Yes…In particular, there has been plenty of real wage growth at the very top of the income spectrum.
I thought that was the start of rabbit season.
Duckshooting season!
You’re all dethpicable!
Wabbit season!
The folks over at the EPA are getting tired of all heat their boss Scott Pruitt has been taking, so to deflect some of the fire, a staffer over there decided it might help to direct it at Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
You don’t think we’ve seen an increasing standard of living in the US? I’m not sure how anyone could feel that way, but ok. You couldn’t pay me enough to live a 1970s lifestyle.
The percentage of married couple families with two earners has been relatively flat for decades.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2017/home.htm
And the number of households that are “married families” has been decreasing.
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Reports/2012/us-household-change.aspx
I can’t speak to the availability of credit, but the two-earner argument doesn’t fly.
And of course, we see real household income rising over the decades (PDF)
But you are right to look at demographic changes. The boomers are retiring, being replaced by new entrants to the workforce. More than replaced, given that we’re seeing increases to total payrolls. And of course we expect new people to get paid less than experienced people. But most folks already in the workforce are earning more: The Good News on Wage Growth - San Francisco Fed
And yes it might be a GD subject. It’s been a GD subject. I don’t think any of the above hasn’t already been discussed there in one thread or another.
Oh ok. So first you can shoot down Mamá Pata*, then invite Mom over for orange duck!
- In Spanish, Mother Goose sometimes changes species.
Define ‘standard of living’. The '70s don’t seem much different from today, except we have a hundred times more TV channels, and better music. In the '70s families could live well on a single income, and kids went outside to play instead of playing video games all day. A middle class family could better afford to buy a house or even their own airplane, and fewer people went bankrupt because of medical expenses. When I started working in the '80s, insurance was the same percentage of my pay check as it is now, but it covered more. The Lunatic Fringe (today, Trump supporters) were more isolated without the Internet, and someone like Loser Donnie could not have been elected President. Of course there were problems, and of course there’s inflation. But except for better music and better entertainment, I don’t see that much of an improvement.
Play that funky music, white boy.
The 70’s were alright. I got a lot of reading done.
Sorry, your argument fails here.
“[Giuliani will] get my facts straight!”
Now we get to watch SHS respin the spin she unspun yesterday. She’s dizzy for a reason~
Exactly: all these sweeping comparisons depend crucially on exactly what aspects of life are being compared.
Moreover, higher education was much more affordable, job security and likelihood of long-term employment was much better, government support for basic scientific research and ambitious enterprises like moon missions was higher, religious fundamentalists weren’t mounting large-scale anti-science and anti-reproductive-rights crusades, etc.
I think there have been huge areas of progress since the '70s in technology and consequent improvements in communications, medical breakthroughs, increased environmental awareness, etc. But whether that adds up to a better overall lifestyle depends very much on what you mean by “lifestyle”.
Having a hard time wrapping my head around how at a time when the clusterfuckery of this administration has never been more apparent, his poll numbers have been increasing to a high.
Ok, this irks me. When I half heard it from across the room and misunderstood, I was somewhat furious, but seeing the actual story calmed me down a bit. Still, the Shitgibbon has shifted the focus of the president’s council on sports, fitness and nutrition from the third thing to the first thing, to please the daughter he likes to molest.
Which is all well and good until you get to the last name they list who has been added to the council: Oz.
Fuck that ratbastard huckster no-account whore asswipe. Fuck him hard and sore into Tuesday. Is there even one person the CFSG approves of who as good as pond scum? Because most of them seem to be not that good.
Yup. That is seriously depressing.
The economy is doing well, and the perceived threat of war with North Korea is greatly reduced. (I think the actual threat was very low to begin with, but the media made it seem high for a while.)
And I’m not sure if the “clusterfuckery” is any more apparent now than before. There seems to be more evidence for it, but it just confirmed what we suspected. Those of us who didn’t suspect (or didn’t think it was a big deal) continue to ignore the evidence and haven’t changed their mind.
That’s because many people already know that it was going to be a clusterfuckery. I’m honestly surprised that anyone here is surprised that it is a clusterfuckery.
As said above, the economy is doing fine, war threat is down. What more do you want?
Decency, integrity, honesty, competence, class, and–oh yeah-- drain the swamp.