Got to move these colour TV's
A
common complaint is that these days a man can't provide a middle-class
lifestyle to his family as well as in the past. This if, of course,
abject nonsense. With the increased productivity and all technological
advances that we have seen since those days, all things get cheaper,
not more expensive. The illusion of things being worse today comes from
the fact that everything is so much better now, and we have so many
things that couldn't even be imagined in the past, so the goalposts
have moved. If you are willing to settle for the 1950's level of the
material standard of living, you'll find that it is quite possible to
still support a family with only the average working man's salary. To
get an idea how low standard of living was back then, heck, just look
at some old photographs of grocery stores and other stores of that era.
I have often been repeating the above commonsense claims, but now I actually have the numbers to back them up. At "GMR Musings", the post "Are You Better Off Today than you would have been 25 or 50 years ago?" crunches the numbers. Conclusion:
I have often been repeating the above commonsense claims, but now I actually have the numbers to back them up. At "GMR Musings", the post "Are You Better Off Today than you would have been 25 or 50 years ago?" crunches the numbers. Conclusion:
It’s anyone’s guess what this would all cost, but I sincerely believe that if a typical middle class family today decided they were going to live close to the standard of a 1956 middle class family, and watch only the big networks on a small black and white tv, have no internet, have one phone, one car, etc., that their total savings would be well over $20,000 pre-tax, or nearly half of the $44,389 median household income.
In other words, a bit more than minimum wage will allow a modern American to maintain a material standard of living that was typical of the middle class 50 years ago. I doubt that the situation is much different in other industrial countries.
An one thing where this idea fails is that it doesn't take account the cost of social relationships. If you are going to settle for 1950's living standards, it will probably cost you your friends and make having social life lot harder. In 1950's you could maintain normal relationships with that kind of material living standards.
A man who settles for 1950's living standards can only dream about having a same "quality" girlfriend that a man in 1950's could easily get with same kind of living standards.
Posted by Anonymous | 8:57 AM
As they say in Finland "The free pussy is the most expensive kind."
Posted by Anonymous | 11:45 AM
Maybe the guy could invest the difference and score with hot chicks when he is forty or so. :-)
Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen | 4:07 PM
You linked earlier to a story about how the prices of houses have gone up in the good neighborhoods, since women have joined the work force. This is clearly one of the reason behind an argument that one man cannot provide enough with one salary, because the house loans are so much bigger nowadays because of double income families have risen the prices of houses.
Posted by Anonymous | 9:16 AM