Do we really earn twice as much as our parents did at our age? I've always been under the impression that when inflation is factored in, real wage growth has been flat for the past several decades.

You have to take cost of living into account. Looking at the dollar values doesn't really mean anything. When my father was my age, he was able to afford a house in a nice neighborhood, on a single salary, even though he only had a high school education. And he didn't have to bankrupt himself or get some kind of exotic mortgage to pay for it.

That hasn't been possible for most of my working life - a single salary, even at a professional job, wasn't enough to buy even a tiny house, unless you worked in some kind of Wall Street job. Most families needed two salaries, at least, and in the last ten years with skyrocketing housing costs, even that might not be enough, if you didn't get in before the boom. My parents also had a guaranteed pension for their retirement and good health insurance - things that have beome luxuries for me.

Earning "two times as much" doesn't mean anything if housing and other expenses cost 4x more.

Yeah, you do have to take the cost of living into account. I live in a 2 bedroom house that was part of the first wave of suburbs built in the 1920s. $60K. My husband makes ~30K a year and that salary would pay all the bills if I wasn't a student.

Try living like your parents did at your age: no cell phone, no internet, no computers, one meal out a week if that much, DIY housework and car maintenance, 1000 square foot house in a city neighborhood, only one car payment. You'll be amazed how you can finance your own pension.

That hasn't been possible for most of my working life - a single salary, even at a professional job, wasn't enough to buy even a tiny house, unless you worked in some kind of Wall Street job.

i and most people i know didn't seem to have a problem. what was your major malfunction?

Speaking only frrom my own experience, my parents lived off only one paycheck, but they did so in a very frugal manner. Today's American's live a lifestyle that is unsustainable, yet instead of recognizing this fact, they whine about how had they work.

I work 50-60 hours a week, and I'm happy to do it. I enjoy working. I guess if you hate your job, you may want to work less, but then, why don't you find a job that you like. Probably the same reason you hate working; you are F'ing lazy or stupid! I have been working and supporting myself since I was 17, and have had jobs that were less then glamorous. Instead of whining about it, I put myself through school and found better work.

I have also challenged myself to live a more simple life. I buy less crap, yet enjoy my free time more. I carry no credit card debt and live in a house that does not require it's own area code. I live greener that most of the yuppie posers who whine in Slate, and I don't even work at it that hard.

I have been working and supporting myself since I was 17, and have had jobs that were less then glamorous.

i started my illustrious working career cleaning vomit out of rich peoples toilets for about 75 cents an hour. and you know what? i was damn get to get that opportunity.

My own story is much like your own tjcerveza. My parents raised six children primarily on my father's income, although my mother did work occasionally. These days, it is much harder for a young couple to provide basic needs with an entry-level job. This is in spite of the fact that most families have less children and both parents work full-time. Another difference is that most jobs don't offer the security enjoyed by my parent's generation regarding insurance and pension benefits. My father retired in the 1980's and died in 2002, but my mother still receives a defined benefit pension check and has much better medical insurance than my own. I pay $200 per week for my medical insurance and that is only half of the actual cost of the policy. My parents didn't have money to set aside for college funds and my father was "too wealthy" for me to qualify for educational assistance -- so I worked full-time to pay my way through college. It wasn't easy, but I was accustomed to hard work.

When I was a kid, it was typical for myself and my friends to earn our spending money by cutting lawns or babysitting. I remember also picking pecans and selling them to a local grocery to enhance my budget. By the time I was 12, I was able to find jobs (not necessarily legal) working as a laborer for home builders, laying sod or building fences on farm land. As I got older, I sometimes lied about my age to take other labor jobs. I was tall for my age and many small companies didn't bother with ID checks. I also made some money on the side as a shade-tree mechanic.

I don't mind working long hours occasionally, although I don't receive overtime pay, because I enjoy the work that I do. The only complaint that I have is that with mobile phones, email, and remote network access -- it is difficult to escape work sometimes even when I am officially "on vacation". I have to settle for the flexibility of being able to set my own schedule so long as an emergency situation doesn't exist regarding work. I have plenty of leisure time, but it tends to come in small, scattered chunks.

The real answer to your question, KB01, is that nobody has the SLIGHTEST IDEA whether we do. It's difficult even to know what "earn" means. Certainly, "productivity" has gone up far more than 2X. But production of what?

An example: we can take about a week's average salary and buy a computer and hook it to the internet--communicating instantaneously in an information filled environment, with people all over the world (or open a simple spread-sheet and perform calculations at a density our parents couldn't have dreamed of). Factoring something like that in, how can we define how much we "earn" vs our parents? We live considerably longer than people 50 years ago; how much extra work should it take to "earn" that? We buy cars, they bought cars. Our cars are FAR safer to drive, and FAR more comfortable and convenient.

I would have to agree with what others above have said about life-style: If we lived exactly the same lifestyle, with the same toys, in the same sized houses, (and with a 10 year old car--that would be a better car than a new one people had 40 years ago) etc., then we could easily do it on a single average salary (and still have things they couldn't have dreamed of).

The bottom line is that it's EXTREMELY tricky to estimate. But it's reasonable to know that we probably have MORE LATTITUDE in how we live now than people did then. Women can find far more jobs--and easily live on their own if they wish. They can also live on their own with a kid or two--FAR more diffcult to attempt 40 years ago. Many people can and do work from home. Others mentioned cutting lawns as a kid for a few extra pennies; now, lots of grown men make their living cutting lawns!

And the writer of the article is correct: To determine how "well off" we are, we don't judge by how people lived 50 years ago, we judge by how our neighbors live (or by how they're depicted as living, on TV or the internet).

Our cars are FAR safer to drive, and FAR more comfortable and convenient.

not only that, they are much more efficient and last much longer. things like mufflers, tires and brakes last much much longer so that owning a vehicle today takes less disposable income than it did 30-40 years ago even though they cost 10x more.

That is true. Cars are much more reliable than they once were. Much of that is due to advanced metallurgy and improvements in other materials. Engines used to only last about 100,000 miles. That said, cars are much more necessary to the modern lifestyle for most folks. Many people can no longer rely on neighborhood stores within walking distance of their home or dairy products delivered to their doorstep. There are no more truck farmers selling vegetables door-to-door nor any other type of door-to-door sales. Automotive insurance is also much more expensive than it once was. Fuel prices have become reasonable once again, but I hope that we don't take that for granted. It probably won't last for very long.

Yes, good plan...tell people in a horrible recession that they're lazy to not find a better job. THEN tell them to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and get back to school....even though the amount of unemployed college graduates now exceeds the number of unemployed high school dropouts: <link>

Let's not even get started on the worthlessness of graduate degrees, unless you're getting a professional degree such as an MBA or JD. But if you get an MBA or JD, your job will be to support the conspicuous consumption of others, plus you'll have job responsibilities in excess of 40 hours a week (hello Golden Handcuffs).

You're all idiots. We need people out there spending so that people can have jobs. Hell, even reading this website is an example of conspicuous consumption-- sure, it's free, but check out the advertisements lining the sides of the pages. Luxury consumption is a necessary evil. Plus, it is a lot less physically and intellectually taxing to support people's luxury consumption (aka, hotel busboy, working at the dry cleaner's, making salads at the local bistro, or even working at Taco Bell) than working in a coal mine.

Engines used to only last about 100,000 miles.

i guess you never owned a chevy vega. you were lucky to get 50k out of one.

I actually liked the style of the Vega, but I had already heard about the inadequacy of the aluminum block before I ever had the opportunity to buy one. I knew a few folks who inserted steel cylinder sleeves on their first rebuild and lived happily ever after! I just bought a Toyota and endured the ribbing for driving a rice-burner.

The Corvair and the Vega were two Chevy experiments that should have been successful, had they not both been doomed by unreliability.

the biggest improvement has been electronic ignition and fuel injection. that along with better materials and smaller mfg tolerances.