[drivebyacct2]

"A typical American male who works full time is earning almost exactly the same as his counterpart was when Nixon was president"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/09/po...

(More to the discussion in the article, ) As long as we continue to structure tax cuts as we do, and as long as an attempt to get the wealthiest top percentages to pay at least as much as the middle class in taxes (on a percentage basis, mind you) is called "class warfare" by the GOP, it's not likely to change (the response to the "Buffet clause" in the last two days or so). It's not hard to understand how our politician's priorities influence the outcome embodied by the title of this post...

[orangecat]

A typical American male who works full time is earning almost exactly the same as his counterpart was when Nixon was president

Which just means that income is an inadequate measurement. How many Americans would prefer to live in 1975 than today?

[keithnoizu]

   It is my understanding, citation needed perhaps, that over all cost of living was lower in 75. So perhaps there were no iphones, ssd hard drives, big screen plasma televisions, xboxs, etc. but on a single income (not one of our 100k plus incomes but a regular joe income) you could likely afford a home, a nice car, etc.

[gamble]

Probably a few people out there who wouldn't mind having affordable health care.

[lucasjung]

Affordable health care that doesn't include all of the advances in treatment (procedures, pharmaceuticals, technologies, etc.) that have come about in the past 36 years?

To give an example that affects most people in small ways: in 1975 I would be wearing heavy, uncomfortable glasses all day, and would fully expect to wear dentures after a certain age. Instead, my vision has been corrected to be perfect and I will almost certainly chew my last meal with my own teeth. My Dad had cataract surgery a couple of years ago: the new lenses are so great that he no longer even needs reading glasses. They had cataract surgery in 1975, but not with the kind of results my Dad experienced.

To give an example that affects a smaller number of people in a bigger way: since 1975, survival rates for many types of cancer have increased dramatically. Similar effects for heart disease.

I'm not trying to say that all of the increases in cost of health care are due to increased availability of treatment options, but it's almost certainly a big driver. Would you accept a health care plan that charges 1970s rates (in real dollars) but restricts you to 1970s medicine? If you are young and healthy, it might actually be a good deal, except for the dental plan.

[sabat]

That's not an excuse for radically inflated prices.

[drivebyacct2]

I guess I figured in the context of money and wealth that income was a pretty decent measurement. Unless you're talking investments. (But then again, the top 1-5% having huge amounts of their wealth tied in investments is how many manage to pay less taxes than the middle/low class, so I doubt it)

[roel_v]

"A typical American male who works full time is earning almost exactly the same as his counterpart was when Nixon was president"

But that's clearly, obviously and without question BULLSHIT (when you look at what you can actually do with that money, rather than just look at inflation-adjusted dollar numbers). A typical American male in that income bracket today has a house that is larger and much more comfortable than back then, has access to a much broader range of food, can communicate with anybody anywhere in the world instantly, carries in his pocket a device to communicate with people he knows in a much more efficient and convenient form than whatever was available 30 years ago, has a higher life expectancy and better access to information (not to mention that the information that is available is vastly more), etc etc.

What would you prefer, being Louis XIV who lived in a castle with no bathrooms (everybody shat where ever they happened to be standing and there were servants to sweep it up) or in the typical house of somebody in the West in the 20th-40th income percentile today (with running, hot water and functioning plumbing, electricity etc?) Or even being an early 20th century rich businessman/socialite in NYC, where the health circumstances even for the very rich were vastly inferior to what is now available to everybody except those at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder?

[drivebyacct2]

What is the point of this near-rant? Sure, quality of life, cost of technology and standards of living are different, but that doesn't change the economics of the situation.

Sorry it's such "obvious bullshit" to you.