4 ms·

While it's true that it was possible to support a family on a single unskilled laborer income in the '50s, their standard of living was far below anything most

by stefs 10mo ago

While it's true that it was possible to support a family on a single unskilled laborer income in the '50s, their standard of living was far below anything most people would accept today.

fpoling 10mo ago
A single income family in US with the husband working at a factory in fifties and sixties could afford a home with washing machine, dish washer, TV and a phone. Surely the home was smaller, but it was easier to clean, the TV screen was tiny, but then the family can go to a cinema. There was no internet, but for information one could go to the library. So how it was far below what people in US could accept today?
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
  There are certainly a few people that would accept it, look at the whole "tiny home" and "van life" phenomena. It's possible that more would, if smaller houses were available. Builders make much more profit on larger houses though. I guess apartment living is closer to what people had post-war, but everybody wants to buy a house to get in the real estate gravy train.
tonyedgecombe 10mo ago
>While it's true that it was possible to support a family on a single unskilled laborer income in the '50s I'm not even sure that is true. Poverty in the US was higher in the fifties and sixties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate,_1959_to_2017.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/...
immibis 10mo ago
Depends how you measure, surely. They had less TVs and computers and prepackaged food, the same amount of sunlight, and more freedom (as measured by average income to rent ratio).
- crossbody 10mo ago
  Not true, the share of income going to living necessities has steadily dropped. Even not true for sunlight - the air quality was so much worse that you couldn't see much of the sun anyway

by stefs 10mo ago

While it's true that it was possible to support a family on a single unskilled laborer income in the '50s, their standard of living was far below anything most people would accept today.

fpoling 10mo ago

A single income family in US with the husband working at a factory in fifties and sixties could afford a home with washing machine, dish washer, TV and a phone. Surely the home was smaller, but it was easier to clean, the TV screen was tiny, but then the family can go to a cinema. There was no internet, but for information one could go to the library. So how it was far below what people in US could accept today?

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
There are certainly a few people that would accept it, look at the whole "tiny home" and "van life" phenomena. It's possible that more would, if smaller houses were available. Builders make much more profit on larger houses though. I guess apartment living is closer to what people had post-war, but everybody wants to buy a house to get in the real estate gravy train.

tonyedgecombe 10mo ago

>While it's true that it was possible to support a family on a single unskilled laborer income in the '50s I'm not even sure that is true. Poverty in the US was higher in the fifties and sixties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate,_1959_to_2017.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/...

immibis 10mo ago

Depends how you measure, surely. They had less TVs and computers and prepackaged food, the same amount of sunlight, and more freedom (as measured by average income to rent ratio).

crossbody 10mo ago
Not true, the share of income going to living necessities has steadily dropped. Even not true for sunlight - the air quality was so much worse that you couldn't see much of the sun anyway