4 ms·

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

by 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.
sn9 10y ago
This 2008 talk by Elizabeth Warren shows how much more complicated the situation is than the picture you paint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
angmarsbane 10y ago
The reason people buy clothes is because clothes are significantly cheaper than they used to be. By the time you've purchased fabric, a pattern, and put in the labor the cost to make clothes far exceeds the cost to buy clothes.

by jewel 10y ago

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.

sn9 10y ago

This 2008 talk by Elizabeth Warren shows how much more complicated the situation is than the picture you paint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

angmarsbane 10y ago

The reason people buy clothes is because clothes are significantly cheaper than they used to be. By the time you've purchased fabric, a pattern, and put in the labor the cost to make clothes far exceeds the cost to buy clothes.