What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
How Many Calories Are In Alcohol? view!
bing.com - Handy guidelines help you get your drink on and keep the weight off.
304 Comments
- trghpy, on 11/19/2007, -64/+167Should have a line to represent inflation.
- jpr281, on 11/19/2007, -0/+76http://i6.tinypic.com/8e1ibfb.gif
Graph. - TwiceHephaestus, on 11/19/2007, -2/+73I'd much rather see the MEDIAN income over that period of time, adjusted for inflation. I mean, the average is fine and dandy, but when its 1% making 1000 times more than the 99% who make dirt, the average income may not be the best indicator.
- chess10, on 11/19/2007, -3/+72Correct me if I'm wrong, but the graph is in 2004 US$. Isn't that therefore already inflation adjusted?
- Toshibi, on 11/19/2007, -0/+52I can do this the easy way, The Toshibi Ramen Noodle Index (RNI): In the early 90's I could get 12 packs of delicious Ramen for a dollar. Mid to late 90's I could easily get 10 packs for a buck. Now, I can get 6 packs of tasty noodle goodness for the same dollar. Forget gold, forget oil....my ramen purchasing power (RPP) has decreased by 50% over the last 15 years!
- yamyogurt, on 11/19/2007, -4/+49the y-axis is clearly labeled 2004 US$
- Pake, on 11/19/2007, -1/+42The average household had a maid? In the 50's?!?! Mom was the maid in the 50's.
- johnburk, on 11/19/2007, -25/+66The Dollar has lost 30% of its value in the last 4 years. Just imagine how much it has lost in the last 90 years!
- spin-docta, on 11/19/2007, -3/+36I wonder if the graph has gone up or down since 2004 cause it looked like it was on a slight up turn around 2004.
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -5/+38so by this graph, the "best times" we had for "economic growth" were either during times of wild investor speculation (radio boom and the dot com boom) or in times of war, with the exception of when we went to war in areas where there was oil, or there was a disruption in supply (OPEC) in which case it was bad for the economy...
- tehxen3, on 11/19/2007, -1/+34It's in 2004 dollars, that means adjusted for inflation. I can't believe you got 45 diggs, diggers are smrt.
- pman201, on 11/19/2007, -3/+34Yes, this is in 2004 dollars...Way not know how to read units on a graph digg.
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -6/+35I sincerely doubt you'd like to be living in that era. Life is a lot better now.
You had to ***** in outhouses. You WORKED for your food, clothes, shelter, heating, etc. The average person didn't have a car, TV, phone, computer, dishwasher, laundry machine. These are modern conveniences. You typically died younger and diseases that are now either irradicated or manageable killed tons of people every year. We are better off now than we were 10 years ago, and we are FAR better off than we were 90 years ago. - inactive, on 11/19/2007, -3/+31 Earnings Minus Inflation, will give you the real Average Income of Americans.
If you invested in the Dow average stocks back in '69 with $900.00 and left it there for 10 years, you would have lost 50% of your money; due directly to inflation. Keep in mind it was much easier to do this type of figuring back before the Fed stopped releasing the M3 number. Now we have no idea what the true rate of inflation is because the government doesn't include fuel or food in the report; furthermore, we have no idea the amount of dollars that are out there saturating the system. - Gugel, on 11/19/2007, -4/+30MIRROR: http://duggmirror.com/business_finance/Average_Inc ...
- mrASSMAN, on 11/19/2007, -0/+24It's already adjusted for inflation.
- AriaStar, on 11/19/2007, -7/+28I make more than the highest point on that chart (capital gains during the dot-com boom), but would really like to see a chart over this of the average rent. I'm at $1,500 per month. $60k isn't a lot after taxes, taxes, more taxes, and rent. The $18k per year I pay in rent could have bought a mansion in the 1950's. Accounting for inflation, I think we're actually a lot poorer than we once were.
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -2/+23Yeah. It appears someone watched too many episodes of the Jetsons and the Brady Bunch..
- Urusai, on 11/19/2007, -1/+20This graph fails to take into account at least two things: increased taxes (and other relatively inflexible expenses), and increased number of workers/hours per "tax unit". In particular, the number of wage earners per household since the '60s has gone up 0.5 as more women entered the workplace, yet the graph is relatively flat in that period. I know for a fact that my grandfather supported a family of five and lived tolerably well (all his kids went to college, this was before rampant student loans) working as an auto body repairman (just as a mechanic, not a shop owner). Good luck pulling that off today.
- citizen132, on 11/19/2007, -3/+21I don't think that's how it works johnburk.....
- Beakerz, on 11/19/2007, -2/+18.....its adjusted. read the y-axis.
- doctornkul, on 11/19/2007, -1/+17It says it's using 2004 dollars.
- cliffzdude, on 11/19/2007, -1/+17In 1975 if a 30 year old made $30k, he was kicking some *major* ass. That was close to being wealthy.
A quickie inflation calculator shows that $30,000 in 1965 is worth $198,986.67 in 2007.
(http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl)
Your dad was right, you'd certainly be "doing well", eh? - markwilcox, on 11/19/2007, -1/+16MIRROR: http://duggmirror.com/business_finance/Average_Inc ...
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -2/+17We don't need any of those "modern conveniences". They're all "wants".
- trogdorBURN, on 11/19/2007, -1/+14You win for knowledge of basic statistical principles. Dugg up.
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -6/+19The sad part is my father used to say that in the 60's if you made your age annually you were doing well and I hear people saying the same thing 40 years later
- Jugalator, on 11/19/2007, -4/+16I don't think it added a lot of information, but I was curious, so here's a quick & dirty photoshop also including political party info if anyone was interested:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4394/chartparti ... - jmpeagle, on 11/19/2007, -2/+14what? It has lost 12% of its value or so in 4 years (slightly under 3% inflation per year). Value is determined by what a dollar can buy and therefore only inflation matters. A dollar could actually gain value while falling against other currencies.
- mr.gates, on 11/19/2007, -2/+14No this graph shows that the "best times" are of strong scientific research and technological development. Go figure.
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -1/+12Overlay the chart with what citizens can buy for their wages (such as the American dream--a house and transportation) and a chart showing how many days we work each year just to pay our taxes and that would be something.
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -4/+15Both of you need to calm down.
Quit using the internet to make yourselves look tough.
TheFounder, thanks for attempting to mirror the site. - inactive, on 11/19/2007, -0/+11What really needs to be pointed out is that this is an average and it does not tell you the degree of skewness/kurtosis over time. That would actually be a pretty cool chart. Average, while somewhat useful, does not tell you all you need to know.
- themastersb, on 11/19/2007, -4/+14Is this adjusted to inflation?
- NathanDavis, on 11/19/2007, -6/+15Also, there hasn't really been a significant increase in real income since about 1970. Incidentally, that is about when the U.S. went off the gold standard. I don't know enough about monetary policy to say that such a correlation denotes causation, but it certainly is worth looking in to...
- jj2me, on 11/19/2007, -0/+9Can't really agree that it's easier now, nor that people needed to have gardens or livestock in the '50s (maybe in midwest farming communities, but not in or near cities).
Typically, Dad worked, Mom stayed home, every family had kids. Dad working as a factory laborer gave a family a decent living. It was an oddly good time economically for the U.S., which was still utilizing its natural resources, and didn't have that much competition on products from the rest of the world--Europe and Asia were rebuilding, we didn't have to.
Services were cheap, goods were expensive.
Many door-to-door services, milk, bread, dry cleaning, piano lessons, sales (yes, a Hoover vacuum cleaner door-to-door salesman made a decent living). Gas station service almost like in "Back to the Future." But a radio was a major expense. Great time for kids, who played outside and went anywhere, safely.
The blight on that time was bigotry.
Digg me down for being old. - rollem, on 11/19/2007, -4/+13What's not fair, does someone owe you money just for showing up?
- christhechris, on 11/19/2007, -2/+11I also can;t help but wonder if executives earning multi-millions of dollars skews this at all.
- jmpeagle, on 11/19/2007, -2/+11it is genius
- Haecceity, on 11/19/2007, -1/+10It is inflation adjusted. Read the text -- it's in 2004 dollars.
- RudyV, on 11/19/2007, -4/+12Hi
- jasdf, on 11/19/2007, -1/+9No, just that you are bragging.
- Villhelm47, on 11/19/2007, -0/+8Factor out the commercial boom resulting from the post-WWII economy...
- WallyAnti, on 11/19/2007, -0/+7Exactly, remember those top 2% who hold most of the wealth are tipping the averages up a bit. If there were a line to represent that gap it would be quite neat.
- inactive, on 11/19/2007, -0/+7ur 10?
- MindStalker, on 11/19/2007, -1/+8My parent were well below average income, but even still she says that once a month she would have a maid come over and help clean up the house because they worked for near minimum wage and the companies doing this weren't taking huge cuts off the top. Hell I'd pay some honest person $50 once a month to help me out. BTW this was 70-80s.
- BlogCruiser, on 11/19/2007, -0/+7It states average income. Now what is interesting that most people don't see and I think I'm correct about this, is average income equates to average household income. Now when did it change from 90 percent one person in the household to 90 percent at least two people in the household working to make that same income. Taking the numbers out of the air but I'm sure they are close.
- jmpeagle, on 11/19/2007, -1/+8it is
- chess10, on 11/19/2007, -0/+6Wow look at the explosion in capital gains during the dot-com boom. People were making some serious cash.
- fuzzmeister, on 11/19/2007, -4/+10So you think the Federal Reserve is responsible for, for example, WWII? I'd love to hear the logic behind that one.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 305 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
