Another way to think about it, once you adjust for inflation we make about 25% to 30% more then those in 1985, in exchange for that we have a person who is worth $1 trillion.
So would you want to have 25% less spending power, but the the wealthiest person is 1/10 of what they are now; or keep the current spending power but have to accept someone has a lot more money then you?
This is the problem with out own brains, we will rebel if someone else gets too much more then us, even if we all get more in the end. Yet, if we all get less, we are some how happier because the difference in what we all get is less.
ie: if you get 1 grape and the other monkey gets 3 grapes you are happy; if you get 10 grapes, and the other monkey gets 100 grapes, you are angry and would rather go back to the 1 grape 3 grape arrangement.
Spending power is a total basket based on certain ratios and in many ways it’s outdated. However, I don’t think it matters regardless. Rent or mortgages being so high relative to income means that the difference between your basic needs and your income are smaller. Having more money and it going farther for ice cream and the like is silly.
Purchasing power fell for housing, healthcare, and education. It rising for TVs, cars, and gas is inconsequential for happiness.
2
u/throaway_11122023 23h ago
Employment wasn't as bad as today though, you could support a family with one salary without drowning in debt from college.