From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 11:45:09 MDT
> Samantha Atkins :
>
> > matus wrote:
> > > Lee Daniel Crocker:
> > >
> > >>>(Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>):
> > >>>
> > >>>Are you going to address housing and the other implied
> > >>>necessities or just harp on your understanding of food
> > >>>abundances (but not necessarily food prices). If I have no home
> > >>>or cooking facilities the types of food I can buy are also
> > >>>severely limited and per unit of nutrition much more expensive.
> > >>> Are you going to attempt to say that the cost of living in say
> > >>>1970 dollars has not risen and risen dramatically in the last 32
> > >>>years?
> > >>
> > >>If he doesn't, I will. Life is much better and cheaper than it
> > >>was in 1970, by the only measure that matters: amount of labor
> > >>for goods comsumed.
> > >>
> > > Indeed, it is better today than it has been at *any* time in the past
> > > throughout human history.
> >
> > Uh huh. Pls explain why most Americans have no savings, why two
> > earner households are the norm and considered nearly required,
> > why a house costs me much more as a percentage of income, even
> > in areas not so expensive than when in my father's time although
> > I make 25 times more than he did. Standard of living is NOT
> > better now according to the studies I have seen.
> >
>
> All the available studies and evidence indicates as much. You speak only
> from personal anecdotes, can you cite any of these studies you have seen
> that indictates standard of living is higher than ever before?
*Correction* that should be the cost of living, not the standard of living.
Thanks,
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 11:38:17 MDT