In the last 19 years workers wages have been cut dramatically by inflation

a reply to: Edumakated

My cell phone bill in the late 90s was about $100/mo

Forget about cell phone, remember long distance bills on the landline. Yes that was still a thing in 1999!

Another Example:

In 1996, I bought an Acura Integra GS. I think at the time I paid about $22,000 for it. It was fully loaded.

An equivalent Acura today would be the Acura ILX. It lists for about $33,000k.

According to an inflation calculator, my $22,000 car in 1996 is like paying $37,000 for a car today.

So in other words, the 2019 Acura ILX is basically $4k cheaper than my 1996 Acura Integra GS.

But wait, there's more!

The 2019 Acura has more 200+ HP, while my 1996 Acura had 140. The 2019 Acura has full navigation, Iphone/Android Auto, multi-view backup cameras, more airbags, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warnings, etc. About the only tech in my 1996 was a bose head unit.

If I really built out the ILX with every option, it would be slightly more expensive, but it would have all wheel drive, keyless entry, a v6 with like 300 horsepower, etc.

Bottom line, it is a far superior car in every way over my 1996 model. Depending on how you option it, it is cheaper than what I paid more than 20 years ago, and at worst a few grand more when factoring in inflation.

a reply to: Edumakated

I do think that is an important factor that seems to never be addressed. Quality of life has drastically increased.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Another example:

My cell phone bill in the late 90s was about $100/mo. Keep in mind, this was just for VOICE. We didn't have texting / email on phones then.

I remember paying $0.10 a text.

a reply to: Puppylove

Spot on. Meanwhile the corporations receive corporate welfare despite having larger and larger profit margins every quarter. Sad to see America turn into a corporatocracy.

a reply to: Edumakated

Why could a family in the 50's live off of one paycheck whereas today you need 2 and even 3 fulltime jobs to support a family, and many times that's still a struggle?

You seem to be very selective in your view. Technology does not equal a better life, oftentimes it actually means a less fulfilling life, nothing more than a shiny object to distract you from how miserable and how much of a slave you really are.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Edumakated

Why could a family in the 50's live off of one paycheck whereas today you need 2 and even 3 fulltime jobs to support a family, and many times that's still a struggle?

You seem to be very selective in your view. Technology does not equal a better life, oftentimes it actually means a less fulfilling life, nothing more than a shiny object to distract you from how miserable you really are.

People can live off one paycheck now, but they don't want to. Some of that is not due to finances but to lifestyle.

a reply to: JAGStorm

One paycheck for an entire family? That's extremely rare, it's the exception these days instead of the rule.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Edumakated

Why could a family in the 50's live off of one paycheck whereas today you need 2 and even 3 fulltime jobs to support a family, and many times that's still a struggle?

You seem to be very selective in your view. Technology does not equal a better life, oftentimes it actually means a less fulfilling life, nothing more than a shiny object to distract you from how miserable and how much of a slave you really are.

Because their lifestyle expectations are higher now than then....

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: JAGStorm

One paycheck for an entire family? That's extremely rare, it's the exception these days instead of the rule.

It isn't because they can't... it is that they don't want to.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: JAGStorm

One paycheck for an entire family? That's extremely rare, it's the exception these days instead of the rule.

www.pewresearch.org...
It's less common, but it is not rare. According to statistics 18% of families have a stay at home parent.

a reply to: Edumakated

I'm very frugal, I don't live above my means yet I still live paycheck to paycheck.

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978. Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

That's totally not an issue though, right?

a reply to: Edumakated

What? Who WOULDN'T want to? Sounds like you're assuming things about millions of people that you couldn't possibly ever know.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Edumakated

I'm very frugal, I don't live above my means yet I still live paycheck to paycheck.

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978. Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

That's totally not an issue though, right?

I find that too many people focus on saving money, the key really is making more money.

If you can do both, you'll be gold!

a reply to: dfnj2015

Good post - - I like this topic and has created some interesting discussion. You can't argue that technology hasn't made our lives easier and as technology advances, "things" that were quite expensive and practically unaffordable for mainstream USA (computers, tv's, etc.) have come down in price so much that they are common in many households.

But, that doesn't mean inflation isn't real. Power has gone up, food has gone up, college and healthcare have skyrocketed. Housing for the most part has gone up. So for the middle and lower classes with largely stagnate wages, the "shiny things" are more affordable....necessities are not. Healthcare is the root of the problem - - breakup the medical monopolies, force them to play by the same rules that every other industry in the country plays by and you'll see those prices collapse...all for the better (unless you're an overpaid office administrator who will be laid off b/c you provide no actual value yet make a large paycheck b/c the healthcare industry is scamming the citizens out of trillions per year).

I think we're headed for a rude awakening - - I think Trump is doing his best to play financial games to keep the stock market high and home prices elevated through the next election, which I believe he'll win if there isn't a major economic collapse. Once he's re-elected though, who knows what will happen.

a reply to: acparker7

Yes healthcare is the biggest issue. It's astronomical. It's also life and death. Almost everyone will have major health expenses in their life, it's not something they could shop around for, even if it would make a difference, and it's not something they can choose to ignore. It's a need, and it's a need exploited to all hell by greedy predatory bastards.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: dfnj2015

.

However, the vast majority of goods are not that much more expensive. In fact, you are actually getting MORE for your money.

Think about technology. TVs, Cellphones, Computers, etc are all exponentially better. Think about how much nicer cars are nowadays, even budget cars. Safety features, technology, etc.

You can't just look at inflation without considering the improvement of those goods.

That's wonderful anecdotal evidence. Where's your real evidence? Something quantifiable perhaps?

they don't call it 'wage slavery' for nothing.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Ah, so that median worker statistic went right over your head apparently. It's literally in the title of the link I sourced, yet you ignored it and said "just make more money!".

940% vs. 12% and you guys scream "why not just make more money!". Classic. 😂

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Over the last 19 years inflation has been much worse than people realize. The result at this point is the purchasing power of the workers take home pay is just NOT enough to make the economy go. Wages have not only been price-fixed but wages have actually been cut dramatically when taking into account inflation.

Everyone's wages have been cut so much the economy is practically dead or just skipping along the bottom. If the economy is doing so well here is why I think we do not have any inflation. We do not have any inflation because people are just not making enough money.

Now since I am not the most popular person posting on ATS because of my strong leftist positions, I imagine there are a lot people who automatically going to think I am full of BS without any consideration of my argument. So here is my evidence supporting my argument why over the last 19 years wages have been dramatically cut.



If you put in $100 for the amount, select 2000 as the start year, select 2019 as the ending year, the calculator comes up with converted amount of $149.00. What this means if to buy a basket of goods (bread, eggs, gasoline), in 2000 if you spend $100 in 2019 you would have to spend $149 to get the same amount of goods.

I'm not following you on this one...

So it is said that inflation doubles every 20 years and your CPI calculator has it right now at 49% with the 149.00 to 100.00 from 1999 to 2019. This means we had a number of flat years in the last 20 and looking at the data we see that 3 years were basically flat and another 7 were under 2%, so the 49% kind of makes sense.

Now looking at minimum wage that was 5.70 in 1999, if we add 50% that would be 8.55, so yes the 7.25 is below what it should be since minimum wage has not risen in 10 years. One of the main reason for this is states are now more aggressive to set their own minimum wage and about 30 out of 50 are well above the 7.25. In my state of Washington the minimum wage is 12.00 which equals the highest purchasing power back in 1968. Many other states are raising minimum wage up to 12.00 to 15.00 in increments over the next 5 years and that greatly will outpace inflation too.

So outside of the 7.25 we are doing rather well with an effective rate of 11.80 due to state and local forced minimums as the New Yorker reported. Many that make minimum or even below minimum are in exempt jobs such as jobs that have tips as a primary income, some farm workers, seasonal workers etc. All this makes up only about 3% of the work force.