Current Events > Woman with $20 of grocery going to her $25000 house in 1980

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0543f14c.jpg

Reaganomics really messed everything up.

Reagan proposed a phased 30% tax cut for the first three years of his Presidency. The bulk of the cut would be concentrated at the upper income levels. The economic theory behind the wisdom of such a plan was called supply-side or trickle-down economics.

Tax relief for the rich would enable them to spend and invest more. This new spending would stimulate the economy and create new jobs. Reagan believed that a tax cut of this nature would ultimately generate even more revenue for the federal government. The Congress was not as sure as Reagan, but they did approve a 25% cut during Reagan's first term.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/59b.asp

Turns out the rich having more money because they are taxed less they just buy up all the houses and now you don't have a house.

Trickle
Trickle
spray

The results of this plan were mixed. Initially, the Federal Reserve Board believed the tax cut would re-ignite inflation and raise interest rates. This sparked a deep recession in 1981 and 1982. The high interest rates caused the value of the dollar to rise on the international exchange market, making American goods more expensive abroad. As a result, exports decreased while imports increased. Eventually, the economy stabilized in 1983, and the remaining years of Reagan's administration showed national growth.

The national debt tripled from one to three trillion dollars during the Reagan Years. The President and conservatives in Congress cried for a balanced budget amendment, but neither branch had the discipline to propose or enact a balanced budget. The growth that Americans enjoyed during the 1980s came at a huge price for the generations to follow.

Fed reserve is kind smart. Not everything they do is amazing but they knew.

Don't believe everything you read online
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/01f2dfc9.jpg

NPC posted...

Don't believe everything you read online
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/01f2dfc9.jpg

ah yes, boomers, the epitome of knowing how much $20 was worth in bygone years as they murmur "Reagan was the greatest president of all", maybe not all but feels like a lot

important to note that while Reagan was the figurehead in office while these disastrous policies were implemented, they weren't his idea. he was put in office and given his whole entire playbook by the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative political advocacy group who is currently spearheading Project 2025.

It's an exaggeration, but the point still stands.

WingsOfGood posted...

ah yes, boomers, the epitome of knowing how much $20 was worth in bygone years as they murmur "Reagan was the greatest president of all"

The person who made the meme said that they made it up and didn't know the prices of things

WingsOfGood posted...

Reaganomics really messed everything up.

Not that (the photo) bad.

Lots of us here were around in 80s and you couldn't even get half that cart for $20.

DoesntMatter posted...

important to note that while Reagan was the figurehead in office while these disastrous policies were implemented, they weren't his idea. he was put in office and given his whole entire playbook by the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative political advocacy group who is currently spearheading Project 2025.

Thanks for that note. Interesting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/15/heritage-foundation-republican-foreign-policy/

I think its safe to assume that ISNT 20 bucks worth of food. But 40ish sounds more likely.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Not that (the photo) bad.

Lots of us here were around in 80s and you couldn't even get half that cart for $20.

$20 in 1980 = $79.99 in 2024
https://www.amortization.org/inflation/amount.php?amount=20

Milk in 1980 from google
A half-gallon of milk cost $1.09 circa 1985, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

https://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80sfood.html

Ground Beef $1.39 per pound
New York1980

NPC posted...

Don't believe everything you read online
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/01f2dfc9.jpg

It's obviously exaggerated for effect, but it's true that houses were cheaper when compared to income and that groceries were cheaper as well. Hell, even just the period before the pandemic and after the pandemic showed major and obvious price increases and not just coincidentally, trump had given huge tax cuts and lots of money to rich people. It's just pure naked greed.

That's more like $50 worth

A lot of those items barely cost a dollar. Count how many are in the cart.

I see only 15 items

Maybe if you imply there is more buried beneath but it really seems like $20 is accurate or very close

WingsOfGood posted...

A lot of those items barely cost a dollar. Count how many are in the cart.

I see only 15 items

Maybe if you imply there is more buried beneath but it really seems like $20 is accurate or very close

WingsOfGood posted...

$20 in 1980 = $79.99 in 2024
https://www.amortization.org/inflation/amount.php?amount=20

Milk in 1980 from google
A half-gallon of milk cost $1.09 circa 1985, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Milk is one of the cheapest commodities available. A gallon of milk today is $3. And no most of that shit there isn't a dollar. Again we grew up with dollar stores where everything in it actually was a dollar and none of that shit was there.

When's the last time you've gone shopping? Did you spend $80 or more? Did your cart look as full as that?

In the late 80s a completely full shopping cart like that would run you between $70-$90 depending on what was in it.

WingsOfGood posted...

A lot of those items barely cost a dollar. Count how many are in the cart.

I see only 15 items

Maybe if you imply there is more buried beneath but it really seems like $20 is accurate or very close

My man, you need glasses.

even in a bullshit photo, there is definitely more than 15 items. Because as you said, there is implication there are more items buried and you cant even see the entire cart.

Let's break it down for the doubters.

Info all sourced from google search:

The average price of 18 ounces of Kellogg's Corn Flakes in the 1980s was $1.38

pasta
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1980/10/07/Pasta-Price-jumps-but-still-a-nutritional-bargain/2425339739200/

In New York City, for example, the price of a pound of spaghetti rose from 49 cents in November last year to 69 cents in September 1980. A pound of noodles, 65 cents six months ago, was 95 cents in September in area stores.

Hard to believe?

It sure is. But that cart is stuffed with things costing barely a dollar

Tyranthraxus posted...

A gallon of milk today is $3

Here in north NJ it breaches $5, it super sucks.

See in her cart she has the 6 pack bottle of something?

Is it soda? Is it water?

GUESS WHAT

How much did a can of Coke cost in 1980? In the early 1980's A 16 oz glass bottle was 25 cents. There was a 10 cent deposit on the bottle, so you had to bring in an empty or the Coke cost 35 cents

Probably hard to realize they were THAT cheap back then huh?
Yes.
Seeing how a bottle of Soda can cost $2 today

Imagine it being a quarter

WingsOfGood posted...

See in her cart she has the 6 pack bottle of something?

Is it soda? Is it water?

GUESS WHAT

Probably hard to realize they were THAT cheap back then huh?
Yes.
Seeing how a bottle of Soda can cost $2 today

Imagine it being a quarter

That 6-pack is Pepsi. I recognize that logo anywhere.

good article
https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/what-dollar-bought-year-you-were-born-gallery/

around 1980 a dollar could buy 2 packages of spaghetti
a jar of peanut butter
5 lbs of onions
3 lbs of banana
package of keebler crackers

NOW onto the Kraft box in her cart in the image:

25 cents
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/6ccd4c60.jpg

til kraft mac and cheese debuted at the price of 19 cents

now maybe it wasn't 25 cents but this pic suggests it was, maybe this was extra large?

ok 50 cents

UNDER A DOLLAR for that huge thing

DirkDiggles posted...

That 6-pack is Pepsi. I recognize that logo anywhere.

It's not a 6 pack. That is either a 3-pack or 4-pack of 2 liter bottles.

DirkDiggles posted...

That 6-pack is Pepsi. I recognize that logo anywhere.

so likely a quarter per bottle and in actuality even cheaper as grocer would have deals going like they do today or she have coupons

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's not a 6 pack. That is either a 3-pack or 4-pack of 2 liter bottles.

Even better

that means that one item taking much space is under a dollar!!!

How that GME

Trumpo posted...

Strange that you cannot refute the research I did and try to change the subject. Why would you do this?

The fact of the matter is the more it is looked into the more the picture in the OP seems to be confirmed that INDEED $20 did infact buy all that stuff.

Multiple items under a dollar. Some even just 50 cents or LESS.

Reagan really did a number on this country.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0543f14c.jpg

People are focusing on a lot of other things in the cart, but the coffee alone would be around $4.

That particular mac & cheese ran from 1967-1976.

aarrgus posted...

People are focusing on a lot of other things in the cart, but the coffee alone would be around $4.

Which item is coffee? Give me the brand and the estimated ounces\lbs and I will find the price.

Oderus_Urungus posted...

That particular mac & cheese ran from 1967-1976.

Then it would have been REALLY cheap in 1980

CLEARANCE DEALS BABY

Cool, now tell us how much she got paid.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Cool, now tell us how much she got paid.

Most likely was a stay at home mom while her husband had a barely average job which MORE than paid for their house, cars, kids and everything in between. No sign of struggle.

aarrgus posted...

People are focusing on a lot of other things in the cart, but the coffee alone would be around $4.

The price on that coffee was reduced two years prior down to $2.93 according to The Washington Post. After which I found nothing that suggested that the price changed in the following two years.

Basically 1980 was before the typical job was gutted by insane capitalism:

https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Broke-Capitalism-America_and/dp/198217644X

In 1981, Jack Welch took over General Electric and quickly rose to fame as the first celebrity CEO. He golfed with presidents, mingled with movie stars, and was idolized for growing GE into the most valuable company in the world. But Welchs achievements didnt stem from some greater intelligence or business prowess. Rather, they were the result of a sustained effort to push GEs stock price ever higher, often at the expense of workers, consumers, and innovation. In this captivating, revelatory book, David Gelles argues that Welch single-handedly ushered in a new, cutthroat era of American capitalism that continues to this day.

Gelles chronicles Welchs campaign to vaporize hundreds of thousands of jobs in a bid to boost profits, eviscerating the countrys manufacturing base and destabilizing the middle class. Welchs obsession with downsizinghe eliminated 10% of employees every yearfundamentally altered GE and inspired generations of imitators who have employed his strategies at other companies around the globe. In his day, Welch was corporate Americas leading proponent of mergers and acquisitions, using deals to gobble up competitors and giving rise to an economy that is more concentrated and less dynamic. And Welch pioneered the dark arts of financialization, transforming GE from an admired industrial manufacturer into what was effectively an unregulated bank. The finance business was hugely profitable in the short term and helped Welch keep GEs stock price ticking up. But ultimately, financialization undermined GE and dozens of other Fortune 500 companies.

Gelles shows how Welchs celebrated emphasis on increasing shareholder value by any means necessary (layoffs, outsourcing, offshoring, acquisitions, and buybacks, to name but a few tactics) became the norm in American business generally. He demonstrates how that approach has led to the greatest socioeconomic inequality since the Great Depression and harmed many of the very companies that have embraced it. And he shows how a generation of Welch acolytes radically transformed companies like Boeing, Home Depot, Kraft Heinz, and more. Finally, Gelles chronicles the change that is now afoot in corporate America, highlighting companies and leaders who have abandoned Welchism and are proving that it is still possible to excel in the business world without destroying livelihoods, gutting communities, and spurning regulation.

WingsOfGood posted...

Most likely was a stay at home mom while her husband had a barely average job which MORE than paid for their house, cars, kids and everything in between. No sign of struggle.

Plenty of made up numbers when it's convenient.

Vague SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO WORK AND HER HUSBAND MADE PLENTY SHUT UP when it's not.

You might as well have rolled with it and said a hundred an hour as a receptionist.

WingsOfGood posted...

$20 in 1980 = $79.99 in 2024
https://www.amortization.org/inflation/amount.php?amount=20

Milk in 1980 from google
A half-gallon of milk cost $1.09 circa 1985, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

https://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80sfood.html

If you're talking about inflation, I'm not sure that argument really works against Reagan. Inflation went way down when he was in office and stayed pretty good until recently.

Granted, that was possibly because of Paul Volker, who was appointed by Carter...

Also, there were still problems in the 70s, even if Reaganomics made things worse. From what I've heard, the late 40s-60s were the more prosperous period.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Plenty of made up numbers when it's convenient.

Vague SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO WORK AND HER HUSBAND MADE PLENTY SHUT UP when it's not.

You might as well have rolled with it and said a hundred an hour as a receptionist.

Numbers aren't made up. You can look it up yourself.

This info came from simple googles.

And yes the typical family in 1980 was stay at home mom with husband MORE than making up for the finances.

Justin2Krelian posted...

If you're talking about inflation, I'm not sure that argument really works against Reagan. Inflation went way down when he was in office and stayed pretty good until recently.

Granted, that was possibly because of Paul Volker, who was appointed by Carter...

Also, there were still problems in the 70s, even if Reaganomics made things worse. From what I've heard, the late 40s-60s were the more prosperous period.

From article in second post:

The results of this plan were mixed. Initially, the Federal Reserve Board believed the tax cut would re-ignite inflation and raise interest rates. This sparked a deep recession in 1981 and 1982. The high interest rates caused the value of the dollar to rise on the international exchange market, making American goods more expensive abroad. As a result, exports decreased while imports increased. Eventually, the economy stabilized in 1983, and the remaining years of Reagan's administration showed national growth.

The national debt tripled from one to three trillion dollars during the Reagan Years. The President and conservatives in Congress cried for a balanced budget amendment, but neither branch had the discipline to propose or enact a balanced budget. The growth that Americans enjoyed during the 1980s came at a huge price for the generations to follow.

That last line.
Came at a huge price.

What do you believe article is meaning?

WingsOfGood posted...

Numbers aren't made up. You can look it up yourself.

This info came from simple googles.

And yes the typical family in 1980 was stay at home mom with husband MORE than making up for the finances.

My parents in the 1980s born worked and we were still poor as shit.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1982/demo/p60-132.html

That says real incomes were declining as well. I don't know what you think the 1980s was like, but I certainly don't remember my dad making tons of money while my mom bought piles of groceries.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

52% of women were working. It was 56.8% in 2022. So not that different than today.

ssjevot posted...

My parents in the 1980s born worked and we were still poor as shit.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1982/demo/p60-132.html

That says real incomes were declining as well. I don't know what you think the 1980s was like, but I certainly don't remember my dad making tons of money while my mom bought piles of groceries.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

52% of women were working. It was 56.8% in 2022. So not that different than today.

anecdotally that may be true

but all I am doing is finding the price in 1980 from the item in the picture and it is looking realistic

therefore if it turns out $20 bought all that grocery in 1980, that becomes an objective fact

your experience that your parents didn't bring home that much grocery is then a subjective fact and why is not because of reasons realted to $20 buying that much grocery

but noted about the 52% of women working thing

WingsOfGood posted...

anecdotally that may be true

but all I am doing is finding the price in 1980 from the item in the picture and it is looking realistic

therefore if it turns out $20 bought all that grocery in 1980, that becomes an objective fact

your experience that your parents didn't bring home that much grocery is then a subjective fact and why is not because of reasons realted to $20 buying that much grocery

but noted about the 52% of women working thing

Dude I am talking about the blatant lie you pushed that most families were a husband working and a wife not working when the reality is the percent of women working is barely different than it is now (which is to say the majority were working). You are creating some idealized 1980s where a man brings home big money to his stay at home wife that didn't exist. That's not what most people experienced, and that isn't an anecdote, it is a fact that most women were working.

I don't care about the groceries because the guy who made the image already said he just made it up.

Also you ignored that families were making less in the 1980s than the 1970s, which was from US census data I posted. I don't know what agenda you're trying to push, but it's not the reality of what happened.

The 1980 median family income of $21,020 was 7.3 percent higher than the 1979 median, however, a 13.5-percent increase in consumer prices between 1979 and 1980 caused a net decline of 5.5 percent in real median family income.

The sluggishness of real income growth during the last decade (figure 1) is evidenced by the fact that 1980 median family income was about $1,330 lower than the 1973 median ($22,350) in constant dollars

ssjevot posted...

Perhaps I was wrong about the stay at home mom part but overall the point is the difference then and now.
Even with recessions in the early 80s the buying power as seen in the photo proven by objective fact (did you look up the prices to counter me? no because I am right as I looked them up)
the buying power was higher

there is a reason today people forego having kids

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1991/demo/sb91-09.html

During the last decade, the Nation witnessed a decline in homeownership rates, the first such decline since the 1930's. The 1989 U.S. homeownership rate was 64 percent; in 1980, 66 percent owned their own homes. This brief uses findings from the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS) to study this decline. Homeownership data by State became available in 1984 from the CPS/HVS. Metropolitan area data became available beginning in 1986. Homeownership data by age of householder became available in 1982.

Point of picture.
$20 bought all that. And she went home with all that to her cheap home that statistically her family owned.

WingsOfGood posted...

there is a reason today people forego having kids

This is objectively wrong as well. The richer and more educated a population becomes the lower the fertility rate. This is true across the world. Additionally even today in America the people with the lowest incomes have the highest fertility rates. You are someone interested in pushing an agenda pretending to be interested in facts.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

WingsOfGood posted...

The 1989 U.S. homeownership rate was 64 percent; in 1980, 66 percent owned their own homes.

So about the same as today?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184902/homeownership-rate-in-the-us-since-2003/

However, in 2023 the proportion of households occupied by owners declined to 65.7 percent

ssjevot posted...

This is objectively wrong as well. The richer and more educated a population becomes the lower the fertility rate. This is true across the world. Additionally even today in America the people with the lowest incomes have the highest fertility rates. You are someone interested in pushing an agenda pretending to be interested in facts.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

he mumbles "pushing an agenda" while he looks up facts to itch his bias

smh

like it is all over both sides on the media for awhile how birth rates are in decline and millenials and gens after them are foregoing having kids....

yet you claim that isn't true? that is......... weird

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2021/05/07/with-a-potential-baby-bust-on-the-horizon-key-facts-about-fertility-in-the-u-s-before-the-pandemic/

The general fertility rate in the U.S. was already at a record low before the COVID-19 pandemic began. In 2019, there were 58.3 births for every 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 in the U.S., down from 59.1 in 2018, making it the fifth consecutive year in which the fertility rate declined. A variety of factors have driven down the rate, including a decline in birth rates among women 34 and younger. The decrease also likely reflects the lingering effects of the Great Recession, as well as longer-term demographic changes such as increased educational attainment among women and delays in marriage.

The completed fertility rate, or the number of children a woman has in her lifetime, tells a slightly different story. According to this measure, the low point in U.S. fertility came in 2006, when women ages 40 to 44 had given birth to an average of 1.86 children over the course of their lifetimes. Since 2006, the completed fertility rate has been trending upward, and in 2018 the average was a little over 2.0 children. It is important to note, however, that because the completed fertility rate is a lagging indicator, it doesnt reflect the fertility of young women today.

The share of American women at the end of their childbearing years who had ever given birth was higher in 2018 than it had been a decade earlier. Some 85% of women ages 40 to 44 were mothers in 2018, up from 82% in 2008, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. The increase in the share of women who had ever given birth, alongside the decline in the share having children in any given year, reflect the fact that women are having children later in life. The median age when women become mothers in the U.S. was 26 in 2016, up from 23 in 1994.
There has also been a striking increase in motherhood among women ages 40 to 44 who have never been married. In 2018, roughly six-in-ten (59%) of never-married women in this age group had given birth, nearly double the share in 1994 (32%).

Teen birth rates have fallen dramatically in recent years. One factor that has contributed to the overall drop in annual fertility in the U.S. has been the falloff in births to teenagers. The teen birth rate hit a record low in 2019, when there were 16.7 births per 1,000 girls and women ages 15 to 19. This was a 4% drop from the previous year and less than half the teenage birth rate about a decade earlier (37.9 per 1,000 teens in 2009). The teen birth rate has fallen across all major racial and ethnic groups, but it remains higher among Hispanic and Black teens than among teens who are White or Asian. The majority of teen births in the U.S. are to unmarried mothers.
The Great Recession contributed to the overall birth rate decline, including teen births. But given that the pattern has persisted well beyond the recession, experts also attribute it to fewer teens having sex, teens having access to more reliable birth control, and pregnancy prevention programs

Birth rates have declined for U.S.-born and foreign-born women. Still, immigrant women account for a disproportionate share of the nations births among women ages 15 to 44. In 2017, 14% of the U.S. population was foreign born, but 23% of all births were to immigrant women.

For decades, a large share of immigrant births in the U.S. were to mothers of Mexican descent (42% in 2000). But the demographic profile of new mothers has shifted in recent years as immigration patterns have changed. Specifically, immigration flows from Latin America have slowed and Asian immigration is on the rise. As a result, only a quarter of U.S. immigrant births were to Mexican-born women in 2018. Among immigrant women overall, half of all births in 2018 were to Hispanic women, down from 58% in 2000.

WingsOfGood posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0543f14c.jpg

Reaganomics really messed everything up.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/59b.asp

Turns out the rich having more money because they are taxed less they just buy up all the houses and now you don't have a house.

Trickle
Trickle
spray

edit: I have been tallying up prices and most of these items are LESS than a dollar. Some even 50 cents or LESS! Users doubting this image really find it hard to believe but when you TALLY the facts

WOW
HOLY MOLY

just make it unconstitutional for corporations to own residential properties with the stipulation that violations of that ammendment grant the federal government the ability to seize all corporate assets

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/

Growing share of childless adults in U.S. dont expect to ever have children

Some 44% of non-parents ages 18 to 49 say it is not too or not at all likely that they will have children someday, an increase of 7 percentage points from the 37% who said the same in a 2018 survey. Meanwhile, 74% of adults younger than 50 who are already parents say they are unlikely to have more kids, virtually unchanged since 2018.
Among parents and non-parents alike, men and women are equally likely to say they will probably not have kids (or more kids) in the future. Perhaps not surprisingly, adults in their 40s are far more likely than younger ones to say they are unlikely to have children or to have more children in the future. Some 85% of non-parents 40 to 49 say this, compared with 37% of those younger than 40. And while 91% of older parents say they probably wont have more kids, 60% of younger parents say the same.
A majority (56%) of non-parents younger than 50 who say its unlikely they will have children someday say they just dont want to have kids. Childless adults younger than 40 are more likely to say this than those ages 40 to 49 (60% vs. 46%, respectively). There are no differences by gender.

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/more-us-adults-opting-to-never-have-children-pew-survey-finds

More and more adults in the United States are opting to never have children, which could lead to a potential "baby bust" in the future, according to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

Birth rates are declining everywhere. I literally posted data showing the poorer you are, the more kids you have. You tried to claim people aren't having kids because they can't afford them. That's the opposite of what the data shows. You want to believe the 80s was some utopia from a propaganda movie or something. It's ridiculous. The data is there and I lived through it myself. There was a reason the US media fear mongered about Japan taking over. US median income was already behind many European countries and then Japan overtook it in the 80s and the US didn't overtake Japan in median income again until the 2000s. People literally murdered a random Chinese guy because they thought he was Japanese. This was not some utopia. People were losing their jobs and pissed off at the world.

Yeah, I was born in the 80's, and that's definitely not 20 USD worth of groceries in 1980. 1950's is more like it.

""How much did a can of Coke cost in 1980? In the early 1980's A 16 oz glass bottle was 25 cents. ""
Probably hard to realize they were THAT cheap back then huh?
Yes.
Seeing how a bottle of Soda can cost $2 today

1,50 to 2 USD is about what the average 2-liter cost in the late 90's. The OP, even if it WERE accurate, raw price/inflationary differences are an utter moot point anyway since the important factor is median income relative to inflation.

For example, in 2015, the median income was around 60k, while the median income in 1994, adjusted for 2015's inflation, was 88k. In addition, bear in mind that the cost of healthcare and secondary education have risen far in excess of inflation. IOW, adjusted for inflation, not only are Americans making far less than they used to, but they have far less purchasing power.

This rule goes for foreign countries as well in discussions about human rights. The equivalent of a $10 USD fine for littering in India might not sound that bad to westerners, but the ruble is far weaker than the dollar, and in reality 10 USD is more than what some Indian citizens make in a year. In order to determine the actual cost/justness of such a fine, you would first need to determine what the median income is, and what the lowest income bracket tends to be.

ssjevot posted...

This is objectively wrong as well. The richer and more educated a population becomes the lower the fertility rate. This is true across the world. Additionally even today in America the people with the lowest incomes have the highest fertility rates. You are someone interested in pushing an agenda pretending to be interested in facts.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between a population's fertility rate and the natural population change.

The former is based on the number of children per woman or couple in an area. The latter is the number of deaths vs births in a community.
Non-farming rural areas in the rust and coal belts will have average national white fertility rates, but the natural population change will be deep into the negative since most of the young people raised in these communities will move to the suburbs or cities (or to rural areas that aren't in decline) while the remaining population consists of middle-aged and elderly residents who are past their fertile years.