We Are Poorer than we were 100 Years Ago

[Fisher]

The welfare recipients don't even have to work! How about you deal with the majority of the population which is people who are working yet have accumulated no wealth?

I deal with them all the time. Doesn't change that running water and indoor plumbing are the pinnacle of human achievement. The iCrap we can do without.

 

[phattonez]

I deal with them all the time. Doesn't change that running water and indoor plumbing are the pinnacle of human achievement. The iCrap we can do without.

Yes, and these things were being developed at the time, no?

 

[FederalRepublic]

You tell me, do you foresee anytime in the near future being able to pay off said house?

Yeah. I do. I probably won't because the interest rate is ridiculously low though. I'm going to let the bankers eat the cost of inflation.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

"Here is a graph depicting the difference between you and your great-grandfather:

The top line shows how many years of living expenses your great-grandfather would have accumulated as a hard-working young man. The bottom line shows what you can save.

After working for five years, Great-gramps had seven years of living expenses in the bank. Doing the same things, you’d have less than two."

Why is it So Hard To Save Money Nowadays? The Problem With Thrift

Ummm, more people nowadays have money put away in retirement funds instead of in savings. It's not that it's harder to save (though that is certainly true since the Great Recession), it's that many people have other options other than savings.

 

[FederalRepublic]

They had to work less to get a good quality of life. The difference now is that you have to work hard just to break even. People in the past were working hard to get ahead.

My grandfather worked longer than daylight hours 6 days a week and most of the day on Sunday, pretty much every week of his life. I don't personally know anybody who does that now. He did have a fair bit saved, but I will likely be nearly 20 years ahead of him when I reach the financial point he was at when he died. Much sooner if I were anywhere near as frugal as he was...

 

[FederalRepublic]

Now you have re-framed the argument, to getting the best things of their time from,

They worked very hard, read more history, there was a phrase about work days
from that time frame, the work day was "from do see to don't see".
That does not sound like an 8 hour day to me.

We called it working from can to can't...

 

[phattonez]

Yeah. I do. I probably won't because the interest rate is ridiculously low though. I'm going to let the bankers eat the cost of inflation.

And do you think that your case is typical?

 

[Fisher]

Yes, and these things were being developed at the time, no?

I think they date in some fashion back to ancient times, but that does not mean that people had them 100 years ago.

 

[phattonez]

My grandfather worked longer than daylight hours 6 days a week and most of the day on Sunday, pretty much every week of his life. I don't personally know anybody who does that now. He did have a fair bit saved, but I will likely be nearly 20 years ahead of him when I reach the financial point he was at when he died. Much sooner if I were anywhere near as frugal as he was...

It was a lot easier for him to do that when half of his paycheck wasn't being taken.

 

[FederalRepublic]

And do you think that your case is typical?

I think most people could do what I've done. They don't, but it's not because they can't.

 

[FederalRepublic]

It was a lot easier for him to do that when half of his paycheck wasn't being taken.

I agree it would be much easier to get ahead financially if a bunch of ass-hats in Washington weren't forcibly taking my earnings and using them to enrich themselves, but my grandfather, and most people I know from his generation, could work me into the ground.

 

[head of joaquin]

It was a lot easier for him to do that when half of his paycheck wasn't being taken.

Yeah, and it was a lot easier to not take half his paycheck when the costs of business, like pollution and worker injuries, were externalized and unregulated, so that if he got cancer or lost an arm in an industrial accident, he'd have to pay for it himself (meaning he couldn't), not the company.

This debate is so clichéd and conservatives have already lost: regulation works and is more efficient. You're just pretending not to count the benefits of regulation, just the burdens. That's what conservative do best: pretend.

 

[phattonez]

I think most people could do what I've done. They don't, but it's not because they can't.

Frugality comes at a price. I know. I'm not in debt either, but I know people that are fairly responsible but still are in a ton of debt.

 

[phattonez]

I agree it would be much easier to get ahead financially if a bunch of ass-hats in Washington weren't forcibly taking my earnings and using them to enrich themselves, but my grandfather, and most people I know from his generation, could work me into the ground.

Heh, well probably. They probably thought the same of their ancestors who had to work from dawn to dusk just to grow enough food to survive.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

It was a lot easier for him to do that when half of his paycheck wasn't being taken.

Are you saying you'd rather have lived then, than now?

 

[phattonez]

Are you saying you'd rather have lived then, than now?

Probably not, but it was incredibly easier to accumulate wealth than it is now.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Probably not, but it was incredibly easier to accumulate wealth than it is now.

There was also a lot less to spend money on.

A LOT!

 

[phattonez]

There was also a lot less to spend money on.

A LOT!

And much less debt to keep you down.

 

[wbcoleman]

Thanks Obama!

Actually, while I'm at it, thanks Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover.

I could keep going, but these ones are all terrible. And most of all, thanks Wilson for giving us the income tax and central bank, you really screwed over this country royally with these.

Now for the proof:

"The next time you drive through an old part of town and see the grand old houses, remember that people were able to build and buy them because their paychecks weren’t stripped bare. There were no income taxes in 1905, no sales taxes, no state taxes, and not much in the way of property taxes.

There was also no such thing as a military-industrial complex in those days, and – miracle of miracles – the rest of the world survived!"

Money Issues in the US: Why Can't We Party Like It's 1905?

Oh, if only I could buy one of those Model T's and take my next vacation in one of those Wright Brothers planes!

 

[phattonez]

Oh, if only I could buy one of those Model T's and take my next vacation in one of those Wright Brothers planes!

If only you could take a plane trip today without maxing out your credit card.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

If only you could take a plane trip today without maxing out your credit card.

Hey, way to go! Yet another shining example of something you couldn't spend your money on back then. And there are many.

 

[274ina]

and you could OWN property in USA. Today ALL PROPERTY IS RENTED...............mortgage or property taxes, its all rent.
Miss one payment POOF 20 years of payments and the property is GONE.


Like I said. ALL property in USA is rented.

 

[phattonez]

Hey, way to go! Yet another shining example of something you couldn't spend your money on back then. And there are many.

People can't spend money on it today either. They pay for it with credit.

 

[Neomalthusian]

They lived within their means because they were able to. Today people are working hard and getting nowhere. Part of that is due to the near zero returns they get from their savings, but it's also due to them having to pay nearly half of their paychecks to the government. People in the past could work hard, save, and get ahead. That dream is now dead.

That is mostly agreeable, but living within one's means is not just something they did once they finally found themselves able to (i.e. when they finally get that certain income level they personally feel is prerequisite to saving). It's a choice, and a possibility, at all income levels.

The only thing that's harder about saving now is that our culture around money has changed from 100 years ago. We feel compelled to be less conservative with money.

I don't think it's voluntary. There is no longer a reward for saving money, and people have responded appropriately. The real question is, what happens when the pseudo economy fails?

The reward for saving money is that it accumulates, and short of significant inflation, you're always better off financially than before. I agree our monetary policies have made it less rewarding and attractive to save cash, but there are many stores of wealth out there. Accumulating wealth is a choice to live below one's means.

 

[phattonez]

That is mostly agreeable, but living within one's means is not just something they did once they finally found themselves able to (i.e. when they finally get that certain income level they personally feel is prerequisite to saving). It's a choice, and a possibility, at all income levels.

The only thing that's harder about saving now is that our culture around money has changed from 100 years ago. We feel compelled to be less conservative with money.

Why do we feel compelled? 1. Most of our income is taxed and we get tax breaks for taking out a mortgage.
2. Inflation seriously erodes the value of money, such that it is better to spend money now rather than later when it is worth less.
3. The return you get on a savings account is negligible.

The reward for saving money is that it accumulates, and short of significant inflation, you're always better off financially than before. I agree our monetary policies have made it less rewarding and attractive to save cash, but there are many stores of wealth out there. Accumulating wealth is a choice to live below one's means.

The rate you get for saving money is less than 1%. Even official measure of inflation have it higher than 1%.