• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Neo-1950s standard of living.

GabrielWithoutWings

Well-Known Member
I was thinking about this the other day. I'm a young whippersnapper who wasn't alive back then but it seems that that was a great period of time, in a manner of speaking.

Dad would go to work. Mom would stay home. They had a decent house, two or three kids, and a fenced yard to run around in. You could make a decent living, pay for a house and a car, take some vacations every so often.

I make pretty good money working for the police department but if my wife wasn't working, we'd be out on our rear ends in no time. Our house is decent but a rental. We have two cars that are 10+ years old. We don't have fancy electronics and our computer is a frankenbuild.

Do you think we'll ever get back to a time where you have a little more freedom to stay home, afford a house, afford a car that won't break every month? Or am I just aiming low in today's way of life?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
In the fifties:

One car families.
One B&W TV.
One phone.
Maybe a typewriter.
Absolutely no electronic gadgets.
Few extended vacation trips.
Few fast food options.
"Eating out" was a luxury.
Mom was more often a homemaker than not.
Credit cards had yet to become a mainstay of the economy.
Racial discrimination was widespread.
Respect for elders was more common.
Girls were less promiscuous.
Boys were just as horny.

 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
If people get serious about planning their lives, particularly their number of children, probably it will happen in about three generations IMO.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In the fifties:
One car families.
One B&W TV.
One phone.
Maybe a typewriter.
Absolutely no electronic gadgets.
Few extended vacation trips.
Few fast food options.
"Eating out" was a luxury.
Mom was more often a homemaker than not.
Credit cards had yet to become a mainstay of the economy.
Racial discrimination was widespread.
Respect for elders was more common.
Girls were less promiscuous.
Boys were just as horny.

I don't see how most of these these have any great effect on quality-of-life or general happiness, though.
Stuff doesn't equate to happiness, and it frequently just complicates your life. The original point remains -- that in many places back in the fifties one could have a happy, middle-class life with a single, blue-collar income.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
I don't see how most of these these have any great effect on quality-of-life or general happiness, though.
Stuff doesn't equate to happiness, and it frequently just complicates your life. The original point remains -- that in many places back in the fifties one could have a happy, middle-class life with a single, blue-collar income.
[/indent]

You do realise that people on welfare have a higher standard of living than the 1950's middle class right?

Back in the day, houses where not air conditioned. There was no cable TV or the internet. People hung their laundry on the line. People read books instead of playing video games or texting on cell phones.

Kids where not obese. They where outside running around and playing, not sitting in the house. Houses had one tiny bathroom.

Kids where home by dark, ate supper, took a bath and went to bed. Adults had some evening time alone while the children slept.

Kids wore hand me down clothes and got one pair of shoes each year. They where expected to do chores each day. Fashion and designer clothes where for the rich.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Do you think we'll ever get back to a time where you have a little more freedom to stay home, afford a house, afford a car that won't break every month? Or am I just aiming low in today's way of life?
No. The modern technology that makes globalization possible combined with overpopulation in many places has devalued labor too much for the average family to live a "middle class" lifestyle on a single income. Combined with the fact that the average "middle class" lifestyle is way more consumptive than it was in the 50s and it's even more unlikely.

Also, the historical context made that level of largess uniquely possible for that period. Keep in mind that at the end of WWII, most of the industrial economies of the world were in ruins - except the U.S., which was responsible for making more than half of the world's durable goods at the end of the war and well into the fifties. So blue collar wage earners briefly got to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, aided by unions, federal spending that created many more jobs (the Eisenhower administration's infrastructure program) and a more sustainable tax policy.

Now combine the two: the "fifties lifestyle" and the "nuclear family" mythology based upon it that gets paraded around by the "family values" pundits is not possible because those blue collar jobs shifted to cheaper labor markets (read: "overpopulated") as corporations grew and technology improved. This led to a decline in domestic labor unions and the gradual erosion of the quality of workers' lives from the 1960s which is continuing today.

Ironically, the "family values" types who bemoan the erosion of the nuclear family but also favor "small government" and "trickle down" economics are actually touting the very approach that speeds the erosion of the nuclear family.
 
Last edited:

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
Hi Dopp. In your view does it follow that if markets are allowed to operate freely they logically lead to reduced wages/living standards etc until labour in the US (or wherever) is in equilibrium with labour in Taiwan?
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Hi Dopp. In your view does it follow that if markets are allowed to operate freely they logically lead to reduced wages/living standards etc until labour in the US (or wherever) is in equilibrium with labour in Taiwan?
Yes, and Mexico, China, Sri Lanka, etc. And not just labor values, but government regulations that protect workers' rights or the environment necessarily gravitate toward the lowest common denominator so long as technology makes the cost of operating globally less than the cost of operating responsibly.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
doppelgänger;2329590 said:
Yes, and Mexico, China, Sri Lanka, etc. And not just labor values, but government regulations that protect workers' rights or the environment necessarily gravitate toward the lowest common denominator so long as technology makes the cost of operating globally less than the cost of operating responsibly.


I agree. Too my eyes conservatives are neo-feudalists. I won't be doffing my cap to any lord :D.

I was listening to the madness that is the Irish political scene on the radio this morning. We (sadly) offer an example of where light touch regulation and pursuit of a free market ideology lead. Because our country is so small this has happened very fast. I can't help but wonder is the same fate waiting there to pounce on some of the worlds bigger economies.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
doppelgänger;2329580 said:
No. The modern technology that makes globalization possible combined with overpopulation in many places has devalued labor too much for the average family to live a "middle class" lifestyle on a single income. Combined with the fact that the average "middle class" lifestyle is way more consumptive than it was in the 50s and it's even more unlikely.

Also, the historical context made that level of largess uniquely possible for that period. Keep in mind that at the end of WWII, most of the industrial economies of the world were in ruins - except the U.S., which was responsible for making more than half of the world's durable goods at the end of the war and well into the fifties. So blue collar wage earners briefly got to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, aided by unions, federal spending that created many more jobs (the Eisenhower administration's infrastructure program) and a more sustainable tax policy.

Now combine the two: the "fifties lifestyle" and the "nuclear family" mythology based upon it that gets paraded around by the "family values" pundits is not possible because those blue collar jobs shifted to cheaper labor markets (read: "overpopulated") as corporations grew and technology improved. This led to a decline in domestic labor unions and the gradual erosion of the quality of workers' lives from the 1960s which is continuing today.

Ironically, the "family values" types who bemoan the erosion of the nuclear family but also favor "small government" and "trickle down" economics are actually touting the very approach that speeds the erosion of the nuclear family.

I find it hard to disagree with you on this Dopp.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Another big change was women's rights. When they started working, it became necessary to have a second car. Homes needed more labor saving appliances. There was less time for preparing meals so the family spent more money on frozen dinners and eating out.

Basically, families may have had a larger combined income, but they also had more expenses.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In the fifties:
One car families.
One B&W TV.
One phone.
Maybe a typewriter.
Absolutely no electronic gadgets.
Few extended vacation trips.
Few fast food options.
"Eating out" was a luxury.
Mom was more often a homemaker than not.
Credit cards had yet to become a mainstay of the economy.
Racial discrimination was widespread.
Respect for elders was more common.
Girls were less promiscuous.
Boys were just as horny.​

One phone - And this line was shared with several other families. It was called a "party line", & everyone could listen on everyone else's calls.
Vacations - No one I knew ever skied, sailed, traveled abroad, skated on a rink, heard of a water park, or flew anywhere.
Fast food - Every few months, we'd go to the local A&W.
TV - Shows were lame.
Health care - It was cheaper because it was far less capable.
Public school - We had teacher led prayer. (That didn't work for me.)
Racial discrimination - From an elementary school kid's perspective, things were pretty good.
Cars - Tune-ups were often needed, tires didn't last long, fuel economy was poor, rust was worse, safety was poor, but they were simpler & easy to fix.
Food - Variety was lacking.
Income taxes - Before inflation caused bracket creep, they were relatively lower than today. But if you sold your house, you had to pay tax on the gain.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Another big change was women's rights. When they started working, it became necessary to have a second car. Homes needed more labor saving appliances. There was less time for preparing meals so the family spent more money on frozen dinners and eating out.

Basically, families may have had a larger combined income, but they also had more expenses.
As I recall, many of the women immediately post WWII went back home and really big jumps in the percentage of women in the labor force did not begin until the late sixties and exploded in the seventies and eighties. That would be consistent with women going back to work as opportunities dried up for families trying to maintain the lifestyle they'd kept in the late-40s and 50s on a single income.
 

astarath

Well-Known Member
The biblical family model is much like the 1950's standard. My wife and family tried to be the worldly 2011 family where equality for all seems to be the motto. It doesn't work and almost destroyed our family. Returning to the biblical principles of Wives submit to your husbands and Husbands love you wives has changed our lives and truly made us happy!
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The biblical family model is much like the 1950's standard. My wife and family tried to be the worldly 2011 family where equality for all seems to be the motto. It doesn't work and almost destroyed our family. Returning to the biblical principles of Wives submit to your husbands and Husbands love you wives has changed our lives and truly made us happy!
One family's pleasure is another's poison. I guarantee that there'd be some marital
discord if I told Mrs Rev that she should "submit to her husband". I go with what works.
 

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
I tried watching Mad Men once. I couldnt stomach it. It seems almost like an excuse to show women being sexually harassed continuously, and make it seem cool.

About back then, yeah, houses were cheaper, but they were generally MUCH smaller. The bedrooms were smaller, and the kids bunked together. And the yards were much bigger! Kids could actually go outside and play.

At one time houses really were built for families, nowadays they're built for contractors and banks to turn a quick profit.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
I tried watching Mad Men once. I couldnt stomach it. It seems almost like an excuse to show women being sexually harassed continuously, and make it seem cool.

About back then, yeah, houses were cheaper, but they were generally MUCH smaller. The bedrooms were smaller, and the kids bunked together. And the yards were much bigger! Kids could actually go outside and play.

At one time houses really were built for families, nowadays they're built for contractors and banks to turn a quick profit.

Yes, back in the day a family could afford to pay off their home. They could afford to heat it as well.
 
Top