:55 PM, GM wrote:
>> >
>> > Yup, kids, we in America and in fact ALL over the world have LOTS to be thankful for...this is the BEST time in history to be alive...the kings of old would marvel at the standard of living that even a very modest income can now attain. To wit:
>> >
>> > http://reason.com/archives/2018/11/2...faster-cheaper
>> >
>> > Better, Faster, Cheaper
>> . Americans have more wealth than we could have ever imagined..."
>>
>> Absolutely. I think back at some of the appliances I bought many years
>> ago and it was quite a stretch back then, now just chump change.
>
>When we were growing up, one of the "wonder" things that was predicted for the future was "TV you can HANG on a WALL...!!!" Well, that came true, and now those TV's are indeed so cheap as to be disposable...I still remember the TV repairman, and those tube tester thingies at hardware stores...
>
>Even when I was in college in the 70's, only a few well - off kids in the dorm had a small portable B/W teevee, in today's dollars those were over $500.00, and purchasing power was much less...
>
>
>> I'd like to still have the $16/month heating bill though. That has gone
>> up slightly.
>
>
>True, fuel has gone up...but is that cost not balanced out somewhat by increased energy and other efficiencies all 'round...
>
>This kind of stuff reminds me of my grandfather, he was born in rural downstate Illinois (Buffalo Prairie IL, to be exact) in 1876. He was born into a world of poverty, disease, darkness, isolation, you traveled via a horse cart on a rutted trail, his life was tied to the rhythm of the seasons and the sun rising and setting; no electricity, germ theory of disease unknown, and cars, planes, radio, modern sanitation and thousands of other things were far in his future. He passed 90 years later, in 1966. He had a modern air - conditioned home, and he loved watching the Miss America Pageant, live from Atlantic City on his Motorola console color TV. His life was lengthened and enhanced by modern medicine, he traveled a bit (he and his brother bought a new 1954 Ford and drove out to Yellowstone Park...) - and he was one of the first State Farm Auto Insurance agents in the state, back in the 1920's...
>
>Yeah, I worked half a year doing odd jobs as a kid so as to afford a small Sears Silvertone reel - to - reel tape recorder; even though it only had 3 1/4 reels, it was something to strive for...in 1966 I think it was $39.95, a large sum back then...'bout $250.00 in present currency.
>
>Anyways, nostalgia...but I still think we live in the best of times. You are an engineer, Ed, you've been blessed to see this "March of Progress"...

In the '40s kids could play in the streets unsupervised... a whole
summer's entertainment cost a 25¢ Spalding and a broomstick... no one
idled away their lives in front of a screen.
In the '50s doctors were more dedicated and they made house calls; $4.
In 1962 I bought a new Chevy Impala; $2,300 cash.
In 1973 I bought a new VW bug; $1,800 cash.
I can make a much longer list of things that were once much better,
food was far, FAR better... no restaurant today serves decent food,
that's why I no longer eat out... a whole large pizza cost 75¢ and
topped with a ton of cheese, REAL cheese.

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:36:04 AM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:11:22 -0800 (PST), GM
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/20/2018 8:55 PM, GM wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yup, kids, we in America and in fact ALL over the world have LOTS to be thankful for...this is the BEST time in history to be alive...the kings of old would marvel at the standard of living that even a very modest income can now attain. To wit:
> >> >
> >> > http://reason.com/archives/2018/11/2...faster-cheaper
> >> >
> >> > Better, Faster, Cheaper
> >> . Americans have more wealth than we could have ever imagined..."
> >>
> >> Absolutely. I think back at some of the appliances I bought many years
> >> ago and it was quite a stretch back then, now just chump change.
> >
> >When we were growing up, one of the "wonder" things that was predicted for the future was "TV you can HANG on a WALL...!!!" Well, that came true, and now those TV's are indeed so cheap as to be disposable...I still remember the TV repairman, and those tube tester thingies at hardware stores...
> >
> >Even when I was in college in the 70's, only a few well - off kids in the dorm had a small portable B/W teevee, in today's dollars those were over $500.00, and purchasing power was much less...
> >
> >
> >> I'd like to still have the $16/month heating bill though. That has gone
> >> up slightly.
> >
> >
> >True, fuel has gone up...but is that cost not balanced out somewhat by increased energy and other efficiencies all 'round...
> >
> >This kind of stuff reminds me of my grandfather, he was born in rural downstate Illinois (Buffalo Prairie IL, to be exact) in 1876. He was born into a world of poverty, disease, darkness, isolation, you traveled via a horse cart on a rutted trail, his life was tied to the rhythm of the seasons and the sun rising and setting; no electricity, germ theory of disease unknown, and cars, planes, radio, modern sanitation and thousands of other things were far in his future. He passed 90 years later, in 1966. He had a modern air - conditioned home, and he loved watching the Miss America Pageant, live from Atlantic City on his Motorola console color TV. His life was lengthened and enhanced by modern medicine, he traveled a bit (he and his brother bought a new 1954 Ford and drove out to Yellowstone Park...) - and he was one of the first State Farm Auto Insurance agents in the state, back in the 1920's...
> >
> >Yeah, I worked half a year doing odd jobs as a kid so as to afford a small Sears Silvertone reel - to - reel tape recorder; even though it only had 3 1/4 reels, it was something to strive for...in 1966 I think it was $39.95, a large sum back then...'bout $250.00 in present currency.
> >
> >Anyways, nostalgia...but I still think we live in the best of times. You are an engineer, Ed, you've been blessed to see this "March of Progress"....
>
> In the '40s kids could play in the streets unsupervised... a whole
> summer's entertainment cost a 25¢ Spalding and a broomstick... no one
> idled away their lives in front of a screen.
> In the '50s doctors were more dedicated and they made house calls; $4.
> In 1962 I bought a new Chevy Impala; $2,300 cash.
> In 1973 I bought a new VW bug; $1,800 cash.
> I can make a much longer list of things that were once much better,
> food was far, FAR better... no restaurant today serves decent food,
> that's why I no longer eat out... a whole large pizza cost 75¢ and
> topped with a ton of cheese, REAL cheese.

How much money did you make when things were so cheap? Enough to
buy as many Chevy Impalas as you wanted?

You always tout the low prices, but never mention the low wages.

Cindy Hamilton

On 11/21/2018 9:36 AM, wrote:
> In the '40s kids could play in the streets unsupervised... a whole
> summer's entertainment cost a 25¢ Spalding and a broomstick... no one
> idled away their lives in front of a screen.

That's because most homes didn't *have* a screen in the 1940's. I'm
talking about television.

I played outside in the neighborhood unsupervised in the 1960's. When
the street lights came on we went home. That's when the mothers in the
neighborhood called us to come inside.

We played tag. Sometimes we were allowed out after dark to play
flashlight tag. We played games like hide and seek or swing the
statue. We rode bicycles and roller skates.

On rainy days we sometimes splashed around in the puddles, wearing
galoshes. We built miniature dams and floated paper boats on the water
running along the curb. Or, if it was too darn wet, we stayed inside
and played board games or with Lincoln Logs or Tinkertoys. Or read books.

Jill

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:08:44 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:36:04 AM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:11:22 -0800 (PST), GM
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 11/20/2018 8:55 PM, GM wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Yup, kids, we in America and in fact ALL over the world have LOTS to be thankful for...this is the BEST time in history to be alive...the kings of old would marvel at the standard of living that even a very modest income can now attain. To wit:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://reason.com/archives/2018/11/2...faster-cheaper
>> >> >
>> >> > Better, Faster, Cheaper
>> >> . Americans have more wealth than we could have ever imagined..."
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely. I think back at some of the appliances I bought many years
>> >> ago and it was quite a stretch back then, now just chump change.
>> >
>> >When we were growing up, one of the "wonder" things that was predicted for the future was "TV you can HANG on a WALL...!!!" Well, that came true, and now those TV's are indeed so cheap as to be disposable...I still remember the TV repairman, and those tube tester thingies at hardware stores...
>> >
>> >Even when I was in college in the 70's, only a few well - off kids in the dorm had a small portable B/W teevee, in today's dollars those were over $500.00, and purchasing power was much less...
>> >
>> >
>> >> I'd like to still have the $16/month heating bill though. That has gone
>> >> up slightly.
>> >
>> >
>> >True, fuel has gone up...but is that cost not balanced out somewhat by increased energy and other efficiencies all 'round...
>> >
>> >This kind of stuff reminds me of my grandfather, he was born in rural downstate Illinois (Buffalo Prairie IL, to be exact) in 1876. He was born into a world of poverty, disease, darkness, isolation, you traveled via a horse cart on a rutted trail, his life was tied to the rhythm of the seasons and the sun rising and setting; no electricity, germ theory of disease unknown, and cars, planes, radio, modern sanitation and thousands of other things were far in his future. He passed 90 years later, in 1966. He had a modern air - conditioned home, and he loved watching the Miss America Pageant, live from Atlantic City on his Motorola console color TV. His life was lengthened and enhanced by modern medicine, he traveled a bit (he and his brother bought a new 1954 Ford and drove out to Yellowstone Park...) - and he was one of the first State Farm Auto Insurance agents in the state, back in the 1920's...
>> >
>> >Yeah, I worked half a year doing odd jobs as a kid so as to afford a small Sears Silvertone reel - to - reel tape recorder; even though it only had 3 1/4 reels, it was something to strive for...in 1966 I think it was $39.95, a large sum back then...'bout $250.00 in present currency.
>> >
>> >Anyways, nostalgia...but I still think we live in the best of times. You are an engineer, Ed, you've been blessed to see this "March of Progress"...
>>
>> In the '40s kids could play in the streets unsupervised... a whole
>> summer's entertainment cost a 25¢ Spalding and a broomstick... no one
>> idled away their lives in front of a screen.
>> In the '50s doctors were more dedicated and they made house calls; $4.
>> In 1962 I bought a new Chevy Impala; $2,300 cash.
>> In 1973 I bought a new VW bug; $1,800 cash.
>> I can make a much longer list of things that were once much better,
>> food was far, FAR better... no restaurant today serves decent food,
>> that's why I no longer eat out... a whole large pizza cost 75¢ and
>> topped with a ton of cheese, REAL cheese.
>
>How much money did you make when things were so cheap? Enough to
>buy as many Chevy Impalas as you wanted?
>
>You always tout the low prices, but never mention the low wages.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

It took fewer hours of work to buy cars and food, in fact all the
necessities... now it's the luxuries that require working longer....
not to mention that today taxes are a lot more.
Wages are only lower for the unskilled, but that's entirely their own
fault.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:33:46 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 11/21/2018 9:36 AM, wrote:
>> In the '40s kids could play in the streets unsupervised... a whole
>> summer's entertainment cost a 25¢ Spalding and a broomstick... no one
>> idled away their lives in front of a screen.
>
>That's because most homes didn't *have* a screen in the 1940's. I'm
>talking about television.

At 7 years old I went to a real theater on a Saturday and spent from
10 AM - 5 PM watching two full length movies, 25 cartoons, several
shorts, and newsreels all for 11¢... Hollywood movies were much
better, not all the gore and filth like today. Now a movie ticket
costs like $20 for one stinkin' film, today's movies are crap, and the
multiplexes are like sitting in a factory hallway. After a day
watching movies I joined my mom so we could enjoy a Chinese dinner,
from soup to dessert on a real linen table cloth, and excellent
service, 35¢ per, $1 included a generous tip. The last time I went to
a movie it was to see Sophie's Choice, and I really didn't care for
it. I've not been to a movie theater since... had to be some 40 years
ago.

>I played outside in the neighborhood unsupervised in the 1960's. When
>the street lights came on we went home. That's when the mothers in the
>neighborhood called us to come inside.
>
>We played tag. Sometimes we were allowed out after dark to play
>flashlight tag. We played games like hide and seek or swing the
>statue. We rode bicycles and roller skates.
>
>On rainy days we sometimes splashed around in the puddles, wearing
>galoshes. We built miniature dams and floated paper boats on the water
>running along the curb. Or, if it was too darn wet, we stayed inside
>and played board games or with Lincoln Logs or Tinkertoys. Or read books.
>
>Jill

"jmcquown" wrote in message ...

On 11/21/2018 9:36 AM, wrote:
> In the '40s kids could play in the streets unsupervised... a whole
> summer's entertainment cost a 25¢ Spalding and a broomstick... no one
> idled away their lives in front of a screen.

That's because most homes didn't *have* a screen in the 1940's. I'm
talking about television.

I played outside in the neighborhood unsupervised in the 1960's. When
the street lights came on we went home. That's when the mothers in the
neighborhood called us to come inside.

We played tag. Sometimes we were allowed out after dark to play
flashlight tag. We played games like hide and seek or swing the
statue. We rode bicycles and roller skates.

On rainy days we sometimes splashed around in the puddles, wearing
galoshes. We built miniature dams and floated paper boats on the water
running along the curb. Or, if it was too darn wet, we stayed inside
and played board games or with Lincoln Logs or Tinkertoys. Or read books.

Jill

==

Sounds pretty much the way it was for us

Sheldon wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:33:46 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
> >On 11/21/2018 9:36 AM, wrote:
> >> In the '40s kids could play in the streets unsupervised... a whole
> >> summer's entertainment cost a 25¢ Spalding and a broomstick... no one
> >> idled away their lives in front of a screen.
> >
> >That's because most homes didn't *have* a screen in the 1940's. I'm
> >talking about television.
>
> At 7 years old I went to a real theater on a Saturday and spent from
> 10 AM - 5 PM watching two full length movies, 25 cartoons, several
> shorts, and newsreels all for 11¢... Hollywood movies were much
> better, not all the gore and filth like today. Now a movie ticket
> costs like $20 for one stinkin' film, today's movies are crap, and the
> multiplexes are like sitting in a factory hallway. After a day
> watching movies I joined my mom so we could enjoy a Chinese dinner,
> from soup to dessert on a real linen table cloth, and excellent
> service, 35¢ per, $1 included a generous tip. The last time I went to
> a movie it was to see Sophie's Choice, and I really didn't care for
> it. I've not been to a movie theater since... had to be some 40 years
> ago.


Except for some classic "revivals", I've pretty much given up on movie - going. There's a nice cineplex two blocks away, but out of like a dozen films playing at any given time, there's *nothing* decent to see...far cheaper and more comfortable to stream or buy a Blu-ray movie than going out to a thee - ater...

One revival classic I saw at that plex last year was "The Maltese Falcon", it was the most PACKED movie emporium I ever saw. I arrived 45 minutes early, thought I'd be early enough to snag a decent seat...NOPE...I got one of the last remaining seats in the *first* row, so I had to crane my noggin UP to view, in fact could see up Mary Astor's skirts, lol. The audience was not just oldsters, either, plenty of younger folks, including teens, millenials...

A local indie theater, the Music Box, sometimes has "Silent Saturdays", they show silent films on a Saturday morning, with live organ accompaniment (NO dirty jokes now!;-). This big theater is always about half - full for this, again many young - uns, including even small kids (with parents), many teens, etc. I thought the audience for silents was practically deceased by now, but not true, some young peeps are big silent fans...a good silent, properly presented, can be a stunning thing to see.

This is a fine place, it's exactly the same as it was in 1926, you'd like it:

https://www.musicboxtheatre.com/

--
Best
Greg

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 6:08:49 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:36:04 AM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:11:22 -0800 (PST), GM
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 11/20/2018 8:55 PM, GM wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Yup, kids, we in America and in fact ALL over the world have LOTS to be thankful for...this is the BEST time in history to be alive...the kings of old would marvel at the standard of living that even a very modest income can now attain. To wit:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://reason.com/archives/2018/11/2...faster-cheaper
> > >> >
> > >> > Better, Faster, Cheaper
> > >> . Americans have more wealth than we could have ever imagined..."
> > >>
> > >> Absolutely. I think back at some of the appliances I bought many years
> > >> ago and it was quite a stretch back then, now just chump change.
> > >
> > >When we were growing up, one of the "wonder" things that was predicted for the future was "TV you can HANG on a WALL...!!!" Well, that came true, and now those TV's are indeed so cheap as to be disposable...I still remember the TV repairman, and those tube tester thingies at hardware stores...
> > >
> > >Even when I was in college in the 70's, only a few well - off kids in the dorm had a small portable B/W teevee, in today's dollars those were over $500.00, and purchasing power was much less...
> > >
> > >
> > >> I'd like to still have the $16/month heating bill though. That has gone
> > >> up slightly.
> > >
> > >
> > >True, fuel has gone up...but is that cost not balanced out somewhat by increased energy and other efficiencies all 'round...
> > >
> > >This kind of stuff reminds me of my grandfather, he was born in rural downstate Illinois (Buffalo Prairie IL, to be exact) in 1876. He was born into a world of poverty, disease, darkness, isolation, you traveled via a horse cart on a rutted trail, his life was tied to the rhythm of the seasons and the sun rising and setting; no electricity, germ theory of disease unknown, and cars, planes, radio, modern sanitation and thousands of other things were far in his future. He passed 90 years later, in 1966. He had a modern air - conditioned home, and he loved watching the Miss America Pageant, live from Atlantic City on his Motorola console color TV. His life was lengthened and enhanced by modern medicine, he traveled a bit (he and his brother bought a new 1954 Ford and drove out to Yellowstone Park...) - and he was one of the first State Farm Auto Insurance agents in the state, back in the 1920's...
> > >
> > >Yeah, I worked half a year doing odd jobs as a kid so as to afford a small Sears Silvertone reel - to - reel tape recorder; even though it only had 3 1/4 reels, it was something to strive for...in 1966 I think it was $39..95, a large sum back then...'bout $250.00 in present currency.
> > >
> > >Anyways, nostalgia...but I still think we live in the best of times. You are an engineer, Ed, you've been blessed to see this "March of Progress"....
> >
> > In the '40s kids could play in the streets unsupervised... a whole
> > summer's entertainment cost a 25¢ Spalding and a broomstick... no one
> > idled away their lives in front of a screen.
> > In the '50s doctors were more dedicated and they made house calls; $4.
> > In 1962 I bought a new Chevy Impala; $2,300 cash.
> > In 1973 I bought a new VW bug; $1,800 cash.
> > I can make a much longer list of things that were once much better,
> > food was far, FAR better... no restaurant today serves decent food,
> > that's why I no longer eat out... a whole large pizza cost 75¢ and
> > topped with a ton of cheese, REAL cheese.
>
> How much money did you make when things were so cheap? Enough to
> buy as many Chevy Impalas as you wanted?
>
> You always tout the low prices, but never mention the low wages.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Back in the day, I could afford to pay for my college tuition with my paltry pay from my part time campus job. I lived at home with my parents though.

When I graduated, I moved into and apartment with my future wife. We'd go to the building right next door and go to the roof where the cute old Chinese guy had a cute house that looked like it was imported from China and forked over $200. It was a pretty sweet deal.

But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
office worker.

N.

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 6:44:25 AM UTC-10, Nancy2 wrote:
> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
> stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
> office worker.
>
> N.

The boomers never did give a shit about anybody other than themselves. They have eaten at a banquet and plan on leaving the bill for the latter day generations to pay. They're kind of dicks.

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 11:52:54 AM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 6:44:25 AM UTC-10, Nancy2 wrote:
> > But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
> > stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
> > profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
> > office worker.
> >
> > N.
>
> The boomers never did give a shit about anybody other than themselves. They have eaten at a banquet and plan on leaving the bill for the latter day generations to pay. They're kind of dicks.

Then why isn't your generation organizing labor unions or something? Why
are you just taking it lying down?

Cindy Hamilton

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 11:52:54 AM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 6:44:25 AM UTC-10, Nancy2 wrote:
> > > But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
> > > stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
> > > profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
> > > office worker.
> > >
> > > N.
> >
> > The boomers never did give a shit about anybody other than themselves. They have eaten at a banquet and plan on leaving the bill for the latter day generations to pay. They're kind of dicks.
>
> Then why isn't your generation organizing labor unions or something? Why
> are you just taking it lying down?
>
> Cindy Hamilton

The question is a lame fail. It ignores the truth and redirect the blame. The Hawaiians have always been interested in social justice. My dad was a big union guy. Unions were important on this tiny rock whose destiny was stolen by rich guys to protect their interests. As it goes, we didn't take it, especially racial discrimination, lying down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoHKfIbpfwA

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 1:38:39 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 11:52:54 AM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 6:44:25 AM UTC-10, Nancy2 wrote:
> > > > But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
> > > > stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
> > > > profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
> > > > office worker.
> > > >
> > > > N.
> > >
> > > The boomers never did give a shit about anybody other than themselves.. They have eaten at a banquet and plan on leaving the bill for the latter day generations to pay. They're kind of dicks.
> >
> > Then why isn't your generation organizing labor unions or something? Why
> > are you just taking it lying down?
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> The question is a lame fail. It ignores the truth and redirect the blame. The Hawaiians have always been interested in social justice. My dad was a big union guy. Unions were important on this tiny rock whose destiny was stolen by rich guys to protect their interests. As it goes, we didn't take it, especially racial discrimination, lying down.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoHKfIbpfwA

Your dad? Good for him. You, however, only appear to be about to bitch
about stuff on Usenet. You'll never achieve positive action that way.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 1:38:39 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 11:52:54 AM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 6:44:25 AM UTC-10, Nancy2 wrote:
> > > > But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to
> > > > support a family of four with a
> > > > stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the
> > > > primary wage earner is in a
> > > > profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it
> > > > isn't possible for the typical
> > > > office worker.
> > > >
> > > > N.
> > >
> > > The boomers never did give a shit about anybody other than themselves.
> > > They have eaten at a banquet and plan on leaving the bill for the
> > > latter day generations to pay. They're kind of dicks.
> >
> > Then why isn't your generation organizing labor unions or something?
> > Why
> > are you just taking it lying down?
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> The question is a lame fail. It ignores the truth and redirect the blame.
> The Hawaiians have always been interested in social justice. My dad was a
> big union guy. Unions were important on this tiny rock whose destiny was
> stolen by rich guys to protect their interests. As it goes, we didn't take
> it, especially racial discrimination, lying down.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoHKfIbpfwA

Your dad? Good for him. You, however, only appear to be about to bitch
about stuff on Usenet. You'll never achieve positive action that way.

Cindy Hamilton

===

Noooo!! He has taught me a lot of Hawaiian, Chinese and Japanese recipes!
And yes, he does it all here. We don't communicate in emails.

D. loves that stuff so much and he will always choose one of those.

On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 10:07:34 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Your dad? Good for him. You, however, only appear to be about to bitch
> about stuff on Usenet. You'll never achieve positive action that way.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

I got as much right to bitch about stuff on Usenet as you do - you self-absorbed twit.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:21:30 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 10:07:34 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Your dad? Good for him. You, however, only appear to be about to bitch
>> about stuff on Usenet. You'll never achieve positive action that way.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>I got as much right to bitch about stuff on Usenet as you do - you self-absorbed twit.

Lol, popcorn!

dsi1 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 22, 2018 at 10:07:34 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Your dad? Good for him. You, however, only appear to be about to bitch
>> about stuff on Usenet. You'll never achieve positive action that way.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> I got as much right to bitch about stuff on Usenet as you do - you self-absorbed twit.
>

Well, best you can do is to console yourself.

Your failure isn't your fault. You were helpless and living on a small rock.

Mean, rich, evil white guys came along and ****ed on the rock and washed
you off it. They didn't even see you.

Boo hoo.

The consolation is you didn't drown in that sea of ****; You drowned in
your own sea of self pity.

Boo hoo.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> I'd like to still have the $16/month heating bill though. That has gone
> up slightly.

Cheer up. Once you get to Florida you very well might see a few
of those.

On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
> stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
> office worker.

Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. I believe that
once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
started to rise. If no one could afford the higher prices the
prices would be forced to stay low.

nancy

On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
>> stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
>> office worker.
>
> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. I believe that
> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> started to rise. If no one could afford the higher prices the
> prices would be forced to stay low.
>
> nancy
>


I think tax increases of all sorts was one of the major factors
mandating a two income household.

Nancy Young wrote:

> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> > But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
> > stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
> > profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
> > office worker.
>
> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. I believe that
> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> started to rise. If no one could afford the higher prices the
> prices would be forced to stay low.


Here is some interesting data, Nancy, it appears to be a combination of things, especially the size of new housing now versus years ago, check out the accompanying charts:

http://www.aei.org/publication/new-u...early-doubled/

"New US homes today are 1,000 square feet larger than in 1973 and living space per person has nearly doubled

The Census Bureau recently released its annual report on €œCharacteristics of New Housing,€� with more than 700 pages of detailed data on the characteristics of new single-family houses and multifamily buildings in 2015. Here are some interesting details of new single-family houses built last year

1. Average/Median House Size. In 2015, the average size of new houses built in the US increased to an all-time high of 2,687 square feet (see dark blue line in top chart above), and the median size new house set a new record of 2,467 square feet (see light blue line in top chart). Over the last 42 years, the average new US house has increased in size by more than 1,000 square feet, from an average size of 1,660 square feet in 1973 (earliest year available from the Census Bureau) to 2,687 square feet last year. Likewise, the median-size house has increased in size by almost 1,000 square feet, from 1,525 square feet in 1973 to 2,467 last year. In percentage terms, both the average and median size of new US houses have increased by 62% since 1973.

2. Living Space per Person. While the average size of new US houses has increased over the last 42 years, the average household size has been declining over that period, from 3.01 persons per household on average in 1973 to a new record low of 2.54 persons per household in the last three years (2013, 2014 and 2015), a reduction of almost one-half persons per household over the last 42 years (see brown line in top chart).

With the average new house in the US getting larger in size at the same time that American households are getting smaller, the square footage of living space per person in a new US house has increased from 507 to 971 square feet using the median size house, and from 551 to 1,058 square feet using the average size house. In percentage terms, thats a 92% increase for both the median or average house size per person. Amazingly, the average amount of living space per person in a new house has nearly doubled in just the last 42 years!

3. New Housing Construction Costs: What about the cost of new houses over the last 42 years? On a per square foot basis using median house sales prices and median square footage, the inflation-adjusted price per square foot for new houses (in 2015 dollars) has been relatively stable since 1973 in a range between about $107 and $128 per square foot at an average of about $116 (see bottom chart above). The price of just more than $120 per square foot for new houses sold in 2015 was 8.5% below the peak of $131.29 (in 2015 dollars) per square foot for a new house in 2005.

Bottom Line: We hear all the time about stagnating wages and household incomes, the decline/demise/disappearance of the middle class, rising income inequality, and lots of other narratives of gloom and doom for the average American. But when it comes to the new houses that Americans are buying and living in, we see a much brighter picture of life in the US. The new houses that todays generation of homeowners are buying are larger by 1,000 square feet compared to the average new houses our parents or grandparents might have purchased in the 1970s, and have almost twice the living space per person compared to the new houses built 42 years ago.

And todays new houses, compared to those built in the past, are much more energy-efficient; they come with better, bigger and more bathrooms, closets, fireplaces, and garages; theyre equipped with better and more home appliances; and they almost all include modern features like central air conditioning today (93% in 2015) that were expensive luxury options in previous decades like the 1970s (fewer than half the houses built in each year between 1973 and 1976 had air conditioning). Americans are paying about 70% more today for a median-priced new house on an inflation-adjusted basis compared to a 1973 house, largely because the size of the median house today is larger by almost 1,000 square feet and by 62%. So on an inflation-adjusted basis, Americans are actually paying only slightly more today for a new house on a per square-foot basis ($120) than in 1973 ($114.42), for homes that are of higher quality and more energy-efficient with more features like air conditioning, fireplaces and multiple garages. Overall, the increasing amount of living space (especially when adjusted for declining household size), the improvements in housing quality, the increased number of features, and relative affordability of new houses today means that living standards continue to gradually, but consistently, improve year after year for millions of Americans..."

On 11/23/2018 8:58 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
>>> a family of four with a
>>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
>>> primary wage earner is in a
>>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
>>> isn't possible for the typical
>>> office worker.
>>
>> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
>> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
>> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
>> prices would be forced to stay low.
>>
>> nancy
>>
>
>
> I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> mandating a two income household.

It would be interesting to see some of the reasoning. There was a long
and impressive list of things that are much cheaper today than in the
past. I spite of that, many two income families complain they just get
by.

I wonder how much is because what was once a luxury is now a necessity.
Does it matter if the price of electronics is high or low if you don't
buy them? But if a family had five cell phones there is still added
expense that did not exist on the past.

I know some people that do struggle on modest income and have modest
lives. I also know people that complain but Dad has a BMW and Mom a big
SUV parked outside a 5 bedroom house. .

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On 11/23/2018 8:58 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> > On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> >>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
> >>> a family of four with a
> >>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
> >>> primary wage earner is in a
> >>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
> >>> isn't possible for the typical
> >>> office worker.
> >>
> >> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
> >> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> >> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
> >> prices would be forced to stay low.
> >>
> >> nancy
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> > mandating a two income household.
>
> It would be interesting to see some of the reasoning. There was a long
> and impressive list of things that are much cheaper today than in the
> past. I spite of that, many two income families complain they just get
> by.
>
> I wonder how much is because what was once a luxury is now a necessity.
> Does it matter if the price of electronics is high or low if you don't
> buy them? But if a family had five cell phones there is still added
> expense that did not exist on the past.
>
> I know some people that do struggle on modest income and have modest
> lives. I also know people that complain but Dad has a BMW and Mom a big
> SUV parked outside a 5 bedroom house. .


"Needs" are often driven by advertising, peer pressure, etc...but that is nothing new, read what Vance Packard wrote in the 1950's...

Also, per my post above housing costs, the "average" household of today would consider a c. 1960 - 1970 average home virtually cramped and "low - rent"...in 1965 a relative in Atlanta built a new home, it was a typical three - bed brick ranch, but only one bath, and no central A/C (one window unit sufficed for the living/dining area, then a bit later he *installed* a central A/C unit, something pretty unimaginable today), no dishwasher, etc....today a new home to those specs would not even be built.

Even lower - income folks that I see have nice cell phones, decent cars, clothing, food, seemingly money to spend on "leisure" stuff...

There is MUCH luxury rental housing being built in Chicago...new glossy towers rising everywhere, in fact I just looked out my window and a few blocks away there is now a huge construction crane, poised to build *another* luxury rental high - rise. Who rents in these buildings? Primarly millenials, who demand luxury rental buildings with many amenities. And they *rent* because for the time being they have huge student debt loans to pay down...

--
Best
Greg

In article >, says...
>
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to still have the $16/month heating bill though. That has gone
> > up slightly.
>
> Cheer up. Once you get to Florida you very well might see a few
> of those.

Only if he turns off the air-conditioning :-)

Janet UK

On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
>>> a family of four with a
>>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
>>> primary wage earner is in a
>>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
>>> isn't possible for the typical
>>> office worker.
>>
>> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
>> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
>> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
>> prices would be forced to stay low.
>>
>> nancy
>>
>
>
> I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> mandating a two income household.

So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?

In article >, says...
>
> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> > But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
> > stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
> > profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
> > office worker.
>
> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. I believe that
> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> started to rise.

I think what rose, was the lifestyle and spending expectations of
younger generations. They want lots of clothes, gadgets, meals out, a
car, entertainment, beauty products, expensive phones, credit cards,
and they can't imagine sacrificing any of that to scrimp and save for a
deposit, service a mortgage etc.


Janet UK

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:50:30 -0500, Nancy Young >
wrote:

>On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
>> stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
>> office worker.
>
>Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. I believe that
>once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
>started to rise. If no one could afford the higher prices the
>prices would be forced to stay low.
>
>nancy

My electrician friend tells me he bases his prices on the customer's
house/furnishings.... that's what doctors used to do, fees were based
on ability to pay, country doctors still do that. Where I live a lot
of folks don't have regular jobs,they pay the local doctor $10/month
as insurance.

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> > On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> >>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
> >>> a family of four with a
> >>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
> >>> primary wage earner is in a
> >>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
> >>> isn't possible for the typical
> >>> office worker.
> >>
> >> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
> >> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> >> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
> >> prices would be forced to stay low.
> >>
> >> nancy
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> > mandating a two income household.
>
> So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?

There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> > On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> > > On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> > >> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> > >>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
> > >>> a family of four with a
> > >>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
> > >>> primary wage earner is in a
> > >>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
> > >>> isn't possible for the typical
> > >>> office worker.
> > >>
> > >> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
> > >> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> > >> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
> > >> prices would be forced to stay low.
> > >>
> > >> nancy
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> > > mandating a two income household.
> >
> > So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?
>
> There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.

Social Security and Medicare are the third rail of tax cuts. Given what
a large proportion of active voters are over 60, most politicians are
reluctant to touch either.

Defense contractors could certainly use a haircut, and I'm sure there
we could find little economies spread throughout the budget.

Personally, I don't think taxes are all that high, especially considering
all the loopholes.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2018-11-23 1:57 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>>>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
>>>>> a family of four with a
>>>>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
>>>>> primary wage earner is in a
>>>>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
>>>>> isn't possible for the typical
>>>>> office worker.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
>>>> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
>>>> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
>>>> prices would be forced to stay low.
>>>>
>>>> nancy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
>>> mandating a two income household.
>>
>> So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?
>
> There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.
>
Hmmm! Must be nice to be wealthy enough not to have to worry about
health insurance or from where the next meal or shelter is coming from.

On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 11:07:40 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 8:05:57 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> > > On 2018-11-23 6:58 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> > > > On 11/23/2018 5:50 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> > > >> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> > > >>> But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support
> > > >>> a family of four with a
> > > >>> stay-at-home mom.Â* That is rarely possible any more unless the
> > > >>> primary wage earner is in a
> > > >>> profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc.Â* it
> > > >>> isn't possible for the typical
> > > >>> office worker.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg.Â* I believe that
> > > >> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
> > > >> started to rise.Â* If no one could afford the higher prices the
> > > >> prices would be forced to stay low.
> > > >>
> > > >> nancy
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think tax increasesÂ* of all sorts was one of the major factors
> > > > mandating a two income household.
> > >
> > > So what cuts would you like to see to enable a cut in taxes?
> >
> > There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.
>
> Social Security and Medicare are the third rail of tax cuts. Given what
> a large proportion of active voters are over 60, most politicians are
> reluctant to touch either.
>
> Defense contractors could certainly use a haircut, and I'm sure there
> we could find little economies spread throughout the budget.
>
> Personally, I don't think taxes are all that high, especially considering
> all the loopholes.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

The American way is to take stuff away from the poor and the powerless. You might consider the boomers to be rich and powerful but I don't. There's not much use in trying to figure out which of us is right - only time will tell.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 13:54:11 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 11:07:40 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 3:57:16 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>> >
>> > There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and Medicare benefits.
>>
>> Social Security and Medicare are the third rail of tax cuts. Given what
>> a large proportion of active voters are over 60, most politicians are
>> reluctant to touch either.
>>
>> Defense contractors could certainly use a haircut, and I'm sure there
>> we could find little economies spread throughout the budget.
>>
>> Personally, I don't think taxes are all that high, especially considering
>> all the loopholes.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>The American way is to take stuff away from the poor and the powerless. You might consider the boomers to be rich and powerful but I don't. There's not much use in trying to figure out which of us is right - only time will tell.

Besides, what good can come from a discussion with a "self-absorbed
twit"?

On 2018-11-23 4:09 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 1:57 p.m., dsi1 wrote:

>> There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that are
>> easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and
>> Medicare benefits.
>>
> Hmmm! Must be nice to be wealthy enough not to have to worry about
> health insurance or from where the next meal or shelter is coming from.

No matter what safety nets we have there will always be people abusing
them and people still falling through them. I was listening to a program
on CBC this morning about the cuts that are coming to social programs.
The guy was upset because he prefers to do volunteer work with charities
than with companies. It's nice of him to do volunteer work. By its very
nature, being volunteer, it does not pay. It is not a substitute for a
paying job. It is something you do in addition to your job.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 07:44:50 -0800 (PST), GM
> wrote:

>Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2018 11:44 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>> > But Cindy, those low wages you speak of were plenty enough to support a family of four with a
>> > stay-at-home mom. That is rarely possible any more unless the primary wage earner is in a
>> > profession such as being a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist, etc. it isn't possible for the typical
>> > office worker.
>>
>> Not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. I believe that
>> once two wage earning couples became the norm that housing costs
>> started to rise. If no one could afford the higher prices the
>> prices would be forced to stay low.
>
>
>Here is some interesting data, Nancy, it appears to be a combination of things, especially the size of new housing now versus years ago, check out the accompanying charts:
>
>http://www.aei.org/publication/new-u...early-doubled/
>
>"New US homes today are 1,000 square feet larger than in 1973 and living space per person has nearly doubled
>
>The Census Bureau recently released its annual report on “Characteristics of New Housing,” with more than 700 pages of detailed data on the characteristics of new single-family houses and multifamily buildings in 2015. Here are some interesting details of new single-family houses built last year
>
>1. Average/Median House Size. In 2015, the average size of new houses built in the US increased to an all-time high of 2,687 square feet (see dark blue line in top chart above), and the median size new house set a new record of 2,467 square feet (see light blue line in top chart). Over the last 42 years, the average new US house has increased in size by more than 1,000 square feet, from an average size of 1,660 square feet in 1973 (earliest year available from the Census Bureau) to 2,687 square feet last year. Likewise, the median-size house has increased in size by almost 1,000 square feet, from 1,525 square feet in 1973 to 2,467 last year. In percentage terms, both the average and median size of new US houses have increased by 62% since 1973.
>
>2. Living Space per Person. While the average size of new US houses has increased over the last 42 years, the average household size has been declining over that period, from 3.01 persons per household on average in 1973 to a new record low of 2.54 persons per household in the last three years (2013, 2014 and 2015), a reduction of almost one-half persons per household over the last 42 years (see brown line in top chart).
>
>With the average new house in the US getting larger in size at the same time that American households are getting smaller, the square footage of living space per person in a new US house has increased from 507 to 971 square feet using the median size house, and from 551 to 1,058 square feet using the average size house. In percentage terms, that’s a 92% increase for both the median or average house size per person. Amazingly, the average amount of living space per person in a new house has nearly doubled in just the last 42 years!
>
>3. New Housing Construction Costs: What about the cost of new houses over the last 42 years? On a per square foot basis using median house sales prices and median square footage, the inflation-adjusted price per square foot for new houses (in 2015 dollars) has been relatively stable since 1973 in a range between about $107 and $128 per square foot at an average of about $116 (see bottom chart above). The price of just more than $120 per square foot for new houses sold in 2015 was 8.5% below the peak of $131.29 (in 2015 dollars) per square foot for a new house in 2005.
>
>Bottom Line: We hear all the time about stagnating wages and household incomes, the decline/demise/disappearance of the middle class, rising income inequality, and lots of other narratives of gloom and doom for the average American. But when it comes to the new houses that Americans are buying and living in, we see a much brighter picture of life in the US. The new houses that today’s generation of homeowners are buying are larger by 1,000 square feet compared to the average new houses our parents or grandparents might have purchased in the 1970s, and have almost twice the living space per person compared to the new houses built 42 years ago.
>
>And today’s new houses, compared to those built in the past, are much more energy-efficient; they come with better, bigger and more bathrooms, closets, fireplaces, and garages; they’re equipped with better and more home appliances; and they almost all include modern features like central air conditioning today (93% in 2015) that were expensive luxury options in previous decades like the 1970s (fewer than half the houses built in each year between 1973 and 1976 had air conditioning). Americans are paying about 70% more today for a median-priced new house on an inflation-adjusted basis compared to a 1973 house, largely because the size of the median house today is larger by almost 1,000 square feet and by 62%. So on an inflation-adjusted basis, Americans are actually paying only slightly more today for a new house on a per square-foot basis ($120) than in 1973 ($114.42), for homes that are of higher quality and more energy-efficient with more features like air conditioning, fireplaces
>and multiple garages. Overall, the increasing amount of living space (especially when adjusted for declining household size), the improvements in housing quality, the increased number of features, and relative affordability of new houses today means that living standards continue to gradually, but consistently, improve year after year for millions of Americans..."

Families need more sq ft when both parents work, right from the get-go
each needs their own toilet, and separate walk-in closets. And then
they need to have huge designer kitchens for show even though neither
can cook and they eat out and do take-out. And I'm not even
considering live-in housekeepers and au pairs

On 2018-11-23 3:34 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-11-23 4:09 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-11-23 1:57 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
>
>>> There's cuts that one would like to see and then there's cuts that
>>> are easy and therefore likely i.e., in Social Security benefits, and
>>> Medicare benefits.
>>>
>> Hmmm! Must be nice to be wealthy enough not to have to worry about
>> health insurance or from where the next meal or shelter is coming from.
>
> No matter what safety nets we have there will always be people abusing
> them and people still falling through them. I was listening to a program
> on CBC this morning about the cuts that are coming to social programs.
> The guy was upset because he prefers to do volunteer work with charities
> than with companies.Â* It's nice of him to do volunteer work. By its very
> nature, being volunteer, it does not pay. It is not a substitute for a
> paying job. It is something you do in addition to your job.

There will always be a small percentage of people ripping off the
welfare system just as there will always be a percentage of wealthy
people ripping off the tax system.