• kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    170
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Inflation is a thing. If she was born in 1946, she would have gone to college around 1964. Which means that her tuition would have been about 7600 dollars today. That’s still lower than the average in-state tuition by about 2000 dollars, but just putting that into context. However, minimum wage in 1964 was 1.15/hr, which means it would have taken about 16 weeks at full time minimum wage to pay for one semester tuition vs the 33 weeks it takes today. That’s a much better metric of comparison. It would take over a year to pay for a year of school now vs half a bit over half year before.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      How does housing and food factor in too though, that’s only one portion of expenses. Entertainment costs far more for example, lots didn’t even really have entertainment than books.

      • gramathy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        4 months ago

        Also ignores the approximately $1000 of books you’re buying every year

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Entertainment costs far more for example, lots didn’t even really have entertainment than books.

        This is a bizarre statement. People have had entertainment since society has been a thing. It may not always look like what you do, but it has always been around, and yes, it was more than “books”.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That average person going to school could afford and access? Books and OTA cable were the usual options, now most of that even costs money. Most actually just drank, which of course isn’t a healthy nor really an option we should factor.

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            The fact you think all people had to do 50 years ago was read books and drink says enough.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              That was affordable and within access for most college students? I also provided other options… so clearly I don’t think those are the ONLY Options dude… for the demographic we are talking about, that’s the usual places.

              I can name a few, but they all seemingly have the same alcohol theme as well.

              Which demographic are you thinking we are talking about? Provide some options instead of just beaking off. You’re not adding to the discussion here. College students, probably had to rely on public transport. Not everyone is from well off families dude.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Or people don’t realize just how prevalent drinking was to be social or entertainment back then.

                  I haven’t seen much options presented that don’t reside around drinking, someone suggested taking the train to another city. Thats not an option in the USA, so it sounds like people are talking about their country like it applies to the USA….

          • wieson@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Theatre, live music events, cinema, arcades, the county fair, going to see another city

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Booze, booze, booze, booze and they don’t have vehicles, so how are they getting to another city?

              Most are centered around drinking while doing an activity.

              • wieson@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                None of my examples are centred around booze.

                The train.

                But here are even more examples: Watching a sports game (this one can involve alcohol), playing sports and games, going to the ice /roller skating rink, taking a walk/hike, having a picnic in the park, boat ride on a lake/river, frisbee, hackeysack, board games, jamming out/ making music.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Nowadays, but back when we are talking about, yeah they all centered around booze.

                  In NA there isn’t trains between cities dude…

                  Even a large portion of your new ones (other than free public) are all centered around the same main theme, drinking while hanging with friends.

                  What about solo entertainment? Most of your options are with other people which isn’t what people do all the time, most entertainment is solo, not with others.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        A podcast I was listening to today suggested that food is more affordable now than it was 50 yo. I don’t know if that’s true, but it would seem possible given all the science lowering costs for producers (additives, artificial ingredients, preservatives).

        • chknbwl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          I often wonder how inexpensive produce would be if GMO crops weren’t demonized. I know the USA has several varieties of GMO fruit and veg on the market, but it’s availability is so scarce, and many countries still outright ban any bioengineered organism.

          • sep@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            do not mind the gmo crops themself. but the companies pushing them are almost nestle level horrible. open source gmo crops. now sign me up.

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Costs are not the reason for higher food prices; it’s demand. They charge more because you have no option. The average person has no way or ability to grow food and not much aptitude for cooking. That’s a recipe for higher food prices.

            • chknbwl@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Cost is a function of supply and demand. GMO crops yield more, so there would be a larger supply, thus driving down cost if demand remains the same. This is totally pedantic though because you’re still right:

              They charge more because you have no option.

              I took capitalist greed as a given… my bad.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That makes sense, due to breeding one chicken produces more product by a few factors than it used to for example.

          But you would probably have to be on a specific diet to achieve it at the same time.

    • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      It should also be noted that a semester itself is about 16 weeks.

      So if you worked 16 weeks full time in the summer and 32 weeks part time during your 2 semesters, you’d have 4 weeks left in the year. At absolutely minimum wage, if you lived with your parents, that’s a fairly heavy workload, but perfectly feasible to do.

      Now, to pay for 2 semesters, you need to work full time for 66 weeks a year. Can you work full time while going to school? Can you manifest 8 extra weeks of full time work in a 52 week year? Can you even get a full time minimum wage job without your employer cutting hours to deny benefits?

    • ChexMax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      If the boss was born in '46 this is true, but she’s a lot more likely born at the later end of boomers, since '46 would age her at 78. I’m guessing she’s at or below retirement age, not well above it

      If the boomer is 60, it would only cost $2,267.87, adjusted.

      If they’re 65, it would have been 3,245.61.

      The numbers I got for tuition today: $41,540 at private colleges $11,260 at public colleges (in-state residents) $29,150 at public colleges (out-of-state residents)