• IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The FBI criticized the film for being communist … you know why?

    Because it depicted the bankers as evil

    Take note of that, the government had more to say about how banking and finance were depicted than in thinking about how it depicted common people.

  • bluegreenpurplepink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Absolutely true.

    It gets even more disturbing, though, when you realize how far $5000 would get you in 1946 and how little it gets you now.

    Context: when my dad was a teenager, he bought a brand new car for well below $1000. And my grandparents’ first suburban house cost about $7000, and that was in New York, near the city.

    What would $5000 get you today?

    A junker used car OR two months rent.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      $5,000 in 1946 is worth $83,000 today, according to the first inflation calculator I found. Our dollar has ~6% of the purchasing power a 1946 dollar had.

      • BlueKey@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Yea, such comparisons should be done in units like “% of average worker salery”. Not saying that their argument is wrong and things are way better now, I just don’t like absolute value comparisons over such distances.

        • Denjin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Median average salary in 1947 was $36,000 [1]

          A value of $5,000 then would represent 13.8% of that median salary.

          $86,000 today (the inflation adjusted amount of $5,000) represents 102.7% of the current median salary of $83,730 [2]

          Edit: I can’t read, see below for the correct maths

          • shane@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            15 hours ago

            The first link says the median salary was $3000 not $36000. So $5000 would represent 166.7% of that salary.

            • Denjin@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              14 hours ago

              You are in fact correct, I put my misreading down to too much Christmas spirit.

              • shane@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                14 hours ago

                While the numbers show that $5000 inflation-adjusted is more achievable now than in the past, I suspect most of that progress was made in the 25 years immediately following then. Also, the numbers are per household, and a lot more households have multiple wage earners now.

          • suicidaleggroll@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Median average salary in 1947 was $36,000

            Where did you get that? That’s not what your link says at all. $36k was the median salary around 20 years ago, not 80 years ago.

            • Denjin@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              You are in fact correct, I put my misreading down to too much Christmas spirit.

        • Seefra 1@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Average means nothing, the rich shift the average.

          At least use the median or even better the minimum wage as standard.

          • BlueKey@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Thats why I wrote “average worker”, which excludes the rich. But median is also good.

        • rainwall@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          Dentist’s notoriously ride 12k carbon bicycles, to the point thats its a meme. The type of bike that bike ships put in the display window to get most people to come in and buy the common 2k ones.

          The running joke in biking circles is that when you see someone in full lycra on a very high end bike, its a dentist fresh from the tooth mines.

          • Seefra 1@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            People buy 2k bikes? Those are pretty high end, common ones would be 150 or 800 if electric.

            • rainwall@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              The above prices arent something you will see in a bike shop. Entry level bikes from large brands run around $800-1200 or so in my area. The common price for “good” bikes at my local shop range from 2-6k. Add 1-2k for electric versions.

              $150 for a bike is walmart pricing. These are commonly called “BSOs” in cycling circles, i.e “bike shaped objects.” The components, from the frame to brakes to wheels/etc are all either no name or wildly shoddy, and arent assembled by bike mechanics, so they often aren’t put together correctly. They generally aren’t recommend for safeties sake.

    • Hadriscus@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Things explode when people get hungry en masse. I don’t think the US are too far from that, maybe a decade or so

  • minorkeys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    15 hours ago

    It’s almost like workers need to actually spend time and effort and take risks to fight for their fair share, perhaps even, dare I say it, together.