Originally Posted by Ustwo

Just to get on this a bit, its false.

This has been talked about before, and when adjusted for inflation, the average family has the same buying power as in 1970. The problem is people are spending more on luxuries and viewing them as necessities. The income isn't the problem, its some peoples life style that is.

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Where was this discussed before? Because this is a bit false too.

1970s
Average salary: $7,564
Milk: $0.33/quart
Bread: $0.24/loaf
Round steak: $1.30/lb.
New home: $26,600
Regular gas: $0.36/gal.

2005
Average salary: $43,362 (573% change)
Milk: $2.00/quart (606%)
Bread: $2.79/loaf (1,163%)
Round steak: $6.39/lb. (492%)
New home: $264,000 (992%)
Regular gas: $2.96/gal. (822%)





There is something wrong here, and it isn't just luxury goods. Many things are more expensive to us than they were in the '70s, and the scary bit is that China won't be able to keep their inflation at bay for much longer. The party is likely over....

There are many Americans (North Americans?) who view luxury goods as necessities, and they've been doing it for decades. Since the invention of the television, we've seen an unprecedented amount of junk come into our lives. But it's the American way to get what you want, right?

Like I said, the party will likely be over soon. This is unsustainable. You're partly right, Ustwo. Luxuries (i.e. a television/computer for nearly every member of the household) will make the problem worse. We are no longer saving money; we are spending money that isn't ours.

Many of us are going to learn our lesson the hard way. You can't always get what you want, especially when it's technically harder to get things that are necessities, such as food, shelter, and a college education. (You don't want to see the difference between the cost of college in 1970 vs. 2005, and neither do I.)

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Isn't "median income" a false measurement, though? That, of course there has to be a median, but how does median fare against "average"? If half the population makes over(for example) $100k grand a year and half under, where does the real drop in income start to show? How many of those half-unders make what is considered middle-class? As you can see, I failed math...
As for the comment that the median income will not support the nuclear family anymore, that would greatly depend on where that family is. If the median income is, say again, $100K, that family would do really well in several of the southern states and a couple of the midwestern ones. They'd struggle, perhaps, in California, New Jersey and Manhattan. That same $100k might be earned differently in those states, ie; blue collar on the MidAtlantic Coast, high end executive in Alabama.