3 ms·

The lifestyle that the typical American lives 30 year old lives today is well in excess of the one lived by today's 90 year olds when they were 30. We're not tr

The lifestyle that the typical American lives 30 year old lives today is well in excess of the one lived by today's 90 year olds when they were 30. We're not trying to "keep up" with the 1950s in any sense. And also, any inflation graph I look at shows no "doubling in price" at any point. Or anything that looks loosely like it.

dheera 6y ago
The 90 year old didn't have bosses calling them at 2am when they were 30.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- missedthecue 6y ago
  That is not a norm today either.
drbobmd5 6y ago
There is still something to be said of the cost of basics has increased by an order of magnitude. I would argue that today's 30 year olds certainly have access to more options that simply didn't exist in the 50s or at least weren't commonplace, hence more things to spend one's pay on, but it would be near impossible to raise a family of four modestly on a middle class wage in most American cities/suburbs.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Impossible is a term that is probably much stronger than you meant to use. I grew up in a family of 8 (many adopted children) in American surburbia, on one income, and we never wanted for much. The breadwinner never even breached a six figure income. And this was not long ago. I have likely been around the sun fewer times than you have.
  - n4r9 6y ago
    > The breadwinner never even breached a six figure income Raising 6-7 kids on less than 100k sounds tough, although I'd guess you're getting towards the upper end of middle class by that point. The median household income in NYC is around $64k according to USCB, which leaves around $52k after taxes and social security. The rent on a three-bed in Brooklyn doesn't seem to go much below $2k per month, which leaves $2.3k per month for bills, groceries etc... .
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      Most Americans don't live in NYC, and $2.3k for bills and groceries is more than enough.
      - n4r9 6y ago
        Car, healthcare, pensions and groceries wouls take it to around $2k, leaving $300 for entertainment and eating out. It's doable but pretty tight.
atlgator 6y ago
I disagree. Maybe my grandparents weren't traveling to Croatia for Yacht Week but they traveled and lived all over the US, joined social clubs, my grandfather hunted and competed in sports, played piano. They weren't living under thatched roofs with scurvy or anything. And you can google any inflation calculator you want, $1000 in 1950 would be about $10k now, so I'd say it's doubled a few times.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  He is saying it doubled after women joined the workforce. Not that it has doubled over the past half century. And your father was well off compared to what is described in the Parent's comment. Some good evidence of my point is that the average house in 1950 was about 1000 sq ft and had one bathroom. Today, the average American home is about 2800 sq ft with multiple full bathrooms. Another example is that in 1950, very few American families owned more than one automotible. Today it is normal to own 2, 3, or 4. Food is much cheaper as a percentage of income, travel has gotten dramatically cheaper, and of course cheap technology and entertainment is coming out of our ears. Not to mention modern medicine and creature comforts such as year round air conditioning in the home and auto. People who think there has been a decline in the average Americans living standard since 1950 are either misinformed or trying to push a sketchy political agenda.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > He is saying it doubled after women joined the workforce. Not that it has doubled over the past half century. But it did not doubled, because such proposition assumes zero female labor participation in 1950 and that was not actually the case. Also, the healthcare costs and education costs went up significantly. Yes, there is more space, because space is cheap in suburbs. In a lot of ways, the gains are something I would happily gladly trade for cheap healthcare or college. Plus again, if you live in suburbs which were build and poplar only after 1950, the two cars are necessity. Because otherwise one partner is stuck at home without even being able to go shopping or take kids to school. In places with good public transport, the second or even first car is luxury. In suburb, you are way more pressured to have it.
- deleted 6y ago
mac01021 6y ago
Women joining the (paid) workforce happened smoothly over a few decades. And I believe the relevant economic effect was not so much an increase in the price of consumer goods but a suppression of wages, which otherwise might have been expected to grow at a rate closer to that of the GDP.
ehnto 6y ago
I can't agree when the idea of owning a home near where they work is a pipedream for many. People will say that you can move out of the cities in the same breath as telling you to get an education in order to get a higher paying white collar job at a big company, so which is it? It seems no matter the configuration of life the numbers end up weighted in favour of rent-seeking capitalism and even the salaryman following all the society best practices is pinching pennies just to enjoy a coffee. Even when I earned triple figures I couldn't afford to live in the suburbs. So why play the game at all if the grand prize is just scraping by?
jypepin 6y ago
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL CPI 10x'ed since 1950
- philjohn 6y ago
  And average wages stagnated from the late 70's by all accounts.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Here's an account that doesn't show that https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RCPHBS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RCPHBS

dheera 6y ago

The 90 year old didn't have bosses calling them at 2am when they were 30.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
missedthecue 6y ago
That is not a norm today either.

drbobmd5 6y ago

There is still something to be said of the cost of basics has increased by an order of magnitude. I would argue that today's 30 year olds certainly have access to more options that simply didn't exist in the 50s or at least weren't commonplace, hence more things to spend one's pay on, but it would be near impossible to raise a family of four modestly on a middle class wage in most American cities/suburbs.

missedthecue 6y ago
Impossible is a term that is probably much stronger than you meant to use. I grew up in a family of 8 (many adopted children) in American surburbia, on one income, and we never wanted for much. The breadwinner never even breached a six figure income. And this was not long ago. I have likely been around the sun fewer times than you have.
- n4r9 6y ago
  > The breadwinner never even breached a six figure income Raising 6-7 kids on less than 100k sounds tough, although I'd guess you're getting towards the upper end of middle class by that point. The median household income in NYC is around $64k according to USCB, which leaves around $52k after taxes and social security. The rent on a three-bed in Brooklyn doesn't seem to go much below $2k per month, which leaves $2.3k per month for bills, groceries etc... .
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Most Americans don't live in NYC, and $2.3k for bills and groceries is more than enough.
    - n4r9 6y ago
      Car, healthcare, pensions and groceries wouls take it to around $2k, leaving $300 for entertainment and eating out. It's doable but pretty tight.

atlgator 6y ago

I disagree. Maybe my grandparents weren't traveling to Croatia for Yacht Week but they traveled and lived all over the US, joined social clubs, my grandfather hunted and competed in sports, played piano. They weren't living under thatched roofs with scurvy or anything. And you can google any inflation calculator you want, $1000 in 1950 would be about $10k now, so I'd say it's doubled a few times.

missedthecue 6y ago
He is saying it doubled after women joined the workforce. Not that it has doubled over the past half century. And your father was well off compared to what is described in the Parent's comment. Some good evidence of my point is that the average house in 1950 was about 1000 sq ft and had one bathroom. Today, the average American home is about 2800 sq ft with multiple full bathrooms. Another example is that in 1950, very few American families owned more than one automotible. Today it is normal to own 2, 3, or 4. Food is much cheaper as a percentage of income, travel has gotten dramatically cheaper, and of course cheap technology and entertainment is coming out of our ears. Not to mention modern medicine and creature comforts such as year round air conditioning in the home and auto. People who think there has been a decline in the average Americans living standard since 1950 are either misinformed or trying to push a sketchy political agenda.
- watwut 6y ago
  > He is saying it doubled after women joined the workforce. Not that it has doubled over the past half century. But it did not doubled, because such proposition assumes zero female labor participation in 1950 and that was not actually the case. Also, the healthcare costs and education costs went up significantly. Yes, there is more space, because space is cheap in suburbs. In a lot of ways, the gains are something I would happily gladly trade for cheap healthcare or college. Plus again, if you live in suburbs which were build and poplar only after 1950, the two cars are necessity. Because otherwise one partner is stuck at home without even being able to go shopping or take kids to school. In places with good public transport, the second or even first car is luxury. In suburb, you are way more pressured to have it.
deleted 6y ago

mac01021 6y ago

Women joining the (paid) workforce happened smoothly over a few decades. And I believe the relevant economic effect was not so much an increase in the price of consumer goods but a suppression of wages, which otherwise might have been expected to grow at a rate closer to that of the GDP.

ehnto 6y ago

I can't agree when the idea of owning a home near where they work is a pipedream for many. People will say that you can move out of the cities in the same breath as telling you to get an education in order to get a higher paying white collar job at a big company, so which is it? It seems no matter the configuration of life the numbers end up weighted in favour of rent-seeking capitalism and even the salaryman following all the society best practices is pinching pennies just to enjoy a coffee. Even when I earned triple figures I couldn't afford to live in the suburbs. So why play the game at all if the grand prize is just scraping by?

jypepin 6y ago

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL CPI 10x'ed since 1950

philjohn 6y ago
And average wages stagnated from the late 70's by all accounts.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Here's an account that doesn't show that https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RCPHBS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RCPHBS