Prophetic 1934 Cartoon

[Mos Eisley]

It has been. If you think it hasn't, you haven't been listening. Who is "you people."

I'm not an economics guy, but I don't think the sky has been falling for the last 80 years. I live better than any of the past generations. I can easily afford a quality of life that they would never have dreamed of. I remember my dad telling me how it was a BIG deal if you had more than one TV in the house back in his day. That's laughable now.

What really matters to the average joe, besides his quality of life?

 

[CarmelHP]

If TV availability is the metric we're using to determine the health of the Republic then it is no wonder it's FUBAR.

 

[BogWalker]

Perhaps the economic boom of the 1940s/50s off set the rising socialist leanings. Seeing as we've been on the downward slope of that perhaps its rising again. The sky hasn't been falling for 80 years, it has just been delayed from falling for that long.

 

[Mos Eisley]

If TV availability is the metric we're using to determine the health of the Republic then it is no wonder it's FUBAR.

Why are you focusing on my little example instead of addressing my observation that the standard of living for the average American is as good or better than it ever has been? What is your metric? I'd say standard of living is a pretty good one. What else really matters to the average Joe?

 

[Smokepole]

No toon. Been 20 mins.

 

[chris46131]

No toon. Been 20 mins.

Didn't load for me either, but the link in post #10 worked.

 

[cosermann]

Right, go to the link in post #10. That's why I posted it. Looks like it aged out of where ever it was being hosted for free.

Or here for convenience ==>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-pod-1934-cartoon-pic,0,7114709.photo

 

[CarmelHP]

Why are you focusing on my little example instead of addressing my observation that the standard of living for the average American is as good or better than it ever has been?

Well, for one thing it's not. The median family income in constant dollars has been almost flat for 50 years, except 50 years ago that income was earned by a single wage earner with little household debt, while today it takes 2 wage earners and very high historical debt loads. Over the same time period, almost every other social metric has deteriorated such as incarceration rates, education attainment, percentage on the dole, national debt and family stability. Those are, or should be, very important to the "average Joe."

What is your metric? I'd say standard of living is a pretty good one. What else really matters to the average Joe?

If you think comparing the availability of a technology at its emergence to its availability at its maturity or senescence is a good measure of the financial health, let alone overall health, of a nation and society then I don't think there's anything that will shake you're conviction.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I'm not an economics guy, but I don't think the sky has been falling for the last 80 years. I live better than any of the past generations. I can easily afford a quality of life that they would never have dreamed of. I remember my dad telling me how it was a BIG deal if you had more than one TV in the house back in his day. That's laughable now.

What really matters to the average joe, besides his quality of life?

Why are you focusing on my little example instead of addressing my observation that the standard of living for the average American is as good or better than it ever has been? What is your metric? I'd say standard of living is a pretty good one. What else really matters to the average Joe?

Are you really living better than your parents or grandparents? Do you spend as much time with your kids as they did? Have you kept the same spouse for your whole life? Do you have a company paid pension? (what's that?) does your wife have to work to help pay for your flat screen t.v.? Do you have more, or less debt than they did?
I'm not picking on you! Just your idea, that as long as you have more t.v.'s, and more crap than your parents did, means you have a better standard of life.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Well, for one thing it's not. The median family income in constant dollars has been almost flat for 50 years, except 50 years ago that income was earned by a single wage earner with little household debt, while today it takes 2 wage earners and very high historical debt loads. Over the same time period, almost every other social metric has deteriorated such as incarceration rates, education attainment, percentage on the dole, national debt and family stability. Those are, or should be, very important to the "average Joe."

If you think comparing the availability of a technology at its emergence to its availability at its maturity or senescence is a good measure of the financial health, let alone overall health, of a nation and society then I don't think there's anything that will shake you're conviction.

^^^^^
Smart man!

I had to look up "senescence!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, for one thing it's not. The median family income in constant dollars has been almost flat for 50 years, except 50 years ago that income was earned by a single wage earner with little household debt, while today it takes 2 wage earners and very high historical debt loads. Over the same time period, almost every other social metric has deteriorated such as incarceration rates, education attainment, percentage on the dole, national debt and family stability. Those are, or should be, very important to the "average Joe."

If you think comparing the availability of a technology at its emergence to its availability at its maturity or senescence is a good measure of the financial health, let alone overall health, of a nation and society then I don't think there's anything that will shake you're conviction.

Are you really living better than your parents or grandparents? Do you spend as much time with your kids as they did? Have you kept the same spouse for your whole life? Do you have a company paid pension? (what's that?) does your wife have to work to help pay for your flat screen t.v.? Do you have more, or less debt than they did?
I'm not picking on you! Just your idea, that as long as you have more t.v.'s, and more crap than your parents did, means you have a better standard of life.

Good points guys. We cannot deny that the availability of creature comforts, medical technology, etc. is definitely better than it was during our grandparents times. But it's arguable that we are really better off where it really counts.

 

[Mos Eisley]

Are you really living better than your parents or grandparents? Do you spend as much time with your kids as they did? Have you kept the same spouse for your whole life? Do you have a company paid pension? (what's that?) does your wife have to work to help pay for your flat screen t.v.? Do you have more, or less debt than they did?
I'm not picking on you! Just your idea, that as long as you have more t.v.'s, and more crap than your parents did, means you have a better standard of life.

I am easily living a better quality of life than my grandparents ever did, and also have a higher standard of living than my parents. This is economically speaking, but I'm doing just fine in the family department as well. Married 25 years this year, kids are grown and doing just fine. Wife has hardly ever worked during our marriage. I have worked long hours over the past years, but don't tell me that men in past generations have not done the same.

I've got some debt, but nothing outrageous compared to my income. Certainly you cannot measure personal happiness by the availability of gadgets, but it certainly is a barometer of the financial side of the equation. Our "poor" people in this nation all have air conditioning, smart phones and by the looks of our obesity problem, plenty to eat. I cannot account for their personal happiness, as there exist plenty of happy poor people and miserable rich people, but at any rate, I think that the economic side of the argument is what is more directly affected by politics than the personal side. Also, YOUR idea of a quality life might not be the same as mine. Many people choose to be miserable, although by any fair and objective analysis, they are doing fine.

 

[Mos Eisley]

Well, for one thing it's not. The median family income in constant dollars has been almost flat for 50 years, except 50 years ago that income was earned by a single wage earner with little household debt, while today it takes 2 wage earners and very high historical debt loads. Over the same time period, almost every other social metric has deteriorated such as incarceration rates, education attainment, percentage on the dole, national debt and family stability. Those are, or should be, very important to the "average Joe."

A single wage earner can still raise a family with little debt (except a mortgage), depending on his or her chosen profession. It is true that it is difficult to make a career out of putting pin A into slot B for 8 hours a day anymore, but that is not completely attributable to politics. Many jobs simply don't exist anymore because technology has made them obsolete. You either get an education to make yourself useful in the new global economy, or you don't.

The average Joe doesn't care about those other metrics, because those are things that are way out of his control. Interesting discussion, but at the end of the day, I'm not going to waste my life worrying about such heady topics. Economies change, ebb and flow. We have the largest economy in the world, and also one of the highest GDPs. If this is what 80 years of doom looks like, I'm not gonna lock myself in the bunker just yet.

BTW, unemployment is at 7.7% now. Lowest in 4 years.

Have a good day.

 

[CarmelHP]

You're right, everything is just fine. Go back to your boob tube.

 

[Leo]

There is nothing new under the sun. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately the mindless masses take the rest of the community with them.

 

[Classic]

Real unemployment is definitely not at 7.7%. That figure is bogus. The real number corrected for workforce shrinkage and other factors is more like 16+%.

The Jobless Effect: Is the Real Unemployment Rate 16.5%, 22%, or. . .? - DailyFinance

Someone has been listening to the Obamedia too much.

 

[Leo]

I think Classic is right, If the Unemployment is only down 7 percent, how can the tax roles be down 22%? The market is not reflecting economic growth. I believe it is reflecting the big money players positioning themselves (with other peoples money) to do a huge power grab when the bottom blows out.

 

[rugertoter]

Since the imaged seems to have aged out of this thread, here's a link to the Chicago Tribune's web site showing it.

As mentioned, note the plan of action in the lower left.

This is a... - 1934 Chicago Tribune political cartoon - chicagotribune.com

Looks like some things never change.

 

[Mos Eisley]

You're right, everything is just fine. Go back to your boob tube.

I will, thanks. Have fun with your recreational outrage.

 

[BogWalker]

Isn't unemployment only a percentage of population at working age and actively searching for a job? I do believe a different metric is used to display total inactive work force including those no longer trying to find a job. Anyone know the figure for increase in unemployment claims rates?