And “household income” definition also changed: at the time the most common was that only the man of the household was working. So I’d say we are down to a quarter of what was earned then.
I think that’s a little unfair of a comparison. The average house price in the US is $495k. The average house price in Ohio is $273k. Let’s take Brooklyn for example. In the 80’s houses were cheap in comparison to today. Ohio in the 80’s were probably on par for what they are today. There was no silicon valley in the 80’s. You didn’t have as much of the super rich mega mansions back then. So yeah, it’s going to sway the numbers.
If we’re going to have super rich mega mansions, then we should be taking care of everyone at a proportionate rate. If we’re not, then the tax for the rich is too low.
Home prices vary wildy depending on location and size of the home. It does not seem unreasonable that someone could spend $200 a week on groceries and live in a $200K home.
So the real question is how did pay in the most common industries keep up with inflation. I don’t think anyone is disputing costs rising at comparable rates. It’s our ability to keep up as earners.
I agree the inflation would not be a huge deal but only if incomes had kept up. Couples are struggling to exist today doing two jobs (or more) each of which could have supported a small family just decades ago.
Income hasn’t kept up with inflation, so you have a widening gap
The prices may be proportional, but the average “purchasing power” has decreased. Most family units have more than a single income now, but they still struggle.
Inflation goes up (which devalues our income), but our wages have gone up much slower… so we have a widening gap of “purchasing power” that people’s budget can feel
The “prices” may be proportional, but the ability to afford them is certainly not
Damn I’ve seen some really stupid takes on here but this one is really something special. Cherry picking the numbers here is so obvious and the ones that you ignore, like income, so blatant that I’m unsure how this isn’t flagged as straight up misinformation. That’s not even the stupidest part though believe it or not. Why would you even try to cook the books like this to make it seem like there’s nothing wrong with the home cost situation? How could trying to convince people of this fantastical situation possibly benefit you?
So maths time…
If that cart is a weeks of groceries, it takes 1250 weeks of groceries to buy a house in 1980.
According to a 2024 USA today article the average family with kids spends $331 per week on groceries.
If the groceries per house ratio stayed the same, a house would be $413,750 in 2024.
I dunno seems pretty proportionate.
That’s not the issue.
Average annual household income in the US in 1980 was $20,020- 42% of a house (average cost of a house in the US in 1980 was actually $47K).
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1982/demo/p60-132.html
Average annual household income in the US in 2022 was $74,580- or 18% of a $412K house.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html
And “household income” definition also changed: at the time the most common was that only the man of the household was working. So I’d say we are down to a quarter of what was earned then.
Damn. That’s some depressing perspective right there.
deleted by creator
I feel like it’s implying a standard of living. You got more for less, you owned a home. Maybe only one of the family was employed for that life.
Where the duck do you think the money to buy things was coming from?
I think that’s a little unfair of a comparison. The average house price in the US is $495k. The average house price in Ohio is $273k. Let’s take Brooklyn for example. In the 80’s houses were cheap in comparison to today. Ohio in the 80’s were probably on par for what they are today. There was no silicon valley in the 80’s. You didn’t have as much of the super rich mega mansions back then. So yeah, it’s going to sway the numbers.
If we’re going to have super rich mega mansions, then we should be taking care of everyone at a proportionate rate. If we’re not, then the tax for the rich is too low.
Income. Everything else can be proportional, but if income isn’t, we’re fucked.
Echoing this but change if to since :/
Furthermore:
So the real question is how did pay in the most common industries keep up with inflation. I don’t think anyone is disputing costs rising at comparable rates. It’s our ability to keep up as earners.
so, by his numbers, we’re paying over 50% more for food and houses.
But they’re equally more expensive, so we’re getting screwed two ways, not just one.
I agree the inflation would not be a huge deal but only if incomes had kept up. Couples are struggling to exist today doing two jobs (or more) each of which could have supported a small family just decades ago.
The ratio of interest isn’t groceries:housing, it’s income:CoL
The first ratio may have stayed rather consistent, but the second has not.
Inflation vs income
Income hasn’t kept up with inflation, so you have a widening gap
The prices may be proportional, but the average “purchasing power” has decreased. Most family units have more than a single income now, but they still struggle.
Inflation goes up (which devalues our income), but our wages have gone up much slower… so we have a widening gap of “purchasing power” that people’s budget can feel
The “prices” may be proportional, but the ability to afford them is certainly not
It never said it was a week’s worth of groceries.
Its a reasonable assumption. Most of the visible foods are bulky items that are not stacked efficiently to be visible to the camera.
So now please do the comparison to income, based on what you think these people bring home.
Damn I’ve seen some really stupid takes on here but this one is really something special. Cherry picking the numbers here is so obvious and the ones that you ignore, like income, so blatant that I’m unsure how this isn’t flagged as straight up misinformation. That’s not even the stupidest part though believe it or not. Why would you even try to cook the books like this to make it seem like there’s nothing wrong with the home cost situation? How could trying to convince people of this fantastical situation possibly benefit you?
it’s not dumb at all.
that is, I don’t see what he’s saying is good or bad, just “food and housing have stayed a similar ratio”. Which is interesting.
But we should be wondering at the cost of groceries at the very least.
You don’t think it’s dumb to say that housing prices currently are proportionate and make sense?