24 Charts that show we're (mostly) living better than our parents

[Anonymous No.50060701]

When I was a kid in the 1980s, people ate a lot of apples, bananas, and melons, as well as citrus fruits like oranges and grapefruit. I loved blueberries, strawberries, and cherries, but for most of the year they were very expensive if they were available at all.

Over the last 30 years, we’ve enjoyed a massive expansion in fresh fruit availability. Stores today stock about eight times as many blueberries, six times as many mangoes and limes, and four times as many pineapples as they did in the late 1980s. Strawberry and cherry availability has more than doubled.

[Anonymous No.50060711]

The story is the same for vegetables. In 1985, the four most popular vegetables in America were onions, tomatoes, lettuce heads, and potatoes—hardy vegetables that shipped and stored well. Today these veggies are still popular in absolute terms, but they’ve been losing ground to upstarts like avocados, asparagus, broccoli, and romaine lettuce. Overall, American stores stocked about 15 percent more fresh vegetables in the late 2010s than in the late 1980s.

The story is similar for meat but not quite as positive. Overall meat availability was up 11 percent between 1989 and 2018. But there was a big shift away from beef and toward chicken. Americans in 2018 ate 17 percent less beef and 60 percent more chicken than Americans in 1989. Pork was down 2 percent while seafood was up 3 percent. This may have been driven by shifting prices: inflation-adjusted chicken prices fell about 20 percent between 1989 and 2018. During the same period steak got 6 percent more expensive and ground beef got 27 percent more expensive.

[Anonymous No.50060725]

>>50060701
>>50060711
Go back

[Anonymous No.50060726]

The Spring/Summer 1980 issue of the Sears catalog offered a hammer with a fiberglass handle for $9.59. At the time, a typical worker made $6.86 per hour, so they needed to work about 1.4 hours to buy it. Today you can buy a comparable hammer from Amazon for $13.98. A typical worker today makes $27.33, which means they can buy a hammer after about 30 minutes of work—a 63 percent decline in work hours over 42 years.

I scanned through all 1,566 pages of that 1980 Sears catalog looking for items where it would be easy to make apples-to-apples comparisons like this. Almost every item I looked at saw significant declines in the hours of work required it buy it.

The most ridiculous example is the color TV. I picked the cheapest 25-inch television in the catalog, priced at $469.95 with no remote. Other 25-inch models went as high as $949.95 and came with a remote control and fancy oak, pine, or pecan cabinets. Modern flat-screen televisions, of course, are superior in many ways. And yet a similar-sized television today is a quarter the price even before you adjust for inflation.

I got the idea to look at old Sears catalogs from the Cato Institute’s Marian Tupy. I’ll use his underlying method—comparing growth in wages to growth in prices—for a bunch of the charts in this article. People often adjust past prices for inflation to see whether they’ve gone up or down over time. But there’s inherent subjectivity in inflation estimates, especially over long time periods. Directly comparing changes in wages to changes in prices eliminates much of that subjectivity and lets you, the reader, judge for yourself whether things are getting more affordable.

[Anonymous No.50060744]

Edmunds, the online resource for car shoppers, supplied me with data showing how car prices have changed over the last 20 years. In 2002, the average selling price for a Honda Accord was $20,928.94. A typical worker in 2002 made $14.96 an hour and so needed to work for almost 1,400 hours to buy one. By 2021, the average Honda Accord cost $30,619.26. Average wages had risen to $25.90 per hour, allowing a typical worker to pay for a car with fewer than 1,200 hours of labor—a 15 percent reduction.

I asked Edmunds for data on five popular vehicles, and all five have had double-digit declines in the price of the base model since 2002. The average actual selling price across all trim levels has also been falling for the Accord and the Toyota Corolla.

But American consumers have been spending more than ever on SUVs and pickup trucks. Jessica Caldwell, a car industry expert at Edmunds, told me that pickup trucks in particular have changed dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years. They used to be more utilitarian, she said, with a lot of people buying them to haul stuff for work. But “particularly over the past 15 years, they’ve turned into more of a family hauler,” she said. Four-door trucks have increasingly replaced two-door models, and modern trucks have more creature comforts

[Anonymous No.50060752]

When you’re designing an internal combustion engine, there’s a basic tradeoff between fuel efficiency and engine power. The makers of passenger cars and pickup trucks have pushed this tradeoff in opposite directions. Pickups trucks have gotten a lot more powerful over the last 45 years, while cars have gotten a lot more fuel efficient.

Still, even with their much greater power, pickup trucks are more fuel-efficient today than in the early 1980s. And even with their much greater fuel efficiency, cars today have more powerful engines.

[Anonymous No.50060765]

In 1980, America suffered 3.35 highway fatalities for every 100 million miles on the road. In 2014, it reached an all-time low of 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles. In 2021 the figure was 1.33 deaths per 100 million miles—worse than 2014, but still much better than a generation ago.

A number of non-economic factors have contributed to this progress, including better highway designs and changing norms and laws about drunk driving. But a key factor has been that vehicles themselves are getting safer. Airbags and antilock brakes have become standard equipment. Car bodies have been redesigned with crumple zones and other features that reduce the probability that a high-speed crash will be fatal.

[Anonymous No.50060781]

Let’s zoom out and look at the big picture. In 1960, the average American household spent 28 percent of its income on food and clothing. By 1990, the figure had dropped to 15 percent. Today it’s 11 percent. This isn’t because people have been buying less food or clothing. Rather, people’s incomes have grown faster than the cost of food and clothing, and people spent the extra money on other categories.

Much of the slack has been taken up by health care, which rose from 5 percent of household budgets in 1960 to 16 percent today. A big question here is whether consumers are getting more value for this extra spending—we’ll explore this a bit in subsequent charts.

Spending on housing hasn’t changed much at all—it was 17 percent in 1960, 18 percent in 1990, and 17 percent in early 2022.

[Anonymous No.50060799]

Here I created a variant of a chart that’s been popularized by AEI’s Mark Perry, and that I used in my January piece “18 charts that explain the American economy.” As you can see, clothing and durables—that’s cars, home appliances, and other long-lasting consumer goods—have been getting cheaper rapidly, while health care and education have tended to get more expensive over time. Food and rent are in the middle.

Energy costs have bounced around like crazy, and this is the most important factor driving inflation right now. Energy costs have increased 30 percent just over the last year, which accounts for a significant chunk of the 8.6 percent overall inflation rate. Yet over the longer run, fluctuations in gas prices don’t have a very big impact on the cost of living. Energy costs were about the same (adjusted for inflation) in 1990 and 2020. There were just a lot of ups and downs in between.

[Anonymous No.50060821]

Here I compare the four necessities of life—clothing, food, shelter, and medical care—to changes in average incomes over time. Throughout this piece, I’ll focus on the hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees, a statistic published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that excludes the incomes of business executives. I think this is a good proxy for the earning power of average workers.

As you can see, food and clothing have gotten more affordable for average workers over the last 30 years. The cost of shelter has risen at about the same rate as average wages, while medical care has gotten more expensive relative to wages.

I’ve also included personal incomes per capita, a broader measure that includes the salaries of high-earning executives as well as investment income that flows mainly to the wealthy. Unsurprisingly, this measure of income has risen much faster than the wages of ordinary workers.

[Anonymous No.50060842]

The previous chart focused on pre-tax market income. But people’s standard of living is also affected by taxes and government benefits. Last year the Congressional Budget Office crunched the numbers and found something surprising: once you account for changes to tax and transfer programs, people in the bottom quintile of market income enjoyed the biggest gains between 1990 and 2018. (The CBO used the PCE inflation index. For consistency with my other charts, and to be charitable to economic pessimists, I’ve switched to the better-known consumer price index, which tends to show higher inflation, and hence slower wage growth.)

Several factors have contributed to the rising living standards of those at the bottom. Probably the most important is the increase in health care subsidies. In 1990, the bottom quintile of Americans received Medicaid benefits that were worth 17 percent of their incomes. Then Congress created the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997 and Obamacare expanded Medicaid in 2010. These and other factors increased health care subsidies to 45 percent of bottom-quintile incomes by 2018.

That’s not all. The value of refundable tax credits—including the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and education tax credits—rose from 2 percent of bottom-quintile income in 1990 to 13 percent in 2018. These refundable tax credits became generous enough that the average bottom-quintile family paid no federal taxes, on net, in 2018, down from 10 percent in 1990.

All of which is to say that the 16 percent increase in average non-supervisory wages between 1990 and 2018 understates the actual gains of low-income workers.

[Anonymous No.50060859]

The share of households with a full suite of modern appliances has steadily increased over the last 40 years. A key reason is affordability.

In 1980, the cheapest dishwasher in the Sears catalog went for $299—$1,068 in today’s dollars. Today the cheapest dishwashers at Best Buy or Home Depot sell for around $400. The cheapest Sears washing machine in 1980 went for $219—$783 in today’s dollars. Today, washing machines with more features start around $500.

[Anonymous No.50060881]

In 1990, only 20 percent of new single-family homes had four or more bedrooms. In 2021, it was 46 percent. Over the same period, the share of homes with more than two bathrooms rose from 25 percent to 63 percent.

Progress on air conditioning has continued apace. But growth in the physical size of homes has slowed. The share of homes larger than 2,400 square feet only rose from 36 percent in 2007 to 37 percent in 2021.

[Anonymous No.50060889]

>>50060765
>>50060752
>>50060744
>>50060726
>>50060711
>>50060701

Tldr


Meat is super expensive, so everyone eats fruits and vegtables now.
No one can drive anywhere, because gas is so expensive, so they all just sit in front of their supsidized propaganda box, waiting to pay rent for the house they don't own.

[Anonymous No.50060898]

While growth of single-family homes has slowed, homes in multi-family developments have actually gotten smaller over the last 15 years. At the 2007 peak, 31 percent of new homes in multi-family buildings were larger than 1,400 square feet. That figure has plunged to 12 percent. The share of new apartments with more than two bedrooms or bathrooms has also declined.

Another striking thing about this chart is the convergence between the “two or more bathrooms” and “two or more bedrooms” measures. Having bedrooms is mostly a function of floor space—the larger the overall apartment is, the more bedrooms it can have. Bathrooms take up much less space, but require extra work to install plumbing and fixtures. So as we’ve grown wealthier but more space-constrained, we’ve used the space we have more intensively, with more household appliances and more bathrooms per square foot.

[Anonymous No.50060923]

In the first quarter of 1989, the median home sold for $118,000—that’s $285,000 in today’s dollars. Today the median home sells for $429,000, a 50 percent increase in inflation-adjusted terms. This has caused a lot of people to conclude that homes have gotten less affordable over the last 30 years.

But this misses something important: most homes are purchased with borrowed money. And the average rate on a 30-year mortgage has declined from 10.8 percent in 1989 to 5.8 percent today. As a result, the mortgage payment on a median-priced home is significantly lower today than it was in 1990—even after the recent run-up in mortgage rates.

You might object that this doesn’t help someone if they can’t scrape together the downpayment required to buy a home at today’s high prices. But down payment requirements have gotten looser too! According to the National Association of Realtors, the average homebuyer in 1989 put 20 percent down. In 2021, it was 13 percent. So the average downpayment is a bit smaller today, in inflation-adjusted terms, than it was in 1989.

[Anonymous No.50060934]

I didn't read any of this, I didn't need to. I just wanted to let you know that you are wrong, and a retard for considering the possiblity that you are 1% right. Kys faggot

[Anonymous No.50060955]

My claim that housing hasn’t gotten less affordable might surprise you, especially if you live in a big, expensive city like San Francisco, New York, or Los Angeles. This chart helps to explain why there’s such a mismatch between the national data and perceptions in some metro areas.

This chart uses the per capita personal income metric published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis because it was the only income or wage data I could find that was broken down by metropolitan area. As we saw in chart 8, per capita personal income has grown a lot faster than average hourly wages because it includes investment income and the pay packages of business executives. So you shouldn’t read too much into the fact that the yellow bars in this chart are all longer than the red bars.

But the chart shows that there is only a weak correlation between a metro area’s income gains and its rent hikes. Some cities with nice weather, including Honolulu and Los Angeles, have had large rent increases since the 1980s despite modest income gains. Others—like Philadelphia and Minneapolis—have seen much smaller rent increases coupled with strong income gains. Then there’s St. Louis, which had below-average income gains but actually saw rents fall over.

[Anonymous No.50060981]

We saw in Chart 7 that medical care costs have been rising faster than overall inflation over the last 30 years. But this fact comes with an important caveat: the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t even try to adjust health care inflation statistics for quality the way they do for cars and televisions. So these numbers don’t tell us what we really want to know: whether we’re getting more value for all the extra money we’re spending on health care.

I’m not going to settle that debate with a few charts, but here’s one example of why the official inflation statistics might not properly account for the rising quality of health care. It shows survival rates for heart disease, one of the leading killers of older Americans. As you can see, people in every age group are less likely to die of heart disease, in any given year, than they were in 1990.

The chart also illustrates a statistical paradox: the all-ages death rate has been improving more slowly than any individual age bracket. The reason for this is simple: as we live longer, more and more Americans are aging into the 70+ age bracket, putting them at much higher risk.

[Anonymous No.50060983]

fuck off boomer

[Anonymous No.50060990]

>>50060701
Grapefruits are my favorite ;__;

Post yours faggots. I excluded lemons and limes because you don’t really eat those on their own

[Anonymous No.50061002]

>>50060701
Nigger who cares about berries I want a house. At my age my parents had a 4 bedroom house and a ski condo.

[Anonymous No.50061001]

>>50060983

[Anonymous No.50061004]

Another top killer of older Americans is cancer. And here too the trends have been positive. America’s deadliest cancer is tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer. Its age-adjusted death rate declined 27 percent between 1990 and 2019. That might be partly because of reduced smoking. But other common cancers—including breast, colon, and prostate cancer—have had similarly large declines.

This chart doesn’t include the one (fairly rare) cancer that has seen a big increase: deaths from liver cancer were up by 112 percent. But overall, your odds of dying of cancer at any given age is about 19 percent lower than it would have been 30 years ago. And it seems likely that medical advances deserve much of the credit.

[Anonymous No.50061018]

>>50060990
pic related is the true fruit of the kings
niggers dun know about the test boost

[Anonymous No.50061023]

>>50061002
See
>>50060923
Better medicine doesn’t help you if you can’t afford it, which is what makes this chart so important. It shows the share of non-elderly Americans who have health insurance. For the population as a whole, the big event was the 2010 passage of Obamacare, which expanded Medicaid and also offered subsidies for those who purchased health insurance through the newly-created exchanges.

Access to health care for children was already improving prior to Obamacare, thanks in part to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which was first created in 1997.

[Anonymous No.50061047]

Most of my charts so far have accentuated the positive, but there’s no way to sugar-coat this one: tuition is a lot higher than it was 40 years ago. This is especially true for four-year colleges, which are almost three times as expensive as they were in 1980. Prices for two-year colleges doubled over the same period.

[Anonymous No.50061062]

Despite the rising cost of college, more and more young people are earning bachelor’s degrees. The trend is particularly striking for women. In 1971, 13 percent of young women over 25 had college degrees. In 2021, it was 46 percent.

In the most literal sense, then, college continues to be affordable: more and more people are, in fact, managing to afford it. One reason for this is that college students hail disproportionately from the upper half of the income distribution. Many of these families have enjoyed strong income gains and are willing and able to pay a premium to ensure their children get a great education. But that can push up costs for everyone else

[Anonymous No.50061088]

Many people believe the demands of modern life make it increasingly difficult for parents to spend enough time with their kids. But survey results show that this isn’t just wrong but backwards: parents today spend far more time with their kids than parents did 30 or 40 years ago.

In 1985, the average mother spent 8.5 hours per week focused on child care, while the average father spent 3 hours. Today mothers spend 13.7 hours, while fathers spend 7.2 hours.

[Anonymous No.50061094]

>>50061018
Too messy and seedy. Love the taste though

[Anonymous No.50061102]

In the late 1970s, high school graduates and college graduates both retired around age 64. But over the last 40 years, these groups diverged—and not in the direction you might expect. Workers without a college degree kept retiring earlier, while college graduates started retiring later. Then in the 2010s, both groups started retiring later.

You could take this as a sign that living standards have been going backwards. But the fact that the late retirement trend started with college graduates makes me skeptical of that interpretation. College graduates make significantly more money over their careers, so if delayed retirement was driven by financial constraints you’d expect later retirements by non-college workers.

Another possibility is that as life expectancies increase and many jobs become more enjoyable, people are voluntarily deciding to keep their jobs a few more years.

[Anonymous No.50061120]

A significant downside to America’s high standard of living is our carbon emissions, which are raising global temperatures and threatening to reduce the living standards of our grandchildren. There is still a lot of work to be done to reduce carbon emissions in the US and around the world. But this charts shows that things are moving in the right direction. The carbon intensity of the US economy has improved by almost 50 percent since 1990.

[Anonymous No.50061134]

No technology is more important to the next phase of decarbonization than lithium ion batteries. Large batteries are essential for electric vehicles, and even bigger batteries will be needed for grid storage systems to buffer the intermittent power generated by solar panels and windmills. And happily, there’s been a stunning decline in lithium ion battery costs—from $1,220 per kWh in 2010 to $132 in 2021.

Cheap lithium batteries are transforming other industries too. They have enabled a new generation of e-bikes, driven a shift toward electric lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and weed whackers, and aided the growth of the drone industry. Ultimately, cheap batteries will mean our cities are quieter, safer, and have cleaner air.

[Anonymous No.50061192]

>>50060934
>the zoomer seethes when confronted with his luxury

[Anonymous No.50061477]

>>50060701
I was at the thrift store ministry a couple days ago. They give away free food.

Anyways, they had fresh mangos, like 100s of em and I scooped a box

Several boomers and old black ladies asked me if they were any good.

Mangos are fucking delicious are you kidding me? Luckily, there was a big black lady behind the counter to back me up

[Anonymous No.50061569]

>having more conveniences and a few more disposable possessions means life is better

[Anonymous No.50061582]

wow those are all great points OP, but the truth is i would give up
>a wide variety of fruits and vegetables
>a wide variety of hammers
>a wide variety of cars
>reduced car crash fatality rates
>access to job opportunities
>access to medical care
>the benefits of every other stat you posted

to enjoy a """poorer""" life surrounded by thin white people, and a birth rate above maintenance level.

[Anonymous No.50061592]

>>50061569
What metric would you prefer? Housing affordability?
>>50060923
Health outcomes?
>>50060981
Time spent with family?
>>50061088

[Anonymous No.50061603]

>>50060701
I'll take affording a home over fruit variety, you fucking fag.

[Anonymous No.50061608]

>>50061582
That seems pretty easy to accomplish, honestly, there are plenty of poor European areas still like that.

[Anonymous No.50061609]

>>50061592
How about mean happiness, health outcomes, lifespans, and free time? Quality of life.

[Anonymous No.50061625]

>>50061603
Your wish is granted
>>50060923

[Anonymous No.50061642]

>>50061609
>How about mean happiness, health outcomes, lifespans, and free time? Quality of life.
Ok Bhutan.

[Anonymous No.50061644]

What's killing us is social ills.

I don't know why addiction is such a problem for people right now. But it's killing our life expectancy.

Obesity is killing our life expectancy. I don't know why it's so hard for people to stop eating.

[Anonymous No.50061663]

>>50061608
i believe none of them are having enough kids

[Anonymous No.50061676]

>>50061609
Happiness is difficult to measure, I won't try.
Health outcomes, I feel like I already posted
Lifespan in the US has risen over a decade since 1950
Free time seems to me to be an obvious byproduct of cheaper necessities, which is obviously true

[Anonymous No.50061701]

>>50061663
Türkiye still is.

[Anonymous No.50061702]

>>50061663
I imagine it depends on the area even within countries, but hey, if not that can be your contribution to their society

[Anonymous No.50061758]

>>50060701
Retard kike
Less buying power and less wealth
/thread

[Anonymous No.50061778]

>>50061603
This. Retard is basically saying "w-well you have cell phones therefore your life is better" when objectively speaking buying power has been on an downtrend. Buying power is THE number one measurement but the dumbass is a boomer with a senile brain.

[Anonymous No.50061800]

>>50061758
Most of these charts measure prices by their relation to income, so it doesn't actually appear that buying power has diminished for any necessities or most luxuries. I know, it's a lot to read, but I recommend at least glancing at the pictures before making yourself look stupid

[Anonymous No.50061820]

>>50060701
Hey, retard
When baby boomers had a median age of 35, they owned 21% of all the nation's wealth. Millennials of the same median age? 3%. They literally had 7x of the wealth compared to millennials (with less effort too i.e. not needing a degree for middle class jobs). Population of both generations are about the same so even though it's not a per capita stat, it's the next best thing.

Also median wages in 2000 were 20,957.18. In 2020 (last time this was updated)? 34,612.04.

Wage Increase of 65%. Did inflation all around only go up by 65%? No, you fucking retard. LOL! Yet "times are better now"?? LMFAOOOOO
Stupid fucking kikes say the darndest things

[Anonymous No.50061839]

>>50061800
For you: >>50061820
I don't need to be long winded because I know what the proper things to look for are. Objectively speaking people have been fucked out of wealth. That's an objective empirical fact.

[Anonymous No.50061880]

>>50061839
Hey, if you want to keep looking like an ass, that's your prerogative, I won't make you engage with any of the statistics showing that the cost of home ownership has fallen, or that people have more time to spend with their children, or that significantly fewer people die early. If the only thing that matters to you are comparative measures of wealth designed to make you feel poor in spite of yourself, so be it.

[Anonymous No.50061892]

>>50061880
My stats > yours. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.50061974]

>>50061880
>tHe CoSt Of HoMe OwNeRsHiP hAs FaLLeN
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.50062048]

>>50061974
Mountaintop flower
Enraged by its own excess
Nectar drips undrunk

[Anonymous No.50062105]

>>50060711
>meat is way more expensive
>but you get so many berries

[Anonymous No.50062129]

>>50062105
*beef is way more expensive
The price of chicken fell twenty percent

[Anonymous No.50062167]

>>50061592
how do you explain actual home ownership being way down comparatively? it is more difficult for younger people to buy homes, even if you claim it is "more affordable" in terms of purchasing power. you also talk in percentages, but in real terms there are more people going without (because population has increased) - which means wealth is concentrating, not being distributed

[Anonymous No.50062181]

>>50060701
They could support a wife and kids along with a house on a single wage-earner's income.

[Anonymous No.50062192]

>>50060955
>we adjusted rent for inflation but not income
Cute

[Anonymous No.50062212]

>>50062167
Home ownership doesn't actually seem to be down compared to the 20th century, just the period that led to the financial crisis. And even then, this is only a swing of a few percentage points

[Anonymous No.50062233]

>>50062048
Fattened old heifer
Eats its young in the famine
Its empty eyes blinking

[Anonymous No.50062246]

>>50062212
does this chart imply that 64% of people own homes? that seems impossible

[Anonymous No.50062250]

>>50060923
Kys

[Anonymous No.50062254]

>>50062048
>>50062233
beautiful

[Anonymous No.50062253]

>>50062192
It's just demonstrating that income growth and rent increases aren't strongly correlated. The other chart on rent adjusts

[Anonymous No.50062276]

>>50062246
That is what the stats seem to say, unless I'm misreading them

[Anonymous No.50062282]

Houses and cars are more expensive because unlike the 50s you have central hvac and other shit

Anyway, on some accounts I agree on others I don’t. Like the “typical worker” earning 27/hr lol

When my family worked in the auto industry in assembly jobs they topped out quick. My mom was making 25hr in a year and had a pension

Meanwhile new hires start off at 18/hr, takes 8 years to top out, and they have no defined benefit plan

[Anonymous No.50062301]

>>50062276
wikipedia states that it refers to "occupied housing units being occupied by the unit's owner", it also includes houses under mortgage rather than those owned outright. look up stats for "heads of household aged 25-44", it should show a significant decline

[Anonymous No.50062319]

>>50061644
They are already testing a usable diet medicine, it will be on the market within 20 years. I believe that there won't be obese people in the future.

[Anonymous No.50062330]

>>50062276
That number is misleading.

[Anonymous No.50062348]

>>50062319
>diet medicine

It’s a lifestyle not a diet
Calories in calories out
Btw food companies love selling calorie dense junk food and portions only get bigger so no

[Anonymous No.50062352]

>>50060701
go fuck yourself you lying faggot

[Anonymous No.50062366]

too long; did not read

[Anonymous No.50062392]

>>50062301
>>50062330
Looks like 80m~ owner occupied homes? Between spouses and kids, maybe an average of 2.5 people per owner occupied home, gets you to 60% of the population. I'm completely guessing that occupancy number though

[Anonymous No.50062455]

>>50062330
>>50062301
Also, population is up by 50% since 1975, but the homeownership stat is up by 100%, so I think more Americans really do own a home now than fifty years ago.

[Anonymous No.50062533]

I eat fruit maybe once a month. Other than that I eat your average HFCS goyslop. Not a /biz/raeli but I figure that makes me a little closer to the common man.

[Anonymous No.50063240]

>>50061880
OP is a retarded faggot who's put an insane amount an effort into being wrong in every sense of reality.
Reply to this as well, faggot OP, with some more bullshit

[Anonymous No.50063347]

>>50063240
Sorry anon, I'm asleep right now. Good dreams, nice REM. I'll fight with you when I wake up. Comfy morning, coffee, methylphenidate, and internet arguments.

[Anonymous No.50063418]

the fruit is genetically modified so they produce more of it, but it tastes like shit, good luck finding any good tasting fruit. most of the grapefruit and watermelon I find has no flavor and has weird black spots all over it.
also fruit is just sugar and fiber, its something to be enjoyed as a desert after a real meal that is animal & nut based. animal and nut products have gone up in price.

[Anonymous No.50063459]

YOUR CHILDREN ARE DYING COLD IN SOME DITCH BUT IT'S OKAY BECAUSE WE HAVE BLUEBERRIES HAAAAHAHAHAH
truly, the most evil people imaginable

[Anonymous No.50063516]

capitalism and technology naturally cause deflation (which is good)
imagine where we would be without central banks

[Anonymous No.50063563]

>meanwhile we go to extinction level birthrates for the first time in human history
Ice age neandertahals lived better lives than us, don't even fucking start comparing us to boomers.

[Anonymous No.50063686]

>>50061663
Ireland's fertility rate is 1.8 (only 15% below replacement level, one of the highest in Europe) and their obesity rate is 20% (less than half the obesity rate in the grand ol' USA)

[Anonymous No.50064805]

>>50060701
>save $1 on bananas
>pay $500k more on a house
wow, great deal