Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Poor, Ordinary Americans

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Randy — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 05:09:42 -0000

With gas prices on the rise, I'm just fine with 1,800 square feet and an efficient furnace.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

JohnDewey — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:51:26 -0000

"restrictive zoning has done serious damage to the standard of living of those who didn't own a house before the huge increase in prices began in 1995."

But not everywhere has such zoning, right? New or fairly new single family residences, on 1/5 acre lots, can still be bought for under $150,000 in many Dallas suburbs. New homes are available near Nissan's Nashville area plant for about $170,000. Pulte is selling homes in the Kansas City suburbs for $180,000 - $230,000. I could probably find 100 such examples across the south and midwest.

There's lots of jobs available in Texas and across the South. Everyone has to make their own choices.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Half Sigma — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:35:02 -0000

The McMansions are a result of restrictive zoning which doens't allow builders to build as many houses as people would like to buy.

Indeed, restrictive zoning has done serious damage to the standard of living of those who didn't own a house before the huge increase in prices began in 1995.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Randy — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:23:32 -0000

Teri,

I guess many people feel the way you do about it. Maybe your experience wasn't as bad as the packing plant I worked in. I hated it. Completely dehumanizing. Most of the people who'd been there awhile just went numb. And the pay wasn't even that great. It wasn't the kind of life experience I'd wish on anybody. But that's neither here nor there, really. Option a is no longer even available for most. Option b is as much a reality for today's workers as life on the farm was in the 19th century or life in the factory was for those in the early 20th century. Personally, I think its a better life. And, honestly, I don't think that most of those who idealize the past have much experience with the realities of that past.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Teri Pittman — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:26:11 -0000

I'd take the factory work. I went with option b and lost the job in the tech crash. Now I make about the same amount of money as I did in the factory plus I get to pay back student loans. And learning new skills may work fine when you are younger. At some point, companies care more about your age than your skills. Don't count on learning new skills at work. They'd prefer to hire someone already trained.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

John Dewey — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:04:33 -0000

Bruce Hall,

Almost everywhere in U.S., couples with children can live on just one fulltime income. Census data will no doubt show that couples are doing so in every state in the union.

Some couples desire to live on a single income in the few high cost areas of the nation. They do face difficult choices, but only because of their geographical and consumptive preferences.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Randy — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:00:45 -0000

happyjuggler,

Telling hard truths is often perceived as a lack of empathy. And it often is a lack of sympathy which leads to the telling of hard truths. I think the middle class as a whole doesn't feel much sympathy for those who can't seem to get it together. We've been there. And we know that making it is mostly a matter of just "growing up". That's why the left doesn't really get much of a foothold here. The people they would patronize keep telling them to grow up.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

happyjuggler0 — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:26:55 -0000

By the way, when I said "The way out for those on the bottom is to get new skills", I didn't mean to imply it would be easy.

I want to get that in before I get bashed for lacking compassion or empathy.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

happyjuggler0 — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:22:51 -0000

Bill Woolsey,

Before WWII one's ability to be what we think of as middle class with a crappy education and with a maunfacturing job was quite limited.

WWII destroyed the productive capacity in the vast bulk of the developed world, excepting mainly the US, Canada, Switzerland and Sweden, the latter two being neutral during that period, and the former two protected by oceans.

In the aftermath of WWII, the remaining factories in effect became a goldmine, and keeping that golden goose laying golden eggs was a huge priority for companies. The managers that tweaked the most production from their factories advanced up the company ladder. To get these promotions and to keep the factories churning out more and more goods, they had to buy labor peace and finally give in to the growing and growing and growing demands of unions which employed uneducated and otherwise unskilled workers.

By the early 1970's the bombed out world had essentially rebuilt completely, and the golden goose died after about 20 or so anomalous years. However a myth was born, namely that one "ought" to be able to make a great living without much skills or education, and that unions somehow could deliver this nirvana.

Once the WWII bombing induced printing press known as 50's and 60's manufacturing dried up, the unions were on an inevitable downhill. The fought to keep their gains, indeed to expand their gains, and in the process destroyed tons of companies and wealth and jobs.

The anomalous 50's and 60's will not be coming back. The way out for those on the bottom is to get new skills, and the way out for future generations is to get a good education.

Those "good union jobs" aren't coming back and whining and stomping your foot and shouting slogans about the evil rich won't change that fact.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Bruce Hall — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 08:44:54 -0000

Noah,

While you trivialize the decisions, you conveniently neglect that young couples have pretty much been brought up to EXPECT that there will be two working incomes in the household ... which was not the norm in 1970 ... which is what this discussion was all about.

Therefore, the economic COMMITMENTS these young people make do make decisions, that were often not even a decision to make in 1970, a very difficult decision now ... because economic expectations and commitments are so much greater now.

Still, I comprehend your lack of empathy and understanding.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Noah Yetter — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 08:05:16 -0000

"Young people have to agonize about whether or not to have children because of the economic impact it will have on their lives. Then if they have children, they have to agonize about sending them off to daycare at the tender age of two months or not. Then they have to agonize about how they can juggle their work schedules when the children get sick. And so on and so on."

Oh my god, people have to make choices! THE SKY IS FALLING

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Bruce Hall — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:18:56 -0000

John,

Advancing ----> getting ahead, being better off economically. This is a discussion about incomes and standard of living, isn't it?

One can argue that because technology advances the features of products that replace older products, we are better off. Absolutely! In that case, we will always be better off. There is nothing qualitatively better about a hand-made item than a machine made item except the care that goes into programming the robots. We tend only to value the variations of hand-made items... like the artistic sense that decides where to cut a diamond.

When you've seen 1 million Mona Lisas, you've seen them all. But a 3D digital Mona Lisa that talks... wow! Now that's better off!

This discussion has more apples and oranges than a fruit salad.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

John Dewey — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:17:22 -0000

randy: "how do we get this across to those with ... motivational deficiency?"

Just tell them this: "Get skills and work hard, or go hungry. If you steal in order to survive, we will throw you into prison and give you the same choice once again."

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Randy — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:04:24 -0000

Bill,

I've worked an assembly line. Its not a good life. If the choices are;

a. 10 to 12 years of school then work the rest of my life in a factory.

b. 14 to 16 years of school and then work as a specialist, with the probable need to maintain my skills or adopt new skills as the specialty changes.

I'll go with option b every time. Its a different way of life, but not a worse one.

That said, how do we get this across to those with limited learning ability and/or motivational deficiency? Carrots and sticks, I guess.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

John Dewey — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:02:27 -0000

BillWoolsey,

Haven't all those skilled blue collar jobs been moved offshore? relocated from Detroit, MI, to sweatshop locales such as Marysville, OH, and Smyrna, TN, and Spartanburg, SC?

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

BillWoolsey — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:47:02 -0000

These statistics fail to measure the fall in the number of jobs providing middle class incomes to high school graduates (or less) who do what they are told on the job and faithfully support their union and vote Democrat.

That this is partly or wholely offset by new jobs that require a college education or being some kind of self-starting management type, fails to understand the nature of the "problem."

Where are the assembly line jobs for the uneducated and unmotived providing middle class incomes? They are gone, or at least, fast disappearing.

There are plenty of "blue collar" jobs that pay very well, but nearly all of them require skills, and perhaps even some off-the-job training! That isn't good enough!

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Don Boudreaux — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:29:45 -0000

Preliminary, not-yet-published research by economists at the Dallas Fed finds that in order for a family of four today to purchase the same basket of goods bought by the median-income American family-of-four in 1975, today's family of four need send only 0.7 persons into today's workforce.

Again, this figure isn't yet published, so skepticism of it is justified. But it makes sense to me.

(This info was passed along to me by Dallas Fed Chief Economist Michael Cox.)

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

John Dewey — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:21:03 -0000

Bruce Hall: "Young people have to agonize about whether or not to have children because of the economic impact it will have on their lives. Then if they have children, they have to agonize about sending them off to daycare at the tender age of two months or not."

How is that any different than 30 years ago?

Bruce Hall: "Why are our two incomes not advancing us further than the two incomes of our parents?"

What do you mean by "advancing"?

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Randy — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:18:55 -0000

For what it's worth, my father used to complain all the time about how hard it was to get ahead, high taxes, etc., etc. And he was living through the very same good old days that the complainers of today would like to see return. I think its just human nature to imagine that things could be better. Its also a mistake to think we are being swept along by some mysterious current. If there's a current, it is one of our own choosing.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

John Dewey — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:04:05 -0000

Bruce Hall: "One would need to look at inflation-adjusted personal income to see why people might be getting the perception that they are "treading water"."

IMO, people believe they are "treading water" because the media and politicians tell them so. I doubt that many families take the time to compare their material well-being now vs. ten years ago or twenty years ago or thirty years ago.

As I think we've discussed before, it's likely that any inflation-adjusted comparison of incomes is flawed. The government's inflation calculations make little allowance for changes in quality of goods. Just about every item we consume today is better than what we consumed 30 years ago: "standard" automobiles have more features; many more varieties of common food items are available; household appliances are much safer; telephones have features only dereamed about in 1970; etc.

For Americans, quality of life is at an all time high.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Bruce Hall — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:03:31 -0000

John Dewey,

I'm only suggesting that one should be careful how statements are framed. In this case, comparing "household" incomes is misleading when the number of "income-earners" has changed so dramatically.

The consequences are several. Yes, we are economically better off. Are we better off? Young people have to agonize about whether or not to have children because of the economic impact it will have on their lives. Then if they have children, they have to agonize about sending them off to daycare at the tender age of two months or not. Then they have to agonize about how they can juggle their work schedules when the children get sick. And so on and so on.

I recall when our first child was born that we were a two-income household that quickly became a one-income household. Were we better off? Yes.

One has to differentiate between the economic impact and the perception of well-being... which may be quite different to different people.

People are making their choices known with their actions and I certainly would not argue against the notion that two-incomes = more money. The question might soon be: why are our two incomes not advancing us further than the two incomes of our parents?

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

John Dewey — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 05:46:58 -0000

Bruce,

I understand your point. However, I believe that comparing household income is valid for many purposes. Certainly it does not explain whether or not wages have increased. But it does explain how American families have been able to afford larger houses, which is why I used the comparison.

Are suggesting that American families may not be better off because more women have moved into the workplace? I would defnitely disagree with that idea. If the costs for them to enter the workplace were higher than the benefit received (financial plus emotional benefit) women would not have done so.

The increased participation of women no doubt fed the growth of national GDP. Talented women once underutilized as housewives are now employed as engineers, computer scientists, and business leaders. Tasks such as child care, housecleaning, and food preparation are more efficiently performed by specialists.

The indirect benefits of women's increased participation are huge. The multiplier effect allows women's increased incomes to create many more opportunities for workers than previously existed. I don't see how that can be anything but good for the economy as a whole as well as for individuals whose employment prospects increased.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Bruce Hall — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:43:44 -0000

Again, only speculating, but my experience has show that the comparison of "household" income to 4 decades ago may be a little akin to comparing "Work" with "exertion".

In this case, the obvious difference is the comparitor "household". If the percentage of two-income "household" incomes has increased in 40 years, then the comparison is purely ornamental. One would need to look at inflation-adjusted personal income to see why people might be getting the perception that they are "treading water".

After all, if it takes two people to live a lifestyle that is twice as costly as that which one person (on average) can provide, then we have only changed the definition of "household" in the sense that two incomes are now the basis for income rather than one.

Statistics that I have come across indicate that two-income homes have roughly doubled since the early 1970s. The jump from the mid-30%s to the mid-60%s could go a long way in explaining "household income" versus "individual income".

Then one has to look at the cost side of the equation... two cars to drive to work, two sets of work clothes, etc., plus childcare expense. Not really treading water... just a lot more paid work occurring.

Eh?

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

matt — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 02:58:57 -0000

Life must be tough for the "poor" people who have a house that is "only" 1,660 square feet. You insulted about 6 billion people. Yay.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

happyjuggler0 — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:29:05 -0000

Ammonium,

You can't be serious. Tell me you are simply trolling in order to get a rise out of people with your Onion-like post.

Think about the math for people needing to live in new houses. You'd either need to abandon old houses or blow them up in order to have avoid the heretofore unconceived of "problem" of people living in "old" or "used" houses.

Furthermore, genuinely poor people aren't living in their own houses anyway. They are renting.

There are plenty of new houses being built for the middle class, indeed that is who almost all of them are being built for. They may be in a ring around the old-house suburbs, but so what? The "good" jobs are tending to follow them anyway into cheaper environs too.

Finally, there are plenty of genuinely rich people living in "old" houses in places like Beverly Hills or the Hamptons. Pretty much all of them in fact.