Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » We'e WW2 Veteran factory workers really able to buy houses?
  1. Results 1 to 30 of 95
  2. Page 1 of 4
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  7. Last

Thread: We'e WW2 Veteran factory workers really able to buy houses?

post 1569537291 12-25-2018, 06:33 PM
-
#1
  1. MikeLowrrrey
  1. MikeLowrrrey
  3. Join Date: Jul 2018
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 35,133
  6. Subscribers: 2
  7. Rep Power: 120067

We'e WW2 Veteran factory workers really able to buy houses?

Always wondered this. 1 guy could work a decent job and afford a house for his family.

What happened? How come we can't do this anymore?
post 1569537491 12-25-2018, 06:35 PM
-
#2
  1. HMFIC_BROWSIN
  2. Buy high, sell higher.
  1. HMFIC_BROWSIN
  2. Buy high, sell higher.
  3. Join Date: Feb 2009
  4. Location: Arizona, United States
  5. Posts: 73,524
  6. Rep Power: 348838
Because banks made it culturally normal to spend 30 years paying for a house. So loans basically. Same reason college is insanely expensive.
post 1569537651 12-25-2018, 06:37 PM
-
#3
  1. MikeLowrrrey
  1. MikeLowrrrey
  3. Join Date: Jul 2018
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 35,133
  6. Subscribers: 2
  7. Rep Power: 120067
Originally Posted By HMFIC_BROWSIN⏩
Because banks made it culturally normal to spend 30 years paying for a house. So loans basically. Same reason college is insanely expensive.
How old were these guys coming from the war? It seemed easy even at their age, whereas today it isn't. You graduate college at 22 with college debt and little to no savings for a house. Your job always doesn't pay that well to start off.
post 1569538361 12-25-2018, 06:47 PM
-
#4
  1. Peacening
  2. dadbod on lock
  1. Peacening
  2. dadbod on lock
  3. Join Date: Feb 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 10,814
  6. Rep Power: 90739
There were lots of govt programs making homes more affordable at the time but yes min wage peaked in the 60's iirc it was the equivalent to something like $20/hour now but goods and services were far cheaper then. Factory workers probably made above min wage too.

We could get back there if:
-unions came back
-manufacturing jobs came back
-rich people and corporations actually started paying their fair share of taxes

We won't get there because:
-unions won't come back
-manufacturing jobs won't come back, in fact automation and AI is going to reduce the current job market by approximately twelve million percent
-rich people and corporations will continue to pay less while taking more and more from tax payers until crony capitalism is no longer
HTC
Proud Dad crew
6'4" height of the gods
post 1569538811 12-25-2018, 06:53 PM
-
#5
  1. aleeboy
  2. It's over for you
  1. aleeboy
  2. It's over for you
  3. Join Date: Dec 2008
  4. Posts: 23,424
  5. Rep Power: 87439
They absolutely were able to do this.

I think the older end of Gen X were the last segment of people with affordable housing and education - the two big debt buckets for young adults.

Now you need a massive low interest loan with a double income household. And have to survive the job market. Just LOL if one person gets fired and neither are on 200K+ and have a 1.5M house.
"The manlet is a savage beast that knows no moral bound. After falling in disgrace to a manmore, a ravaged manlet would not hesitate to come from behind and land a sucker punch/ swing with a rock to the back of a manmore's head. They are ruthless and you need to spend some more time in the gutter to even begin trying to comprehend what goes on in their minds."

Hurt by the aleeboy and need to cope? Go here for hugs: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178724011
post 1569538831 12-25-2018, 06:53 PM
-
#6
  1. KyleAaron
  2. husband, father, trainer
  1. KyleAaron
  2. husband, father, trainer
  3. Join Date: Jun 2009
  4. Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. Posts: 10,042
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By MikeLowrrrey⏩
Always wondered this. 1 guy could work a decent job and afford a house for his family.

What happened? How come we can't do this anymore?
Everything else got cheaper. A TV used to be 4+ months of the average wage, now it's a few days. Food was about a quarter of household spending, now it's a tenth. A Sydney to London flight in 1947 was a year's average wages, now it's a week. And so on. Everything else got cheaper, so people were able to bid more for housing.

This plus low interest rates, of course; you can afford to borrow more, so you do. $500k at 5% has the same interest payments as $250k at 10%, and people tend to look at the minimum repayments vs their income rather than the total money they'll end up paying the bank.

Education is another matter. In Australia in 1966 there were 90,000 university students with 12 million people, now there are 1.4 million students with 24 million people. Basically you can have a free education for a few people or an expensive education for a lot of people. Much of the West has chosen the latter, you need a degree to be a bank teller, apparently.
post 1569539111 12-25-2018, 06:57 PM
-
#7
  1. SconeBulker
  2. Registered User
  1. SconeBulker
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2015
  4. Age: 45
  5. Posts: 535
  6. Rep Power: 121
Originally Posted By MikeLowrrrey⏩
Always wondered this. 1 guy could work a decent job and afford a house for his family.

What happened? How come we can't do this anymore?
Its all monetary policy.
post 1569539621 12-25-2018, 07:04 PM
-
#8
  1. VTheKing
  2. Allied Allies Alliance
  1. VTheKing
  2. Allied Allies Alliance
  3. Join Date: Jun 2009
  4. Location: British Columbia, Canada
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 28,869
  7. Rep Power: 81290
Originally Posted By HMFIC_BROWSIN⏩
Because banks made it culturally normal to spend 30 years paying for a house. So loans basically. Same reason college is insanely expensive.
that's part of it. when credit is hard to come by for the masses assets are usually cheap because overall demand is a lot lower. keep in mind though other modern luxuries didn't exist or were a lot more expensive, so relatively speaking a house was a lot less special to own.

the post-war boom was also when there was a massive expansion of transportation infrastructure as well as automobile production and an oil glut due to the wind down of war. so all that land near city cores that were once too far away suddenly became within commuting distance for workers thanks to fresh highways and affordable car ownership, meaning the supply of housing increased at an unthinkable rate as developers all over the continent rushed to build bedroom communities, driving prices down. obv a bit of a caveat here where blacks specially were denied nice factory jobs in most cases (Ford was a notable exception) and home ownership in new suburbs until way later so they didn't get to share into that prosperity.
Go Canucks Go!



Mais notre monde érodé restera le même
Et demain toi et moi serons partis
post 1569539911 12-25-2018, 07:09 PM
-
#9
  1. exxtracool
  2. Registered User
  1. exxtracool
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 20,766
  7. Rep Power: 77972
Originally Posted By Peacening⏩
There were lots of govt programs making homes more affordable at the time but yes min wage peaked in the 60's iirc it was the equivalent to something like $20/hour now but goods and services were far cheaper then. Factory workers probably made above min wage too.

We could get back there if:
-unions came back
-manufacturing jobs came back
-rich people and corporations actually started paying their fair share of taxes

We won't get there because:
-unions won't come back
-manufacturing jobs won't come back, in fact automation and AI is going to reduce the current job market by approximately twelve million percent
-rich people and corporations will continue to pay less while taking more and more from tax payers until crony capitalism is no longer
what in your opinion is a "fair share" for corporate tax rate in the US?
post 1569540011 12-25-2018, 07:10 PM
-
#10
  1. keyboardworkout
  2. ChatGPT4.5 Bot
  1. keyboardworkout
  2. ChatGPT4.5 Bot
  3. Join Date: Jul 2009
  4. Posts: 36,953
  5. Rep Power: 416934
In 1950, the median home price was $7,354.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300
▪█─────█▪ Equipment Crew #53 ▪█─────█▪
^^^^^^^ 6' 6" and Over Crew ^^^^^^^
------------- No Vax Crew ----------------
post 1569540141 12-25-2018, 07:12 PM
-
#11
  1. Blazenwave
  2. Bolobrah's #1 Fan
  1. Blazenwave
  2. Bolobrah's #1 Fan
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Posts: 2,114
  5. Rep Power: 12653
Yes. Millions of single young men who never reproduced had just gone and died. You were rich for doing bottom of the barrel work just by virtue of being male.

That simple.
"Most people overestimate what they can do in a year, and underestimate what they can do in ten years"
post 1569540211 12-25-2018, 07:13 PM
-
#12
  1. Frank Drebin
  2. Cutting
  1. Frank Drebin
  2. Cutting
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Posts: 24,590
  6. Rep Power: 86323
You can still buy a home on a single income, you just can't do it in super high demand places like ny,la, San Fran, Toronto, Vancouver, Sydney,etc.

Find an average City to live in and there will be average home prices
post 1569540431 12-25-2018, 07:17 PM
-
#13
  1. bigcat3655
  2. Registered User
  1. bigcat3655
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2017
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 10,214
  6. Rep Power: 87942
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
100% agree, all of this is very true.

Houses also used to be a lot smaller and simpler.
A lot this. People used to be fine living in small houses, or starting in an older victorian that was cheap. Nowadays everyone is trying to max out their credit buying a brand new build with all the upgrades in an "amenity neighborhood" with a rec center and a pool.
post 1569540721 12-25-2018, 07:24 PM
-
#14
  1. MikeLowrrrey
  1. MikeLowrrrey
  3. Join Date: Jul 2018
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 35,133
  6. Subscribers: 2
  7. Rep Power: 120067
Originally Posted By keyboardworkout⏩
In 1950, the median home price was $7,354.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300
How many of those were dual incomes? How many were single?


The median income now is $65k, but I'm gonna assume most are dual income.

The average house now is about $275k


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...YD9DfYA9U-pYwF
post 1569540761 12-25-2018, 07:24 PM
-
#15
  1. soaponarope1
  2. 6'2" 227
  1. soaponarope1
  2. 6'2" 227
  3. Join Date: Jun 2016
  4. Location: Florida, United States
  5. Age: 40
  6. Posts: 13,552
  7. Rep Power: 63078
Originally Posted By HMFIC_BROWSIN⏩
Because banks made it culturally normal to spend 30 years paying for a house. So loans basically. Same reason college is insanely expensive.
Because people no longer want houses that are 983 sqft (the average in 1950) and the banks are more than willing to let them spend more than they should be and be indebted for half their lives.

In most communities I've lived, a man who works hard at pretty much every job can afford a modest house. In fact, the US median home value is 200k. The average man makes $49,192/year, so I'd wager he could afford a smaller than usual house in an average american town.

But instead his wife wants a 2300 sqft house with walk in closets and all that cool stuff. So they buy that and pay 30% of their income for 30 years.
post 1569540841 12-25-2018, 07:26 PM
-
#16
  1. exxtracool
  2. Registered User
  1. exxtracool
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 20,766
  7. Rep Power: 77972
Originally Posted By MikeLowrrrey⏩
How many of those were dual incomes? How many were single?


The median income now is $65k, but I'm gonna assume most are dual income.

The average house now is about $275k


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...YD9DfYA9U-pYwF
considering it was 1950, id assume they were mostly all 1 income bro.
post 1569542071 12-25-2018, 07:50 PM
-
#17
  1. CommonPheasant
  2. Registered User
  1. CommonPheasant
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2011
  4. Location: Sugar Land, Texas, United States
  5. Age: 41
  6. Posts: 12,142
  7. Rep Power: 13135
Some areas still have affordable housing. But some areas are just oppressive when it comes to housing prices.
*Proud citizen of the Bountiful and Great Trumpian Empire crew

'Service guarantees citizenship'
post 1569542951 12-25-2018, 08:12 PM
-
#18
  1. guest89
  2. Forever aBOARD
  1. guest89
  2. Forever aBOARD
  3. Join Date: Sep 2003
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 41,691
  6. Rep Power: 169649
Originally Posted By keyboardworkout⏩
In 1950, the median home price was $7,354.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300
So basically what your saying is people bought homes about 2.5x their yearly income. Guess what, there are plenty of homes available in America in that price range. People just over-spend.


When I built my house, it was about 3.25x my yearly income. But I put down a pretty sizeable down payment. Knocking it down to about about 2.25x my yearly income. So basically my home is in the same income to price range as guys in the 1950's even though it was 195K.

Originally Posted By Frank
You can still buy a home on a single income, you just can't do it in super high demand places like ny,la, San Fran, Toronto, Vancouver, Sydney,etc.

Find an average City to live in and there will be average home prices
Exactly. You want to live like small town USA. IE man goes to work. Wife stays home with kids. Survive on single income.Etc. Move to small town USA. Millions of American's live that way.

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
In 1950, median home was a two bedroom postwar one and a half.

Not a four bedroom, three bathroom, finished basement, attached garage mansion.
This is true as well. About 35 years ago. My grandpa built a 900 square foot 2 bedroom 1 bath house for about 30K and put it on 3 acres of land he got for 30K.


If I wanted to mirror that. The land would now cost me 60K and the house would cost around 40K to have built. Simple construction wood house on pillars. Shingle roof. Vinyl siding on the house.
post 1569543361 12-25-2018, 08:21 PM
-
#19
  1. SmillironS
  2. Registered User
  1. SmillironS
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2012
  4. Location: South Dakota
  5. Age: 41
  6. Height: 6'8"
  7. Weight: 350 lbs
  8. Posts: 11,296
  9. Subscribers: 2
  10. Rep Power: 189689
You still can, problem is Americans are so ridiculously materialistic they’d rather sign their life away for a house they have no business owning rather than buying a modest home that they can afford.
Originally Posted By guest89⏩
About 35 years ago. My grandpa built a 900 square foot 2 bedroom 1 bath house for about 30K and put it on 3 acres of land he got for 30K.

If I wanted to mirror that. The land would now cost me 60K and the house would cost around 40K to have built. Simple construction wood house on pillars. Shingle roof. Vinyl siding on the house.
Your gpa got absolutely hosed on the house and the land if this story is true, holy crap. Brb paying $10,000 an acre for land in 1988, unbelievable.
post 1569543381 12-25-2018, 08:21 PM
-
#20
  1. ThaJerzeyDevil
  2. ☆★Bangin Moms since 03★☆
  1. ThaJerzeyDevil
  2. ☆★Bangin Moms since 03★☆
  3. Join Date: Sep 2010
  4. Location: Florida, United States
  5. Posts: 11,777
  6. Rep Power: 29211
if we build the wall and didnt have to support illegals we could live that life
post 1569543721 12-25-2018, 08:28 PM
-
#21
  1. FAPhaggot
  2. Hawaiian shirt hoarder
  1. FAPhaggot
  2. Hawaiian shirt hoarder
  3. Join Date: Nov 2015
  4. Posts: 24,226
  5. Rep Power: 185354
-Population growth. There was 152 million people in the United States in 1950, there's about 350 million now, and they all need a place to live.
-Jobs moving more towards urban areas, so population growth tended to concentrate there.
-Supply and demand drove the fuk out of prices in those urban areas.
-GG at a single man ever affording a house again.

Also worth mentioning the McMansion phenomenon: as land prices went up, developers and builders realized there was more $$$ to be made building fukkin McMansions with 2500 sq ft and 0 lawn, rather than 1000 sq ft homes with a lawn on them. People pay more for home space than they do for lots, and the rising price of lots made either squeezing more homes onto the same lot or putting a more valuable home on the same lot a more profitable option and a morenecessaryoption than just leaving a bunch of grass around.

The other posts ITT are correct - the prices of food and basic goods have gotten cheaper since the 1950s, but the debt sinks of house + college (which is basically a prerequisite to home ownership in our over-credentialed labor pool) have blown the fuk up, and that's basically why we are behind compared to the postwar generation.

Houses are never going to become cheaper in the forseeable future, jobs aren't going to go back tonotrequiring a college education cause they don't have to, and because of that, college tuition is only going to keep heading upward. So that Leave it to Beaver alpha male sole-breadwinner chit is never going to come back for anyone except the highest wage earners.
FA Crew
Always Pick 1 Crew

"Experience is something you get right after you need it."
post 1569543761 12-25-2018, 08:29 PM
-
#22
  1. tnel00
  2. Registered User
  1. tnel00
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2005
  4. Location: Florida, United States
  5. Posts: 29,202
  6. Rep Power: 51727
Originally Posted By Peacening⏩
There were lots of govt programs making homes more affordable at the time but yes min wage peaked in the 60's iirc it was the equivalent to something like $20/hour now but goods and services were far cheaper then. Factory workers probably made above min wage too.

We could get back there if:
-unions came back
-manufacturing jobs came back
-rich people and corporations actually started paying their fair share of taxes

We won't get there because:
-unions won't come back
-manufacturing jobs won't come back, in fact automation and AI is going to reduce the current job market by approximately twelve million percent
-rich people and corporations will continue to pay less while taking more and more from tax payers until crony capitalism is no longer
It really has absolutely nothing to do with anything you just commented on. That's the low IQ response.

OP the primary reasons are:

1) Highly inflationary monetary policy
2) The average house built in the 1940's/1950's were less than half the square footage of the average house built today
3) We spend our money on more frivolous items (cable, cell phone, internet, TV's, computers, etc). Some of these things were available back then (tv's) but they cost considerably more back then than today. Look around your house and you should within a minute identify several hundred dollars, if not thousands, of items that are non-essential.
4) More densely populated urban areas. Most "unaffordable" housing is in cities, primarily due to lack of alternative real estate. Now that real estate has all been bought up leaving less available land to build new housing. At the same time, people don't want long commutes into the cities where the majority of jobs are, so it comes down to simple supply/demand. There's a low supply of housing in areas with jobs, but extensive demand. That's why you pay $500k for a shoebox in NYC. Housing really isn't that unaffordable in more rural areas of the country. You can get a really nice 3000 sq ft house for $250k in Alabama.
|￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣|
..Make the Misc Great..
.Again - Donald Trump.
|＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿|
`````\ (•◡•) /
``````` \ /
``````` ---
``````` | |
post 1569543841 12-25-2018, 08:31 PM
-
#23
  1. quadfecta
  2. Registered User
  1. quadfecta
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2015
  4. Age: 36
  5. Posts: 23,282
  6. Rep Power: 100308
Originally Posted By MikeLowrrrey⏩
Always wondered this. 1 guy could work a decent job and afford a house for his family.

What happened?How come we can't do this anymore?
something happened in 2012
post 1569544431 12-25-2018, 08:42 PM
-
#24
  1. CommonPheasant
  2. Registered User
  1. CommonPheasant
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2011
  4. Location: Sugar Land, Texas, United States
  5. Age: 41
  6. Posts: 12,142
  7. Rep Power: 13135
Originally Posted By tnel00⏩
It really has absolutely nothing to do with anything you just commented on. That's the low IQ response.

OP the primary reasons are:

1) Highly inflationary monetary policy
2) The average house built in the 1940's/1950's were less than half the square footage of the average house built today
3) We spend our money on more frivolous items (cable, cell phone, internet, TV's, computers, etc). Some of these things were available back then (tv's) but they cost considerably more back then than today. Look around your house and you should within a minute identify several hundred dollars, if not thousands, of items that are non-essential.
4) More densely populated urban areas. Most "unaffordable" housing is in cities, primarily due to lack of alternative real estate. Now that real estate has all been bought up leaving less available land to build new housing. At the same time, people don't want long commutes into the cities where the majority of jobs are, so it comes down to simple supply/demand. There's a low supply of housing in areas with jobs, but extensive demand. That's why you pay $500k for a shoebox in NYC. Housing really isn't that unaffordable in more rural areas of the country. You can get a really nice 3000 sq ft house for $250k in Alabama.
And:

Women joined the workforce. When you essentially double the labor pool, labor becomes less valuable. So now families often need two incomes where one would suffice before.
*Proud citizen of the Bountiful and Great Trumpian Empire crew

'Service guarantees citizenship'
post 1569544501 12-25-2018, 08:43 PM
-
#25
  1. bjjruinedmylife
  2. Registered User
  1. bjjruinedmylife
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2014
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 6,637
  6. Rep Power: 11661
Originally Posted By HMFIC_BROWSIN⏩
Because banks made it culturally normal to spend 30 years paying for a house. So loans basically. Same reason college is insanely expensive.
Jesus was known as a pretty chill guy by all accounts.

However there was one time he was documented as losing his schit.

THE "MONEYLENDERS"
post 1569544511 12-25-2018, 08:43 PM
-
#26
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By keyboardworkout⏩
In 1950, the median home price was $7,354.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300
Rule of thumb for an affordable home is 2.1 times annual gross income, so not bad.
Originally Posted By Blazenwave⏩
Yes. Millions of single young men who never reproduced had just gone and died. You were rich for doing bottom of the barrel work just by virtue of being male.

That simple.
Also competing infrastructure in other countries had been destroyed by the war.
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
In 1950, median home was a two bedroom postwar one and a half.

Not a four bedroom, three bathroom, finished basement, attached garage mansion.
I don't actually think that is true that there isn't a market for modest houses. See the tiny house movement.

But in many (most?) cities current zoning requires larger/fancier houses to be built because it is beneficial to the city's tax base IMO.
Originally Posted By MikeLowrrrey⏩
How many of those were dual incomes? How many were single?


The median income now is $65k, but I'm gonna assume most are dual income.

The average house now is about $275k


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...YD9DfYA9U-pYwF
If the median is $65K then an affordable home would be $136,500.

And if you are very conservative that affordability should be based off of a single income, not two incomes. Because stuff happens...job loss, illness, separation.

So houses cost too much, or people don't earn enough depending on how you want to look at it.

Because, yes, consumer goods have overall become more affordable and require less income, but health care has exploded and almost no employers provide pensions at this point so people have to self-fund their retirement or simply work until they can't then die.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1569544731 12-25-2018, 08:48 PM
-
#27
  1. SipNPiz
  2. 2 B Tan is 2 B Glorious!
  1. SipNPiz
  2. 2 B Tan is 2 B Glorious!
  3. Join Date: Feb 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 11,178
  6. Rep Power: 15442
Stop allowing non citizens to pay cash for property in murica. I say pay cash because non of them finance
STEM Wagie Brah
Oil/commodity based trader
post 1569544811 12-25-2018, 08:49 PM
-
#28
  1. jamalfudge
  2. Throbbing Member
  1. jamalfudge
  2. Throbbing Member
  3. Join Date: Jan 2013
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 39,406
  6. Rep Power: 297374
Originally Posted By MikeLowrrrey⏩
Always wondered this. 1 guy could work a decent job and afford a house for his family.

What happened? How come we can't do this anymore?
I bought/live in a cookie cutter ranch from the 50s originally aimed at WWII veterans. It's kinda small, but houses weren't as much of a burden back then.

But here's a good video that answers your questions:

#
post 1569545121 12-25-2018, 08:57 PM
-
#29
  1. tnel00
  2. Registered User
  1. tnel00
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2005
  4. Location: Florida, United States
  5. Posts: 29,202
  6. Rep Power: 51727
Originally Posted By katya422⏩
If the median is $65K then an affordable home would be $136,500.

And if you are very conservative that affordability should be based off of a single income, not two incomes. Because stuff happens...job loss, illness, separation.

So houses cost too much, or people don't earn enough depending on how you want to look at it.

Because, yes, consumer goods have overall become more affordable and require less income, but health care has exploded and almost no employers provide pensions at this point so people have to self-fund their retirement or simply work until they can't then die.
People didn't do this back in the 1950's. Family income means all income the family generates, not just the highest earner.

As stated above, which I missed in my post, women entering the workforce also made it very difficult for a single income earner to support a family since nothing else in the last 70 years has had a more stifling effect on income growth for white collar jobs.
|￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣|
..Make the Misc Great..
.Again - Donald Trump.
|＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿|
`````\ (•◡•) /
``````` \ /
``````` ---
``````` | |
post 1569545511 12-25-2018, 09:07 PM
-
#30
  1. LeJR
  2. Registered User
  1. LeJR
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2018
  4. Age: 32
  5. Posts: 3,443
  6. Rep Power: 5736
Originally Posted By Peacening⏩
There were lots of govt programs making homes more affordable at the time but yes min wage peaked in the 60's iirc it was the equivalent to something like $20/hour now but goods and services were far cheaper then. Factory workers probably made above min wage too.

We could get back there if:
-unions came back
-manufacturing jobs came back
-rich people and corporations actually started paying their fair share of taxes

We won't get there because:
-unions won't come back
-manufacturing jobs won't come back, in fact automation and AI is going to reduce the current job market by approximately twelve million percent
-rich people and corporations will continue to pay less while taking more and more from tax payers until crony capitalism is no longer
This guy failed econ 101
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts