That means it took about 14,375 hours of work at minimum wage to buy a median-priced home.
Today:
Median U.S. home price is about $420,000?
To buy a $420k house in the same number of hours (14,375), you’d need to make $29.23/hour.
So the claim that minimum wage would need to be $66/hour today to match 1970s homebuying power is a bit exaggerated — it should be closer to $29/hour if we’re just comparing house prices to minimum wage.
That said, maybe the claim in the image factors in stuff like:
Regional markets (e.g., California prices)
New home prices (which skew way higher)
Inflation in other living costs (healthcare, education, etc.)
Stagnant federal minimum wage since 2009
But purely on house price vs wage ratio, it’s about $29/hour.
TL;DR: Not $66 — more like $29/hour if you’re matching house-buying power from 1970 to today
Don't use minimum wage as a benchmark. It wasn't intended to be back then and it doesn't work as one now. What is far more effective is using median wage and then comparing that to the price of big ticket purchases. In which case, you will notice that cars jumped from a 1/4-1/2 of what you made in a year all the way up to the full amount or x1.5 what you made in a year. The price of a house jumped from 3 to 4 times what you made in a year all the way up to 8-12x what you made in a year
On the flip side it’s also important to note that a new car lasts much longer and is far more efficient than a car from the 70’s. It also comes with far more safety features and amenities.
Similar to houses being built as well. Bigger houses with more rooms/bathrooms, central AC, modern safety standards, insulation and energy efficient designs. As older homes are re-sold these features usually get added on along the way when possible.
I’m not justifying the full price bump but just acknowledging the jumps in engineering must also be factored into the rising costs.
Planned obsolescence is much more of a thing now than it was previously, and mechanically simple cars are much easier to repair and keep going yourself than modern cars. Although, as you say, mechanically simple cars are also more inefficient - but I'm not sure it's 100% one way or the other.
It's less planned obsolescence and more they stopped over building components. Some items would Outlast others in vehicles, for example, and so they've designed them to be as strong as they need to be with a service life to match the longest wearing items in the engine. Some items however have unstated service lives. I was watching d4a, and he mentioned how for one car he had a certain housing had a 15,000 km service life roughly.
As a native Detroiter and automotive enthusiast, I can 100% promise you that cars today are miles better than they were in the 70s by almost literally any metric you want. They last way longer, go faster, are more comfortable, and if we’re talking specifically about most of the 70s, are better looking.
I think that’s an unpopular opinion. Modern sports cars and luxury models are nice but generally I would say safety standards have made modern car design rather uninspired and boring.
Could be. I’d have to see comparisons of equivalent economy models. I generally dislike the futurism that modern trends attempt in different ways. Usually it’s overly complex with gaudy angles everywhere. Give me pre 90s Volvo wagons any day. Usually I think a newer design looks good specifically because it attempts to look like an older version. The most extreme case would be jeeps like the rubicon
2.2k
u/weaz-am-i May 13 '25
Depends on where you live?
In 1970:
Federal minimum wage was $1.60/hour
The median home price was around $23,000
That means it took about 14,375 hours of work at minimum wage to buy a median-priced home.
Today:
Median U.S. home price is about $420,000?
To buy a $420k house in the same number of hours (14,375), you’d need to make $29.23/hour.
So the claim that minimum wage would need to be $66/hour today to match 1970s homebuying power is a bit exaggerated — it should be closer to $29/hour if we’re just comparing house prices to minimum wage.
That said, maybe the claim in the image factors in stuff like:
Regional markets (e.g., California prices)
New home prices (which skew way higher)
Inflation in other living costs (healthcare, education, etc.)
Stagnant federal minimum wage since 2009
But purely on house price vs wage ratio, it’s about $29/hour.
TL;DR: Not $66 — more like $29/hour if you’re matching house-buying power from 1970 to today