In 1957 the min. wage was $1 per/h and the avg cost of a new home was 12k..... Today the min wage is just $5.75, yet the average cost of a home is like $230k... that is a 400% increase in wage and an 1800% in the cost of a home... Should'nt this be a bit more paralleled?
2007-11-11 03:55:48 · 4 answers · asked by suitsofhoner 2 in Social Science ➔ Economics
The flaw in your figures is that you are applying the minimum wage (lowest wage) and using the AVERAGE cost of a home. You need to look at the AVERAGE, or MEDIAN wage per hour earned, not the lowest wage.
Even then, you may have misleading figures, as the median wage will not include the benefits paid out by companies, such as health care, life insurance, etc., but it should be more "in-line" than what you currently have.
2007-11-11 07:00:21 · answer #1 · answered by fuzmaniac 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The minimum wage is at least as much if not more effected by politics than the economy so it is not a good measure of economic performance. Using average wage, or median wage is a better indicator, and the minimum wage is unusually low right now compared to the median. You can find average wages with difference method to adjust for inflation at
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/04/has-middle-americas-wages-stagnated/
The size of homes has increased since 1957, in part because the majority of married couples, who are most of the home buyers, now have two incomes, so they can afford bigger homes,
I think these are the biggest factors, but changes in the underlying economy has also had some effect. Food, and utilities consume less of household budgets, and a larger fraction is spent on housing.
2007-11-11 05:03:27 · answer #2 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yet a far greater percentage of households own their own houses now than in 1957. Would you like to reverse that trend? Houses are much bigger than they were in 1957 too. Per-person there are also far, far more of pretty much everything people value today , from cars to stereos to TVs to computers to telephones to long-distance usage to food to restaurants to store-bought clothes.
And of course we also spend our budgets on things that did not even exist in 1957: iPods, video games, software, personal computers, printers, digital cameras, cell phones, Internet access.
This all proves that people are far wealthier than in 1957, so what's the problem? The lesson for you is that few people even make minimum wage -- so its not a very meaningful indicator of much -- and besides you are not SUPPOSED to be trying to survive on minimum wage: that is why your neighbors pay taxes to send you to school.
2007-11-11 06:07:51 · answer #3 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, but inflation, poor fiscial management, and income disparity has led us to this.
2007-11-11 04:43:45 · answer #4 · answered by austenbosten 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋