The standard of living is going down for the average American

[russ_watters]

Are we just going to recycle all links from previous topic? Or maybe better also reuse posts? :D

I was considering it, yes. For example, the income data I posted/analyzed:
Inequality - Maybe not so bad?

 

[Czcibor]

I see, so you are able to make "self-evident" statements without any support, but me, I am pulling my facts out of nowhere. And, flat incomes with increasing prices equals going backwards. Or do you state that prices (at least car prices) have remained constant? EDIT: And if prices are going down in general, you have deflation, which is far from being an improvement.

And how about addressing the mountain of debt you are likely to end with after graduation?

I don't know, but maybe when Russ brings hard data, you should also counter him with hard data? Plus at least for me there is impression that you start to move goalposts. For example he brought data on medium house size / income.
Instead of addressing that you effectively changed your position: "How do you pull yourself out of a $43,000 hole? AFAIK there is no refi for school loans." Maybe I should counter you in your style by claiming, that in those Good Old Days (tm) unquestionably there was less student debt because less people... had tertiary education? ;)

I highly advice you to try to find some economic data to back your point. It would look much more serious.

 

[WWGD]

I don't know, but maybe when Russ brings hard data, you should also counter him with hard data? Plus at least for me there is impression that you start to move goalposts. For example he brought data on medium house size / income.
Instead of addressing that you effectively changed your position: "How do you pull yourself out of a $43,000 hole? AFAIK there is no refi for school loans." Maybe I should counter you in your style by claiming, that in those Good Old Days (tm) unquestionably there was less student debt because less people... had tertiary education? ;)

I highly advice you to try to find some economic data to back your point. It would look much more serious.

I stated that more is not necessarily better and this is a multivariable issue. Discussions about all-or-nothing are pointless; saying everything is worse, or everything better leads nowhere. This is a many-variable statement; even if one can argue that homes/cars are of a better quality for the average person, there are many other components that affect one's living standard. How does it help to have better products available if you cannot afford it or if buying it gets you even deeper into an already substantial debt
http://investorplace.com/2013/09/report-average-american-in-debt-hundreds-of-thousands/#.VOyN8UI3PIU ?

And it is not necessary to have such high loans, it is the result of increasingly high prices for schooling and that it is harder to get loans with reasonable conditions. I never mentioned nor implied I thought the old days were better. And debt is higher _ on a per-capita basis_ , so it has nothing to see with more people having tertiary education.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/13/average-student-loan-debt-hits-30-000

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/04/pf/college/student-loan-debt/

You may argue: why not go to a state school, or a cheaper school? Well, whether you get a substantially better education by paying more, having a degree from one of the elite --and more expensive --school opens a lot of doors that a cheaper school does not. And then you also need at least a masters to be considered for most good-paying jobs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/the-connection-between-ed_b_1066401.htmlMy general point is that there is a qualitative component that is difficult to argue for with hard data alone. That is one thing what makes these discussions difficult and technical. An idea for a qualitative component: are there serious laws in effect to help prevent bubbles like those we just had? Has public transportation improved? More roads are not enough when, as in the suburbs, you can barely cross a road, nor walk to a store half-mile away without risking your life. So it is a very complicated discussion to have without setting clear parameters. Pointing out hard data only takes you so far without clear parameters

If you want hard data, here it is; this is no surprise to anyone that real incomes now are at he same level they were in 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Income went up and then went down, but the OP drew this comparison. EDIT So, in the US, on general terms, life is not better nowadays, having essentially the same buying power now than in 1989. In a capitalist economy, if your real income is not increasing, your life is not doing better. If you argue that prices are going down, then you have deflation and that is a whole different situation.

EDIT: Sorry, I don't know why I keep bringing up 1989, it is a weird thing.

Still, an area where things have gone backwards is that one used to be able to live a reasonably good life and have a good income, without a college degree. Not anymore.

 

[Czcibor]

I stated that more is not necessarily better and this is a multivariable issue. Discussions about all-or-nothing are pointless; saying everything is worse, or everything better leads nowhere. This is a many-variable statement; even if one can argue that homes/cars are of a better quality for the average person, there are many other components that affect one's living standard. How does it help to have better products available if you cannot afford it or if buying it gets you even deeper into an already substantial debt
http://investorplace.com/2013/09/report-average-american-in-debt-hundreds-of-thousands/#.VOyN8UI3PIU ?

You already quoted data that median income slightly grows up (with serious ups and downs). So the problem is that people borrow more to consume even more? I mean if they just wanted to keep their spending unchanged they would actually have savings, but they chose otherwise.

Would you like to force your compatriots to save more? (Not a rhetoric question, just curious. Maybe a gov enforced individual rainy day account is something to think about)

I'm not American (Polish) and my spending habits are terribly un-American. I have no debt, no car (go to work by bus) and some savings, even though median American earns many times more than I do. I have never purchased anything using loan and I answer this post using an ancient laptop with linux.

And it is not necessary to have such high loans, it is the result of increasingly high prices for schooling and that it is harder to get loans with reasonable conditions. I never mentioned nor implied I thought the old days were better. And debt is higher _ on a per-capita basis_ , so it has nothing to see with more people having tertiary education.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/13/average-student-loan-debt-hits-30-000

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/04/pf/college/student-loan-debt/

You may argue: why not go to a state school, or a cheaper school? Well, whether you get a substantially better education by paying more, having a degree from one of the elite --and more expensive --school opens a lot of doors that a cheaper school does not. And then you also need at least a masters to be considered for most good-paying jobs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/the-connection-between-ed_b_1066401.html

So everyone wants (increased demand) to go to the best school (by definition limited supply) and their cost goes up? And additional money from loans just boost the price? Shocking, isn't it?

My general point is that there is a qualitative component that is difficult to argue for with hard data alone. That is one thing what makes these discussions difficult and technical. An idea for a qualitative component: are there serious laws in effect to help prevent bubbles like those we just had? Has public transportation improved? More roads are not enough when, as in the suburbs, you can barely cross a road, nor walk to a store half-mile away without risking your life. So it is a very complicated discussion to have without setting clear parameters. Pointing out hard data only takes you so far without clear parameters

Depends what you ask for. For preventing real estate bubbles typical economist answers involve:
-curbing tap with cheap loans (like no more loan with LTV above 80%);
-land value tax.

In the same way mass transport usually needs gov subsidies that have to be paid in taxes.

(my point is that you may also dislike the other idea)

If you want hard data, here it is; this is no surprise to anyone that real incomes now are at he same level they were in 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Income went up and then went down, but the OP drew this comparison. EDIT So, in the US, on general terms, life is not better nowadays, having essentially the same buying power now than in 1989. In a capitalist economy, if your real income is not increasing, your life is not doing better. If you argue that prices are going down, then you have deflation and that is a whole different situation.

Why do you cherry pick peak year of 1989 and not try to make a trend line? Not mentioning that you compare this year with somewhere around bottom of crisis (2012)?

As typically used metric for improvement there is often used HDI. According to it there was some improvement in standard of living in the USA:
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country-Profiles/USA.pdf

(This metric actually shows progress in years 1990-2012.)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Jamin made a series of three pairs of claims, and I think Russ made the point that this is contrary to the evidence for two of them. Let me attack the third:

College prices have gone up faster than inflation. So has financial aid. If you have a system where the tuition is $15K per student, and change it to one where the richest half pay $20K and the poorest half pay $20K with a $10 scholarship - so their net payment is $10K, has tuition really gone up 33%?

It is true that post-financial aid, college costs have grown faster than inflation. However, student/faculty ratios have fallen. So one pays more and one gets more.

It is also true that students do not work as hard (measured by self-reported time spent studying) as in the past. One could argue that this means they get less, and I don't think I would disagree with this. Why did this come about? Because students demanded it, and colleges compete for students.

 

[WWGD]

Jamin made a series of three pairs of claims, and I think Russ made the point that this is contrary to the evidence for two of them. Let me attack the third:

College prices have gone up faster than inflation. So has financial aid. If you have a system where the tuition is $15K per student, and change it to one where the richest half pay $20K and the poorest half pay $20K with a $10 scholarship - so their net payment is $10K, has tuition really gone up 33%?

It is true that post-financial aid, college costs have grown faster than inflation. However, student/faculty ratios have fallen. So one pays more and one gets more.

It is also true that students do not work as hard (measured by self-reported time spent studying) as in the past. One could argue that this means they get less, and I don't think I would disagree with this. Why did this come about? Because students demanded it, and colleges compete for students.

How does having better car/housing for your money alone show that you get more for your money across the board (this is what I understand Russ Waters argued)? You pay $10K extra, but tif you go to grad school, that can end up being a total of around $40K , with interest running. In several elite schools you have TA's teaching classes they themselves have just recently taken.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005OHTDJ8/?tag=pfamazon01-20

So you are not having regular, if any, access to the high-flying intellectuals that work in those schools. According to the book, you do not get a long-term benefit from studying in those schools, but you pay plenty more .

So you think that starting your working career debt-free when you're wealthy is just about the same as starting off your career with around $30,000 in student loans (and maybe you have other types of loans, pushing the total higher up) ? If you're lucky to start off at a $100,000/year job, then fine, but how many start at that level?

And how does the fact that in many areas you now need at least a masters, if not a PHD to be able to find a job, let alone make a decent living agree with an improvement in living conditions? Ever try to be a TA (Teaching Assistant) , with a masters and no job security whatsoever? It used to be possible to have a middle class life with a high school degree alone, by working in a factory.
And goodbye, for most people, to any thought of job security; with globalization, you are competing against people in the whole world, not just your state or your country. Isnt job stability a component of better living conditions?

There certainly has been an improvement in productivity across the board, but the benefits have not translated into proportionally-better incomes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How does having better car/housing for your money alone show that you get more for your money across the board (this is what I understand Russ Waters argued)?

I said no such thing.

So you are not having regular, if any, access to the high-flying intellectuals that work in those schools. According to the book, you do not get a long-term benefit from studying in those schools, but you pay plenty more .

I went to MIT. I had classes taught by Cliff Shull and one year my advisor was Jerry Friedman. Both Nobel prize winners.

So you think that starting your working career debt-free when you're wealthy is just about the same as starting off your career with around $30,000 in student loans (and maybe you have other types of loans, pushing the total higher up) ?

I said no such thing.

 

[WWGD]

I said no such thing.
I went to MIT. I had classes taught by Cliff Shull and one year my advisor was Jerry Friedman. Both Nobel prize winners.
I said no such thing.

Well, then what is it you said Russ had proved in his post?

And your experience alone at MIT may not be indicative of the average one. I never stated that _no one_ had exposure to the Nobel prize winners.

And will you address the impact of a high debt on quality of life? While a quality education improves your life, a large debt counters some of that.

And how about in healthcare. Is the average person ( or, say, someone below the 80% percentile in income) getting more for their money?

 

[Czcibor]

And how about in healthcare. Is the average person ( or, say, someone below the 80% percentile in income) getting more for their money?

Which metric would you suggest? Life expectancy? (clearly measurable and objective, quite egalitarian metric, but influenced also by lifestyle)

 

[russ_watters]

How does having better car/housing for your money alone show that you get more for your money across the board (this is what I understand Russ Waters argued)?

No, I most certainly did not. I was given several specific examples and I analyzed those specific examples, that's all. They happened to be among the biggest examples, but I would certainly not cliam that the same that was true for them is true for everything.

I asked you at least twice to provide the basis/criteria for your claim, but except for a few wrong guesses about incomes, you still haven't. Frankly, it appears to me like this is just a gut feeling you have, with no actual basis. I suspect the same goes for the OP, since s/he hasn't been back. People have these vague ideas - often fueled by bad media reporting - (bad news sells better than good news), which are often very wrong and make throw-away/venting comments about them. That appears to me that that's all this thread is.

 

[WWGD]

So...does this mean you are retracting/declining to substantiate your agreement with the OP's initial claim, at least for now?

<Snip>

And again, you set a trap for yourself by your seeming intent to focus on income. There is certainly some corellation, but income isn't standard of living. And the income situation is both better than people tend to think and currently on the upswing after a particularly bad recession.

<Snip>

.

Not according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Not for the middle quintile.

See under "Recent Trends"

No, I most certainly did not. I was given several specific examples and I analyzed those specific examples, that's all. They happened to be among the biggest examples, but I would certainly not cliam that the same that was true for them is true for everything.

I asked you at least twice to provide the basis/criteria for your claim, but except for a few wrong guesses about incomes, you still haven't. Frankly, it appears to me like this is just a gut feeling you have, with no actual basis. I suspect the same goes for the OP, since s/he hasn't been back. People have these vague ideas - often fueled by bad media reporting - (bad news sells better than good news), which are often very wrong and make throw-away/venting comments about them. That appears to me that that's all this thread is.

So if you are just giving some examples, how is your claim not vague itself?
I am agreeing with certain points the OP made and disagreeing with some you made. I did not make the original claim. I gave several examples myself. Coming up with precise statements and measures is too complicated. Basically, in a market economy, if the real income of the average guy, say someone in the middle quantile is not increasing, you are not as a whole doing better; sufficient but not necessary. Then I stated the debt issue. Then there is healthcare, which is out of many people's reach, or extremely expensive, taking up a good chunk of income. Why are you putting the burden of proof on me, offer a full layout of why things are better and I will evaluate it. The burden should be on the OP, not on me. And why do you ascribe motivations for my position? While certain things have improved, others have not, and it is a tough call. So take on the burden yourself and present a full argument, I don't see why the burden of proof should be on me.

I agree my perspective towards life in general is maybe slanted towards the negative, but it may balance some other overly optimistic views, which I perceive yours to be.. Believe it or not, I look for the bad things in order to address them and to overcome them.

 

[WWGD]

Which metric would you suggest? Life expectancy? (clearly measurable and objective, quite egalitarian metric, but influenced also by lifestyle)

But the OP also brought up a comparison with the cost and how things have changed over time. Healthcare costs are very high in here.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'll let you or someone else look up how cost has varied in that time.

I looked it up. In 1973, the median house cost $105/sq. ft. (in 2014 dollars). In 2010, it was $109/sq. ft (again, in 2014 dollars).

Another way to look at it is that in 1973, the median annual income bought 465 square feet of median house. In 2010, the median annual income bought 475 square feet of median house.

 

[russ_watters]

Not according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Not for the middle quintile.

Jeez, you really need to stop this. You are making a real mess, tripping all over yourself trying to cherry-pick around the long-term increasing income trend.
$51,939 is a larger number than $51,759, is it not? Incomes are currently rising. And, I know you edited your previous post on this and improved it, but not enough:

Income went up and then went down, but the OP drew this comparison. EDIT So, in the US, on general terms, life is not better nowadays, having essentially the same buying power now than in 1989. In a capitalist economy, if your real income is not increasing, your life is not doing better.

Standard of living does not turn on a dime. It does not react instantly to income changes. What happens first in a recession is people start dipping into savings, getting more debt and relying on government handouts to bridge the gap. Then they recover when the economy recovers. You can see that in the actual standard of living data such as life expectancy and house size. Anyway, in the 24 years of data since 1989, median income was higher for 15 of them: all in a row, up until 2011. And it is rising again. The worst that can reasonably said without improperly cherry-picking the top of one cycle to compare with the bottom of another is that we may have started a downward trend in 2000, since the 2007 peak was slightly lower than the 1999 peak.

It gets worse. The above statement you made assumes inflation is tied to a constant standard of living. I believe you actually said that, but edited it out. Sorry, but you guessed wrong. Inflation is not a perfect measure of cost of living: it overstates changes in cost of living, which means the income today that is almost the same as in 1989 translates to a higher standard of living (even if we ignore the higher incomes in the past few years and lower incomes in the years around 1989).

And it still gets worse. You probably also aren't aware that household sizes are getting smaller. So that median income is spent on fewer people, resulting in even higher standards of living (and bigger houses per person, etc.).

So if you are just giving some examples, how is your claim not vague itself?

It wasn't my claim, it was the OP's claim. I was simply demonstrating - and quite thoroughy, I would say - that the OP's claim was pretty badly wrong, given the criteria s/he based it on.

And I don't think you read correctly what I said, so I'll say it again: the items listed are the most expensive things people spend their money on and the things that have the most impact on standard of living. So while they aren't everything, together they are most of what constitutes standard of living.

There are other things, not related to money that impact standard of living. Such as crime rates. Care to discuss crime rates or do you already know how they've changed over the past few decades...?

I am agreeing with certain points the OP made and disagreeing with some you made. I did not make the original claim. I gave several examples myself. Coming up with precise statements and measures is too complicated.

Sorry, but for the most part you gave bad/wrong examples based on misunderstandings and bad sources.

Why are you putting the burden of proof on me...

Because it is your claim, so you must prove it. That's how these things work.

...offer a full layout of why things are better and I will evaluate it.

I did: you haven't. At any time, feel free to respond substantively to any of my previous points.

The burden should be on the OP, not on me.

The OP has his/er own burden, but in agreeing with the OP, you shoulder the same burden.

And why do you ascribe motivations for my position?

Not a motivation, I'm trying to find an explanation. Frankly, it's dumbfounding to me how you can keep going on like this.

But the OP also brought up a comparison with the cost and how things have changed over time. Healthcare costs are very high in here.

That's not what the OP claimed. The OP claimed paying more and getting less. The "getting less" part is very clearly wrong.

 

[WWGD]

Jeez, you really need to stop this. You are making a real mess, tripping all over yourself trying to cherry-pick around the long-term increasing income trend.
$51,939 is a larger number than $51,759, is it not? Incomes are currently rising. And, I know you edited your previous post on this and improved it, but not enough:

Standard of living does not turn on a dime. It does not react instantly to income changes. What happens first in a recession is people start dipping into savings, getting more debt and relying on government handouts to bridge the gap. Then they recover when the economy recovers. You can see that in the actual standard of living data such as life expectancy and house size. Anyway, in the 24 years of data since 1989, median income was higher for 15 of them: all in a row, up until 2011. And it is rising again. The worst that can reasonably said without improperly cherry-picking the top of one cycle to compare with the bottom of another is that we may have started a downward trend in 2000, since the 2007 peak was slightly lower than the 1999 peak.

It gets worse. The above statement you made assumes inflation is tied to a constant standard of living. I believe you actually said that, but edited it out. Sorry, but you guessed wrong. Inflation is not a perfect measure of cost of living: it overstates changes in cost of living, which means the income today that is almost the same as in 1989 translates to a higher standard of living (even if we ignore the higher incomes in the past few years and lower incomes in the years around 1989).

It wasn't my claim, it was the OP's claim. I was simply demonstrating - and quite thoroughy, I would say - that the OP's claim was pretty badly wrong, given the criteria s/he based it on.

And I don't think you read correctly what I said, so I'll say it again: the items listed are the most expensive things people spend their money on and the things that have the most impact on standard of living. So while they aren't everything, together they are most of what constitutes standard of living.

There are other things, not related to money that impact standard of living. Such as crime rates. Care to discuss crime rates or do you already know how they've changed over the past few decades...?

Sorry, but for the most part you gave bad/wrong examples based on misunderstandings and bad sources.

Because it is your claim, so you must prove it. That's how these things work.

I did: you haven't. At any time, feel free to respond substantively to any of my previous points.

The OP has his/er own burden, but in agreeing with the OP, you shoulder the same burden.

Not a motivation, I'm trying to find an explanation. Frankly, it's dumbfounding to me how you can keep going on like this.

That's not what the OP claimed. The OP claimed paying more and getting less. The "getting less" part is very clearly wrong.

What are you talking about? Have you clearly defined what "standard of living" means ? If so, is that a standard term? I stated that by three important measures I believe are part of a high standard of living --income, education and health -- we are not doing better now than , say, 30 years ago, on a per-dollar basis. There is also something wrong in the fact that we have more than 1 adult in 100 in prison ; we have more prisoners than China does; not on a per-capita basis, in sheer numbers. Those indicators point in the wrong direction. Standard living to me includes other factors.like availability of public transportation, parks, etc. I would much rather be ale to get by without a car than own a better car .I prefer to have nicer public places than owning a gigantic home.

 

[russ_watters]

What are you talking about?

You're making claims while being unresponsive. I'm not sure what to say -- you're just making stuff up as you go and then not reading/responding to the responses. I'm not sure we can have a reasonable discussion if you don't start treating it more seriously.

Have you clearly defined what "standard of living" means ? If so, is that a standard term?

Again: not my criteria, it was the OP's criteria. That said, I agree with the OP that the things s/he listed are good items in a basket that together provide a reasonable picture of standard of living.

I stated that by three important measures I believe are part of a high standard of living --income, education and health...

And you are wrong about the direction of all three, but haven't responded to the data provided to you and keep misrepresenting your sources. [shrug] Not sure what to do about that.

...we are not doing better now than , say, 30 years ago, on a per-dollar basis.

That isn't the same claim. It may well be true, but it still allows for the title claim of the thread to be wrong.
[edit]
By the way, the title claim says "average" and we've been talking about "median". I'm being generous by not holding you to the OP's bad choice.

 

[russ_watters]

WWGD, here's how trends work: A trend line is a line drawn through data that puts half of the data above and half of the data below it, by the same amount. Here's the median income data, graphed, with trends -- and one thing you thought was a trend, but isn't.

As you can see, if you take your cherry-picked top of one cycle to the bottom of another and draw a line through them, you get a decrease. That's not a trend. The trend lines, for the full data and for 1989 and on are both positive. You are mis-stating the income trend. Please stop.

 

[WWGD]

Here is to your alleged vague feelings that underlie my claims:

The income picture looks different when you separate it by quintiles: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php . Just to add to the data. If you are in the middle quintile, you are basically flatlining since 1967, same or worse for the quintiles below. For education to be cheaper and better today, wouldn't you need a similar change for education costs? But that is not so: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76 So how is it you are getting more/better education per dollar now than in 1967 (I told you I did not know why I chose 1989)? Are healthcare costs/benefits barely flatlining since 1967? If not, then by what measure are you getting more/better health per dollar now than you did in 1967 (if your income is in that quintile or in a lower one)?And, how about debt? What do I do with a better car /house if I end up in debt up to my neck. Am I then really getting more for my money if I have more by going into debt? Are you factoring this in your quality-of-life calculations? :

http://www.money-zine.com/financial-planning/debt-consolidation/consumer-debt-statistics/ ?
Debt has increased way faster than income. Are you factoring that in your standard of living calculations?

Is that specific-enough for you?

 

[russ_watters]

The income picture looks different when you separate it by quintiles: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php .

No it doesn't. You're trying to goalpost shift again, but it doesn't matter: every quintile shows gains over the past several decades.

Just to add to the data. If you are in the middle quintile, you are basically flatlining since 1967...

No: +21%. Please stop guessing. (in addition to yet another attempted goalpost shift)

...same or worse for the quintiles below.

Sure: +19% and +13%. "Worse" is still both healthy positives.

[edit] And by the way, those aren't the trends, they are just the two-point differences. So generally it has gone better than that and as the recovery progresses, they will get much, much larger.

For education to be cheaper and better today, wouldn't you need a similar change for education costs?

No one claimed education is cheaper. What are you talking about?

Are healthcare costs/benefits barely flatlining since 1967? If not, then by what measure are you getting more/better health per dollar now than you did in 1967 (if your income is in that quintile or in a lower one)?

We already covered this: I provided several examples of measures by which you can say you are getting better healthcare. Please reread.

And, how about debt? What do I do with a better car /house if I end up in debt up to my neck.

Drive it and live in it, respectively.

Am I then really getting more for my money if I have more by going into debt?

Again: attempted goalpost shift. Still, to answer: not over the long-term. So you tell me: why hasn't the increase in debt translated into lower standard of living by the direct measures already listed?

Are you factoring this in your quality-of-life calculations?

They aren't calculations, they are direct measurements, so yes.

Is that specific-enough for you?

No. For the most part, you are picking secondary issues that might impact standard of living while avoiding looking at standard of living issues directly. Worse, you make wrong claims (like your continued wrong claims about income trends). Even worse, when you mention a direct standard of living issue (like health), you discuss it as if you haven't read the information already provided on those issues.

 

[WWGD]

No it doesn't. You're trying to goalpost shift again, but it doesn't matter: every quintile shows gains over the past several decades.

No: +21%. Please stop guessing. (in addition to yet another attempted goalpost shift)

Sure: +19% and +13%. "Worse" is still both healthy positives.

[edit] And by the way, those aren't the trends, they are just the two-point differences. So generally it has gone better than that and as the recovery progresses, they will get much, much larger.

No one claimed education is cheaper. What are you talking about?

We already covered this: I provided several examples of measures by which you can say you are getting better healthcare. Please reread.

Drive it and live in it, respectively.

Again: attempted goalpost shift. Still, to answer: not over the long-term. So you tell me: why hasn't the increase in debt translated into lower standard of living by the direct measures already listed?

They aren't calculations, they are direct measurements, so yes.

No. For the most part, you are picking secondary issues that might impact standard of living while avoiding looking at standard of living issues directly. Worse, you make wrong claims (like your continued wrong claims about income trends). Even worse, when you mention a direct standard of living issue (like health), you discuss it as if you haven't read the information already provided on those issues.

If you have given a definition of quality of life and the factors that determine it, please point me out to the post where you did, because I missed it.

No cherry-picking, nor goalpost-shifting: if you are wealthy, it is almost a tautology that your life will get better as time goes by. The real test is how well you do when you are _not_ wealthy. Your putting everyone in the same category , independently of their income ignores this obvious fact. And I am displaying a long-term trend, which is a much tougher test for any claim to pass. An amazing rate, 19% and 13% in 46 years; just give it around 185 years and around 276 years respectively and the income will double. Are you serious, over an average working career--46 years -- your real income will increase by a "healthy" 19%, 13% respectively. Healthy? Now if you want to stick 100% to being better , then yes, but healthy? I don't think so. Go tell someone they can expect their real income to be 20% better over 46 years and see how excited they get. So keep sticking to 0.0001 is better than 0 . And see how this yearly increase of 1/4 of 1% helps you pay your student loans. So, yes, improvement of certain things, but plenty of factors dragging you back too, that is my overall point.

You provided measures of better health care. You stated I was wrong when I said you get less per dollar now than you did in the past. How am I wrong? What are the costs associated with that? Is it secondary to be barely able to afford to pay for healthcare? Not to me. Maybe we just have different ideas of what a good life is. The country is going broke trying to pay for those costs; a secondary thing too, I guess.

So, excuse me for not buying 100% into your definition (implicit, I believe, because I never saw an actual layout) of just what the factors are that determine quality of life, and which are primary and which secondary. Maybe you have no major issues with owning a larger house and being $40,000+ in debt, I do. And there is no job security anymore, so what do you do with that debt if you lose your job? It may be secondary to you, it is not so to me.

Or we may just leave it at potaeito potato.

 

[Czcibor]

But the OP also brought up a comparison with the cost and how things have changed over time. Healthcare costs are very high in here.

OK, so effectively you pay more for longer life? How would you like to compare that? If you had a choice would you prefer to buy yourself somewhat cheaper healthcare plan that would not cover big part of new medications / procedures (nothing invented in last 20-30 years :D ), would cost roughly counting as much as few decades ago but you would live a few years less?
(of course if you claim that standard of living goes down with respect to healthcare, then choosing a shorter life for cheaper plan shall be preferred choice for practically anyone, except maybe top rich)

 

[russ_watters]

If you have given a definition of quality of life and the factors that determine it, please point me out to the post where you did, because I missed it.

I don't understand why you aren't getting this: I have accepted/used the OP's measure of quality of life.

No cherry-picking, nor goalpost-shifting: if you are wealthy, it is almost a tautology that your life will get better as time goes by.

Bringing up something that is different from the point of the discussion and can't help us understand the point of the discussion isn't cherry-picking or goalpost shifting, it is a new logical fallacycy: misdirection.

The real test is how well you do when you are _not_ wealthy. Your putting everyone in the same category...

I most certainly am not. I have yet to make reference to anyone above the median (note: average for the middle quintile is roughly at the median) and nothing I've said applies to the rich.

... An amazing rate, 19% and 13% in 46 years; just give it around 185 years and around 276 years respectively and the income will double.

No. Again, you are misunderstanding how a "trend" works. The trend is a much steeper increase and doubling time much shorter.

Are you serious, over an average working career--46 years -- your real income will increase by a "healthy" 19%, 13% respectively. Healthy? Now if you want to stick 100% to being better , then yes, but healthy? I don't think so. Go tell someone they can expect their real income to be 20% better over 46 years and see how excited they get.

Again: a goalpost shift. But as again, you misunderstand the data. This data does not compare individuals over time, it compares hypothetical/nonexistent different people at different times. Virtually nobody stays static in the distribution: I myself moved from the bottom quntile to the 4th quintile in about 15 years. If you stay exactly at the same spot in the distribution over several decades, then you must have had some seriously bad luck or done something seriously wrong. The point of this data is that if you, at a certain age are doing the same job as your father (or older uncle) was at that age, you are doing 20% better. How much better, qualatatively that is is tough to judge, but if you wanted to, that's buying another car or taking an extra European vacation every year (for someone on the median).

You stated I was wrong when I said you get less per dollar now than you did in the past. How am I wrong?

I most certainly did not. You are goalpost shifting and misrepresenting what I said by trying to fit what I said improperly into your goalpost shift.

What are the costs associated with that? Is it secondary to be barely able to afford to pay for healthcare? Not to me.

It is, to the title claim of the thread and your very first post in the thread, where you agreed with the OP. Claiming now that you get more but pay more-er is definitely true, but it is a different claim -- and a pretty bland one at that.

Maybe we just have different ideas of what a good life is.

Tough to be sure, since you've simply refused to accept naked facts at face value. Would having enough money to buy another car or take another Eurpean vacation every year be a significant quality of life boost, to you?
[Edit]. And I missed another goalpost shift: the idea of a "good life" has never been part of the discussion.

The country is going broke trying to pay for those costs; a secondary thing too, I guess.

Not necessarily secondary, just a totally different conversation. If you want to have that conversation, by all means we can, but given how much trouble you've had accepting naked facts, I'm not sure that will go well either. Little teaser though: I think we have a retirement savings time-bomb on our hands that is already holding back standard of living and is going to explode in about 15-20 years, leaving the country in a world of hurt.

So, excuse me for not buying 100% into your definition...

Again: we'll have to go with the OP's definition because despite repeated requests, you've never posted yours, you've just said it is "hard" to define.

Maybe you have no major issues with owning a larger house and being $40,000+ in debt, I do.

I'm sorry to hear that. Since it is a single data point, it is really neither here nor there, though. It doesn't tell us if it's a better or worse situation than an equivalent person would have had decades ago.

And there is no job security anymore, so what do you do with that debt if you lose your job? It may be secondary to you, it is not so to me.

Job security is a door that swings both ways: employees changing jobs on purpose is a big part of why employees change jobs so often.

 

[WWGD]

Sorry, I don't know how to use multiquotes, which makes it hard for me to address your points as I would like to. Rich people almost always do well; I am breaking it down and giving more detail. Seriously, how is giving more detailed data, broken-down by quintile a goalpost shift? I don't see how that could be misleading. I thought more detailed data would be better; you can interpret the average person as not being rich, and best approximation for that in my data as I found it is being below the 80th percentile. And I chose 46 years worth of data because it is a nice long period of time, but not too long, and the data was available. It would be nice to see the increase in sq footage by population quintile, a bunch of McMansions by rich people may skew the data. How is it misleading to have more data? And I am breaking it it by quintiles; how is that misleading? I am trying to see how different quintiles fare.
So I am testing (or trying to test) whether the improvements are available across-the-board real-income-quintile-wise. It is a more detailed test, so I don't see how that would be misleading. And I am also qualifying the availability of medical improvements: how much do they cost: are they truly available in a realistic sense if the improvement will set you back, say $30,000 and your yearly income is $40,000?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry, I can't parse that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

a bunch of McMansions by rich people may skew the data

If you are going to accuse people - which in this case means me - of provided "skewed"data, please explain how "a bunch of McMansions by rich people" can affect the median home size.

 

[Czcibor]

If you are going to accuse people - which in this case means me - of provided "skewed"data, please explain how "a bunch of McMansions by rich people" can affect the median home size.

I'd say that mansions in median would actually be a good sign ;)

 

[WWGD]

If you are going to accuse people - which in this case means me - of provided "skewed"data, please explain how "a bunch of McMansions by rich people" can affect the median home size.

I haven't accused you of any such thing. The relations between median and mean can be very complicated and one cannot conclude, e.g., skewness from the mean from these alone; that is all I meant; I understand the median is resistant to outliers. I also meant to bring up that the issue of upward/downward mobility is a difficult one, since there is no clear data to support neither the case that it exists in a significant way nor that it does not. If your real income is 40,000 and is expected to increase by 1/4 of 1% a year, I do not see how you would realistically expect to move up. Impossible no, but not likely either.
Anyway, I have obviously failed at making myself clear, so I will most likely not post in this thread anymore.

 

[Ghost117]

[mentors' note: This post has been heavily edited to avoid accidental violation of copyright law].

The following is from an American geopolitical thinktank that I have a subscription to. The key numbers, in proper context, are provided in the red paragraph.


https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/crisis-middle-class-and-american-power

...
The Crisis of the American Middle Class
The median household income of Americans in 2011 was $49,103. Adjusted for inflation, the median income is just below what it was in 1989 and is $4,000 less than it was in 2000. Take-home income is a bit less than $40,000 when Social Security and state and federal taxes are included. That means a monthly income, per household, of about $3,300. It is urgent to bear in mind that half of all American households earn less than this. It is also vital to consider not the difference between 1990 and 2011, but the difference between the 1950s and 1960s and the 21st century. This is where the difference in the meaning of middle class becomes most apparent.
...

 

[Vanadium 50]

The problem with those kinds of anecdotal stories is that one can make up whatever they want. In the 1970's we had it tough. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night - half an hour before I went to bed - drink a cup of poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down at the mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah. But today I live in a floating castle and am fed peeled grapes by servant girls is sarongs.

Friedman's "average family" is paying off student loans, but only 32% of the over 25's have a bachelors degree of associates (and another 10% have an associates, and another 16% have less than that). He has them spending $700/month on car loans, but compares it to a time when a family had one older and one newer car. If the $700 goes towards a single car, that's a very nice car indeed. If it goes to two cars, they both have to be newer.

This is why one needs a well defined statistical metric.

 

[Ghost117]

The problem with those kinds of anecdotal stories is that one can make up whatever they want.

I think you're focusing more on the story, and less on the first red paragraph, with the median income comparison adjusted for inflation, for the middle class and those below...