3 ms·

You wrongly equate material possessions with happiness. I'd easily go back to a 60s quality lifestyle if my wife didn't have to work and I only had to work 40

You wrongly equate material possessions with happiness. I'd easily go back to a 60s quality lifestyle if my wife didn't have to work and I only had to work 40 hours a week to own a nice house. In the 60s they had most of the same electric appliances that we have today, save the microwave oven, personal computer, and the cellphone. I'd bet that eating food that can't be heated in a microwave is probably more healthy for you. Losing the PC would be a real loss, especially the Internet. Losing the cellphone is probably worth it, since we'd have landlines and can still call anyone we need to. You say we have all of these great things, but most of them are not important to living a quality life. Having time to spend with your family without having to have two wage earners working 60-70 hour weeks is worth more than a flat screen TV and a second car will ever be.

learc83 15y ago
Why don't you go back to a 60s lifestyle? It is definitely possible; plenty of people live low impact non material focussed lives. My point is that there is a reason that it takes 2 incomes to support a household now--All the extra stuff we have. I was refuting the people who keep asking why we have to work so hard just to have a normal life.
- forensic 15y ago
  >All the extra stuff we have. It's NOT that stuff though. That stuff is cheap. It's rent, food, childcare, healthcare, and education. These are not luxuries. Cellphones cost nothing compared to these real costs, which can't be reduced by a "low impact" life.
  - learc83 15y ago
    Food - I read a report recently that said the amount of hours the average person has to work to feed himself has dropped dramatically over the last 100 years. Rent - accept 60s level housing and you can easily afford it, 1 bathroom each kid doesn't get his own bedroom etc.. Childcare - not applicable if you are living a 60s lifestyle you're wife won't work. Education - Expensive b/c the govt subsidizes it. Healthcare - problematic, but only b/c healthcare now is so much better than healthcare then.
    - usaar333 15y ago
      Rent -- I've lived in multiple places built in the 1960s and all had enough bedrooms for 2 kids and a separate bathroom for parents and kids. These places were built for middle class families. This comparison also matters where you are. At least in the SF Bay Area, housing prices have doubled in real terms since the mid 1980s (for the same house!). You aren't getting better housing now.. just more expensive housing. (Note: Such price rises are not the case in areas w/ plenty of land, e.g. outside major coastal metro areas)
      - ianferrel 15y ago
        > Rent -- I've lived in multiple places built in the 1960s and all had enough bedrooms for 2 kids and a separate bathroom for parents and kids. These places were built for middle class families. Survivorship bias. The average house has increased in size steadily, just as families have become smaller. People really did have a lot less room then. Houses that end up too small for current tastes tend to get expanded or torn down and replaced.
- watmough 15y ago
  Totally agree with your point. Look for the stay-at-home dads with working wives and you'll find the people who have more time to spend preparing food and eating together, than money to go to restaurants, or live on take-outs.
- usaar333 15y ago
  I don't share grandparent's views of the 1960s, but the cost of additional material goods are trivial. The main reason you need 2 incomes to support a household is because you assume you have 2 incomes when building the household. In other words, (if 1 income was desirable), a couple lives in way too nice of a house. They also end up with two nice cars instead of one average one and probably eat out more than they could afford on one income. That's pretty much it; all other costs are trivial. (Practical example: I'm paying $12,000 a year for a room in San Francisco. Car probably runs around $3,500. In comparison, the price of all my aggregate post-1960 technology -- cell phones, computers, internet, etc. is well below $3,500 -- the price of the car.)
  - illumin8 15y ago
    It's not extra stuff, it's the price of housing and education. You might be perfectly fine living in a single room in SF, but what if you have a family and actually care about what school your kids go to? Maybe you don't want to live in a neighborhood where there is crime right out in front of your house all day long.
vacri 15y ago
I'd bet that eating food that can't be heated in a microwave is probably more healthy for you. Cooking vegetables in a microwave is one of the best ways to keep nutrition locked in.

learc83 15y ago

Why don't you go back to a 60s lifestyle? It is definitely possible; plenty of people live low impact non material focussed lives. My point is that there is a reason that it takes 2 incomes to support a household now--All the extra stuff we have. I was refuting the people who keep asking why we have to work so hard just to have a normal life.

forensic 15y ago
>All the extra stuff we have. It's NOT that stuff though. That stuff is cheap. It's rent, food, childcare, healthcare, and education. These are not luxuries. Cellphones cost nothing compared to these real costs, which can't be reduced by a "low impact" life.
- learc83 15y ago
  Food - I read a report recently that said the amount of hours the average person has to work to feed himself has dropped dramatically over the last 100 years. Rent - accept 60s level housing and you can easily afford it, 1 bathroom each kid doesn't get his own bedroom etc.. Childcare - not applicable if you are living a 60s lifestyle you're wife won't work. Education - Expensive b/c the govt subsidizes it. Healthcare - problematic, but only b/c healthcare now is so much better than healthcare then.
  - usaar333 15y ago
    Rent -- I've lived in multiple places built in the 1960s and all had enough bedrooms for 2 kids and a separate bathroom for parents and kids. These places were built for middle class families. This comparison also matters where you are. At least in the SF Bay Area, housing prices have doubled in real terms since the mid 1980s (for the same house!). You aren't getting better housing now.. just more expensive housing. (Note: Such price rises are not the case in areas w/ plenty of land, e.g. outside major coastal metro areas)
    - ianferrel 15y ago
      > Rent -- I've lived in multiple places built in the 1960s and all had enough bedrooms for 2 kids and a separate bathroom for parents and kids. These places were built for middle class families. Survivorship bias. The average house has increased in size steadily, just as families have become smaller. People really did have a lot less room then. Houses that end up too small for current tastes tend to get expanded or torn down and replaced.
watmough 15y ago
Totally agree with your point. Look for the stay-at-home dads with working wives and you'll find the people who have more time to spend preparing food and eating together, than money to go to restaurants, or live on take-outs.
usaar333 15y ago
I don't share grandparent's views of the 1960s, but the cost of additional material goods are trivial. The main reason you need 2 incomes to support a household is because you assume you have 2 incomes when building the household. In other words, (if 1 income was desirable), a couple lives in way too nice of a house. They also end up with two nice cars instead of one average one and probably eat out more than they could afford on one income. That's pretty much it; all other costs are trivial. (Practical example: I'm paying $12,000 a year for a room in San Francisco. Car probably runs around $3,500. In comparison, the price of all my aggregate post-1960 technology -- cell phones, computers, internet, etc. is well below $3,500 -- the price of the car.)
- illumin8 15y ago
  It's not extra stuff, it's the price of housing and education. You might be perfectly fine living in a single room in SF, but what if you have a family and actually care about what school your kids go to? Maybe you don't want to live in a neighborhood where there is crime right out in front of your house all day long.

vacri 15y ago

I'd bet that eating food that can't be heated in a microwave is probably more healthy for you. Cooking vegetables in a microwave is one of the best ways to keep nutrition locked in.