What's new
  • Check out our new Group Buy Program! We're kicking it off with Baja Designs! $10 Flat rate shipping no matter how much you order!

Shift change photo

ohc=Q3hDkbLurjAQ7kNvgGBqNnB&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.jpg
 
lake lanier construction
 
Not TOO far off of a current household income to cost ratio.
Goog says US average for an 'Associate Engineer' is $85k/yr, and that an average car is $48k or 56.5% of annual income.

This fact-sheet from U of Missouri says in 1900-1909 decade an engineer made $1k and that car was $400 or 40% of annual income.

Other kewl factoids from that page...
In the United States...

  • Wage-earning men made an average of $11.16 per week in 1905. Source: Census.
  • Wage-earning women made an average of $6.17 per week in 1905. Source: Census.
  • Solid gold wedding rings were priced at $4.76 in the 1908 Sears catalog (source).
  • Black-owned farms had an average value of $434 according to the 1900 Census.
  • College tuition was free at the U of MO in 1900. Dorms cost $12-$28/year.
  • Milk cost 14¢ per half gallon in 1900. Source: U.S. BLS
  • Coffee averaged 23¢ per pound in 1900. Source: U.S. BLS
  • Around 4,200 passenger cars were manufactured in the year 1900 (source), when the U.S. population was 76.3 million (source).
  • Selected occupational earnings in 1900:
    • Shoemakers earned about $2.40 per day. Source: U.S. BLS
    • Carpenters earned $750 per year. Source
    • Engineers earned $1,050 per year. Source
  • In 1903, an estimated 15,000 Americans had a net worth of $300,000 or more. Source: Financial Red Book preface.
  • Life expectancy was 48.2 years for males and 50.7 for females in 1900. Source: BLS


Anyhow, all that said, our current vehicles are a way better bargain in terms of comfort and reliability per hour at work.
That $48k car our engineer buddy bought is going to have AC, cruise, maybe leather seats. Power windows. It'll go 150k miles without major repairs.
The Sears car is slow, unreliable, etc.
I still want one though!
 
Not TOO far off of a current household income to cost ratio.
Goog says US average for an 'Associate Engineer' is $85k/yr, and that an average car is $48k or 56.5% of annual income.

This fact-sheet from U of Missouri says in 1900-1909 decade an engineer made $1k and that car was $400 or 40% of annual income.

Other kewl factoids from that page...
In the United States...

  • Wage-earning men made an average of $11.16 per week in 1905. Source: Census.
  • Wage-earning women made an average of $6.17 per week in 1905. Source: Census.
  • Solid gold wedding rings were priced at $4.76 in the 1908 Sears catalog (source).
  • Black-owned farms had an average value of $434 according to the 1900 Census.
  • College tuition was free at the U of MO in 1900. Dorms cost $12-$28/year.
  • Milk cost 14¢ per half gallon in 1900. Source: U.S. BLS
  • Coffee averaged 23¢ per pound in 1900. Source: U.S. BLS
  • Around 4,200 passenger cars were manufactured in the year 1900 (source), when the U.S. population was 76.3 million (source).
  • Selected occupational earnings in 1900:
    • Shoemakers earned about $2.40 per day. Source: U.S. BLS
    • Carpenters earned $750 per year. Source
    • Engineers earned $1,050 per year. Source
  • In 1903, an estimated 15,000 Americans had a net worth of $300,000 or more. Source: Financial Red Book preface.
  • Life expectancy was 48.2 years for males and 50.7 for females in 1900. Source: BLS


Anyhow, all that said, our current vehicles are a way better bargain in terms of comfort and reliability per hour at work.
That $48k car our engineer buddy bought is going to have AC, cruise, maybe leather seats. Power windows. It'll go 150k miles without major repairs.
The Sears car is slow, unreliable, etc.
I still want one though!
Keep in mind, income tax didnt start until after 1913, and the % was much lower, and has steadily crept up, along with social security, etc etc etc
 
Which is pretty fucked if you think about how low the prices vs income was in the middle of the 20th century.
Using the googlator the same U of Misery research says that an average mid-level engineer in the 1960's is in the $12k/year range and an average car is in the $2800 range. So our engineer buddy is spending 23% of his annual income on a brand new car.
His house also had a median value of $11,900 - or just less than one year's salary.

I'm going to guess that not too many of us have a home valued at 1x our annual these days...............

Quotable facts for the 1960s​

In the United States...
  • Minimum wage was $1 per hour in 1960. Source: U.S. Dept of Labor
  • Cigarettes cost an average 26¢ per pack (including tax) in 1960. Over 50% of adult males were smokers in 1965.
  • HOUSES
    • Homes had a median value of $11,900 in 1960. Source: US Census Bureau
    • "New home buyers of the 1950s and 1960s were predominantly first-time buyers in their early 20s with only one income." Source: 1978 U.S. GAO report, p. 8.
  • CARS
    • In 1960, 47% of car buyers made the purchase in cash. Source: Census
    • In 1960, 78.5% of households had a car. Among these, 2.5% of households had 3 or more vehicles, compared to 21% in 2016
    • Gasoline cost an average 31¢ per gallon in 1960. Source: U.S. EIA
  • Education at 4-year public colleges and universities cost an average of $929 for tuition, fees, room & board in 1963-64. Source: U.S. Dept of Education.
  • Milk cost an average 52¢ per half gallon in 1960. Source: U.S. BLS
  • Coffee cost an average 75¢ per pound in 1960. Source: U.S. BLS
  • Health care cost $124 per capita in the year 1960, compared to almost $10,000 per capita in 2019. Source: CDC
  • Hospital care cost $46.56 per capita in fiscal year 1959-60. Source: SS
 
I'm going to guess that not too many of us have a home valued at 1x our annual these days..............
Was ~annual 7 years ago when we bought.

Roughly 1.5X annual today (and our income has almost doubled since purchase).
 
Using the googlator the same U of Misery research says that an average mid-level engineer in the 1960's is in the $12k/year range and an average car is in the $2800 range. So our engineer buddy is spending 23% of his annual income on a brand new car.
His house also had a median value of $11,900 - or just less than one year's salary.

I'm going to guess that not too many of us have a home valued at 1x our annual these days...............

When I bought my home it was 1.5x salary.

Now my salary is nearly 2x what it was and my home is valued at 2x my salary.

All so some assholes can have a retirement income in excess of what their lifetime productivity could afford them at the expense of current workers.
 
Homes had a median value of $11,900 in 1960. Source: US Census Bureau
The average home was 1289 sqft in 1960, with an average of 3 1/3 people living in the home.
The average home in 2022 was 2300 sqft, with an average of 2 1/2 people living in the home.

The average home in 1960 also didn't have a garage (or had a single car garage if they did).
The average home in 1960 had relatively few electrical outlets, no "prewire" for surround sound, CATV or network, no "stone" countertops, no dishwasher, no microwave, etc...

We've not only increased the size of our homes, we've also added technologies that didn't exist in 1960, and we've increased the quality of the finishes of the average home.

While these comparisons are interesting, it doesn't take into consideration the additional costly "conveniences" found in modern day homes and automobiles. Not to mention the reprogramming of the average mind to be so consumer driven that perfectly good electronics are "thrown away" in favor of the current generation (e.g. iPhones, 1080p -> 4K -> 8K, etc...), not to mention "throwing away" something because it stopped working when in 1960 you took it to a shop for repair.

It is a combination of the increase in cost of goods, the increase in "throwing away" items, the increase in technology and increase in sizes that has driven our price to income ratios upward when compared to previous generations.
 
Had some of my fiance's work friends over the other night. Their kid ran around a bit (nothing bad) then went and got into the dog crate. I looked at it's parents and they were cool with it so we just left it in there for quite a while and enjoyed our drinks :laughing:

The dog was looking like WTF are you in there :homer:
 
The average home was 1289 sqft in 1960, with an average of 3 1/3 people living in the home.
The average home in 2022 was 2300 sqft, with an average of 2 1/2 people living in the home.

The average home in 1960 also didn't have a garage (or had a single car garage if they did).
The average home in 1960 had relatively few electrical outlets, no "prewire" for surround sound, CATV or network, no "stone" countertops, no dishwasher, no microwave, etc...

We've not only increased the size of our homes, we've also added technologies that didn't exist in 1960, and we've increased the quality of the finishes of the average home.

While these comparisons are interesting, it doesn't take into consideration the additional costly "conveniences" found in modern day homes and automobiles. Not to mention the reprogramming of the average mind to be so consumer driven that perfectly good electronics are "thrown away" in favor of the current generation (e.g. iPhones, 1080p -> 4K -> 8K, etc...), not to mention "throwing away" something because it stopped working when in 1960 you took it to a shop for repair.

It is a combination of the increase in cost of goods, the increase in "throwing away" items, the increase in technology and increase in sizes that has driven our price to income ratios upward when compared to previous generations.
Another thing to consider is the actual construction of that '60s house. It was likely 2x4s with some terrible insulation if it even had any. Roofing, siding, windows etc. are all nothing even close to what's used today.
 
Germanic technology
1726445189985.jpeg
I owned one of those goofy things for a month, in a Jetta. I'm a caveman who is uninterested in making obeisances to vagcom, so off to Clist it went. Good riddance to its' 3 fuel tanks and Fuel Balancing Module. :homer:

Life expectancy was 48.2 years for males and 50.7 for females in 1900.

Rowbotham and Clayton (JRSM 2008;101:454–62) make a very important point when they draw attention to the life expectancy at birth compared to life expectancy at 5+ years of age.1 They state ‘… life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today. Once infant mortality is stripped out, life expectancy at 5 years was 75 for men and 73 for women.’ In 1995 Griffin2 produced a comparison of life expectancy of mature men (15+years of age) at different points in history over the last 3000 years ( Table 1).

Screenshot 2024-09-28 at 22-42-26 Changing life expectancy throughout history - PMC.png



I'm going to guess that not too many of us have a home valued at 1x our annual these days...............
Almost exactly.


Another thing to consider is the actual construction of that '60s house. It was likely 2x4s with some terrible insulation if it even had any. Roofing, siding, windows etc. are all nothing even close to what's used today.

Preach. In 1954 they used Celotex board and some aluminum foil, and a loose dusting of cellulose in the ceiling.
 
I owned one of those goofy things for a month, in a Jetta. I'm a caveman who is uninterested in making obeisances to vagcom, so off to Clist it went. Good riddance to its' 3 fuel tanks and Fuel Balancing Module. :homer:
no W engines in jettas
they did put them in passats for a short bit
 
Another thing to consider is the actual construction of that '60s house. It was likely 2x4s with some terrible insulation if it even had any. Roofing, siding, windows etc. are all nothing even close to what's used today.
Not to mention the differences in "code" that make things more expensive to build now vs then.

Edit: were inspections during construction even done in 1960? I'm betting we have more inspections at various levels of construction than 1960.

There's a cost to those inspections even if they don't find anything. The delay alone probably adds thousands of dollars to the interest on the construction loan.
 
Top Back Refresh