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.

The Democrats are turning on Biden

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

The election is over, Kamala Harris has officially conceded, and now the Democrats are doing some serious soul-searching.

After reflecting long and hard (approximately 24 hours), the Democrats have discovered the real reason Harris lost the election. Was it Trump's excellent campaign that resonated with voters? Was it Harris's off-putting personality? Or was it her failure to distinguish herself from the Biden administration's failed policies?

No, it was Joe Biden. All the blame lies on President Biden's shoulders. The Left sees no need to take any real responsibility for the landslide defeat the Democrats suffered earlier this week; just pass the blame on to 'ole Joe.

Here are the leading excuses the Left is spinning up to explain Harris's crushing defeat:

"Biden should have dropped out sooner."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is the crux of the left-wing media's argument against Biden. They claim that if Joe Biden had dropped out earlier, Harris would have had more time to campaign and would not have had to carry around the baggage of Biden's abysmal debate performance. This could make sense, but what these commentators are conveniently forgetting are the years of propaganda these very same people promoted arguing that Biden's declining mental acuity was nothing more than a right-wing conspiracy theory. If Biden had been as sharp as they had told us, why would he have dropped out?

Also, if a lack of time was Harris's biggest issue this election, she sure didn't act like it. She was practically in hiding for the first several weeks of her campaign and she took plenty of days off, including during the last few crucial weeks. More time wouldn't have helped her case.

"Harris failed to distance herself from Biden."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is media gaslighting at its finest. Yes, Harris failed to distance herself from Biden. However, that's because she, along with the rest of the Left, publically went on record defending Biden's policies and his mental acuity. By the time Harris became the nominee, she had already said too much in favor of Biden. Don't forget Harris's infamous “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” quote after being asked on The View if she would do anything differently than Biden. In a way, Harris couldn't separate herself from Biden without drawing attention to the greatest flaw in her campaign: if she knew how to fix the country, why hasn't she?

"Harris did the best anyone could have done in that situation."

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

But did she really? As mentioned earlier, she was noticeably absent for much of the campaign. While Trump was busy jumping into interviews, events, and rallies non-stop, Harris was MIA. Whenever Harris did manage to make an appearance, it almost always did more harm than good by highlighting her lack of a robust policy platform and her inability to string together a coherent sentence. Notable examples include her aforementioned appearance on The View and her disastrous interview on Fox News with Bret Baier. The point is, even considering the limited time to campaign she had, Kamala Harris wasnot the best person for the job and there are undoubtedly many other Democrats who would have run a much more successful campaign.

Glenn: I'm filled with hope. And you should be, too.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The election was a major blow to draconian globalist organizations. Now, we could have a true rebirth of freedom and the American dream.

Millions of people around the world were holding their breath on election night. I've talked to Europeans to try to get a bead on what’s happening over there. There are Europeans like you and me who are frustrated with their own globalist, tyrannical bureaucracies telling them how to live and what to believe. If Donald Trump didn’t win, where in the world would they look to for hope that this madness would stop? Which leader could they count on to stand in the gap against their globalist elites? They, too, had a lot on the line in our election last night.

But today brings hope, not only in America but for freedom-loving people worldwide.

We need to restore the balance of power in the federal government — the way America’s founders intended.

We know Trump is going to stop the madness at the southern border. He is going to deport serial criminals and sex offenders who entered our country under Biden and Harris' watch. The media will try to convince you that deportations are something akin to Hitler, but they turn a blind eye to their Democratic predecessors who have deported even more illegal immigrants than Trump. In fact, Bill Clinton deported more illegal immigrants than any president in U.S. history, shipping 11 million out of the country in the 1990s. In contrast, Trump deported less than a million during his first term, which is even less than the 1.8 million under the Obama administration.

Deportations of criminals who are in our country illegally is critical to protecting the safety of the American people, a practice that has been exercised by presidents for decades.

Our friends across the pond have been witnessing the destruction of their societies since EU globalists opened Europe's floodgates to immigrants in 2015. Crime is rampant, communities governed by Sharia law are multiplying, and their social programs are being pushed to a breaking point. Tuesday night gave them reason to hope. America is going to say, "No more," and perhaps this will be the rallying cry for our European brothers-in-arms to stand up as well.

The election was also a major blow to draconian globalist organizations. The United States will no longer be beholden to the Paris Climate Accords. Our nation will no longer give credence to the World Economic Forum. We won’t give the World Health Organization a single penny more. All these very well-planned globalist initiatives are going away.

But Trump can't act alone. Thank God we won the Senate. This is an incredible step forward, but for these big plans to come to fruition, we need the House. If the Republicans — actual freedom-loving, Constitution-abiding Republicans — don't have the House, you’re not going to be able to get things done except by executive order, which we don’t want to do. One reason things were so bad during the last four years is that Joe Biden simply signed executive orders to reverse everything that Trump accomplished, completely bypassing Congress. We have to do it the right way. We need to restore the balance of power in the federal government — the way America’s founders intended.

One of the most hopeful things Trump said Tuesday night is that we’re going to enter a new golden era in America. I believe him. He could have said that in 2020, and I wouldn't have believed him as much as I believe him now. That’s because Trump now has a team of people that's not exclusively comprised of politicians.

Bringing in somebody like Elon Musk is one of the most hopeful things for our country I've witnessed in my lifetime. I know that guy can cut spending. I know he will find the waste in our government because he's not a government guy — he's a businessman. He's going to slash all the redundancies that have been justified by career bureaucrats for decades. We have a chance of cutting our budget and creating a reasonable one.

Trump’s promise to cut regulations also spells hope for our country. He cut more regulation in his first term than any other president, but Biden and Harris have since added a mountain of rules. He will have his work cut out for him, but he will get it done. He must if this economy will roar again.

We could have a true rebirth of freedom and the American dream, and I find that really hopeful. So many Americans are tired of worrying about their kids struggling and seeing Bidenomics and regulation yank from their children's hands the possibility of the American dream that they attained. Donald Trump is the biggest chance of bringing it back.

Today, I’m filled with hope. Real, tangible hope. And you should be, too.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

TOP FIVE liberal meltdowns to Trump's victory

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatives are celebrating Donald Trump's election for what feels like the first major conservative victory over the past four years. But how are our liberal friends holding up? Has anyone checked on them recently?

Some of them aren't doing too well, and quite a few have an inexplicable desire to share their anguish with the world on social media. We've waded through a torrent of liberal tears to bring you the top FIVE best responses to Donald Trump's 2024 victory:

The Car Screamer

This first one is in a category we've dubbed, the "Screamers." These include people who have been so overcome with rage that they have lost the ability to communicate with words. Instead, they revert to a more primitive form of communication, usually composed of some combination of screams, shrieks, sobs, and wild gesticulations. There are dozens of "Screamer" videos across the internet, but this one takes the cake for the most animated and over-the-top.

Sunny Hostin's Meltdown

Just to prove that the daytime talk show "The View" is completely out of touch, host Sunny Hostin tried to rationalize Trump's victory using identity politics. Hostin dismissed the idea that Harris lost due to her less popular policy and instead suggested it was because of her race and gender along with the religion of her husband. She clearly forgot about JD Vance and his mixed-race family.

CNN Watches the Election Crumble Around Them

In this clip, you can actually hear the defeat setting in as the CNN host realizes that Kamala Harris is losing. When asked to see a map of the counties where Harris was over-preforming Joe Biden in 2020, Jake Tapper was flabbergasted when the map came up blank.

The Calm Coper

At least this guy isn't screaming. Instead, he regurgitates the lies and propaganda fed to him by the media with a strangely robotic cadence. He's trying to project calm intelligence, but all he is really doing is coping and seething.

The Screamer Compilation 

Just in case you didn't get enough of, the "Screamers," here is a handy compilation that perfectly sums up the liberal response to Trump's victory.

Biggest takeaways from Trump's HISTORIC election

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

"Too big to rig" was the 2024 Trump strategy, and it was proven true on election day.

President Trump declared victory early in the morning on Wednesday, November 6, 2024, after securing the required 270 electoral college votes, marking an exciting end to a historic campaign. Since then, more electoral college votes have trickled in for Trump and he has secured 51 percent of the popular vote. There is no space for the Democrats to contest his election.

Trump's victory is just the beginning! Here are the top takeaways from election night:

Trump sweeps the swing states

Andrew Lichtenstein / Contributor | Getty Images

Seven swing states were poised to make or break the election: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada. At the time of this article's publication, Trump had won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan, and North Carolina and was poised to win Arizona and Nevada in what could be a total sweep of the swing states. The "swing state sweep" is a stunning victory for Trump.

The GOP takes the Senate

TIMOTHY A. CLARY / Contributor | Getty Images

The presidential race wasn't the only important election yesterday. Approximately one-third of the Senate was up for re-election. At the time of this article's publication, Republicans had officially clinched a majority in the Senate, flipping three seats from the Democrats in Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia, giving the GOP 52 of the 100 Senate seats. In addition, Republicans are poised to win a seat in Pennsylvania and Nevada, which would further cement their lead.

Republicans lead in the House

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Seats in the House of Representatives were also up for grabs as Republicans fought to keep control of the House. The race is currently too close to call, but at the moment, the GOP is holding the lead with 201 seats — only 17 seats away from a majority. This means there is a real possibility that the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate could all be held by Republicans.