How exactly was "Life better in the past"?

[Zippyjuan]

He does try to ask a lot of personal questions (to certain people).

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

He does try to ask a lot of personal questions (to certain people).

Right, because me asking you who you voted for on a political discussion forum is personal.

Gonna dodge that question when I ask you again?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

as soon as I say brand you'll ask make and model, I'll be giving you more details than I want before i know it.

Details you can't answer because you've never handled a gun.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Right, because me asking you who you voted for on a political discussion forum is personal.

Gonna dodge that question when I ask you again?

Who I rep or neg rep or vote for or what guns I have or don't have is really not important. It is important to you because you suspect I may not be "one of you" whatever that means. Which is why those things are only asked of certain people- ones suspected of being somehow "unpure". You are the best Libertarian in the World. Congratulations! I will never be able to live up to your standards.


If only "pure" Libertarians are allowed in the party, they will never be able to win any elected office.

 

[KingNothing]

Who I rep or neg rep or vote for or what guns I have or don't have is really not important. It is important to you because you suspect I may not be "one of you" whatever that means. Which is why those things are only asked of certain people- ones suspected of being somehow "unpure". You are the best Libertarian in the World. Congratulations! I will never be able to live up to your standards.


If only "pure" Libertarians are allowed in the party, they will never be able to win any elected office.

The lunatic fringe around here is always entertaining.

 

[Danke]

The lunatic fringe around here is always entertaining.

You find Zippy entertaining? When has he ever posted anything Libertarian or Republican for that matter? He is very mainstream in his ideas and thoughts. Hardly on the "fringe."

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Who I rep or neg rep or vote for or what guns I have or don't have is really not important.

The questions are important enough for you not to answer them.

It is important to you because you suspect I may not be "one of you" whatever that means.

Well, you brought it up, so tell me what "one of you" means.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The lunatic fringe around here is always entertaining.

Especially the ones who talk about "certain people" and being "unpure."

 

[PRB]

Especially the ones who talk about "certain people" and being "unpure."

anybody who isn't a troll.

 

[DamianTV]

Here is my short answer...

But but but we get paid more than we did way back in the day! We do? Well, lets compare.

In 1960, it was estimated that average Minimum Wage would give you enough to buy 22 candy bars. In 2014 you could buy 7 candy bars. The candy bars were the same weight and volume. Rolling Stone estimated that if Minimum Wage had kept up with inflation, the current rate would have to be $21.72 per hour! Not that I am advocating for a massive increase in Minimum Wage, but this is just how much everyone is getting screwed.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Just a quick check on the coffee prices in that chart. According to this link: http://oldrecipebook.com/1800s-livingcost.shtml one pound of cheap coffee in 1800 was 35 cents. The average worker made $16 a week. If we assume that week was 40 hours, that comes to $0.40 an hour so it took about an hour's (0.875 hours) work to get one pound of coffee.

According to this link https://ycharts.com/indicators/average_hourly_earnings , the average hourly salary today is $24.53 an hour. If a pound of coffee took the same amount of time working today to buy it as it took in 1800 (labor equivalence) , the priced of coffee would be $21.46 a pound today.


(the chart completely ignores any changes in wages over time)

 

[acptulsa]

Just a quick check on the coffee prices in that chart. According to this link: http://oldrecipebook.com/1800s-livingcost.shtml one pound of cheap coffee in 1800 was 35 cents. The average worker made $16 a week. If we assume that week was 40 hours, that comes to $0.40 an hour so it took about an hour's (0.875 hours) work to get one pound of coffee.

According to this link https://ycharts.com/indicators/average_hourly_earnings , the average hourly salary today is $24.53 an hour. If a pound of coffee took the same amount of time working today to buy it as it took in 1800 (labor equivalence) , the priced of coffee would be $21.46 a pound today.


(the chart completely ignores any changes in wages over time)

So what?

So what?

That chart examines the shrinking value of the dollar. Yes, transportation costs from Brazil and Columbia are less today than they were in the nineteenth century. That's true. Are you surprised? Are you shocked? Did you think operating a reciprocal machinery steamship would be a cheap thing to do?

Do you have a point? Or are you just yelling, 'This chart doesn't show this or that!!' because you want revenge on us for constantly pointing out that your charts so seldom show what you claim they show?

 

[PRB]

But but but we get paid more than we did way back in the day! We do? Well, lets compare.

In 1960, it was estimated that average Minimum Wage would give you enough to buy 22 candy bars. In 2014 you could buy 7 candy bars.

Source?

The candy bars were the same weight and volume. Rolling Stone estimated that if Minimum Wage had kept up with inflation, the current rate would have to be $21.72 per hour!

Rolling Stone is written by liberals who care only about raising wages, so of course they'd estimate minimum wage SHOULD be higher. But I'd be curious why they believe $21.72 would be "inflation adjusted minimum wage". What happened to "let the market decide"?

Not that I am advocating for a massive increase in Minimum Wage, but this is just how much everyone is getting screwed.

Why would any libertarian want any mandated wage increase? How is "everybody getting screwed"? You're assuming that just because minimum wage (lowest possible wage) hasn't been mandated to increase with cost of living, therefore "everybody is getting screwed"? Is it possible that at worst, only the people who are working minimum wage are screwed, people who make above that, average income, median income, are fine?

 

[PRB]

Just a quick check on the coffee prices in that chart. According to this link: http://oldrecipebook.com/1800s-livingcost.shtml one pound of cheap coffee in 1800 was 35 cents. The average worker made $16 a week. If we assume that week was 40 hours, that comes to $0.40 an hour so it took about an hour's (0.875 hours) work to get one pound of coffee.

According to this link https://ycharts.com/indicators/average_hourly_earnings , the average hourly salary today is $24.53 an hour. If a pound of coffee took the same amount of time working today to buy it as it took in 1800 (labor equivalence) , the priced of coffee would be $21.46 a pound today.


(the chart completely ignores any changes in wages over time)

that's not what this guy said.

are you calling him a liar? you can't both be right!

In 1960, it was estimated that average Minimum Wage would give you enough to buy 22 candy bars. In 2014 you could buy 7 candy bars. The candy bars were the same weight and volume. Rolling Stone estimated that if Minimum Wage had kept up with inflation, the current rate would have to be $21.72 per hour! Not that I am advocating for a massive increase in Minimum Wage, but this is just how much everyone is getting screwed.

 

[PRB]

So what?

So what?

That chart examines the shrinking value of the dollar.

Which is a useless fact without the context of how easy it is to earn a dollar.

Yes, the dollar value is shrinking in relation to how much commodities can be bought, or how much gold can be bought. But that would only be a diminish in value if you were paid a fixed income over decades, or saved cash for decades banking on it never depreciating.

If in 1800 the average hourly wage was a cent, and 2014 the average hourly wage is $100.
A cent in 1800 bought a loaf of bread, while a $100 bill bought 20 loaves of bread, are you losing or winning?

Yes, transportation costs from Brazil and Columbia are less today than they were in the nineteenth century. That's true. Are you surprised?

Yes, I'm surprised! Because unless somebody was manipulating the market, the value and cost should NEVER change. OMFG, Brazil and Colombia are getting screwed because they're being paid less!

Are you shocked? Did you think operating a reciprocal machinery steamship would be a cheap thing to do?

Do you have a point? Or are you just yelling, 'This chart doesn't show this or that!!' because you want revenge on us for constantly pointing out that your charts so seldom show what you claim they show?

When did he ignore something you point out when he shows a chart? or refuse to acknowledge a fact you add?

 

[osan]

So it looks like we got ourselves another environmentalist hippie.

Perhaps to your mis-focused eyes. I may be many things, but neither hippie nor environmentalist fit my bill. If you disbelieve that we have polluted this planet terribly, then I would have to say you have not been paying attention. Perhaps you are too young to remember what things were like in the 60s and 70s. It was very bad. It still is in many ways and a trip to industrial China demonstrates this. The environmentalist boobs are all proud of the job "they" have done... oh look at how much cleaner the environment is. Bullshit. At best the only thing we succeeded in doing is moving the sources from the USA to places like China and India.

Self serving? We're not communists if that's what you're asking.

I cannot imagine how communism fits into this discussion.

Universally? No.

That was a possible implication.

I love my guns, but I must tell you, knowing you can be anywhere, any time, and NEVER EVER have to see or hear a gun, the attacker, rapist can at best hit you with a car or stab you with a knife, takes a lot of fear out of your daily routine. Or to put it simply, people today (especially on this board) fear the police will shoot them anytime they step out a door, is your response to be armed against them or that they don't exist?

I hate to break this to you, but dead is dead, regardless of how one comes to be that way. I would also add that in a real-deal life and death situation of the mugging/street-crime variety, I would face a gun before a knife any day. Gun disarms, while risky, are far less so than attempting to disarm someone with a knife. Wound channels created by knives tend to be at least as bad as those of your typical handgun and are often notably worse.

What do we do about those ghetto rats running home for his daddy's gun? Take away his gun ? or give him one to open carry?

Don't raise them to be weak-egoed, candy-assed pansies. The problem is we no longer teach children sense, which includes knowing how to take your knocks. We have raised up at least two full generations of sissies who fall into crumpled heaps any time one of their playmates refuse to "suck their dick" on demand. It is beneath ridiculous. Just consider the topic of so-called "bullying". For pity's sake, if you don't acknowledge that a classmate is God Hisownself, you are now a bully and the unacknowledged kid is traumatized in the eyes of the adults. This well beyond plain stupidity.

 

[PRB]

I hate to break this to you, but dead is dead, regardless of how one comes to be that way.

Just like earning a million dollars is earning a million dollars, regardless of how hard it was?

I would also add that in a real-deal life and death situation of the mugging/street-crime variety, I would face a gun before a knife any day. Gun disarms, while risky, are far less so than attempting to disarm someone with a knife.

Are you saying guns are less effective against a self defender? You can stab from a distance vs not shoot from a distance? WTF

Wound channels created by knives tend to be at least as bad as those of your typical handgun and are often notably worse.

Except you don't need to be upclose to shoot a person.