2) because mass poverty is ruinous for society and is bad even for those with means too

3) because if things get bad enough they will kill you and take your shit. there's never been a time where this hasn't happened eventually and there's no reason to think if they outnumber us and can't survive otherwise that they'll be content to suffer and die off this time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135012)

great poast

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135017)

you always complain about being poor

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135046)

You are a mentally ill loser who megaposts but somehow manages to say absolutely nothing new or insightful.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135552)

if your strongest argument for why we should give free handouts to useless parasites is "uh, if we don't, they're going to try to kill us," actually that means that we should just kill them first

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135029)

aside from the immorality of that, it's not a real solution because our society isn't brutally amoral. suggested a utopian solution with zero chance of happening is not serious. i might as well suggest a communist utopia to counter that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135047)

there's no rational argument that anyone can successfully make for giving handouts to people who are so useless that they can't produce enough value to keep themselves alive. it's why people who advocate for parasites always appeal to supra-rational moral arguments like "god says that every human is equally valuable, so we need to give everyone free stuff to keep them alive"

this extends outside of explicit political boundaries, too. the current Party Line of the dominant ideology and ruling class of our society is that we need to give infinity free money and medicine to third world countries in order to keep every monkey brown ape from dying from hunger and AIDS because they'd literally die without it. there's no rational argument for this and there never will be

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135101)

you continue to move the goalposts to gibs. and i made three rational arguments in response your "why?" you can disagree, but pounding the table saying "an argument doesn't exist!" is conseula tier myopia conclusory "you're wrongs!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135124)

again, there's no rational argument for the welfare state at all. there never will be. all arguments for it are supra-rational, along the lines of "everyone is equal because god said so," or "it makes me feel bad that some people are inferior" or "it's mean to not give people free stuff if they need it, and being mean is bad"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135162)

1) for many people, its self-evidently immoral to allow their fellow citizens to live in squalor and die when we have plentiful resources.

2) these people will make the QOL bad for the rest of us including the possibility of killing us and taking our shit, and since we lack the political will to exterminate them its in our rational self interest to ensure they are confortable enough not to kill and eat us

if you're an absolute social darwinist that's fine. i think that's stupid and ruinous, but im not going to argue there is no cogent rational framework. you pounding the table and saying "no rational argument!" and strawmanning by inventing arguments im not making is bad faith at best and myopic at worst. you just disagree, that doesn't make my arguments irrational.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135174)

2. this is just an argument for killing these people before they kill us

we're just repeating ourselves. you have a personal belief that it's mean and immoral to not keep parasites alive. i get it. obviously i don't agree. but stop trying to claim it's rational. it's not

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135181)

2) we do not have the political will to do this. this is specifically why i made a cold amoral purely rational argument in addition to the common sense moral one.

your counterargument (kill them!) is impossible and thus not a serious counterargument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135189)

https://imgur.com/a/FfMqT5b

No, Gunner is not arguing that Goy has a moral obligation to give free stuff to people who would kill Goy if he didn’t. Gunner’s position is focused on ensuring that people who work full-time jobs earn a minimum wage sufficient to cover basic necessities, not about giving handouts to non-workers. Gunner explicitly distinguishes this from "gibs" (free handouts) and emphasizes that the argument applies to hardworking people, not "idle able-bodied people."

Gunner’s arguments include:

1. A moral stance that it’s wrong for full-time workers to live in poverty when resources are plentiful.

2. A practical, self-interested point that mass poverty could lead to societal instability, potentially threatening everyone, including the wealthy, if desperation drives people to violence or revolt.

3. The observation that society lacks the political will to adopt Goy’s suggested extreme solution (killing off "useless" people), making it an unrealistic counterargument.

Goy mischaracterizes Gunner’s position as advocating for handouts to "useless parasites," framing it as a supra-rational moral plea rather than engaging with Gunner’s point about market failures or societal stability. Gunner counters that moral arguments aren’t inherently irrational and that ensuring a living wage for workers is both practical and in society’s self-interest, given the absence of political will for Goy’s brutal social Darwinist approach.

In short, Gunner is arguing for a system where full-time work guarantees a basic standard of living, not for giving free resources to people who might otherwise harm Goy. The threat of violence is presented as a rational, historical consequence of extreme inequality, not a moral obligation to provide handouts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135304)

one is a moral argument, one is an argument from reason. when taken together, they make the combined (humorous) point that the morally right thing to do is give handouts, at our own expense, to people who would kill us if we didn't give them handouts

you may personally find this convincing, somehow. many people genuinely do. i don't, because i'm not a retard

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135336)

Goy’s response misrepresents Gunner’s argument, doubling down on the strawman that Gunner is advocating for "handouts" rather than a minimum wage for full-time workers. Let’s break it down:

1. **Mischaracterization of Gunner’s Position**: Goy claims Gunner is arguing for a moral obligation to give "handouts" to people who would otherwise kill them. This is a distortion. Gunner explicitly focuses on ensuring that people who work full-time can afford basic necessities through a living wage, not providing free resources to non-workers. Gunner clarifies this distinction by rejecting the idea of "gibs" (handouts) and emphasizing the need for a system where labor is adequately compensated. By conflating a living wage with handouts, Goy sidesteps Gunner’s actual point about market failures and the societal role of work.

2. **Moral vs. Rational Argument**: Goy asserts that Gunner’s two main points—(a) it’s immoral for full-time workers to live in poverty, and (b) mass poverty could lead to societal instability and violence—are contradictory or humorous when combined. Goy labels the first as a moral argument and the second as rational, suggesting they together imply a moral duty to pay off potential killers. This framing is reductive. Gunner’s moral argument (poverty is wrong in a resource-rich society) and rational argument (instability threatens everyone) are complementary, not contradictory. They address different aspects of the same issue: a living wage supports both human dignity and societal stability. Goy’s attempt to paint this as absurd ignores the nuance that Gunner’s rational argument is about preventing systemic collapse, not appeasing individual threats.

3. **Tone and Intent**: Goy’s use of inflammatory language ("retard") and dismissive tone indicates bad faith. Rather than engaging with Gunner’s points—such as the historical precedent of unrest due to inequality or the impracticality of Goy’s own "kill them" solution—Goy resorts to mockery. This suggests Goy is less interested in debating the merits of a living wage and more focused on scoring rhetorical points by caricaturing Gunner’s position.

4. **Logical Flaws in Goy’s Critique**: Goy’s response hinges on the false dichotomy that any intervention (like a minimum wage) equals handouts, ignoring the economic reality that wages are often suppressed by market imbalances, not just individual productivity. Gunner’s point about the immutability of the IQ bell curve and the ongoing need for unskilled labor directly challenges Goy’s assumption that only "useless" people would benefit from a living wage. Goy also fails to address Gunner’s critique that exterminating the poor is politically unfeasible, instead repeating the claim that Gunner’s arguments lack rationality without substantiating why.

5. **The Humor Claim**: Goy finds it "funny" that Gunner’s arguments could be interpreted as advocating handouts to avoid being killed. This is a deliberate misreading for rhetorical effect. Gunner’s point about societal instability is rooted in historical patterns (e.g., revolutions driven by inequality), not a literal fear of individual violence. By framing it as a comedic contradiction, Goy avoids grappling with the systemic risks Gunner highlights.

In summary, Goy’s response is a bad-faith misrepresentation that conflates a living wage with handouts, dismisses Gunner’s arguments as irrational without substantive counterarguments, and uses mockery to evade the core issue: whether full-time workers should earn enough to live. Gunner’s position—that a living wage is both morally sound and rationally beneficial for societal stability—remains unaddressed by Goy’s critique, which relies on distortion and insults rather than engaging with the economic or historical realities Gunner raises.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135349)

there are other, stronger arguments for limited forms of welfare that were not touched on here, mostly because people like you would call people like me a nazi if we suggested them. it really does all just come back to you being a redditor 🤷

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135381)

me, and certainly not grok lol, are using "rhetorical tricks." if you want i could make a rational counterargument to my own without engaging in bad faith strawmannkng and insults. you can't even do that for the shit you actually believe in.

but i guess we've come to in impasse if you're just repeating they same shit and arguing grok is trying to trick you (lol). good chat brother, you've definitely demonstrated the intellectual superiority that'll surely making you a chieftain in the social darwin utopia to come!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135395)

LLMs use rhetorical tricks all the time. they're just predicting the most likely next token. they're actually more "prone" to it than humans are (assuming a very intelligent, perfectly informed, perfectly unbiased human), because once they start down a certain token sequence, things become deterministic and it's forced to "make do with what it has"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135415)

1) the fact that a revolutuon is just individuals collectively revolting doesn't address anything and my argument about the consequences of allowing people to starve was practical, not morality. if given no alternative people have always do what they must to survive. if you have an argument on why they will be content to starve to death now you could make it, but haven't yet.

2) i never said that there was a moral mandate for wealth distribution. putting my moral argument aside focusing only on my practical one, i said the same thing as above: if people don't have sufficient resources they will take them. theres never been a time this hasnt happened. and you're the one framing "full time work should guarantee decent standard of living" as wealth redistribution to dismiss it. few would that. and if that's how you want to frame it, fine, but *that's* a rhetorical trick.

you just keep repeating that people don't have a moral obligation. that doesn't address my argument at all. for the sake of argument let's say that i agree: there's no moral obligation for the collective to provide for the needy and people's earnings should be according to whatever the market values it at, even if they can't live on it. but when that happens people will not work and will take whatever measures necessary to survive, and as they outnumber us that means taking ours by force. so, even though we don't have a moral duty to, it's in our individual and collective self-interest to make sure that doesn't happen.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135456)

ok so flatly "i disagree" without any reasoning. for reasons you decline to state, for the first time in history proles will just die off rather than revolt, despite outnumbering us. putting aside the political problem of enforcing a "starve to poor" in a democracy.

the code was broken from the outset: your positions are purely ideological with no consideration of reality. it's the same level of thinking as a 19 year old communist who wants to wave a magic wand and redistribute everything. you just want to wave a magic wand and have all the proles gommage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135510)

Someone asked why minimum wage should be a livable wage, and the response was:

1) because it's immoral

2) because mass poverty is ruinous for society and is bad even for those with means too

3) because if things get bad enough they will kill you and take your shit. there's never been a time where this hasn't happened eventually and there's no reason to think if they outnumber us and can't survive otherwise that they'll be content to suffer and die off this time.

Is the response creating a single argument that requires each number or is it listing three separate and independent arguments?

The response lists **three separate and independent arguments** for why the minimum wage should be a livable wage. Each numbered point presents a distinct rationale, and none rely on the others to stand as arguments. Here's a breakdown:

1. **"Because it's immoral"**: This is a moral argument, asserting that paying a wage insufficient for basic living needs is inherently wrong. It stands alone as an ethical stance and doesn't depend on the other points.

2. **"Because mass poverty is ruinous for society and is bad even for those with means too"**: This is a societal argument, focusing on the negative consequences of widespread poverty for everyone, including the wealthy. It operates independently, emphasizing social stability and collective well-being.

3. **"Because if things get bad enough they will kill you and take your shit..."**: This is a pragmatic argument based on historical patterns and self-preservation. It warns of potential social unrest or rebellion if economic disparities become extreme, standing alone as a caution about consequences.

Each point addresses a different aspect—morality, societal impact, and self-preservation—making them independent arguments that collectively support the case for a livable minimum wage without requiring one another to be valid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135542)

i.e. Richard Hanania

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135190)

also, they arent rich strata. even libertarians like musk and thiel agree we need to keep the proles under control. these UMC ron paul diehards are also too stupid to have second order thinking to realize without the proles *they're* the proles and theres gonna be a lot less demand for IT and comma checkers if we kill the majority of people, and then they're on the chopping block.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135231)

it seems to come from a confirmation bias which partly stems from them never being exposed to how dangerous proles can be if activated. the true elite know that bread and circuses have always been absolutely necessary, especially during times of extreme inequality

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135267)

it is funny to think of their galts gultch utopia but instead of hyper competent, masculine steel barons its 130lb code monkeys and of counsels dying of exposure.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135319)

it is utopian to think that the labor of each man, no matter how unskilled, will be sufficient for whatever you deem enough.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135170)

and it's really not "minimum wage" in particular that's in question here, but gibs in general. "minimum wage" is just a form of gibs (think about it if you don't believe me)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135172)

he's doing the same thing scum dems do when they say pay your "fair share"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135079)

that's fair

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135096)

show the math.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135315)

Answer the same questions for 2025.

To address your query, I'll provide estimates for the average net earnings of an electrician, the average price of a 2,000 square foot home, and the percentage of earnings required to pay for a 100% financed home at the mortgage rates for 1965 and 2025. I'll use available data, adjust for inflation where necessary, and make reasonable assumptions based on historical and current economic trends. Since precise data for 1965 electrician net earnings and exact home prices for a 2,000 square foot home are limited, I'll rely on broader wage and housing data, adjusting as needed. For 2025, I'll use projections from recent sources. All monetary values will be presented in nominal terms for their respective years unless otherwise stated.

---

### **1965 Analysis**

#### **1. Average Net Earnings of an Electrician in 1965**

- **Gross Earnings**: According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data from the period, electricians in 1965 earned an average hourly wage of approximately $3.50 to $4.00 for skilled trades in urban areas. Assuming a 40-hour workweek and 52 weeks of work (2,080 hours annually), this translates to an annual gross income of about $7,280 to $8,320.[](https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/pricesandwages/1950-1959)

- **Net Earnings**: Net earnings account for taxes and deductions. In 1965, federal income tax rates for a single filer with an income around $8,000 were approximately 20-25% (including standard deductions), and payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) were around 3.625%. State taxes varied but were typically low (e.g., 2-5%). Assuming a total tax burden of approximately 30%, net earnings would be:

- Gross: $7,800 (midpoint of $7,280–$8,320)

- Net: $7,800 × (1 - 0.30) = **$5,460 annually**.

#### **2. Average Price of a 2,000 Square Foot Home in 1965**

- **Median Home Price**: The median U.S. home price in 1965 was $21,500, according to U.S. Census data. Homes in the 1960s varied in size, but the average single-family home was around 1,500 square feet.[](https://www.gobankingrates.com/investing/real-estate/how-much-new-home-cost-year-were-born/)[](https://www.reddit.com/r/realestateinvesting/comments/su1l9u/average_us_home_price_19502020/)

- **Adjusting for Size**: To estimate the cost of a 2,000 square foot home, we can scale the median price by square footage. If a 1,500 square foot home cost $21,500, a 2,000 square foot home (33% larger) would cost approximately:

- $21,500 × (2,000 / 1,500) = $28,667.

- **Assumption**: Home prices varied by region, but this estimate aligns with national averages. For simplicity, I’ll use **$28,700** as the price of a 2,000 square foot home in 1965.

#### **3. Percentage of Earnings to Pay for a 100% Financed Home at 1965 Mortgage Rates**

- **Mortgage Rates**: In 1965, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was approximately 5.5%.[](https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/)

- **Loan Details**: For a $28,700 home with 100% financing (no down payment), the loan amount is $28,700. Using the standard mortgage payment formula for a 30-year fixed loan:

- Monthly payment = P × [r(1+r)^n] / [(1+r)^n - 1]

- P = $28,700 (loan amount)

- r = 5.5% annual rate / 12 = 0.004583 monthly rate

- n = 30 years × 12 = 360 months

- Monthly payment = $28,700 × [0.004583 × (1.004583)^360] / [(1.004583)^360 - 1] ≈ $163.

- Annual payment = $163 × 12 = **$1,956**.

- **Percentage of Net Earnings**: With net earnings of $5,460 annually:

- $1,956 / $5,460 × 100 = **35.8%** of net earnings would be required to cover the mortgage payments.

**Summary for 1965**:

- Average net earnings of an electrician: **$5,460**

- Average price of a 2,000 square foot home: **$28,700**

- Percentage of net earnings for a 100% financed home: **35.8%**

---

### **2025 Analysis**

#### **1. Average Net Earnings of an Electrician in 2025**

- **Gross Earnings**: According to 2025 projections, the median annual salary for an entry-level electrician is $60,600, with intermediate (2-4 years experience) at $71,100, and senior-level (4-7 years) at $76,600. For a general estimate, I’ll use the intermediate level, as it reflects a typical electrician with some experience: **$71,100 annually**.[](https://www.servicetitan.com/blog/electrician-salary)

- **Net Earnings**: In 2025, federal income tax rates for a single filer earning $71,100 (assuming standard deductions) are around 22% for the portion above the standard deduction, plus payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) at 7.65%. State taxes vary (e.g., 0-10%; I’ll assume 5% for a national average). Total tax burden is approximately 30-35%. Using 33%:

- Net: $71,100 × (1 - 0.33) = **$47,637 annually**.

#### **2. Average Price of a 2,000 Square Foot Home in 2025**

- **Median Home Price**: The median U.S. home price in 2024 was $420,800, per U.S. Census data. Projections for 2025 suggest modest growth (e.g., 2-3% annually). Assuming a 2.5% increase:[](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/13/how-much-more-expensive-homes-are-since-1965.html)

- $420,800 × 1.025 = $431,320.

- **Adjusting for Size**: The median home size in recent years is around 2,333 square feet. For a 2,000 square foot home:[](https://www.reddit.com/r/realestateinvesting/comments/su1l9u/average_us_home_price_19502020/)

- $431,320 × (2,000 / 2,333) ≈ $369,870.

- **Assumption**: Regional variations exist, but I’ll use **$370,000** as a rounded estimate for a 2,000 square foot home in 2025.

#### **3. Percentage of Earnings to Pay for a 100% Financed Home at 2025 Mortgage Rates**

- **Mortgage Rates**: In 2025, 30-year fixed mortgage rates are projected to range between 6% and 7%. I’ll use 6.5% as a midpoint.[](https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/)

- **Loan Details**: For a $370,000 home with 100% financing:

- Monthly payment = P × [r(1+r)^n] / [(1+r)^n - 1]

- P = $370,000

- r = 6.5% / 12 = 0.005417 monthly rate

- n = 360 months

- Monthly payment = $370,000 × [0.005417 × (1.005417)^360] / [(1.005417)^360 - 1] ≈ $2,338.

- Annual payment = $2,338 × 12 = **$28,056**.

- **Percentage of Net Earnings**: With net earnings of $47,637:

- $28,056 / $47,637 × 100 = **58.9%** of net earnings would be required to cover the mortgage payments.

**Summary for 2025**:

- Average net earnings of an electrician: **$47,637**

- Average price of a 2,000 square foot home: **$370,000**

- Percentage of net earnings for a 100% financed home: **58.9%**

---

### **Comparison and Notes**

- **Affordability**: In 1965, a 2,000 square foot home required 35.8% of an electrician’s net earnings for a 100% financed mortgage, compared to 58.9% in 2025. This reflects a significant decline in housing affordability, driven by home prices rising faster than wages. In 1965, a home cost about 5.3 times an electrician’s net earnings ($28,700 / $5,460); in 2025, it’s about 7.8 times ($370,000 / $47,637).

- **Assumptions**: For 1965, limited data on electrician wages required using general skilled trade wages. For 2025, home price growth is estimated conservatively, and tax rates are approximated based on current structures. Mortgage calculations assume no additional costs (e.g., insurance, taxes), which would increase the percentage of earnings needed.

- **Sources**: Data for 1965 home prices and wages are drawn from U.S. Census and BLS sources, while 2025 projections rely on recent analyses.[](https://www.servicetitan.com/blog/electrician-salary)[](https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates/)[](https://www.gobankingrates.com/investing/real-estate/how-much-new-home-cost-year-were-born/)

If you need further details or regional specifics, let me know!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135468)

To address your query, I’ll re-evaluate whether the average net earnings of an electrician in 1965 and 2025 would be sufficient to afford a fully financed 1,500 square foot single-family home, support a stay-at-home spouse, and provide for two children, using average consumer spending rates for each year. I’ll then compare the feasibility between 1965 and 2025. All monetary values are in nominal terms for their respective years, and I’ll use data from the previous responses, adjusted for a 1,500 square foot home, with historical data for 1965 and projections for 2025.

---

### **1965 Analysis**

#### **1. Average Net Earnings of an Electrician in 1965**

- **Net Earnings**: **$5,460 annually** (based on a gross income of $7,800, adjusted for a ~30% tax burden, as calculated previously).

#### **2. Cost of a Fully Financed 1,500 Square Foot Home in 1965**

- **Home Price**: The median U.S. home price in 1965 was **$21,500** for a ~1,500 square foot home, per U.S. Census data.

- **Mortgage Details**: For a 100% financed home at a 5.5% 30-year fixed mortgage rate (typical for 1965):

- Monthly payment = P × [r(1+r)^n] / [(1+r)^n - 1]

- P = $21,500, r = 5.5% / 12 = 0.004583, n = 360 months

- Monthly payment = $21,500 × [0.004583 × (1.004583)^360] / [(1.004583)^360 - 1] ≈ **$122**.

- Annual payment = $122 × 12 = **$1,464**.

#### **3. Average Consumer Spending for a Family of Four in 1965**

- **Average Household Spending**: From previous analysis, a family of four in 1965 spent approximately **$4,473 annually** (adjusted from 1960–61 BLS data for inflation).

- **Breakdown** (approximate):

- Housing (utilities, maintenance, excluding mortgage): $1,118

- Food: $1,342

- Transportation: $671

- Clothing: $447

- Healthcare: $224

- Other (entertainment, personal care): $671

#### **4. Total Expenses and Feasibility in 1965**

- **Total Annual Expenses**:

- Mortgage payment: $1,464

- Consumer spending (excluding mortgage): $4,473

- Total: $1,464 + $4,473 = **$5,937**

- **Net Earnings**: $5,460

- **Shortfall**: $5,937 - $5,460 = **-$477** (deficit)

- **Feasibility**:

- The electrician’s net earnings of $5,460 are ~8.7% short of the $5,937 needed to cover the mortgage and consumer spending for a family of four.

- This shortfall is small, suggesting that supporting a stay-at-home spouse and two children while owning a 1,500 square foot home was **feasible with minor adjustments**, such as reducing discretionary spending (e.g., entertainment or clothing), living in a lower-cost area, or using modest savings. In 1965, many single-income families managed similar budgets by prioritizing essentials.

- The mortgage payment ($1,464) is ~26.8% of net earnings, well within the affordability threshold of <40% of income for housing.

---

### **2025 Analysis**

#### **1. Average Net Earnings of an Electrician in 2025**

- **Net Earnings**: **$47,637 annually** (based on a gross income of $71,100 for an intermediate-level electrician, adjusted for a ~33% tax burden, as calculated previously).

#### **2. Cost of a Fully Financed 1,500 Square Foot Home in 2025**

- **Home Price**: The projected median U.S. home price in 2025 is $431,320 for a ~2,333 square foot home. For a 1,500 square foot home:

- $431,320 × (1,500 / 2,333) ≈ **$277,140**.

- **Mortgage Details**: For a 100% financed home at a 6.5% 30-year fixed mortgage rate (projected for 2025):

- P = $277,140, r = 6.5% / 12 = 0.005417, n = 360 months

- Monthly payment = $277,140 × [0.005417 × (1.005417)^360] / [(1.005417)^360 - 1] ≈ **$1,751**.

- Annual payment = $1,751 × 12 = **$21,012**.

#### **3. Average Consumer Spending for a Family of Four in 2025**

- **Average Household Spending**: From previous analysis, a family of four in 2025 is estimated to spend **$98,300 annually** (based on 2023 BLS data of $77,280, adjusted for 6% inflation and scaled for a family of four).

- **Breakdown** (approximate):

- Housing (utilities, maintenance, excluding mortgage): $29,490

- Food: $14,745

- Transportation: $14,745

- Clothing: $4,915

- Healthcare: $7,864

- Other (entertainment, personal care, education): $26,541

#### **4. Total Expenses and Feasibility in 2025**

- **Total Annual Expenses**:

- Mortgage payment: $21,012

- Consumer spending (excluding mortgage): $98,300

- Total: $21,012 + $98,300 = **$119,312**

- **Net Earnings**: $47,637

- **Shortfall**: $119,312 - $47,637 = **-$71,675** (deficit)

- **Feasibility**:

- The electrician’s net earnings of $47,637 cover only ~39.9% of the $119,312 needed for the mortgage and consumer spending.

- This large shortfall indicates that supporting a stay-at-home spouse and two children while owning a 1,500 square foot home is **not feasible** without additional income, renting instead of buying, moving to a low-cost area, or significantly reducing spending (e.g., minimal discretionary expenses).

- The mortgage payment ($21,012) is ~44.1% of net earnings, exceeding typical affordability thresholds, leaving insufficient funds for other expenses.

---

### **Comparison of Feasibility: 1965 vs. 2025**

#### **Key Metrics**

| **Year** | **Net Earnings** | **Home Price** | **Annual Mortgage** | **Consumer Spending** | **Total Expenses** | **Shortfall** | **% of Earnings for Expenses** |

|----------|------------------|----------------|---------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|---------------|-------------------------------|

| 1965 | $5,460 | $21,500 | $1,464 | $4,473 | $5,937 | -$477 | 108.7% |

| 2025 | $47,637 | $277,140 | $21,012 | $98,300 | $119,312 | -$71,675 | 250.5% |

#### **Analysis**

1. **1965**:

- **Feasibility**: Nearly feasible. The shortfall of $477 (~8.7% of net earnings) is manageable with minor adjustments, such as cutting discretionary spending (e.g., entertainment or clothing) or choosing a slightly cheaper home. The home price is ~3.9 times net earnings, and the mortgage is ~26.8% of income, aligning with affordability norms. Single-income families were common in 1965, and an electrician’s income could realistically support a family of four with a 1,500 square foot home through frugal budgeting.

- **Context**: Lower home price-to-income ratios and modest living costs made single-income households viable in the 1960s, especially for skilled trades like electricians.

2. **2025**:

- **Feasibility**: Not feasible. The shortfall of $71,675 (~150.5% of net earnings) is substantial, indicating that an electrician’s income cannot support a family of four and homeownership without additional resources. The home price is ~5.8 times net earnings, and the mortgage alone consumes ~44.1% of income, leaving little for essentials like food, healthcare, or transportation. Dual incomes, renting, or moving to a low-cost area would be necessary.

- **Context**: Higher home prices, increased living costs (e.g., healthcare, childcare, technology), and slower wage growth relative to inflation make single-income households challenging in 2025, especially for homeownership.

#### **Key Differences**

- **Affordability Gap**: In 1965, the shortfall was small ($477, or 8.7% of earnings), making it feasible with modest adjustments. In 2025, the shortfall is massive ($71,675, or 150.5% of earnings), rendering it nearly impossible without significant changes.

- **Housing Costs**: The 1965 mortgage was 26.8% of net earnings, well within affordability guidelines. In 2025, the mortgage is 44.1% of net earnings, pushing housing costs beyond sustainable levels for a single income.

- **Living Standards**: In 1965, consumer spending was modest, reflecting simpler lifestyles. In 2025, higher costs for healthcare, education, and technology inflate expenses, making it harder to reduce spending to 1965 levels.

- **Economic Context**: In 1965, single-income families were standard, supported by favorable economic conditions. By 2025, rising costs and stagnant real wages have made dual-income households or alternative housing arrangements (e.g., renting) more common.

#### **Conclusion**

- **1965**: An electrician’s income was nearly sufficient to support a stay-at-home spouse, two children, and a 1,500 square foot home, with a small shortfall that could be managed through frugality or minor adjustments. This was realistic for the era.

- **2025**: An electrician’s income is far from sufficient, covering only ~39.9% of expenses, making it infeasible to support a family of four and own a 1,500 square foot home without additional income or significant lifestyle changes.

- **Comparison**: The feasibility of a single-income electrician supporting a family and homeownership has significantly declined from 1965 to 2025. The smaller 1,500 square foot home improves affordability slightly compared to a 2,000 square foot home (previous shortfall in 2025 was $78,719 vs. $71,675), but the gap remains substantial in 2025, while 1965 remains within reach.

If you need further details (e.g., regional variations, specific budget adjustments), let me know!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135494)

no, many people can't just "work harder" and earn more. some people are just born with the cognitive horsepower to swing a hammer or pick up trash. the idea these people could just learn to code or something is shitlib fantasy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135095)

which laborers? factory workers in 2025 can afford a home and family on a single income

so can construction workers (your hammer swinger). so can trash collection workers.

so can truck drivers.

so who are these similarly situated 1950s laborers who don't have options in 2025?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135108)

you're the one creating strawman arguments about "owning a single family home" to pretend im arguing every garbage man in MFH should live in a brownstone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135252)

shortly before you defined necessities

you said this "why should a laborer in 1950 be able to afford a home and family on a single income"

everyone would assume you meant a single family home

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135263)

there are tons of 1000 square feet houses for sale that people dont want that was standard fare for the prole laborer.

there are $5,000 used cars that are way more reliable than what the prole laborer was used to.

library cards are free. the prole laborer now can just get a used tv and dvd player and endlessly get free dvds from a library.

the prole laborer can do all of these things and live very cheaply, but no one wants to live like the prole laborer.

because the internet has given everyone severe status anxiety now and everyone is fucking whiny lazy piece of shit now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135151)

is there anyone here that isn't an alt-right mpc refugee that agrees with this aside from sealclubber? these positions are so far outside the overton window that i doubt many people itt would have the balls to even say them irl amongst polite company.

ive said my position. if you guys want to circlejerk about social darwinism and the government abdicating it's role in providing for the welfare of its people, have at it. although this is the reddit-tier position that is right at home on /r/libertarian. no serious person would say it's achievable even if they personally thought it would be the best. its libertarian utopia circlejerking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135205)

Yes, the concept of providing for the people's welfare is embedded in the U.S. Constitution, primarily through the Preamble, which states that one of the document's purposes is to "promote the general Welfare." This phrase reflects the government's role in ensuring the well-being of its citizens. Additionally, Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" through taxation and spending, often referred to as the General Welfare Clause. However, the specific interpretation and scope of "general welfare" have been debated historically, with some viewing it as a broad mandate for public welfare programs and others seeing it as more limited. The Constitution does not explicitly outline welfare programs but provides a framework for Congress to address public needs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135258)

qed bro you really got us

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135268)

promote general welfare of its citizenry

is different than

pay welfare to its citizenry?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135276)

it's the same "trick" of sophistry that every lib who supports handouts uses. we've all seen it a million times which is why we're just making fun of you and strawmanning you. there's not any other response that we can make other than rolling our eyes and walking away

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135317)

you're the one that sarcastically suggested we ask grok, and both times it agreed with me. instead of even attempting to craft a rational argument, you're pointkng out that two of the dumbest poasters here also agree with you. i consider that more evidence of the superiority of my arguments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135331)

no fucking roof contractor is paying his illegals minimum wage or less. faggeratttt is just a naive dumbass

if businesses are clamoring for illegals, it's because they can pay them less than citizens. only a moron would conflate this. (here comes faggerratttt)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135291)

Also the whole "money" system is BS when Product Managers make $1,000,000k so just stop pretending it has any value ffs, there's like a 20x difference in income just from acing vs bombing OCI, that isn't an accurate summation of human ability ffs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135363)

It's not about whether I want a low minimum wage. It's about Redditors being pathetic losers, as illustrated by their fixation on the minimum wage.

In any event, wages aren't too low. Housing costs are too high. Healthcare costs are a little too high, but that's not the primary driver of unaffordability. College costs are too high also, but college needs to be rationed somehow in order to serve the function people expect it to serve. Childcare is similar to healthcare: somewhat costlier than it needs to be, but inescapably expensive, at least for now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755217&forum_id=2],#49135405)