Here is an interesting article lifted from the paper. Wonder how all the
left wing liberals will explain these facts.
This is a printer friendly version of an article from News-Leader.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.
Back Published June 25, 2006
Study: Americans living at highest standard yet
Families have never earned more money or spent less on necessities, survey says.
By Lisa Anderson
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
NEW YORK — Americans have never had it so good.
Gas prices may be up. The stock market may be down. Job security may seem an illusion and there's not yet an iPod in every pocket. But, according to the government, American families have never earned more income, spent less on necessities or enjoyed a higher standard of living than they do right now.
That information comes from a new longitudinal study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which, for the first time, examines a century, instead of just a year, in its long-standing survey of consumer expenditure. The report, "100 Years of U.S. Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation, New York City, and Boston," paints a purse-strings portrait of American society from 1901 to 2002-2003 by tracing the impact of significant events of the 20th century on consumer spending patterns.
If, indeed, Americans are what they spend, the survey vividly illustrates how much they have changed in 100 years. "In many ways, the only thread of commonality between U.S. households in 1901 and in 2002-03 is their geographic location," as the 70-page report puts it.
In 1901, for example, the average household had $750 in annual income — with an average 9.5 percent of that earned by children — to support an average family of 4.9 people. Most of that money — 79.9 percent — went for food, clothing and housing.
By 2002-03, the average American family was earning $50,302 and statisticians no longer mentioned children as income producers. Moreover, the average household contained 2.5 people and only 50.1 percent of the income went for food, clothing and housing. The report stresses that this represents a real three-fold increase in income: the family would be earning $2,282 restated in 1901 dollars.
Clearly, the so-called good old days hardly were so good, said Michael Dolfman, the Bureau of Labor Statistics regional commissioner in New York, who co-authored the report with Denis McSweeney, his bureau counterpart in Boston. New York and Boston were broken out because they are two of the nation's oldest urban areas.
"I come from the generation that, when we look back at the turn of the century, we see it as a halcyon time, when the pace of life was different and it was a very civil, pleasant time. Looking at the results, we found that at the dawn of the 20th century, life in the United States, and particularly in New York, was very difficult," said Dolfman, 63.
In the New York City of 1901, he pointed out, people spent 20 percent more than they earned. They were able to do this, he said, because "there was a great deal of immigration and people came with grubstakes. Extended families came over and they borrowed from each other. Merchants would extend credit to people. And, they survived."
To their advantage, perhaps, Americans in 1901 were young. In a population of 76 million, the median age was 22.9 years. By 2002-03, with a population of 281 million, the median age was 35.3 years, the highest in 100 years.
"We wanted to tell the story of how standards of living in the nation, in New York and in Boston have changed markedly in 100 years. Most people, when they talk about the economy are talking about broad measures, measures of inflation, measures of gross domestic product. We wanted to look at the American household as a key economic unit," said Dolfman, explaining the decision to examine a century's worth of data for this year's report, which was released this month.
Household expenditures on the necessities of food, clothing and housing provide windows into the changing lives of families. Shifts in what families spent on food, in particular, tell of major changes at the kitchen table over the century. In 1901, food was the single biggest expense for the average family, claiming 42.5 percent of its entire income. With most jobs paying less than 30 cents per hour, food was expensive: the average cost per pound was 13 cents for bacon, 27 cents for butter and 22 cents for a dozen eggs.
As mass production made food more plentiful and cheaper, the share of the family budget taken by food steadily declined, dropping to 13.1 percent in 2002-03. However, food remained the largest single expense until 1950, when housing, driven by a postwar boom in homeownership, supplanted it.
Over the years, spending patterns reflected changing dietary tastes, as well as technological developments, such as the rise of supermarkets, the proliferation of refrigeration and home freezers, and the growth of a global marketplace in which fruits and vegetables are available constantly, said Dolfman.
What people were eating also held up a mirror to what was going on in the society, said Dolfman. "In 1934-36, the average American ate 3,250 calories per day. By 1950, they ate 3,260 calories a day. But, in 1950, even though the calories were the same, Americans consumed 12.6 percent more food. In the Depression, they were eating pastas and breads and high-caloric foods to fill themselves up," he said.
One of the most dramatic tales food has to tell is in the shift away from eating at home — which is where almost everyone ate 100 years ago. However, with the increase of fast food and more affordable restaurants and with the rise in discretionary funds, by 1960, families were spending 21 percent of their food budget on restaurants. As more women entered the workplace, rising from 18 percent of the labor force in 1901 to 46.5 percent in 2002-03, the amount spent on eating outside the home also rose. In 2002-03, it accounted for 41.9 percent of the average American family's food budget.
While homeownership rocketed from 19 percent at the start of the 20th century to 67 percent at the dawn of the 21st century, who lives in those homes has changed. The number of single-person households has risen from 16.8 percent in 1960 to 29.5 percent in 2002-03.
While many consumer categories, such as iPods, could hardly have been imagined even half a century ago, the need and willingness to spend for entertainment have not changed, particularly when it's needed the most. During the Depression years of 1934-36 the average U.S. household spent 5.4 percent of total expenditures on entertainment — more than the 5.1 percent the average family spent on the category in 2002-03.
================================================== ====
Have at it. How we have all this "gap" between the poor and rich.
Averages give lie to the real situation. If you stick one foot in a bucket of ice water and one in a bucket of freshly poured boiled water, the average temperature is fine, but one foot is getting frostbite and the other has the skin boiling off.
The middle class has not been smaller since the depression. In fifty years we won't have to worry about Mexican immigrants, we'll ing be Mexico, with a handful of uber rich families, and a crushing, impoverished underclass without jobs.
Gee, for an exstatic individual, you sure have a negative outlook. And a wrong one
at that. Since the depression, huh? Where did you get that information? From some
left wing, regressive blog. More than likely. You don't have much perception of what
goes on around you, do you?
Maybe you should talk to some of the people who have obtained middle class status
since the depression. Or better yet, talk to some of those "legal" Mexican immigrants
and see if they agree with you.
haha... no ...i don't think ex has ever met a mexican immigrant.. he just spouts the bull he reads from nbadan or some other wacko websites..
At least in 1901 people had values.
ah yes, the eternallly vague, never-defined "values" that red-staters and Bible thumpers love to vote for, which votes result in nothing but phony wars and tax cuts for the rich + corps. suckers.
I'll define values for you, things like a honest day's work for an honest day's pay and fearing God and not glorifying debauchery and buggery. You liberals are possessd by satan.
Really. I didn't know you were that old.
1901 values? Seriously?
The same 1901 that had to pass federal legislation banning child labor?
When Alabama passes into law that all black voters must pass a literacy test to vote and used grandfather clauses to prevent any and all non-English speaking immigrants from voting?
This commonly held nostalgia for times before is misguided to say the least.
Have we reached a time where our technology has outgrown our humanity? Maybe.
But believe it or not, Gangs of NY wasnt all that fictional. Obviously, waaaaay over done and overwrought, but the basic tenets of social hierarchy is accurate.
If thats a defintion of "values", you can have them.
Did women even have the right to vote back then?
Why do you think they called them the "good old days"?
Lynchin and generally killing Negroes wasn't illegal.
Good old "Red, White, and Screwed" VALUES. Bring 'em on!
Am I the only one here who recalls Xray's silly attempt to justify racism as "that's just the way things were in my generation; I did not have the balls say otherwise."?
Most pathetic post I ever read.
Care to show link where I said that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
