people don't think about the products being made with labor hours at $0.02 per hour overseas. Which would mean those laborers would actually have difficulty purchasing the product. To use prices from when manufacturing was more U.S. based to compare to prices with labor that is internationally based.
The video is right, the poor now have more than the middle class did a generation ago. What he is missing is that the poor have a smaller percent. The poor should have even more than they do now, and it doesn't fucking matter if the standard of living is higher, I don't give a fuck if the poor have their own planes if they worked for more than that.
This is a bit simple minded, as it is in terms of technology. Everything lowers in price significantly after it is no longer new. Mainly it deals with parts and how much it costs to make those parts. Certainly vacuum tubes vs transistors are not comparable.
This is the same with foodstuffs being cheaper due to modern technology and mass production growing techniques.
A lot of the reason this stuff is relatively cheap today is because it is mass produced by machines. In the past, labor did it.
Generally I like LearnLiberty videos but this is one of the weaker ones because this one seems to play semantics regarding the word 'cost' and confusing it with 'standard of living'. Capitalism allows standards of living to increase while keeping costs of that standard either static or lower. Costs and prices are relative to the current standard of living. A fair comparison of the best hi-fi stereo back then should be against the best today. Then you'll see the effects of inflation.
The video is correct. This is the reason that people are living longer today, have more leisure time to watch youtube, and have more disposable income to buy things like computers, cell phones, microwaves, color TVs, DVD players, and washing machines. The cost of gasoline with respect to gold has remained flat, and regulations make it harder and more costly to produce. Health care is better now, and the government pays for half of all health care, which artificially inflates the price.
This guy totally forgot to mention the rise in productivity as an explanation as to why people have more stuff now compared to 100 years ago. also the data is cherry picked. Yes it is true much more purchasing power in 2000 then in 1900 for the industrial worker, however it has not gone up at all since 1975, it has slightly gone down since then in fact
So can we attribute some credit to minimum wage laws for the higher wages & "lower cost of living" as described in this video? Please no ideologically driven rants, just an honest explanation.
"LearnLiberty" vids is pure bias cooperative/republican propaganda. It should be forbidden to mislead people like this. No wonder USA's stupid index is getting higher for each year.
These days, I think I belong to one of the only families in at least two miles around that still uses a VCR, a huge(as in around, not resolution) TV, and doesn't have TV streamed to us by cable or satellite. I can't stand how my parents still live in last century - even my grandparents (both sides) have satellite TV (although my mother's parents also have a VCR and a TV that simply can not be hung on a wall without breaking something).
I guess we have to live within our means, though...
Hmm. Bad example to use electronics. An iPod may be more advanced than a turntable, but it is also not in the same category as the turntable. What I mean is: a turntable was uncommon, where most households had a radio, but no turntable, while most households now have an iPod, but not, say, a tablet. If you compare those kinds of changes in technology, the price has risen a negligible amount. Similarly, in America, you can no longer us ILHs, as it is not an industrial-based nation anymore.
A lot of this is comparing apples to oranges. Sure a made-in-China Ipod costs less than an old stereo did but in 1950 buying a black and white TV was equivalent to buying a Cadillac now - only a few could afford it. He also didn't say if the wages he used were adjusted for inflation. And yes, buying the made-to-fail crap we have today is less expensive but there is still plenty of furniture from the 1900's around - how much Ikea stuff will be here in 20 years - quality must be considered..
@damrak1969 "in 1950 buying a black and white TV was equivalent to buying a Cadillac now - only a few could afford it". That's exactly the point. When things become cheaper, the cost of living decreases or the quality of life improves. And most of the "made-to-fail crap" stems from technology. If a cell phone will be obsolete in 2 years, why make it last for 30? Other products, like cars, are far more reliable today than in the past.
@TG1212able Then why are average Americans having to work more than one job to make ends meet or having to work longer hours for the same pay if the cost of living is less? Also, just because tech items as less expensive doesn't mean they increase the quality of life - I would argue they have altered the quality of life for the worse (less genuine human finteraction, being tied to work 24 hours a day) They only really increase the quality of life for the marketers and manufacturers.
@TG1212able Then why are average Americans having to work more than one job to make ends meet or having to work longer hours for the same pay if the cost of living is less? Also, just because tech items as less expensive doesn't mean they increase the quality of life - I would argue they have altered the quality of life for the worse (less genuine human finteraction, being tied to work 24 hours a day) They only really increase the quality of life for the marketers and manufacturers.
@TG1212able Yes - we live longer through our better healthcare however it costs far more than most can afford. A serious illness can bankrupt many people and health insurance is far less available and far more expensive than say 30 years ago. Upward mobility has decreased across the board and wealth has been concentrated into a small minority which strains the availability of resources for the rest of us. Retirement is a distant, if not impossible, dream for many Americans.
@damrak1969 There are many problems, but they are not caused by the concentration of wealth. The rich have gotten richer, but not at the expense of the poor. Over the past 30 years the US GDP has doubled in size. Where does this new wealth go? To those that created it. Bob the Butcher and Tom the Teacher do the same work now as then. They didn't grow the GDP, so they don't get a cut. We should give them a way to participate so they can increase wealth like the rich. How? Partially privatize SS.
@TG1212able I am a libertarian but I disagree with that statement. America is an Oligarchy in which the rich use their influence to make themselves richer while simultateously protecting themselves from losses (i.e. too big to fail.) They have siphoned off vast amounts of wealth over the last 10 years while the government has kept the system from imploding with QE 1 and 2. The whole house of cards is about to fall and if won't be pretty but the poor will suffer most.
@damrak1969 Such damning statements should really have more support. How have they made themselves richer? Was it at the expense of the poor? And as far as protecting from loss, do you really think the general public would have tolerated the disasterous short-term results if all the financial institutions failed? Did the bailouts only protect the rich? The downfall of QEs is inflation, so wouldn't that most hurt those with the most money? EU is in a far worse position. Do they have an oligarchy?
@TG1212able The US government is more influenced by corporate manipulation than the EU. The EU is actually implementing austerity measures - something the US will never do because the corporations won't let that happen - they want more tax breaks! Also, yes, the banks should have been allowed to fail and undergone bankruptcy and restructuring even if it was painful. Our system is failing - it's only a matter of time. Pay me now or pay me later but the USA is going to have to pay.
@damrak1969 - Most of the austerity measures in the EU nations are spending cuts to the large entitlement programs, cuts to government jobs, needless regulation, and privatization. Why would US corporations not want that to happen? Its the public that's preventing that from happening here. And as far as taxes go, the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Wouldn't the controlling corporations have prevented that in the first place? Guess you're just big on rhetoric.
@TG1212able Because a lot of that austerity would cause less money to circulate and be available to consumers which are their customers. If we made things and created value it might be ok but Americans only buy things so less circulating money would directly impact corporations. Corporate tax rates are more acceptable to the ruling class because many of them make most of their money off capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate not to mention all the tax loopholes corporate tax lawyers use.
@damrak1969 Really? Corporations oppose austerity because the general public would be poorer. That's what you just said. Oh God, they are so evil aren't they? And get off this whole, we don't produce anything anymore. Economics is all about making use of resources. We make better use of the most fleeting and valuable resource. Time. That's service. The money that is taxed at capital gains rate was already taxed at the corporate rate. Are you unfamiliar with the whole concept of double taxation?
@TG1212able They don't want the public to be poor because if they are poor they can't consume goods and services. Corporations want consumers to borrow and leverege themselves into eternal debt just as long as they can buy, buy, buy - the exact mindset that has brought the world to the edge of financial collapse. Plus they got legislation to pretty much take away bankruptcy protection for the consumer - not to mention the previously criminal interests rates they can now charge.
@damrak1969 So corporations want people to have assets so they can voluntarily leverage against them to buy more? Those bastards. The public is at fault for their own actions. I like how you continuously offer your libertarian credentials but then speak favorably of criminal interest rates. The problem isn't business becoming bedfellows with government, its government getting involved to begin with. The whole collapse originated with government's noble efforts to increase homeownership.
@TG1212able I'm a Libertarian and I'm all for free markets and capitalism - it's the best system we have. The problem is when business becomes bedfellows with the government and is able to rig the system in their favor - then you get what we have now - Crony Capitalism. "Too big to fail" is the perfect example, as is the lending fiasco that precipitated the 2008 collapse. What has changed? Nothing because government won't let it change. .
@TG1212able We need austerity here but neither party has the balls to do it. Republicans talk about smaller government but when they have control government always seems to keep growing. Obama of course would never consider cutting spending. Ron Paul is the only hope we have of actually changing course but he won't be elected. China is already signaling they are getting tired of buying our worthless debt and will be "diversifying" their overseas investments. I give it 3 years before we crash
Silly argument. First of all, no one really complains about the high cost of food since it is not a major expenditure. People care about the high cost of higher education, housing, and health insurance/care. In addition, one has to consider stagnant wages when talking about the cost of living. The cost of living might have not gone up, but relative to stagnant or even dropping wages, it has.
@Moionfire They disproved that myth too buddy. The amount of money that you are actually getting paid is decreasing, but that's because more of it is being paid in benefits.
@Moionfire ...True, and don't forget the reason no one complains about the cost of food. Can you say "gigantic government subsidies that benefit everyone." Food isn't really that cheap.
Comparing today with 1940 isn't the argument. How much has our purchasing power diminished in the last 2 years? Last Four? That is the true question with inflation and the status of the dollar in question there are a lot more factors in play than just pointing out technology in our TV has advanced. Our economy has a massive trade deficit, that along with the National debt and private debt, the cost of living could go up dramatically if we lose the status of being the WORLDS RESERVE CURRENCY.
why does he only focus on goods? how about housing costs? health care costs? insurance costs? the outrageous cost of gasoline? yeah, food is cheaper and ipods are pretty neat, so what? where you gonna put all that stuff when you can't afford rent? how are you gonna fare when you get sick and have tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills to pay off and have to choose between eating or paying off debt? he's articulate, but sees the cost of living through a very narrow scope
@GabrielBacon Have you seen a house built in 1950? Have you seen one built in 2005? Have you seen health care in 1920? Most of what we call health care didn't exist then. You used to just die, stay sick, or get better on your own when you got sick. Gasoline cost more in 1920 than it does today. It was $.20 a gallon then compared to an annual wage of $1500. If gas hits $4 a gallon, that compares to an annual wage of $30.000
@goose1077 Sure, humanity in is richer with innovation in every field, we've gotten better at everything, we're all better off. but we have to work more hours and longer hours to maintain the same *relative* standard of living as compared to previous generations. cars are an absolute necessity in most areas of the country, much different than the 20s. our cost of living should be compared to the standard of living TODAY, not the standard of living 60 years ago
@GabrielBacon Housing/healthcare *are* more important than iPods. Three things: 1) government is heavily involved in housing and healthcare, so the market there has been distorted, 2) I suspect housing is also cheaper than 100 years ago, and 3) healthcare is not cheaper, but consider what you're getting. If you got sick in the 20s, not only did you pay for care, you probably ended up worse off.
Not to make light, but maybe these essential areas are the ones that could do with less government.
@GabrielBacon All of the costs you mentioned are artificially inflated (my new catch phrase) by the government regulations, thus they are perverted and do not apply to a market based economy.
@GabrielBacon Well Gasoline is a product of an international cartel setting the prices. Hopefully we won't be dependent on that for too much longer anyways. Housing and Insurance costs are two interesting examples for you to bring up, as they are sectors of the economy that have seen a tremendous amount of government intervention. I think what you will find is that if government got out of insurance and the housing market, prices would be much more affordable.
@GabrielBacon People simply didn't have those things and didn't have access to those services. Today you have a choice between paying for drugs that will save your life, or paying for your children's schooling; back then, there was no choice, you die; and, your children never went to school.
im not sure how my ability to buy a dishwasher (which was likely just included in my apartment and not me buying my dishwasher) equates to me being less poor
I gave thumbs down because this sounds to me exactly like the gov't when it argues that there is no inflation. They just substitute goods on the list whenever one of them gets too expensive to throw off their "averages." It's just manipulation.
If our cheap electronics come from MONOPOLY credit and EXLPOITED (and I'm a capitalist!) Chinese workers, then what the hell are we really saying when we say costs are down??? How much does the average Chinese worker make? Jack squat, right?
@MillionthUsername Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
It's pretty obvious to me that his only argument is that technological advances have made electronic & some mechanical devices more affordable. I'd like to see him argue that it's easier to find affordable health care, food or shelter. I remember when I didn't have to work very many hours to afford groceries & a one bedroom apartment. My real life experiences don't confirm his arguments, other than the fact that technology has made a lot of advances.
@prschuster He did start off with chickens, so he talked about more than electronics. As far as healthcare, it is far far better today that in decades past, so it will cost more. He addressed food with the chickens. In my experience, I recall seldomly having orange juice as a kid. Now, its always in my fridge. Because it got cheaper. As far as housing, the square foot per person has dramatically increased. So even though you are wrong, the experience of 1 of 300 million doesn't debunk a trend.
notice how they always go straight to electronics to make their case that the price of living isnt going up? boy i bet that has nothing to do with the rapid turnover in that industry, the constant advancement in technique, the massive subsidies provided by the chinese government to MANUFACTURE THESE THINGS
As with the Hi-Fi, you can only play one thing at a time with your ipod (with the two ipods you can listen to two at a time, but only one headphone per ipod). The difference is that the Hi-Fi has greater quality of sound and could even be considered as furniture.
this is why we need to get rid of Medicare and Social Security, If people are stupid enough to not know to save for their future that is their problem not our's and our wallet's
sorry, my dad needed 5 years worth of saving to buy a house
we both are working in the same field and i have been working for 5 years till i realized that i am wasting my time and i couldn't save enough so i quit and went back to school.
by the time u save to buy real assets it is going higher and u never catch up
Oh, I agree technology has greatly progressed and raised the standard of living, but the title is about the COST of living. Poor in the USA is royal living in other nations. Overall the COST will keep many from realizing the same standards their parents enjoyed with poorer tech. That's the deception of this video.
@mallardhead You hit in on the head. The poorer will experience fewer holidays, fewer vacations from work, more time working with over time, and less wealth to show for it ( ie savings, paid off items like homes, cars, other vehicles), and regressing working conditions with little to no breaks and very short lunch periods. Not to mention worsening healthcare due to lack of funds and poor insurance offerings from employers.
LearnLiberty has one entitled "What is classical liberalism?" I think it is key to why these jokers are doing the crazy stuff they're doing! ... This guy compares home stereo systems to ipods ... shouldn't ipods be compared to walkmans? Its a sample of the misdirection (The LIE).
@mallardhead Very good point. And exact fallacy these bastards are using is misdirection. Comparing apples and oranges. Compare things that exist today that existed back than like the items I mentioned: homes, heating, electricity, etc.
Yes! Usually when new technology gets older or updates the cost of things like Walkmans goes down. ... BUT that's NOT the point. The point was a deceptive and wrong comparison used in the Liberal argument that everything is okay when its not.
@mallardhead Are you saying that this video is a liberal argument or that all of these videos are liberal. This channel is pretty neutral (in that it has opinions that are both 'conservative and liberal'. It's whatever though. I'm pretty liberal and I thought this video was one of the not so good ones.
Yes, not so good! ... Yes, a liberal argument made in the modern twisted liberal way. ... Do you believe govt must control liberty to insure equality and justice?
@mallardhead It's not a must, but I don't think society knows how go about it any other way anymore. I have trouble with that question regularly though, not going to lie. I lean towards yes because of things like greed and selfishness that make people leave others behind. Unfortunately, the government can sometimes be the very entity that is being greedy and irresponsible.
The answer to your quandary is found in the make up of our govt. Ours is no longer representative of the People. It satisfies its own interests, govt first, or those of lobbies and corporations who enrich/empower them the most. Such an attitude led to the Declaration of Independence. ... NO govt can ever be allowed to define and control liberty the way ours is now trying. Screw them!
@fritoman182 Its misinformation. We may have it nicer due to technology, but costs have not come down. Wealth creation to actually have things paid off and have the asset is less likely due to these costs. We might be able to take our magical radios with us to listen to music, but that doesn't mean my light bill is cheaper in wage hours same with a mortgage. This guy is misleading.
Let's take a look at bread prices. 1961 1 lbs loaf: .25. so at $2.74/hr 10.96 loaves purchased per hour. Bread 2011 $1.70 per loaf at $19.40 you get 11.41 loaves. Ok, an increase. A whooping 0.45 loaves mind you that's over 45 YEARS. That's for industrial workers drop that down to $8.50 an hour - a call center job - you get: 5 loaves of bread per hour. Hrm that's a 50% drop. That call center pay scale is a lot more common now. Also no benefits and little job security to boot.
So why compare industrial laborers? Hasn't the US's industrial based declined substantially? Yes, it has. Oh, wait industrial workers tend to get paid more.
Now lets compare service sector employees - a more typical field to work in now - vs industrial workers back then. After all both represent a more typical worker for their respective times.
It would be like comparing blacksmiths in the 1890s to blacksmiths now. Their are still blacksmiths but they are so uncommon now they are an oddity.
@colddrake80 Haven't you ever heard the phrase service industry? Industrial doesn't just mean factory. That said, service sector includes, Doctors, Lawyers, Investment Bankers, Financial consultants and Planners, Accountants, and most of all the highest paid jobs in the economy.
@goose1077 Actually "industrial" sector does mean manufacturing. The service sector also includes cashiers, greeters at wal-mart, convenience store attendants, call center employees and a host of other low paying, no benefits jobs.
Besides cars, most goods don't last as long as they used to. The top of the line stereo or coffee maker in the 1960s may still work today, but an ipod or cell phone will be out of date or will not be expected to work more than a couple of years. Can you make a video showing how repeatedly buying the same products effects the cost of living?
Also can you address some of today's largest expenditures: health care and gasoline.
@mechadamuramu The new stuff can be rendered non-functional just by changing network software. Even if that iPod worked in 10 years - they aren't supposed to - the software used by other systems will have changed to the point the iPod is no longer compatible. A record player, as long as you can find records for it - will not stop working because someone flips a proverbial switch 5,000 miles away in server farm.
Actually..... I think the average wear out mileage is 250k as long as you don't buy Chinese,some Korean,Yugo cars,Crystler/Dodge products,You might want to avoid Suzuki and Isuzu.................... ;) American cars or trucks excluding Crystler/Dodge, German,or Most Japanese cars are safe bets......
That $500.00 1960's top of the line stereo system lasted 30 years because it was built to be durable. Planned obsolecense means comparable products are only built to last 3 years. So, that $250.00 high tech stereo will have be replaced 10x in the same period, true cost for comparable products $500.00 vs $2500.00. How many songs will you download at $.99 per song? Vs. Free music.
wow, this guy. Yes technological advancements have given us a better life. That has nothing to do with economics, in so far as base standard is concerned. My "base standard" includes utilities, transportation, healthcare, housing, and food. Our tech allows us a better standard of living while our economy (deregulation, trade agreements, lobbying) has degraded our standard of living. The ideal is that no one should be hungry or want for health care.
the home stereo argument is retarded. it costs more to buy a home stereo now than it did before. you are not even comparing the same thing! to get a nice system with quite a bit of power is pretty expensive.
It's not just man-hours that makes something cost a lot. If it took zero man-hours to make a block of gold, that would still be worth a lot due to scarcity and supply-and-demand.
Mass production, competition and free markets are great, and they do drive an economic engine that helps human progress. To a point. However, all these things also drive innovative assembly processes and automation. And what does that drive? Make more things, with less man hours. What does that drive? More mass production with less workers. What does that drive? Higher rates of unemployment. What does that drive? Lower wages as supply(of jobs) weakens versus demand(of unemployed workers).
@IdeasMoveNations That's definitely not true. It used to be that almost everyone in America worked at farming; now we do even more with less people. However, jobs didn't just go away - people were able to work at the new jobs created by new inventions driven by more people able to spend time to think rather than do manual labor. You're making the same mistake Marx did - people are central to the economy, so it's not like we could ever have a surplus in capitalism.
@caesarofearth what?!?! go ask all those unemployed americans how much spending time to think is paying off!! Spending your time thinking or having time to pursue the arts doesn't mean diddly squat if no one (the people with the money, which are becoming less and less) is willing to pay for your thinking or art. if you improve efficiency so much that you leave yourself without a market to supply demand due to lack of unemployment even efficiency will fail.
@joseney21 There have always been unemployed Americans, ever since at least the Revolutionary war. What I'm saying is that the percent of unemployed Americans has not increased significantly, at least not until the recession, and that was government-caused. You forget that humanity is not a resource, it has a special role in the economic process. You can say we have too many chairs, so cut production, but you cannot do that to humans. There is no such thing as a surplus of humanity.
@joseney21 If your argument were true, then long ago we would have reached over 90% unemployment, because efficiency has increased by that much. Once humans are freed up from one job, more jobs are created for them.
I generally find all these videos to be of high quality and quite factual. However this one to me is GREATLY in dispute. In 1966, the average industrial wage(which in this video is going to be a de facto 'what most people made') of 2.74 is highly believable and seems accurate. However, to say that most people in 2011 make $19.40 an hour is just absolutely ridiculous. You might convince me of $12/hr being an average wage today, but 19.40 is like a bad joke. There is just no way I'm buying that.
@IdeasMoveNations Heh! I've met people who make that much money. They are called bosses. Granted they are outnumbered by line employees by over 10:1. None of us have the benefits that were considered standard back in the day. Most of us will never be able to retire.
The video is simplistic, but what do you want out of three minutes? I am not convinced. While I appreciate removing the effects of inflation (a must when comparing prices over time), there are other factors I believe to be significant such as planned obsolescence, hidden costs of environmental pollution and minimum wages. There is a huge market for used goods that poor families often rely on, and potential consequences for not living up to a certain standard.
Who really owns a stereo system. Obsolete technology will not have as big of a demand as newer, slicker, more efficient technology. You could use the example of a Nintendo Entertainment System. In 1985, it cost $299 to own one. At the time, there was nothing like that. That same model, with inflation included, can be had for under $30. Does that mean we are richer for it, or does that simply imply that obsolete technology has a lower demand attached to it.
I can't believe anybody is buying these claims. Chickens are cheaper, but is that because we are getting richer, or the improvement of technology. I bet in the 20's that they did not have genetically enhanced chickens grown on massive farms that could be moved with efficient refrigerated trucks across the country. I wish you would have used organic products as an example, which would have been more true to life.
Generally speaking, when we look at how much time we must spend working to afford things of equal or greater value than that of what we could get in the past, I think this video is correct.
Planned obsolescence isn't that a company makes something that will break in just a few years so you have to buy a new one. Planned obsolescence is when a company makes a product they intend for a new better product to replace it sometime in the future. I heard a few comments saying how the iPod only lasts seven years. Why the hell would Apple invest in making it last longer when your likely to replace it with the newer model in a year or two.
OK. Lets figure in the price of housing, taxes, the price of fuel, health care, and oh ya, the price of traffic tickets. And for those that still use them---postage stamps. I entered the work force 34 years ago. If I was doing the same job today, I would have to work more hours to pay for the same things that my money went to back then. The same job pays about 150% more than it did back then.
what we discover is that, children in china can make my shoes cheaper then an illegal immagrent in back woods Mississippi and much much cheaper then a working class Jane/Joe in Kentucky. Thus my shoes are made in China by people living on less then 4 dollars a day all the while i can't find a job.
@ShamanMcLamie just pointing out reality, not unlike a person taking a picture. any point to me made should be made by the observer. what point are you rebeling against?
The cost of goods hasn't gone up? That's not the whole picture. The cost of goods may have gone up, and may be the result of inflation, but the income of consumers has been stagnant, and hasn't kept up with inflation. SO IN TURN, YES, THE COST OF GOODS HAS GONE UP.
Lets's say I earn a dollar a year, and only 100 dollars exist in the world. If another 100 is injected, and I still only earn 1 dollar, then my income has effectively been cut in half.
@chronDiggity Actually, wage inflation has slightly outpaced price inflation for minimum wage workers. Wages for better paying jobs have outpaced price inflation even more.
Wiki: "United States Income Distribution 1947-2007"
This chart shows inflation adjusted wages. We are all getting richer. The higher your wage, the faster you are getting richer. The top 1% is getting richer REALLY fast.
We need banking reform, not a new economic system.=)
You're doing it wrong. From 2004 to 2008 alone, there was a 14% change as a result of inflation. In your own chart, look at 2000 to 2010. The difference in income is absolutely negligible, nowhere near 14%.
@chronDiggity The income shown in the chart is "inflation adjusted" meaning any increase or decrease in wages is in relation to prices. There is little doubt that we are all getting richer, generally.
We are getting richer but our share of the GDP is declining. This is OK in the short term because we get bigger homes, and more disposable income. However, if you fast forward 100 years, very few banking interests could control 99% of the capital in the world. This is not good.
But, quality is not thought about as far as products go. An appliance or tool in the 1950s was made in the US, and could be operated for over 100 years with care and regular maintainence. But, while much cheaper, today's appliance or tool is only thought to last a few years, and have everything fail at once (planned obsolescence).
A modern car is designed to fail all at one time, usually around 200,000 miles. In the past, each part was made as longlasting they could make it.
Richmunnich is simply wrong re automobiles. Cars are on the road longer than there were twenty years ago and they were never built to last thirty years. And in 1920, 100,000 miles was an unimaginable distance for an automobile. "Planned obsolescence" is only in the mind of the consumer. The most popular and valued cars are those that are reliable and last for years. Many American used cars end up in foreign markets because they work, not because they don't work.
@oakfarm Yep! Most of the cars in poorer European countries will have mileage counts or at least 200,000 miles, most have higher than that easy, it's common there.
At one time people didn't have to pay federal income tax (and other taxes) or social security etc. Now they do! Plus how many good paying jobs moved overseas. All the items that used to be made in America now produced overseas which means higher costs to cover the shipping around the world!
@yyttr4 Not to mention property taxes or further the cost of housing, utilities, HOA fees, etc., where applicable for comparison. That, as well what you have mentioned, and also along with the cost of training and education as correlated to that average industrial wage scale. That alone (costs of education and training) would tip the currently incomplete chart of economic comparison.
@yyttr4 Through in housing, transportation, utilities, etc. as well. The wealth people could actually save and generate was much more than today. They're homes in terms of labor costs were cheap and so were their utilities (electric bill and water bill, etc), transportation was also cheaper then including the car that he points out. Most now rent and have no equity built in their home to where they aren't paying on their property. I personally think he's off in kookoo land.
I would also like to point out that one of the reasons so much of our electronics, shirts and other things have become so affordable is because they are manufactured by people in sweatshops and one thing that always pisses me off, people ignore globalization and how that is something we've never had to deal with.
If our economy was a closed system one might be able to take theories derived from logic a bit easier....but its not closed and we have a things called container ships.
@Dethreid ALL industrial nations went through the "sweatshop" stage. So I don't lnow what you're talking about. total socio-economic overhaul doesn't work like magic, it is quite slow and evolutionary and functions best when all in involved kept protected yet unhindered. it's a hard balance to keep,but it is necassary for real permanent growth.
Companies don't have to look for a market near where they manufacture anymore, its cheap enough to just ship it too them, else they would have to pay decent wages to their employees so there was consumption of goods. Climb of demand = increases in wages = decreases in the cost of goods.
There was explosive growth in china right now because they had access to the US consumer and didn't have to pay the high wages of the US consumer, their ability to manipulate their currency greatly helped them in this as well.
Unfortunately the US could only withstand a small erosion of the manufacturing base.
Notice how much debt was required just to keep the growth steady, now we are feeling the repercussions, check out the trade deals with SK/COL/PAN, what a joke.
I am a little surprised to find that I am able to live comfortably on ten-thousand dollars a year while setting aside what's left for taxes, charity, and my IRA.
The amount of raw hours of labor it takes to get the same amount of wealth is certainly less than it was before.
Now if we could just put a cap on the Fed's inflation...
Yep, I can afford a $200 iPod. What I can't afford is to move out of my parents' house and rent my own place while balancing my student loan payments. Nice video.
Free markets in the tech industry and appliances have clearly shown how an obedience to non-aggression principles incrementally leads to a greater standard of living for us all. But the gov't is too involved in Banking, Schooling Housing, Healthcare and energy to get us past being just rich consumers. We need savers, investers and people with capital, not people strapped with student loans and healthcare debts who are paying for new ipods with credit.
Macs start much cheaper than 3300, and Here in Georgia many factories start you off around 10-13 and people who have been there forever or have a superior position will make 20+. Please bear in mind there are other jobs in the industrial sector than just line workers, and people need to stop making excuses for the sake of argument. (though I do believe the real manufacturing av wage is 15 or 16)
Even the statement about automobiles is flawed. Cars built in the first half of the twentieth century averaged a 30 year operating cycle. When I was a teenager in the 70's it was not unusual to see a '57 Chevy. Yes they went slower and would get less mileage over all but they were made of heavier gauge materials that stood the test of time. Cars are planned to be completely gone in ten years. It's called "planned obsolescence". GM notoriously built a 4 year disposable car in the eighties.
@xRA1D32x The iPod he's showing there will last 5-7 years and the battery will die and not be able to be re-charged. The 50 year old stereo in my parents attic still works, just plug it in.
@Richmunnich That planned obsolescence isn't in the mechanical aspects of your car. They still function nearly identically, if more efficiently, to older cars. The obsolescence they are talking about is in the electronics - like your stereo, etc. And it is "planned", but only in the sense that they try to estimate how far down the road until the CD player (for example) becomes obsolete. The 4 year "disposable" car GM built in the 80's? Note that CDs become widely available in the 80's.
@mtanousable Pontiac Fiero, Google it! Of the 1700 to 2500 parts on an average car I would estimate about three fifths are electronic. So your statement about the electronics makes sense. One prime example is a thing called a "Freedom Battery". The big selling point was that it required no maintenance.
@Richmunnich Simply not true. Cars today can reach 500,000 with good maintenance and that's shown by the countless people in Europe who drive our old cars and repair them rather than scrapping or selling them because they can't afford new ones. Oh also, heating and Air conditioning, power, lights, comfort and better design, and far better mileage and road travel. Cars today blow cars back then away in everything.
Where the makers of this video got the $19.40 average industrial wage is beyond my comprehension. I'm seeing $8-10 average wage throughout manufacturing and service sectors. Unless they are including management you know CEO's, CFO's, presidents, vice, presidents, supervisors, foremen, and anyone else you want to include who doesn't actually produce a product or provide a service to a customer.
people don't think about the products being made with labor hours at $0.02 per hour overseas. Which would mean those laborers would actually have difficulty purchasing the product. To use prices from when manufacturing was more U.S. based to compare to prices with labor that is internationally based.
HouseofVespucci 6 hours ago
The video is right, the poor now have more than the middle class did a generation ago. What he is missing is that the poor have a smaller percent. The poor should have even more than they do now, and it doesn't fucking matter if the standard of living is higher, I don't give a fuck if the poor have their own planes if they worked for more than that.
ZigZagzGoon 20 hours ago
This is a bit simple minded, as it is in terms of technology. Everything lowers in price significantly after it is no longer new. Mainly it deals with parts and how much it costs to make those parts. Certainly vacuum tubes vs transistors are not comparable.
This is the same with foodstuffs being cheaper due to modern technology and mass production growing techniques.
A lot of the reason this stuff is relatively cheap today is because it is mass produced by machines. In the past, labor did it.
brendanmcwilliams 2 days ago
Generally I like LearnLiberty videos but this is one of the weaker ones because this one seems to play semantics regarding the word 'cost' and confusing it with 'standard of living'. Capitalism allows standards of living to increase while keeping costs of that standard either static or lower. Costs and prices are relative to the current standard of living. A fair comparison of the best hi-fi stereo back then should be against the best today. Then you'll see the effects of inflation.
whitechocolatespace 3 days ago
I never realized that. It's true, we live far more comfortably now then back a century.
YouHaveWonAFreeiPad 4 days ago
The video is correct. This is the reason that people are living longer today, have more leisure time to watch youtube, and have more disposable income to buy things like computers, cell phones, microwaves, color TVs, DVD players, and washing machines. The cost of gasoline with respect to gold has remained flat, and regulations make it harder and more costly to produce. Health care is better now, and the government pays for half of all health care, which artificially inflates the price.
Reason1600 6 days ago 6
This guy totally forgot to mention the rise in productivity as an explanation as to why people have more stuff now compared to 100 years ago. also the data is cherry picked. Yes it is true much more purchasing power in 2000 then in 1900 for the industrial worker, however it has not gone up at all since 1975, it has slightly gone down since then in fact
Dutchguy74 6 days ago
So can we attribute some credit to minimum wage laws for the higher wages & "lower cost of living" as described in this video? Please no ideologically driven rants, just an honest explanation.
JBourneID 1 week ago
"LearnLiberty" vids is pure bias cooperative/republican propaganda. It should be forbidden to mislead people like this. No wonder USA's stupid index is getting higher for each year.
icchiism 1 week ago
technology has made it possible to be more productive. this guy is a hack and puppet for republicunts
blastsummit 1 week ago
There you have it. Proof that capitalism fights poverty. All we have is jealousy.
ohedd 1 week ago
These days, I think I belong to one of the only families in at least two miles around that still uses a VCR, a huge(as in around, not resolution) TV, and doesn't have TV streamed to us by cable or satellite. I can't stand how my parents still live in last century - even my grandparents (both sides) have satellite TV (although my mother's parents also have a VCR and a TV that simply can not be hung on a wall without breaking something).
I guess we have to live within our means, though...
audioblogs12 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
How about the rising rent cost.
BigTeste 2 weeks ago
Hmm. Bad example to use electronics. An iPod may be more advanced than a turntable, but it is also not in the same category as the turntable. What I mean is: a turntable was uncommon, where most households had a radio, but no turntable, while most households now have an iPod, but not, say, a tablet. If you compare those kinds of changes in technology, the price has risen a negligible amount. Similarly, in America, you can no longer us ILHs, as it is not an industrial-based nation anymore.
OmegaVestor 2 weeks ago
LOL
alvisc2002 2 weeks ago
blah blah
MNskins11 2 weeks ago
A lot of this is comparing apples to oranges. Sure a made-in-China Ipod costs less than an old stereo did but in 1950 buying a black and white TV was equivalent to buying a Cadillac now - only a few could afford it. He also didn't say if the wages he used were adjusted for inflation. And yes, buying the made-to-fail crap we have today is less expensive but there is still plenty of furniture from the 1900's around - how much Ikea stuff will be here in 20 years - quality must be considered..
damrak1969 2 weeks ago
@damrak1969 "in 1950 buying a black and white TV was equivalent to buying a Cadillac now - only a few could afford it". That's exactly the point. When things become cheaper, the cost of living decreases or the quality of life improves. And most of the "made-to-fail crap" stems from technology. If a cell phone will be obsolete in 2 years, why make it last for 30? Other products, like cars, are far more reliable today than in the past.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able Then why are average Americans having to work more than one job to make ends meet or having to work longer hours for the same pay if the cost of living is less? Also, just because tech items as less expensive doesn't mean they increase the quality of life - I would argue they have altered the quality of life for the worse (less genuine human finteraction, being tied to work 24 hours a day) They only really increase the quality of life for the marketers and manufacturers.
damrak1969 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TG1212able Then why are average Americans having to work more than one job to make ends meet or having to work longer hours for the same pay if the cost of living is less? Also, just because tech items as less expensive doesn't mean they increase the quality of life - I would argue they have altered the quality of life for the worse (less genuine human finteraction, being tied to work 24 hours a day) They only really increase the quality of life for the marketers and manufacturers.
damrak1969 1 week ago
@TG1212able Yes - we live longer through our better healthcare however it costs far more than most can afford. A serious illness can bankrupt many people and health insurance is far less available and far more expensive than say 30 years ago. Upward mobility has decreased across the board and wealth has been concentrated into a small minority which strains the availability of resources for the rest of us. Retirement is a distant, if not impossible, dream for many Americans.
damrak1969 1 week ago
@damrak1969 There are many problems, but they are not caused by the concentration of wealth. The rich have gotten richer, but not at the expense of the poor. Over the past 30 years the US GDP has doubled in size. Where does this new wealth go? To those that created it. Bob the Butcher and Tom the Teacher do the same work now as then. They didn't grow the GDP, so they don't get a cut. We should give them a way to participate so they can increase wealth like the rich. How? Partially privatize SS.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able I am a libertarian but I disagree with that statement. America is an Oligarchy in which the rich use their influence to make themselves richer while simultateously protecting themselves from losses (i.e. too big to fail.) They have siphoned off vast amounts of wealth over the last 10 years while the government has kept the system from imploding with QE 1 and 2. The whole house of cards is about to fall and if won't be pretty but the poor will suffer most.
damrak1969 1 week ago
@damrak1969 Such damning statements should really have more support. How have they made themselves richer? Was it at the expense of the poor? And as far as protecting from loss, do you really think the general public would have tolerated the disasterous short-term results if all the financial institutions failed? Did the bailouts only protect the rich? The downfall of QEs is inflation, so wouldn't that most hurt those with the most money? EU is in a far worse position. Do they have an oligarchy?
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able The US government is more influenced by corporate manipulation than the EU. The EU is actually implementing austerity measures - something the US will never do because the corporations won't let that happen - they want more tax breaks! Also, yes, the banks should have been allowed to fail and undergone bankruptcy and restructuring even if it was painful. Our system is failing - it's only a matter of time. Pay me now or pay me later but the USA is going to have to pay.
damrak1969 1 week ago
@damrak1969 - Most of the austerity measures in the EU nations are spending cuts to the large entitlement programs, cuts to government jobs, needless regulation, and privatization. Why would US corporations not want that to happen? Its the public that's preventing that from happening here. And as far as taxes go, the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Wouldn't the controlling corporations have prevented that in the first place? Guess you're just big on rhetoric.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able Because a lot of that austerity would cause less money to circulate and be available to consumers which are their customers. If we made things and created value it might be ok but Americans only buy things so less circulating money would directly impact corporations. Corporate tax rates are more acceptable to the ruling class because many of them make most of their money off capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate not to mention all the tax loopholes corporate tax lawyers use.
damrak1969 1 week ago
Comment removed
damrak1969 1 week ago
@damrak1969 Really? Corporations oppose austerity because the general public would be poorer. That's what you just said. Oh God, they are so evil aren't they? And get off this whole, we don't produce anything anymore. Economics is all about making use of resources. We make better use of the most fleeting and valuable resource. Time. That's service. The money that is taxed at capital gains rate was already taxed at the corporate rate. Are you unfamiliar with the whole concept of double taxation?
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able They don't want the public to be poor because if they are poor they can't consume goods and services. Corporations want consumers to borrow and leverege themselves into eternal debt just as long as they can buy, buy, buy - the exact mindset that has brought the world to the edge of financial collapse. Plus they got legislation to pretty much take away bankruptcy protection for the consumer - not to mention the previously criminal interests rates they can now charge.
damrak1969 1 week ago
@damrak1969 So corporations want people to have assets so they can voluntarily leverage against them to buy more? Those bastards. The public is at fault for their own actions. I like how you continuously offer your libertarian credentials but then speak favorably of criminal interest rates. The problem isn't business becoming bedfellows with government, its government getting involved to begin with. The whole collapse originated with government's noble efforts to increase homeownership.
TG1212able 1 week ago
@TG1212able I'm a Libertarian and I'm all for free markets and capitalism - it's the best system we have. The problem is when business becomes bedfellows with the government and is able to rig the system in their favor - then you get what we have now - Crony Capitalism. "Too big to fail" is the perfect example, as is the lending fiasco that precipitated the 2008 collapse. What has changed? Nothing because government won't let it change. .
damrak1969 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TG1212able We need austerity here but neither party has the balls to do it. Republicans talk about smaller government but when they have control government always seems to keep growing. Obama of course would never consider cutting spending. Ron Paul is the only hope we have of actually changing course but he won't be elected. China is already signaling they are getting tired of buying our worthless debt and will be "diversifying" their overseas investments. I give it 3 years before we crash
damrak1969 1 week ago
Anyone notice the advert for iPod?
kakake12 3 weeks ago
Silly argument. First of all, no one really complains about the high cost of food since it is not a major expenditure. People care about the high cost of higher education, housing, and health insurance/care. In addition, one has to consider stagnant wages when talking about the cost of living. The cost of living might have not gone up, but relative to stagnant or even dropping wages, it has.
Moionfire 3 weeks ago
@Moionfire They disproved that myth too buddy. The amount of money that you are actually getting paid is decreasing, but that's because more of it is being paid in benefits.
PkayerZxz2 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Moionfire ...True, and don't forget the reason no one complains about the cost of food. Can you say "gigantic government subsidies that benefit everyone." Food isn't really that cheap.
sinistar99 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't care about goods and service. Inflation is destroying us. The cost of living has gone up dramatically.
vonGleichenT 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorites
Comparing today with 1940 isn't the argument. How much has our purchasing power diminished in the last 2 years? Last Four? That is the true question with inflation and the status of the dollar in question there are a lot more factors in play than just pointing out technology in our TV has advanced. Our economy has a massive trade deficit, that along with the National debt and private debt, the cost of living could go up dramatically if we lose the status of being the WORLDS RESERVE CURRENCY.
TyZi187 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorites
why does he only focus on goods? how about housing costs? health care costs? insurance costs? the outrageous cost of gasoline? yeah, food is cheaper and ipods are pretty neat, so what? where you gonna put all that stuff when you can't afford rent? how are you gonna fare when you get sick and have tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills to pay off and have to choose between eating or paying off debt? he's articulate, but sees the cost of living through a very narrow scope
GabrielBacon 3 weeks ago 7
@GabrielBacon Have you seen a house built in 1950? Have you seen one built in 2005? Have you seen health care in 1920? Most of what we call health care didn't exist then. You used to just die, stay sick, or get better on your own when you got sick. Gasoline cost more in 1920 than it does today. It was $.20 a gallon then compared to an annual wage of $1500. If gas hits $4 a gallon, that compares to an annual wage of $30.000
goose1077 3 weeks ago
@goose1077 Sure, humanity in is richer with innovation in every field, we've gotten better at everything, we're all better off. but we have to work more hours and longer hours to maintain the same *relative* standard of living as compared to previous generations. cars are an absolute necessity in most areas of the country, much different than the 20s. our cost of living should be compared to the standard of living TODAY, not the standard of living 60 years ago
GabrielBacon 3 weeks ago
@GabrielBacon Housing/healthcare *are* more important than iPods. Three things: 1) government is heavily involved in housing and healthcare, so the market there has been distorted, 2) I suspect housing is also cheaper than 100 years ago, and 3) healthcare is not cheaper, but consider what you're getting. If you got sick in the 20s, not only did you pay for care, you probably ended up worse off.
Not to make light, but maybe these essential areas are the ones that could do with less government.
grantcivyt 1 week ago in playlist Favorites
@GabrielBacon All of the costs you mentioned are artificially inflated (my new catch phrase) by the government regulations, thus they are perverted and do not apply to a market based economy.
KittenKoder 1 week ago
@GabrielBacon Well Gasoline is a product of an international cartel setting the prices. Hopefully we won't be dependent on that for too much longer anyways. Housing and Insurance costs are two interesting examples for you to bring up, as they are sectors of the economy that have seen a tremendous amount of government intervention. I think what you will find is that if government got out of insurance and the housing market, prices would be much more affordable.
nhl555 3 days ago
@GabrielBacon People simply didn't have those things and didn't have access to those services. Today you have a choice between paying for drugs that will save your life, or paying for your children's schooling; back then, there was no choice, you die; and, your children never went to school.
Wyattinmnk 2 days ago
im not sure how my ability to buy a dishwasher (which was likely just included in my apartment and not me buying my dishwasher) equates to me being less poor
Tacotoe1234 3 weeks ago
Too bad inflation wiped out the purchasing power of your wages way more than the costs went down. You should have addressed that in the video
DestroyerX61 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
@DestroyerX61 That's what the whole video was about. You must not have been paying attention .
goose1077 3 weeks ago
I gave thumbs down because this sounds to me exactly like the gov't when it argues that there is no inflation. They just substitute goods on the list whenever one of them gets too expensive to throw off their "averages." It's just manipulation.
If our cheap electronics come from MONOPOLY credit and EXLPOITED (and I'm a capitalist!) Chinese workers, then what the hell are we really saying when we say costs are down??? How much does the average Chinese worker make? Jack squat, right?
MillionthUsername 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 4 weeks ago
It's pretty obvious to me that his only argument is that technological advances have made electronic & some mechanical devices more affordable. I'd like to see him argue that it's easier to find affordable health care, food or shelter. I remember when I didn't have to work very many hours to afford groceries & a one bedroom apartment. My real life experiences don't confirm his arguments, other than the fact that technology has made a lot of advances.
prschuster 1 month ago
@prschuster He did start off with chickens, so he talked about more than electronics. As far as healthcare, it is far far better today that in decades past, so it will cost more. He addressed food with the chickens. In my experience, I recall seldomly having orange juice as a kid. Now, its always in my fridge. Because it got cheaper. As far as housing, the square foot per person has dramatically increased. So even though you are wrong, the experience of 1 of 300 million doesn't debunk a trend.
TG1212able 4 weeks ago
@prschuster He would reply to you saying that government is what increased those prices.
superlucci 3 weeks ago
notice how they always go straight to electronics to make their case that the price of living isnt going up? boy i bet that has nothing to do with the rapid turnover in that industry, the constant advancement in technique, the massive subsidies provided by the chinese government to MANUFACTURE THESE THINGS
LambChowder1 1 month ago
steve horrowitz is a maverick. he defies popular belief, he defies statistics, he defies evidence he defies plain sight
LambChowder1 1 month ago
Its funny how he talks about the cost of things you by with disposable income getting cheaper but people have less disposable income.
therichardking4242 1 month ago
Socialists hate this video. It looks like life is getting better without their "helpful" planning.
saper321 1 month ago
As with the Hi-Fi, you can only play one thing at a time with your ipod (with the two ipods you can listen to two at a time, but only one headphone per ipod). The difference is that the Hi-Fi has greater quality of sound and could even be considered as furniture.
Maziusklein 1 month ago
this is why we need to get rid of Medicare and Social Security, If people are stupid enough to not know to save for their future that is their problem not our's and our wallet's
final33633 1 month ago
sorry, my dad needed 5 years worth of saving to buy a house
we both are working in the same field and i have been working for 5 years till i realized that i am wasting my time and i couldn't save enough so i quit and went back to school.
by the time u save to buy real assets it is going higher and u never catch up
dahome2006 1 month ago
Subtract social security and taxes and you'll see noone makes $ 19.40
zloben9000 1 month ago
TAXES INSURANCES WERE LOWER 50 years ago
HOUSES costed less labor hours then they do today !
CARS INSURANCES FUEL cost more
FOOD COSTS more than in 1980s dont compare with 1880
MEDICARE costs more labor hours than in 1980
HOW DARE YOU include the stereo system that would cost 38 000 dollars ?!?!
IPODS VCRs and BUBBLE GUM ARE NO NECESSITIES
Today all the necessities are way more expensive and the COST OF LIVING has risen !
Man you are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to fool us !
zloben9000 1 month ago
This is sooo deceptive!
mallardhead 1 month ago
@mallardhead how so? It's trying to explain how technological progress has increased the standard of living.
fritoman182 1 month ago
@fritoman182
Oh, I agree technology has greatly progressed and raised the standard of living, but the title is about the COST of living. Poor in the USA is royal living in other nations. Overall the COST will keep many from realizing the same standards their parents enjoyed with poorer tech. That's the deception of this video.
mallardhead 1 month ago
@mallardhead You hit in on the head. The poorer will experience fewer holidays, fewer vacations from work, more time working with over time, and less wealth to show for it ( ie savings, paid off items like homes, cars, other vehicles), and regressing working conditions with little to no breaks and very short lunch periods. Not to mention worsening healthcare due to lack of funds and poor insurance offerings from employers.
jmitterii2 1 month ago
@jmitterii2
LearnLiberty has one entitled "What is classical liberalism?" I think it is key to why these jokers are doing the crazy stuff they're doing! ... This guy compares home stereo systems to ipods ... shouldn't ipods be compared to walkmans? Its a sample of the misdirection (The LIE).
mallardhead 1 month ago
@mallardhead Very good point. And exact fallacy these bastards are using is misdirection. Comparing apples and oranges. Compare things that exist today that existed back than like the items I mentioned: homes, heating, electricity, etc.
jmitterii2 1 month ago
@mallardhead
Walkmans are cheaper now than in the 90s....
nubyfan101 1 month ago
@nubyfan101
Yes! Usually when new technology gets older or updates the cost of things like Walkmans goes down. ... BUT that's NOT the point. The point was a deceptive and wrong comparison used in the Liberal argument that everything is okay when its not.
mallardhead 1 month ago
@mallardhead Are you saying that this video is a liberal argument or that all of these videos are liberal. This channel is pretty neutral (in that it has opinions that are both 'conservative and liberal'. It's whatever though. I'm pretty liberal and I thought this video was one of the not so good ones.
Deltron14 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@Deltron14
Yes, not so good! ... Yes, a liberal argument made in the modern twisted liberal way. ... Do you believe govt must control liberty to insure equality and justice?
mallardhead 1 month ago
@mallardhead It's not a must, but I don't think society knows how go about it any other way anymore. I have trouble with that question regularly though, not going to lie. I lean towards yes because of things like greed and selfishness that make people leave others behind. Unfortunately, the government can sometimes be the very entity that is being greedy and irresponsible.
Deltron14 3 days ago
@Deltron14
The answer to your quandary is found in the make up of our govt. Ours is no longer representative of the People. It satisfies its own interests, govt first, or those of lobbies and corporations who enrich/empower them the most. Such an attitude led to the Declaration of Independence. ... NO govt can ever be allowed to define and control liberty the way ours is now trying. Screw them!
mallardhead 3 days ago
@fritoman182 Its misinformation. We may have it nicer due to technology, but costs have not come down. Wealth creation to actually have things paid off and have the asset is less likely due to these costs. We might be able to take our magical radios with us to listen to music, but that doesn't mean my light bill is cheaper in wage hours same with a mortgage. This guy is misleading.
jmitterii2 1 month ago
Why did the Fed stop reporting the M3 numbers in 2006?
TheKaffeeKlatsch 1 month ago
Let's take a look at bread prices. 1961 1 lbs loaf: .25. so at $2.74/hr 10.96 loaves purchased per hour. Bread 2011 $1.70 per loaf at $19.40 you get 11.41 loaves. Ok, an increase. A whooping 0.45 loaves mind you that's over 45 YEARS. That's for industrial workers drop that down to $8.50 an hour - a call center job - you get: 5 loaves of bread per hour. Hrm that's a 50% drop. That call center pay scale is a lot more common now. Also no benefits and little job security to boot.
colddrake80 1 month ago
So why compare industrial laborers? Hasn't the US's industrial based declined substantially? Yes, it has. Oh, wait industrial workers tend to get paid more.
Now lets compare service sector employees - a more typical field to work in now - vs industrial workers back then. After all both represent a more typical worker for their respective times.
It would be like comparing blacksmiths in the 1890s to blacksmiths now. Their are still blacksmiths but they are so uncommon now they are an oddity.
colddrake80 1 month ago 12
@colddrake80 Haven't you ever heard the phrase service industry? Industrial doesn't just mean factory. That said, service sector includes, Doctors, Lawyers, Investment Bankers, Financial consultants and Planners, Accountants, and most of all the highest paid jobs in the economy.
goose1077 3 weeks ago
@goose1077 Actually "industrial" sector does mean manufacturing. The service sector also includes cashiers, greeters at wal-mart, convenience store attendants, call center employees and a host of other low paying, no benefits jobs.
colddrake80 3 weeks ago
Besides cars, most goods don't last as long as they used to. The top of the line stereo or coffee maker in the 1960s may still work today, but an ipod or cell phone will be out of date or will not be expected to work more than a couple of years. Can you make a video showing how repeatedly buying the same products effects the cost of living?
Also can you address some of today's largest expenditures: health care and gasoline.
mechadamuramu 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@mechadamuramu The new stuff can be rendered non-functional just by changing network software. Even if that iPod worked in 10 years - they aren't supposed to - the software used by other systems will have changed to the point the iPod is no longer compatible. A record player, as long as you can find records for it - will not stop working because someone flips a proverbial switch 5,000 miles away in server farm.
colddrake80 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually..... I think the average wear out mileage is 250k as long as you don't buy Chinese,some Korean,Yugo cars,Crystler/Dodge products,You might want to avoid Suzuki and Isuzu.................... ;) American cars or trucks excluding Crystler/Dodge, German,or Most Japanese cars are safe bets......
TheChristianRight09 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheChristianRight09 1 month ago
I did some research. cost of 1 lb. of chicken in 1925 was .39 cents. This video is lie.
Here2ownU 1 month ago
@Here2ownU But a THREE lb chicken cost $1.17.
$0.39 x 3 = $1.17...
callmeskywalker6 1 month ago
That $500.00 1960's top of the line stereo system lasted 30 years because it was built to be durable. Planned obsolecense means comparable products are only built to last 3 years. So, that $250.00 high tech stereo will have be replaced 10x in the same period, true cost for comparable products $500.00 vs $2500.00. How many songs will you download at $.99 per song? Vs. Free music.
Here2ownU 1 month ago
wow, this guy. Yes technological advancements have given us a better life. That has nothing to do with economics, in so far as base standard is concerned. My "base standard" includes utilities, transportation, healthcare, housing, and food. Our tech allows us a better standard of living while our economy (deregulation, trade agreements, lobbying) has degraded our standard of living. The ideal is that no one should be hungry or want for health care.
zzyy79 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@zzyy79 Why do you suppose market-based economies seem so much more adept at producing technological advancements than their counterparts?
studentofsmith 1 month ago
the home stereo argument is retarded. it costs more to buy a home stereo now than it did before. you are not even comparing the same thing! to get a nice system with quite a bit of power is pretty expensive.
frozenwalkway 1 month ago
too many thumbs up for a video that oversimplifies things and isn't comparing apples to apples. question everything
joseney21 1 month ago
It's not just man-hours that makes something cost a lot. If it took zero man-hours to make a block of gold, that would still be worth a lot due to scarcity and supply-and-demand.
caesarofearth 1 month ago
Mass production, competition and free markets are great, and they do drive an economic engine that helps human progress. To a point. However, all these things also drive innovative assembly processes and automation. And what does that drive? Make more things, with less man hours. What does that drive? More mass production with less workers. What does that drive? Higher rates of unemployment. What does that drive? Lower wages as supply(of jobs) weakens versus demand(of unemployed workers).
IdeasMoveNations 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@IdeasMoveNations That's definitely not true. It used to be that almost everyone in America worked at farming; now we do even more with less people. However, jobs didn't just go away - people were able to work at the new jobs created by new inventions driven by more people able to spend time to think rather than do manual labor. You're making the same mistake Marx did - people are central to the economy, so it's not like we could ever have a surplus in capitalism.
caesarofearth 1 month ago
@caesarofearth what?!?! go ask all those unemployed americans how much spending time to think is paying off!! Spending your time thinking or having time to pursue the arts doesn't mean diddly squat if no one (the people with the money, which are becoming less and less) is willing to pay for your thinking or art. if you improve efficiency so much that you leave yourself without a market to supply demand due to lack of unemployment even efficiency will fail.
joseney21 1 month ago
@joseney21 There have always been unemployed Americans, ever since at least the Revolutionary war. What I'm saying is that the percent of unemployed Americans has not increased significantly, at least not until the recession, and that was government-caused. You forget that humanity is not a resource, it has a special role in the economic process. You can say we have too many chairs, so cut production, but you cannot do that to humans. There is no such thing as a surplus of humanity.
caesarofearth 1 month ago 13
@joseney21 If your argument were true, then long ago we would have reached over 90% unemployment, because efficiency has increased by that much. Once humans are freed up from one job, more jobs are created for them.
caesarofearth 1 month ago
I generally find all these videos to be of high quality and quite factual. However this one to me is GREATLY in dispute. In 1966, the average industrial wage(which in this video is going to be a de facto 'what most people made') of 2.74 is highly believable and seems accurate. However, to say that most people in 2011 make $19.40 an hour is just absolutely ridiculous. You might convince me of $12/hr being an average wage today, but 19.40 is like a bad joke. There is just no way I'm buying that.
IdeasMoveNations 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@IdeasMoveNations Heh! I've met people who make that much money. They are called bosses. Granted they are outnumbered by line employees by over 10:1. None of us have the benefits that were considered standard back in the day. Most of us will never be able to retire.
Hrm you make a good point, sir.
;-)
colddrake80 1 month ago
the point i feel like there missing is that when u sell something its twice the value.. how can u be rewarded so much for selling...
less price = more production
more production = more prosperity
jakeg0034 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
The video is simplistic, but what do you want out of three minutes? I am not convinced. While I appreciate removing the effects of inflation (a must when comparing prices over time), there are other factors I believe to be significant such as planned obsolescence, hidden costs of environmental pollution and minimum wages. There is a huge market for used goods that poor families often rely on, and potential consequences for not living up to a certain standard.
immozelle 2 months ago
Who really owns a stereo system. Obsolete technology will not have as big of a demand as newer, slicker, more efficient technology. You could use the example of a Nintendo Entertainment System. In 1985, it cost $299 to own one. At the time, there was nothing like that. That same model, with inflation included, can be had for under $30. Does that mean we are richer for it, or does that simply imply that obsolete technology has a lower demand attached to it.
ecuspies 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
I can't believe anybody is buying these claims. Chickens are cheaper, but is that because we are getting richer, or the improvement of technology. I bet in the 20's that they did not have genetically enhanced chickens grown on massive farms that could be moved with efficient refrigerated trucks across the country. I wish you would have used organic products as an example, which would have been more true to life.
ecuspies 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Generally speaking, when we look at how much time we must spend working to afford things of equal or greater value than that of what we could get in the past, I think this video is correct.
StateExempt 2 months ago
Planned obsolescence isn't that a company makes something that will break in just a few years so you have to buy a new one. Planned obsolescence is when a company makes a product they intend for a new better product to replace it sometime in the future. I heard a few comments saying how the iPod only lasts seven years. Why the hell would Apple invest in making it last longer when your likely to replace it with the newer model in a year or two.
ShamanMcLamie 2 months ago
The video title should be "The Relationship between the Cost of Living and the Price of Goods". The title posted for this video is misleading.
rasyad22 2 months ago
OK. Lets figure in the price of housing, taxes, the price of fuel, health care, and oh ya, the price of traffic tickets. And for those that still use them---postage stamps. I entered the work force 34 years ago. If I was doing the same job today, I would have to work more hours to pay for the same things that my money went to back then. The same job pays about 150% more than it did back then.
m8s4lif 2 months ago
this guy sort of looks like Walter Block
sanitydotorg 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Comment removed
HermannTheGreat 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
what we discover is that, children in china can make my shoes cheaper then an illegal immagrent in back woods Mississippi and much much cheaper then a working class Jane/Joe in Kentucky. Thus my shoes are made in China by people living on less then 4 dollars a day all the while i can't find a job.
masluxx 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@masluxx You're point is?
Do you want to make shoes for 4 dollars an hour? Cause for the Chinese person that's an upgrade from just a few decades ago.
ShamanMcLamie 2 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie just pointing out reality, not unlike a person taking a picture. any point to me made should be made by the observer. what point are you rebeling against?
masluxx 2 months ago
This whole video is a fallacy.
The cost of goods hasn't gone up? That's not the whole picture. The cost of goods may have gone up, and may be the result of inflation, but the income of consumers has been stagnant, and hasn't kept up with inflation. SO IN TURN, YES, THE COST OF GOODS HAS GONE UP.
Lets's say I earn a dollar a year, and only 100 dollars exist in the world. If another 100 is injected, and I still only earn 1 dollar, then my income has effectively been cut in half.
chronDiggity 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@chronDiggity Actually, wage inflation has slightly outpaced price inflation for minimum wage workers. Wages for better paying jobs have outpaced price inflation even more.
Wiki: "United States Income Distribution 1947-2007"
This chart shows inflation adjusted wages. We are all getting richer. The higher your wage, the faster you are getting richer. The top 1% is getting richer REALLY fast.
We need banking reform, not a new economic system.=)
TheBalancedAmerican 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@TheBalancedAmerican
You're doing it wrong. From 2004 to 2008 alone, there was a 14% change as a result of inflation. In your own chart, look at 2000 to 2010. The difference in income is absolutely negligible, nowhere near 14%.
Then again maybe I'M doing it wrong.
chronDiggity 2 months ago
@chronDiggity The income shown in the chart is "inflation adjusted" meaning any increase or decrease in wages is in relation to prices. There is little doubt that we are all getting richer, generally.
We are getting richer but our share of the GDP is declining. This is OK in the short term because we get bigger homes, and more disposable income. However, if you fast forward 100 years, very few banking interests could control 99% of the capital in the world. This is not good.
TheBalancedAmerican 2 months ago
@TheBalancedAmerican
guess it would help if I provided sources
isil org/towards-liberty/inflation-chart jpg
chronDiggity 2 months ago
well.. here in venezuela old cars are still in usage for public transport and they are like from 1955-1965 .. i dont think they "dont last long"
davidealessio 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
But, quality is not thought about as far as products go. An appliance or tool in the 1950s was made in the US, and could be operated for over 100 years with care and regular maintainence. But, while much cheaper, today's appliance or tool is only thought to last a few years, and have everything fail at once (planned obsolescence).
A modern car is designed to fail all at one time, usually around 200,000 miles. In the past, each part was made as longlasting they could make it.
packardcaribien 2 months ago
While it's true about the labor hours regarding somethings, what about basics like housing and medical care?
vtcheflw 3 months ago
Richmunnich is simply wrong re automobiles. Cars are on the road longer than there were twenty years ago and they were never built to last thirty years. And in 1920, 100,000 miles was an unimaginable distance for an automobile. "Planned obsolescence" is only in the mind of the consumer. The most popular and valued cars are those that are reliable and last for years. Many American used cars end up in foreign markets because they work, not because they don't work.
oakfarm 3 months ago
@oakfarm Yep! Most of the cars in poorer European countries will have mileage counts or at least 200,000 miles, most have higher than that easy, it's common there.
HermannTheGreat 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
also there is a tremendous amount of regulation on vehicles which I venture drives the price up.
Berelore 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At one time people didn't have to pay federal income tax (and other taxes) or social security etc. Now they do! Plus how many good paying jobs moved overseas. All the items that used to be made in America now produced overseas which means higher costs to cover the shipping around the world!
x0fx3 4 months ago
I'd like him to add in tax and health insurance to the avrg industrial wage. See how much people actually make.
yyttr4 4 months ago 13
@yyttr4 Not to mention property taxes or further the cost of housing, utilities, HOA fees, etc., where applicable for comparison. That, as well what you have mentioned, and also along with the cost of training and education as correlated to that average industrial wage scale. That alone (costs of education and training) would tip the currently incomplete chart of economic comparison.
crimsonsamuraiftw 2 months ago
@yyttr4 Through in housing, transportation, utilities, etc. as well. The wealth people could actually save and generate was much more than today. They're homes in terms of labor costs were cheap and so were their utilities (electric bill and water bill, etc), transportation was also cheaper then including the car that he points out. Most now rent and have no equity built in their home to where they aren't paying on their property. I personally think he's off in kookoo land.
jmitterii2 1 month ago
@yyttr4 Yea its funny how he talks about the cost of things you by with disposable income. But people have less and less disposable income.
therichardking4242 1 month ago
I would also like to point out that one of the reasons so much of our electronics, shirts and other things have become so affordable is because they are manufactured by people in sweatshops and one thing that always pisses me off, people ignore globalization and how that is something we've never had to deal with.
If our economy was a closed system one might be able to take theories derived from logic a bit easier....but its not closed and we have a things called container ships.
Dethreid 5 months ago
@Dethreid ALL industrial nations went through the "sweatshop" stage. So I don't lnow what you're talking about. total socio-economic overhaul doesn't work like magic, it is quite slow and evolutionary and functions best when all in involved kept protected yet unhindered. it's a hard balance to keep,but it is necassary for real permanent growth.
Ravengaurd6 4 months ago
@Ravengaurd6
What determines where you manufacture is..
1. Environmental regulations
2. Worker safety regulations
3. Cost of labor
4. Taxes
5. Stability and security
Companies don't have to look for a market near where they manufacture anymore, its cheap enough to just ship it too them, else they would have to pay decent wages to their employees so there was consumption of goods. Climb of demand = increases in wages = decreases in the cost of goods.
I'll continue this in another comment.
Dethreid 4 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Continued...
There was explosive growth in china right now because they had access to the US consumer and didn't have to pay the high wages of the US consumer, their ability to manipulate their currency greatly helped them in this as well.
Unfortunately the US could only withstand a small erosion of the manufacturing base.
Notice how much debt was required just to keep the growth steady, now we are feeling the repercussions, check out the trade deals with SK/COL/PAN, what a joke.
Dethreid 4 months ago
@Dethreid obviously
Ravengaurd6 4 months ago
I am a little surprised to find that I am able to live comfortably on ten-thousand dollars a year while setting aside what's left for taxes, charity, and my IRA.
The amount of raw hours of labor it takes to get the same amount of wealth is certainly less than it was before.
Now if we could just put a cap on the Fed's inflation...
StateExempt 5 months ago
what about gasoline what upgrades has it improved to make it cost more??? NOTHING. YOUR BULLSHIT THIS IS BECAUSE OF INFLATION
britney1456789 5 months ago
Bullshit.
TheRobin3212 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yep, I can afford a $200 iPod. What I can't afford is to move out of my parents' house and rent my own place while balancing my student loan payments. Nice video.
HyrbidHermit 5 months ago
Comment removed
HyrbidHermit 5 months ago
Free markets in the tech industry and appliances have clearly shown how an obedience to non-aggression principles incrementally leads to a greater standard of living for us all. But the gov't is too involved in Banking, Schooling Housing, Healthcare and energy to get us past being just rich consumers. We need savers, investers and people with capital, not people strapped with student loans and healthcare debts who are paying for new ipods with credit.
ShatterNWO 5 months ago
Macs start much cheaper than 3300, and Here in Georgia many factories start you off around 10-13 and people who have been there forever or have a superior position will make 20+. Please bear in mind there are other jobs in the industrial sector than just line workers, and people need to stop making excuses for the sake of argument. (though I do believe the real manufacturing av wage is 15 or 16)
Cubology 5 months ago
who the fuck is making 19 something an hour manufacturing shit.
Dethreid 5 months ago
@Dethreid
My father worked in a factory for 37 years and never got to that wage.
ODDJesus 5 months ago
Even the statement about automobiles is flawed. Cars built in the first half of the twentieth century averaged a 30 year operating cycle. When I was a teenager in the 70's it was not unusual to see a '57 Chevy. Yes they went slower and would get less mileage over all but they were made of heavier gauge materials that stood the test of time. Cars are planned to be completely gone in ten years. It's called "planned obsolescence". GM notoriously built a 4 year disposable car in the eighties.
Richmunnich 5 months ago
@Richmunnich apple, and other computer manufactures do the same thing. Capitalism creates incredible amounts of waste.
xRA1D32x 5 months ago
@xRA1D32x The iPod he's showing there will last 5-7 years and the battery will die and not be able to be re-charged. The 50 year old stereo in my parents attic still works, just plug it in.
Richmunnich 5 months ago
@Richmunnich 5-7 years? It's sad to say, but that sounds like a generous amount for iPods
xRA1D32x 5 months ago
@xRA1D32x I'm not sure I got an iPod Nano a couple of years ago so I'll know more when the battery dies.
Richmunnich 5 months ago
@Richmunnich Just get yourself a longer lasting kind.
Jotto999 5 months ago
@Jotto999 well now you're talking the big bucks
Richmunnich 5 months ago
@Richmunnich Volvo.
Jotto999 5 months ago
@Jotto999 Oh yes those are expensive but they last.
Richmunnich 5 months ago
@Richmunnich That planned obsolescence isn't in the mechanical aspects of your car. They still function nearly identically, if more efficiently, to older cars. The obsolescence they are talking about is in the electronics - like your stereo, etc. And it is "planned", but only in the sense that they try to estimate how far down the road until the CD player (for example) becomes obsolete. The 4 year "disposable" car GM built in the 80's? Note that CDs become widely available in the 80's.
mtanousable 4 months ago
@mtanousable Pontiac Fiero, Google it! Of the 1700 to 2500 parts on an average car I would estimate about three fifths are electronic. So your statement about the electronics makes sense. One prime example is a thing called a "Freedom Battery". The big selling point was that it required no maintenance.
Richmunnich 4 months ago
@Richmunnich Simply not true. Cars today can reach 500,000 with good maintenance and that's shown by the countless people in Europe who drive our old cars and repair them rather than scrapping or selling them because they can't afford new ones. Oh also, heating and Air conditioning, power, lights, comfort and better design, and far better mileage and road travel. Cars today blow cars back then away in everything.
HermannTheGreat 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
Where the makers of this video got the $19.40 average industrial wage is beyond my comprehension. I'm seeing $8-10 average wage throughout manufacturing and service sectors. Unless they are including management you know CEO's, CFO's, presidents, vice, presidents, supervisors, foremen, and anyone else you want to include who doesn't actually produce a product or provide a service to a customer.
Richmunnich 5 months ago
@Richmunnich Where I live, every low-skill job starts you out at around $7.50/hr. These guys need to step into the real world.
HyrbidHermit 5 months ago
The price of crappy made in China products has gone down.
The price of car/health insurance, rent, food and everything else has gone up.
ronimacarroni 5 months ago
Things are cheaper because everything is made in China. Try to find a stereo from 1960 made in Asia.
3559cjr 5 months ago
that three pound chicken in 1920 actually nourished the body...
jcerm36 5 months ago
leave it to libertarians to make their argument with the price of chicken.
acrophobe 5 months ago
@acrophobe One of the most consumed meats in the US, meaning one of the basics of basics....FOOD, is a bad example?
DustinThePooper 5 months ago