6 ms·

This comment misses the point of the article. I.e., the monotony once required in hand-washing clothes (say by a housewife) has not been converted into free tim

This comment misses the point of the article. I.e., the monotony once required in hand-washing clothes (say by a housewife) has not been converted into free time, but rather converted into a different form of monotony (parents earning dual incomes)

renewiltord 3y ago
Really? The standard of living is so much higher now I cannot imagine how these two situations are equivalent. You can live the old single income lifestyle if you so desire.
- spiderice 3y ago
  Not really. Sure, you can survive with a single income. But you often can’t own two cars, a house, and a cabin in the mountains, and raise 3+ kids with a single income. like you use to be able to do. Further, nobody has much free time today, despite technology doing most of the things that we used to spend our time on. Instead of technology giving everyone free time, everyone just had to work more in order to get the same lifestyle. Edit: though yes, quality of life is better in many ways.
  - wilg 3y ago
    Prove it!
  - em500 3y ago
    Across the US population, people spend 3.5 hours per day on work and 5.2 hours on leisure and sports[1]. Remember that a substantial part of the population does not work much (children, students, retirees, unemployed), so it's untrue that nobody has much free time today. Even the full-time employed spend on average 3.27 hours per day on leisure and sports on weekdays and 5.94 hours per day on weekends and holidays[2]. Checking the same survey from 20 years ago[3], average work has decreased a bit (was 3.69 hours per day) and average leisure and sports increased a bit (was 5.11 hours per day). [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11B.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11B.htm [3] https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2003.pdf https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2003.pdf
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    > But you often can’t own two cars, a house, and a cabin in the mountains, and raise 3+ kids with a single income. like you use to be able to do. This doesn't sound believable to me. This sounds like a luxurious lifestyle for America at any point. As an example, the Dodge Coronet was $2k in 1950, and median annual income was $3300, so that's 60%. A 2023 Honda Civic is $23k, and median annual income is $57k, so that's 40%. So that's actually better today, especially because the Civic is a far better car than the Coronet. I think this is lifestyle inflation.
    - ryeights 3y ago
      Median personal income in the US is $40,480 as of 2022 [1]. That puts the Civic at 57%. Moreover, Dodge was a mid-level marque in 1950. The proper comparison would be the Plymouth Deluxe, Chrysler’s entry-level full-size car, which had an base price of $1,386 [2], which comes out to 42% of income. [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N [2]: https://www.jdpower.com/cars/1950/plymouth/deluxe/2-door-coupe https://www.jdpower.com/cars/1950/plymouth/deluxe/2-door-cou...
      - renewiltord 3y ago
        All right then. If we're going entry level, let's go entry level. That's the Kia Rio LX at $16450[0]. We'll select the column that says "wife not in paid labor force"[1] from the census statistics for 1950 since we're going with solo income so that's $3315. Let's do the math: - 2023: 16450/40480 is 40.6% - 1950: 1386/3315 is 41.8% Even if it were 42% to 57% that's nowhere near 2 cars comfortably then and not now. And that's not even counting that the Kia Rio is a futuristic marvel compared to the older vehicle. This other business about the cars being more affordable seems like a total fiction. 0: https://www.kbb.com/kia/rio/ https://www.kbb.com/kia/rio/ 1: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demographics/p60-09.pdf https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demographi...
- wizofaus 3y ago
  But you won't be able to afford anything (housing especially) where you're competing against dual income families.
  - jacobr1 3y ago
    Manufactured goods are genuinely higher quality and/or cheaper. Services are more expensive. Zero-sum type good (housing in most metros) are higher, for complex reasons, but boiling down to the ratio of availability to demand. But if you want a manufactured home, in the middle of nowhere, you can get a higher quality house today, for lower cost relative to that quality than in the past.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      There are a lot more full-time DINK households these days (in my own circle of family/acquaintances, at least a third of them would qualify, despite them all being 40+), and they're often competing against households with kids that might have at best 1.5 incomes for not just housing but any number of goods (cars, appliances etc.). As soon as there are supply constraints of any sort (and there's been a number recently) it's going to drive prices up to the detriment of households with smaller total incomes, making the "choice" to remain a single-income household not a very realistic/attractive one.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  That really depends what you mean by "standard of living". If you mean a disposable fast fashion material wealth like Zara, sure; things have never been better. Yet every indicator of spiritual well being is in the gutter. Suicide, drug use, alienation, the feeling of belonging. We have BS jobs, to earn money to buy BS we dont need, to read BS on the internet, to ignore our kids.
Aunche 3y ago
The labor force participation rate is only 3% higher than it was in 1950 [1]. Meanwhile, the average number of hours people work per year has dropped by over 200 [2]. People have more free time than ever. They just spend most of it consuming media [3]. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG [3] https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/us-time-spent-with-media-2022 https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/us-time-spent-wi...
- deepsquirrelnet 3y ago
  “the participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively looking for work” Many more people in the 50s were not actively looking for work.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    I included this graph precisely because it shows there weren't particularly fewer people not actively looking for work. You're probably confusing this for the employment rate.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  Labor participation numbers are very interesting. However I think they point to a deeper malaise: There is a segment of society that has checked out. They wont form families. They wont realize themselves. They wont create bonds of love with others. They survive living off the good will parents, grandparents or the state. Mind you, I consider these people are victims. On the other hand, people who are trying to form families, form bonds, find it much harder to afford basic things their parents could afford despite selling double the amount of hours to the labor market than their families did two, or three generations ago.
  - barrysteve 3y ago
    Victims?! Really? The malaise is deeply relatable, and we ignore the warning signs constantly. Not everybody believes the same things and it's about damn time the outliers stood up and asserted their will. The majority cannot consume and suck the life out of competing beliefs forever. The hubris in the hive mind attitudes and the complete homogenity of consciousness in popular culture, is lethally bad for social cohesion. It is mandatory to have private beliefs supported and related online. These excluding technological policies sold to the public on dogwhistle references to domestic terrorism has to end. Obviously no-one is going to do it, there's too much wealth to secure and good times to be milked. The majority has let these men down and we call them victims, as if that helps broken morale and isolated truths....
rhaps0dy 3y ago
Try being the housewife in that scenario, like the comment you're replying to suggested.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  Try being the assembly line worker, doing boring, repetitive, potentially dangerous tasks for eight hours. At least the housewife's chores are varied and don't (typically) last all day.
thsksbd 3y ago
Not to mention that there is great potential for self growth in boring, drudging work. A Zen master has his pupils clean the lawn by picking up each leaf by hand, not by using a rake.
xeckr 3y ago
Have you considered that the housewife today doesn't have to tolerate getting abused by her alcoholic husband, and can simply leave to become financially self-sufficient?
Tadpole9181 3y ago
Do you think I do laundry at work? If I had to do laundry by hand, I'd absolutely be losing leisure time outside of work.

renewiltord 3y ago

Really? The standard of living is so much higher now I cannot imagine how these two situations are equivalent. You can live the old single income lifestyle if you so desire.

spiderice 3y ago
Not really. Sure, you can survive with a single income. But you often can’t own two cars, a house, and a cabin in the mountains, and raise 3+ kids with a single income. like you use to be able to do. Further, nobody has much free time today, despite technology doing most of the things that we used to spend our time on. Instead of technology giving everyone free time, everyone just had to work more in order to get the same lifestyle. Edit: though yes, quality of life is better in many ways.
- wilg 3y ago
  Prove it!
- em500 3y ago
  Across the US population, people spend 3.5 hours per day on work and 5.2 hours on leisure and sports[1]. Remember that a substantial part of the population does not work much (children, students, retirees, unemployed), so it's untrue that nobody has much free time today. Even the full-time employed spend on average 3.27 hours per day on leisure and sports on weekdays and 5.94 hours per day on weekends and holidays[2]. Checking the same survey from 20 years ago[3], average work has decreased a bit (was 3.69 hours per day) and average leisure and sports increased a bit (was 5.11 hours per day). [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm [2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11B.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11B.htm [3] https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2003.pdf https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2003.pdf
- renewiltord 3y ago
  > But you often can’t own two cars, a house, and a cabin in the mountains, and raise 3+ kids with a single income. like you use to be able to do. This doesn't sound believable to me. This sounds like a luxurious lifestyle for America at any point. As an example, the Dodge Coronet was $2k in 1950, and median annual income was $3300, so that's 60%. A 2023 Honda Civic is $23k, and median annual income is $57k, so that's 40%. So that's actually better today, especially because the Civic is a far better car than the Coronet. I think this is lifestyle inflation.
  - ryeights 3y ago
    Median personal income in the US is $40,480 as of 2022 [1]. That puts the Civic at 57%. Moreover, Dodge was a mid-level marque in 1950. The proper comparison would be the Plymouth Deluxe, Chrysler’s entry-level full-size car, which had an base price of $1,386 [2], which comes out to 42% of income. [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N [2]: https://www.jdpower.com/cars/1950/plymouth/deluxe/2-door-coupe https://www.jdpower.com/cars/1950/plymouth/deluxe/2-door-cou...
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      All right then. If we're going entry level, let's go entry level. That's the Kia Rio LX at $16450[0]. We'll select the column that says "wife not in paid labor force"[1] from the census statistics for 1950 since we're going with solo income so that's $3315. Let's do the math: - 2023: 16450/40480 is 40.6% - 1950: 1386/3315 is 41.8% Even if it were 42% to 57% that's nowhere near 2 cars comfortably then and not now. And that's not even counting that the Kia Rio is a futuristic marvel compared to the older vehicle. This other business about the cars being more affordable seems like a total fiction. 0: https://www.kbb.com/kia/rio/ https://www.kbb.com/kia/rio/ 1: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demographics/p60-09.pdf https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1952/demographi...
wizofaus 3y ago
But you won't be able to afford anything (housing especially) where you're competing against dual income families.
- jacobr1 3y ago
  Manufactured goods are genuinely higher quality and/or cheaper. Services are more expensive. Zero-sum type good (housing in most metros) are higher, for complex reasons, but boiling down to the ratio of availability to demand. But if you want a manufactured home, in the middle of nowhere, you can get a higher quality house today, for lower cost relative to that quality than in the past.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    There are a lot more full-time DINK households these days (in my own circle of family/acquaintances, at least a third of them would qualify, despite them all being 40+), and they're often competing against households with kids that might have at best 1.5 incomes for not just housing but any number of goods (cars, appliances etc.). As soon as there are supply constraints of any sort (and there's been a number recently) it's going to drive prices up to the detriment of households with smaller total incomes, making the "choice" to remain a single-income household not a very realistic/attractive one.
thsksbd 3y ago
That really depends what you mean by "standard of living". If you mean a disposable fast fashion material wealth like Zara, sure; things have never been better. Yet every indicator of spiritual well being is in the gutter. Suicide, drug use, alienation, the feeling of belonging. We have BS jobs, to earn money to buy BS we dont need, to read BS on the internet, to ignore our kids.

Aunche 3y ago

The labor force participation rate is only 3% higher than it was in 1950 [1]. Meanwhile, the average number of hours people work per year has dropped by over 200 [2]. People have more free time than ever. They just spend most of it consuming media [3]. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG [3] https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/us-time-spent-with-media-2022 https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/us-time-spent-wi...

deepsquirrelnet 3y ago
“the participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively looking for work” Many more people in the 50s were not actively looking for work.
- Aunche 3y ago
  I included this graph precisely because it shows there weren't particularly fewer people not actively looking for work. You're probably confusing this for the employment rate.
thsksbd 3y ago
Labor participation numbers are very interesting. However I think they point to a deeper malaise: There is a segment of society that has checked out. They wont form families. They wont realize themselves. They wont create bonds of love with others. They survive living off the good will parents, grandparents or the state. Mind you, I consider these people are victims. On the other hand, people who are trying to form families, form bonds, find it much harder to afford basic things their parents could afford despite selling double the amount of hours to the labor market than their families did two, or three generations ago.
- barrysteve 3y ago
  Victims?! Really? The malaise is deeply relatable, and we ignore the warning signs constantly. Not everybody believes the same things and it's about damn time the outliers stood up and asserted their will. The majority cannot consume and suck the life out of competing beliefs forever. The hubris in the hive mind attitudes and the complete homogenity of consciousness in popular culture, is lethally bad for social cohesion. It is mandatory to have private beliefs supported and related online. These excluding technological policies sold to the public on dogwhistle references to domestic terrorism has to end. Obviously no-one is going to do it, there's too much wealth to secure and good times to be milked. The majority has let these men down and we call them victims, as if that helps broken morale and isolated truths....

rhaps0dy 3y ago

Try being the housewife in that scenario, like the comment you're replying to suggested.

thsksbd 3y ago
Try being the assembly line worker, doing boring, repetitive, potentially dangerous tasks for eight hours. At least the housewife's chores are varied and don't (typically) last all day.

thsksbd 3y ago

Not to mention that there is great potential for self growth in boring, drudging work. A Zen master has his pupils clean the lawn by picking up each leaf by hand, not by using a rake.

xeckr 3y ago

Have you considered that the housewife today doesn't have to tolerate getting abused by her alcoholic husband, and can simply leave to become financially self-sufficient?

Tadpole9181 3y ago

Do you think I do laundry at work? If I had to do laundry by hand, I'd absolutely be losing leisure time outside of work.