Yeah... I was chatting with an elderly relative last week, and I found out that she was getting $20/hr to do informal labor as a housecleaner in the 70's. In today's money, that would be roughly...
Yeah... I was chatting with an elderly relative last week, and I found out that she was getting $20/hr to do informal labor as a housecleaner in the 70's. In today's money, that would be roughly $150/hr. No housecleaner is making that now. So much of the value has been leeched away little by little, going to the people who already have more than enough.
I fully agree with your sentiment that value has been leeched away. BUT funny you mention 150 per hour house cleaning. I'm in a situation where my partner and I just tried to hire a house cleaner...
I fully agree with your sentiment that value has been leeched away.
BUT funny you mention 150 per hour house cleaning. I'm in a situation where my partner and I just tried to hire a house cleaner for the first time in our lives for a move-out cleaning. We are relatively clean people we just thought it might be nice to treat ourselves and not have to clean this house but enjoy a few extra days in our neighborhood before moving. We were quoted about $150 per hour. Then another person just last night told me that most cleaning people are charging that. I find that hard to believe but I've never felt like I'm in the wrong line of work quite as hard as hearing "Yeah, most people charge $150, I charge about $60 per hour because I do it for cash under the table..."
Hourly contract work always sounds outlandish because you compare it to your salaried hourly rate, but it's not really comparable at all. For one, contractors often don't work 40 hours a week -...
Hourly contract work always sounds outlandish because you compare it to your salaried hourly rate, but it's not really comparable at all. For one, contractors often don't work 40 hours a week - the hours they do work need to count more. Secondly, your hourly rate doesn't count benefits that contractors pay for themselves.
I guess a further wrinkle here is that the $150 per hour rate was also for cash, under the table. If you want to get semantic about it, it's highly unlikely that they are paying taxes on the $1100...
I guess a further wrinkle here is that the $150 per hour rate was also for cash, under the table. If you want to get semantic about it, it's highly unlikely that they are paying taxes on the $1100 they were quoting us, which makes the effective value of the money much higher (even higher, in fact, as I'm in an area without sales tax.)
She's bringing home $1100 from a day's labor (yes, less than that when costs of supplies etc are included) while I don't bring home $1100 post-tax, benefits inclusive in a week. I fully support her charging whatever the market will bear, but I am also fine saying "holy shit, I should clean houses."
I guess that assumes she can fill an entire work day (and week) with that hourly rate? There is also transport between clients and what not to remember. Still, $150 an hour isn't far off what we...
I guess that assumes she can fill an entire work day (and week) with that hourly rate? There is also transport between clients and what not to remember. Still, $150 an hour isn't far off what we pay for some external IT consultants where I work.
When I was a contractor, I worked under the assumption that the absolute max time that I could devote to billable hours was 50%, and that was in a mostly remote job that mostly didn't require...
When I was a contractor, I worked under the assumption that the absolute max time that I could devote to billable hours was 50%, and that was in a mostly remote job that mostly didn't require travel time. The rest of the time was needed for all of the things that weren't visible to the client; business administration, marketing, travel time, etc. If I wasn't charging at least double what a salaried person was per hour, I was losing money.
I'm in the Bay Area, which is one of the most expensive areas in the world, and I'm paying $50/hr., though not for deep cleaning. You might ask around for other quotes.
I'm in the Bay Area, which is one of the most expensive areas in the world, and I'm paying $50/hr., though not for deep cleaning. You might ask around for other quotes.
Try having friends who speak another language call up folks from their cultural circles. Same thing with child care. That's crazy amount of money. Do you happen to be somewhere with very high cost...
Try having friends who speak another language call up folks from their cultural circles. Same thing with child care.
That's crazy amount of money. Do you happen to be somewhere with very high cost of living such that cleaning folks will need to drive quite far in to reach you?
Yeah, it'll cost us $6000/month for dad to move into an independent living home. That is, they'll provide a single room with washroom, and cook his meals, but he's expected to clean and wash and...
Yeah, it'll cost us $6000/month for dad to move into an independent living home. That is, they'll provide a single room with washroom, and cook his meals, but he's expected to clean and wash and feed himself. $6000. And when he's no longer able to look after himself they'll kick him to the curb.
I told him, dad, I don't make $6000 a month but for that price I can afford to quit my job and take care of you full time, maybe even hire someone extra 4 hours a day, with plenty left over. Too bad I can't actually afford to move back into his city
Oh yeah. The extraction of wealth from our elders is immense and the cruelty of it immeasurable. My sympathies to you and your father in this time of challenges.
Oh yeah. The extraction of wealth from our elders is immense and the cruelty of it immeasurable. My sympathies to you and your father in this time of challenges.
What also gets me so mad is that the lion's share of these exorbitant prices don't go to the mostly female staff who do the work: they go to the for profit owners of these firms. Profits go up,...
What also gets me so mad is that the lion's share of these exorbitant prices don't go to the mostly female staff who do the work: they go to the for profit owners of these firms. Profits go up, labour wages remain stagnate: extraction of wealth exactly like you said
Thank you. It's weighting on my quite heavily that I cannot be there for him
The median family income in 1979 was $19,590 (this includes all incomes for the household). Divide that by $20 and you get 980 hours worked. Average hours worked was about 1800 for that year. So,...
The median family income in 1979 was $19,590 (this includes all incomes for the household). Divide that by $20 and you get 980 hours worked. Average hours worked was about 1800 for that year. So, that's actually a pretty high paying job for the time. Scaling that by inflation from 1979 works out to about $90/hr, which might actually be pretty close to what people are charging these days.
Editing to add: If you are scaling $20 to $150 by inflation, that means we're talking about 1973, where the median family income was $12,050. With that basis, $20/hr would meet the median family income in just 603 hours of work.
I think an anecdote is good for a snapshot in time, but it's hard to make any macroeconomic conclusions from one person's experience.
Original title felt a little click baity and not descriptive about its main thesis, I felt. By Joe Tauke, Published April 6, 2024 (Linked from a recent discussion on same author's Everlasting...
Original title felt a little click baity and not descriptive about its main thesis, I felt.
Why you feel poorer than ever: It ain't the price of eggs
Americans feel real economic pain, but it's not about three years of inflation — it's about 30 years of disaster
Some medical treatments now considered necessary were invented quite recently and previously weren’t available at any price. It makes historical comparisons kind of difficult to make.
Some medical treatments now considered necessary were invented quite recently and previously weren’t available at any price. It makes historical comparisons kind of difficult to make.
Well, I mean, a 4' square pane of clear class would have cost a king's ransom. What was luxury conditions in the middle ages wouldn't pass fire/building code now in the worst slums. I think it's...
Well, I mean, a 4' square pane of clear class would have cost a king's ransom. What was luxury conditions in the middle ages wouldn't pass fire/building code now in the worst slums.
I think it's pretty fair to compare median food and median housing costs and "minimum education cost to get a median income jobs" and "median income level of health care" for the time and space one lives in. Example, if home ownership 60 years ago means what the Simpsons live in, it might still be fair to compare to a much smaller flat/condo today.
Yeah, it gets difficult to compare quality of life from one time to another without really getting detailed. It's easier to define specific costs that are easily comparable like the USDA estimated...
Yeah, it gets difficult to compare quality of life from one time to another without really getting detailed. It's easier to define specific costs that are easily comparable like the USDA estimated cost of groceries per family, national average housing costs, etc.
I think it's fair to say that many costs necessary to live in modern society have increased, while also arguing that quality of life has increased from period X to Y because of things like washing machines, and antibiotics. But when you narrow the time window down to a decade, I think things look particularly grim for most household's today vs 10 years ago, while still being better than 100 years ago.
Yes, it's especially true historically, but even more recently, there are people walking around today who would have died of cancer twenty years ago. Maybe even more recent? I haven't kept up with...
Yes, it's especially true historically, but even more recently, there are people walking around today who would have died of cancer twenty years ago. Maybe even more recent? I haven't kept up with the news on cancer treatments.
This isn't an average household expense, but these expensive treatments do raise insurance rates.
Not sure how to feel about this article, since it presents a lot of data that ends up being its own narrative. Things like this tend to end up being somewhat internally inconsistent and meandering...
Not sure how to feel about this article, since it presents a lot of data that ends up being its own narrative. Things like this tend to end up being somewhat internally inconsistent and meandering in analysis.
For example, near the end they compare growth in median household income and things like student loan debt, home prices, cost of child care, and medical costs. For most of these the article has already given us reasonable explanations why these might exceed the increase in income. They already mentioned that there is a cost associated with giving easy access to financing for college (if more poor people get loans, the average loan amount will surely go up), so a simple comparison of the increases in loan amounts to income amounts doesn't make sense. They already mention policies intended to address inequity from redlining and other discrimination in regards to home loans, so if a higher percentage of the population gains access to buying houses, the demand for housing will outpace the increase in population. They talk about differences in child care costs, but most of that is labor, so aren't we ultimately just talking about less exploitation of people who are willing to accept lower wages? Medical costs are tied to a ridiculous and nonsensical system, so I'm not arguing against much there, but if you say incomes have increased by 2.4x while medical costs have increased by 3x in the past 30 years, with the amount of medical advances we've made during this time, isn't that kind of a good deal?
I also feel like they are selective about what graphs they show. I noticed that they only stated that the homeownership rate was down from 69% to 65%, but didn't chart this. Well first of all the high was 69.2% and somehow we're rounding down 65.6% to 65, but this one is just a pet peeve. More importantly, the current level of 65.6% is higher than the majority of the data set which goes back to 1965, and the current level is higher than everything prior to 1996, aside from 2 single data points. The range is 62.9 - 69.2%, and the average is 65.3%, so 65.6% is not amazing, but definitely not bad historically. So the author acknowledges that the policies that got us to 69% homeownership were completely bananas, but still wants to complain that homeownership is down from that point. Despite bringing up eggs so much I also wonder if they didn't post the food CPI chart somewhere in there because the truth is that it would have shown income outpacing food costs for the time periods shown.
I'm not sure about including higher education in the list of needs; it kind of feels like they picked out the sectors with the highest price increases and worked backwards from there. I think ultimately the article does provide a lot of justifications for why certain things may have become more expensive, but doesn't really answer the question in the title.
Yeah... I was chatting with an elderly relative last week, and I found out that she was getting $20/hr to do informal labor as a housecleaner in the 70's. In today's money, that would be roughly $150/hr. No housecleaner is making that now. So much of the value has been leeched away little by little, going to the people who already have more than enough.
I fully agree with your sentiment that value has been leeched away.
BUT funny you mention 150 per hour house cleaning. I'm in a situation where my partner and I just tried to hire a house cleaner for the first time in our lives for a move-out cleaning. We are relatively clean people we just thought it might be nice to treat ourselves and not have to clean this house but enjoy a few extra days in our neighborhood before moving. We were quoted about $150 per hour. Then another person just last night told me that most cleaning people are charging that. I find that hard to believe but I've never felt like I'm in the wrong line of work quite as hard as hearing "Yeah, most people charge $150, I charge about $60 per hour because I do it for cash under the table..."
Hourly contract work always sounds outlandish because you compare it to your salaried hourly rate, but it's not really comparable at all. For one, contractors often don't work 40 hours a week - the hours they do work need to count more. Secondly, your hourly rate doesn't count benefits that contractors pay for themselves.
I guess a further wrinkle here is that the $150 per hour rate was also for cash, under the table. If you want to get semantic about it, it's highly unlikely that they are paying taxes on the $1100 they were quoting us, which makes the effective value of the money much higher (even higher, in fact, as I'm in an area without sales tax.)
She's bringing home $1100 from a day's labor (yes, less than that when costs of supplies etc are included) while I don't bring home $1100 post-tax, benefits inclusive in a week. I fully support her charging whatever the market will bear, but I am also fine saying "holy shit, I should clean houses."
I guess that assumes she can fill an entire work day (and week) with that hourly rate? There is also transport between clients and what not to remember. Still, $150 an hour isn't far off what we pay for some external IT consultants where I work.
When I was a contractor, I worked under the assumption that the absolute max time that I could devote to billable hours was 50%, and that was in a mostly remote job that mostly didn't require travel time. The rest of the time was needed for all of the things that weren't visible to the client; business administration, marketing, travel time, etc. If I wasn't charging at least double what a salaried person was per hour, I was losing money.
I'm in the Bay Area, which is one of the most expensive areas in the world, and I'm paying $50/hr., though not for deep cleaning. You might ask around for other quotes.
Try having friends who speak another language call up folks from their cultural circles. Same thing with child care.
That's crazy amount of money. Do you happen to be somewhere with very high cost of living such that cleaning folks will need to drive quite far in to reach you?
Yeah, it'll cost us $6000/month for dad to move into an independent living home. That is, they'll provide a single room with washroom, and cook his meals, but he's expected to clean and wash and feed himself. $6000. And when he's no longer able to look after himself they'll kick him to the curb.
I told him, dad, I don't make $6000 a month but for that price I can afford to quit my job and take care of you full time, maybe even hire someone extra 4 hours a day, with plenty left over. Too bad I can't actually afford to move back into his city
Oh yeah. The extraction of wealth from our elders is immense and the cruelty of it immeasurable. My sympathies to you and your father in this time of challenges.
What also gets me so mad is that the lion's share of these exorbitant prices don't go to the mostly female staff who do the work: they go to the for profit owners of these firms. Profits go up, labour wages remain stagnate: extraction of wealth exactly like you said
Thank you. It's weighting on my quite heavily that I cannot be there for him
The median family income in 1979 was $19,590 (this includes all incomes for the household). Divide that by $20 and you get 980 hours worked. Average hours worked was about 1800 for that year. So, that's actually a pretty high paying job for the time. Scaling that by inflation from 1979 works out to about $90/hr, which might actually be pretty close to what people are charging these days.
Editing to add: If you are scaling $20 to $150 by inflation, that means we're talking about 1973, where the median family income was $12,050. With that basis, $20/hr would meet the median family income in just 603 hours of work.
I think an anecdote is good for a snapshot in time, but it's hard to make any macroeconomic conclusions from one person's experience.
Original title felt a little click baity and not descriptive about its main thesis, I felt.
By Joe Tauke, Published April 6, 2024
(Linked from a recent discussion on same author's Everlasting Jobstopper)
Some medical treatments now considered necessary were invented quite recently and previously weren’t available at any price. It makes historical comparisons kind of difficult to make.
Well, I mean, a 4' square pane of clear class would have cost a king's ransom. What was luxury conditions in the middle ages wouldn't pass fire/building code now in the worst slums.
I think it's pretty fair to compare median food and median housing costs and "minimum education cost to get a median income jobs" and "median income level of health care" for the time and space one lives in. Example, if home ownership 60 years ago means what the Simpsons live in, it might still be fair to compare to a much smaller flat/condo today.
Yeah, it gets difficult to compare quality of life from one time to another without really getting detailed. It's easier to define specific costs that are easily comparable like the USDA estimated cost of groceries per family, national average housing costs, etc.
I think it's fair to say that many costs necessary to live in modern society have increased, while also arguing that quality of life has increased from period X to Y because of things like washing machines, and antibiotics. But when you narrow the time window down to a decade, I think things look particularly grim for most household's today vs 10 years ago, while still being better than 100 years ago.
Yes, it's especially true historically, but even more recently, there are people walking around today who would have died of cancer twenty years ago. Maybe even more recent? I haven't kept up with the news on cancer treatments.
This isn't an average household expense, but these expensive treatments do raise insurance rates.
Not sure how to feel about this article, since it presents a lot of data that ends up being its own narrative. Things like this tend to end up being somewhat internally inconsistent and meandering in analysis.
For example, near the end they compare growth in median household income and things like student loan debt, home prices, cost of child care, and medical costs. For most of these the article has already given us reasonable explanations why these might exceed the increase in income. They already mentioned that there is a cost associated with giving easy access to financing for college (if more poor people get loans, the average loan amount will surely go up), so a simple comparison of the increases in loan amounts to income amounts doesn't make sense. They already mention policies intended to address inequity from redlining and other discrimination in regards to home loans, so if a higher percentage of the population gains access to buying houses, the demand for housing will outpace the increase in population. They talk about differences in child care costs, but most of that is labor, so aren't we ultimately just talking about less exploitation of people who are willing to accept lower wages? Medical costs are tied to a ridiculous and nonsensical system, so I'm not arguing against much there, but if you say incomes have increased by 2.4x while medical costs have increased by 3x in the past 30 years, with the amount of medical advances we've made during this time, isn't that kind of a good deal?
I also feel like they are selective about what graphs they show. I noticed that they only stated that the homeownership rate was down from 69% to 65%, but didn't chart this. Well first of all the high was 69.2% and somehow we're rounding down 65.6% to 65, but this one is just a pet peeve. More importantly, the current level of 65.6% is higher than the majority of the data set which goes back to 1965, and the current level is higher than everything prior to 1996, aside from 2 single data points. The range is 62.9 - 69.2%, and the average is 65.3%, so 65.6% is not amazing, but definitely not bad historically. So the author acknowledges that the policies that got us to 69% homeownership were completely bananas, but still wants to complain that homeownership is down from that point. Despite bringing up eggs so much I also wonder if they didn't post the food CPI chart somewhere in there because the truth is that it would have shown income outpacing food costs for the time periods shown.
I'm not sure about including higher education in the list of needs; it kind of feels like they picked out the sectors with the highest price increases and worked backwards from there. I think ultimately the article does provide a lot of justifications for why certain things may have become more expensive, but doesn't really answer the question in the title.