"Living standards"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:45:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  "Living standards"
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "Living standards"  (Read 1492 times)
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 23, 2009, 08:53:34 PM »

When people say things like "Since the 1970's, the living standards of the middle class have decreased by x%", what does that really mean? Is there some widely accepted way to determine living standards, such as wages vs. cpi, or does it vary based on who you're asking?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2009, 09:13:50 PM »

It varies based on who you're asking. Conservatives will focus more on household appliances, since they are more prevalent for any given income (particularly lower incomes) since the 1990s than the 1970s. But this ignores the ways that technology makes things cheaper. Those that argue that costs of living have increased, like Elizabeth Warren, will focus on things such as education, health and housing costs. But none of these things have a widely accepted quantitative measure of well-being.

When people give a particular percentage they are probably talking about real median income or real average income. They may also be talking about average wages. A strong argument can be made that much of the wage growth since the 1970s was due to women entering the workforce. If you just look at men, there was hardly any growth.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2009, 10:46:36 PM »

It varies based on who you're asking. Conservatives will focus more on household appliances, since they are more prevalent for any given income (particularly lower incomes) since the 1990s than the 1970s. But this ignores the ways that technology makes things cheaper. Those that argue that costs of living have increased, like Elizabeth Warren, will focus on things such as education, health and housing costs. But none of these things have a widely accepted quantitative measure of well-being.

When people give a particular percentage they are probably talking about real median income or real average income. They may also be talking about average wages. A strong argument can be made that much of the wage growth since the 1970s was due to women entering the workforce. If you just look at men, there was hardly any growth.

The ultimate dumbass conservative comment is to rhetorically ask "How many people had a gigaflops computer in 1968?"
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2009, 05:35:30 AM »

While 'standard of living' does have some 'objective' criteria it can best be understood (both overall and particularly in its political meaning) as a relative concept.  One may have more cheap junk in ones hovel in 2009 than in 1969, but ones position relative to the owner is very much more oppressed.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2009, 06:20:22 AM »

Right, it doesn't matter if you have more stuff, more food and more things to do with your increased free time if the balance power (or whatever label you want to throw at it) has shifted the "wrong" way to any degree then the poors are being exploited even worse.

It's no wonder some people always seem angry.
Logged
Mint
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,566
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2009, 08:26:01 AM »
« Edited: February 24, 2009, 08:29:40 AM by Mint »

Right, it doesn't matter if you have more stuff, more food and more things to do with your increased free time if the balance power (or whatever label you want to throw at it) has shifted the "wrong" way to any degree then the poors are being exploited even worse.

It's no wonder some people always seem angry.
Besides what Beet said regarding healthcare, tuition, housing, etc. it's pretty obvious that food is more expensive now. If you go to the store the price of things like milk has been on an upswing the last 2-3 years, particularly as Ethanol becomes more prominent. Couple that with a corporate culture that discourages most people from working "just" 40 hours a week and gives minimal vacation time, and it's no wonder that people feel over worked and pissed off. Obviously I probably disagree with a good chunk of the 'remedies' proposed by leftists for that but I don't think anyone can deny that quality of life has declined lately.
Logged
Jacobtm
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,216


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2009, 10:13:47 AM »
« Edited: February 24, 2009, 10:18:14 AM by Jacobtm »

Opebo/deadman:

So hypothetically if food, healthcare, entertainment, transport etc. are all available to a greater proportion of people at a lower cost now than in the past, but the rich/elite have consolidated more power than in the past, you would argue that living standards have decreased? Or are these things just products of political power, only attainable through the masses exercising relatively more power than the elite?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2009, 11:04:09 AM »

Opebo/deadman:

So hypothetically if food, healthcare, entertainment, transport etc. are all available to a greater proportion of people at a lower cost now than in the past, but the rich/elite have consolidated more power than in the past, you would argue that living standards have decreased?
No, living standards have increased, of course.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No, for the most part the things are better due to the Free Market.  Part of that is about "the masses" having more (purchasing) power than the elite.  Part of it is about "the elites" spending way to much money on crap they want or need and over time, us regular folk getting to enjoy their spoils.

Yes yes, we're all "slaves" to the "man".  If being a slave means DVRs, large HDTVs, modern PCs w/ broadband, a grocery store with more food options than any sane human could want and all the other awesome things life in 2009 brings us.  It sure beats picking cotton or playing human shield on the front lines.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2009, 11:13:25 AM »

Right, it doesn't matter if you have more stuff, more food and more things to do with your increased free time if the balance power (or whatever label you want to throw at it) has shifted the "wrong" way to any degree then the poors are being exploited even worse.

It's no wonder some people always seem angry.
Besides what Beet said regarding healthcare, tuition, housing, etc. it's pretty obvious that food is more expensive now. If you go to the store the price of things like milk has been on an upswing the last 2-3 years, particularly as Ethanol becomes more prominent. Couple that with a corporate culture that discourages most people from working "just" 40 hours a week and gives minimal vacation time, and it's no wonder that people feel over worked and pissed off. Obviously I probably disagree with a good chunk of the 'remedies' proposed by leftists for that but I don't think anyone can deny that quality of life has declined lately.
I don't think either of our anecdotes wins this round.  You got a cite that we spend more on food now than we have in the past?  (and when I say "the past", I don't mean 4 years ago.  Yes food prices have gone up a lot in the last couple of years..and they've dropped back down some recently too.  I suspect, although my Google Fu is weak today, that food prices were historically low before the recent increases.  Hopefully you or somebody else will have better luck looking for a legit cite either way.)
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2009, 12:37:30 PM »

It means we are trying to explain a completely subjective standard of judgement by mathematico-economic mysticism, sorry, "science" as to make it appear to be "objective" and thus "must be true".
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2009, 04:38:43 PM »

Yes yes, we're all "slaves" to the "man".  If being a slave means DVRs, large HDTVs, modern PCs w/ broadband, a grocery store with more food options than any sane human could want and all the other awesome things life in 2009 brings us.  It sure beats picking cotton or playing human shield on the front lines.

Lots of people can't afford those things, and lots more can't afford health care, housing, or transportation.  Also it is worth noting that there is virtually nothing in an American grocery store that I would want.

Capitalism dos NOT provide for the lower classes, deadman - why would it?  What reason is there for it to do that?  The odd thing is it also tends to reduce choice and quality (re: your grocery store example).
Logged
Four49
Rookie
**
Posts: 197
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2009, 10:24:32 PM »


When the cost of food goes up 5% and I get a 3% pay increase, my living standards are dwindling.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2009, 03:26:58 AM »

Yes yes, we're all "slaves" to the "man".  If being a slave means DVRs, large HDTVs, modern PCs w/ broadband, a grocery store with more food options than any sane human could want and all the other awesome things life in 2009 brings us.  It sure beats picking cotton or playing human shield on the front lines.

Lots of people can't afford those things, and lots more can't afford health care, housing, or transportation.
Define "lots".

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Why should it?  If it's a better system for the top 90%, a wash for the next 5% and a worse system* for the bottom 5%, isn't that better than a system that is the exact opposite?  The idea of slowing society's advance down just to make sure the bottom rung on the latter is well taken care of is insane to me.


*I don't actually buy that.  I think everybody does better in a capitalist based economy.  Feel free to plug in your own numbers though.
Logged
Four49
Rookie
**
Posts: 197
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2009, 04:20:30 AM »

Yes yes, we're all "slaves" to the "man".  If being a slave means DVRs, large HDTVs, modern PCs w/ broadband, a grocery store with more food options than any sane human could want and all the other awesome things life in 2009 brings us.  It sure beats picking cotton or playing human shield on the front lines.

Lots of people can't afford those things, and lots more can't afford health care, housing, or transportation.
Define "lots".

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Why should it?  If it's a better system for the top 90%, a wash for the next 5% and a worse system* for the bottom 5%, isn't that better than a system that is the exact opposite?  The idea of slowing society's advance down just to make sure the bottom rung on the latter is well taken care of is insane to me.


*I don't actually buy that.  I think everybody does better in a capitalist based economy.  Feel free to plug in your own numbers though.

How does capitalism reduce choice and quality?  If a company rises to become a monopoly, perhaps they'd stop giving a sh**t and just force us to keep doling out cash for their sh**tty product (Microsoft comes to mind), but at least other companies (Apple) or ideas (Linux) will have an opportunity to step in.   

If the state controls any or all industry, what hopes do the people have of a better option?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2009, 04:28:21 AM »

Are you asking me?  I don't think capitalism does reduce choice or quality.  In fact, the opposite tends to be true.
Logged
Four49
Rookie
**
Posts: 197
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2009, 04:32:28 AM »

Are you asking me?  I don't think capitalism does reduce choice or quality.  In fact, the opposite tends to be true.

No, I was actually backing you up on that one.  People can say what they want about the evils of capitalism, and they do exist, but they pale in comparison to the alternatives.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2009, 04:54:53 AM »

Right.  It's not the perfect system, it's just way better than anything else anybody has ever thought of.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2009, 11:39:55 AM »

Right.  It's not the perfect system, it's just way better than anything else anybody has ever thought of.

     Agreed. Same is true of democracy.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 12 queries.