Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[SirJosephPorter]

We were married in l958, and shortly after that my husband 'broke' the $1.00 per hour
wage, as a young mill worker, he was then 22 and had worked in the mill for 5 years, by the time he retired in l991 as the top benchman in the mill, he was making about $36.00 per hour, and I think it was the top wage in the mill, even more than a sawyer, so he
paid his dues, went to school, got all of his tickets over the years, and the sawmill was
good for him, 'not so now', but if one checks out 'what' one can buy for the dollar
compared to now from l959, I can't really see an improvement at all, but a decline.
There is 'no' way a young married couple can live on 'one' wage today, unless of
course the working person is making a large amount of money each month.
We could do it then. A 20 dollar bill in my purse after bills were paid and groceries
bought would go a long way.

Oh, you see a decline there, not an improvement, do you? Really, all you whiners, moaners and groaners remind me of the perennial old timer one meets in almost every bar. He would cheerfully, gleefully explain to you how much things have gone to the dogs since his youth; how things were so much better when he was young (provided you buy him a beer of course).

As I said before, anecdotal evidence is not worth the paper it is written on (and no JLM, it
doesn’t matter if the anecdotal evidence is true or not, it is still worth very little).

Anyway, so what is the reality? Well, we need to look at the statistics to see what the real situation is.

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/08/SWA06_08_International.pdf

Per capita income was 16,522 $ in 1960, it was 39,728 in 2004. Now, before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, this does not mean that people were earning 16,522$ per person in 1960. All the figures are at the price and exchange rates of year 2000.

In order to compare the two fairly, one has to convert them to the one particular year, to take account of inflation. What this means is that per capita income was 16,522 $ per person in 1960 (in terms of year 2000 dollars), in 2004 it was 39,738 $ (again, in terms of year 2000 dollars).

The situation is the same in Canada. Per capita income was 10,249 $ per person in 1960, it was 26.828 $ per person in 2004.

So people are earning much more today (in fact more than twice as much as they did in 1960, after accounting for inflation) than they did 50 years ago.

So sure Talloola, a dollar may have stretched far in the old days, much further than today. However, people earned so few of them that they were a lot worse off 50 years ago.

As I said, anecdotal evidence really isn’t worth much; one has to look at numbers, facts and figures. Just because somebody remembers something one way 50 years ago, does not mean it really was that way.

 

[AnnaG]

Oh, you see a decline there, not an improvement, do you? Really, all you whiners, moaners and groaners remind me of the perennial old timer one meets in almost every bar. He would cheerfully, gleefully explain to you how much things have gone to the dogs since his youth; how things were so much better when he was young (provided you buy him a beer of course).

As I said before, anecdotal evidence is not worth the paper it is written on (and no JLM, it
doesn’t matter if the anecdotal evidence is true or not, it is still worth very little).

Anyway, so what is the reality? Well, we need to look at the statistics to see what the real situation is.

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/08/SWA06_08_International.pdf

Per capita income was 16,522 $ in 1960, it was 39,728 in 2004. Now, before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, this does not mean that people were earning 16,522$ per person in 1960. All the figures are at the price and exchange rates of 2000.

In order to compare the two fairly, one has to convert them to the one particular year, to take account of inflation. What this means is that per capita income was 16,522 $ per person in 1960 (in terms of year 2000 dollars), in 2004 it was 39,738 $ (again, in terms of year 2000 dollars).

The situation is the same in Canada. Per capita income was 10,249 $ per person in 1960, it was 26.828 $ per person in 2004.

What were the amounts you could pocket?

So people are earning much more today (in fact more than twice as much as they did in 1960, after accounting for inflation) than they did 50 years ago.

So sure Talloola, a dollar may have stretched far in the old days, much further than today. However, people earned so much fewer of them that they were a lot worse off 50 years ago.

You haven't shown that.

As I said, anecdotal evidence really isn’t worth much; one has to look at numbers, facts and figures. Just because somebody remembers something one way 50 years ago, does not mean it really was that way.

..and just because you think everything's rosy nowadays doesn't mean it is.:roll:

 

[JLM]

We were married in l958, and shortly after that my husband 'broke' the $1.00 per hour
wage, as a young mill worker, he was then 22 and had worked in the mill for 5 years, by the time he retired in l991 as the top benchman in the mill, he was making about $36.00 per hour, and I think it was the top wage in the mill, even more than a sawyer, so he
paid his dues, went to school, got all of his tickets over the years, and the sawmill was
good for him, 'not so now', but if one checks out 'what' one can buy for the dollar
compared to now from l959, I can't really see an improvement at all, but a decline.
There is 'no' way a young married couple can live on 'one' wage today, unless of
course the working person is making a large amount of money each month.
We could do it then. A 20 dollar bill in my purse after bills were paid and groceries
bought would go a long way.[/quote


You have it absolutely right Talloola and that is the reason I cringe whenever I hear this nonsense start up about raising the minimum wage. That idiocy has been going on since the 40s digging us just a bigger hole. Not to mention that back in the 50s income tax was at about 10% for average worker and sales tax in B.C. was 3% .

 

[JLM]

"Per capita income was 16,522 $ in 1960, it was 39,728 in 2004. Now, before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, this does not mean that people were earning 16,522$ per person in 1960. All the figures are at the price and exchange rates of year 2000.

In order to compare the two fairly, one has to convert them to the one particular year, to take account of inflation. What this means is that per capita income was 16,522 $ per person in 1960 (in terms of year 2000 dollars), in 2004 it was 39,738 $ (again, in terms of year 2000 dollars).

The situation is the same in Canada. Per capita income was 10,249 $ per person in 1960, it was 26.828 $ per person in 2004."

Another prime example of where statistics don't tell the story. For one thing we weren't buying the same stuff in 1959 that we are in 2009. We lived with much less and didn't have near the amount of stuff to maintain. You could do most maintenance on your vehicle in the back yard with half a dozen wrenches and screw drivers, not like today where you have to find a techniclan with $10,000 worth of electronics and charging $100 an hour to find a hole in your radiator. Same with house, we weren't maintaining a hundred gadgets, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas..........it was just a different world and statistics are absolutely meaningless. I read somewhere recently that the average person today is spending $800 on Xmas presents, in those days it may have been $8 maximum and more than likely most of the stuff was hand made. No comparison today. BEtter or worse?? If you enjoy spending money we're better off today. If you are interested in value(s) we were better off then.

So people are earning much more today (in fact more than twice as much as they did in 1960, after accounting for inflation) than they did 50 years ago.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Per capita income was 16,522 $ in 1960, it was 39,728 in 2004. Now, before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, this does not mean that people were earning 16,522$ per person in 1960. All the figures are at the price and exchange rates of year 2000.

In order to compare the two fairly, one has to convert them to the one particular year, to take account of inflation. What this means is that per capita income was 16,522 $ per person in 1960 (in terms of year 2000 dollars), in 2004 it was 39,738 $ (again, in terms of year 2000 dollars).

The situation is the same in Canada. Per capita income was 10,249 $ per person in 1960, it was 26.828 $ per person in 2004."

Another prime example of where statistics don't tell the story. For one thing we weren't buying the same stuff in 1959 that we are in 2009. We lived with much less and didn't have near the amount of stuff to maintain. You could do most maintenance on your vehicle in the back yard with half a dozen wrenches and screw drivers, not like today where you have to find a techniclan with $10,000 worth of electronics and charging $100 an hour to find a hole in your radiator. Same with house, we weren't maintaining a hundred gadgets, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas..........it was just a different world and statistics are absolutely meaningless. I read somewhere recently that the average person today is spending $800 on Xmas presents, in those days it may have been $8 maximum and more than likely most of the stuff was hand made. No comparison today. BEtter or worse?? If you enjoy spending money we're better off today. If you are interested in value(s) we were better off then.

So people are earning much more today (in fact more than twice as much as they did in 1960, after accounting for inflation) than they did 50 years ago.

Exactly, JLM. People are earning more, but they are also spending more, their standard of living is much higher today.

If somebody wants to live by the living standard of the days gone by, I assume it could be done almost as cheaply. Houses were smaller then, there was only one car per household, there was no internet, no cable TV, no DVDs, no microwave, no i-phones and so on.

If somebody wants to live in a time warp, live in a small house, have only one car for the family of four or five, eat only the simplest of foods (as were available then), the wife makes everything from scratch, They spend very little on Christmas presents. The kids don’t have a whole bunch of lessons such as piano lessons, karate lessons etc. (in those days kids were not enrolled in three or four hobby classes like they are today). Don’t give cell phones, cars, brand name clothes to the kids. I expect such a family probably will be able to live on similar amount as they did 50 years ago.

But these days standards of living are much higher, people expect much more from life. That really reinforces my point that we have it much better off today compared to 50 years ago.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

[
You have it absolutely right Talloola and that is the reason I cringe whenever I hear this nonsense start up about raising the minimum wage. That idiocy has been going on since the 40s digging us just a bigger hole. Not to mention that back in the 50s income tax was at about 10% for average worker and sales tax in B.C. was 3% .

I am a strong supporter of the minimum wage, JLM. I think it serves a very useful purpose in protecting the poor.

As to taxes, sure we pay proportionately more today. However, the difference between 16.522 $ and 39,738 $ is huge. No amount of taxation that we have is going to bring the figure of 39,738 down to lower than 16,522.

Even after deducting the taxes, people still are earning much more today (take home pay) than they did 50 years ago.

 

[countryboy]

Well, let's see now...I think 1959 was better in many ways. Food, for one. And it's a big one. Garbage in our food (additives, etc.) were just beginning to emerge as a "staple" in our diet which meant people were still eating real food. Nowadays, a high percentage of it is crap (harmful to health)...e.g., MSG, corn-based additives, weird chemical sweeteners, meat that isn't raised or killed right, breakfast cereals that contain everything from trisodium phosphate to xanthan gum to chemicals that taste sweet...all of it harmful to health, as evidenced by the current epidemic of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and so on.

People didn't walk off curbs into the the paths of vehicles because they couldn't text message or yak incessantly on cell phones...there weren't any!

As Mowich pointed out, people still relied on what today's Libs call "social skills" and were better able to carry on a coherent conversation. In other words, they had some manners and they seemed to know how to use them.

In spite of the cold war, there still seemed to be a sense of optimism that is lacking today - now we hear about global warming, 2012, and all the other stuff that is far from optimistic.

We weren't living in a "me, me, me" generation yet...that all started in the 60s and has evolved into a rat's nest of social legislation and political correctness that has all but removed the need (or the ability) to think for oneself. Now there has to be a law for everything, and if there isn't, we'll make some up! And that results in layers and layers of overlapping legislation, all guaranteed to line the pockets of lawyers, first and foremost.

Drug companies hadn't started coming up with treatments for illnesses that - if they don't exist - they'll create one. People hadn't saturated themselves with antibiotics as they have today, so we didn't have super-bugs, digestive systems that no longer work properly, and a whole host of malfunctions alluded to earlier in this rant.

Words like the "F" word still had some shock value, when applied "correctly." Nowadays, it's everywhere and doesn't raise any eyebrows at all. Where's the fun in that?

Boys looked like boys, and little girls looked like little girls. Now it's sometimes hard to tell them apart. I don't know if it's the food (female growth hormones in the meat?) but it might have something to do with the current "cross-over" generation.

So yeah, I think the late 50s were likely better, happier, nicer times in general. Mind you, to put that in perspective, I believe pretty every generation has, for many, many years, longed for the good old days before all these $#@&*(!! changes started happening. So, perhaps all the above is nothing more than the observations of a "JAOF" (Just Another Old Fart!)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So yeah, I think the late 50s were likely better, happier, nicer times in general. Mind you, to put that in perspective, I believe pretty every generation has, for many, many years, longed for the good old days before all these $#@&*(!! changes started happening. So, perhaps all the above is nothing more than the observations of a "JAOF" (Just Another Old Fart!)

Quite so, countryboy. Exactly the same thought occurred to me when I was reading your post. But your last paragraph saved me the trouble of posting it again.

Basically what you are talking here of is intangibles, which are usually entirely personal. Basically what you are saying is that you liked the quality of life in the old days. That is a matter of opinion, some did, some didn’t.

But look at any objective measure, standard of living, life expectancy, personal income, civil rights etc., we are definitely much better off today than 50 years ago.,

 

[Mowich]

Well, let's see now...I think 1959 was better in many ways. Food, for one. And it's a big one. Garbage in our food (additives, etc.) were just beginning to emerge as a "staple" in our diet which meant people were still eating real food. Nowadays, a high percentage of it is crap (harmful to health)...e.g., MSG, corn-based additives, weird chemical sweeteners, meat that isn't raised or killed right, breakfast cereals that contain everything from trisodium phosphate to xanthan gum to chemicals that taste sweet...all of it harmful to health, as evidenced by the current epidemic of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and so on.

People didn't walk off curbs into the the paths of vehicles because they couldn't text message or yak incessantly on cell phones...there weren't any!

As Mowich pointed out, people still relied on what today's Libs call "social skills" and were better able to carry on a coherent conversation. In other words, they had some manners and they seemed to know how to use them.

In spite of the cold war, there still seemed to be a sense of optimism that is lacking today - now we hear about global warming, 2012, and all the other stuff that is far from optimistic.

We weren't living in a "me, me, me" generation yet...that all started in the 60s and has evolved into a rat's nest of social legislation and political correctness that has all but removed the need (or the ability) to think for oneself. Now there has to be a law for everything, and if there isn't, we'll make some up! And that results in layers and layers of overlapping legislation, all guaranteed to line the pockets of lawyers, first and foremost.

Drug companies hadn't started coming up with treatments for illnesses that - if they don't exist - they'll create one. People hadn't saturated themselves with antibiotics as they have today, so we didn't have super-bugs, digestive systems that no longer work properly, and a whole host of malfunctions alluded to earlier in this rant.

Words like the "F" word still had some shock value, when applied "correctly." Nowadays, it's everywhere and doesn't raise any eyebrows at all. Where's the fun in that?

Boys looked like boys, and little girls looked like little girls. Now it's sometimes hard to tell them apart. I don't know if it's the food (female growth hormones in the meat?) but it might have something to do with the current "cross-over" generation.

So yeah, I think the late 50s were likely better, happier, nicer times in general. Mind you, to put that in perspective, I believe pretty every generation has, for many, many years, longed for the good old days before all these $#@&*(!! changes started happening. So, perhaps all the above is nothing more than the observations of a "JAOF" (Just Another Old Fart!)

Okay, 'JAOF or Countryboy - your preference. The observations on food, health, and drugs are right on. :smile:

 

[countryboy]

Yep, it's an interesting discussion with many ways to approach it. But, careful on those objective stats...for example, there are studies out there now that predict - for the first time in modern recorded history - that the generation of kids born since 2000 will be the first one to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.

I'd be a bit cautious in using that statement "any objective measure"...

But I certainly agree with you on the personal income and civil rights issues. And you are right, intangibles are entirely personal, which makes a poll like this quite interesting...after all, it is a poll and not a statistical study, right?

And all the "better" social legislation and resulting costs may just become a burden for future generations. Our health care system is an example...it has become - in finacial terms - a giant cost to society. The question is, "Is it better now?" Of course, it would depend on how you define "better", wouldn't it? And of course, the needs of people (patients) are a bit of a moving target, in that people are getting older (a statistical fact) and thus need more care. Now we're seeing a situation where we'll end up with more people using the system and there will be fewer (working) people to pay for it. With the health care costs hovering around 40% of the average provincial budget, that means something will have to "give."

Well, that looming disaster wasn't around in '59, which is another vote for the good old days!

Cheers!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Again, you are talking of intangibles here, counrtyboy. For instance, maybe there will be disaster associated with health care and maybe there won’t be. But why is there a potential for its occurring? Because people are living longer, which is an objective measure.

If people died say at the average age of 60, there will be a lot less health care costs and there will be no potential for crises.

Also, why is there the possibility of lower life expectancy (and it is only a possibility, may be it will happen, maybe it won’t. And life expectancy will have to slide way down to equal that of 50 years ago). The possibility exists because the junk foods are much cheaper today, much more readily available than say 50 years ago. So are nutritious foods for that matter, but people choose not to take advantage of them. Also, kids today have so many electronic entertainment mediums available that they don’t get out, exercise etc.

So all the difficulties you describe, while real, stem from people being much better off today compared to 50 years ago. These are difficulties arising out of prosperity (same as many more people die of cancer and heart attack today than say, 100 years ago).

 

[countryboy]

Well Sir JP, I am reminded of the old expression "Having lost sight of our objectives, we redoubled our efforts."

I think we're straying into that territory; these are all very lengthy dissertations on health care and life expectancy and diet but I suspect we're now off the topic.

I still think things were better in 1959 and that's my input for the poll.

Your opinion appears to be that things are better now than they were in '59. Fair enough - looks like a 1-1 tie as far as the two of us are concerned.

 

[AnnaG]

I am a strong supporter of the minimum wage, JLM. I think it serves a very useful purpose in protecting the poor.

As to taxes, sure we pay proportionately more today. However, the difference between 16.522 $ and 39,738 $ is huge. No amount of taxation that we have is going to bring the figure of 39,738 down to lower than 16,522.

Even after deducting the taxes, people still are earning much more today (take home pay) than they did 50 years ago.

 

[AnnaG]

Yep, it's an interesting discussion with many ways to approach it. But, careful on those objective stats...for example, there are studies out there now that predict - for the first time in modern recorded history - that the generation of kids born since 2000 will be the first one to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.

That wouldn't surprise me. When I was a teen I knew 2 people with asthma. Now it seems every other kid has it. Bloody lovely to live to 85 when you have asthma, diabetes, and a half dozen other afflictions. Thanks, but I'll stay happier dying at 75 and in good health till then.

I'd be a bit cautious in using that statement "any objective measure"...

But I certainly agree with you on the personal income and civil rights issues. And you are right, intangibles are entirely personal, which makes a poll like this quite interesting...after all, it is a poll and not a statistical study, right?

And all the "better" social legislation and resulting costs may just become a burden for future generations. Our health care system is an example...it has become - in finacial terms - a giant cost to society. The question is, "Is it better now?" Of course, it would depend on how you define "better", wouldn't it? And of course, the needs of people (patients) are a bit of a moving target, in that people are getting older (a statistical fact) and thus need more care. Now we're seeing a situation where we'll end up with more people using the system and there will be fewer (working) people to pay for it. With the health care costs hovering around 40% of the average provincial budget, that means something will have to "give."

The baby boomers coming up to seniority, yup. The waiting lines in some instances are ridiculous now in comparison to what they used to be. Wait till the baby boomers start using healthcare.

Well, that looming disaster wasn't around in '59, which is another vote for the good old days!

Cheers!

Yeah. There are a few neat things about these days, though.

 

[petros]

Quoting SirJosephPorter
People are earning more, but they are also spending more, their standard of living is much higher today.

I see the bland is leading the bland. Life is better based on consumerism? LMFAO.

Wealth and money/spending have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

As a consumer, ask yourself this "have I been sold a lie or have I bought a lie?"

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I see the bland is leading the bland. Life is better based on consumerism? LMFAO.

Wealth and money/spending have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

As a consumer, ask yourself this "have I been sold a lie or have I bought a lie?"

When people have more money to spend, they will spend it, Petros (and many times, also spend the money they don’t have), that is human nature. Higher income automatically leads to greater spending.

Indeed, what is the single most important economic indicator that economists look to when judging if the recovery is occurring? It is the consumer spending. Our whole economy these days is based upon consumer spending.

Consumerism means that people have more goods, more services available, that means life is materially better, yes. Whether it is spiritually better, whether people are happier today a different issue altogether. Here we are discussing if people are better off (that is what the thread is about), not if they are happier. And undoubtedly, they are better off, no mater what (material) criteria one uses.

 

[petros]

SJP - Was the question not "LIFE better now or 1959?"

What does life require to be better?

Do we have better food?

Do we have better water?

Do we have better air?

So tell me, is Is life better now or in 1959?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP - Was the question not "LIFE better now or 1959?"

What does life require to be better?

Do we have better food?

Do we have better water?

Do we have better air?

So tell me, is Is life better now or in 1959?

Answer is yes to all that, Petros. Also, note that the question is, 'is life better now?', not 'are people happier now?'

 

[ironsides]

"LIFE better now or 1959?"

What does life require to be better? Happiness

Do we have better food? No

Do we have better water? No

Do we have better air? No

So tell me, is Is life better now or in 1959? 1959

 

[petros]

"LIFE better now or 1959?"

What does life require to be better? Happiness

Do we have better food? No

Do we have better water? No

Do we have better air? No

So tell me, is Is life better now or in 1959? 1959

Can you be happy without good water, food or air? No.