[rogerhb]

I would like to know if we are getting richer. We have more debt, less savings and more two income families than ever before, but are we actually becoming wealthier?

For instance, say we chart the average wage from 1800 to now, and with that also chart average of

(a) food expenditure
(b) travel expenditure
(c) rent/mortgage payments
(d) savings
(e) debt

Given that we now have many dual incomes, we could happily treat the unit as a "family" or "household" rather than a single wage-earner.

If anyone knows of such a study please post a link.

[fossil_fuel]

more people have access to good health care, decent housing, and luxury items than ever before.

any comparison with 1800 is kind of ridiculous. a comparison with 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980 or even 1990 might be in order however.

[perplexd]

I think the population expansion rates might make anything before 1990-95 hard to really make heads or tails of.

I would be very interested, for any such study, to see comparison of the rates of medieval serfs to lords versus destitute third-world kids sniffing glue and working in a factory to American and European (and Australian) consumers.

Not that I'm making any predictions about what that would look like, but I'm a bit curious about it.

[nero]

Perhaps you would like to read about :

the Genuine Progress Indicator

I think any such exercise is frought with opportunities for the investigator's bias to enter the calculations so I wouldn't put too much into the apparent peak in progress that this report sees occuring in the early 70s), but it certainly will give you some things to think about.

[perplexd]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he quality of economic development is at least as important as the quantity of economic activity as measured by GDP

[jaws]

Wealth is a relative phenomenon. Collectively, as a civilization, we have better stuff available in greater quantities for lower prices than we did before. This is an increase in collective wealth, but measuring it is impossible as all advances are subjective. How do you know 3-bladed razor is better than a 2-bladed razor? Only from shaving and feeling the difference for yourself. These kinds of advances are subjective phenomenons.

From an individual perspective, wealth reflects demand for your labor from other members of the society. There must always be a relatively more wealthy class of society and relatively poorer class of society because some people's labor is in much greater demand than others', therefore commands a higher price on the market. The composition of such classes fluctuates with demand.

[rogerhb]

I agree there is a lot of subjectivity, but imagine what would happen if we were wealthier.

1. we would not need to so much time at work to make ends meet.

2. we would be able to pay off our houses quicker

3. we would be able to retire earlier

4. we would be saving more than digging ourselves in to more debt.

5. we would not need two incomes instead of one to get by in a household.

These are not arguments about whether we get more value from improvements in quality of products, I'm trying to look at it from a bigger picture.

In otherwords, will the rat-race ever end, or will houses always soak up available funds, and will we ever have enough consumer goods that are irrelevent to survival.

Eg, are the problems because we are incapable of saying 'enough'.

[Evltre]

I don't know if we're "richer" - we certainly have more "stuff", but in the typical household both parents are working long hours to pay for it! Often at the expense of quality time with our kids, our health, and sometimes our sanity - all of which make us poorer in the long run.

I've heard stories of the "golden days" (from my nana's) - when the dad would work, and actually got paid enough to support his family - so mum could stay at home and raise the kiddies, tend the vege garden, mend the clothes etc. The kids got their next years school clothes for Xmas and a book and one well made toy for their birthday.

Now, in a lot of cases, both parents are working just to make ends meet - I know a lot of people in this category. And they don't drive flash cars, or holiday out of town, let alone overseas, or wear expensive clothes - they are simply working hard to house and feed themselves and their little ones to a level pretty much as "no frills" as my nana's.

[Armageddon]

my inheritance kicks in this year, so i am getting wealthier

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'I') agree there is a lot of subjectivity, but imagine what would happen if we were wealthier.

1. we would not need to so much time at work to make ends meet.

2. we would be able to pay off our houses quicker

3. we would be able to retire earlier

4. we would be saving more than digging ourselves in to more debt.

5. we would not need two incomes instead of one to get by in a household.

[rogerhb]

Yup, getting somewhere, thanks jaws.

In the Western World there are two parts I think are emerging:

1. if you fail to take part in the rat-race, you become a social misfit and looked down upon by those still in the race - that's not an economic problem, that's a social issue

2. the economic one, is if you don't take part in the rat-race you can't compete for a piece of land or a liveable house (ie one that is classed as fit for human habitation) unless you have a certain amount of money.

So there is a threshold at which you can check out of the rat-race, ie the one where you can get a small house in a small out of the way town. Then if you are in that small town you would actually be socially accepted - I think you would be accepted anywhere that you could get freehold in that place (if you see what I mean)

[CrudeAwakening]

I think much of it comes down to the battle for status. We're no better than peacocks flaunting our plumage.

There's a very interesting book on this matter: Status Anxiety, by Alain de Botton, which many may have read. The drive for status is by no means unique to our modern technophilic society, but the (supposedly) meritocratic ethos of modern capitalism, together with liberal democracy, has made transitioning between social classes more readily achievable, ensuring a frenzied battle for status, centred on rampant consumerism.

I think this increased social mobility and less rigid class structure has much to do with our modern status sickness, and associated affluenza. We're all out there trying to prove we're worthy of our positions by associating ourselves with expensive material goods. And of course, easy credit just adds fuel to the fire.

The upper classes of old didn't have to bother too much with all that; they just 'knew' they were superior, and felt no need to prove themselves to the masses.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', 'S')tatus Anxiety, by Alain de Botton

[DarkDawg]

Please define rich. If wealth is simply a person's net worth, you need to put that in perspective and compare an average Joe's net worth to the that of the truly wealthy. It's all relative.

If wealth is society's combined intellectual prowess, then one could say we are richer today by leaps and bounds than we were in 1800. Being a history major I was always of the mind that we learn more and more each day, each month, each year as a civilization because we have more history behind us. The more we learn, the more intellectual property we own, therefore, we grow richer constantly. Of course, one could easily argue that when we elect individuals of lesser intelligence to govern us, we might not be as rich as we think we are.

Here is some food for thought on the net worth aspect anyway, sorry if it's a little dated:
Ownership Statistics

Here are a few examples from the link above:
- The financial wealth of the top one percent of households now exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent
- From 1983-1997, only the top five percent of households saw an increase in their net worth while wealth declined for everyone else.
- The world's 200 richest people more than doubled their net worth in the four years to 1999, to more than $1 trillion, for an average $5 billion each. Their combined wealth (the top seven are Americans) equals the combined annual income of the world's poorest 2.5 billion people.

Yea, I guess some ARE richer.

[KingM]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', '
')The upper classes of old didn't have to bother too much with all that; they just 'knew' they were superior, and felt no need to prove themselves to the masses.

[CrudeAwakening]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KingM', '
')Have you ever seen the "cottages" of the Vanderbilts, etc., in Newport? Been to Versailles? How about the Taj Mahal? Have you ever seen an exhibit of the gold crap that King Tut was buried with to give him status and wealth in the next life?

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', 'T')he upper classes of old didn't have to bother too much with all that; they just 'knew' they were superior, and felt no need to prove themselves to the masses.

[Paul64]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', 'I') think this increased social mobility and less rigid class structure has much to do with our modern status sickness, and associated affluenza. We're all out there trying to prove we're worthy of our positions by associating ourselves with expensive material goods. And of course, easy credit just adds fuel to the fire.

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KingM', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', '
')The upper classes of old didn't have to bother too much with all that; they just 'knew' they were superior, and felt no need to prove themselves to the masses.

[CrudeAwakening]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paul64', 'F')or men anyway, the dedication to higher status and income is also driven in large part by the dating and mating game. Most women clearly favor high status in their men over most other considerations, and men know it.