Wealth Distribution in America

Status
Not open for further replies.
SoonerAviator said:
Right, but what drove the shift to dual income households?
Click to expand...

Or, women decided they were worth more than being baby factory Stepfords as a result of what was learned during WWII.

Ironically, it’s women’s history month and we’ve glossed over their liberation movement that started in 60s in favor of “they were forced into employment”.

My mother was born in 1934 and graduated in 1952. Other than a 3 year period from 1957-1960 while my parents were stationed in Japan, she worked outside the home while raising four kids that were born 1963-1973. In 1952, she started her first job as an office manager for a Galena Park (Houston) insurance agency. Each new PCS brought a new, similar job.

By the 70s, when dad retired and they were stable in a community long term, they bought the house I grew up in and she moved to the IRS where she worked for another 26 years.
 
I think absolutely wwii was the trigger, when the men went to war and the women went to work they got used to getting a full time job paycheck and being able buy things, it was a very bitter pill to swallow to go back to being house wives and living at their husbands discretion of what spending money he gave her if any was left over after paying the bills. And that was the trigger for the dual income household revolution. Then with essentially a close to doubling of the working force and consumers spending discretionary income of course the economy boomed, but it was a before and after event, not a new trend in projections of economic growth and the hard times in 1970’s and again in the 1980’s were direct consequences of the ebb and wane of the shock to system as it slowly started to stabilize towards a more smooth projection line. Ripples of it still to this day follow ever smaller oscillations in the macro economy.
 
Flatiowa said:
I … it was a before and after event, not a new trend in projections of economic growth … Ripples of it still to this day follow ever smaller oscillations in the macro economy.
Click to expand...

Not unlike COVID catalyzing a systemic perturbation that will play out over a decade or more. For example, cost of money today is due to decisions made (or not) three years ago and it’ll take a while for those impacts to normalize. Lagging normalization will be things influenced by cost of money.

You saw this in reverse when money was free and injected broadly…savings increased and debt decreased. Now, prices have increased, savings are decreasing, debt is increasing, and debt defaults are, too. All those things, at a micro scale, are driven by individual choices and behaviors.
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
Or, women decided they were worth more than being baby factory Stepfords as a result of what was learned during WWII.

Ironically, it’s women’s history month and we’ve glossed over their liberation movement that started in 60s in favor of “they were forced into employment”.

My mother was born in 1934 and graduated in 1952. Other than a 3 year period from 1957-1960 while my parents were stationed in Japan, she worked outside the home while raising four kids that were born 1963-1973. In 1952, she started her first job as an office manager for a Galena Park (Houston) insurance agency. Each new PCS brought a new, similar job.

By the 70s, when dad retired and they were stable in a community long term, they bought the house I grew up in and she moved to the IRS where she worked for another 26 years.
Click to expand...
I understand there were other societal influences on bringing women into the workforce and don't mean that women were "forced into employment", but the desire to bring more money into the household certainly had its effect. However, that doesn't explain why two incomes became necessary to sustain a similar lifestyle as the years went by. Erosion of wage growth lessened the buying power of the average American (compounded with inflation). At a certain point it becomes difficult for many Americans to survive on a sole income at median wages.
 
Doubling of the work forced reduce pressure on paying higher wages, there were more people willing to do the job for the pay if you aren’t. Classic supply demand. While at the same time the “joneses” were increasing their standard of living and expectations of what it should be by having two incomes, a double whammy of self fulfilling prophecy.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I understand there were other societal influences on bringing women into the workforce and don't mean that women were "forced into employment", but the desire to bring more money into the household certainly had its effect. However, that doesn't explain why two incomes became necessary to sustain a similar lifestyle as the years went by.
Click to expand...

No, it absolutely explains it.

Do you remember the concept of “supply and demand”?
 
StraightnLevel said:
No, it absolutely explains it.

Do you remember the concept of “supply and demand”?
Click to expand...
So you're implying that because women joined the workforce, everyone's wages went down? Despite being in the height of American production booms and economic growth . . . I think simply saying "supply & demand" is a cop-out. Many of those jobs women were taking on didn't exist before the 3rd industrial revolution in the 1950s, so it wasn't men and women competing for the same job.
 
SoonerAviator said:
However, that doesn't explain why two incomes became necessary to sustain a similar lifestyle as the years went by.
Click to expand...
The lifestyle improved. Two incomes were (often) required to afford the bigger house with better systems and appliances, another, better car, better vacation, all the of the new technology devices that didn't exist in the 1950s, etc.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So you're implying that because women joined the workforce, everyone's wages went down? Despite being in the height of American production booms and economic growth . . . I think simply saying "supply & demand" is a cop-out. Many of those jobs women were taking on didn't exist before the 3rd industrial revolution in the 1950s, so it wasn't men and women competing for the same job.
Click to expand...
I would personally argue that the boom was the RESULT of the women going into the work force. Both their ability to add workers into the production of goods and services, as well as increasing the consumer base by have income to spend on goods and services. For a short period of time there was an overlap of the one income household’s fixed expenses with two income earnings so there was an excess of discretionary spending money available to the household. It didn’t last long, but the spending trends that were developed were hard to rein back in.
 
StraightnLevel said:
No.
I am saying that because median household income went up due to the proliferation of 2-income households, prices went up, as did lifestyle expectations.
Click to expand...
But prices went up MORE than 2-income households. It wasn't 1-for-1, it outpaced the 2-income household, especially given that women's wages were generally less than men. The cost to maintain middle class (which is admittedly a subjective variable) went up, even as a second income was added. Simply saying well that's supply/demand doesn't quite do it, at least not without citing some credible sources for the increase in cost of living.
 
SoonerAviator said:
… However, that doesn't explain why two incomes became necessary to sustain a similar lifestyle as the years went by..
Click to expand...

But they aren’t and lifestyles today aren’t similar to lifestyles in 1960. Looking at homes specifically, in the 60s, the average new home was a 1200sf 3/1 selling on average for $118K. Today, it’s a solid 2200sf 3/2.5 and closing in on a 2400sf 4/2.5.

Going back to the Case-Schiller household income index, the ratios are still fairly close for household income vs home sales prices today vs 1960, despite homes nearly doubling in size and room count.
 
Flatiowa said:
I would personally argue that the boom was the RESULT of the women going into the work force. Both their ability to add workers into the production of goods and services, as well as increasing the consumer base by have income to spend on goods and services. For a short period of time there was an overlap of the one income household’s fixed expenses with two income earnings so there was an excess of discretionary spending money available to the household. It didn’t last long, but the spending trends that were developed were hard to rein back in.
Click to expand...
Kind of a chicken/egg thing I'd imagine. Large workforce of women who had been doing industrial work during the wars compounded with lots of businesses/technology developing at the same time. We had a ton of innovation after WW2 in the areas of electronics. The advent of television, communications, computers, etc. necessitated a larger workforce to match. As additional income was added, all of the "middle class" niceties began to follow, like fancier cars and home furnishings. Keeping that same standard of spending was absolutely hard to rein in, but I don't think that women deciding to be part of the workforce rather than stay-at-home wives was driving wages down for men.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So you're implying that because women joined the workforce, everyone's wages went down? Despite being in the height of American production booms and economic growth . . . I think simply saying "supply & demand" is a cop-out. Many of those jobs women were taking on didn't exist before the 3rd industrial revolution in the 1950s, so it wasn't men and women competing for the same job.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go as far as saying that was the only cause, but it was one of very many metrics that changed our economic structure. Trying to pin down economic evolution to any single data point is just argumentative.
 
I'm not reading through this crap everyone has written. These are things that bring discord and revolt type feelings, tax the rich, and politics.
I'll break it down locally though.

The folks that I see begging on the streets are buying fast food, cigarettes', and big gulps name brand drinks.
I'm driving around using 2 yr old refilled plastic water bottles, cooking at home, and not smoking.
That is why there is inequality!

I worked full time in a job that many people hate. I ate crow, bided my time, invested my money and spent little of it along the way. Retired at 52.
Family on the welfare rolls. Has a newish car (many years it was newer than ours), has heat, cable, cell phone, food, a house. Declared bankruptcy once so far. Still has all the quality of life "things" that we have through effort and exertion.
We live in a great country, even the poor are well off. But the ease of care the poor receive, that is why there is inequality.

We worked and went for the golden goose.
Others, and perhaps more so now, feel that the world owes them something for nothing. They get useless college degrees, have BS opinions and ideologies, and contribute little to the furtherance of mankind.
That is why there is inequality.

These discussions often tear down the wealthy and suggest taxing them more. The wealthy work harder to pay more tax, and pay a disproportionate amount of the US taxes.
The poor tear down the successful, clamor for more without effort.
That is why there is inequality of wealth.

I want to preface this with a thank you to vets.
But the things we say/think/act that vets have done for our country, we need more of a culture or spirit of thanking the wealthy, for the taxes they pay.
For those of you that pay taxes, especially lots of them, THANK YOU.
 
Years ago I found an old book in a used bookstore. I don’t think I have it anymore. I think it was called “How to Fix Anything”. It was basically a how-to book written by, and for, a generation that had survived the Depression. Never throw anything away, fix it and use it up until there’s nothing left. There were instructions on how to fix toasters, holes in socks, things like that. Everything is disposable now. Today’s toaster probably does cost a fraction of those old ones so repair vs replace is a different calculation. Living frugally then meant something different, and now everything is disposable, even income.
 
JOhnH said:

​

www.bizpacreview.com

Toronto police tell residents to leave car keys by front door to make it easier for car thieves to steal

“While well-meaning, there are better ways to prevent auto theft-motivated home invasions,” the Toronto Police said.
www.bizpacreview.com www.bizpacreview.com
Click to expand...
Makes me glad to live in a part of the world were I leave my vehicles keys in the ignition, and somebody breaking into my house in the night when my wife and children are sleeping will be met with a heck of a lot more to bargain with than just stern words and a phone dialing 911.
 
Matthew said:
Years ago I found an old book in a used bookstore. I don’t think I have it anymore. I think it was called “How to Fix Anything”. It was basically a how-to book written by, and for, a generation that had survived the Depression. Never throw anything away, fix it and use it up until there’s nothing left. There were instructions on how to fix toasters, holes in socks, things like that. Everything is disposable now. Today’s toaster probably does cost a fraction of those old ones so repair vs replace is a different calculation. Living frugally then meant something different, and now everything is disposable, even income.
Click to expand...
Until a few years ago there was a building a half mile from home on the highway that one of my cousins had ran a buisness out of in the 1970’s “(family name redacted) fix it shop” you name it, it could be brought in and fixed. From vacuum tube tvs and radios to appliances, outboard boat motors or heavy farm equipment. If you had something that didn’t work it could be fixed. He eventually retired out of it and moved to Florida in late 80’s
 
Last edited:
4RNB said:
I'm not reading through this crap everyone has written. These are things that bring discord and revolt type feelings, tax the rich, and politics.
I'll break it down locally though.

The folks that I see begging on the streets are buying fast food, cigarettes', and big gulps name brand drinks.
I'm driving around using 2 yr old refilled plastic water bottles, cooking at home, and not smoking.
That is why there is inequality!

I worked full time in a job that many people hate. I ate crow, bided my time, invested my money and spent little of it along the way. Retired at 52.
Family on the welfare rolls. Has a newish car (many years it was newer than ours), has heat, cable, cell phone, food, a house. Declared bankruptcy once so far. Still has all the quality of life "things" that we have through effort and exertion.
We live in a great country, even the poor are well off. But the ease of care the poor receive, that is why there is inequality.

We worked and went for the golden goose.
Others, and perhaps more so now, feel that the world owes them something for nothing. They get useless college degrees, have BS opinions and ideologies, and contribute little to the furtherance of mankind.
That is why there is inequality.

These discussions often tear down the wealthy and suggest taxing them more. The wealthy work harder to pay more tax, and pay a disproportionate amount of the US taxes.
The poor tear down the successful, clamor for more without effort.
That is why there is inequality of wealth.

I want to preface this with a thank you to vets.
But the things we say/think/act that vets have done for our country, we need more of a culture or spirit of thanking the wealthy, for the taxes they pay.
For those of you that pay taxes, especially lots of them, THANK YOU.
Click to expand...
I have an AP Clerk who works for me. I have known this woman since I was less than 10yrs old as she was a co-worker of my mother's. She has worked 2 jobs her entire life. Mostly AP-clerk full time, and part time for UPS loading trucks for a few decades. She currently works as an AP Clerk full time for me, and as an elementary school janitor part-time. 9-10 months of the year she works from sun up to sun down. She knows what she knows, but doesn't likely have the capacity to take on anything more technical than what she currently does. 12-hr days for 40 years and she just now paid off a very modest home that she's been in for decades, she owns a cheap but well-maintained vehicle. She lives simply because she is forced to. She will never "get ahead" despite being the very posterchild for American perseverance and self-reliance. She doesn't complain, nor does she envy anyone with more money. She doesn't accept gov't assistance or handouts. I DO question the distribution of wealth where a woman like her can toil at 2 jobs her entire working life and not be able to retire with much to speak of. The only major financial mistake I'm aware of that she regrets, was co-signing on a student loan for her son which was under $30K total that the son completely defaulted and abandoned her on, which she paid off last year. Pretty tough to see those type of "working poor" out there, despite following all of the "financially-smart" rules regarding living within their means. This scenario isn't made better by "taxing the rich more", however, it would entail moving her income up over the past 40 years to a level which would afford her the ability to retire which would take away a few hundred thousand from profits sent to the stock market (or CEOs paycheck).
 
4RNB said:
These discussions often tear down the wealthy and suggest taxing them more. The wealthy work harder to pay more tax, and pay a disproportionate amount of the US taxes.
The poor tear down the successful, clamor for more without effort.
That is why there is inequality of wealth.

I want to preface this with a thank you to vets.
But the things we say/think/act that vets have done for our country, we need more of a culture or spirit of thanking the wealthy, for the taxes they pay.
For those of you that pay taxes, especially lots of them, THANK YOU.
Click to expand...
Typical Reagan-era rubbish, when politicians started telling us to glorify the rich while demonizing the poor, with some military fetishization thrown in for good measure. (Not to mention that despite his "trickle-down" economics, inequality exploded during the 80s)

Coincidentally and ironically, my father is a dead veteran and we were on food stamps when he was active service when I was a child.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
Feel free to substitute crime rates. Sweden has one of the most unequal societies on the planet, Brunei even more so. What is their crime rate?
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm going to have to call for a fact check on this one. By what metric is Sweden one of the most unequal societies on the planet?
 
SoonerAviator said:
I have an AP Clerk who works for me. …
Click to expand...

Why doesn’t your company pay her more and why don’t you offer a 401k option (with matching) and financial wellness benefits?

For top earners, that’s a $50K/yr job that should have a path to a accountancy, audit, or controller positions.
 
Half Fast said:
Do you have an example where the lower group had wealth equal to the lower US group? I think that instability is less likely given two conditions:

1. Basic needs (and even some wants) are met: food, housing, etc.
2. Hope and a real possibility of upward movement.
Click to expand...

This is far enough out of my wheel house, I have no clue if you are right or wrong. Historically, I have read that huge disparities have led to revolutions. Some bloodless, most bloody. Dig the people on the bottom not have enough to eat? And that was the real driver? Or was it just a wealth gap? I have no clue.

Tim
 
SoonerAviator said:
But prices went up MORE than 2-income households. It wasn't 1-for-1, it outpaced the 2-income household, especially given that women's wages were generally less than men. The cost to maintain middle class (which is admittedly a subjective variable) went up, even as a second income was added. Simply saying well that's supply/demand doesn't quite do it, at least not without citing some credible sources for the increase in cost of living.
Click to expand...
Which explains why the middle class has houses that are 3x the size of middle class houses in 1950, takes globe spanning vacations, has two or three nice cars, and maybe a boat today.

Wait... That's not it. Seriously, if people today would settle for a 1950's lifestyle, the middle class would be sitting on a ridiculous amount of cash. Instead, bigger house, nicer car, new smartphone every couple years, nice vacations, dining out as opposed to dining in, all lead to a better lifestyle (maybe), but constant money worries and no money in the bank. And class envy because someone has more...
 
None of this yammering has yet to provide a single reason why a poor man should have any claim to a rich man's riches. Arguments of societal unrest or crime rates are completely irrelevant to proving that "The Poor" have any claim to the wealth of "The Rich." Thus, any argument for seizing the wealth of "The Rich" to give it to "The Poor" is an argument in favor of theft, even if it is branded as "Redistribution" and carried out via taxes. I am as opposed to theft as I am to envy, it is as unhealthy for a society as envy is to an individual.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
None of this yammering has yet to provide a single reason why a poor man should have any claim to a rich man's riches. Arguments of societal unrest or crime rates are completely irrelevant to proving that "The Poor" have any claim to the wealth of "The Rich." Thus, any argument for seizing the wealth of "The Rich" to give it to "The Poor" is an argument in favor of theft, even if it is branded as "Redistribution" and carried out via taxes. I am as opposed to theft as I am to envy, it is as unhealthy for a society as envy is to an individual.
Click to expand...
Randian philosophy vs pragmatism. I prefer the latter.
 
Locked for MC review.
  • Show respect at all times.
  • Help build the Community.
  • Encourage discussion, interest and education in all things aviation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top