5 ms·

I guess the argument would go that your income is significantly higher in the sense that the quantity and complexity of stuff that you can afford now is vastly

I guess the argument would go that your income is significantly higher in the sense that the quantity and complexity of stuff that you can afford now is vastly greater than 100 years ago (e.g. washing machines, cars, clothes, computers). I’m not that saying it’s making anyone happier, mind you

philistine 4mo ago
It's all a matter of perspective. 100 years ago, the middle class' purchasing power is far bigger. Compared to 50 years ago, the middle class is getting poorer.
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
  The typical middle class family 50 years ago lived in a house you’d consider small and dingy, ate food you’d consider poverty meals, and drove a car you’d consider a poorly assembled death trap. Ask your parents or grandparents how often they got to have real butter growing up.
  - lanstin 4mo ago
    Or fresh oranges.
  - fl4regun 4mo ago
    This is a truth very few people are willing to confront. My grandmother lived in a village, on a farm, growing her own food and slaughtering her own animals, with no working plumbing, using a well for water. Of course a lot of that changed even just moving up to the 70s, but at that point there still wasn't quite the consumerist "buy whatever you want from wherever and whomever you want and have it almost immediately" environment. I can go to a grocery store here in Canada, buy tropical fruits year round that grow nowhere near me. I never have to concern myself with "this ingredient won't be here because it is seasonal", it'll be there, it'll just be more expensive out of season, worst case I just have to go a bit farther out to a different grocer than I usually go to.
    - antasvara 4mo ago
      This point is valid. However, lifestyle improvement rate is something that's slowing over time because of physical constraints. For example, the vehicle mortality rate is 1.44 per 100 million miles driven. That's down 17% from 2000 (so 25 years ago). However, the change from 1975 to 2000 was 53%. That's because as we get closer to 0, it gets harder and harder to improve those rates. On this metric at least, I don't think another 25 years will result in a noticeable amount of improvement? In the other direction, some things will become scarcer (and therefore cost more). Real estate is the obvious one; we can't create more land, and we keep having more people. Easily accessible drinking water is another; desalination is getting cheaper, but it's still way more expensive than pumping aquifer water. And some improvements are necessarily 1 time things. You can get tropical fruits year round, but that's been widely available since the 80-90's from what I can tell. So come 20 years from now, what will people be able to buy in a grocery store that I can't buy right now?
      - fl4regun 4mo ago
        The innovations aren't better versions of things we had in the past, they are more so unique new inventions. Plumbing is not electricity is not globalized food chains is not computers. Also we don't need to make more land to have more people. We can make more habitable living space within the same amount of land area, especially in countries like canada and the USA where we dumped a bunch of low-density housing absolutely everywhere, we just choose not to do that.
        antasvara 4mo ago
        >The innovations aren't better versions of things we had in the past, they are more so unique new inventions. Plumbing is not electricity is not globalized food chains is not computers. This is only sort of true. Plumbing is an improved version of a well pump, which is functionally (if not technically) an improvement over walking down to the river for a pot of water. Globalized food chains are mostly improvements on the supply chain we had (boats got faster, so things can travel from farther away places more quickly, refrigeration got added to existing modes of travel, etc.). >Also we don't need to make more land to have more people. We can make more habitable living space within the same amount of land area, especially in countries like canada and the USA where we dumped a bunch of low-density housing absolutely everywhere, we just choose not to do that. I didn't mean to imply that we can't increase housing density. But I think it's clear that having 2.3x more people than 1950 means that all else being equal, people will need to settle for less land. There's just more demand per square mile.
  - RichardCA 4mo ago
    I'll just add... Being able to eat pork without cooking it to death for fear of trichinosis is a recent development. Also, the old movies where someone tries to commit suicide by sticking their head in an oven. That was coal gas and we don't heat homes with it anymore.
    - jeltz 4mo ago
      Other than coal gas being not very efficient use of coal what was so bad about it? Stockholm still had coal gas in the early 2000s and accidental carbon monoxide poisoning was very rare. Of course the alternatives are better, but only marginally so.
  - andrepd 4mo ago
    That's total bullshit. Middle class families in 1976 did NOT live in smaller houses than today, and certainly did NOT eat "poverty meals"... What on earth are you even talking about. Especially silly that you mention housing because if there's one thing that is absolutely fucked for the middle class of the 2020s is housing.
    - SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
      Again, I would encourage you to research historical statistics or talk to people who lived in 1976 about their practical living conditions, rather than going off of your intuition about what is "bullshit" or which things are "absolutely fucked". Our intuitions about these things are heavily warped by social media, where stories that feel true without being true are easy to tell and often more viral. In every developed country whose numbers I've seen, the size of the average living space is up 30-50% since 50 years ago.
      - deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
  - guender 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - Volundr 4mo ago
    I guess it's "only" 40 years, but my 1985 Civic was an amazing car. Definitely not a death trap, but after I did end selling it for a 99 Acura with airbags. Still kind of regret that one. My house was built in 1970, it's enough for the two of use, but would admittedly be cramped for more. That said at 850 square feet, it's quite a bit smaller than the 1,400 average for 1970. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/real-estate-boom-1970s https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/real-estate-...
- andsoitis 4mo ago
  > 100 years ago, the middle class' purchasing power is far bigger. Compared to 50 years ago, the middle class is getting poorer. What’s your data source? Keep in mind that the modern, mass middle class was created in the mid-20th century through government policies and post-WWII economic growth.
  - philistine 4mo ago
    Look at the graph: https://spp.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/teams/1/Publications/HSP%20115%20-%20SPT-PurchasingPower%20-%20Final.pdf https://spp.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/teams/1/Publicat... All the growth in our economy since the 70s has been captured by the richest. If purchasing power is a finite ressource, we're getting squeezed out by the 10%.
- blmarket 4mo ago
  Am I the only Korean(or other countries under colonialism) laughing?
pdimitar 4mo ago
This is likely mostly nullified by the consumerism hellscape that's being forced on us i.e. stuff lasts less time and we have to buy more often. Still a win but not as big as many are selling it.
- 20after4 4mo ago
  Don't forget most people are stuck renting a small apartment at a significant percentage of income for eternity. Then if you hit the layoff jackpot and become homeless, then I've got good news for you: homelessness is illegal now.
- azan_ 4mo ago
  > This is likely mostly nullified by the consumerism hellscape that's being forced on us i.e. stuff lasts less time and we have to buy more often. Actually good quality stuff is more affordable than ever. People just don't want to pay for quality and things that last.
  - panopticon 4mo ago
    I have a hard time finding quality stuff, even when I want to pony up for it. Do you have a good resource? It's hard to know whether moving up in pricing just buys unnecessary features in a checklist, higher quality veneer, brand name, or actual quality.
  - ericd 4mo ago
    Yeah, it doesn't seem like people remember how expensive in real terms things were in the 80s.
  - FridgeSeal 4mo ago
    > Actually good quality stuff is prohibitively expensive for the non-ultra rich, and the rest of the quality stuff is increasingly being hollowed out by private equity and rapidly declining quality. People just can’t afford to pay for quality and things that last due to price gouging, wage stagnation, and increased cost-of-living. There, fixed that for you.

philistine 4mo ago

It's all a matter of perspective. 100 years ago, the middle class' purchasing power is far bigger. Compared to 50 years ago, the middle class is getting poorer.

SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
The typical middle class family 50 years ago lived in a house you’d consider small and dingy, ate food you’d consider poverty meals, and drove a car you’d consider a poorly assembled death trap. Ask your parents or grandparents how often they got to have real butter growing up.
- lanstin 4mo ago
  Or fresh oranges.
- fl4regun 4mo ago
  This is a truth very few people are willing to confront. My grandmother lived in a village, on a farm, growing her own food and slaughtering her own animals, with no working plumbing, using a well for water. Of course a lot of that changed even just moving up to the 70s, but at that point there still wasn't quite the consumerist "buy whatever you want from wherever and whomever you want and have it almost immediately" environment. I can go to a grocery store here in Canada, buy tropical fruits year round that grow nowhere near me. I never have to concern myself with "this ingredient won't be here because it is seasonal", it'll be there, it'll just be more expensive out of season, worst case I just have to go a bit farther out to a different grocer than I usually go to.
  - antasvara 4mo ago
    This point is valid. However, lifestyle improvement rate is something that's slowing over time because of physical constraints. For example, the vehicle mortality rate is 1.44 per 100 million miles driven. That's down 17% from 2000 (so 25 years ago). However, the change from 1975 to 2000 was 53%. That's because as we get closer to 0, it gets harder and harder to improve those rates. On this metric at least, I don't think another 25 years will result in a noticeable amount of improvement? In the other direction, some things will become scarcer (and therefore cost more). Real estate is the obvious one; we can't create more land, and we keep having more people. Easily accessible drinking water is another; desalination is getting cheaper, but it's still way more expensive than pumping aquifer water. And some improvements are necessarily 1 time things. You can get tropical fruits year round, but that's been widely available since the 80-90's from what I can tell. So come 20 years from now, what will people be able to buy in a grocery store that I can't buy right now?
    - fl4regun 4mo ago
      The innovations aren't better versions of things we had in the past, they are more so unique new inventions. Plumbing is not electricity is not globalized food chains is not computers. Also we don't need to make more land to have more people. We can make more habitable living space within the same amount of land area, especially in countries like canada and the USA where we dumped a bunch of low-density housing absolutely everywhere, we just choose not to do that.
      - antasvara 4mo ago
        >The innovations aren't better versions of things we had in the past, they are more so unique new inventions. Plumbing is not electricity is not globalized food chains is not computers. This is only sort of true. Plumbing is an improved version of a well pump, which is functionally (if not technically) an improvement over walking down to the river for a pot of water. Globalized food chains are mostly improvements on the supply chain we had (boats got faster, so things can travel from farther away places more quickly, refrigeration got added to existing modes of travel, etc.). >Also we don't need to make more land to have more people. We can make more habitable living space within the same amount of land area, especially in countries like canada and the USA where we dumped a bunch of low-density housing absolutely everywhere, we just choose not to do that. I didn't mean to imply that we can't increase housing density. But I think it's clear that having 2.3x more people than 1950 means that all else being equal, people will need to settle for less land. There's just more demand per square mile.
- RichardCA 4mo ago
  I'll just add... Being able to eat pork without cooking it to death for fear of trichinosis is a recent development. Also, the old movies where someone tries to commit suicide by sticking their head in an oven. That was coal gas and we don't heat homes with it anymore.
  - jeltz 4mo ago
    Other than coal gas being not very efficient use of coal what was so bad about it? Stockholm still had coal gas in the early 2000s and accidental carbon monoxide poisoning was very rare. Of course the alternatives are better, but only marginally so.
- andrepd 4mo ago
  That's total bullshit. Middle class families in 1976 did NOT live in smaller houses than today, and certainly did NOT eat "poverty meals"... What on earth are you even talking about. Especially silly that you mention housing because if there's one thing that is absolutely fucked for the middle class of the 2020s is housing.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
    Again, I would encourage you to research historical statistics or talk to people who lived in 1976 about their practical living conditions, rather than going off of your intuition about what is "bullshit" or which things are "absolutely fucked". Our intuitions about these things are heavily warped by social media, where stories that feel true without being true are easy to tell and often more viral. In every developed country whose numbers I've seen, the size of the average living space is up 30-50% since 50 years ago.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- guender 4mo ago
  [dead]
- Volundr 4mo ago
  I guess it's "only" 40 years, but my 1985 Civic was an amazing car. Definitely not a death trap, but after I did end selling it for a 99 Acura with airbags. Still kind of regret that one. My house was built in 1970, it's enough for the two of use, but would admittedly be cramped for more. That said at 850 square feet, it's quite a bit smaller than the 1,400 average for 1970. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/real-estate-boom-1970s https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/real-estate-...
andsoitis 4mo ago
> 100 years ago, the middle class' purchasing power is far bigger. Compared to 50 years ago, the middle class is getting poorer. What’s your data source? Keep in mind that the modern, mass middle class was created in the mid-20th century through government policies and post-WWII economic growth.
- philistine 4mo ago
  Look at the graph: https://spp.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/teams/1/Publications/HSP%20115%20-%20SPT-PurchasingPower%20-%20Final.pdf https://spp.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/teams/1/Publicat... All the growth in our economy since the 70s has been captured by the richest. If purchasing power is a finite ressource, we're getting squeezed out by the 10%.
blmarket 4mo ago
Am I the only Korean(or other countries under colonialism) laughing?

pdimitar 4mo ago

This is likely mostly nullified by the consumerism hellscape that's being forced on us i.e. stuff lasts less time and we have to buy more often. Still a win but not as big as many are selling it.

20after4 4mo ago
Don't forget most people are stuck renting a small apartment at a significant percentage of income for eternity. Then if you hit the layoff jackpot and become homeless, then I've got good news for you: homelessness is illegal now.
azan_ 4mo ago
> This is likely mostly nullified by the consumerism hellscape that's being forced on us i.e. stuff lasts less time and we have to buy more often. Actually good quality stuff is more affordable than ever. People just don't want to pay for quality and things that last.
- panopticon 4mo ago
  I have a hard time finding quality stuff, even when I want to pony up for it. Do you have a good resource? It's hard to know whether moving up in pricing just buys unnecessary features in a checklist, higher quality veneer, brand name, or actual quality.
- ericd 4mo ago
  Yeah, it doesn't seem like people remember how expensive in real terms things were in the 80s.
- FridgeSeal 4mo ago
  > Actually good quality stuff is prohibitively expensive for the non-ultra rich, and the rest of the quality stuff is increasingly being hollowed out by private equity and rapidly declining quality. People just can’t afford to pay for quality and things that last due to price gouging, wage stagnation, and increased cost-of-living. There, fixed that for you.