Old Timers. How does 2020 compare to the 60s?

make us letsrun wrote:

agip wrote:

I still can't really believe that anyone thinks this.

That anyone can stand there and say that most people were better off in the 60s and 70s. It so boggles the mind that I automatically reject anything else that person is saying.

It's ludicrous. As wrongheaded as saying Gates is going to inject microchips with vaccines.

People are so programmed to think of the past as a golden age. They can't see anything through that wall of falsity.

You’re kind of an unhinged looney tune. And engagement with you not worth the time. but poverty rates dropped dramatically after mid 60s (Johnson’s War on Poverty) but have fluctuated between 11 and 15 percent since the early 70s. Income disparity has increased dramatically.

huh? Do we disagree?

dude do some research on poverty rates and how they are calculated. Today's 'poverty' is much richer than 1960s poverty. It's not even close. If you don't know this then you are not even in this debate for real. You just don't know enough.

Regarding income: as others have stated, most young couples today can not afford to but houses; in the 60s with just a father working most families were able to buy a house.

coach wrote:

Regarding income: as others have stated, most young couples today can not afford to but houses; in the 60s with just a father working most families were able to buy a house.

yes, because houses are something like 30% larger now.

if a family wants to live in a 1960s or 1970s size home, it will be much cheaper, especially at today's ultra-low mortgage rates. Much more affordable.

But people want the 30% more square footage, so it gets very expensive.

agip wrote:

coach wrote:

Regarding income: as others have stated, most young couples today can not afford to but houses; in the 60s with just a father working most families were able to buy a house.

yes, because houses are something like 30% larger now.

if a family wants to live in a 1960s or 1970s size home, it will be much cheaper, especially at today's ultra-low mortgage rates. Much more affordable.

But people want the 30% more square footage, so it gets very expensive.

except for LA, SF, NYC. Those places are in a different category and are much more expensive now.

Did any of you read every line of the below? How did you miss the obvious and absurd one about LBJ orchestrating the assassination of JFK? Seriously? That line alone disqualifies the poster from being taken seriously about anything else he listed. Ridiculous.

Agip, you're beginning to earn a spot in my mind with Dunce Runner, Alien53, The Meathead and a few other kooks who ply conspiracy theory and misinformation around here.

agip wrote:

coach wrote:

Regarding income: as others have stated, most young couples today can not afford to but houses; in the 60s with just a father working most families were able to buy a house.

yes, because houses are something like 30% larger now.

if a family wants to live in a 1960s or 1970s size home, it will be much cheaper, especially at today's ultra-low mortgage rates. Much more affordable.

But people want the 30% more square footage, so it gets very expensive.

that's on you, not me. I can link to respectable sources for anything I claim. And if I am proven wrong I will gladly concede the point.

LRCUghh wrote:

Agip, you're beginning to earn a spot in my mind with Dunce Runner, Alien53, The Meathead and a few other kooks who ply conspiracy theory and misinformation around here.

agip wrote:

yes, because houses are something like 30% larger now.

if a family wants to live in a 1960s or 1970s size home, it will be much cheaper, especially at today's ultra-low mortgage rates. Much more affordable.

But people want the 30% more square footage, so it gets very expensive.

Truth and facts:

When Nixon took office, about 300 American soldiers were dying each week in Vietnam.

Source: "Vietnam War Deaths and Casualties By Month". The American War Library.

Blacks can go to any college, enter any profession and be just as successful in life as anyone else if they work hard just like everyone else.

Johnson and Nixon's domestic policy accomplishments compare favorably (check their records) but Nixon's foreign policy accomplishments were better. Vietnam tarnished Johnson's legacy, Watergate Nixon's. Which was worse?

Johnson had the motive, the means, and the opportunity. Granted, it is one of several conspiracy theories that we'll never know the truth of, but it is plausible and not far fetched.

These are stats based solely on the last 60 days due to the pandemic. I believe these will all reverse course rather quickly once we rebound from the pandemic.

Agip, in 1966 my father, a teacher who made $8,000 a year purchased a house for 26,000 in a quiet suburb of NY. That same house is now worth $500,000. Bigger houses that cost $34,000 can go for over $650,000. Teachers, blue collar workers and non letsrun posters, would have a hard time buying homes today.

coach wrote:

Agip, in 1966 my father, a teacher who made $8,000 a year purchased a house for 26,000 in a quiet suburb of NY. That same house is now worth $500,000. Bigger houses that cost $34,000 can go for over $650,000. Teachers, blue collar workers and non letsrun posters, would have a hard time buying homes today.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

And

I told you NyC doesn’t count in my argument.

agip wrote:

coach wrote:

Agip, in 1966 my father, a teacher who made $8,000 a year purchased a house for 26,000 in a quiet suburb of NY. That same house is now worth $500,000. Bigger houses that cost $34,000 can go for over $650,000. Teachers, blue collar workers and non letsrun posters, would have a hard time buying homes today.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

And

I told you NyC doesn’t count in my argument.

That's 40,000,000 people (NY, LA, SF metropolitan areas)

coach wrote:

agip wrote:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

And

I told you NyC doesn’t count in my argument.

That's 40,000,000 people (NY, LA, SF metropolitan areas)

without checking your numbers, I'll obviously agree that's a lot of people and problem. I will point out, however, that in the 60s white families used to live in tiny apartments in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Now they won't do that - they insist on a larger home in the suburbs. I'm sure if a middle class family with a single breadwinner wanted to live in those crappy tenement apartments like white middle class people used to...they could afford it just fine. Westchester,,,not so much.

And I'll also say that 40 million people is just 12% of the population.

Seriously. Do some research. Its not ridiculous.

As I conceded later it is one of several conspiracy theories but is indeed plausible and not far fetched.

It should not disqualify my other comments but that's your choice.

You are entitled to your opinion.

it this thread I learned..."agip" is an out-of-touch boomer with a typical attitude of generational superiority (things were way worse for us! our music was way cooler! boomers!)

lol get a grip grandpa

facts, not feelings wrote:

it this thread I learned..."agip" is an out-of-touch boomer with a typical attitude of generational superiority (things were way worse for us! our music was way cooler! boomers!)

lol get a grip grandpa

I’m not a boomer not even close. So you didn’t learn that. If you are wrong on that...what else are you wrong about?

But it’s true the music of the 60s and 70s is indisputably better than today. That we all know.

Nearly every, if not every, Democrat presidential candidate in 2019 supported the vivisection of 6- and 7-pound human fetuses and the infanticide of newborns born with birth defects or surviving botched abortions. Yet you say today, "the most prominent radicals are on the right."

Do you understand the meaning of radical? If every Democratic candidate supports a position it's not radical, it's mainstream.

Yet another great thread ruined by LRC right-wing fringe trolls.

Sigh.