3 ms·

I am confused as to why one would need two cars and domestic help if they had only one working spouse. Was it really common in the 60s to have two car household

by __z 11y ago

I am confused as to why one would need two cars and domestic help if they had only one working spouse. Was it really common in the 60s to have two car households? My grandparents (3 of them worked) all worked factory jobs and they certainly couldn't afford two cars or domestic help(!!!) Domestic help is the job of kids anyways. The other things is in the 1960s the who family all shared bedrooms and stuff. Now everyone has their own room, iPad, TV, video games...

harryh 11y ago
No: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Number_of_Automobiles_per_Household_vs._Year.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Number_of... imglorp's understanding of the past is basically just wrong
- rmxt 11y ago
  Sure, his generalization regarding "nicely with two cars" might have been overstated, but your link supports his notion that "at some point all those things have eroded," at least in the case of car ownership per household. Now, I understand there are lots of different factors at play, some of which would actually have positive overall quality-of-life impacts correlated with decreased car ownership. For example, decreasing urban sprawl, increased livability in cities and decreased noise/air pollution. But a drive-by posting of a link, with no explanation, and with a "just plain wrong" comment is a little over the top.
  - harryh 11y ago
    If you're talking about the small dip around 1990 you're missing the the forrest for the trees.
- imglorp 11y ago
  Granted I probably gave lousy examples. Here's what I was trying to say. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-Median-Household-Income-Growth.php/ http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-Media...
  - harryh 11y ago
    Nothing in that link is consistent with any conclusion that things have "eroded" in the past 50-60 years.
    - __z 11y ago
      If people think that things have "eroded" since 1960, then they should first go back to living like the middle class did in the 1960s and see how far their money takes them under 1960s living standards. That means 1 car with a short commute, 1,500 sq/ft house, no internet or cable, 1 TV, no iPods/Kindles/Tablets, no phones (with expensive data plans) for each kid, no internet, 2 kids per bedroom, using a broom and mop instead of expensive disposables (like Swiffer and Diaper Genie, or even disposable diapers), no air travel (vacations are a weekend car trip out of town), babies/kids have a reasonable amount of consumer goods (no endless amount of plastic crap - having a 1,500 sq/ft home helps with this). With the amount of consumer goods kids have now it is a wonder how my parents made it to adulthood without all of that stuff. Seems to me a lot of this so called "erosion" is a very broad increase in consumer spending without an increase in salary. Otherwise known as "living above your means." Don't get me wrong - the big things that are a challenge nowadays that didn't exist in 1960 are healthcare costs and job security. Employment benefits also seems on the decline.

by __z 11y ago

harryh 11y ago

No: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Number_of_Automobiles_per_Household_vs._Year.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Number_of... imglorp's understanding of the past is basically just wrong

rmxt 11y ago
Sure, his generalization regarding "nicely with two cars" might have been overstated, but your link supports his notion that "at some point all those things have eroded," at least in the case of car ownership per household. Now, I understand there are lots of different factors at play, some of which would actually have positive overall quality-of-life impacts correlated with decreased car ownership. For example, decreasing urban sprawl, increased livability in cities and decreased noise/air pollution. But a drive-by posting of a link, with no explanation, and with a "just plain wrong" comment is a little over the top.
- harryh 11y ago
  If you're talking about the small dip around 1990 you're missing the the forrest for the trees.
imglorp 11y ago
Granted I probably gave lousy examples. Here's what I was trying to say. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-Median-Household-Income-Growth.php/ http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-Media...
- harryh 11y ago
  Nothing in that link is consistent with any conclusion that things have "eroded" in the past 50-60 years.
  - __z 11y ago
    If people think that things have "eroded" since 1960, then they should first go back to living like the middle class did in the 1960s and see how far their money takes them under 1960s living standards. That means 1 car with a short commute, 1,500 sq/ft house, no internet or cable, 1 TV, no iPods/Kindles/Tablets, no phones (with expensive data plans) for each kid, no internet, 2 kids per bedroom, using a broom and mop instead of expensive disposables (like Swiffer and Diaper Genie, or even disposable diapers), no air travel (vacations are a weekend car trip out of town), babies/kids have a reasonable amount of consumer goods (no endless amount of plastic crap - having a 1,500 sq/ft home helps with this). With the amount of consumer goods kids have now it is a wonder how my parents made it to adulthood without all of that stuff. Seems to me a lot of this so called "erosion" is a very broad increase in consumer spending without an increase in salary. Otherwise known as "living above your means." Don't get me wrong - the big things that are a challenge nowadays that didn't exist in 1960 are healthcare costs and job security. Employment benefits also seems on the decline.