• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We Are Poorer than we were 100 Years Ago

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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?
 
"Here is a graph depicting the difference between you and your great-grandfather:

Thrift-article-P-rosenberg.png


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
 
We also have a much higher quality of life.
 
Modern plumbing, air conditioning, cars, computers, college assistance...
 
But we have a black president, welfare and "free" health care (that's only free for unemployed people).

Your entire argument is invalid.
 
"Here is a graph depicting the difference between you and your great-grandfather:

Thrift-article-P-rosenberg.png


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




The biggest difference that I see between myself and my great-grand-parents is that all of them have been dead and buried for a long time and I am still alive and enjoying my life.

Guess what? I wouldn't want to trade places with them.
 
Modern plumbing, air conditioning, cars, computers, college assistance...

Yeah, we're so much richer. That's why our savings rate is so high. Right? Right?

fredgraph.png
 
The biggest difference that I see between myself and my great-grand-parents is that all of them have been dead and buried for a long time and I am still alive and enjoying my life.

Guess what? I wouldn't want to trade places with them.

Guess what? You're going to be dead eventually. And guess what. You're going to die poorer than they were and leave a burden of debt to your children. Congratulations!
 
We also have a much higher quality of life.

Do we? They lived in bigger houses. They had to work less to get to a comfortable quality of life. I'm pretty sure that people today are working like dogs just to break even.
 
But we have a black president, welfare and "free" health care (that's only free for unemployed people).

Your entire argument is invalid.

Being unemployed doesn't mean you can get free medicaid.
 
Yeah, we're so much richer. That's why our savings rate is so high. Right? Right?

fredgraph.png

Add in the deflation adjusted cost (that is, what computers, air conditioning, modern healthcare, etc. would have cost from 2013 in 1905 dollars) and how much would grandpa have been able to save? Grandpa didn't have to run plumbing in his house, nor wires for electricity, didn't have modern insulation...also didn't have to commute 30+ miles to work, etc. etc. etc.

You're not really comparing apples to apples.
 
Guess what? You're going to be dead eventually. And guess what. You're going to die poorer than they were and leave a burden of debt to your children. Congratulations!




Maybe you are going to die poorer than your great-grand-parents and leave a burden of debt for your children.

You know nothing about me. You are just running your mouth.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Last edited:
Add in the deflation adjusted cost (that is, what computers, air conditioning, modern healthcare, etc. would have cost from 2013 in 1905 dollars) and how much would grandpa have been able to save? Grandpa didn't have to run plumbing in his house, nor wires for electricity, didn't have modern insulation...also didn't have to commute 30+ miles to work, etc. etc. etc.

You're not really comparing apples to apples.

It seems to me that he would have been able to easily afford it considering that he was saving about half of his income instead of today's situation where people:

1) pay half of their income to the government in various taxes.
2) live in much smaller, cramped housing units
3) work 40+ hours per week and just barely break even.
 
Maybe you are going to die poorer than your great-grand-parents.

You know nothing about me. You are just running your mouth.

I'm speaking in general. I know nothing about you, personally, but I am talking about the situation for most everyone.
 
I'm speaking in general. I know nothing about you, personally, but I am talking about the situation for most everyone.




Maybe you are most everyone.

I am not.

I am an individual and that's the way that I look at others - as individuals.

I don't lump everyone into a homogeneous mass with no individuality
 
Last edited:
"Until 1913, ordinary people kept their money. Carpenters, grocers, and repair men were able to make business loans and to retire on stock dividends. Once the income tax came in, however, politicians were empowered to skim off more and more of their money, which is precisely what happened. While the modern skim is multi-faceted, the average producer is now stripped of half his or her earnings every year, leaving politicians to spend it."

1913: The Blow That Killed America 100 Years Ago

Thus, instead of people being able to retire on safe investments, they are forced to take much riskier bets that they are ill-prepared to take. Think about it. You're not going to earn much investing in mutual funds. That's going to get you at most about 5% per year, and I'm being generous, and that gets taxed. No, instead people have to learn and use more exotic financial instruments with much greater risk. Not only that, but people have the crushing debt accumulated from simple things like going to school, getting a car, and getting a house. These things will never be paid off if we are honest with ourselves.

No, the system is corrupt to the core. Politicians take most of our money and we have to be grateful for a tax cut here and there. It's nonsense. The great cities of the US were built before government was taxing us at about 50%. In the modern US of high taxes, we instead have cities that are rotting: see Detroit, the rust belt.
 
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?
If you'd like to trade driving, modern media, a better understanding of the universe, and DP for a life expectancy of 47, and boredom and isolation I won't judge. :]
 
If you'd like to trade driving, modern media, a better understanding of the universe, and DP for dying in a shoe factory, and a life expectancy 47, I won't judge. :]

Dying in a shoe factory: evidence of how common this is? Oh that's right, it's a myth with absolutely no basis in reality.

Is it just a coincidence that life expectancy was rising most during this era, as opposed to now where it's basically tapered off?

And again, why are people still ignoring the fact that unskilled labor had it pretty good during this time as opposed to know where even with working and spending very little you're probably losing money every month. It's a sick game that we've created for the unskilled; is it any surprise that most of them are unemployed?
 
Dying in a shoe factory: evidence of how common this is? Oh that's right, it's a myth with absolutely no basis in reality.
LOL, that's why I edited that out. Please refer to my edited comment for comprehension.

Is it just a coincidence that life expectancy was rising most during this era, as opposed to now where it's basically tapered off?
Rising? I would rather be expected to live 78 years than live 47 years.
And again, why are people still ignoring the fact that unskilled labor had it pretty good during this time as opposed to know where even with working and spending very little you're probably losing money every month. It's a sick game that we've created for the unskilled; is it any surprise that most of them are unemployed?
This what happens when skilled labor comes along. If you would rather have the technology of 1905 than the tech we have now be my guest.
 
LOL, that's why I edited that out. Please refer to my edited comment for comprehension.

How convenient.

Rising? I would rather be expected to live 78 years than live 47 years.

You misunderstand. The rate of change of life expectancy is a better indicator of the health of an economy than the actual life expectancy. Why? Because the actual number depends on advancements made many years ago. That is, we are reaping the benefits of the discoveries made in the past. The rate of change, however, tells us about the advancements that are being made today. Are we improving life expectancy significantly? No, not really. Therefore, I'd say that the economy back then was much healthier than it is today. This further proves my point that if we had stayed with the low tax low regulation situation of the past that we would be much wealthier and healthier today. Today, we are killing ourselves with stress and working much harder than our forebearers, and for what? We are barely scraping by.

This what happens when skilled labor comes along. If you would rather have the technology of 1905 than the tech we have now be my guest.

Again you miss the point. The technology that we have now is the result of many years past. We have to consider comparable goods. What percentage of our after-tax income goes to living expenses? Nearly 100%. In the past, just 50%! There's the rub.
 
This comment in the first article that I linked to really sums it up.

"Well said. Especially the part about homes. If you've ever seen the magnificent Victorian homes that line the streets of San Francisco, ask yourself roughly what it would cost to build such a home today. Undoubtedly a small fortune, if you could even find a craftsman to do it properly (they didn't cnc routers back then either). Then realize that many of these homes were built or purchased by fishermen, midshipmen and dock workers. Who also saved half of their incomes. This scenario seems an impossibility by today's standards, yet back then it was commonplace. This is a great context for understanding how much wealth and quality of life has been lost to the machinations of big government."
 
How convenient.
Everybody makes mistakes and then edits them. x]


You misunderstand. The rate of change of life expectancy is a better indicator of the health of an economy than the actual life expectancy. Why? Because the actual number depends on advancements made many years ago. That is, we are reaping the benefits of the discoveries made in the past. The rate of change, however, tells us about the advancements that are being made today. Are we improving life expectancy significantly? No, not really. Therefore, I'd say that the economy back then was much healthier than it is today. This further proves my point that if we had stayed with the low tax low regulation situation of the past that we would be much wealthier and healthier today. Today, we are killing ourselves with stress and working much harder than our forebearers, and for what? We are barely scraping by.
No, you misunderstood. I'm being black and white about and saying I would rather be expected to live until 78 than anything less than that. I appreciate the better understanding society has about the universe than in the past. Plain and simple.


Again you miss the point. The technology that we have now is the result of many years past. We have to consider comparable goods.
So what?
What percentage of our after-tax income goes to living expenses? Nearly 100%. In the past, just 50%! There's the rub.
There's the free market in action.
 
No, you misunderstood. I'm being black and white about and saying I would rather be expected to live until 78 than anything less than that. I appreciate the better understanding society has about the universe than in the past. Plain and simple.

We're not arguing about whether certain things are improved. Obviously they are. However, I'm making the point of quality of life. This is only one factor in quality of life. You're still not addressing working hours, ability to save, etc.

So what?
There's the free market in action.

Exactly how in the world do you consider higher taxes to be the FREE MARKET in action! Are you kidding?!
 
We're not arguing about whether certain things are improved. Obviously they are. However, I'm making the point of quality of life. This is only one factor in quality of life. You're still not addressing working hours, ability to save, etc.
I'm arguing we have a better quality of life now in the ways I laid out.
And actually, on we average, we have about a 40 hour work week today. In 1905 we had, on average, a 60 hour work week.

How convenient.
Everybody makes mistakes and then edits them. x]


You misunderstand. The rate of change of life expectancy is a better indicator of the health of an economy than the actual life expectancy. Why? Because the actual number depends on advancements made many years ago. That is, we are reaping the benefits of the discoveries made in the past. The rate of change, however, tells us about the advancements that are being made today. Are we improving life expectancy significantly? No, not really. Therefore, I'd say that the economy back then was much healthier than it is today. This further proves my point that if we had stayed with the low tax low regulation situation of the past that we would be much wealthier and healthier today. Today, we are killing ourselves with stress and working much harder than our forebearers, and for what? We are barely scraping by.
No, you misunderstood. I'm being black and white about and saying I would rather be expected to live until 78 than anything less than that. I appreciate the better understanding society has about the universe than in the past. Plain and simple.


Again you miss the point. The technology that we have now is the result of many years past. We have to consider comparable goods.
So what?
[/QUOTE] Exactly how in the world do you consider higher taxes to be the FREE MARKET in action! Are you kidding?![/QUOTE]
Here's what I was responding to.
What percentage of our after-tax income goes to living expenses? Nearly 100%. In the past, just 50%! There's the rub.
After tax income isn't spent on taxes. The free market is mostly responsible for determining the price of goods, not the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom