But it’s not like our standard of living has remained static while we need to work more. A lot has changed. In 1960 the average single family home was 1300 square feet, now it’s more than double that, and it’s packed with amazing amenities and entertainment options. What would an iPad cost in 1960?
Obviously the question is kind of nonsensical and yet on the other hand, if you were to try and quantify the price of our ability to work from home, for instance, we have a way better deal going than they did in 1960. You could retort that this is the inevitable march of technological progress, but could it be the result of hard work and innovation including the hard work and innovation of women in the work force?
I would gladly trade WFH to be the one person supporting a family of 6. (Me, partner, two kids, two grandparents.)
The Internet's great and all (although sometimes it seems like it was a mistake), but we're so far from 1 very average person being able to support a middle class life style for 6 people.
Median income in 1960 was $5,600, which is equivalent to $60,000 today, but according to the EPI*, to provide for a family of 6, I'd need to make about $150k/yr to live in Cincinnati, Ohio (in SF it's $280k). Which isn't a lot in the FAANG world, but the point is that a very average not-very-smart person was able to provide for that many people back then.
How many very average not-very-smart unskilled people do you know make $150k/yr; how many smart people do you know that make less than that?
> Which isn't a lot in the FAANG world, but the point is that a very average not-very-smart person was able to provide for that many people back then
They weren't. The average household income in the 1960s (i.e., from a single breadwinner) was supporting a household of 3-4 people not 6[1][2]. The claim that you could support a family of 6 on a single breadwinner's income in 1960 and achieve anything close to 2024's quality of life is an egregious misrepresentation by the GGP.
The standard of living today is immensely higher. If you wanted to live at 1960 level you could certainly afford to do so. You’d have 1,000 sq ft of house, a single unreliable car, almost never go out to eat or travel, etc.
Is it? sure we have the Internet and big TVs and fast cars, but how much time do we actually have to enjoy them? quality of life is measured in more than just the things you have. I mean, yeah, if you're getting Doordash every meal and spending all your money that way, that's on you. Trader Joe's is frigging great, imo. but eating at home and having an older car isn't going to get me to a place where one median American salary can comfortably support a meaningful amount of people.
this is after we decry the other ills of there 1960's, of racism and sexism, which hopefully it's obvious I don't want to go back to, but letting both parents work somehow became both parents need to work for middle America and I'm just tired of my friends living at the edge.
Ah, the 1960s. Have you tried living in a jungle, slaughtering villagers in their homes, fighting to overthrow a foreign government in exchange for college tuition? Good times.
I was reading murder Wikipedia the other day and one of the guys got out of prison the second time and was able to pick up a job making 1k/week in the late 70’s (49-50k/year) in SoCal.
That’s what I was making a decade ago in SoCal with a college degree (slightly more with OT).
Ohh to live the life of an uneducated violent offender in the 70’s.
so the tradeoff, for having to have both parents working for a very average family, is that they can surf the Internet and get Doordash? you come on. I'm not denying that we have a better quality of living today, but how much time do you have outside of weekends to just go fishing or whatever? all these labor saving devices were supposed to give us more leisure time but instead we're worrying harder than ever!
I was going to say this typo was accurate, but now I realise I've never actually seen a detailed analysis of how much people worried in the past, just confident claims it was so.
haha good catch. we've only been tracking happiness since 2012, with Finland in the lead, though worry isn't the opposite of happiness, it would be fascinating to be able to have a global tally of how humans are feeling.
When was this chill time when we could just take off fishing for a week or two?
Random breakdown of time :)
* 1800s
* 1900-WW1
* WW1-WW2
* WW2-1980
* 1980-Now
And yeah, single breadwinner households were a thing back in the day it was generally because women didn't have a choice at all.
I'm pretty sure you have more options and choice today as to how you want to live your life, but if you want a family you gotta feed the little bastards one way or another, that has always been a "worry".
The main thing is, that I could actually support a household of 6 people on a single income if I was allowed to fix the comfort at the 60s level.
1. No flying on vacation and only simple camping as vacation
2. No technology: Computers, phone, television. Nothing, and no associated costs with subscriptions, etc.
3. Eat like it was the 60s, mainly potatoes (I am from Northern Europe).
That said: I truly believe in the parent commenters key idea. We need to create more real prosperity for people. But in order to do that, we need to adjust the activities – Marketing and expensive dead-end projects (read: projects that occupy a lot of person-hours) does not achieve real prosperity.
No, you couldn't. The average working male earning 6200 USD a year in 1963 was supporting 2-3 other people (i.e., the nuclear family), not 5. This is almost directly in line, via inflation, with the average US household income and size in 2024.
I agree with the larger point about prosperity, and I think there are ways in which the US (and other developed countries) have gone backwards in QoL metrics. But a serious conversation about that needs to start with numbers rooted in reality, not a rose-glass view of the past.
Yes, so I am saying that a median income today could sustain a 6 person household if you were allowed to fix your comfort level to the level of the 60s. That is 3 more than a single median income supported in the 60s.
I am definitely not trying to paint a rose-glass view of the past. I am saying that we do have more prosperity today than we had 60 years ago.
I am also saying that we pay of a lot of time to have things that provide diminishing returns. (Ie. would you rather have flush toilets or access to facebook - style of reasoning). Maybe the famous 80% value for 20% cost is also inflating?
Take your typical family of 4 living on 2 incomes today.
Are they living in a 1,500sf house (median size in 1960)? Without AC, no cable TV, no computers, 1 car, no exotic / organic foods except from the garden, few toys, 60’s era medicine. Do they actually repair or even make clothes? How about home repairs?
My mother was a teen in the 60’s and while objectively they were well above the median income for the time period in many ways they lived like extremely poor people do in 2024. Some of that was actually saving money for retirement, but mostly it was just far lower expectations.
Right. By virtually every metric, the average American family is materially more prosperous than they would have been in the 1960s.
Backwards movement in QoL metrics is mostly on the left tail: impoverished Americans have access to AC and refrigerators, but often live in food deserts or are subjected to perverse policies in our social safety net (e.g. welfare cliffs that punish people for working by taking away benefits that enable them to work).
You make some valid points but one nitpick: what we call organic food today, they simply called food in the 60's since all food was by definition organic.
That is abjectly false. Synthetic pesticides have been used since before the second world war. Silent Spring was written in 1962 about the effects of the amounts of DDT that had already accumulated in the environment by that point.
No. Because the things that cost significant amounts of money aren't computers, phones, and tvs (notice that poor people have these). It's the minimum bar to be a player in society that has been raised.
1960s
- could have a good career without college education and it was inexpensive
- can afford a house
- can often not have a car
2020s
- need bachelors degree to get started, probably also need a professional degree
- houses occupy
- need cars (likely for all adult family members)
What is it then, that is so super expensive today, that wasn't too expensive in the 60s?
also it is a strawman to mention the poor people has it. the hierarchy of what you spend money on is not settled in a hiatorical occurance of said product. you don't buy a watch before a phone because it was invented first.
also, it is completely irrelevant. my proposition is that if you fix your comforts at the 60s level then you have greater spending power than equivalent people of the 60s
> What is it then, that is so super expensive today, that wasn't too expensive in the 60s?
- Education. Include how much education you need and prep (duration increases costs and reduces wages).
- Insurance,
- Health care
- Transportation (gas, cost of vehicles, average commutes).
- Professional services (accounting, law, etc).
- Housing
The point is in 1960 you could be a normal member of society with no health insurance, a high school diploma, one car for your family, and 1000 square foot house downtown.
Some aspects have improved, and others have declined.
Home entertainment has more options, we spend more time at the TV and computer.
Other aspects of life have declined.
It's challenging because there are qualitative and aesthetic aspects to the process, so it takes some discussion to come up with a good understanding.
Regardless CPI is misleading. The amount of time spent working over a lifetime to support the family and cover taxes has grown significantly, at a higher rate than CPI suggests.
Community/social life has greatly declined for almost everyone. Home appliances are fancier today, but they are far less reliable. Furniture is much worse in almost every way (e.g. my grandma sleeps today on the same bed and spring mattress that her parents-in-law bought, some 60-70 years ago, and it is still extremely comfortable). Clothes are far less durable as well. Fruits and vegetables are typically worse in taste. Education is extraordinarily more expensive. Job security is much worse.
The opulent space per inhabitant (as families are also smaller) is now viewed by many as a negative in face of the climate crisis, not to mention the cost of housing and the resulting need to work more.
Obviously the question is kind of nonsensical and yet on the other hand, if you were to try and quantify the price of our ability to work from home, for instance, we have a way better deal going than they did in 1960. You could retort that this is the inevitable march of technological progress, but could it be the result of hard work and innovation including the hard work and innovation of women in the work force?