From: "Elizabeth Richardson" 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Re: Standard of Living
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:06:05 -0500
	iQBVAwUAROpmjvl/I4+O31e5AQEGAQIArygbXsHN+Xvzk/PQYpPULo136L1M3HWK
	+fZ5vWP59T8kwW2I3nHVQWyPBYdbxYbpbPvXMS7OI9ABhhWJnATmdQ==
	=yLOU



If the average person's furniture
> is of worse quality today than it was 50 years ago, then I think that
> is a drop in that aspect of the standard of living.
>

I wasn't necessarily responding to the furniture comment. This whole thread
has talked about the cost of living, while the subject is the standard of
living. Most people didn't own their own homes in 1950. I don't know whether
it's yet a majority of people now, but it's certainly a much larger
percentage. That's an increase in the standard of living, regardless of the
cost of houses. And, frankly, most of those who had homes, didn't have
dining rooms, so how much dining room furniture cost in 1950 vs 2006 is a
moot point. I know that few people had TVs in 1950, while it is an unusual
household in the US today that doesn't have one. That's an increase in the
standard of living, no matter what TVs cost today vs 1950. Most of the
people who had telephones in 1950 had a party line. Does anyone think that
today's phone service isn't an increase in the standard? I could go on and
on. Given, the cost of living has risen enormously. So has the standard of
living, which is the subject.

Elizabeth Richardson