1965 vs. 2010: For better or worse?

I was talking to a 65 yr old today and he started to tell m. He claimed the standard of living for the average Australian has deteroriated since he was a yound adult.

From what I have heard of the last 50 yrs it seems he is just a wingeing old coot.

Anyone agree with him?

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

Nah,

Don't agree, just another whinging old clown.

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

WELL TALK TO WARREN BUFFET.

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

He's now a pensioner.
He's probably fallen for the same trick most retirees fall into particularly if he retired 10 yrs ago.

That which he retired on 10 yrs ago was severely eroded over the last 10 yrs.
So his $X a week isn't buying what it did---he likely doesn't have a cash flow to replenish his capital base at today's $ value.

If your thinking of retiring and staying on the planet for another 20-30yrs then you better have a passive income stream otherwise you too will be whinging your brains out!!

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

As I understand it.
In the past when it was usual for only one partner to work, people could raise a family on a single wage.

These days it takes two wages to buy a house and raise a family.

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

I am not sure that history will show that people were better off on one wage....I believe most people struggled, only the very rich had a decent lifestyle, in the old days, pre 1940...

Two world wars and a great depression changed everything. The women entered the workforce in about 1940 to keep the factories running, while all the men were at war.

Both my parents ran a successful farming,cattle breeding business.They were self employed all their adult life.

I only noticed that doctors, lawyers etc and successful business people could afford to have the missus stay at home
and have a decent lifestyle.

Unless both spouses worked, the rest had an awful existence imo.
I knew school children whose parents struggled to feed and clothe them, let alone engage in other out of school activites.

It was quite different if both spouses were working.
God help anyone trying to live on an aged pension today, especially those who are renting, it must be almost impossible.

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

Standard of living has obviously improved over that period, at least in a material sense. The questions though are the extent this has been funded by debt, changes in time involved with work (from an overall household persoective) etc.

We have a better standard of living now due to easy debt, better working experiences (arguably) , we live longer and have more toys to play with and stuff to do, things to eat and drink.

from a simplistic minimalist point of view you could make a valid argument that life was better in the 60's, many many simple things could be done cheaply and easily...there were no fishing licences and you could catch big snapper in port Phillip bay, it cost 20 cents to get a big serve of chips, 2 potato cakes and a can of drink at the corner fish and chip shop.

Skin cancer wasn't invented until the 70's so you could spend the day at the beach and not worry about a shirt and sun burn...no mobiles so there were no phone emergency's....a slab of cans was about 6 or 7 dollars and some people had crazy good jobs like at the post office and Telecom Australia were nothing was really expected of you and you were certain to get a golden handshake in the coming decades

I was a child from a single income family...dad worked and mum stayed at home and looked after us kids...divorce came in the early 70's and everything changed forever.

kincella said:

I only noticed that doctors, lawyers etc and successful business people could afford to have the missus stay at home
and have a decent lifestyle.

Unless both spouses worked, the rest had an awful existence imo.
I knew school children whose parents struggled to feed and clothe them, let alone engage in other out of school activites.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you grew up to have had this experience?
In NZ the post-war period through to the late 60's/70's was a very affluent time with many opportunities for those with initiative.
It was very unusual for women to work outside of the home and the standard of living of most people was good.

God help anyone trying to live on an aged pension today, especially those who are renting, it must be almost impossible.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed. Yet thousands do it and appear happy enough.

So_Cynical said:

We have a better standard of living now due to easy debt, better working experiences (arguably) , we live longer and have more toys to play with and stuff to do, things to eat and drink.

from a simplistic minimalist point of view you could make a valid argument that life was better in the 60's, many many simple things could be done cheaply and easily...there were no fishing licences and you could catch big snapper in port Phillip bay, it cost 20 cents to get a big serve of chips, 2 potato cakes and a can of drink at the corner fish and chip shop.

Skin cancer wasn't invented until the 70's so you could spend the day at the beach and not worry about a shirt and sun burn...no mobiles so there were no phone emergency's....a slab of cans was about 6 or 7 dollars and some people had crazy good jobs like at the post office and Telecom Australia were nothing was really expected of you and you were certain to get a golden handshake in the coming decades

I was a child from a single income family...dad worked and mum stayed at home and looked after us kids...divorce came in the early 70's and everything changed forever.

Click to expand...

Good post, So Cynical, especially your last sentence which says so much.

If you consider that purchasing a house is the largest single expense for most families, then people have to work literally twice as long now to buy one as was historically the case. So in terms of housing at least, things are certainly worse. And don't forget that in many cases we're talking about the exact same houses here - it's the same product it always was, now it's just twice as expensive.

But if you look at anything else then standards of living, in economic terms, have undoubtedly improved. Just about everything you can buy today, other than housing, is either far cheaper (relative to wages) and/or better than it was a few decades ago.

25 years ago, only rich people had 26" TV's. But only last night I realised that the 42" one that I have is now relatively cheap to buy and certainly not out of reach for most. 50" seems to be the new "standard" in TV's.

Same with most things - even a cheap new car today has performance and features which far exceed that affordable to most people 25 years ago, indeed it has things which didn't even exist back then.

But all that said, I'd argue that quality of life hasn't really improved so much, if at all. More material posessions maybe, but it's come at the expense of ever busier lifestyles. It wasn't long ago that it was highly unusual to find someone working on a Sunday or even a Saturday. It was only hospitals, police, essential services etc along with corner shops etc. But in 2010 an incredible number of people actually set alarm clocks on a Sunday morning not so they're up in time to go fishing, but because they're off to work as usual. More GDP maybe, but I wouldn't call that an improvement in the quality of life as such.

Dont really know too much about this, but Smurf would you say that many of the things we dont necessarily need to live (e.g. tv's) have 'improved' (more available) whereas things we do need to live (e.g. a house) have gotton 'worse' (less available)?

(Sorry about the poor wording)

NT

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

tech/a said:

He's now a pensioner.
He's probably fallen for the same trick most retirees fall into particularly if he retired 10 yrs ago.

Click to expand...

The guys not a pensioner he is 65 years old and a self employed dentist. Dodgy looking guy apart from the fancy clothes (the attire of a 30yr gay man) and nice car, looked like he took way to many drugs in his hey days. Interesting looking character.

His funniest gripe went something like. "I hate how all the words on signs have been shrinking over the last couple of decades. I cant even read it anymore!"

After I gave the obvious responce he looked a his shoes for 2 secs and then sprung back into action and continued to tell me about his hatred of modern dentsitry tools. Back in the day u could just throw your tools in the silver dish now all the tools must be placed in their own little slot, it takes so much time.....

Ask him if he drinks, smokes and gambles, and/or rents. (or got divorced)

( if he is a self-employed dentist, and looks ragged, he could have a drug addiction, which is quite common with dentists, as they have access)

My parents and in-laws bought houses on a single wage

that land is worth a lot now

I have interviewed thousands of low asset people and it always struck me, plain as daylight they often lived a higher lifestyle than homeowners and investors who had to sacrifice hard for the 20 year mortgage.

A common theme was "why save money, I can just get the full pension"

Strangely enough, I dont think the financial literacy in the community is increasing as one might expect it should.

I concede that housing affordability is worse than ever.

From what I have observed, I would not wish to be reliant on renting in my old age.

I was speaking on the phone to a dear friend of mine, her parents have recently passed away.
Her dad was a humble worker, very clean living, single wage all his life.
Bought a cheap block in the sandhills and built a very modest house.
Estimated Land value for the estate ~$1.6M

Smurf1976 said:

If you consider that purchasing a house is the largest single expense for most families, then people have to work literally twice as long now to buy one as was historically the case. So in terms of housing at least, things are certainly worse. And don't forget that in many cases we're talking about the exact same houses here - it's the same product it always was, now it's just twice as expensive.

But if you look at anything else then standards of living, in economic terms, have undoubtedly improved. Just about everything you can buy today, other than housing, is either far cheaper (relative to wages) and/or better than it was a few decades ago.

25 years ago, only rich people had 26" TV's. But only last night I realised that the 42" one that I have is now relatively cheap to buy and certainly not out of reach for most. 50" seems to be the new "standard" in TV's.

Same with most things - even a cheap new car today has performance and features which far exceed that affordable to most people 25 years ago, indeed it has things which didn't even exist back then.

But all that said, I'd argue that quality of life hasn't really improved so much, if at all. More material posessions maybe, but it's come at the expense of ever busier lifestyles. It wasn't long ago that it was highly unusual to find someone working on a Sunday or even a Saturday. It was only hospitals, police, essential services etc along with corner shops etc. But in 2010 an incredible number of people actually set alarm clocks on a Sunday morning not so they're up in time to go fishing, but because they're off to work as usual. More GDP maybe, but I wouldn't call that an improvement in the quality of life as such.

Click to expand...

Totally agree! Husband and I were born in the mid-60's and often lament the fact that while we have more material possessions than our parents did, we have far less free time to enjoy them in. The average working week for a full-time employee seems to have stretched, for those self-employed long hours are often required in order to keep ahead of the competition and remain profitable. The standard of the "average" home today is much higher than the one I grew up in - but is far less affordable on a single income than it was for my parents.

When I was a kid I only had one or two extra-curricular activities - netball on a Saturday morning and one training session at school a week. My kids are busier with their sport, debating, music etc than I ever was - all of which is great, but it does leave everyone with much less time to just "chillax". Seems they have a lot more homework than we used to as well. When I was a kid, only the well-off went to private school - this is within the reach of many more these days. Same with uni. But, when I left school it was much easier to get a decent job, with a lower standard of education than is required now.

Back in the late '60's/early 70's, we were lucky to go anywhere more than once a year, whereas these days most people enjoy an annual holiday as well as a few weekend get-aways here and there. Most families had only one car, now most parents have one each.

Back then we lived in mostly blissful ignorance of the dangers of the sun, cholesterol, obesity etc. The roads seemed to be safer then than now - even though seat belts were a fairly new innovation when I was a child. Cars were much more expensive in comparison to the average wage - but at least once you owned one you could drive to work in half the time it takes these days with the congestion we now have on the roads. Sex was both safer (we hadn't yet heard of AIDS) but due to the fairly recent invention of "the pill" was something that those women of my generation were able to enjoy much more than our mothers, for whom unwanted pregnancy was a much greater issue. As a child I was granted much more freedom to roam our small town with my friends and no adult attendance than I would ever consider granting to my own kids now - perhaps our parents were just unaware of the peodophiles lurking behind every bush? Or were crime rates much lower back then?

For better or worse is a hard question to answer. We definitely have many more toys, opportunities, and techno aids now than ever before - and travel, cars, household appliances are probably more affordable - but we seem to be so busy chasing our tails and "keeping up" that we're starved of time to enjoy it all.

And Akkopower, I'd be finding a new dentist.....

DocK said:

When I was a kid, only the well-off went to private school - this is within the reach of many more these days. Same with uni.

And Akkopower, I'd be finding a new dentist.....

Click to expand...

University is within reach to anyone in the country who is able to get out of bed in the morning. The government offers every person in the country a scholarship (youth allowance), poor kids get it str8 away rich kids must earn 15K in any 18 month period (may have changed) and then get their scholarship

Hecs-interest free loan u pay back after u finish if u earn enough. How easy is life.

I havent been to the dentist in years, met him else where. I grew up in Townsville so my teeth have had the flouride treatemtn for many years. They are tough.

I am in my mid 20's I have two kids and a foreigner for a wife. I am studying a masters in economics and i work at uni teaching classes of kids engineering maths. I spend abt 5 hrs a week teaching/assessing for 26 wks a year and earn $200 a week. On the weekends I work in a servo fri-sat-sun abt 25 hrs-gives me $490 a week. On top of all this the government gives my family abt $250 a week for no reason at all, they call it a family tax benefit.

So I am a full time uni student and I dont work that hard, I pocket around $850/wk. HOW EASY DO I HAVE IT.

I am a qualified school teacher. I choose not to work as I can earn a very comparable amount studying and hopefully set myself up for a very good job in the future. HOW EASY DO I HAVE IT.


Life in 2010 could not get much easier

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

akkopower said:

The guys not a pensioner he is 65 years old and a self employed dentist. Dodgy looking guy apart from the fancy clothes (the attire of a 30yr gay man) and nice car, looked like he took way to many drugs in his hey days. Interesting looking character.

His funniest gripe went something like. "I hate how all the words on signs have been shrinking over the last couple of decades. I cant even read it anymore!"

After I gave the obvious responce he looked a his shoes for 2 secs and then sprung back into action and continued to tell me about his hatred of modern dentsitry tools. Back in the day u could just throw your tools in the silver dish now all the tools must be placed in their own little slot, it takes so much time.....

Click to expand...

Something is ringing bells, can't quite out my finger on it. Can you find out his views on:
a) Bicycle helmets;
b) Bicycle riders wearing Lycra;
c) Goats ?

Thanks akko.

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

Timmy said:

b) Bicycle riders wearing Lycra;
c) Goats ?

.

Click to expand...

Lycra has had a definate negative impact on the modern world and should be outlawed in my humble opinion.

Goats and the improvement in recipies over the years is a definate positive though.

Re: 1965 vs 2010 for better or worse

Timmy said:

Something is ringing bells, can't quite out my finger on it. Can you find out his views on:
a) Bicycle helmets;
b) Bicycle riders wearing Lycra;
c) Goats ?

Thanks akko.

Click to expand...

He said,

He says useless people should be exterminated, huh. If u cant afford a car u are useless.

I assumed a similar reply to b) so didn't ask.

He said goats have 24 molars and 8 incisors and Carl Sandburg loves them, huh. I didnt bother asking who Carl Sandburg is/was.

Any more requests?