Meet the Economist Behind the 1%'s Stealth Takeover of America

Jun 2007
51,512
36,926
Ohio
#32
Or even punching down, which is usually what people do ... the average MAGA hat, like Mr. MAGA himself, prefers to pick on weaker people.
I'm usually inclined to notice that trends towards bad social behavior/societal decay are linked to commercialism. Maybe it's just me though. People excuse lack of morality when it's the wealthy and famous or even corporations (fiduciary duty) but when everyday Americans do it, they're scumbags.

And it's something I noticed about small towns, too. People are way more judgmental of those they perceive to be their peers (or lessors) than their superiors.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
#33
I'm usually inclined to notice that trends towards bad social behavior/societal decay are linked to commercialism. Maybe it's just me though. People excuse lack of morality when it's the wealthy and famous or even corporations (fiduciary duty) but when everyday Americans do it, they're scumbags.

And it's something I noticed about small towns, too. People are way more judgmental of those they perceive to be their peers (or lessors) than their superiors.
the pettiness in small towns is really ridiculous, where my mom lives is ridiculous. They are so fake, acting all nice, but talking shit about everybody. They will rally together, raise money to help others in town, but if someone has wronged them they hang on to that grudge forever. My uncle is the nicest guy and there is a guy for years who will give him the finger every time he sees him for something that happened many years ago . Drives me nuts because they like to pretend all the people there are so greate, which is BS. There are a holes everywhere, in cities they are just not fake about it. I'd prefer having people be rude than fake nice, then you know who the real nice people are
 
Likes: Blueneck
Mar 2013
69,681
37,309
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#34
I'm usually inclined to notice that trends towards bad social behavior/societal decay are linked to commercialism.
I think it is less about commercialism than love of self, whether it is in the service of the accumulation of wealth or glory.
People excuse lack of morality when it's the wealthy and famous or even corporations (fiduciary duty) but when everyday Americans do it, they're scumbags.
Which merely goes to show what their values really are.
 
Likes: Blueneck
Sep 2014
4,241
1,223
South FL
#35
Not sure what triggered the resuscitation of this thread, but nevertheless.

He does that all the time. He never backs up his arguments with actual facts. He not here to debate. He's here to troll.
I destroyed the source you were citing to supposedly support YOUR contention.

christ, you are so full of shit. Seem, there is no hope with people like this. Actually, they are probably just paid by the 1% to troll and spread their stupidity
Well actually Babba was citing to an article which is still out there and I quoted it.

"
Here's how much the median home value in the U.S. has changed between 1940 and 2000:


  • 1940: $2,938
  • 1950: $7,354
  • 1960: $11,900
  • 1970: $17,000
  • 1980: $47,200
  • 1990: $79,100
  • 2000: $119,600"
In 1940 the US has a median income of $956, an average house less than 1500 sq ft - The 1940 Census: 72-Year-Old Secrets Revealed

In 2000 the median is $55,030 with a house over 2,000 square feet. The latter number comes from WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-levels/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d6f041f2cc21

Neither are the Heritage Foundation.

The homes built today aren't just bigger, they're much better as well. They're definitely more energy-efficient, bigger and better bathrooms, definitely more appliances like dishwashers and microwaves and the ones built today almost overwhelmingly have central air conditioning. On top of that, the number of people per household is actually decreasing so the amount of living space available on a per person basis is even greater. The macro trend is quite clear. Overall, the increasing amount of living space, the improvements in the physical quality of the housing, the increased number of features many of which didn't even exist in the 1940s and were rare in the 1970s shows that living standards continue to improve Americans.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2013
1,183
1,540
U.S.A.
#36
Not sure what triggered the resuscitation of this thread, but nevertheless.



I destroyed the source you were citing to supposedly support YOUR contention.



Well actually Babba was citing to an article which is still out there and I quoted it.

"
Here's how much the median home value in the U.S. has changed between 1940 and 2000:


  • 1940: $2,938
  • 1950: $7,354
  • 1960: $11,900
  • 1970: $17,000
  • 1980: $47,200
  • 1990: $79,100
  • 2000: $119,600"
In 1940 the US has a median income of $956, an average house less than 1500 sq ft - The 1940 Census: 72-Year-Old Secrets Revealed

In 2000 the median is $55,030 with a house over 2,000 square feet. The latter number comes from WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-levels/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d6f041f2cc21

Neither are the Heritage Foundation.

The homes built today aren't just bigger, they're much better as well. They're definitely more energy-efficient, bigger and better bathrooms, definitely more appliances like dishwashers and microwaves and the ones built today almost overwhelmingly have central air conditioning. On top of that, the number of people per household is actually decreasing so the amount of living space available on a per person basis is even greater. The macro trend is quite clear. Overall, the increasing amount of living space, the improvements in the physical quality of the housing, the increased number of features many of which didn't even exist in the 1940s and were rare in the 1970s shows that living standards continue to improve Americans.
Did you not read post #25 in this thread -- or are you just ignoring it?

Cheers.