October 19, 1987 aka Black Monday. This among other factors led to the late '80s to early '90s recession that lasted about 5 years.
Recessions like turning a fleet of ships are not immediate. As you noted, the early 90's were when the effects were felt by average working people. Our discussion here is 1988, which was anywhere from 3 to 14 months after the end of October 1987. If the show had supposedly taken place in say 1992, the above point would be valid.
Having a 10-20 year old car is not uncommon.
We're in agreement circa 2012~2016. See the IIHS and government studies I posted. Evidence indicates that was not the case in 1988, since as recently as 2002 the average was just a little over 3 years. No finite data exists for 1988 that I have been able to find.
Not everyone is buying or rather leasing a new car every 3 years.
Again, we're in agreement, since that is supported by the studies I linked.
It is much smarter to buy a depreciated, low mileage off-lease car and run it into the ground instead of wasting $14-20k every 3 yrs driving around in something they don't have the cash to buy outright.
Agreed again, just as it is smarter to retain your money vs loaning it to the government interest-free for 12 months and then being excited about a "refund" in April.
The bottom line is that late '60s/early '70s cars in 1988 Texas are not out of place.
That's possible, however the people selecting the vehicles for the show for some reason decided to use two really old cars for that scene. The only redeeming part was the smaller foreign car the kids hit. I didn't recognize it however it appeared to be something from the 80's.
In addition this idea that Ronald Reagan was a fantastic President is something that conservatives with short memories like to throw around.
Contrast his election results with those that followed, and apparently a large number of Americans felt he was a fantastic president (I'll also note IMO that modern "conservatives" are more akin to fascists, the term has been abused):
1980, with a third party pulling 6%, he got 50.7%, while Mr. Carter got 41%.
1984, he got 58.8 to Mr. Mondale's 40.6. That type of margin today is called a landslide.
1988, Mr. HW Bush got 53.4% to Mr. Dukakis' 45.6.
1992, again with a third party pulling significant votes, Mr. Clinton got 43%, Mr. HW Bush 37.4%, and Mr. Perot 18.9%. Note: This is one of several to come where the winner did not get a majority. I'll note this took place in US presidential elections in 4 of the 5 elections prior to the US Civil War.
1996, Mr. Clinton got 49.2%, Mr. Dole 40.7% and Mr. Perot 8.4%.
2000, remembered as one of the most contentious outcomes, Mr. GW Bush got 47.9% to Mr. Gore's superior 48.4%.
2004, Mr. GW Bush got 50.7% to Mr. Kerry's 48.3%.
2008, Mr. Obama got 52.9% to Mr. McCain's 45.7%.
2012, Mr. Obama got 51.1% to Mr. Romney's 47.2%.
2016 is shaping up as yet another divisive election proving we are nowhere near being one nation.
The University of California Santa Barbara compiled approval ratings
while in office:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.phpComparing recent 2-term presidents for approval/disapproval since Mr. Reagan shows he was not the most popular while in office, however he had the lowest negative rating:
Mr. Reagan: 52/36
Mr. Clinton: 55/37
Mr. GW Bush: 51/43
Mr. Obama: 48/47
The working class was not any better off then than they are today. His supply side economics caused a lot of damage to poorer families and those families are still suffering from the echoes of those policies.
A few years ago, I performed a study on poverty for my local government and found that despite spending over $19 million over 22 years (1990-2012, limited by available local data) for a population of about 15K, the poverty rate had risen almost 4 percent. We now have giveaway programs that give free new homes and telephones to certain no or low-income people while the working poor live in shacks and pay for their phones. There has been change, however for the working poor it has been for the worse. Since that is anecdotal, I looked for national data.
The US Census Bureau has per capita income for Americans broken down into several categories.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/For all Americans, these numbers went from $15,200 in 1967 to $30,176 in 2014. Specifically, in 1988 the average income was $25,200, while in 2014 it had risen to $30,176. By these government figures, Americans are better off as far as income goes in 2014 than they were in 1988. That's only one part of the puzzle, though, since things like out of control government spending and regulations remove income from taxpayers.
I also looked at the poorly-educated, in this case with a lower than 9th grade education:
In 1991, as far back as the data goes, the average income was $14,064 (I averaged male and female incomes since they are broken down by sex).
By 2014, this had risen to $15,555.
When I looked at 9th through 12th grade educations, there was a slight change:
In 1991, the combined average was $18,476.
By 2014, the combined average was $17,032, a decrease.
High school diplomas:
1991: $27,441.
2014: $25,644, again a decrease.
It's arguable the lower-educated working class is slightly better off today than they were in the late 80's to early 90's, however the slightly better-educated are not as well off when 1991 is compared to 2014.
While his hypocrite of a wife was touting "Just Say No," she was indulging herself with a variety of tranquilizer sand sleeping pills.
Nice segue into left field. Weren't those legal in 1988? As I recall, JSN was aimed at
illegal drugs. Don't like the drug laws? Change them. It can and is being done. Drug laws
are changing in America, with places such as Colorado reaping a windfall of taxes from them.
...reality garbage
Another point of agreement. 
Ignoring politics doesn't mean politics will ignore you.
-Pericles paraphrased in <100 characters
reply
share