Not at all. That's the fact. A home purchased for around 40K in 1955 is now worth 600K or MORE! That may not be true everywhere in the country. But it is true in certain urban areas. I know of one that cost 35K in 1960, that probably could sell for a million, today. Same property. The home was improved with a new floor in the meanwhile. I was pointing you to the broader point, in a couple of cases, which you haven't addressed. You can say it's ridiculous. And I can say the same about what you've written as protest. But you should consider this, at the very least. It might be a point of view you've not seen.
In certain areas that might well be true. Those areas were not so popular and they are now desirable. So I was right in saying that the price has risen because of location.
But over all it is not true. So I was right again.
But you should consider this, at the very least. It might be a point of view you've not seen.
Oh I have seen it. Repeatably. It is the yearning for a mythical golden time. It is, however, statistical and historically speaking BS.
That time was not so golden and times now are better then they were then.
In 1968,for example,a new teacher's salary in the N.Y.C. area was about $5,000,or a bit more.Today,it is around $39,000; which is about 8 times more.Now,compare the prices of the same things,then and now and you'll see that there is no loss in buying power.
And if you want to talk about housing, comparing co-ops in Chicago with the same one's cost in the mid '20s,to today's price (and I am talking about the same apartment !),some are actually a bit cheaper today...including many updates.
A CEOs salary in 1955 was $150,000 and is now over $30 million or more! That may not be true at every large corporation in the country. But it is true in certain corporations. I know of one that paid $150K in 1960, that probably makes $60 million, today.
So I guess we can extrapolate salaries have risen just as much after all.