The time needed to get $1 in international dollars is 63 minutes in the US. This is about twice the average in Germany, France and the UK according to an Oxford University researcher. This suggests that average poverty is significantly higher in the US.
You compared $8 tickets of the same band to $150 tickets today. Obviously the people buying these might be still the same, but they are do not fall in the same age group or disposable income bracket anymore.
And as I have clearly shown you that there are more people being able to afford it these days, and ticket prices reflect that.
And even if that wasn’t the case, the problem for that hypothetical couple is that they have to spend more on rent not that their income is smaller.
Of course you can argue that it is unfair that their income didn’t increase according to the rate of GDP growth during these years, but over all they can still afford to go see that concert just like they did in the 1970ties (if they don’t live in a city with high rents).
And as I have clearly shown you that there are more people being able to afford it these days, and ticket prices reflect that
So, you never understood the original argument.
The original argument was that a part time waitress would be able to afford to live pretty well in 1970, including going to a big concert and paying her rent.
Like I said, you were using all your intelligence to ignore what was right in front of you.
No, you problem is that you don’t do a proper problem analysis and thus fail to understand what actually changed.
And you also seem to vastly underestimate inflation and overestimate how well such a couple was able to life in the 1970ties.
Again, you ignore what’s in front of you.
I cited a work written in the period, that was reviewed and analyzed at the time.
Everyone at the time the book was written knew that our waitress could live off that salary.
It’s not my fault you didn’t understand that.
I explained a few times now that this hasn’t changed due to the income levels, which you know is the context of this argument due to the article it was posted under.
It is very dangerous to go by vibes of what you think is “in front of you”, especially if it glorifies a past that never existed like that (and no, that book likely doesn’t describe it like that either). That is exactly how modern fascists fish for votes.
If you actually want to change something about the bad economic situation many low income families find themselves in these days you need to figure out the actual root cause and not just go by vibes.
t is very dangerous to go by vibes of what you think is “in front of you”, especially if it glorifies a past that never existed like that (and no, that book likely doesn’t describe it like that either). That is exactly how modern fascists fish for votes.
Got it. I should ignore a source, written at the time, that was read and reviewed at the time, because the eyewitness account doesn’t conform with your theory.
You could read the book, or talk to people who were alive in 1970, but I suspect either of those would be a little more than you’d be willing to do.
I’ll keep with my factual sources and let you create whatever hypothesis you find comforting.
You evidently failed to understand what is described in that book 🤷
Putting historical sources into context is a skill and comparing it to today’s situation can’t be done 1:1.
And how do you know I wasn’t alive in the 1970ties?
And how do you know I wasn’t alive in the 1970ties?
If you were alive in the 1970’s and didn’t know that the Rolling Stones were one of the top acts of the time, you’d have had to be a complete idiot.
On the other hand, maybe you were alive in the 1970s.
Are you having trouble understanding what you read? I never claimed that the Rolling Stones were not a top act in the 1979ties 🙄