And I bet they had to work more and harder for those same stagnating wages too.

In 1968 I was buying a very modest house and my payments were 52 dollars a month...I drove a VW and gas for it was 28 cents a gallon ...I could fill my bug up even if it were empty for less that 3 bucks...which was what I was making an hour...
How many people now can fill their tank even in a small care for what they make an hour?
Also one worker could support a family...now it takes two.
We have declined significantly in my lifetime.

Before the mortgage crisis, it was worth about $112,000.

in the economic wasteland that is NE Ohio.

40 hours a week.

It sure doesn't seem like it.

That's because essentials like education, housing, healthcare, food & energy have risen far faster than the rate of inflation, while less essential items like electronics & fashion have come down enormously in price and keep that inflation rate low.

Food & energy aren't even included in the core rate of inflation that's used for these inflation-adjusted dollar values.

Americans are drowning in debt, by design.

when I graduated from vet school in 1982. And it's only gotten worse.

To those of us with famiy members with four paws you and everyone else in your profession are valued beyond measure! Thank you!

I realized that the vets can't blame their increased fees on malpractice insurance, or the cost of meeting onerous regulations, or the time spent filling out insurance forms and battling insurance companies.

What I have seen is a huge increase in very expensive animal facilities that cater to the owners that have pet "emergencies".

We had one poor pooch who suffered from debilitating seizures (too much inbreeding?) and easily went through many thousands$ of treatments before he had to be put down. In earlier times he wouldn't have lasted very long at all and would haven't had suffered for so long. (Mea culpa!)

We're now in a rural state where our new vet is much more minimalist and doesn't need to pay huge amounts for facilities, staff, equipment. Our new animals will have a much better life also.

I believe this is all part and parcel of technologizing our lives - removing the human components and replacing it with hardware/software that has no sense of what's appropriate, and no compassion.

Because most folks who bitch about vet fees seem to think that's about what half an hour of my time should cost.

Perhaps it's regional, but I have no complaints about what I pay the vets.

It's a couple hundred bucks to get a horse snipped, but that's the guy driving to my house, administering drugs etc.

I was surprised at how reasonable vets are. I understand that some of them make a lot on small household pets, but when our dog was sick - the vet bill was extremely reasonable.

My veterinarian will call me back and discuss a problem without sending me a bill. She will discuss alternatives in treatment and she will take payments from me if I am short. She also will get out of bed at 3 AM and drive the 40 miles to the farm if I have an emergency with a horse. Last year she came out twice on a Sunday afternoon, leaving an event to check on my mare and foal, then returned to put the foal down when we had to admit it was hopeless (dummy foal syndrome, brain damage at birth, couldn't suck or even hold his head up). She didn't charge me for the two trips and her entire office staff signed the sympathy card they sent me.

In return I have her do all my routine vaccinations and de-worming and happily pay her fees though I could save a lot of money by doing those myself. It does two things - she knows my horses and has seen them when they were healthy so when they are sick or injured she can better evaluate them. And it puts me at the top of her response list because I am a good long term client.

The only problem I have is that she will not voluntarily treat cats. She's just not a cat person. So I have to take my cat to a small animal clinic where his routine shots cost more than all my horses put together!

I'm guessing here but a finer cut of that data probably shows that the average is driven by somewhat larger gains in the upper deciles which offset a net loss for the lower deciles. IOW, those making above the median income may be ahead by quite a bit more than $59 while those earning below the median have experienced a net loss in terms of 1966 income.

... that most of those gains were in the first ten years, and perhaps gains in that time period are offsetting losses in more recent years.

If inflation were measured in a way that captured the true costs of living.

He also found that, on the same scale, the comparative growth in incomes for the 1% of the 1% would be five miles to our one inch. Sorry, but there aren't two sides to every FACT. Friedmanomics and the income disparity that ultimately comes with it is KILLING our progress and corrupting our ability to improve.

Thank you, HughBeaumont (real name or Ward Cleaver reference?), for pointing out that my Tax Analysts column also compared the $59 for each household in the bottom 90% to the top 1 percent (884 feet) and the 1% of the 1% -- almost five miles.

My Tax Analysts column, and graphic I created, are at:

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/C52956572546624F85257B1D004DE3FC?OpenDocument

Let it be known that I recommend your books be read by everyone at least twice so all the facts can sink in. Free Lunch, sorry to say, is one of those books that you literally have to put down in some chapters because the reader cannot help but get infuriated at what they just read.

I can't help but think there's got to be a reason that runs deeper as to why we continue to allow these over-the-top advantages the wealthy have that goes beyond our belief in the "Horatio Alger Myth". I'm thinking the lack of universal health care keeps us from taking to the streets. Another could be that corporations are scattered everywhere and uncentralized; convening in Washington puts you at only part of the greater problem?

bloc that's attempted to take an independent course.

Second is the same tactics applied domestically; dissolution or subversion of unions, universities, workplaces -- the traditional 'ground' for organizing -- plus as you say decentralization & globalization of production means if one workplace acts up they can transfer the work elsewhere. The former 'chokepoints' for strikes etc are gone & it's harder to see the new ones.

Third is suppression of labor history and narratives and relentless balkanization along multiple ideological and 'identity' lines.

It's unusual to get a view as long term as that, but very informative - it means it's not just a temporary artefact of the rise and fall of stock market returns, or a single recession. It shows the increase in inequality had been built into the economy for decades.

when the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

They'll want to squeeze even harder!

-- Mal