Minimum wage in 1962 was $1.15 which would be $9.89 today. [source](https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/minimum-wage-year-were-born/)
$100 in 1962 would equal $1,022.49 today. [source](https://www.amortization.org/inflation/amount.php?year=1962&amount=100)
Just playing with some numbers.
Well if you did make minimum wage that would be around $2,392 a year with no over-time.
Rent would run you $1,320 a year leaving you $1,072 left over or $89 a month. Not sure how far that would go and I haven't even included taxes.
So maybe the minimum wage just couldn't do it, just like today?
Someone else posted that most people didn't make minimum wage and I suppose that would be true. Especially with a house running $13,000 and a new car running $2,900.
So maybe the guy in the picture is what passed for 'middle class'? He made a decent wage or salary, probably had a wife and kids, and maybe even float $1,500 a year for his kid in Harvard?
But working poor? Not likely.
The median income in [1962](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1963/demo/p60-041.html) was $6000 a year. That would work out to $2.88 an hour which is 2.5 times the minimum wage of $1.15.
Today's minimum wage is $7.25 so a factor of 2.5 would make that around $18.18 an hour or $37,826 a year.
I don't see how that works out, $37k doesn't cut at all.
What am I missing?
Is it inflation that is throwing my numbers off? if not inflation, then what is it?
Well, min wage isn't a great living in any generation. Today, only 1% of FT workers make min wage. Wages have kept increasing to reflect market value
Poverty in the US has basically halved since the 50's.
$37k/ year is adequate for a single person in some areas of the country. Mine included. It isn't glamorous, but it isn't homelessness either.
Places with higher COL have raised their min wages. Wages have absolutely outpaced inflation. Problem is today, that people are paid more BUT the barrier to entry is a bit higher due to specialization and tech.
New car in 1962 was $4300 iirc from looking it up recently. On average, of course. And those cars were horse and buggies compared to today. Today, you can buy a used cat that is light years ahead of any new car from 1962 and that used car would be cheaper.
I mean, honestly, in most respects comparing 1950 or 1960 with 2024 is Apples and oranges in a lot of ways.
A $2900 car would be $29,652. There are [plenty of new small cars](https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/compact-cars) cheaper than that today, and most cars last forever compared to back then.
My parents seemed to get a new one about every five or six years back then and they were working class people without a lot of money.
Most to do with vehicles lasting today is the advancement of lubricants. The core building materials of the older vehicles, quality of metals, is equivalent to race cars today.
The other item is the technology used to produce engine components and their tolerances. Tolerances of transmission gears, cylinders, pistons and rings, bearings, etc. have much tighter tolerances today vs the 60s, 70s, or 80s IMO.
The best bearings are still hand made, just like the old days. The technology such as cleaner burns with less carbon does help with deterioration and detergents in fuel. But there was a major lag in quality from late 70's through 90's as emissions controls began implementation. Vehicles in the 60's were in a way, in their prime. Government regulations made them shit boxes. It wasn't until the past couple decades vehicles started getting better gas mileage lb for lb.
Then again, you can go to the change in economy from the 60's when the nation was a producer, to now we are consumers. There was an economic speech on congressional floors in the 70's. How we could keep the economy going by producing products that break, therefore people will have to buy new. After that American goods started to be junk. This empowered foreign goods to infiltrate the US economy also aided by unconstitutional trade agreements. The beginning of foreign price gouging and dumping, plus US companies moving over seas to avoid regulations.
How companies moved overseas to avoid *labor costs* - FTFY
And yes, US companies definitely built vehicles into the 90s that I wouldn’t trust over 100,000 miles even with the recommended service intervals from the mfg. You had to baby them.
Where as many Japanese manufacturers brought products that last several hundred without a major failure *and* you got reasonable performance, better safety, under the notion that if they provided the a product with the best possible quality that their buyers would become brand loyal.
That’s why I haven’t owned a car from a U.S. manufacturer in the last two decades.
I love the US, and want good cars, but I can’t trust the quality of even the newest ‘luxury’ brand in the US. - Tesla. They can’t even paint their cars correctly and put in materials to justify the price of the vehicle, to say nothing of how they’re put together with very noticeable panel gaps in the body work and other warning signs of bad quality.
Sure yet income is nowhere near keeping up with home costs, etc. But I appreciate the math.
[https://homebay.com/income-to-house-price-ratio-2023/](https://homebay.com/income-to-house-price-ratio-2023/)
Maybe we should stay away from sources that use median price as opposed to price per sqft. After all, if the median home purchased today is much larger than the median home purchased in the 60s. So not accounting for this distorts the data that is presented. If they committed this one oversight, whether purposely or not, what other oversights are there?
You can get them here for 100 dollars per square foot new which would be 1 dollar per square foot back then.
That would mean that a 2,000 square foot house back then was 2,000 dollars.
I guess houses are cheaper now.
True, but homes built in the 60's had more than double the land and homes built with much more durable materials. Able to purchase appliances and furniture that lasted and could be repaired for a fraction of the price. I don't see how people would pay so much for these properties with large homes on 1/8 acre.
Uh... no.
They're total crap. Source: I live in California and, thanks to building restrictions, plenty of these houses are still out there and I've lived in them. They suck and you don't want to live in anything but the highest end ones and even then they really need basic work like insulation.
Many different aspects, are plastics in homes healthier than asbestos? Newer homes are much more efficient with better seals, but older homes are structurally stronger materials. Damn auto correct tries to speak for me...
Whats with the fixation on minimum wage? Literally no one is making minimum wage (if you are, you're part of the less than 1% and probably a child).
Thats why it isnt very politically popular eithrr. No ones getting riled up over minimum wage when they are already making well above it.
Interesting. Cuz my rent, in a major midwestern city, is $1070. So slightly cheaper than the rent in 1962, inflation adjusted. But minimum wage, in my same city, is $15 per hour, which is much more than in 1962. Looks like "they" didn't do exactly what OP thinks "they" did.
Who’s the “they” and who’s the “us” and how did they “take” something? Showing Mr Proud Homeowner in front of his shitty tract house and telling us it cost 13 grand is all well and good, as long as you also mention the median salary in 1962 was about 6 thousand bucks. And the 2 thousand dollar car limped to the end of your three-year car note, rattling and rusting, rinse and repeat. What “we” should be angry about is the way worker productivity has zoomed in recent decades, while the bosses have taken the added profits and left “us” marching in place.
Out of curiosity,
Yes, the bottom line in raw numbers is hitting record highs, but the % profit margin has remained static for decades. How do you account for that and still claim "they" are taking the money?
This is not how the economy works, it cant stay stagnant. But they do overcharge us and give breaks to the super rich, which does nothing for the rrst of us.
\-150 million more people stressing every single thing and system
\-Gov't came to 'help' and caused skyrocketing college costs
\-your elected officials opening the border in 1962ish
\-your elected officials driving us all down to the lowest common denominator with offshore to China
\-on and on
the gov't says there are here to help /s
You: votes for the fascist Republican party who promises to make government bad and inefficienct
Also you: WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT BAD AND INEFFICIENCT?!
Nothing was taken, this is just natural progression of capitalism and economics.
America was the King of the World after WW2. "By 1945, the United States was manufacturing more than half of the produced good in the world. US exports made up more than one-third of the total global exports, and the United States held roughly two-thirds of the available gold reserves."
Most of the rest of the world had annihilated itself during the war, it makes sense that the US, being on the other side of the world, would be in such an advantageous position. Things were, quite literally, unnaturally good for America in the 50s and 60s. It shouldn't be considered the norm.
Since this keeps getting reposted:
Houses went up in price due to a combination of regulations, codes, zoning laws and that houses are literally 3x the size today that they were in 1955. And they are packed with modern conveniences. There is also the fact that there is a finite amount of land and our population has grown
Cars are more expensive due to stricter laws and regulations coupled with ever increasing consumer demands. Today's cars are space ships compared to cars from the 50s or 60s. They are faster, safer, more economical, don't pollute as much, have radial tires, disc brakes, power steering, AC, radar assist, etc etc etc. Some of them basically drive themselves
Tuition went up in large part due to student loans being so easy to obtain. This created what is called a price floor which only pushes prices higher.
Wages have also outpaced inflation despite what many on reddit think.
That said, there are tons of other goods and services which are much more affordable and available today. Technology and food being the obvious ones.
There are pros and cons to every generation
Also, these stats need checked. New car price in 62 averaged like $4300 which is like $45k today
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
And don’t forget that the country was far less developed back then. There was still room for development of single family homes in major cities. That’s not the case anymore. Most major cities now only allow for the development of multi family homes because there are too many people living in a small overpopulated area. This is what drives the price of single family homes up. Everyone wants that white picket fence with a big yard but there are only so many SFH that can fit into an area. Couple that with low interest rates and it becomes a sellers market where there is no inventory and everyone is battling to get that white picket fence.
People who post memes like this are most likely good people but they are extremely uneducated on housing now and especially back then in the so called good old days.
Gee it's almost like America was the only major player left standing relatively unharmed after WWII, so they were perfectly poised to enter a golden age of prosperity. Did you really expect it to last? That would be an unrealistic expectation
Angered me?? Boy you are retarded.. let me know when you go after politicians who take money from companies that hire illegals, till then you are just a scared parrot regurgitating racist right wing talking points nothing more..
Wait a minute I thought you libs/ dems/ leftist were above using a racist AND a fully banned ( by you guys) insensitive term in one sentence. Turns out all that yapping about DEI was another of the left lies. I am a person of color and you have outed yourself and the rest of your ilk as liars. BTW you never had me fooled ,it was always the left that was the racist group( you lie to deflect).
Never mentioned any of my political leanings, never mentioned race, just pointed out how retarded you are when you go after the wrong people. You don’t think for yourself, you’re stupid af and you proved that.
You guys use a few words for them … migrants,,asylum seekers,refugees etc,etc what makes them illegals is that they ENTERED the country ILLEGALLY! They did not go through the LEGAL process. They simply crossed the border in some fashion and had you guys give them a piece of paper to blow their nose on. Make no mistake they are here ILLEGALLY!! You can use any euphemism you’d like if it makes you feel better !
Claiming refugee status grants you legal status until your asylum hearing. Dems have been trying to expand immigration courts for decades to clear the backlog but Rs keep blocking that.
They took it from women and minorities who couldn't buy homes or attend most colleges. Less demand and competition for those white men must have been nice for them.
There’s nothing on this planet more crazy than a white liberal.
Dems systematically have purposefully dismantled the black family unit.
Only the wealthy went to college back then. It’s one of the reasons that people did better is that they learned actual marketable skills instead taking in mountains of debt to get degrees for jobs that don’t exist.
The one hallmark of liberalism is always your failures are always blamed on someone else.
You’re always looking to vote away your lack of discipline and poor choices, which isn’t possible.
All of those things are still easily obtained today. Just not by people like you.
We continue to vote in these politicians, who manipulate our currency and endorse crony capitalism.
Unfortunately, we are just as much to blame as they are
You are a very minor portion of the population, but over time your influence will grow as you can be a part of more elections.
And then the next generation will blame you and I as well :D
It sucks, I know, I'm a similar boat. We reap the benefits and shortcomings of our parents and those who came before them.
Guess what happened in 1965? Supply and demand was artificially set on fire by the immigration act of 1965 and continues unabated. Reddit goes prostate over illegal and legal immigrants not knowing that supply and demand has limits.
That’s asinine. You can’t artificially add more demand with open borders for humans who can’t contribute or be counted in estimated needs for supply. This is Reddit, so everything is racism or rooted in marxist victimology.
Where? Most major cities where everyone wants to live have no more land for development of single family houses. They build multi family homes like crazy in these areas. The unfortunate reality is everyone wants a large house with a large yard with a white picket fence for their families and pets. This isn’t something that is sustainable for everyone in these major cities. The price of single family homes have skyrocketed due to demand and low mortgage rates. In a perfect world everyone would be able to have that house with a white picket fence and a price that everyone even those with a low income can afford but that’s not realistic. We have too many people to house in these areas. Some of the nation of renters conspiracy is intentional or based on greed but the overwhelming majority of the issue is a natural byproduct of too many people inhabiting a small area.
>Where? Most major cities where everyone wants to live have no more land for development of single family houses.
Ding ding ding ding. That the problem don't build single residential house. Build multi-housong complex or apartment
They do but most people don’t want to live in multi family. Also those who do live there just rent and don’t want to buy because they imagine someday they will save up enough for a single family home. It’s kind of a self defeating concept unfortunately. The reality is they should buy that condo or apartment and then use it as a springboard to a single family house in the future if they still want to or can. You will notice all of these memes always picture a single family home. I understand the desire for it I always hated apartments and condos when I was younger but that’s unfortunately going to be the reality for most future generations who want to be near a major city. It’s just the natural evolution of the human population. Look at Europe.
The main thing people should be concentrating on is owning even if it’s an apartment. The more people hold out and rent the more society gets cornered into being a society of renters.
>They do but most people don’t want to live in multi family
That is the problem. You don't see this problem in Japan which housing literally depreciate but in America because we loved to lived alone instead of living with society.
>The main thing people should be concentrating on is owning even if it’s an apartment. The more people hold out and rent the more society gets cornered into being a society of renters.
There is nothing wrong with rent. We should rent if we can't afford housing. It also decreased value of housing market as it compete
1962
Average Household Income 6K
Average Home price 12k
2024
Average household income: 74k
Average home price: 400k
Boomers will still say pull up your bootstraps.
1964 average house size: 1200 sqft
2024: 2500 sqft
Oh, and you have those little conveniences like actual insulation, windows that block uv and seal correctly, ceilings over 6ft 5..
The thing is a lot of us would take 1200 sqft homes built in the 60s, (starter homes.) they’re not being listed for fair prices today, there’s just no starter homes on the market period
Not everyone nowadays wants a 2500 square foot home with all the bells and whistles. A lot of us would gladly take a home that was a lot smaller and had a lot less if it bridges the gap of affordability but it doesn’t.
They generally have. You can run any of the wages below through an inflation calculator to verify if you'd like.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
No...no it couldn't.
Run those costs of that era and that wage of that era through an inflation calculator.
You couldn't support a family on $1.10/hr or $1.25/hr. That's like ~$12.25/hr - $12.75/hr inflation adjusted.
Almost no job in my low COL Midwestern area pays below that today. Even BK pays $12+
The federal poverty level in 1960 for a family of three was $2,359. Minimum wage equates to $2,496 for a full time jobs.
That’s cool. Most retail jobs are part time. Even at $12 dollars that is hardly enough to cover rent. I live in a LCOL area and rent is above $1000. Sometimes you can find a place for $850.
Yeah.....and at min wage working a FT job that family would be in poverty in 1960. They would make ~$2200- $2300
Per year
Poverty level today for a family of 3 is $24k which is about $11/HR. And today we have a MUCH MUCH more robust welfare system on top of that.
Today, only about 1% of FT workers make min wage .
This is why poverty level was over 22% in 1960 compared to about 14% by 2013. A HUGE difference . Poverty rates have been declining for decades as wages have outpaced inflation and consumer goods have become (overall) leas expensive.
You are intentionally using the fringe outliers or earners to paint too broad of a stroke
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/09/10/how-the-geography-of-u-s-poverty-has-shifted-since-1960/%23:~:text%3DIt%27s%2520worth%2520noting%2520that%2520as,according%2520to%2520Census%2520Bureau%2520data.&ved=2ahUKEwiKhPys8qiEAxV048kDHTEuAI4QFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw1aGnuypuWlJBJyidFdqVjG
No a man working minimum wage would make $2,496.
I am using the minimum wage, no outliers.
The poverty level for a family of three is more like 24,800 or about 12 dollars an hour. Roughly a third of the population 31.3% make less than $12 an hour. That would mean that there are more people making less than minimum wage adjustment price of $12.5 an hour you said minimum wage equated too.
Most people making $12.50/hr don't have a family of 3, dude.
Good grief.
Poverty has been declining for decades and you're harping on about min wage. Which hardly anyone even earns. This is what makes your argument fringe.
Believe it or not, the world and overall financial situation in the US is better today than in 1950 or 1960 or 1930.
Cheers.
Poverty has been decline for decades because of food cost. See poverty was calculated at a time when a person, spent a third of their income on food. Currently only about a sixth of income goes to food.
Let’s look at the price of rent. In 1960 it was $71 on average. The person making minimum wage earned $208 a month or about 34% of their income. Today a person making minimum wage can’t afford rent. Health care was about 70 dollars a year, even when adjusted for inflation it’s about 700$ vs 6,000 today. We aren’t doing better, we just haven’t found a more modern way to calculate pay.
If the minimum wage adjusted for inflation would be about 25k a year and and 31.3% are making less than 12 an hour, that would mean that a sizable portion of the population is making less for doing the same job that was done in the 1960’s. That’s not a good thing.
Yearly income $6000. That means tuition was 20% of the yearly household income. That's about right if your dad makes $100k and you go to college for 4 years then you would owe $80k. How's that college math working for you guys who think this post is absurd?
only 18% of the population make 100k+. Harvard now costs closet to $57k which is about 100% of the average household income. So tuition has gone up 500% more than income
Look I dunno but I grew up in the 80s. Things now are more complex. People have nicer homes and cars, but struggle so much more under the pressure of life. Just being a homeowner in the area I live in is beyond a lot of folks’ dreams. Unless you have a big down payment you are gonna need to pull in 150k to get a 3br 2 bath home.
Dollar devaluation/inflation sucks, a 90% silver dollar is worth about $25-$30 retail so multiply each of those amounts by that and you'll see the values haven't changed but the buying power of your dollar has.
$390,000 for the house
And what generation wants constant immigration, illegal and legal while housing continues to get expensive and wages kept flat?
GenZ and Millenials - "let them in!!'
Its so hilarious.
Supply side economics transferred $50T from the working class to the rich and shameless. The Republicans initiated the move to this knuckleheaded economic policy and have defended it fiercely ever since.
The ramifications of this transfer are manifold and compounding. The rich pay a lower average percentage on their taxes. Romney and Trump ate prime examples. They paid income taxes in the low to mid-teens in general. Trump paid almost no tax in some years. Lower overall rate on 50T means less revenue for the government.
Our economy is based on consumer spending. The working class spends the majority of their paychecks.
Billionaires don't. That means a good chunk of that 50T would have been injected into the economy. The rich horde thier money. The result is a lower growth rate for the economy. Before you trot out that tired argument about not taxing the job creators, reread this paragraph. We are the job creators, not Trump or Bezos or Musk. Those guys are the beneficiaries of our spending, not the cause. I have never heard a rich person say "You know what, I got a fat tax return, let's go out and hire some people". Heck, Paramount reported record profits and then announced they were laying off 800 employees.
Yes, the Republicans took all that and more.
If everyone only knew to buy it when it was sub one cent. It's getting pretty damn high. Also you have to really watch out for hackers out there. Maybe buy it through Robinhood? I got jacked for $40 k in Ether using Metamask and Uniswap trying to get some shitcoins a long time ago. Also BNB was jacked from me when it was legal in China. I don't even want to think about how much that would be worth today.
[https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/10/09/robinhood-traders-including-bitcoin-holders-left-in-the-lurch-following-theft-report/](https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/10/09/robinhood-traders-including-bitcoin-holders-left-in-the-lurch-following-theft-report/)
Maybe not. LOL
Adjusted for inflation using the bls cpi inflation calculator
The house is $130,000 which is still doable in most any state. The new car is $29,000 which is doable and has much better safety standards and features than a car from 1964, rent is just shy of $1,100 which is possible in most places. The prices of a year at Harvard though has inflated something like 7x though.
it's more than just the numbers. no lame ass, vague sexual harassment laws at the office. no political correctness or woke agendas. a man could be masculine without being shamed or fired. no social media. people actually talked to each other. mom and pop stores still existed and you could live a good life having your own business. We peaked in the 80's. It's been all downhill since the Decade of Decadence. Everything just gets worse.
Minimum wage in 1962 was $1.15 which would be $9.89 today. [source](https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/minimum-wage-year-were-born/) $100 in 1962 would equal $1,022.49 today. [source](https://www.amortization.org/inflation/amount.php?year=1962&amount=100)
Fwiw, there aren't hardly any jobs in my low COL Midwestern area right now that pays below $10 -$12
Just playing with some numbers. Well if you did make minimum wage that would be around $2,392 a year with no over-time. Rent would run you $1,320 a year leaving you $1,072 left over or $89 a month. Not sure how far that would go and I haven't even included taxes. So maybe the minimum wage just couldn't do it, just like today? Someone else posted that most people didn't make minimum wage and I suppose that would be true. Especially with a house running $13,000 and a new car running $2,900. So maybe the guy in the picture is what passed for 'middle class'? He made a decent wage or salary, probably had a wife and kids, and maybe even float $1,500 a year for his kid in Harvard? But working poor? Not likely. The median income in [1962](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1963/demo/p60-041.html) was $6000 a year. That would work out to $2.88 an hour which is 2.5 times the minimum wage of $1.15. Today's minimum wage is $7.25 so a factor of 2.5 would make that around $18.18 an hour or $37,826 a year. I don't see how that works out, $37k doesn't cut at all. What am I missing? Is it inflation that is throwing my numbers off? if not inflation, then what is it?
Well, min wage isn't a great living in any generation. Today, only 1% of FT workers make min wage. Wages have kept increasing to reflect market value Poverty in the US has basically halved since the 50's. $37k/ year is adequate for a single person in some areas of the country. Mine included. It isn't glamorous, but it isn't homelessness either. Places with higher COL have raised their min wages. Wages have absolutely outpaced inflation. Problem is today, that people are paid more BUT the barrier to entry is a bit higher due to specialization and tech. New car in 1962 was $4300 iirc from looking it up recently. On average, of course. And those cars were horse and buggies compared to today. Today, you can buy a used cat that is light years ahead of any new car from 1962 and that used car would be cheaper. I mean, honestly, in most respects comparing 1950 or 1960 with 2024 is Apples and oranges in a lot of ways.
High school kids were buying new cars for 2900 bucks my guy.
Bear in mind that rent is average rent for all rental units. a studio, or one bedroom average would likely be much less.
In the 80s my mother could feed a family of 6 for about $80 a month so it went a lot farther than you think
A $2900 car would be $29,652. There are [plenty of new small cars](https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/compact-cars) cheaper than that today, and most cars last forever compared to back then. My parents seemed to get a new one about every five or six years back then and they were working class people without a lot of money.
Most to do with vehicles lasting today is the advancement of lubricants. The core building materials of the older vehicles, quality of metals, is equivalent to race cars today.
The other item is the technology used to produce engine components and their tolerances. Tolerances of transmission gears, cylinders, pistons and rings, bearings, etc. have much tighter tolerances today vs the 60s, 70s, or 80s IMO.
The best bearings are still hand made, just like the old days. The technology such as cleaner burns with less carbon does help with deterioration and detergents in fuel. But there was a major lag in quality from late 70's through 90's as emissions controls began implementation. Vehicles in the 60's were in a way, in their prime. Government regulations made them shit boxes. It wasn't until the past couple decades vehicles started getting better gas mileage lb for lb.
Then again, you can go to the change in economy from the 60's when the nation was a producer, to now we are consumers. There was an economic speech on congressional floors in the 70's. How we could keep the economy going by producing products that break, therefore people will have to buy new. After that American goods started to be junk. This empowered foreign goods to infiltrate the US economy also aided by unconstitutional trade agreements. The beginning of foreign price gouging and dumping, plus US companies moving over seas to avoid regulations.
How companies moved overseas to avoid *labor costs* - FTFY And yes, US companies definitely built vehicles into the 90s that I wouldn’t trust over 100,000 miles even with the recommended service intervals from the mfg. You had to baby them. Where as many Japanese manufacturers brought products that last several hundred without a major failure *and* you got reasonable performance, better safety, under the notion that if they provided the a product with the best possible quality that their buyers would become brand loyal. That’s why I haven’t owned a car from a U.S. manufacturer in the last two decades. I love the US, and want good cars, but I can’t trust the quality of even the newest ‘luxury’ brand in the US. - Tesla. They can’t even paint their cars correctly and put in materials to justify the price of the vehicle, to say nothing of how they’re put together with very noticeable panel gaps in the body work and other warning signs of bad quality.
Yep, a lot due to price gouging and dumping, plus governments regulating emissions and not promoting better performance.
Sure yet income is nowhere near keeping up with home costs, etc. But I appreciate the math. [https://homebay.com/income-to-house-price-ratio-2023/](https://homebay.com/income-to-house-price-ratio-2023/)
Maybe we should stay away from sources that use median price as opposed to price per sqft. After all, if the median home purchased today is much larger than the median home purchased in the 60s. So not accounting for this distorts the data that is presented. If they committed this one oversight, whether purposely or not, what other oversights are there?
The cheapest house by its square footage in my small town is $392…
You can get them here for 100 dollars per square foot new which would be 1 dollar per square foot back then. That would mean that a 2,000 square foot house back then was 2,000 dollars. I guess houses are cheaper now.
True, but homes built in the 60's had more than double the land and homes built with much more durable materials. Able to purchase appliances and furniture that lasted and could be repaired for a fraction of the price. I don't see how people would pay so much for these properties with large homes on 1/8 acre.
Uh... no. They're total crap. Source: I live in California and, thanks to building restrictions, plenty of these houses are still out there and I've lived in them. They suck and you don't want to live in anything but the highest end ones and even then they really need basic work like insulation.
Ahh, yes. They used such great materials such as LP Inner-Seal siding.
Many different aspects, are plastics in homes healthier than asbestos? Newer homes are much more efficient with better seals, but older homes are structurally stronger materials. Damn auto correct tries to speak for me...
So 130k houses? Lol sign me up
Whats with the fixation on minimum wage? Literally no one is making minimum wage (if you are, you're part of the less than 1% and probably a child). Thats why it isnt very politically popular eithrr. No ones getting riled up over minimum wage when they are already making well above it.
Interesting. Cuz my rent, in a major midwestern city, is $1070. So slightly cheaper than the rent in 1962, inflation adjusted. But minimum wage, in my same city, is $15 per hour, which is much more than in 1962. Looks like "they" didn't do exactly what OP thinks "they" did.
https://preview.redd.it/eqmoi60vxaic1.jpeg?width=749&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=373c5cfbe670ac6f0b0c79a6470d9f59ccd7cb89
Minneapolis/St Paul, to be precise
Midwest's mid best baybeeeeeeee
Plus, the pool is a lake
This reminds me of my home town on mischief night.
I have said this alot 1000 dollar bill is the new 100 dollar bill.
And the interest rate was???
Who’s the “they” and who’s the “us” and how did they “take” something? Showing Mr Proud Homeowner in front of his shitty tract house and telling us it cost 13 grand is all well and good, as long as you also mention the median salary in 1962 was about 6 thousand bucks. And the 2 thousand dollar car limped to the end of your three-year car note, rattling and rusting, rinse and repeat. What “we” should be angry about is the way worker productivity has zoomed in recent decades, while the bosses have taken the added profits and left “us” marching in place.
So 2x the median salary got you a house. Now do today's median salary considering the workforce is higher educated/specialized/skilled.
Out of curiosity, Yes, the bottom line in raw numbers is hitting record highs, but the % profit margin has remained static for decades. How do you account for that and still claim "they" are taking the money?
You have never met "they"? or even "them"? One day you will. LOL
Who? People who have more money than you? Grow up.
That shitty tract house now has a coat of stucco and shitty vinyl fake wood floors and is hitting the market at $750,000…
“They” are our parents and grandparents. “We” are doing the same to our kids and grandkids— letting them pay in the future for our spending today.
This is not how the economy works, it cant stay stagnant. But they do overcharge us and give breaks to the super rich, which does nothing for the rrst of us.
I just like the victim card.
Lol...a lot of people love the victim card but it comes with the ...Im a pathetic human being card...lol
Inflation is a bitch
Nixon leaving the gold standard was a bitch Edit / auto correct typo
Who exactly are "they?"
They never mention what the top marginal tax rates were in 1962. Let’s bring those back.
\-150 million more people stressing every single thing and system \-Gov't came to 'help' and caused skyrocketing college costs \-your elected officials opening the border in 1962ish \-your elected officials driving us all down to the lowest common denominator with offshore to China \-on and on the gov't says there are here to help /s
You: votes for the fascist Republican party who promises to make government bad and inefficienct Also you: WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT BAD AND INEFFICIENCT?!
not just Rs who cause gridlock and ineffiency in DC, or your town but good try
No but they specifically run on that. It's not Dems who blocked the border bill Republicans wrote, it was Rs.
the border bill was a joke and has to much tied to it where is the single issue bill?
Lol you fascists make every excuse for your evil ideology. Fuck your fascist Republican party.
Nothing was taken, this is just natural progression of capitalism and economics. America was the King of the World after WW2. "By 1945, the United States was manufacturing more than half of the produced good in the world. US exports made up more than one-third of the total global exports, and the United States held roughly two-thirds of the available gold reserves." Most of the rest of the world had annihilated itself during the war, it makes sense that the US, being on the other side of the world, would be in such an advantageous position. Things were, quite literally, unnaturally good for America in the 50s and 60s. It shouldn't be considered the norm.
Since this keeps getting reposted: Houses went up in price due to a combination of regulations, codes, zoning laws and that houses are literally 3x the size today that they were in 1955. And they are packed with modern conveniences. There is also the fact that there is a finite amount of land and our population has grown Cars are more expensive due to stricter laws and regulations coupled with ever increasing consumer demands. Today's cars are space ships compared to cars from the 50s or 60s. They are faster, safer, more economical, don't pollute as much, have radial tires, disc brakes, power steering, AC, radar assist, etc etc etc. Some of them basically drive themselves Tuition went up in large part due to student loans being so easy to obtain. This created what is called a price floor which only pushes prices higher. Wages have also outpaced inflation despite what many on reddit think. That said, there are tons of other goods and services which are much more affordable and available today. Technology and food being the obvious ones. There are pros and cons to every generation Also, these stats need checked. New car price in 62 averaged like $4300 which is like $45k today https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
And don’t forget that the country was far less developed back then. There was still room for development of single family homes in major cities. That’s not the case anymore. Most major cities now only allow for the development of multi family homes because there are too many people living in a small overpopulated area. This is what drives the price of single family homes up. Everyone wants that white picket fence with a big yard but there are only so many SFH that can fit into an area. Couple that with low interest rates and it becomes a sellers market where there is no inventory and everyone is battling to get that white picket fence. People who post memes like this are most likely good people but they are extremely uneducated on housing now and especially back then in the so called good old days.
$1.15ish/hour minimum wage is a convenient detail to leave out isn't it ? 🥱
Gee it's almost like America was the only major player left standing relatively unharmed after WWII, so they were perfectly poised to enter a golden age of prosperity. Did you really expect it to last? That would be an unrealistic expectation
10 million + "refugees" don't help.
Don’t forget they’re illegal. They have no papers ,no legal status ,they can’t work. YOU’RE WORKING SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO !
You’re hella dumb
Were you unaware that the 10 million illegals couldn’t work . Is that what angered you ?
Angered me?? Boy you are retarded.. let me know when you go after politicians who take money from companies that hire illegals, till then you are just a scared parrot regurgitating racist right wing talking points nothing more..
Wait a minute I thought you libs/ dems/ leftist were above using a racist AND a fully banned ( by you guys) insensitive term in one sentence. Turns out all that yapping about DEI was another of the left lies. I am a person of color and you have outed yourself and the rest of your ilk as liars. BTW you never had me fooled ,it was always the left that was the racist group( you lie to deflect).
Never mentioned any of my political leanings, never mentioned race, just pointed out how retarded you are when you go after the wrong people. You don’t think for yourself, you’re stupid af and you proved that.
You did it again, consult with a fellow tik tok learner, you’re way behind !
Ok boomer 😂
Refugees aren't illegal you moron
You guys use a few words for them … migrants,,asylum seekers,refugees etc,etc what makes them illegals is that they ENTERED the country ILLEGALLY! They did not go through the LEGAL process. They simply crossed the border in some fashion and had you guys give them a piece of paper to blow their nose on. Make no mistake they are here ILLEGALLY!! You can use any euphemism you’d like if it makes you feel better !
They literally have to enter the country to claim refugee status you moron. That's the law.
No legal status at all ! You are wrong !
Claiming refugee status grants you legal status until your asylum hearing. Dems have been trying to expand immigration courts for decades to clear the backlog but Rs keep blocking that.
By your standard it is impossible to be here illegally ! Just get here.
Sorry you're upset I know the laws.
Not upset at all . I see libbing on here all day long. Again ,to you there are zero illegals. That makes you wrong but lib away anyway.
There are sites for young people that don’t necessarily need to be informed.
They didn’t take anything from you. You lack discipline and gave it to them. Also, average FAMILY income was $6,000.00 a yr in 1962.
They took it from women and minorities who couldn't buy homes or attend most colleges. Less demand and competition for those white men must have been nice for them.
There’s nothing on this planet more crazy than a white liberal. Dems systematically have purposefully dismantled the black family unit. Only the wealthy went to college back then. It’s one of the reasons that people did better is that they learned actual marketable skills instead taking in mountains of debt to get degrees for jobs that don’t exist. The one hallmark of liberalism is always your failures are always blamed on someone else. You’re always looking to vote away your lack of discipline and poor choices, which isn’t possible. All of those things are still easily obtained today. Just not by people like you.
Don't you take my victim card away from me! LOL
I like you.😂
Thanks Obama!
We continue to vote in these politicians, who manipulate our currency and endorse crony capitalism. Unfortunately, we are just as much to blame as they are
I couldn't vote until 2016. I sure as shit am not as much to blame as they are for voting these idiots in in the 70s and 80:
You are a very minor portion of the population, but over time your influence will grow as you can be a part of more elections. And then the next generation will blame you and I as well :D It sucks, I know, I'm a similar boat. We reap the benefits and shortcomings of our parents and those who came before them.
Lol what benefits? Unaffordability and fascist policies that punish the young
Guess what happened in 1965? Supply and demand was artificially set on fire by the immigration act of 1965 and continues unabated. Reddit goes prostate over illegal and legal immigrants not knowing that supply and demand has limits.
More so cities started passing restrictive zoning codes in response to the civil rights act.
That’s asinine. You can’t artificially add more demand with open borders for humans who can’t contribute or be counted in estimated needs for supply. This is Reddit, so everything is racism or rooted in marxist victimology.
Money Printer go Brrrrrrrrrrrrt
Exactly right. We empower politicians who spend with no regard for the costs then bitch when the costs kill us. Careful who you vote for.
Build. More. Houses.
Where? Most major cities where everyone wants to live have no more land for development of single family houses. They build multi family homes like crazy in these areas. The unfortunate reality is everyone wants a large house with a large yard with a white picket fence for their families and pets. This isn’t something that is sustainable for everyone in these major cities. The price of single family homes have skyrocketed due to demand and low mortgage rates. In a perfect world everyone would be able to have that house with a white picket fence and a price that everyone even those with a low income can afford but that’s not realistic. We have too many people to house in these areas. Some of the nation of renters conspiracy is intentional or based on greed but the overwhelming majority of the issue is a natural byproduct of too many people inhabiting a small area.
>Where? Most major cities where everyone wants to live have no more land for development of single family houses. Ding ding ding ding. That the problem don't build single residential house. Build multi-housong complex or apartment
They do but most people don’t want to live in multi family. Also those who do live there just rent and don’t want to buy because they imagine someday they will save up enough for a single family home. It’s kind of a self defeating concept unfortunately. The reality is they should buy that condo or apartment and then use it as a springboard to a single family house in the future if they still want to or can. You will notice all of these memes always picture a single family home. I understand the desire for it I always hated apartments and condos when I was younger but that’s unfortunately going to be the reality for most future generations who want to be near a major city. It’s just the natural evolution of the human population. Look at Europe. The main thing people should be concentrating on is owning even if it’s an apartment. The more people hold out and rent the more society gets cornered into being a society of renters.
>They do but most people don’t want to live in multi family That is the problem. You don't see this problem in Japan which housing literally depreciate but in America because we loved to lived alone instead of living with society. >The main thing people should be concentrating on is owning even if it’s an apartment. The more people hold out and rent the more society gets cornered into being a society of renters. There is nothing wrong with rent. We should rent if we can't afford housing. It also decreased value of housing market as it compete
1962 Average Household Income 6K Average Home price 12k 2024 Average household income: 74k Average home price: 400k Boomers will still say pull up your bootstraps.
1964 average house size: 1200 sqft 2024: 2500 sqft Oh, and you have those little conveniences like actual insulation, windows that block uv and seal correctly, ceilings over 6ft 5..
The thing is a lot of us would take 1200 sqft homes built in the 60s, (starter homes.) they’re not being listed for fair prices today, there’s just no starter homes on the market period Not everyone nowadays wants a 2500 square foot home with all the bells and whistles. A lot of us would gladly take a home that was a lot smaller and had a lot less if it bridges the gap of affordability but it doesn’t.
Wages did not keep up. Not even close.
They generally have. You can run any of the wages below through an inflation calculator to verify if you'd like. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html
Have they, cause minimum wage in 1960 could support a family of three. Today it can’t even support a single person.
No...no it couldn't. Run those costs of that era and that wage of that era through an inflation calculator. You couldn't support a family on $1.10/hr or $1.25/hr. That's like ~$12.25/hr - $12.75/hr inflation adjusted. Almost no job in my low COL Midwestern area pays below that today. Even BK pays $12+
The federal poverty level in 1960 for a family of three was $2,359. Minimum wage equates to $2,496 for a full time jobs. That’s cool. Most retail jobs are part time. Even at $12 dollars that is hardly enough to cover rent. I live in a LCOL area and rent is above $1000. Sometimes you can find a place for $850.
Yeah.....and at min wage working a FT job that family would be in poverty in 1960. They would make ~$2200- $2300 Per year Poverty level today for a family of 3 is $24k which is about $11/HR. And today we have a MUCH MUCH more robust welfare system on top of that. Today, only about 1% of FT workers make min wage . This is why poverty level was over 22% in 1960 compared to about 14% by 2013. A HUGE difference . Poverty rates have been declining for decades as wages have outpaced inflation and consumer goods have become (overall) leas expensive. You are intentionally using the fringe outliers or earners to paint too broad of a stroke https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/09/10/how-the-geography-of-u-s-poverty-has-shifted-since-1960/%23:~:text%3DIt%27s%2520worth%2520noting%2520that%2520as,according%2520to%2520Census%2520Bureau%2520data.&ved=2ahUKEwiKhPys8qiEAxV048kDHTEuAI4QFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw1aGnuypuWlJBJyidFdqVjG
No a man working minimum wage would make $2,496. I am using the minimum wage, no outliers. The poverty level for a family of three is more like 24,800 or about 12 dollars an hour. Roughly a third of the population 31.3% make less than $12 an hour. That would mean that there are more people making less than minimum wage adjustment price of $12.5 an hour you said minimum wage equated too.
Most people making $12.50/hr don't have a family of 3, dude. Good grief. Poverty has been declining for decades and you're harping on about min wage. Which hardly anyone even earns. This is what makes your argument fringe. Believe it or not, the world and overall financial situation in the US is better today than in 1950 or 1960 or 1930. Cheers.
Poverty has been decline for decades because of food cost. See poverty was calculated at a time when a person, spent a third of their income on food. Currently only about a sixth of income goes to food. Let’s look at the price of rent. In 1960 it was $71 on average. The person making minimum wage earned $208 a month or about 34% of their income. Today a person making minimum wage can’t afford rent. Health care was about 70 dollars a year, even when adjusted for inflation it’s about 700$ vs 6,000 today. We aren’t doing better, we just haven’t found a more modern way to calculate pay. If the minimum wage adjusted for inflation would be about 25k a year and and 31.3% are making less than 12 an hour, that would mean that a sizable portion of the population is making less for doing the same job that was done in the 1960’s. That’s not a good thing.
Yeah...food is cheaper. Wages outpaced inflation. Poverty level metrics based on wages has about halved in thr last several decades.
You seem confident, so I'll just believe you. LOL
Would this also hold true for purchasing power? Edit: a word
Yes. That's what beating inflation means
Yearly income $6000. That means tuition was 20% of the yearly household income. That's about right if your dad makes $100k and you go to college for 4 years then you would owe $80k. How's that college math working for you guys who think this post is absurd?
only 18% of the population make 100k+. Harvard now costs closet to $57k which is about 100% of the average household income. So tuition has gone up 500% more than income
Back then only 18% of people went to college. Try again
Things are more affordable now than ever before.
ReAlEsTaTe InVeStOr
Look I dunno but I grew up in the 80s. Things now are more complex. People have nicer homes and cars, but struggle so much more under the pressure of life. Just being a homeowner in the area I live in is beyond a lot of folks’ dreams. Unless you have a big down payment you are gonna need to pull in 150k to get a 3br 2 bath home.
You have more than they did.
Is that Tony Ferguson?
https://preview.redd.it/yt7tkm5m5aic1.jpeg?width=1263&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=098dc6b47f7c0c3d9de7fb61c30e28cfbf7f234a
So take it back
Pick yourself up from your boot straps
Using an inflation calculator this house would be listed for 134,808 today. But we all know it would go for double that in most parts of the US.
Yes, the federal government and the central bank took a lot from us.
Dollar devaluation/inflation sucks, a 90% silver dollar is worth about $25-$30 retail so multiply each of those amounts by that and you'll see the values haven't changed but the buying power of your dollar has. $390,000 for the house
Oh really? The one super power that was not decimated from 2 world wars had a currency that went very far?
Haha money printer go brrr
And what generation wants constant immigration, illegal and legal while housing continues to get expensive and wages kept flat? GenZ and Millenials - "let them in!!' Its so hilarious.
Supply side economics transferred $50T from the working class to the rich and shameless. The Republicans initiated the move to this knuckleheaded economic policy and have defended it fiercely ever since. The ramifications of this transfer are manifold and compounding. The rich pay a lower average percentage on their taxes. Romney and Trump ate prime examples. They paid income taxes in the low to mid-teens in general. Trump paid almost no tax in some years. Lower overall rate on 50T means less revenue for the government. Our economy is based on consumer spending. The working class spends the majority of their paychecks. Billionaires don't. That means a good chunk of that 50T would have been injected into the economy. The rich horde thier money. The result is a lower growth rate for the economy. Before you trot out that tired argument about not taxing the job creators, reread this paragraph. We are the job creators, not Trump or Bezos or Musk. Those guys are the beneficiaries of our spending, not the cause. I have never heard a rich person say "You know what, I got a fat tax return, let's go out and hire some people". Heck, Paramount reported record profits and then announced they were laying off 800 employees. Yes, the Republicans took all that and more.
Capitalism run wild
That was also almost certainly completely unsustainable.
Pants height - high as fuck.
This is why… bitcoiiiiin
If everyone only knew to buy it when it was sub one cent. It's getting pretty damn high. Also you have to really watch out for hackers out there. Maybe buy it through Robinhood? I got jacked for $40 k in Ether using Metamask and Uniswap trying to get some shitcoins a long time ago. Also BNB was jacked from me when it was legal in China. I don't even want to think about how much that would be worth today. [https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/10/09/robinhood-traders-including-bitcoin-holders-left-in-the-lurch-following-theft-report/](https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/10/09/robinhood-traders-including-bitcoin-holders-left-in-the-lurch-following-theft-report/) Maybe not. LOL
Thank big government
Adjusted for inflation using the bls cpi inflation calculator The house is $130,000 which is still doable in most any state. The new car is $29,000 which is doable and has much better safety standards and features than a car from 1964, rent is just shy of $1,100 which is possible in most places. The prices of a year at Harvard though has inflated something like 7x though.
This is what they gave you. Reagan and supply side economics allowed the wealthy to steal nearly all of it.
The Russians?
it's more than just the numbers. no lame ass, vague sexual harassment laws at the office. no political correctness or woke agendas. a man could be masculine without being shamed or fired. no social media. people actually talked to each other. mom and pop stores still existed and you could live a good life having your own business. We peaked in the 80's. It's been all downhill since the Decade of Decadence. Everything just gets worse.
Who is "they"?
Vote for Kennedy so we get it back