this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
1341 points (99.0% liked)

memes

22489 readers
2335 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (37 children)

If you compare it with Gold - against which the USD moved in lockstep until the US left the Gold Standart - it's a lot worse than just a 50% loss since 2013, more like a 65% of value.

The fall is probably the same in terms of real inflation (as actually felt by people in terms of how much less their money buys) - the official inflation figures understate inflation (probably because the mathematical calculation for GDP involves raw GDP being deflated by inflation, so the less the official inflation is the more politicians can harp about how much they made GDP "grow") and this has been going on for decades, which is why a single blue collar salary that used to be enough for a good house, a car and the expenses for a family of 5 in the 60s, now can barelly pay the rent of small appartment in a major city.

[–] GalacticRobot@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

which is why a single blue collar salary that used to be enough for a good house, a car and the expenses for a family of 5 in the 60s, now can barelly pay the rent of small appartment in a major city.

Except this isn't remotely true. For American's you had the 62% home ownership in 1960's for much smaller homes (on average 700 sqft) vs 65% now for an average of 2000sqft. The average American family in 1960 owned 1 vehicle, they now own 2. They went on less vacations, moms typically had to work on top of taking care of the family (little to no daycare), oh and interest rates were much higher as well (on top of that pesky women couldn't even own a home by themselves). Single person living was roughly 10% vs 30% now, oh and those hard working dads often didn't live by a year past retirement. And if you were a minority? You absolutely were f'ed.

Yes, costs are higher now relative to income, but demands also are. Want cheap, you move out to rural areas, but risk you don't have work. The same problem that has been endemic in the US since it's inception.

[–] late_pessimistic@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

62% home ownership in 1960's for much smaller homes (on average 700 sqft) vs 65% now for an average of 2000sqft

62% -> 65% sounds reasonable.

700 sqft on average -> 2000 sqft on average is suspicious though. It's possible stats got skewed by the top 1%, who are today richer than ever before, and own ridiculous amount of property. Median sqft perhaps would be more representative

[–] Nautalax@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

The average is higher but so is the median. A lot of the densely packed slums in US cities were physically destroyed which got rid of a lot of the homes that had very very small space per person, and newly built homes in the ever expanding suburbs after the roads were built out take up much more land and space is at less of a premium than in the cities where the land was very expensive and required building up and new construction standards were significantly higher than they had been.

On the good side this meant that families with a home had more space to spread out in, on the downside the destruction of the slums made it much more expensive to live in the cities with everyone competing for the remaining bigger homes and brought down the urban core populations (Manhattan is still down ~700000 prople from the peak of its population in the early 1900s) and the physically spreading out into the suburbs requires much morr inefficient infrastructure, more environmental impact, etc. Urban people who may have in olden times still been housed in cheap tenement slums now go without and are homeless because there’s a cliff between the streets and the most affordable housing whereas the slums used to make it a more gradual slope.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)