• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Most Unequal Place In America

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
That is a pretty weak statement. If you want the same housing, healthcare, and energy that you would have gotten at the 50-year-ago cost (small apartment, shot-bandaid-pat-on-the-ass, no A/C, three lightbulb and AM radio house, car that blows its tires every 500 miles and its engine at 30,000), then I would argue that it would cost roughly the same now as it did then, inflation adjusted. But ignoring that the 3BR/2BA apartment with central A/C requiring electricity to run appliances and TVs (on all day), MRIs, CT scans, joint replacement, chemo, and cars that run for 100,000 miles without any major maintenance are of a completely different quality than what you are comparing them too from 50-years ago ignores a huge, and maybe most important, part of the comparative issue.
Click to expand...

You serious, Clark? Really? You are just dismissing out of hand that wages haven't kept up with cost of living?
 
WakeandBake said:
You serious, Clark? Really? You are just dismissing out of hand that wages haven't kept up with cost of living?
Click to expand...

He did not seem to be dismissing it out of hand but noting that the standard of living seems to have risen over that period as well.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
That is a pretty weak statement. If you want the same housing, healthcare, and energy that you would have gotten at the 50-year-ago cost (small apartment, shot-bandaid-pat-on-the-ass, no A/C, three lightbulb and AM radio house, car that blows its tires every 500 miles and its engine at 30,000), then I would argue that it would cost roughly the same now as it did then, inflation adjusted. But ignoring that the 3BR/2BA apartment with central A/C requiring electricity to run appliances and TVs (on all day), MRIs, CT scans, joint replacement, chemo, and cars that run for 100,000 miles without any major maintenance are of a completely different quality than what you are comparing them too from 50-years ago ignores a huge, and maybe most important, part of the comparative issue.
Click to expand...

BBD's argument was that relative prices haven't been cut in half for housing, healthcare, education, no? Seems like you agree with him.
 
not to mention food. hard to argue that the food people are buying today is more nutritious than the food they were buying 30 years ago. Just the opposite, most likely.

Also I don't think people are getting more housing for the money now then they were 30 years ago. In fact, around here plenty of poor people are living in 30 year old trailers. Housing costs keep going through the roof in urban areas, so poor people get pushed further and further away from jobs.
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
You serious, Clark? Really? You are just dismissing out of hand that wages haven't kept up with cost of living?
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define the "cost of living". What was the cost of an apartment with central A/C, two TVs, a cell phone, and a car with a 100,000 mile warranty 50 years ago? Have the low end wages kept up with the top end wages? Certainly not. But that has nothing to do with the "cost of living". Would you rather be living with income at the poverty line now or 50 years ago?
 
Deacon923 said:
not to mention food. hard to argue that the food people are buying today is more nutritious than the food they were buying 30 years ago. Just the opposite, most likely.

Also I don't think people are getting more housing for the money now then they were 30 years ago. In fact, around here plenty of poor people are living in 30 year old trailers. Housing costs keep going through the roof in urban areas, so poor people get pushed further and further away from jobs.
Click to expand...

Your first point is bullshit, as has been discussed ad nauseum on here. An apple costs less than fries. A pound of boneless, skinless chicken at Harris Teeter costs the same price as one single Big Mac. A Brita filter and the accompanying tap water costs exponentially less than a corresponding amount of soda. Just because people make unhealthy choices doesn't mean that healthy food costs more.

Sure, plenty of people live in 30 year old trailers now. But would you rather be living in that trailer now, or the Depression-era shack that the poor person was living in in 50 years ago? I'll take the functioning electricity, heat, plumbing and wifi, but maybe that's just me.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Your first point is bullshit, as has been discussed ad nauseum on here. An apple costs less than fries. A pound of boneless, skinless chicken at Harris Teeter costs the same price as one single Big Mac. A Brita filter and the accompanying tap water costs exponentially less than a corresponding amount of soda. Just because people make unhealthy choices doesn't mean that healthy food costs more.

Sure, plenty of people live in 30 year old trailers now. But would you rather be living in that trailer now, or the Depression-era shack that the poor person was living in in 50 years ago? I'll take the functioning electricity, heat, plumbing and wifi, but maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, your faux news bullshit perspective makes me sick. Your standard of living argument is a worthless straw man. Of course the standard of living is higher now, what does that have to do with anything? Poor americans also have it easier than poor kenyans or mongolians. So what? You're purposely failing to acknowledge the actual problem, which is the extreme difficulty that many, many people have in paying the bills for the modern american standard of life. Housing costs, utility costs, food costs have all risen faster and higher than minimum wage. It doesn't fucking matter if the standard of living has increased with technology if there is no viable cheaper alternative "spartan" lifestyle readily available for poor people. It's fucking dipshits that look at a picture of a decrepit trailer bedroom with a stained mattress with no sheets and point out the empty mcdonalds trash on the floor.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Your first point is bullshit, as has been discussed ad nauseum on here. An apple costs less than fries. A pound of boneless, skinless chicken at Harris Teeter costs the same price as one single Big Mac. A Brita filter and the accompanying tap water costs exponentially less than a corresponding amount of soda. Just because people make unhealthy choices doesn't mean that healthy food costs more.

Sure, plenty of people live in 30 year old trailers now. But would you rather be living in that trailer now, or the Depression-era shack that the poor person was living in in 50 years ago? I'll take the functioning electricity, heat, plumbing and wifi, but maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...

your first paragraph dodges the question. The issue is not whether fast food is cheaper than cooking at home. The question is whether food is more expensive now than it was 30 years ago. You claim it is not. You are unequivocally wrong. Have a look at this Congressional Research Service report which shows that the cost of food has increased an average of about 3% per year since 1983. Page 8 and 9. Meanwhile, wages over that period have remained flat or actually fallen. So, the same wages buy a lot less of that apple or chicken breast you mentioned. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40545.pdf

Now that we have disposed of your ignorance on that score, let's discuss the trailer with "functioning heat, electricity, plumbing, and wifi". All of those things cost money. You don't pay your power or water bill, all those things go away. When your paycheck hasn't kept up with inflation or you have no paycheck because you can't find a job, no money to pay the bill. It is very, very common for poor people to go weeks or months without power, heat, electricity, or running water.

It is also common for poor people to be able to afford only housing that is falling apart, uninsulated, water damaged, and infested with vermin. I just provided some pro bono help to a woman leasing a trailer with a hole in the floor of the living room, open to the outside air, big enough for her husband to fall through. I am not so sure that any of this is better than a depression era shack.

I don't think you know very much about the lives of poor people.
 
Pretty sure the article indicated that the family highlighted had a computer but no Internet. So probably no WiFi.

Poor choices matter, but are IMO a more difficult aspect to address. Though we ought to consider if/how to do try and do so if there are ways that would help.

Easier to do would seem some of the solutions proposed in the articles referenced. Adjusting minimum wage, a more progressive taxation, a more vigorous/effective education system, etc.
 
As PH said, everybody makes poor choices, and taxpayers subsidize shit tons of poor choices. Exxon gets to deduct all its costs for exploring a new oil field, even if it turns out that there's nothing there (i.e., they made a bad choice of targets). Rich people build million dollar homes on coastal barrier islands, and we all pay to rebuild their houses and infrastructure when a hurricane hits. Nobody rails on private industry or rich people for all the subsidized poor choices they make. Only poor people are told that their bad choices disqualify them from any help from society.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Depends on how you define the "cost of living". What was the cost of an apartment with central A/C, two TVs, a cell phone, and a car with a 100,000 mile warranty 50 years ago? Have the low end wages kept up with the top end wages? Certainly not. But that has nothing to do with the "cost of living". Would you rather be living with income at the poverty line now or 50 years ago?
Click to expand...

I define cost of living as food, healthcare, energy, housing, and education.
 
Deacon923 said:
your first paragraph dodges the question. The issue is not whether fast food is cheaper than cooking at home. The question is whether food is more expensive now than it was 30 years ago. You claim it is not. You are unequivocally wrong.
Click to expand...

Reading (of your own writing I may add) is apparently not your strong suit. I was responding to your post that says, and I quote "hard to argue that the food people are buying today is more nutritious than the food they were buying 30 years ago. Just the opposite, most likely." So please explain to me how my response, which addresses the nutritional aspects in direct response to your post, dodges the question.

No doubt the cost of food has gone up. But if people are spending more on food by buying less nutritious food, that does not mean that the cost of the nutritious food necessarily went up at the same rate.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Reading (of your own writing I may add) is apparently not your strong suit. I was responding to your post that says, and I quote "hard to argue that the food people are buying today is more nutritious than the food they were buying 30 years ago. Just the opposite, most likely." So please explain to me how my response, which addresses the nutritional aspects in direct response to your post, dodges the question.

No doubt the cost of food has gone up. But if people are spending more on food by buying less nutritious food, that does not mean that the cost of the nutritious food necessarily went up at the same rate.
Click to expand...

They are surviving by buying cheaper, less nutritious food, obviously. Try to keep up.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
The cost of fruits and vegetables has certainly increased at a higher rate than the minimum wage.
 
Deacon923 said:
As PH said, everybody makes poor choices, and taxpayers subsidize shit tons of poor choices. Exxon gets to deduct all its costs for exploring a new oil field, even if it turns out that there's nothing there (i.e., they made a bad choice of targets). Rich people build million dollar homes on coastal barrier islands, and we all pay to rebuild their houses and infrastructure when a hurricane hits. Nobody rails on private industry or rich people for all the subsidized poor choices they make. Only poor people are told that their bad choices disqualify them from any help from society.
Click to expand...



Maybe. I'm not arguing that poor choices should disqualify anyone from help. But it's worth considering, IMO, if any effort to help the poor might involve helping them to make better choices. For themselves. Maybe this fits in best with a more vigorous and effective educational system?

Anyhow, we (government/society) should probably endeavor to not subsidize or facilitate the destructive choices of anyone. To whatever extent such a thing is reasonably possible. I suspect all programs designed to help someone (individuals or corporations) end up with some kinds of unintended or undesirable consequences. Doesn't mean we should stop trying to help.
 
I've always thought that if we paid poor women more money if they agreed to a Norplant procedure it could kill two birds with one stone. Fewer childern born into poverty and more money going to those families that need it. They could choose to go off it anytime they wanted to have more children, but the checks would stop or be reduced as well.
 
Don't see that working so well. I mean, I'm all for reasonably incentivizing good choices where possible. But if the mom is still poor, not sure it makes any sense to cease support or lower support if/when she gets pregnant or delivers a baby.
 
Marietta Deac said:
I've always thought that if we paid poor women more money if they agreed to a Norplant procedure it could kill two birds with one stone. Fewer childern born into poverty and more money going to those families that need it. They could choose to go off it anytime they wanted to have more children, but the checks would stop or be reduced as well.
Click to expand...

social conservatives would scream bloody murder at taxpayer supported casual sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top