Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnimalMuppet | Hacker News Reader

In 1950, middle class was a small house, one car, probably not a dishwasher, only one television in the house (if that), no computers (duh), no cell phones (also duh), no designer jeans, no fancy sneakers, much less snack food, much less eating out. You could live exactly that life today (maybe even on one income), but people would think that you were in poverty, or close. (Note well: I am not claiming that official statistics would say that you are in poverty. But I think this thought exercise does show that the goalposts have moved over the last 60 years.)

View on HN

In 1950, most cities also still had functional streetcar/bus systems that would take people downtown, and schools within walking distance.

People didn't have fancy sneakers but shoes were usually made with a Goodyear welt to be rebuildable and long-lasting, and such shoes usually cost hundreds of dollars today. Sears and similar stores sold durable, American-made clothing— visit a vintage store some time (acknowledging survivorship bias, though).

Houses were also small in 1950 because the housing pipeline was essentially clogged up from 1929 to around 1950, due to depression and war. Housing also was a much smaller percentage of most families' consumption baskets at that time, as well— there was a lot of buildable land at the edge of major metro areas, and the capital-GDP ratio was low so asset prices were low.

Working-class (evolving into lower-middle-class) employment was much more stable in 1950, and stability is a big part of being middle class.

It's not really possible to live a 1950s lifestyle today, since a significant proportion of lifestyle comes from living around, and being respected by, peers. And from the better availability of stability in employment, which one cannot get via personal finance.

> most cities also still had functional streetcar/bus systems that would take people downtown

But ~40% of the population lived in rural areas, and what I understand from relatives who lived there during that time, travelling to town was considered a luxury. Today, nobody thinks twice about hopping into the car and going to town every day.

Today poverty comes with some extra baggage - lower access to the healthcare system and much worse healthcare results, increased crime rate, low social status , higher stress, etc.

Not everything in life is about possessions.

But also vastly reduced pollution. Popular Mechanics had a few articles about the extent of the problem in Los Angeles (which you can read for free):

http://books.google.com/books?id=SNkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=sm...

http://books.google.com/books?id=xdwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&dq=smo...

Now, it's true that pollution is still generally worse in poor areas compared to wealthier areas, but the pollution issue alone makes me prefer a "poor" lifestyle today over a "middle class" one from 50 or 60 years ago. We also have additional consumer protections for food and medicine compared to 60 years ago, which makes it hard to compare products across decades.

Actually, healthcare access has improved for everybody in the last 60 years, enough so that life expectancy has increased by 10 years.

Homicide (and presumably other violent crime) is about the same as 1950.

Further, "poor" people have always had lower social status and higher stress, so there's no change there.

In 1950 it wasn't uncommon for people to still use outhouses and not have electricity.

Life expectancy reference: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_indicators.htm

homicide rate reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html

The comparison is between being middle class in 1950 to being poor today.

I believe that house will be twice as expensive compared to median income than it was in 1950, so that will already put a dent in an attempt to live 1950s style.

Ah, come now. We can start a village in central Detroit. It'll be just like the 50s (just without the job prospects). ;-)

Is that because houses are now twice as big?

http://www.google.com/search?q=housing+sizes+in+1950s

There are diminishing returns to house size, like most other things in life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com