Slashdot Mirror

Graph.

Source.

Working hours invested in purchasing food have decreased dramatically. The average American household income was $4,200 in 1950, of which $1,400 went to food; in 2015, it was $54,000, of which $6,500 went to food. That's 2,000 working hours either way; it's 12,850% as many dollars income, but 4,640% as many dollars spent on food. The cost of a median household's food for a year in 1950 was 660 labor-hours; in 2015, it was 240. 240 is less than 660, so food is cheaper.

Clothing, same way, 240 hours in 1950, 70 hours in 2015.

Housing, average 983sqft new single-family in 1950, 28% of the budget including rent or mortgage, utilities, maintenance and supplies, and other operational costs; that's 570 hours worked per 1,000 square foot of housing afforded. 2005, a new single-family home was 2,300 average, 33% of the budget in total; that's 287 hours worked per 1,000 square foot of housing afforded. 287 is less than 570.

Decade after decade, we spend fewer hours to purchase our food, our clothing, our basic personal care needs. We buy bigger houses, better cars, more and better healthcare, and a greater load of luxuries. The American work week was 90+ hours in 1900, with 40% of that going to just food for the home; by 1950, the work week was 40 hours, with 33% going to food--barely more than a third as many hours worked to feed the household.

Everything gets cheaper. It's the only way it can happen. That's what technical progress does.

"California is one of ONLY 3 states to give more to the US federal government than it receives."

Not even close. https://visualeconomics.credit...

California is one of 17 states, not just 3, that gives more than it receives. California ranks 8th among those 17. It is not one of only three, it's not even in the top three.

"You'd better do some research."

So should you.

India defense is 18.6% of its budget, with 12.7% going to education.
From the same article, America's defense is 19.3%, and 17.1% going to education.
IOW, America spends close to the same % on defense, but we spend a lot more , relative to India, on our educaiton

Next time, please try to be honest and not just a lobbyist for your nation.

The trouble is the Civil War happened! For good or ill (mostly ill IMHO) one of the things that came out of that is people started seeing the USA as a single entity rather than a group of member states.

Yup, the south fought for a strong central government and though they lost the war, managed to get what they wanted when the Union united as one against them. The strong central government they wanted came to pass, just not under their control.

What say West Virgina look like without the massive disparity in the Federal tax revenues it generates vs what is distributed there? Not good.

Huh?

WV takes in $1.76 per dollar sent to the feds. So what would they look like with a $1:1 return? Worse. Much worse. Why do you hate WV so?
http://visualeconomics.creditl...

It's amazing how much money the liberal states provide the to republican "pull yourself up by your boot straps" welfare states. http://visualeconomics.creditl...

It's not so amazing once you realize that a lot of that money is for useless crap that, in many cases, the federal government imposes on those states.

Furthermore, while I disagree with the current system of taxation and government handouts, as long as it is the law of the land, I am certainly going to maximize the amount of money I get out of it.

I put this together from several sources. But some good general articles

http://www.clevelandfed.org/re...
http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...
http://www.bls.gov/cex/2010/st...
http://visualeconomics.creditl...

You can Google and find a ton on this.

Well, could the South rise again? I guess nobody will keep them from seceding this time.

At first glance, it would help the economy if they did. There are only 17 states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive back, and only one of them (Florida) is in the south. Mississippi takes back over double what they put in.

So all you Blue Staters, don't come to me for help because I'll slam the door right in your fucking face.

I'll bite, just because this one is too sweet to pass up.

I'll have you know that "you Red Staters" are subsidized by "us Blue Staters". Without us, you are well and truly fucked.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

For every federal tax dollar, the following states get over $1.50 back in federal aid: Kentucky, Virginia, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, New Mexico. Those are almost all red states.

For every federal tax dollar, the following states get less than $0.82 in federal aid: Colorado, New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey. Those are almost blue states.

So, please, if *you* don't want *our* help then I would be more than happy for you to send all that extra federal aid back to the government so we can start paying down our debts instead of having you Red Staters freeloading off of all the hard working Blue Staters.

http://www.creditloan.com/infographics/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cl-regional-debt.png

And, do you think EITHER of these losers work against this?

No fu@*ing way.

Just so you know, California pays a great deal more in federal taxes than it receives in federal benefits, only receiving 78 cents for every dollar sent out.

No, New England pays more in taxes than it receives. You can see it here http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/ Only Vermont and Maine receive more than they pay. I believe those are the two least populated states in the area.

Pay attention to the numbers here. California pays out a lot more money than they get back. Notice that a lot of the diehard Republican states benefit quite a bit from Federal handouts. Here's a fiscal proposition - for each state, for the next 10 years, reverse the amounts ( inflation-adjusted average ) that they've paid to and received from the Federal gov't. Now sit back and let's see who are the bigger, whining pussies - liberals or conservatives. Judging by the chart I linked to above, I know where to place my bet.

.America has...like...way more people than alot of other first world countries. Of course we pay twice as much as everyone else for health care. More people, more money. Duh.

Are you stupid, or just trolling?
When I say we pay more, I mean we pay more, per capita, then any other nation..

Here: unignorantize yourself : http://www.creditloan.com/blog/2010/03/01/healthcare-costs-around-the-world/

So again, where is this money going to come from?

The USA already spends more money per capita on health care than other western with universal coverage systems - no extra money is needed, just reallocation of existing funds; a quick google throws up this bar chart.

You want the IMF website.

Or take a look at these 2 articles. We're all stuffed. - and the 2nd uses 2007 figures!

Imagine what happens if #1 in the 1st link defaults on its debts.