No, you have the wrong discussion there.
We already know everything you said, @fskimospy and I are not discussing that.
[/QUOTlolz. Seriously? WOW you are condescending. You tell me to eat bad of dicks in red rage after mocking my “red rage”. lol. This is entertaining on boring Friday. Who coddled you to make you so condescending and arrogant? See, I can play the arm couch psychologist too.This from the guy who posted this:
Why would you think what I said was supposed to be scary? Who hurt you?
Not really. Cost of living is basically what quality of life you can afford.Quality of life and cost of living are two completely different metrics.
Uh, yo do know other people on this thread were talking about current inflation. Don’t be so arrogant as to assume I was referring to your posts on the 1950s 🙄You're like a lost little chihuahua yapping here. We're discussing COL. Nobody is arguing about the causes. We're all in agreement for the most part on the causes. Maybe let the adults talk for a bit?
Shhhh. Dank69 does not approve of your tone. I mean are you implying the wealthy have less COL to their income ratio thus can have a better QOL? No way.Not really. Cost of living is basically what quality of life you can afford.
That's why they're two different things because one can greatly affect the other.Not really. Cost of living is basically what quality of life you can afford.
Uh, no. COL is cost to survive. QOL is the fluff on top of that.Not really. Cost of living is basically what quality of life you can afford.
Trying to wrap my head around how households picked up 25%.That's fine. So to be clear you would like to go back to when the economy was 'better', which is apparently pre-Reagan, meaning you're yearning for around a 25% drop in real median household income, which would be a national catastrophe. No thanks!
1) In 1950 that's about the percentage the average household spent on food, and they almost never ate out.Oh yeah Wendy's workers are doing amazing in a nation where half of renters are having to spend more than 30% of their income to not be homeless.
And you wanna call me a gaslighter2) This is the problem I was referring to earlier. Liberals and leftists should be happy to see that marginalized workers have made very real wage gains that outpace the rate of inflation, improving the quality of their lives. Instead you want to say everything is terrible anyway.
I don't want to call you anything - if you want to prove me wrong and start talking about all the good things going on in the economy you can go right ahead and do that.And you wanna call me a gaslighter
bUT thEY can bUY moAR TVs n0wTrying to wrap my head around how households picked up 25%.
Then I realized, that's still part of the transition from single earner to double. The abandonment of children into daycare.
What do you think about rising costs sweeping those gains away?
If you want to stick to that 25%, boy have I got a recent topic for you.....
And this was what I was referring to before Dank69 decided to become the tone police. Both sides are yelling past each other. The left should be happy that minimum wages are going up but should be mad that real wage adjusted income has stagnated overall since the 70s. The right wants to be mad because that is what they do.1) In 1950 that's about the percentage the average household spent on food, and they almost never ate out.
2) This is the problem I was referring to earlier. Liberals and leftists should be happy to see that marginalized workers have made very real wage gains that outpace the rate of inflation, improving the quality of their lives. Instead you want to say everything is terrible anyway.
Quality of life and cost of living are very strongly related.Uh, no. COL is cost to survive. QOL is the fluff on top of that.
Great, food and housing switched places, let's call it a wash. And healthcare has gone way up. And childcare has gone way up. And education has gone way up.1) In 1950 that's about the percentage the average household spent on food, and they almost never ate out.
...
Hence why I said they were correlated not cause and effect. Also, we may need to define COL because what is a necessity in America is not the same in Africa or other third world countries.That's why they're two different things because one can greatly affect the other.
Sure but people worried about QOL already have COL covered. We're talking about the percentage of people who are struggling to cover COL.Quality of life and cost of living are very strongly related.
That's not the cause, no. That being said if you don't like household income then we can just use median personal income, which shows an even larger increase.Trying to wrap my head around how households picked up 25%.
Then I realized, that's still part of the transition from single earner to double. The abandonment of children into daycare.
Well that's why we use real wages instead of nominal wages. Real wages account for rising costs so even after rising costs the average American is way better off.What do you think about rising costs sweeping those gains away?
If you want to stick to that 25%, boy have I got a recent topic for you.....
Not very many - type 2 diabetes was much rarer in those days. One of the big reasons for this was food was simply far more expensive for working families so getting fat cost a lot!I wonder how many people had to choose between insulin and food in the 50s 60s and 70s.
Not sure where your infatuation with me being the police came from. I gave you a suggestion. You don't like it. We get it. Move on with your life.And this was what I was referring to before Dank69 decided to become the tone police. Both sides are yelling past each other. The left should be happy that minimum wages are going up but should be mad that real wage adjusted income has stagnated overall since the 70s. The right wants to be mad because that is what they do.
I agree with this completely. Why I hate the inflation adjusted wage stagnation of workers since the 70s. We are making more money than ever but spending more money than ever. I think part of that is increased COL from improved baseline COL expectations. Health insurance is expected. Eating out is expected. The big tv is expected etc. as part of baseline QOLGreat, food and housing switched places, let's call it a wash. And healthcare has gone way up. And childcare has gone way up. And education has gone way up.
But a guy pumping gas could afford shelter, food and medical care for a family of 7 to 10. And his kids could pay for college with a part-time job with money left over for beer.Not very many - type 2 diabetes was much rarer in those days. One of the big reasons for this was food was simply far more expensive for working families so getting fat cost a lot!
Also, in 1950 people didn't worry about the cost of education that much because only about 5% of adults had a college degree.I agree with this completely. Why I hate the inflation adjusted wage stagnation of workers since the 70s. We are making more money than ever but spending more money than ever. I think part of that is increased COL from improved baseline COL expectations. Health insurance is expected. Eating out is expected. The big tv is expected etc. as part of baseline QOL
Not sure where your infatuation with me being the police came from. I gave you a suggestion. You don't like it. We get it. Move on with your life.
the problem to me is the expectations are different because COL is correlated to higher expected QOL. I don’t think having a roof over head while farming 12 hours a day with a doctor being 20 miles away correlated to today’s suburban population. We have gone from agricultural to industrial to information economy.But a guy pumping gas could afford shelter, food and medical care for a family of 7 to 10.