What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
150 Comments
- Merlaak, on 02/04/2009, -3/+140As entertaining as that was to look at, what I'd actually like to see is an apples-to-apples comparison of the various statistics. Several stats are only mentioned once or else they skip decades. It's kind of hard to really visualize changes over time when you are just given scattered information.
But that's just me. - VeniceCA, on 02/04/2009, -5/+45I spend 0 hours and 0 minutes watching TV so that should help balance things for those of you wanting to watch more. :)
- ferny12, on 02/04/2009, -0/+37FTA: *all values adjusted for inflation.
- ScienceDoc, on 02/04/2009, -2/+36The comparisons are random and inconsistent. It is more strange factoids than comparison graphic.
- b8765g, on 02/04/2009, -5/+34I would have prefered the information be displayed in a table.
- Bloodwine, on 02/04/2009, -4/+312000's: less women in the kitchen, 0 sandwiches made per day
- N00F, on 02/04/2009, -0/+21I agree. There is little chance of making comparisons based on the statistics that were presented. Not a very good article.
- djruden, on 02/04/2009, -1/+21Im with you buddy, 8+ hours is absolutely ridiculous!
- moduc, on 02/04/2009, -0/+17Shady statistic. What is 5% on tax? Is it sale tax? I thought it's about 25% to 33%.
- pathouston22, on 02/04/2009, -0/+15That is the entire household. So if daddy watches 2 hours, mommy watches 2 hours, and 2 kids watch 2 hours each, that's 8 hours total. Which isn't so bad on an individual basis, but combined it looks bad.
- techguru2006, on 02/04/2009, -1/+16It'd be interesting to know the average calories consumed daily as of this decade.
- gizram84, on 05/30/2009, -0/+15they should have put the same categories in each era... they keep changing it up, it was hard to make all the comparisons
- asnider, on 02/04/2009, -0/+14My thoughts exactly. Without some consistency in terms of what they're comparing the data is mostly meaningless.
- codyman, on 02/04/2009, -2/+15I can't imagine spending 8 hours a day watching TV!
*goes on neglecting work / browsing the web for the next 7 hours while at work... - stuartnow, on 02/04/2009, -4/+17The amount of money spent on non essentials goes up as TV watching goes up. Want more money, watch less TV.
- allengeer, on 02/04/2009, -0/+135% on tax? wtf are they talking about? Between 8% sales tax on income after 7% FICA tax and 25% income tax.... 5% tax my ass.
- serif69, on 02/04/2009, -1/+14It's measured in man-hours, not actual time. So if a family of four sits in front of the TV and watches a 2-hour movie, the household has spent 8 hours watching television according to statistics.
- copyland, on 02/04/2009, -4/+15nice graphic, poorly thought-out metrics.
- wolfing, on 02/04/2009, -0/+11No, it's not just you. I was also bothered by that. When you compare things, you compare the same characteristics for each so you can actually, you know, compare.
- drlha, on 02/04/2009, -0/+9Massive houses filled with fat people by the looks of things. Oh, and cheap eggs.
- djruden, on 02/04/2009, -0/+9The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves.
- wolfing, on 02/04/2009, -0/+9it's 8 hours *per household* (so, 3 people in the house, about 2.7 hours each. 4 people in the house, 2 hours each, etc). I guess it includes rentals and what not.
- Braxo, on 02/04/2009, -1/+9I third that. I may watch a sporting event here and there but that is it.
How could people possibly spend 8 hours every day watching TV? - kgdoom, on 02/04/2009, -0/+8I was told I'd be seeing some sci-fi ***** by now.
- duggdowncatisad, on 02/04/2009, -0/+8Do you guys telemarket? People are rude to all telemarketers because they ***** hate telemarketers, regardless of what they're selling/asking for/whatever. Especially if they're on the do not call list and someone calls them anyway.
- executorzz, on 02/04/2009, -0/+8we all have cell phones and own computers. That's pretty sci fi from the 1950's point of view.
- Gravey9, on 02/04/2009, -0/+7Bigger houses, larger incomes, less children, more beef!
- o0joshua0o, on 02/04/2009, -1/+8I know Wall-E wasn't mean to be hard-hitting sci-fi or anything, but I think it has a surprisingly accurate portrayal of what the future might hold for humanity.
- MacEnvy, on 02/04/2009, -1/+8It's not that people are intently watching it necessarily. Our TV is usually on in the background, running CNN or the Food Network, when we're home. But it's kind of just peripheral.
- anexanhume, on 02/04/2009, -0/+7Man, I'm sure glad I didn't want to compare any of those figures except the main ones.
- Jough, on 02/04/2009, -0/+6Global warming increases as the number of pirates decrease.
Perhaps we should all become pirates? - toxicshok, on 02/04/2009, -1/+7correlation does not equal causality. Maybe spending money makes you want to watch TV?
- doom777, on 02/04/2009, -2/+8What do you expect, women made it.
- niradg, on 02/04/2009, -0/+6Wow. Income growth really slowed down in the last 30 years.
- hasslinthehoff, on 02/04/2009, -1/+7So, I think our goal is:
1. Have only one wage earner in the house, be it man or woman.
2. Less people working means that demand for workers drives up wages.
3. Higher wages reinforces average families ability to live on one salary.
I think that would also mean a huge shift away from this ridiculous mentality that we need massively-sized houses and all the latest and greatest gadgets and a movement towards simplifying our lifestyles, actually having more quality leisure time away from television, and being happier in general.
And, considering how our economy is undergoing a massive readjustment, it might be a good time to make this shift. - hasslinthehoff, on 02/04/2009, -0/+6I think having one parent, regardless of sex, staying at home and one parent working and even switching those roles through the years should be the new standard for family life in this country.
And, in countries like Germany, with four-day workweeks, it's proven that productivity does not suffer and quality of life is vastly improved. Germans practically get three months off every year, and you can't say that their products suck b/c they are spending three days a week at home. - chuckDontSurf, on 02/04/2009, -0/+5Yeah, I was really curious to see how the "percentage of households where the head of the family was a craftsman or machine operator" changed over the decades. 42% in the 50's; I'm guessing it's less than 10% now.
- Jabrams2, on 02/04/2009, -0/+5on top it says all numbers were adjusted for inflation
- cuoops, on 02/04/2009, -1/+6I bet that's the first time 99.7% of you have been to the Woman's Day website. I like how it's on one page and you can save the pic.
- KSUdesigner, on 02/04/2009, -0/+5People can't drive safely in two dimensions, let alone three. Awesome as flying cars would be, I can't see it ever actually happening.
- themadrammer, on 08/18/2009, -1/+6 "Time is know more likely spent on PC or internet."
Which can be just as bad as TV...depending on what you're doing. - Gravey9, on 02/04/2009, -3/+8create a table then.
- asnider, on 02/04/2009, -0/+4People spent a much larger percentage of their income on food in the past than they do today. The price of food has, for the most part, gone down over the past 50 years. Since prices have been adjusted for inflation, I have very little trouble believing that eggs used to cost the equivalent of $5.29 in today's dollars.
- protodon, on 02/04/2009, -0/+4Yay according ot median household income . i live in the 70s! Despite the exclamation marks, I am not happy!
- executorzz, on 02/04/2009, -0/+4Not really, I don't know where this article comes up with the 8% in taxes for the 2000's. I'm paying close to 40% in taxes and I'm hardly rich.
- themadrammer, on 08/18/2009, -3/+7Now the population is decreasing, so the "Immigrants" can take over. Yay!
- mrmod, on 02/04/2009, -0/+4Interesting, once Reaganomics took hold, median income slowed it's jump from ~$10K per decade to ~$7.5K
The tragedy is the massive drop in laborers. - chuckDontSurf, on 02/04/2009, -0/+4Didn't you see "Idiocracy?"
- sladek, on 02/04/2009, -1/+5it's per household. so 5 people watching 2 hours a day is 10 hours a day total
- bluesman3535, on 02/04/2009, -0/+4The cost of health insurance, now equal to another mortgage for most people is conveniently omitted.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is