Housing is Unaffordable for Young People

[Mike Ault]

The 70s economy was personified by a word which was not in common usage prior to that. "Malaise", a general feeling of discomfort, illness, or uneasiness whose exact cause is difficult to identify.…

 

[jay trotta]

With all expenses increasing continually, affordability may reflect "common sense" which left the building 30+ years ago.

 

[timd354]

Your math doesn't make any sense.

Population is increasing since the 50's and real GDP growth rate is declining during the same period. The decline in real GDP on a per capita basis would multiply the decline the real GDP growth rate.

I have no idea what your point you are trying to make as your statement makes no sense and you are obviously without a clue.... the rate of population growth in the 1950's was substantially higher than it is in the the 2000's, not that it matters when doing a comparison of the per capita real GDP growth.

Due me (and yourself) a huge favor...place a piece of legal or letter size paper on a table or desk in front of you and take a pencil or pen and draw the smallest possible dot on that price of paper. Now, look very hard at that dot and realize that the dot accurately represents your level of knowledge on economic matters and compare that to the rest of the paper, which accurately represents my level of economic knowledge in comparison and then stop bothering me with your nonsense as I am sick of dealing with your profound and close-minded ignorance.

 

[timd354]

The 70s economy was personified by a word which was not in common usage prior to that. "Malaise", a general feeling of discomfort, illness, or uneasiness whose exact cause is difficult to identify.…

The terms "malaise" and "stagflation" perfectly describe the bad 1970's economy

 

[Mike Ault]

The terms "malaise" and "stagflation" perfectly describe the bad 1970's economy

I forgot about "stagflation". That had to have been coined in the 70s.

 

[Joe Flacco]

It doesn't matter if you look at it by Nominal GDP, Real GDP, or GDP per capita. That economy was

I have no idea what your point you are trying to make as your statement makes no sense and you are obviously without a clue.... the rate of population growth in the 1950's was substantially higher than it is in the the 2000's, not that it matters when doing a comparison of the per capita real GDP growth.

Due me (and yourself) a huge favor...place a piece of legal or letter size paper on a table or desk in front of you and take a pencil or pen and draw the smallest possible dot on that price of paper. Now, look very hard at that dot and realize that the dot accurately represents your level of knowledge on economic matters and compare that to the rest of the paper, which accurately represents my level of economic knowledge in comparison and then stop bothering me with your nonsense as I am sick of dealing with your profound and close-minded ignorance.

LOL hilarious!

It doesn't matter how you look at it. The 50's and 60's were much greater growth no matter you look at it in terms of nominal, real, or per capita.

Twice as much growth based on real GDP and GDP per capita.

 

[timd354]

I forgot about "stagflation". That had to have been coined in the 70s.

Yes, I believe that the term stagflation was most likely coined in the 1970's. I was born in 1963, and graduated high school in 1981, and people who were not around in the 1970's do not realize how depressing that time was and how little confidence people had that things were going turn out okay for the US. We lost the Vietnam war, US manufacturing had completely hit the skids, it was unclear whether the West was going to actually prevail in the cold war (the extent of the rot in the Soviet system was not fully known at the time), there was a crisis of confidence in the US military, especially after the total debacle when the attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran went all wrong, there was double-digit inflation, and to top it all off, the President (Carter) clearly had no answers and came across as weak and ineffective.

 

[timd354]

It doesn't matter if you look at it by Nominal GDP, Real GDP, or GDP per capita. That economy was


View attachment 97789


LOL hilarious!

It doesn't matter how you look at it. The 50's and 60's were much greater growth no matter you look at it in terms of nominal, real, or per capita.

Twice as much growth based on real GDP and GDP per capita.

The per capita GDP growth in the 2020's is averaging 1.9% (despite the massive 2020 pandemic downturn) versus 2.4% during the 1950's. If you really think 2.4% is twice as large as 1.9%, you are beyond help. The fact that per capita US GDP growth in the 1950's was somewhat higher (50 bps) should not be surprising since the manufacturing capacity of virtually all of our competitors had been almost completely destroyed during WWII.

 

[Joe Flacco]

It doesn't matter how you look at it. To look at the real GDP chart and come to the conclusion that it has been "remarkably consistent" is wrong.

Just the fact that you look at the chart before and come to the conclusion that it is "remarkably consistent" is hilarious.

 

[Joe Flacco]

You look at this and it looks "remarkably consistent"? LOL

Unbelievable.