5 ms·

Disaster is already here. In the 1950's you could raise a family with 2.3 children on a 40 hour work week. Today, families are struggling to make ends meet with

by hrgeek 10y ago

Disaster is already here. In the 1950's you could raise a family with 2.3 children on a 40 hour work week. Today, families are struggling to make ends meet with 60-70+ hour work weeks. Technology was supposed to have made things more efficient. It seems to have had the opposite effect.

blowski 10y ago
This is partly because the definition of comfortable has increased faster than the average salary.
- falcolas 10y ago
  In the 70's, middle-class "comfortable" consisted of a 16-30,000 sqft house with a yard, two cars, and remarkably good job stability (pensions, etc). Today, it takes nearly 2x the median household income to get something resembling that kind of life. Granted, you're still considered middle class at that level of income...
  - IncRnd 10y ago
    Are you sure that you meant 16-30,000 sqft house in the 70's was middle-class "comfortable"?
  - runako 10y ago
    > Today, it takes nearly 2x the median household income to get something resembling that kind of life. In some cities. In other cities, that's just not true. Example: in Atlanta, GA, the median income is right over $55k. According to Zillow, that will get you a house in the $227k range. There are tons of single-family houses with yards in that price range (or even half that) in the city. I ran similar math for Dallas, TX. I'd bet there are a lot of markets where this is true. Housing is only expensive in the expensive housing markets.
    - Kurimo 10y ago
      If you buy a house in the $227k range on a $55k income (With NO insurance and NO property taxes, the monthly payment would be ~$1,736.53), you will have to live very carefully to get by comfortably (considering $55k after federal/georgia taxes would net about $41,013.75, your monthly takehome would be $3,7k leaving you <$2k after mortgage, ignoring again insurance, property taxes, and other bills). Zillow and other home pushers are interested in selling houses, not in the consequences for the buyers thereafter.
      - runako 10y ago
        I kind of figured that would be a pushback, but I wanted to use a reproducible source (nerdwallet is more aggressive than Zillow and comes up with a higher number). And per realtor.com ~$1800/mo is about right for all-in (insurance, tax, etc.) in the Atlanta area in that price range. All that said, in Atlanta, 3 BR/2 BA houses are abundant in the under-$150k range. Or under $100k. It's really not approaching necessary to earn 2x the median income in cities like Atlanta to buy a house with a yard. The point is the OP's math assumes one lives in a high-cost area, which is not the reality where most Americans live.
        falcolas 10y ago
        Not really, once you include the other costs of living (and having children). $1.8k housing, plus $500 for property taxes and insurance, $1,000 for two vehicles (payments, insurance (damned teenage drivers), gas, maintenance), $500 into savings for household emergencies, $800 to feed four, $100 per person for clothing, the occasional ice cream, paying off medical deductables... and you're quickly looking at needing over $5,000 a month gross just to get by. 5,000 / 0.7 * 12 = $85,000 Toss in 10% savings and 10% retirement, and you're well over $100,000. Sure, you can cut corners and live off a lot less than that, but I'm comparing it to the standard of living had by people 40 years ago.
        runako 10y ago
        Right -- the $1,800 was inclusive of property taxes and insurance ("all-in"). And again -- there are great houses available for under half that ($900/mo all-in). (Random nitpick: if you're earning the median income, paying a mortgage while contributing to retirement; and have 2 kids, you are not paying anything close to 30% of your income in income taxes.) Also you are right that if you save ~30% of your median income ($500 + 10% savings + 10% retirement), the month-to-month gets a little tighter. But then you can retire early. :-) I'm not arguing that everything is roses, just that tens of millions of people live at the median income and own houses, cars, etc. You'd have done much better here arguing about the costs of childcare or higher education. Those are a bloodbath, no matter where you are.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > In the 70's, middle-class "comfortable" consisted of a 16-30,000 sqft house with a yard, two cars, and remarkably good job stability (pensions, etc). I think you are off of what you intended by an order of magnitude on that house size. (And a bit high for reality even after correcting for that error.) Tangentially related: https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf
    - falcolas 10y ago
      Yeah, one order of magnitude. I hate doing that. I don't think it's too high, though. My parents built something on the order of 5,000 sqft in the early 70's for around $15,000 (including the 5 acres of land), adjusted for inflation that's under $150,000. My Mom was able to put herself through 4 years of college by waiting tables part time. Yeah, we had it good. Why? My dad's blue collar job burying and splicing telephone lines for Ma'Bell. It really was a different time. That same job today comes with no job security and remarkably similar wages as it was 40 years ago, even as the cost of living and inflation has increased tenfold.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  I'm sure you feel very smug saying that but most people reading your comment are likely aware of this argument and don't agree with it. So you'd need to provide some evidence, rather than just a naked claim that we've all heard before.
nathanaldensr 10y ago
I think it did make things easier, but then the fruits of that betterness were captured by the oligarch class. Our rapid progression toward a society of renters goes along with this.
- c0nducktr 10y ago
  Feudalism 2.0
  - lucozade 10y ago
    > Feudalism 2.0 Well possibly. I'm British so my experience may differ but I happen to have read my great grandfather's diary, he was a carpenter during the Great War, spent a lot of time with my grandfather, he was in the RAF. My father was an immigrant, kicked out of Egypt by Nasser. My life, for all the hours I work and the stress, is a bed of roses compared to anything they went through. In fact, I feel slightly guilty even comparing. My children, who I believe are entering a more difficult world than the one I was born to, can't really comprehend my upbringing let alone their immediate ancestors. Feudalism 2.0? Maybe. But I'll take it Thank you. Sometimes you just have to take a step back and appreciate what you've got.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
c0nducktr 10y ago
Technology has made things more efficient - so efficient that those who own the business no longer need us.
smegel 10y ago
> Today, families are struggling to make ends meet with 60-70+ hour work weeks. Families? In some cities, singles are struggling to keep a crappy one-bedroom apartment roof over their head.
jewel 10y ago
The average home size in the 1950s was just 953 square feet. Now it's 2500 square feet. You likely would have a single car. Your utility bill would be a lot lower (no internet, no cable, no air conditioning). You'd eat a lot of home-cooked meals, have a serious vegetable garden, would sew and mend your own clothes, etc. You wouldn't need to pay for your own clothes. I suspect it's quite possible to raise a family on a single income if you're willing to live like it was the 1950s.
- tetraodonpuffer 10y ago
  talking about the home size is disingenuous, you might want to look at the lot size, not the home size, for example. Or do you think you would be able to have a 'serious vegetable garden' on today's postage stamp lots? Schooling costs are also way, way, way higher than they were in the 50s, and there are no well paying manufacturing jobs to do if you aren't inclined to go to college. I really doubt that you would be able to raise a family on a single income these days with the same standard of living you could have back then.
- kamaal 10y ago
  This seems to be the case in every country today. Basically the definition of 'comfort' underwent a huge upgrade without a equivalent upgrade in the perception of costs that would go to afford them. This is largely happening because people are using the term 'working-class' and 'middle-class' to measure to make different measurements in different times.
- carsongross 10y ago
  Yes, we've made economic progress. Look at the productivity-per-capita numbers. Yes, we should still be able to afford raising a family of five with one wage earner.
- r00fus 10y ago
  You know what, We'd get by without most of those things (obviously no Internet would be painful). However, due to both me and my wife working, we can't afford to properly raise our own kids, grow a veggie garden (plot size is too small) or sew/mend our clothes. We have 1400 sqft, don't have air conditioning, don't have cable, and if only one of us had to work, heck, we could do with only one car (bikes were a thing back then and we aimed for a good wike/balk score when purchasing). I think a lot of the "upgrades to life" are simply the consequence of busier lives, not exactly better ones.
sfaf 10y ago
Technology is making things more efficient; things are produced cheaper and more efficiently and with less humans. The problem is that policy hasn't evolved with technology. Technology has caused two things: 1) increase income disparity & 2) increase unemployment. The problem is that what worked for American til WW2, a laissez faire economic policy, doesn't handle these two things well. We need to encourage our policy makers to figure out a society that has better wealth distribution and can handle a large % of the population not working.
dmode 10y ago
Although this may be true for US and other Western nations, in 1950 billions of people outside the Western world live in dire poverty and many starved to death. Since then, over a billion people in India and China alone have been lifted out of poverty, life expectancies have been increased dramatically, several diseases have been eradicated and contained, food security have been expanded. Yes, some of it has come at the expense of populations in developed countries, but if you put a global lens on it, 2016 is a much better time than 1950s
danieltillett 10y ago
The decline happened when the rich realised that expropriation was no longer a risk. The aftermath of the Great War (the rise of communism and the Great Depression) scared the owners of capital into giving a much larger share of production to labor (the split went from 50-50 to 70-30). By the late 1960s the risk of expropriation had gone and so capital owners started taking back their share until we are now back to 50-50 and heading lower. The masses know that something is very wrong, but they don't know what to do and hence the thrashing around for alternatives. As long as the rich keep the door to upper middle class open to the cognitive elite they are safe.
- internaut 10y ago
  Capitalists coordinating together to not make money? Not sure that is possible.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Of course they can do this. Nothing like facing a revolution to concentrate the mind. The rich handled this whole risk very well once they realised revolution was a real possibility. The only thing that amazes me is how strategic they were in handling the situation and how they were willing to sacrifice income and power for generations to win the class war. They are certainly being advised by the best minds available.

by hrgeek 10y ago

blowski 10y ago

This is partly because the definition of comfortable has increased faster than the average salary.

falcolas 10y ago
In the 70's, middle-class "comfortable" consisted of a 16-30,000 sqft house with a yard, two cars, and remarkably good job stability (pensions, etc). Today, it takes nearly 2x the median household income to get something resembling that kind of life. Granted, you're still considered middle class at that level of income...
- IncRnd 10y ago
  Are you sure that you meant 16-30,000 sqft house in the 70's was middle-class "comfortable"?
- runako 10y ago
  > Today, it takes nearly 2x the median household income to get something resembling that kind of life. In some cities. In other cities, that's just not true. Example: in Atlanta, GA, the median income is right over $55k. According to Zillow, that will get you a house in the $227k range. There are tons of single-family houses with yards in that price range (or even half that) in the city. I ran similar math for Dallas, TX. I'd bet there are a lot of markets where this is true. Housing is only expensive in the expensive housing markets.
  - Kurimo 10y ago
    If you buy a house in the $227k range on a $55k income (With NO insurance and NO property taxes, the monthly payment would be ~$1,736.53), you will have to live very carefully to get by comfortably (considering $55k after federal/georgia taxes would net about $41,013.75, your monthly takehome would be $3,7k leaving you <$2k after mortgage, ignoring again insurance, property taxes, and other bills). Zillow and other home pushers are interested in selling houses, not in the consequences for the buyers thereafter.
    - runako 10y ago
      I kind of figured that would be a pushback, but I wanted to use a reproducible source (nerdwallet is more aggressive than Zillow and comes up with a higher number). And per realtor.com ~$1800/mo is about right for all-in (insurance, tax, etc.) in the Atlanta area in that price range. All that said, in Atlanta, 3 BR/2 BA houses are abundant in the under-$150k range. Or under $100k. It's really not approaching necessary to earn 2x the median income in cities like Atlanta to buy a house with a yard. The point is the OP's math assumes one lives in a high-cost area, which is not the reality where most Americans live.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        Not really, once you include the other costs of living (and having children). $1.8k housing, plus $500 for property taxes and insurance, $1,000 for two vehicles (payments, insurance (damned teenage drivers), gas, maintenance), $500 into savings for household emergencies, $800 to feed four, $100 per person for clothing, the occasional ice cream, paying off medical deductables... and you're quickly looking at needing over $5,000 a month gross just to get by. 5,000 / 0.7 * 12 = $85,000 Toss in 10% savings and 10% retirement, and you're well over $100,000. Sure, you can cut corners and live off a lot less than that, but I'm comparing it to the standard of living had by people 40 years ago.
        runako 10y ago
        Right -- the $1,800 was inclusive of property taxes and insurance ("all-in"). And again -- there are great houses available for under half that ($900/mo all-in). (Random nitpick: if you're earning the median income, paying a mortgage while contributing to retirement; and have 2 kids, you are not paying anything close to 30% of your income in income taxes.) Also you are right that if you save ~30% of your median income ($500 + 10% savings + 10% retirement), the month-to-month gets a little tighter. But then you can retire early. :-) I'm not arguing that everything is roses, just that tens of millions of people live at the median income and own houses, cars, etc. You'd have done much better here arguing about the costs of childcare or higher education. Those are a bloodbath, no matter where you are.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > In the 70's, middle-class "comfortable" consisted of a 16-30,000 sqft house with a yard, two cars, and remarkably good job stability (pensions, etc). I think you are off of what you intended by an order of magnitude on that house size. (And a bit high for reality even after correcting for that error.) Tangentially related: https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Yeah, one order of magnitude. I hate doing that. I don't think it's too high, though. My parents built something on the order of 5,000 sqft in the early 70's for around $15,000 (including the 5 acres of land), adjusted for inflation that's under $150,000. My Mom was able to put herself through 4 years of college by waiting tables part time. Yeah, we had it good. Why? My dad's blue collar job burying and splicing telephone lines for Ma'Bell. It really was a different time. That same job today comes with no job security and remarkably similar wages as it was 40 years ago, even as the cost of living and inflation has increased tenfold.
1_2__3 10y ago
I'm sure you feel very smug saying that but most people reading your comment are likely aware of this argument and don't agree with it. So you'd need to provide some evidence, rather than just a naked claim that we've all heard before.

nathanaldensr 10y ago

I think it did make things easier, but then the fruits of that betterness were captured by the oligarch class. Our rapid progression toward a society of renters goes along with this.

c0nducktr 10y ago
Feudalism 2.0
- lucozade 10y ago
  > Feudalism 2.0 Well possibly. I'm British so my experience may differ but I happen to have read my great grandfather's diary, he was a carpenter during the Great War, spent a lot of time with my grandfather, he was in the RAF. My father was an immigrant, kicked out of Egypt by Nasser. My life, for all the hours I work and the stress, is a bed of roses compared to anything they went through. In fact, I feel slightly guilty even comparing. My children, who I believe are entering a more difficult world than the one I was born to, can't really comprehend my upbringing let alone their immediate ancestors. Feudalism 2.0? Maybe. But I'll take it Thank you. Sometimes you just have to take a step back and appreciate what you've got.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

c0nducktr 10y ago

Technology has made things more efficient - so efficient that those who own the business no longer need us.

smegel 10y ago

> Today, families are struggling to make ends meet with 60-70+ hour work weeks. Families? In some cities, singles are struggling to keep a crappy one-bedroom apartment roof over their head.

jewel 10y ago

The average home size in the 1950s was just 953 square feet. Now it's 2500 square feet. You likely would have a single car. Your utility bill would be a lot lower (no internet, no cable, no air conditioning). You'd eat a lot of home-cooked meals, have a serious vegetable garden, would sew and mend your own clothes, etc. You wouldn't need to pay for your own clothes. I suspect it's quite possible to raise a family on a single income if you're willing to live like it was the 1950s.

tetraodonpuffer 10y ago
talking about the home size is disingenuous, you might want to look at the lot size, not the home size, for example. Or do you think you would be able to have a 'serious vegetable garden' on today's postage stamp lots? Schooling costs are also way, way, way higher than they were in the 50s, and there are no well paying manufacturing jobs to do if you aren't inclined to go to college. I really doubt that you would be able to raise a family on a single income these days with the same standard of living you could have back then.
kamaal 10y ago
This seems to be the case in every country today. Basically the definition of 'comfort' underwent a huge upgrade without a equivalent upgrade in the perception of costs that would go to afford them. This is largely happening because people are using the term 'working-class' and 'middle-class' to measure to make different measurements in different times.
carsongross 10y ago
Yes, we've made economic progress. Look at the productivity-per-capita numbers. Yes, we should still be able to afford raising a family of five with one wage earner.
r00fus 10y ago
You know what, We'd get by without most of those things (obviously no Internet would be painful). However, due to both me and my wife working, we can't afford to properly raise our own kids, grow a veggie garden (plot size is too small) or sew/mend our clothes. We have 1400 sqft, don't have air conditioning, don't have cable, and if only one of us had to work, heck, we could do with only one car (bikes were a thing back then and we aimed for a good wike/balk score when purchasing). I think a lot of the "upgrades to life" are simply the consequence of busier lives, not exactly better ones.

sfaf 10y ago

Technology is making things more efficient; things are produced cheaper and more efficiently and with less humans. The problem is that policy hasn't evolved with technology. Technology has caused two things: 1) increase income disparity & 2) increase unemployment. The problem is that what worked for American til WW2, a laissez faire economic policy, doesn't handle these two things well. We need to encourage our policy makers to figure out a society that has better wealth distribution and can handle a large % of the population not working.

dmode 10y ago

Although this may be true for US and other Western nations, in 1950 billions of people outside the Western world live in dire poverty and many starved to death. Since then, over a billion people in India and China alone have been lifted out of poverty, life expectancies have been increased dramatically, several diseases have been eradicated and contained, food security have been expanded. Yes, some of it has come at the expense of populations in developed countries, but if you put a global lens on it, 2016 is a much better time than 1950s

danieltillett 10y ago

The decline happened when the rich realised that expropriation was no longer a risk. The aftermath of the Great War (the rise of communism and the Great Depression) scared the owners of capital into giving a much larger share of production to labor (the split went from 50-50 to 70-30). By the late 1960s the risk of expropriation had gone and so capital owners started taking back their share until we are now back to 50-50 and heading lower. The masses know that something is very wrong, but they don't know what to do and hence the thrashing around for alternatives. As long as the rich keep the door to upper middle class open to the cognitive elite they are safe.

internaut 10y ago
Capitalists coordinating together to not make money? Not sure that is possible.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Of course they can do this. Nothing like facing a revolution to concentrate the mind. The rich handled this whole risk very well once they realised revolution was a real possibility. The only thing that amazes me is how strategic they were in handling the situation and how they were willing to sacrifice income and power for generations to win the class war. They are certainly being advised by the best minds available.