We Are Poorer than we were 100 Years Ago

[phattonez]

So what? You can't take it with you anyway. :shrug:

So it's not sustainable. You think that this system can go on perpetually?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

So it's not sustainable. You think that this system can go on perpetually?

Well now you are talking about government debt. That's a completely different topic.

 

[phattonez]

Well now you are talking about government debt. That's a completely different topic.

I was talking more about personal debt and a consumption culture that doesn't produce much wealth.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

I was talking more about personal debt and a consumption culture that doesn't produce much wealth.

You are mistaken. This country produces an enormous amount of wealth. Perhaps more than any other country; and GDP is over $15t annually.

 

[beerftw]

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?

pooroer now that 100 years ago is quite a stretch.

today people whine about minimumwage,but peoplenow on minumum wage lived better than middle income 100 years ago.100 years ago it was common to see women and children working in factories for ungodly hours to barely afford to eat,or a man working a farm for 2-5 dollars a week,barely affording food and rent.


using houses as an example is a bad example.back then most didnt monitor forests like today,so someone who owned land could go almost any direction and chop down wood and build their own house.but whats not considered is the fact to survive the entire family had to work,buying an eating rabbit was around2-4 dollars,almost an entire weeks pay.,so many families ate potatos,other grains,or hunted on federal landback then to survive.

 

[phattonez]

You are mistaken. This country produces an enormous amount of wealth. Perhaps more than any other country; and GDP is over $15t annually.

So the richer we get, the more indebted we are? Odd state of affairs, don't you think?

 

[phattonez]

pooroer now that 100 years ago is quite a stretch.

today people whine about minimumwage,but peoplenow on minumum wage lived better than middle income 100 years ago.100 years ago it was common to see women and children working in factories for ungodly hours to barely afford to eat,or a man working a farm for 2-5 dollars a week,barely affording food and rent.


using houses as an example is a bad example.back then most didnt monitor forests like today,so someone who owned land could go almost any direction and chop down wood and build their own house.but whats not considered is the fact to survive the entire family had to work,buying an eating rabbit was around2-4 dollars,almost an entire weeks pay.,so many families ate potatos,other grains,or hunted on federal landback then to survive.

Other differences: much lower unemployment. Rates lower than 5% were the norm. And no one was in debt. Today 3/5ths of all Americans (wish I could find this graphic again) spend more money than they take in.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Other differences: much lower unemployment. Rates lower than 5% were the norm. And no one was in debt. Today 3/5ths of all Americans (wish I could find this graphic again) spend more money than they take in.

So what? without credit, only the wealthiest could afford the finer things in life. Now, so can others. I see that as a benefit, not a negative.

 

[phattonez]

So what? without credit, only the wealthiest could afford the finer things in life. Now, so can others. I see that as a benefit, not a negative.

It's a positive only as long as it works. We are seeing the fruits of this system now. The old are not able to retire because they have no savings, and the young start off life with a ton of debt that they will never be able to pay. There is no practical method in the future for most people to be able to retire. That dream is going to die, and quickly.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

It's a positive only as long as it works. We are seeing the fruits of this system now. The old are not able to retire because they have no savings, and the young start off life with a ton of debt that they will never be able to pay. There is no practical method in the future for most people to be able to retire. That dream is going to die, and quickly.

Between retirement plans and social security, most seniors can retire. There was a time during 2008 and 2009 when it was more difficult for many of them to retire since retirement plans like 401K's and other investments took a big hit, but those investments have since recovered. The system is working.

 

[phattonez]

Between retirement plans and social security, most seniors can retire. There was a time during 2008 and 2009 when it was more difficult for many of them to retire since retirement plans like 401K's and other investments took a big hit, but those investments have since recovered. The system is working.

Not so! Here is the employed population aged 65-74.

Here's to retirement!

 

[phattonez]

Here is the real damning graph. Employed population age 65-74 divided by total population aged 65+.

/endthread

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Not so! Here is the employed population aged 65-74.

Here's to retirement!

That is largely due to the increase in population of seniors as baby boomers are beginning to hit retirement age as well as the increase to longevity.

And how many people retired 100 years ago? Most people didn't live long enough to reach an age to retire. Life expectancy back then was around 50.

 

[phattonez]

That is largely due to the increase in population of seniors as baby boomers are beginning to hit retirement age as well as the increase to longevity.

And how many people retired 100 years ago? Most people didn't live long enough to reach an age to retire. Life expectancy back then was around 50.

As I showed in the next graph, you're wrong. The employment rate among those aged 65+ is up 50% over the past decade.

 

[phattonez]

Here is the real damning graph. Employed population age 65-74 divided by total population aged 65+.

/endthread

I see, so no one wants to respond to this? Does anyone still want to try to claim that we are richer than we were at least 30 years ago?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

I see, so no one wants to respond to this? Does anyone still want to try to claim that we are richer than we were at least 30 years ago?

I'm not saying we are richer ... I am saying we live a far better, and long, life; and that costs more.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I see, so no one wants to respond to this? Does anyone still want to try to claim that we are richer than we were at least 30 years ago?

Define richer

On the whole I believe the net worth of the US (all sectors is higher then it was 30 years ago, even adjusting for inflation. Are certain segments of the population poorer, with a lower net worth then 30 years ago, sure. Two economic bubbles which caused a lot of people to invest poorly and loss trillions of dollars in investments. Other segments of the population are far richer (a smaller % of the population certainly). For the middle class this is generally self inflicted, through consumer spending that was not needed, and racking up of consumer debt. They did not need a new Iphone every year, or to have three cars in the family. They were and are entirely personal decisions that lead to having a low savings rate.


Are more old people working, certainly, this was or at least should have been expected after the internet bubble and housing bubble collapsed, their savings most likely would have taken large hits in both. Leading many to work longer, because they can not retire

 

[phattonez]

I'm not saying we are richer ... I am saying we live a far better, and long, life; and that costs more.

Yeah, we're doing so much better that we now have to work for more years. Right? That makes NO sense.

 

[phattonez]

Define richer

On the whole I believe the net worth of the US (all sectors is higher then it was 30 years ago, even adjusting for inflation. Are certain segments of the population poorer, with a lower net worth then 30 years ago, sure. Two economic bubbles which caused a lot of people to invest poorly and loss trillions of dollars in investments. Other segments of the population are far richer (a smaller % of the population certainly). For the middle class this is generally self inflicted, through consumer spending that was not needed, and racking up of consumer debt. They did not need a new Iphone every year, or to have three cars in the family. They were and are entirely personal decisions that lead to having a low savings rate.


Are more old people working, certainly, this was or at least should have been expected after the internet bubble and housing bubble collapsed, their savings most likely would have taken large hits in both. Leading many to work longer, because they can not retire

I don't blame people entirely. With the awful returns that they get on their savings, it makes sense to instead go into debt instead (especially since the debt will be easier to pay back in the future with wages that keep pace with inflation). This is what happens when the reward for savings is diminished. This is a program that has been state sponsored for decades.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Yeah, we're doing so much better that we now have to work for more years. Right? That makes NO sense.

You think dying at 50 years of age before you can enjoy retirement is better? These days, we outlive the age of retirement. That doesn't mean everyone retires when they are eligible, but it also doesn't mean they necessarily continue working because they have to.

 

[phattonez]

You think dying at 50 years of age before you can enjoy retirement is better?

No, but what I think is better is being able to save money and actually retire rather than today where you hope for a company retirement plan or social security to provide for you (pipe dream).

These days, we outlive the age of retirement. That doesn't mean everyone retires when they are eligible, but it also doesn't mean they necessarily continue working because they have to.

Oh really? Then tell me, why are 50% more people of retirement age working now than 10 years ago? A 50% increase!

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

No, but what I think is better is being able to save money and actually retire rather than today where you hope for a company retirement plan or social security to provide for you (pipe dream).

That may be better for you but it's not necessarily better for everyone. A lot of people prefer to borrow the money needed to buy a new car, or a house, or to pay for college. They don't have to do those things -- but they want to.

Oh really? Then tell me, why are 50% more people of retirement age working now than 10 years ago? A 50% increase!

Some because they have to; some because they want to.

 

[phattonez]

That may be better for you but it's not necessarily better for everyone. A lot of people prefer to borrow the money needed to buy a new car, or a house, or to pay for college. They don't have to do those things -- but they want to.

So people like not being able to retire? People like that the return on their savings is so abysmal?

Some because they have to; some because they want to.

You're going to tell me that there's been a significant change in the population in the past 15 years such that now 50% more people feel like working past retirement age? That's quite a stretch.

 

[beerftw]

Other differences: much lower unemployment. Rates lower than 5% were the norm. And no one was in debt. Today 3/5ths of all Americans (wish I could find this graphic again) spend more money than they take in.

we are more in debt now than ever,but in all relity we are better off than ever,a better example for your case would have been the 50's and 60's,when people could pay a house or car,pay it off relatively fast due to how much cheaper it was to income earned,and live fairly debt free after.rather you pointed to a time when someone had to save for 3 years straight to afford a horse,then hope and pray it didnt die before he could afford another.

 

[phattonez]

we are more in debt now than ever,but in all relity we are better off than ever,a better example for your case would have been the 50's and 60's,when people could pay a house or car,pay it off relatively fast due to how much cheaper it was to income earned,and live fairly debt free after.rather you pointed to a time when someone had to save for 3 years straight to afford a horse,then hope and pray it didnt die before he could afford another.

But even if he did die, he could easily pass it on to his children. You can't really do that today with the estate tax, and also considering the fact that most today die not owning the homes that they live in.