It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1971 Cost of Living (part 1)

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Here it is people...



As a comparative analysis....

National Average Wage Index


1971 6,497.08


Now... I'm going to compare gas prices and rent as my relative index to see what the difference is in modern terms.



2012 44,321.67


From the same source, it seems that we are earning approx. 7 times more on average. This number is skewed by the average due to the growing economic desparity between the rich and the poor so dont be fooled, its simply an average which if not understoof in the right perspective could very deceiving.

Lets look at gas prices and rent now. My last apartment cost 1200 a month. Thats an increase oh 8 times. So its relatively close, but remember, the average in 1971 better represented the actual average then it does now so even though the numbers reflect that we are relatively close to the same as far income vs expenditure, let me remind you that FAR fewer people are actually at the average number then there were during 70's due to construction and production jobs and a massively growing economy and population.

Lets look at gas prices... Ill go with 3.50 as the typical gas price right now in the US, thats an increase of 8.75 times the cost. So this is scaling slightly faster then the average income but still relatively close.

What i can deduce by these figures is that the standard of living and cost of maintaining this living in the US has remained relatively the same since 1970. The only change we are experiencing is income inequality and the rebalancing of socio economic power.

Dont let the numbers fool you. Here is a little info on income inequality....

Source



The broad facts of income inequality over the past six decades are easily summarized:

The years from the end of World War II into the 1970s were ones of substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity.
Incomes grew rapidly and at roughly the same rate up and down the income ladder, roughly doubling in inflation-adjusted terms between the late 1940s and early 1970s.
The income gap between those high up the income ladder and those on the middle and lower rungs — while substantial — did not change much during this period.

Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened.
Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.
The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”).
Wealth (the value of a household’s property and financial assets net of the value of its debts) is much more highly concentrated than income, although the wealth data do not show a dramatic increase in concentration at the very top the way the income data do.


Right, like i said, income inequality continues to grow as we experience a rather stable rate of inflation. This in turn causes higher rates of poverty and despair amongst the ever descreasing middle class.

Here is a graph to further illustrate my point taken from the same source which in turn if you read the full report details its sources and methods of analysation of data.



Notice how the income growth of the average and the bottom and top split in the 1970's?

Whats the reason for that? I have no idea but heres an interesting coincidence and i wonder if it relates...

In the 1970's you can see that we have the advent of the internet and the tech boom with companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle, and on top of that well hell, lets just look at the list..

Forbes



– Southwest Airlines . Conceived over drinks by Herb Kelleher and Rollin King in 1966, Air Southwest was mired in legal difficulties until 1970. In 1971 the company changed its name to Southwest Airlines and made its first flight in June of that year.

– FedEx . Founded in Little Rock, Arkansas by Fred Smith in 1971, Federal Express made a smart move in 1973, just as jet fuel prices were spiraling out of control. Smith moved his company to Memphis, Tennessee and hatched the superhub concept that would give his company a huge efficiency advantage.

– Microsoft . Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and talked friend Paul Allen into joining him in Albuquerque, New Mexico to start Micro-Soft. The company’s first product was an adaptation of the Basic programming language used in the Altair 8800, a kit computer.

– Genentech . In 1976 biochemist Herb Boyer and venture capitalist Robert Swanson started Genentech around a new technology, recombinant DNA. They created a brand-new industry, biotechnology. Genentech’s ticker symbol is DNA.

– Apple . Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak formed Apple Computer in 1976 to sell the Apple I personal computer kit. Each was hand-built by Woz. A year later the company launched the Apple II, considered by many to be the first personal computer useful for business tasks.

–SAS Institute. Far from Silicon Valley some North Carolina State University academics started a company in 1976 called the Statistical Analysis Software Institute. Later the company shortened its name to SAS Institute. It has become the world’s largest privately held software company, headed by cofounder Jim Goodnight.

– Oracle . In 1977 Larry Ellison, Bob Miner and Ed Oates founded Software Development Laboratories around a new IBM technology called relational databases. The company’s first product was called the Oracle database and outperformed IBM. In 1982 the company was renamed Oracle Systems.


So oddly enough some of the largest and most powerful conglomerants in the world today were created in the 1970's COINCIDENTALLY.

ANYWAY. In conclusion we cane trace the true origins of our current economic distaster back to a few key points. The introduction of the internet, NAFTA in the 90's and mega corporations reaping massive profits while simultanously decreasing high paying jobs through the evolution of technology and the advent of the internet.

Thats all ive got.

edit on 20141America/Chicagoq000000America/Chicago5031482014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Conveniently all come about right after JFK assassination.
You dont mess with the bankers and their money.

Look when the income plateaus and then declines, right after NAFTA was enacted.

Isn't capitalism great!



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


Its not capitalism Shane its cannabilism. The system is eating itself. In our current socio economic paradigm in order to get ahead you have to eat the person below you.

Having been an athlete for my entire life i can tell you from experience that being in this state physically doesnt last long it fades fast.

Right, the JFK "problem" was a big deal. Gerald Ford lead the parade bringing a Rockefeller into the whitehouse and controlling the flow of information and swinging the pendelum of power back into the hands of the snake.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
In this thread i left out the introduction of the college problem.

The college problem is as the corporations begin to take control they require higher and higher levels of education causing an even greater debt onto the backs of the less economically inclined middle class and increasing formalities and levels of control.

You dont need a degree to do basic work. Hell this entire world was built by uneducated people and its a lot harder to build a stable structure then it is to fill out paperwork i can tell you that.

Damn i just thought about which i had researched it before i start the thread. Ill have to start another one, maybe a second part.
edit on 20141America/ChicagoquAmerica/Chicago1731482014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


there is the CEO of GEICO -- Tony Nicely.. A direct connection to Warren Buffett.

HE visited our office while I was in insurance. The speech he gave was very good.

when asked about the problems in America. He stated simply " the main problem is DISTRIBUTION of WEALTH". HE went on to explain. It obviously was something he had trouble with. The emotion he displayed was something very telling. He was truly troubled and concerned with it. You could hear it in his voice and see his face.

that was the real issue, he elaborated how he went from a nobody in the mail room, to one day the CEO.. And that back then, even the low man on the pole was able to provide for a family.

This was in 2003.. I will never forget, I had a couple minutes one on one with him. He was a very very polite and genuine guy. Warren Buffet LOVES this guy. or did back then anywhere.

How can working class jobs pay today what they paid 20 YEARS ago, and EVERYTHING is triple the price?
edit on 22-1-2014 by HanzHenry because: clear



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
S+F


This is the inevitable outcome of going off the gold standard and in its place allowing a private company to print fiat debt-note currency.

Look at it this way. Gas is still only 20 cents a gallon in 2014... in pre-1965 silver coins. The price is significantly higher when we price it in piping-hot Bernanke bux.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The only reason this happened, as I've been saying for years, because I was well aware of a younger school aquaintance who bought several houses, on a single income, 40,000 each, fixed them up and sold them with her construction boyfriend. Anyway, was aware of the costs at the time here in Canada, in the 80's, average house was 80 000, then suddenly 180 000, then suddenly 350 000, now over 400 000. Well incomes didn't go up. My brother is still working, with years of experience and some training, for just over 10 dollars an hour. If a drywaller we knew in the 70's earning 10 dollars an hour, was able to buy a house, and he stayed in an apartment for 200 a month, if he could then buy. He sure couldn't buy a couple decades later. Nor could he feed himself well after bills.

For years they sold out their daughters, single women or families. Even working in the hospital for 20 dollars and hour didn't secure a home for women, they were often not given credit approval. But single men working in the mill for 22 dollars an hour could get homes. However, that changed abruptly. Now dual income families renting for 1400 a month, cant even begin to save up a suitable downpayment. So we, ie the country "we", sold out our sons AND daughters now. And grandchildren?

Why? Why no stink? Why didn't people force governments to control these things like in Norway where the standard of living is high.

Because an aging group of people who's 80 000 dollar homes got boosted up to well over 300 000, WON big. Maybe they're 25-35% of the population, Im just guessing on that. But they sold out their children, their grandchildren and the whole country.

TPTB paid them off to win their agendas of impoverishing everyone.
edit on 22-1-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 


This is how the information is skewed by the numbers.

IT LOOKS LIKE the average income has gone up significantly, but really it hasn't. Whats really happening that there has been a decrease in higher wage earners while the top lets say 10% of the nation has increased exponentially at an ever expanding rate while silmutaneously eliminating the middle class or average wage earners skewing the average numbers and reports in support of massive corporate growth.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Right. In the 80's hanging drywall was actually a trade job that construction company owners were not forced to hire immagrants at slave wages in order to stay in business due to the cost of staying in business and how highly competative the market is.

This is a major problem, its not the immagrants its the cost of running a construction business and how highly competative it due to the fact that we stopped building as a nation.

The fact that we stopped building as a nation is a pattern to be recognized with that of the pattern of a path of destruction. If you look around you youll notice nothing is built to last and what that represents its a self fullfiling prophecy.

Not building things to last is kind of an underhanded subconscious development of the obvious continueing collapse of westernized society happening right before our very eyes.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Ok, you can call it any number of names. That does not change what it truly is.

I feel as do many, its a truly globalist takeover. Its a phony economy propped up by nothing.
We print our own money, send it all to china and other countries.
We make nothing of value here.We have almost no exports now days.

But yet America gets richer and richer, but the people get less and less.

We hand out more and more just to survive. Were told we have to buy insurance.
Coerced into buying things because tv and magazines tell us its the cool thing to do.

Its a cycle that no one wants to break because were AMERICA, WE RULE!
Are we so egotistical that we cant see we are on a sinking ship? Will our massive ego keep us afloat?

We are in a sad state. Everyone complains about these problems, but no one wants to change them.
Spend spend spend, just like the government. Keep digging that hole, sooner or later its too deep to get out of.


I feel bad for the next generations.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


Its a faslely proped up economy and your right Shane. The future is grim and the worst part is noone is changing the patterns forming that are causing it.

We need to take the approach of personal responsability and starting taking more responsability for our community and supporting each other and changing the habits of our communities.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I agree we need to take care of our own. But that is a problem.
People need to be shown the example. Monkey see monkey do.

They are following right behind the people who are elected to lead.

We need to get to the root of the problem. We need to fix where we went wrong so many years ago.

My personal opinion is that the people in office should NEVER receive a check.
If they were compelled to do for the people, things here would be totally different.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


Well i think the real root of the problem is culture.

First off we have no idea the affect that the internet is having on our culture. Secondly people are becoming continually less empathetic to their fellow man and i think this is an indirect cause of the internet and information and connectivity.

We are not equiped to handle it.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

shaneslaughta

I feel as do many, its a truly globalist takeover.

We are in a sad state. Everyone complains about these problems, but no one wants to change them.
Spend spend spend, just like the government. Keep digging that hole, sooner or later its too deep to get out of.



the Globalists are the same people as always. The ROYAL families. they are the ELites. and have SCAMMED everyone with the 'figure head' nonsense.

Golden Rule, whom has the gold rules. When America won independence from King georgy porgy, they did NOT finish the job.. which was to KILL the KING and all heirs.. totally dismantle their strangle hold ownership of all they had looted for centuries.

The King STILL HAD HIS POWER, and if he couldn;t defeat the Patriots through force.. easy enough, he tried a different approach.

One must truly look at the amount of wealth, land, etc.. the royals control.

The royal families of Europe and Scandinavia have all teamed up. Why? because they all have the same fears..losing the power/wealth.

Had America been allowed to continue to prosper freely, the rest of the world would figure it all out, and choose to fight for their freedom instead of trying to get to America. This is why the founders were SO CONCERNED with "OUTSIDE INFLUENCE"

the Kings have 'agents'. and bankers and such. They still have their HUGE palaces, thousands of servants, and in EVERY sense are still reveared.

If you are within earshot of the monarch, you are under their domain. just different now, they are lurking in the shadows with the figure head charade.

In Virgina and North Carolina, the power company is called Dominion Power.. In the upper east it is called Common Wealth Edison..

Who has controlling interest? people who OBEY the wishes of the monarchs. and this is a SMALL example.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I wonder what the cost of living is going to be a decade or even longer, from now? Milk $3 a pint, bread, $2,50? Even the very basics like water, heat, food, are all going to go up not down. As the resources start running out they will sky rocket in time.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankinpillow
 


In the US bread is almost 4 dollars unless you want GMO poison food and a gallon of milk is almost 4 as well.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I cant blame the internet but rather the instant gratification that is achieved.

Just like the gratification one gets by spending their money.

The generation of Rockefeller rebuilt this nation on greed.

Our culture is one that is formed out of the actions of those that came before.

Those that are in power are IMHO more to blame for our culture than the people who only follow.


edit on 1/22/2014 by shaneslaughta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Income inequity has changed since the 70s, there is no doubt about that. But I think the standard of living hasn't changed all that much in the same time. Today everyone has to have their stuff, big house,new cars and big tv's. Back in the seventies nobody had a tv in every room. Kids didnt play on allstar travel teams like they do now. When I was growing up at that time my mom bought an 8 pack of Pepsi bottles for the week. There were six of us then and Pepsi was a treat. We rarely ate in a restaurant back then, McDonald's was like an early Christmas. You can't say those things are true today. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my two cents.



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I paid $150 a month rent in 1978. I think I earned about 9 k a year. My phone bill was $11 , cable bill about $3. In 1975 when I got my first job, minimum wage was $2.10

I had no trouble making ends meet and had about $50 extra each month to save or spend. That was a lot!



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I disagree that it was the advent of the internet at the crux of this change but agree with all the graphs and figures outside of that. This graph actually exactly depicts what one of my tax accounting professors showed us one day for an off-topic lecture on the present and the future of things (he was warning us).

In the 1970's, a number of things were occurring that would've influenced incomes in that time. Recessions occurred in both 1973-1974 and again in 1979-1980, both due to oil prices and their diffuse impacts. These recessions spurred additional trade agreements with the inclusion of China to the WTO in 1974 and at the Tokyo Round in 1979, including the reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade. In the 90's, financial crises in Asia caused the economies within that region to plummet and, ultimately, caused the shift of production to these now much cheaper to operate in markets. This resulted in a shift from a US based manufacturing economy to an economy where 85% of its GDP is service based (primarily financial services).

That is the cut and dry of "how we got here" that was basically grilled out by every single one of my accounting professors. Once we began losing our manufacturing, our middle class began its death spiral resulting in a financially weak middle class that is more susceptible to the effects of recession. We've basically been a house of cards.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join