4 ms·

This most interesting part for me is this "What people considered a boring hell of a life in 1965 is a fantasy unobtainable to an increasing number of >>average

This most interesting part for me is this "What people considered a boring hell of a life in 1965 is a fantasy unobtainable to an increasing number of >>average<< people". It would be good to analyze what happened between 1965 and 2022, what has changed that instead of progress we see some kind of downward spiral. Or maybe 1965s are idealized? Are there people looking on this? I have zero knowledge to understand all of this, unfortunately.

dazc 5y ago
I was born in '65. My dad had a regular job, mum didn't work and I have 3 siblings. We lived, what would be classed today as, a lower middle-class lifestyle. Aside from earnings and cost of living, the one thing I believe that has changed is that I don't remember knowing of many people living a much better life than I was at the time. Now it seems everyone is, even those earning much less than I do. Driving a car you could never be able to buy outright, multiple foreign holidays, fine dining and designer clothing are pretty much the norm these days because, somehow, people feel entitled to such a lifestyle regardless of their ability to finance it.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  > somehow, people feel entitled to such a lifestyle regardless of their ability to finance it. How do you think Google and Facebook are trillion $ companies? They run targeted advertising to induce consumer demand via manipulation-as-a-service ("Hey advertisers, not enough people willingly going out to buy your $70 clothes made for $1? Here's the people susceptible to feeling inadequate when you show them how much sexier they'll be after their purchase). The $ they skim has to come from someone's pockets at the end of the day.
mellavora 5y ago
See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/life-simpsons-no-longer-attainable/617499/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/life-simps... The Life in The Simpsons Is No Longer Attainable The most famous dysfunctional family of 1990s television enjoyed, by today’s standards, an almost dreamily secure existence. By Dani Alexis Ryskamp Updated at 11:10 a.m. ET on February 8, 2021.
snomad 5y ago
> It would be good to analyze what happened between 1965 and 2022, what has changed that instead of progress we see some kind of downward spiral. Whether you agree with him or not, this video highlights how the 70s changed everything (in the US at least) The Cardboard Box Reform - Nixon's Ghost Bill & A Crucial Flaw in Democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY
apatters 5y ago
I don't mean to suggest there are no problems with cost of living. In broad strokes here's what happened since '65, or let's go back a little further to the start of the post-WW2 world. 1. Millions of women entered the workforce (started when all the men were overseas fighting) 2. The government went off the gold standard 3. Millions of people in other countries replaced the workforce via globalization Those are the three biggies. Expanding the number of available workers kicked off the pressure on wages. Going off the gold standard kicked off massive inflation. Globalization shrunk the number of jobs available and was the nail in the coffin. So that's why we don't have the same economics as a nuclear family in the 60s. Now in practice a lot of essentials in the US CPI have stayed pretty cheap. Technology enabled a lot of things to stay or become cheap. But a few big ones are a train wreck. Home ownership, health care, education, all skyrocketed. So when I see someone on the median income say "Man I'm getting older and I don't know how you can afford to settle down and buy a house and start a family" yeah that's a very real problem which is grounded in facts. But when someone says "life sucks for the 24 year old who has the resume to work in the Valley and pulls down almost a quarter mil," here's what that is: horse shit.
- quintushoratius 5y ago
  Your premise needs a reality check. > 1. Millions of women entered the workforce (started when all the men were overseas fighting) The rate of women in the workplace ticked up slightly during WW1 and WW2, but by no means was it a sea change. That's a narrative pushed by "traditionalist" thinkers that found a simple thing to pin social upheaval on The real change was accelerated industrialization during the first half of the 20th century. Millions moved from farms to factories, men and women alike. > 2. The government went off the gold standard So what? > Going off the gold standard kicked off massive inflation. If you call a steady 1-2%/year "massive". The real effect has been to stabilize the economy. I guess people who like gold standards don't know their economic history. The 19th century, which is arguably a recognizable modern economy (in the West), was punctuated by panics and strong recessions that made the "Great Depression" look tame. (which itself makes the Great Recession look pretty tame.). Getting of the gold standard was key to fixing that. > 3. Millions of people in other countries replaced the workforce via globalization I agree with you here, but again I think you overstate the impact. The US was once in the position of SE Asia today: (relatively) educated workforce, cheap labor, lax standards compared to Europe. In it's time, the American South was the jobs-export market for the North. These trends have been happening basically forever. More importantly, the remaining manufacturing jobs, and there are many, are high wage and high skill. They're also high productivity, so there are fewer. That leads to another force at work, which is a bigger threat than exported jobs: automation. Most manufacturing jobs didn't leave, they disappeared.

dazc 5y ago

I was born in '65. My dad had a regular job, mum didn't work and I have 3 siblings. We lived, what would be classed today as, a lower middle-class lifestyle. Aside from earnings and cost of living, the one thing I believe that has changed is that I don't remember knowing of many people living a much better life than I was at the time. Now it seems everyone is, even those earning much less than I do. Driving a car you could never be able to buy outright, multiple foreign holidays, fine dining and designer clothing are pretty much the norm these days because, somehow, people feel entitled to such a lifestyle regardless of their ability to finance it.

reducesuffering 5y ago
> somehow, people feel entitled to such a lifestyle regardless of their ability to finance it. How do you think Google and Facebook are trillion $ companies? They run targeted advertising to induce consumer demand via manipulation-as-a-service ("Hey advertisers, not enough people willingly going out to buy your $70 clothes made for $1? Here's the people susceptible to feeling inadequate when you show them how much sexier they'll be after their purchase). The $ they skim has to come from someone's pockets at the end of the day.

mellavora 5y ago

See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/life-simpsons-no-longer-attainable/617499/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/life-simps... The Life in The Simpsons Is No Longer Attainable The most famous dysfunctional family of 1990s television enjoyed, by today’s standards, an almost dreamily secure existence. By Dani Alexis Ryskamp Updated at 11:10 a.m. ET on February 8, 2021.

snomad 5y ago

> It would be good to analyze what happened between 1965 and 2022, what has changed that instead of progress we see some kind of downward spiral. Whether you agree with him or not, this video highlights how the 70s changed everything (in the US at least) The Cardboard Box Reform - Nixon's Ghost Bill & A Crucial Flaw in Democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY

apatters 5y ago

I don't mean to suggest there are no problems with cost of living. In broad strokes here's what happened since '65, or let's go back a little further to the start of the post-WW2 world. 1. Millions of women entered the workforce (started when all the men were overseas fighting) 2. The government went off the gold standard 3. Millions of people in other countries replaced the workforce via globalization Those are the three biggies. Expanding the number of available workers kicked off the pressure on wages. Going off the gold standard kicked off massive inflation. Globalization shrunk the number of jobs available and was the nail in the coffin. So that's why we don't have the same economics as a nuclear family in the 60s. Now in practice a lot of essentials in the US CPI have stayed pretty cheap. Technology enabled a lot of things to stay or become cheap. But a few big ones are a train wreck. Home ownership, health care, education, all skyrocketed. So when I see someone on the median income say "Man I'm getting older and I don't know how you can afford to settle down and buy a house and start a family" yeah that's a very real problem which is grounded in facts. But when someone says "life sucks for the 24 year old who has the resume to work in the Valley and pulls down almost a quarter mil," here's what that is: horse shit.

quintushoratius 5y ago
Your premise needs a reality check. > 1. Millions of women entered the workforce (started when all the men were overseas fighting) The rate of women in the workplace ticked up slightly during WW1 and WW2, but by no means was it a sea change. That's a narrative pushed by "traditionalist" thinkers that found a simple thing to pin social upheaval on The real change was accelerated industrialization during the first half of the 20th century. Millions moved from farms to factories, men and women alike. > 2. The government went off the gold standard So what? > Going off the gold standard kicked off massive inflation. If you call a steady 1-2%/year "massive". The real effect has been to stabilize the economy. I guess people who like gold standards don't know their economic history. The 19th century, which is arguably a recognizable modern economy (in the West), was punctuated by panics and strong recessions that made the "Great Depression" look tame. (which itself makes the Great Recession look pretty tame.). Getting of the gold standard was key to fixing that. > 3. Millions of people in other countries replaced the workforce via globalization I agree with you here, but again I think you overstate the impact. The US was once in the position of SE Asia today: (relatively) educated workforce, cheap labor, lax standards compared to Europe. In it's time, the American South was the jobs-export market for the North. These trends have been happening basically forever. More importantly, the remaining manufacturing jobs, and there are many, are high wage and high skill. They're also high productivity, so there are fewer. That leads to another force at work, which is a bigger threat than exported jobs: automation. Most manufacturing jobs didn't leave, they disappeared.