Why now both, the father and the mother, have to work to make ends meet?

It really doesn't - because if people are buying/leasing stuff which is unnecessary, or having kids beyond their means of support, then they are causing the situation as much as anything else. Using "they don't have enough money" isn't an excuse if you are spending out the wazoo on luxuries - and this is also a bigger problem today than it was 50 years ago - people don't live within their means.

Plus the "bottom 99%" includes anyone who's income is under $1.5 million - so that'd mean a surgeon who makes $300,000 a year is still considered part of the "99%".

 

you are trying to imply causality where if the rich get richer then everyone else must suffer. It does not work that way in the USA.

For some reason you want to glorify the "good ole days". If people wanted to go back to that lifestyle then it can be done on a single, avg income (not min wage)

 

duplicated

 

I am just showing some data Sec, don´t want anything except dig into this. If you note, the data is not coming from myself, but from two authors, so, it would be nice to work with data, with something to stick to, I think.

I don´t want to glorify anything at all!, I can assure that, only would like to know more about things, I am just too curious.

 

you are trying to look at one specific data point to support an agenda. Reality does not work that way. If it did, then we would be at 90% income tax rates because the liberal economists see that high tax rates after WW2 made the economy prosper.

They do not look at the events of the time where were the only nation capable of manufacturing so other nations could rebuild. We had a captive market

you are doing precisely the same thing, as do other "experts" in this sub-forum, and thus flawed

 

Yes you do. In the context of staying in the middle class, you most certainly do need a decent school.

Are you stupid? Seriously? No one is complaining about car costs.

PEOPLE PAY LESS NOW FOR CARS THAN THEY DID 30 YEARS AGO.
PEOPLE PAY LESS NOW FOR CARS THAN THEY DID 30 YEARS AGO.
PEOPLE PAY LESS NOW FOR CARS THAN THEY DID 30 YEARS AGO.

Your whole frivolous things argument is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Wow, you couldn't have been more wrong if you had guessed that 2 + 2 = 3.

PEOPLE PAY LESS NOW FOR CARS THAN THEY DID 30 YEARS AGO.
PEOPLE PAY LESS NOW FOR CARS THAN THEY DID 30 YEARS AGO.
PEOPLE PAY LESS NOW FOR CARS THAN THEY DID 30 YEARS AGO.

I felt like we needed another one of these, since you fail to read, listen, and comprehend at even a 3rd grade level. I guess you didn't have the decent school. No one is talking about 18 year olds having children. The basis used for comparison was a husband and wife in their mid 30's with two children. Your posts are full of straw men because you cannot construct a sound argument, it is pathetic.

Your argument is dead. You have none.

In the 1970's, kids were expected to remain in the middle class with a high school diploma. That is 12 years of tax payer provided education. Now, with mandatory pre-school, an average education of 18 years is expected for our kids to remain in the middle class. That is 1/3 of a child's education paid for by the parents.

The utter stupidity of this statement is astounding. ASTOUNDING. I suppose you are married in your mid 30's with two children than, eh? Love the straw man though.

As for the rest of your post, families spend less on appliances than their 1970 counterparts. You have failed on every level to construct a coherent argument worthy of refutation. It is pathetic, truly.


Oh, and I laugh every time you dislike one of my posts. It is good to know you are so opposed to getting schooled. LOL.

 

You don't need to stay in the 'middle class'. A diploma is a diploma, so where you happened to go to high school makes no difference. Employers and colleges do not care where you got your diploma from, as long as you have one.

Middle class is determined by income level, not where your child goes to high school anyway.

People pay less for new cars now than they did 30 years ago, yes.

People don't need new cars, so it's moot point.

People who finance new cars may pay more in 1 month for their car than I did in 3 years of owning my last one.

People who are making mediocre income can wait till their financial situation improves before having children.

Yes, that's why I avoid getting married and having children until my financial situation improves.

Less per appliance yes, but they buy many more unnecessary appliances today (iphones, ipads, video game consoles, new video games, computers, etc) than they did back then, so it adds up. What's your point? Plus the more commonplace something like a TV becomes, the more the cost deflates (when a Playstation 3 first came out, it was nearly $800-900 - now a few years later it's closer to 200-300) - not nearly as many people owned a TV then as do now for that matter, and there was no cable, no TIVO, etc

My argument is dead on - your argument completely negates the responsibility factor - not sure if it strikes a nerve or what, but it's a simple fact that people have less of a concept of responsibility and are more materialistic, which causes the problem just as much as the worsening economy does.

 

No, no per appliance, in general. If you watch the minutes of the video that I pointed out, you´ll see how she says it, that we spend less money on appliances than a generation ago. I don´t know her sources, but she seems to be a lecturer in a famous University, and Professor of Law. Not that this means she is right, but she works with data, real data.

By the way, she calls this: the myth of over-consumption, meaning that there is a myth according to which people nowadays spend much more on appliances, cars, vacations, and so forth, and that is precisely why I put the data myself, extracted from the video, in which it is said that we have to pay far more for housing and other basic needs, no luxuries (remember: we spend in appliances=luxuries).

It seems to me a very interesting author to look into, to know some facts, and for me, the most astonishing thing is to realise that the average people just believe that myth of the over-consumption, but here you see clearly, that it is not that way.

In short, again: We spend today less on clothing, appliances and cars than a generation ago , BUT WE PAY FAR MORE FOR HOUSING, 76% MORE (INFLATION ADJUSTED!!), and other basic things. In that way, it is necessary for both to work, and she points out too that when the average couple pay the main bills (house, medical care insurance,...) they have left less than a generation ago, so, we are being fooled? and we haven´t realized yet?. This is happening from 1980, according to her data, so, I am trying to find the truth, not an agenda, I am Spanish and live in Spain, so, I can assure you I don´t have any interest at all , I am not going to run for president in the US, nor for congressman, nor for working in MccDonalds, I am just a Spanish guy trying to stick to data.

 

No, no per appliance, in general. If you watch the minutes of the video that I pointed out, you´ll see how she says it, that we spend less money on appliances than a generation ago. I don´t know her sources, but she seems to be a lecturer in a famous University, and Professor of Law. Not that this means she is right, but she works with data, real data.

By the way, she calls this: the myth of over-consumption, meaning that there is a myth according to which people nowadays spend much more on appliances, cars, vacations, and so forth, and that is precisely why I put the data myself, extracted from the video, in which it is said that we have to pay far more for housing and other basic needs, no luxuries (remember: we spend less in appliances=luxuries).

It seems to me a very interesting author to look into, to know some facts, and for me, the most astonishing thing is to realise that the average people just believe that myth of the over-consumption, but here you see clearly, that it is not that way.

In short, again: We spend today less on clothing, appliances and cars than a generation ago , BUT WE PAY FAR MORE FOR HOUSING, 76% MORE (INFLATION ADJUSTED!!), and other basic things. In that way, it is necessary for both to work, and she points out too that when the average couple pay the main bills (house, medical care insurance,...) they have left less than a generation ago, so, we are being fooled? and we haven´t realized yet?. This is happening from 1980, according to her data, so, I am trying to find the truth, not an agenda, I am Spanish and live in Spain, so, I can assure you I don´t have any interest at all , I am not going to run for president in the US, nor for congressman, nor for working in MccDonalds, I am just a Spanish guy trying to stick to data.

 

Actually in the 1950s, most men wore suits on a regular basis because they only owned a few pairs of clothes, and clothes were often hand-made and expensive, not mass produced.

Your argument is off because, regardless of whether we paid more per appliance, clothing, etc back in the 1950s - we buy a lot MORE of these things today than we did back then. For that matter, back then not nearly as many people even owned a car, or a TV, etc than they do today.

Even if a new car was more expensive back then, people do not 'need' to finance a new car - you could buy an old junker and still get several years on it, and save on mechanic bills if you know how to do your own repairs. Your scenario is based on the idea that families "need" to mortgage a very expensive house, or lease a new car, etc despite making income barely enough to support these things - but this isn't true. People need to learn to live more within their means - and if this means settling for an old used car instead of a flashy new car, or a smaller house or apartment, then so be it.

It is, believe it or not, possible, even in this day and age - to not have to live paycheck to paycheck even without a college degree or high-paying job - you just have to learn to budget more and understand what necessary expenses really are - we have a faulty perception of what is 'necessary' and what isn't.

 

On the contrary:That is exactly what she says in the interview, not that things are more expensive or cheaper, but that we spend LESS money every month on clothing and appliance, I repeat: We spend less!! , it is not me who is saying, it is her, this author.

 

Poppycock

 

But we spend more money on the most expensive thing: HOUSING
Why? Where does this money go? Not very much of it is actually going to the construction workers who built the house.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head....except for the having kids part since the gov will help support you in that case.

It's not how much the gov takes from you, it's how much debt you run up spending money on crap you don't need. Although, the gov does force some purchases through legislation (like various insurances), but other than that it's consumer spending. But the gov wants you to spend a lot because most of their funding comes from the people who provide you with crap you don't need.

You literally have to leverage debt, and win, if you want to get ahead in this modern economy. Or have 2 household working class incomes just to meet the standard of 'middle class'.

 

You'd be surprised what it actually costs to build a house these days. Yes, land values are higher than they used to be, but raw materials and labor also cost much more than they did before. All of that contributes to the higher cost of housing.

 

She also said that most of the things that we spend more on today are things that are caused by families being two-earner households. The increased taxes are because the second earner's income is mostly taxed at the household's highest tax bracket. The childcare cost is because the second worker doesn't stay at home to take care of the kids. Even the second car is mostly because the second worker needs a way to and from work.

The only thing we really spend much more on is housing, and if you consider the reduced amounts families spend on other things, the two should balance out. A family should therefore be able to live off one income just as well as they did a generation ago.

 

In short:

We need to work both because nowadays we spend much more on everything: clothing, cars, appliances,luxuries... I see, I think I understand now better. We over-consume

(The myth of over-consumption, inflation adjusted, which the author clarifies but apparently people haven´t watched the video. Not that she has to be certain, but she presents data)

The only one I agree with is with Anders Hoveland: House prices have raised 76%!! (inflation adjusted)

Himjered: Building is more expensive nowadays? (inflation adjusted) because you know that 40.000 dollars didn´t mean the same in the sixties than today, that is why I stress "inflation adjusted"

She points out the "over-consumption myth" but nobody here seems to agree with that. because Himjered says we have to spend another car for the woman to go to work , why, of course!! do you want her to go by walking?!!. You said: Since the mother is now working, they need childcare, why, of course!!, do you want the family to be taken care in their neighbour´s house!!. I mean: They need a car and childcare because she needs, NEEDS, to work to make ends meet.

I guess your point is: Hey, if she didn´t work, they wouldn´t need a second car, nor childcare ...but in my opinion, SHE HAS TO WORK IN AN AVERAGE FAMILY JUST TO MAKE ENDS MEET, SINCE THE HOUSING HAS RAISED 76% AND HEALTH CARE 74%. So, to pay the bills, she HAS to work, not being a choice any longer.

I repeat: The author says: the average family spend LESS in clothing and appliance than a generation ago, inflation adjusted. She points out too that when the family pays for the main bills (mortgage, health care) they have less money left than a generation ago!! (she says it in the piece of video I presented)

 

it depends on what geographic area you mean for housing prices. If any major northeastern city and suburb then OK. If Detroit and it's suburbs, or steel cities, or rural America then no sirree Bob.

Your thesis is flawed because it's based upon staying in the exact same area. When I first married I could not afford to live in the same area as my folks. I added 30 minutes to my commute to find affordable housing. That is how it works. Perhaps you need to move out of town, out of state or even out of country to afford to live and find employment. There are no guarantees to anyone that they can maintain a lifestyle anywhere they darn well see fit to live. Unless of course you want to control all of that and if so; vote Obama as he'll make us all poor with his policies and thus equality ( you can't make everyone wealthy thus "fairness" means more are poor)

 

I said 76% , not specifying areas but in general ; it is figure of how prices have evolved.

Maybe this could help to check how the average family didn´t receive much on Reagan´s times. The famous "Trickle down", from minute 2:40 to 3:12 , where it is pointed out that the average family is loosing buying power (and as a consequence, we now need to work both):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5CCRI1vdwE

 

look, your mask of "just looking for opinions" has been removed a while back.

and it will serve you well to spell lose as lose and not as loose.

If you want to make broad claims like all liberals when discussing economics, then you need to discard all of the facts and focus on 1 point and only 1 point, and then draw false conclusions from that point. Let's not look at the state of the entire world post WW2 but instead focus on the tax rate in the USA at the time. Let's not consider from where all of the private capital came which drove the 90's but instead focus on the results of that private capital.

Let's not consider the global economy and how S. Korea and China have entered the global markets and thus the 90's are different from today

Nope, just discard all of that because it does not serve your agenda.

Spit it out man, you are a liberal and probably a socialist. Please spare us with your parsing of facts to suit your agenda and thinly veiled attempts to mask them as an economic discussion.

 

You still seem to disregard that half the reasons that households were two-income households was to pay for costs that only apply to two-income households.

Regardless, the video you posted was from 2007 and the research was a bit before that. That means the research was based on costs during the housing peak, not the current costs. Things are a bit different now than they were in 2007.

More importantly, a big part of the reason housing costs rose was because of two-income families. Every time I went in for a home loan, the agent was shocked that I didn't want to include my wife's income when getting approval and every time they tried to persuade me to include her income anyway - so I could afford more for a house. The practice of including both incomes when determining how much a person can borrow causes couples who are shopping for houses to have more money available to spend. People with more money to spend specifically on housing leads to bidding wars, which drive up house costs (and anyone who bought a house in the early to mid 2000s will tell you that bidding wars were very common in house buying at that time.) Those bidding wars rapidly drove up house prices. Those bidding wars wouldn't have happened, and housing prices wouldn't have rose nearly as quickly or as much if there weren't so many two-earner families at the time. In fact, if you look at the rise in percentage of two-earner families, it slightly precedes the rise in housing costs throughout the last few decades.

 

And this is what your argument boils down to, in the face of facts and data. It simply couldn't be that you are absolutely wrong, people have to be spending more on all of these things! Poppycock is the perfect name for your argument. LOL.

 

There may be another motivation to both parents earning paychecks.

It isn't money, it is that it is more rewarding to work than to stay at home.

 

Says who?

I'll put a bun in the oven, and be a stay at home dad if any females want to support me!

 

It's simple supply and demand. Double the amount of labor, and it is worth half of what it was. In short, because women entered the workplace in the first place, they are now bound to stay there.