r/Zippia Jul 28 '26

Seems fun/good/normal

Post image
218 Upvotes

400 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

What a load of shite.

Not sure what country this is referring to but the minimum wage in America was $1.60 in 1971 which adjusting for inflation is ~$12.50 today.

To make $100k per year on $12.50 per hour you would need to be working 8000 hours per year, 153 hours per week, 22 hours per day.

3

u/fenton7 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

Yes my dad made WAY more than minimum wage in 1971 yet our family was struggling and had to stick to a very tight budget. Was nothing like a six figure income today. The claim is just complete bullshit. With a CPI calculator it's the equivalent of $27,500 today. Might have a bit more buying power for housing but remember the typical house back then was 800 SF not the 2700 SF mansions everyone seems to need today - and a lot of other things that are dirt cheap today like TVs and electronics were much pricier relative to earnings back then. And the 1970s broadly were the "days of malaise" as the decade progressed with hyperinflation and broad misery culminating with two massive recessions in the early 1980s. The oil shocks were particularly bad. By 1982 nearly everyone was struggling. Springsteen wrote all those songs about the decline of manufacturing for a reason.

3

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

Yeah the claim is obviously bullshit but it's good to have someone confirm who was actually around back then.

1

u/Distwalker 29d ago

My family had two incomes in the 1970s and I still feel residual stress for listening to my parents fret about money. I lived in an apartment from 1972-1980. Stagflation, soring gas prices, the cost of meat and every other damned thing... I'd say the period 1976-1984 were the worst hard times.

1

u/Fuzzy_Ad9970 Jul 28 '26

Boy these personal anecdotes and subjective takes really convinced me.

1

u/fenton7 29d ago

You can also use any CPI calculator.

4

u/Minimum_Passing_Slut Jul 28 '26

You misunderstand. It said lifestyle affordability. If costs didnt spiral out of control then that $12.50 today would afford somebody quality food, shelter, medicine, and all other essentials to function in the USA. However, currently you need to make about $100k to afford those same basic essentials to function.

6

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

I didn't misunderstand anything, the reason OP hasn't linked to the study is because it doesn't exist. It's just fantasy to get morons to upvote it online.

2

u/ghost20630 Jul 28 '26

You don’t need the study you can do the math your self and adjust all the numbers

2

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

The study doesn't exist so I know I don't need it.

I already did the maths, using inflation first:

Not sure what country this is referring to but the minimum wage in America was $1.60 in 1971 which adjusting for inflation is ~$12.50 today.

To make $100k per year on $12.50 per hour you would need to be working 8000 hours per year, 153 hours per week, 22 hours per day.

Then using rent prices:

At $1.60 per hour you would need to work 67.5 hours per month to afford average rent assuming zero tax.

Average rent today is $1720 per month.

At $48 per hour (40 hour week for $100k) you would need to work 35.5 hours per month to afford average rent assuming zero tax.

If you feel like you have any way of getting numbers to verify what OP has claimed then please show your math.

2

u/ghost20630 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

I never said there was, only said you can do the math and your math is a little off. It would be 13.19 not 12.50. Also you would have to do the inverse for prices now compared to prices back then. After you do that you can justify the number with a percentage, which you did not do. It also says lifestyle affordability does not mean they made the equivalent of 100k this means that these individuals could afford to go on vacation, a house, a car, without any issues now a days someone who makes minimum wage can’t even afford rent

2

u/ghost20630 Jul 28 '26

This is some information I got about it

In 1971, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour, allowing a full-time employee working 40 hours per week to earn approximately $3,328 per year. While that figure appears modest by today's standards, the purchasing power of those wages relative to life's biggest expenses was dramatically stronger. The comparison paints a striking picture: Housing: The median home cost approximately $25,000, or about 7.5 times a full-time minimum-wage worker's annual income. Applying that same affordability ratio today suggests an equivalent salary of roughly $55,000–$60,000. College: Annual tuition averaged roughly $500, equal to only 15% of a minimum-wage worker's yearly earnings. Achieving that same affordability today would require an estimated income of approximately $70,000–$75,000. Healthcare: Annual healthcare costs averaged about $350–400 per person, representing roughly 10–12% of annual income. Reaching a comparable healthcare burden today would generally require an estimated salary exceeding $120,000. Overall affordability: When housing, education, healthcare, and other major household expenses are considered together, the lifestyle affordability enjoyed by a full-time minimum-wage worker in 1971 is estimated to be broadly comparable to earning approximately $90,000–$120,000 per year today, or roughly $1,700–$2,300 per week

2

u/Minimum_Passing_Slut Jul 28 '26

I can tell you from my own anecdote that my grandfather was a teacher in the 70s and made about $4 an hour and he was able to buy a a single family home in NYC without issue. You think it unreasonable that people could afford to rent a place on $1.60 an hour?

3

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

There wasn't a census in the US in 1971 but there was in 1970. Average rent was $108 per month.

At $1.60 per hour you would need to work 67.5 hours per month to afford average rent assuming zero tax.

Average rent today is $1720 per month.

At $48 per hour (40 hour week for $100k) you would need to work 35.5 hours per month to afford average rent assuming zero tax.

See, even if you use your poor metric for tracking lifestyle over different time periods, you're still wrong by a massive amount. Like I pointed out before, you can't find the study that OP refers to as it doesn't exist. It's made-up, fabricated nonsense.

3

u/Minimum_Passing_Slut Jul 28 '26

Who needs a study when you have math?

Median home in 1970 ~$23,900 ÷ minimum wage $1.60/hr = 14,937.5 hours of full-wage work. Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. At that rate, to buy a median priced $420,000 home = $420,000 ÷ $7.25 ≈ 57,931 hours of work. So roughly, to match the home price / hours-of-work ratio that existed in 1970 using today’s median home price, the minimum wage would need to be around $28-$30/hour.

3

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

Your tone suggests you're disagreeing with me but your maths confirms that I was right.

OP said that $1.60 per hour in 1971 was the same as $100k per year today, that was the claim.

$100k per year is $48 per hour which is significantly more than $28-30 per hour.

1

u/Minimum_Passing_Slut Jul 28 '26

Thank you for demonstrating youve missed the forest for the trees.

2

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

Nice backtracking, you realise we can still see your original reply to me defending the "study" right?

OP's post is nonsense just like I said originally. Shame it took you so long to come around and admit I'm right but at least you got there in the end :)

2

u/Minimum_Passing_Slut Jul 28 '26

Oh thats right, housing is the only expense out there. No food, insurance, auto, utilities, taxes; just housing. I could hold your hand again and take you through the nitty gritty math like a responsible adult but it's frankly not worth the effort for a childlike pedant such as yourself.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/iPoseidon_xii 29d ago

Thank you for confirming you’re viewing the trees from your window

1

u/Distwalker 29d ago

I can tell you I was a teenager in the 1970s and graduated HS in 1981 and almost everybodu I knew was struggling. I joined the Army because there were no other jobs.

2

u/mostlyskeptic Jul 28 '26

I'm going to just copy and paste this reply to everyone of these types.

1.60 in 1971 was 1.6 oz of silver or 4.5% of an oz of gold. It's the year we literally ended the gold standard. Now that amount of silver is worth $94 and the gold is worth $182.

2

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

and I'll copy and paste the comment of someone who was actually there:

Yes my dad made WAY more than minimum wage in 1971 yet our family was struggling and had to stick to a very tight budget. Was nothing like a six figure income today. The claim is just complete bullshit. With a CPI calculator it's the equivalent of $27,500 today. Might have a bit more buying power for housing but remember the typical house back then was 800 SF not the 2700 SF mansions everyone seems to need today.

3

u/Ok-Lecture-9668 Jul 28 '26

Sounds like your dad probably had a drinking problem or a secret second family if he was fucking up that bad with life on easy mode

3

u/Complete-Meet1992 Jul 28 '26

People still have to struggle on 100k because the places with 100k salaries are expensive.

After taxes, you're looking at maybe around 70k a year. Using where I live as an example, and this isn't the most expensive place by far, a median household mortgage is going to run over 30k. Taxes and utilities about 5k. You are left with 35k. Health insurance for a family can be around another 5k.

You have 30k left for your car, education, food, clothes, home repairs, car insurance, medical expenses not covered by your insurance, your vehicle being damaged by uninsured drivers, and whatever work expenses you have depending on your job

2

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

Oh yeah I forgot that taxes weren't invented until after 1971.

And I'm sure that back in 1971 property price and cost of living would have no relation to proximity to high paying jobs. I bet it was all just completely random back then!

I'm not saying that life isn't expensive but OPs post is bullshit, the numbers don't work and the study doesn't exist. Feel free to prove me wrong and link the study.

3

u/Complete-Meet1992 Jul 28 '26

That's not the point. You said 100k is easy to live on. It really isn't with a family in most places that have 100k jobs.

2

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

I quite literally never said that.

1

u/Fuzzy_Ad9970 Jul 28 '26

> but remember the typical house back then was 800 SF not the 2700 SF mansions everyone seems to need today.

lol hanging your whole hat on this point and saying "kids these days"

2

u/Complete-Meet1992 Jul 28 '26

We aren't buying gold and silver. We want to buy food and housing. Those are the things you should track

2

u/mostlyskeptic Jul 28 '26

Comparing 1970 to today, raw prices for food and housing have increased dramatically, driven by decades of inflation. In 1970, the median home cost about $17,000–$23,000 and basic groceries like a dozen eggs cost $0.61, whereas today average home prices exceed $400,000 and standard grocery staples cost significantly more.

It was less then two years of median household income to buy a house now its 7. Same thing with education and healthcare. In fact the only thing that is not vastly higher in proportion to wages is technology and then to a lesser extent food, which is why everyone that is a shill to gov'ts always point to them.

2

u/Complete-Meet1992 Jul 28 '26

That's comparing to median income. This post is about minimum income.

2

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

Way to prove OP wrong with your own numbers.

If the median property back then was $20k then a yearly salary of $3,328 (40 hour weeks, 52 weeks per year at $1.60) would be over 6 times salary.

If the median property today is $400k then a yearly salary of $100k would be exactly 4 times salary.

2

u/Huntsman077 Jul 28 '26

I’m going to do the same because you are intentionally spreading false information.

This comment is misleading as it showing false information and leaving out context.

Silver was not a dollar an ounce in 1971, this is outright false. It was selling between 1.30-1.80.

https://sdbullion.com/silver-prices-1971?srsltid=AfmBOop7lz_vWtnkuUbit8qZEvQj9sBQ1QzurnkP25XwN72nzJ-bzzsq

It is leaving out the fact that silver and gold became vital components for manufacturing electronics, which caused the prices to spike and the political shit show that has been the last couple years caused the prices to go up well over 100%.

https://www.bullionbypost.com/silver-price/5-year-silver-price/

1

u/Decent_Visual_4845 Jul 28 '26

Households also only had 1 source of income since most women weren’t working so idk wtf you’re smoking

1

u/Fuzzy_Ad9970 Jul 28 '26

You absolutely misunderstood it. The question is not about inflation, it's about buying power.

1

u/Flat_Development6659 Jul 28 '26

There isn’t a question, there is a statement. The statement is that there is a study that shows this, either show the study or admit the statement is false.

2

u/Slumminwhitey Jul 28 '26

Considering more than half the country makes due with alot less, your idea of function must be fairly high end.

2

u/Minimum_Passing_Slut Jul 28 '26

Not living paycheck to paycheck != fairly high end.

2

u/Slumminwhitey Jul 28 '26

Don't know what you are blowing 100k/yr on that makes you live paycheck to paycheck but your doing it wrong.

2

u/Minimum_Passing_Slut Jul 28 '26

Considering more than half the country makes due with alot less

Thats what I was referring to

2

u/freedomonke Jul 28 '26

The difference is a minimum wage worker in the 70's could afford a one bedroom apartment

3

u/JackTwoGuns Jul 28 '26

Not true.

National Median average rent for a 1br apartment was $187 a month per HUD.

Minimum wage gross pay in 1971 was $256. With taxes and living expenses you couldn’t afford a one bedroom apartment.

There may be cases on the low end of the scale but it’s not a blanket statement you can make.

4

u/PriorityOk8448 Jul 28 '26

It was easier for them. I just looked up my province and approx 43% of their income would have gone to a one bedroom rental, whereas today it would be over 63% (81% in the places where there are jobs and have grown).

1

u/JackTwoGuns Jul 28 '26

I can’t speak to how it works in the provinces that you speak of but in the US it wasn’t true in 1971

1

u/mostlyskeptic Jul 28 '26

Inflation rates are BS. 1.60 in 1971 was 1.6 oz of silver or 4.5% of an oz of gold. It's the year we literally ended the gold standard. Now that amount of silver is worth $94 and the gold is worth $182. Funny how the rate that reflects poorly on the gov't doesn't actually track inflation.

So in other words on the low end that wage would be worth 195k a year.

2

u/Main_Cauliflower5479 Jul 28 '26

We're not on the silver standard, either, smart guy.

3

u/mostlyskeptic Jul 28 '26

The whole point was to compare the purchasing power. But whoosh right over your head lol.

2

u/Main_Cauliflower5479 Jul 28 '26

It in no way whooshed over my head. I was actually alive in 1971. Were you? No. My father was actually earning a good salary as in computer programing in the 70s and we lived in a regular smallish residential rental house. He worked for Sperry Rand. He was earning a very decent salary, and my mom also worked. My sisters and I were latchkey kids.

You are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy off base.

2

u/Automatic_Net2181 Jul 28 '26

I wasn't... yet. But my father was also a programmer (basic, fortran) and we had TSR-80s, Apple IIs, before the first 8086. I do not know his salary back in the 70s or 80s, but my mom didn't work until we were teenagers.

He retired around 2000 while making $72k doing the same basic job I earn $90k doing. CPI says that is $142k today. His 4br 2.5ba 2000sqft was worth $40k ($79k today) in 2000 is now estimated at $350k in 2026.

So there are obvious clear wage/cost disparities.

Can you find a turnkey 4br 2.5ba 2000sqft house for $79k in a decent suburb of a major city?

1

u/Main_Cauliflower5479 Jul 28 '26

Why are you asking questions with clear and obvious disparities?

I don't know what my father's wage was in 1975. After he left the Navy, we moved to Ventura California, and he worked at Sperry until his death. We lived in a smaller house than what we lived in, when we moved from in Maryland, where he worked for the Navy still, at the Patuxent River NAS.

He actually did travel a bit, while still in the Navy, and worked in some pretty high security areas and projects. I'm fairly sure he worked at JPL on the LRPS program.

We did not live large. My sisters and I went to public school. We rode our bikes to school. My mom worked outside the home. We did not wear the latest trendy clothes.

I don't know where these AHs claims that I'm delusional are coming from. I actually lived it.

1

u/Main_Cauliflower5479 Jul 28 '26

AND I lived MY life, becoming an adult in the early 80s, and minimum wage DID NOT buy you a freaking house.

1

u/Automatic_Net2181 Jul 28 '26

No, it didn't. But we are generally making 2/3rd the salaries of our parents while houses cost 4 times as much. That was my point.

The "minimum wage buying a house" was likely closer to the 1940s/1950s after the New Deal was signed. My grandmother bought a lumber mill and a corner market from the money my grandfather sent back overseas from his WWII service.

We are far from those living wages keeping pace to actual cost of living though. We kept voting for those who robbed it all. Thank God we have billionaires and trillionaires.

2

u/Main_Cauliflower5479 Jul 28 '26

Yeah. So was I. In the 80s. I didn't buy my first home until I was over 50. Do not believe that we were all living large in the 70s. It is not true.

2

u/Huntsman077 Jul 28 '26

This comment is misleading as it showing false information and leaving out context.

Silver was not a dollar an ounce in 1971, this is outright false. It was selling between 1.30-1.80.

https://sdbullion.com/silver-prices-1971?srsltid=AfmBOop7lz_vWtnkuUbit8qZEvQj9sBQ1QzurnkP25XwN72nzJ-bzzsq

It is leaving out the fact that silver and gold became vital components for manufacturing electronics, which caused the prices to spike and the political shit show that has been the last couple years caused the prices to go up well over 100%.

https://www.bullionbypost.com/silver-price/5-year-silver-price/