[caeril]

No. Absolutely wrong.

Homes are much larger now than in 1955. Cars are being purchased with far more (expensive) features, and they are driven for fewer miles before being "upgraded". We eat out much more. Even when we eat in, we eat more luxurious meals. We buy Frappuccinos daily, we buy clothing much more frequently, we impulse shop significantly more, we utilize medical services much more frequently, we take far more, and more luxurious vacations, we rack up ludicrous levels of student debt for degrees that have no hope of servicing said debt, etc, etc, etc.

We are wealthier today than at any point in human history. The myth that all homes must be two-income is predicated on the outrageous lifestyles we choose, NOT due to anything inherent in "society" or "the economy".

Our insane consumerist appetite is what's preventing one household member from staying home, nothing else.

[PuppyTailWags]

I'm going to seriously disagree with your depiction:

- frankly fraps, daily, are a magnitude of order smaller than childcare. You could deprive yourself of a frap every day for literally years, and you still couldn't afford even 6 mo of daycare.

- we need to buy clothing more frequently because our clothing quality is shit, and the good clothing quality has increased in expense

- if you think adult humans consume medical services too often you're in for a fucking shock of your life when it comes to babies, which being pregnant is a consumption of medical services

- even small homes are much less affordable than in 1955 because the price of land has drastically increased compared to 1955

- student debt is taken on because we know for a fact that college graduates statistically outearn people without college degrees, outliers aside, and the cost of schooling has ballooned for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the previous generation had voted to withdraw funding for schooling

One household member staying home is also supremely dangerous for that one household member at home, which wasn't a problem in 1955 raping your wife was legal and women couldn't even own fucking bank accounts so it wasn't like women had great options besides staying home! If staying home was so good how come women immediately got the fuck out of the house as soon as it was available to them?

[afavour]

I'm sorry but this is profoundly out of touch with the way a lot of people live. "We" is doing a huge amount of reaching in absolutely everything you're saying.

> We are wealthier today than at any point in human history.

Wealth disparity is also higher today than since records were started. You can't cite overall wealth without factoring that in.

My neighbourhood has a church which holds a weekly food bank, giving out a bag of food to anyone that needs one. The line goes far down the street every week. Do these people have "outrageous" lifestyles? Do you think they take luxurious vacations and sip frappuchinos? Not to mention:

> Homes are much larger now than in 1955.

Okay, how about... affordability? If you're going to claim housing is more affordable than it was in 1955 I'm going to need to see a citation.

[wintermutestwin]

>Homes are much larger now than in 1955.

Homes are not larger necessarily because of our "insane consumerist appetite." They are larger because:

1. Housing is an investment vehicle 2. Housing valuations are primarily driven by SQFT/SQM (when you rule out location) 3. The baseline costs of building (permits, utility connections, etc) are not driven by size and make up a huge % of the cost to build. 4. Zoning laws prohibit smaller builds and multi-family in many areas.