Installment # 38

My generation tends to think that we were the last generation to be better off than our parents; that until now each generation has had it better than the last.  But when I think about the electronic tools and toys of today, the social networks and how they enhance productivity and make more things possible, I am not so sure.  Consider also the quality of the performing arts, sports and entertainment today, and the ease of access. The writers, directors and performers are continually raising the bar in terms of excellence.  Special effects may be the easiest and most obvious improvement to see, but look at the quality of the performances.  In terms of movies and TV shows, I believe that behind every great performance is great writing, directing, editing and producing, as well.

The old Hollywood studio system strictly controlled who the stars would be and how many of them there would be.  Growing up, there were just a finite number, and most everybody knew their names.  Now the new and better talent just keeps coming, and it is from all corners of the English-speaking world.  (I must exclude non-English language music and films, since I don’t know any other languages.  Subtitles are fine, but you cannot appreciate fine acting via subtitles.)  What we call “triple threats,” in terms of their talents, were rare under the old studio system.  We marveled at people like Fred Astaire and Gene Kelley, who could dance up a storm, were good actors and could sing at least well enough to get by in a musical.  These days, the list of entertainers who can do all three well seems endless. 

When I define “triple threat” now I mean an entertainer who could make a good living at any one of the three disciplines (sing-dance-act), although professional dancing is probably the least lucrative of the three.  There is a fourth dimension that a few triple threats have: beauty, recognizing that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.  The example that comes to mind is Jennifer Lopez, who started out as a dancer on a TV show in the early 1990s (She was a Fly Girl on “In Living Color”), developed into a very successful singer and actress, and was named “Most Beautiful Person” recently by People Magazine.  That title may be more of a popularity contest than a beauty contest, but I don’t know anyone who would argue that Jennifer Lopez is not beautiful.  She could certainly make a good living based on her looks.

The TV singing and dancing competition shows that Sandy and I watch are ushering in an avalanche of talent.  The singing talent in this country is astounding!  Who knew?  There are hundreds of highly talented singers for each one I can think of from back in my day.  It is the same with dancing and acting.  In my day there were teenagers in every town trying to form singing groups – we used to call it street corner harmony or street corner doo-wop.  I think the reason we all did that was because we listened to the groups of our day and thought, “That’s not very good.  We can do that.” There was no system whereby great talent could get recognized and developed.  In our day (mid ‘50s to early ‘60s) there was a scandal known as “Payola.”  Evidently, the way to get your song played on the radio in those days was to “grease the right palms,” so to speak.  That would certainly explain why some fairly lousy singers made it big.  So in these various ways, I suggest that my kids’ generation is better off than mine was.

My kids’ generation has their kids in competition sports, music and dance.  Our girls played soccer and had dance lessons, but were not taught by highly qualified people.  Often it was volunteer parents.  Today’s soccer coaches are coming over from Europe to teach our kids.  The hockey coaches played in the NHL.  The dance companies and dance shows are creating great dance instructors.  Kids can access video on their I-phones that refresh their memories or allow them to learn by watching and listening over and over.  I have really grown in my appreciation of ballet and the other dances.  I used to associate ballet with girly men in embarrassing tights.  But watching my granddaughters develop as dancers, I have really come to appreciate the strength and beauty of dance; ballet as much as the rest.  I can understand how ballet is the foundation of most dance styles, and I appreciate how difficult it is to be an accomplished dancer.  Dance is not a sport, but dancers are athletes and artists.  Having visited and watched Alex in the Calgary area at least once per year over many years, we have seen the remarkable development of the girls, not only as dancers, but as graceful, poised, and confident people.

I also appreciate the boys who have stayed with dance into their late teens and early twenties and are setting the example for the next wave of boys. We like to watch “So you Think you can Dance” and “Dancing with the Stars,” and a lot of boys and men are paving the way for their gender in dance.  In addition to athleticism and artistry, young men are developing an appreciation for music, nutrition and physical health.  I am so envious of the beautiful bodies I see on these shows.  As I think I mention elsewhere, I am able to admire and be inspired by greatness and not be jealous in a negative way.

We were not the last generation to have it better than our parents’ generation.  The quality of life has so changed that comparison seems “apples to oranges.”  In a macro-economics class in Junior College back in the late 1960s, the teacher helped us put inflation in perspective.  Paraphrasing a little, he said: Here is a Sears, Roebuck catalog from 30 years ago.  Look at the prices then versus now, and you can see inflation.  However, look at the products.  Would you want those today?  If you could have those 30 year ago prices, but could only buy what was available 30 years ago, would you opt for that, or would you rather pay today’s prices for today’s products, which includes the variety, the modern conveniences, and many items that didn’t even exist 30 years ago, etc?  The message was and is that inflation in prices does not necessarily erode standard of living.  Now if we compare the changes in the last 30 years, while my kids were going from children to parents of teens and pre-teens, there really is no comparison.

A cup of coffee was still a dime when I was in junior college, and had been ever since I could remember.  In fact, I recall thinking that if there was one thing that would never go up in price, it was a simple cup of coffee.  For one thing, it seemed to me that most places that sold coffee by the cup used it to lure people to their lunch counters, etc, and encouraged them to linger (in hopes they would buy something else that maybe had more profit margin in it).  Thus, if a restaurant or coffee shop started charging more than a dime, no one would go there, and they would lose the more profitable business.   I think it was in the early 1970s when I was still with Pan Am that a bunch of us started to go to the more upscale coffee shop in a nearby hotel. 

The coffee was 25 cents, but it came with unlimited refills, which the waitress would cheerfully bring as needed.  That was the beginning of the upward trend in the price of a cup of coffee.  How it ever got to $2.50 or so is still a mystery.  For one thing, instead of using the coffee itself to encourage customers to linger, restaurants started using the waitress, who was only too happy to make frequent “refill” visits to the tables in hopes of improving their tips by selling more menu items and by building more rapport with their customers.

Most of us think in terms of the basics, like bread, milk, potatoes and cheese, which do tend to increase in price slowly, but inexorably over the years.  But what about consumer electronics?  It seems to be the case that today’s latest, most advanced, feature-rich products will cost significantly less next year, but that will be because there will be newer and better products available at that time.  And as good consumers, we will want the current newest and best, not last year’s best.  The most frugal among us will always be one or two model generations behind in order to save money.  That is the way my mind works, though I am usually out-voted.  The older, less expensive model is “good enough” for me.  The other idea is the willingness to do without for a year until the price comes down.  My mind works that way, too.  If I have done without something this long, what’s one more year?

Another idea about inflation that interests me is what economists call the time value of money.  If someone who owes me, say, $1,000 asks, “Would you rather I pay it to you now, or would you rather I give you $1,050 one year from now?” (5% interest), my answer, assuming that there is no risk of default, depends on what I need the money for.  If I need food, rent or gas money now, I would much rather have the $1,000 now, but if I am just going to stick it in a savings account, anyway, then I would rather earn the 5%.  If I have outstanding credit card debt bearing, say, 21% interest, I would definitely forgo the 5% and take the money now to pay down the credit card balance.  So on a personal level, the time value of money “depends,” while in the world of economics it can be calculated and agreed as one particular number at any one particular point in time.

For some reason I was just thinking about the 5 cent deposits on bottles and aluminum cans.  When we were kids it was 2 cents which, in terms of spending power, was probably worth more than 5 cents today, especially to us kids.  One summer we had quite a scheme going, where we would go around to the back of the grocery store, gather up the empties that had been returned by someone else, come back in through the front door and up to one of the cashiers, and get the deposit money.  We would choose a different cashier each time and different grocery stores once in awhile, but eventually a store manager figured out what we were doing and put a stop to it.  We were literally returning the same bottles over and over and getting the refunds each time!  We probably just spent it on candy and soda.