Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

What Made the Cost of Living Skyrocket in the Last 50 Years?

May 03, 2017
Staff

WRITER

In 1924, you could buy a new house for $7,720. In 1962, just shy of 40 years later, a new house was up to $12,000. However, just nine short years later in 1971, the cost of a new house doubled. Seven years later in 1978 it doubled again. By 1983, the average new house cost $82,000. Why did housing costs --- and other costs --- remain stable for decades then begin to skyrocket? What happened in the 1970s that caused an increase in the cost of living?

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 3:15 from The Glenn Beck Program:

PAT: Here's how crazy the housing market is in Texas. My daughter and son-in-law are about to buy a house. And they were looking at this beautiful house. I think it was $155,000. But it had a lot of upgrades. It was kind of small. Like 1800 square feet.

GLENN: I was going to say, in Texas, that's got to be a five-square-foot house.

PAT: But it's beautiful. With all the upgrades that you would expect in a house half a million dollars. So they went to look at it. Loved it. Put an offer in, at 165. Like 10,000 over. They didn't get the -- they didn't get the house. The bid that won was $175,000.

JEFFY: Wow.

PAT: 20,000 over.

GLENN: See, this is what makes me concerned --

STU: Buy high, sell low, right?

GLENN: No. That's the way I usually do it.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Here's what makes me really concerned: You know, I live in a town that's in a higher tax bracket, and so there's some pretty spectacular houses. I'm telling you, houses that I thought were spectacular three years ago look like tiny houses.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: We went for a Sunday drive.

JEFFY: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: This last Sunday. And honestly, we saw three houses that we said, where the hell does that one stop? It doesn't stop.

JEFFY: It doesn't, Glenn. They don't.

GLENN: They don't.

JEFFY: They don't.

GLENN: I saw a house that just kept going and going. Honestly, we were driving down the street --

JEFFY: See, that's the downsizing I believe you're talking about. When you say, I want to sell my house and downsize, I look at those homes and go, that's the downsize --

GLENN: No. You know what, we have a house -- you know, our ranch is like 1800 square feet. We love it. We absolutely love it. Because the family is always together.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's not great when you're like, "Get out of my face." If somebody has -- is having a really bad day, not a good house. Not a good house. But when you're all getting along, that's -- I mean, that's just great. And we love being close together. And some of these houses that they're building now are so --

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: -- huge. And, you know, you'll be like, oh, it's a family of three.

What? What do they each have 18,000 square feet? What -- I mean, what's in that house?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: There's a house they've been building for like 18 years, I think. Because they just keep adding new sections to it.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: That is fairly close to us. And you just think, what do you people do for a living? How big a house -- what is this, a Ronald McDonald House? How big does this clown need his house to be?

JEFFY: That's not the only one, man. That's not the --

GLENN: Okay. So I live down the street from one of the guys who is the chairman of the board of the train -- you know, one of the big trains. So, I mean, you know -- I mean, you know --

PAT: Are there big trains?

GLENN: Yeah. There are big trains.

PAT: That's still a thing?

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: A guy who is pulling down some coinage.

STU: Some cash. Yeah, a lot of shipping goes down --

GLENN: Yeah, a lot of -- a big shipping area here in the southwest. And he's like the president or chairman of the board or something. And he's got a large house.

JEFFY: Pretty nice place?

GLENN: A large house. We drive by and we're like, "Wow, that's a large house." You go, you know, six blocks away from him, and I'm telling you, you look at him and say, this must be where Jesus lives. Because I know this guy who I can't relate to on how much cash he's making, I know what his house looks like. Who lives here? The entire holy family? What is this house?

(chuckling)

PAT: I think Jesus has a smaller house.

STU: Why?

GLENN: Well, the camels. You have to keep camels. Sheep. You don't want the sheep and the camels mixing.

JEFFY: He only has half a basketball court. Not a full basketball court?

PAT: No, it's like that documentary Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade.

GLENN: Again, learn the difference between a movie and a documentary.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: May I go here?

Cost of living. How much did a house cost in 1924? A new car was $275.

PAT: Not very much.

Really.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: $265.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Your average rent was $18 a month. And tuition to Harvard --

PAT: Eighteen!

GLENN: Tuition to Harvard for a full year was $250.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: How much was a house?

PAT: 2,000.

JEFFY: Yeah. Got to be close --

GLENN: Okay. This shows you the run-up of the Roaring Twenties. A new house was $7,720.

PAT: Wow, that's --

JEFFY: Even with the Sears catalog.

GLENN: That's the average house. So now in 1938, how much was a new house?

PAT: During the Depression, probably considerably less.

GLENN: Harvard tuition had gone up to $420. A new car was $860. A new house, $3,900.

JEFFY: Wow.

Oh, yeah.

STU: Wow. Yeah.

GLENN: You go to 1943, it's $3,600.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: So you held on to your house -- you had to hold on to your house -- you couldn't sell --

PAT: You were taking too much of a loss.

GLENN: You were taking a bath.

You didn't get back up to a $9,000 until 1952. In '52, tuition to Harvard University was $600. A new car was $1,700.

Let me skip ahead here.

Let's go to -- let's go to 1962. A new house was $12,000. So you've got from 1924 to 1962.

JEFFY: Pretty stable.

GLENN: Pretty stable. Except for the depression where it went down, you've got gone from $7,000 to $12,000. Okay?

In 40 years.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: 1962, cost of a new house is $12,000. A new car is $2,900. Tuition to Harvard is 1500.

Now let's go to 1973. Let's go to 1970 -- let's go to 1971.

A new house has gone in nine years. A new house has gone from $12,000 to $25,000.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Your car has gone to $3,500. And your Harvard tuition has gone to $2,600 a year. Okay?

From in 1927 -- or 1924, $250 a year to go to Harvard. To now in 1971, $2,600. Here's where it gets interesting. Remember, 1971, a house was $2,500. How much was a house in 1978?

PAT: If it acted the way it did during the depression, we were in a serious recession.

JEFFY: No way, though.

PAT: You would think maybe it went down again?

JEFFY: Because in '78 they were still -- they weren't building as much.

GLENN: Remember, double incomes. Double incomes had just started in the early '70s.

JEFFY: It was okay for mom to work.

GLENN: Yep. Yep. So your house went from, in '61 or '63, $12,000 to '71, $25,000.

PAT: So it doubled.

GLENN: To 1978, to$ 54,000.

PAT: Doubled again.

GLENN: Your cost in 1983 has gone to $82,000.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: A new car is now $8,500. Ticket -- or, tuition to Harvard is now $8100. It had gone from $250 to $1,500 to now $8,000. What happened? The government started guaranteeing tuitions.

Then in 1999, a new house, $131,000. A new car, $21,000. And tuition to Harvard, $31,000 per year.

STU: Hmm.

PAT: And now it's, what? Sixty? Fifty or $60,000 a year?

GLENN: Yeah, I don't have anything past '99.

PAT: Wow.

STU: One of the things, if you remember, go back to the 2007 era, before the housing collapse happened, and you were making the arguments on the air all the time that this stuff was going to occur -- giving me some weird eye signals. I don't know what that means.

GLENN: No, I'm just listening.

STU: You're just pleased with yourself, I got it.

GLENN: No, no, I'm just listening to you.

STU: But one of the things you based that on was the Case-Shiller Index. It was one of the big pieces of data that you found to be incredibly problematic because it controls for things like inflation. These numbers obviously are partially inflation, partially the housing market going up. It's tough to break those things out.

GLENN: And now -- you can't look at anything like Case-Shiller. You can't look at anything anymore because nothing is real. Because the fed has dumped money. Because we have printed money.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You don't know -- is the stock market real? Is the housing price real? You don't know. Nothing is based on truly free market principles.

STU: Yeah. And I think, you know, there's a lot of complication there, which is what I think you're getting at.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But it's still an interesting thing to look at.

GLENN: It is. It is.

STU: So basically 100 is your average of the Case-Shiller Index for basically the entire time. So it ranged between 80 and 120 the entire time. Kind of just measuring how overinflated housing prices are.

GLENN: And 100 is -- I don't remember how it works.

STU: Normal. Let's say normal is 100. So it ranged between 80 and 120 --

GLENN: For how many years?

STU: -- from 1880 to 2000. Okay?

GLENN: 1880 to 2000.

STU: The only exception to that was the Great Depression, where it was a little bit under 80, but it was basically between there the entire time between 1880 and 2000.

PAT: And this is on the Kay Jewelers scale?

GLENN: No, this is Case-Shiller.

STU: Case-Shiller.

GLENN: Who have we talked on? We've had Shiller on?

STU: I can't remember which one it is.

GLENN: Yeah, we've had one of them on. Really, really bright. This is as scientific as you can get on housing.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Okay.

STU: Yes. So between 80 and 120, for 120 years, okay? The housing crisis peaks in 2005?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And it hits almost 200. So it's double normal.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: It had never even come close to that in its history. Then you have the housing collapse, right? We all remember the big inflation and the housing collapse. And finally we're getting back -- we're getting back. That's not the story the Case-Shiller Index tells at all. It went from -- about 120 at the beginning of the housing bubble, up to 200, and then it dropped. The bubble popped, and it came back to 120.

GLENN: Still the highest level --

STU: So it was still at the highest level it had been in 120 years, was the end of the crisis.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Wow.

STU: It has now reached back up to 160.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: From 120 to 160 again.

GLENN: And I tell you, the only place that -- the only place that to me makes any sense at all is Texas. Because the people are moving to -- the influx of people here is just outrageous. How fast it's growing.

JEFFY: You see the apartments they're building.

GLENN: Oh, and they pop up fast. And they're all sold. I mean, it's just so fast. Because people are moving here. Everywhere else, what is happening in your town that is causing this big bubble?

JEFFY: I didn't even see that mentioned in the Kay Jeweler Index.

GLENN: It's not Kay Jeweler.

PAT: I think that's why people go to Jared.

JEFFY: Right.

Media cover-up: Why Clinton deported six times more than Trump

Genaro Molina / Contributor | Getty Images

MSNBC and CNN want you to think the president is a new Hitler launching another Holocaust. But the actual deportation numbers are nowhere near what they claim.

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta, compared Trump’s immigration policies to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. He claimed that Hitler didn’t bother with German law — he just hauled people off to death camps in Poland and Hungary. Apparently, that’s what Trump is doing now by deporting MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Symone Sanders took it a step further. The MSNBC host suggested that deporting gang-affiliated noncitizens is simply the first step toward deporting black Americans. I’ll wait while you try to do that math.

The debate is about control — weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent.

Media mouthpieces like Sanders and Matthews are just the latest examples of the left’s Pavlovian tribalism when it comes to Trump and immigration. Just say the word “Trump,” and people froth at the mouth before they even hear the sentence. While the media cries “Hitler,” the numbers say otherwise. And numbers don’t lie — the narrative does.

Numbers don’t lie

The real “deporter in chief” isn’t Trump. It was President Bill Clinton, who sent back 12.3 million people during his presidency — 11.4 million returns and nearly 900,000 formal removals. President George W. Bush, likewise, presided over 10.3 million deportations — 8.3 million returns and two million removals. Even President Barack Obama, the progressive darling, oversaw 5.5 million deportations, including more than three million formal removals.

So how does Donald Trump stack up? Between 2017 and 2021, Trump deported somewhere between 1.5 million and two million people — dramatically fewer than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. In his current term so far, Trump has deported between 100,000 and 138,000 people. Yes, that’s assertive for a first term — but it's still fewer than Biden was deporting toward the end of his presidency.

The numbers simply don’t support the hysteria.

Who's the “dictator” here? Trump is deporting fewer people, with more legal oversight, and still being compared to history’s most reviled tyrant. Apparently, sending MS-13 gang members — violent criminals — back to their country of origin is now equivalent to genocide.

It’s not about immigration

This debate stopped being about immigration a long time ago. It’s now about control — about weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent. It’s about turning Donald Trump into the villain of every story, facts be damned.

If the numbers mattered, we’d be having a very different national conversation. We’d be asking why Bill Clinton deported six times as many people as Trump and never got labeled a fascist. We’d be questioning why Barack Obama’s record-setting removals didn’t spark cries of ethnic cleansing. And we’d be wondering why Trump, whose enforcement was relatively modest by comparison, triggered lawsuits, media hysteria, and endless Nazi analogies.

But facts don’t drive this narrative. The villain does. And in this script, Trump plays the villain — even when he does far less than the so-called heroes who came before him.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Can Trump stop the blackouts that threaten America's future?

Allan Tannenbaum / Contributor | Getty Images

If America wants to remain a global leader in the coming decades, we need more energy fast.

It's no secret that Glenn is an advocate for the safe and ethical use of AI, not because he wants it, but because he knows it’s coming whether we like it or not. Our only option is to shape AI on our terms, not those of our adversaries. America has to win the AI Race if we want to maintain our stability and security, and to do that, we need more energy.

AI demands dozens—if not hundreds—of new server farms, each requiring vast amounts of electricity. The problem is, America lacks the power plants to generate the required electricity, nor do we have a power grid capable of handling the added load. We must overcome these hurdles quickly to outpace China and other foreign competitors.

Outdated Power Grid

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Our power grid is ancient, slowly buckling under the stress of our modern machines. AAI’s energy demands could collapse it without a major upgrade. The last significant overhaul occurred under FDR nearly a century ago, when he connected rural America to electricity. Since then, we’ve patched the system piecemeal, but it’s still the same grid from the 1930s. Over 70 percent of the powerlines are 30 years old or older, and circuit breakers and other vital components are in similar condition. Most people wouldn't trust a dishwasher that was 30 years old, and yet much of our grid relies on technology from the era of VHS tapes.

Upgrading the grid would prevent cascading failures, rolling blackouts, and even EMP attacks. It would also enable new AI server farms while ensuring reliable power for all.

A Need for Energy

JONATHAN NACKSTRAND / Stringer | Getty Images

Earlier this month, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt appeared before Congress as part of an AI panel and claimed that by 2030, the U.S. will need to add 96 gigawatts to our national power production to meet AI-driven demand. While some experts question this figure, the message is clear: We must rapidly expand power production. But where will this energy come from?

As much as eco nuts would love to power the world with sunshine and rainbows, we need a much more reliable and significantly more efficient power source if we want to meet our electricity goals. Nuclear power—efficient, powerful, and clean—is the answer. It’s time to shed outdated fears of atomic energy and embrace the superior electricity source. Building and maintaining new nuclear plants, along with upgraded infrastructure, would create thousands of high-paying American jobs. Nuclear energy will fuel AI, boost the economy, and modernize America’s decaying infrastructure.

A Bold Step into the Future

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

This is President Trump’s chance to leave a historic mark on America, restoring our role as global leaders and innovators. Just as FDR’s power grid and plants made America the dominant force of the 20th century, Trump could upgrade our infrastructure to secure dominance in the 21st century. Visionary leadership must cut red tape and spark excitement in the industry. This is how Trump can make America great again.

POLL: Did astronomers discover PROOF of alien life?

Print Collector / Contributor | Getty Images

Are we alone in the universe?

It's no secret that Glenn keeps one eye on the cosmos, searching for any signs of ET. Late last week, a team of astronomers at the University of Cambridge made an exciting discovery that could change how we view the universe. The astronomers were monitoring a distant planet, K2-18b, when the James Webb Space Telescope detected dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, two atmospheric gases believed only to be generated by living organisms. The planet, which is just over two and a half times larger than Earth, orbits within the "habitable zone" of its star, meaning the presence of liquid water on its surface is possible, further supporting the possibility that life exists on this distant world.

Unfortunately, humans won't be able to visit K2-18b to see for ourselves anytime soon, as the planet is about 124 light-years from Earth. This means that even if we had rockets that could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 124 years to reach the potentially verdant planet. Even if humans made the long trek to K2-18b, they would be faced with an even more intense challenge upon arrival: Gravity. Assuming K2-18b has a similar density to Earth, its increased size would also mean it would have increased gravity, two and a half times as much gravity, to be exact. This would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for humans to live or explore the surface without serious technological support. But who knows, give Elon Musk and SpaceX a few years, and we might be ready to seek out new life (and maybe even new civilizations).

But Glenn wants to know what you think. Could K2-18b harbor life on its distant surface? Could alien astronomers be peering back at us from across the cosmos? Would you be willing to boldly go where no man has gone before? Let us know in the poll below:

Could there be life on K2-18b?

Could there be an alien civilization thriving on K2-18b?

Will humans develop the technology to one day explore distant worlds?

Would you sign up for a trip to an alien world?

Is K2-18b just another cold rock in space?

Big Pharma’s role in rising neurological disorders: Will RFK Jr. uncover the truth?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Our children are sick, and Big Pharma claims to be the cure, but is RFK Jr. closer to proving they are the disease?

For years, neurological disorders in our children have been on the rise. One in nine children in the U.S. has been diagnosed with ADHD, and between 2016 and 2022, more than one million kids were told they suffer from the disorder. Similarly, autism diagnoses have increased by 175 percent over the past decade. RFK Jr. pledged to investigate the rising rates of neurological disorders as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and this week, he announced a major initiative.

Earlier this week, RFK Jr. announced that the HHS has embarked on a massive testing and research effort to uncover the root causes of autism and the sharp spike in recent diagnoses. The HHS Secretary vowed that the results will be available by September of this year, leaving many skeptical about the study's rigor. Conversely, some speculate that the HHS may have unpublished studies revealing critical insights into these disorders, just waiting to see the light of day.

Glenn brought up a recent article by the Daily Wire referencing a New York Times piece in which experts questioned the legitimacy of ADHD diagnoses. Glenn agreed and suggested that people are just wired differently; they learn, work, and study differently, and the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all school system simply fails to accommodate everyone.

New York Times' ADHD Admission

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, the New York Times published an article that made a shocking admission: there are no concrete biological markers for ADHD. The clinical definition of ADHD is no longer supported by the evidence, and there are no physical, genetic, or chemical identifiers for the disorder, nor is there any real way to test for it. The paper also admitted that people diagnosed with ADHD would suddenly find that they no longer had any symptoms after a change of environment, profession, or field of study. This suggests that "ADHD" might simply be a matter of interests and skills, not a chronic brain sickness.

The most horrifying implication of this admission is that millions of people, including children, have been prescribed heavy mind-altering drugs for years for a disorder that lacks real evidence of its very existence. These drugs are serious business and include products such as Adderall, Ritalin, and Desoxyn. All of these drugs are considered "Schedule II," which is a drug classification that puts them on the same level as cocaine, PCP, and fentanyl. Notably, Desoxyn is chemically identical to methamphetamine, differing only in its production in regulated laboratories rather than illegal settings.

Worse yet, studies show that these medications, like Desoxyn, often provide no long-term benefits. Testing demonstrated that in the short term, there were some positive effects, but after 36 months, there was no discernible difference in symptoms between people who were medicated and those who were not. For decades, we have been giving our children hardcore drugs with no evidence of them working or even that the disorder exists.

RFK Jr's Autism Study

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

Autism rates are on the rise, and RFK Jr. is going to get to the bottom of it. In the year 2000, approximately one in 150 children was diagnosed with autism, but only 20 years later, the rate had increased to one in 36. While some claim that this is simply due to more accurate testing, RFK Jr. doesn't buy it and is determined to discover what is the underlying cause. He is an outspoken critic of vaccines, asserting that the true scope of their side effects has been buried by greed and corruption to sell more vaccines.

RFK Jr. doesn't plan on stopping at vaccines. Similar to ADHD, RFK Jr. suspects other environmental factors could increase of autism or exacerbate symptoms. Factors like diet, water quality, air pollution, and parenting approaches are all under investigation. It's time to bring clarity to the neurological disorders that plague our nation, cut through the corruption, and reveal the healing truth.

Neurological Intervention

WIN MCNAMEE / Contributor | Getty Images

Big Pharma has been all too happy to sit back and watch as the rate of neurological disorders climbs, adding to the ever-growing list of permanent patients who are led to believe that their only choice is to shell out endless money for treatments, prescriptions, and doctor visits. Rather than encouraging lifestyle changes to improve our well-being, they push ongoing medication and costly treatments.

All RFK Jr. is doing is asking questions, and yet the backlash from the "experts" is so immense that one can't help but wonder what they could be hiding. Both Glenn and RFK Jr. have their suspicions of Big Pharma, and the upcoming HHS study might be one of the most important steps to making America healthy again.