[ksaj]

Most people now forget that 50+ years ago, the husband was the sole bread winner, kept his job for most of his life, and could afford the house, car, 4 children and a few pets.

I read somewhere that when women started working in the war efforts, businesses took advantage and skewed home prices and whatnot to make it so women had no choice but to continue working. This worked out well, because women wanted to work and have similar social treatment as men.

The issue then is that things kept skewing to the point where today a childless couple with high paying jobs can barely afford a vehicle and tiny apartment.

This may or may not be accurate. But it is an interesting opinion that I've heard a number of times over the years.

[al_borland]

> Most people now forget that 50+ years ago, the husband was the sole bread winner, kept his job for most of his life, and could afford the house, car, 4 children and a few pets.

When people say things like this, they gloss over the fact that the standard of living, of what most people find acceptable, has gone up dramatically. Average home size has more than doubled, while family size has gone down. Cars have significantly more technology in them. Everyone now needs a $1k smart phone in their pocket.

I live in a home from the 1940s. I’m sure at some point there was a family of 5 living here. My dad grew up in a similar home in the 1950s with 6 people in the home. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone these days who think my house is big enough for a family that size.

My parents both have some emotional scars I’ve seen from growing up poor in the idyllic era everyone likes to reference.

I think debt has really allowed things to get out of hand. The availability and normalization of using debt for everything has meant companies don’t have to keep prices affordable or pay decent wages, they just need to convince the public that having excessive amounts of personal debt is ok and normal. Then they also create new forms of debt to hide it from people and keep them spending, like BNPL. The idea of living within one’s means has shifted to mean if a person can make the monthly payments.

[Spooky23]

It’s also not true. Women worked in the “lower classes”, they were just confined to jobs befitting their station.

[kasey_junk]

“ the husband was the sole bread winner, kept his job for most of his life, and could afford the house, car, 4 children and a few pets.”

We don’t _forget_ this. We refute it. It’s not true. It’s a dream that real estate developers _sold_ that wasn’t real.

In 1975 the women’s labor participation rate stood right around 50% its around 55% now [0].

In 1975 the US home ownership rate was 65%, its 65% now [1].

There were more families with no cars in the 70s than now. 1 and 2 car families were about the same rate (with more 2 car families now) but the big difference is how many more families have more than 2 cars now than then [2].

More stats for you: - food as a percentage of family budget is lower now than then (and the only reason its close is that we eat out way more now)[3] - houses are bigger now than then[4] - data on employee tenure doesn’t go back that far, but the data we do have to the 80s shows employee tenure hasn’t changed [5]

There are lots of interesting economic challenges now, but _generally_ more people now are living better lives than then past economically. Anyone that sells you some story about some glorious past is lying to you for some reason.

Home ownership rates are always the tell. The US had very stable home ownership rates in the 45% range until the New Deal efforts that started subsidizing like crazy home ownership. They rose in the post war era until about 1960 when they reached the mid 60s. They have fluctuated in a tight curve in that band since then. The home ownership rate is tightly correlated to mortgage rates, not generational values, and spikes in 2005 (right before the bubble burst) not in the dim past [6].

[0] https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/15/working-women-data-from-the-... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N [2] https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/passenger_travel_20... [3] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic... [4] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/a... [5] https://www.ebri.org/content/trends-in-employee-tenure-1983-... [6] https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/fi...

[what]

It took me ages to find what you were referencing in [3], but it’s not inflation adjusted, so meaningless. I’ll assume the rest of your citations are equally meaningless.

Also home ownership rates, it’s by owner occupied dwellings, which would include owner occupied duplexes and triplexes. My building is technically owner occupied, he claims the in-law unit and receives mail there. But both flats are rented out.

[kasey_junk]

Percentage of budget is naturally inflation adjusted…

The census owner % methodology is by respondent address. So if those are 3 addresses then that’s 33% owner occupied building. If you are all sharing an address and the landlord is the respondent then its 100% owner occupied. But importantly the methodology has been largely the same across measurement periods back to the 70s.

It gets harder before that because the census didn’t track the data.

[mcdonje]

Only going back to the 70s shows a lack of historical awareness.