> Hand-me-downs were acceptable clothes. A 983 square foot house was an acceptable size. Kids sharing a room was an acceptable arrangement. A tire swing was acc

> Hand-me-downs were acceptable clothes. A 983 square foot house was an acceptable size. Kids sharing a room was an acceptable arrangement. A tire swing was acceptable entertainment. Few of those things are acceptable baselines for most households today. Hand-me-downs, room sharing, tire swing (or sidewalk games in our case), these are all features of my family's life now (as a fairly typical dual-professional household). My house is 1500 square feet, more than the typical for the 1950s, but the big difference is what that 1500 square feet cost to purchase and costs to maintain today. > The average new home now has more bathrooms than occupants. Most of the population lives in existing homes, not new homes. Housing cost these days is far more directly correlated to land value, which is itself correlated to location and access to "public" amenities like safety, transit corridors, "good" schools, job opportunities etc. I'd wager that most people are actually getting by using many of the same strategies employed in the 1950s, and that people chased status by spending just as much back then as today, but that the game has changed dramatically due to a number of secular changes in the economy. These include effects of technology and automation, and globalization, which while they have increased the size of the global pie, have also reduced labor's (AKA most people) share of that pie.