I'm going to regret sticking my head over the parapet on this one but ...
You're making the argument that it's great that diapers are a quarter of the price that they were, and isn't that great. But we're speaking in the context of how the poor can't even afford them at that price.
I've no stake in this argument. The dynamic of poverty and privilege is a topic that demands robust discussion. But I couldn't let such an obvious contradiction slip by ...
I'm specifically responding to a part of the GPs comment that seems to be claiming that things have been getting worse since the 50s.
Which is not to say that anyone being unable to afford diapers can't be considered unacceptable, or that you could argue that social policies should be changed to amend that problem.
But it doesn't help anyone if the discussion isn't factually based. As far as I can tell poverty has been going down since the 50s[1] (with some bumps), and more generally, if you would present anyone in the 50s struggling to raise kids at their income level to swap with someone in 2018 at proportionally the same income level they'd take that swap in a heartbeat.
All of which is not to say that thing can't get even better, but there's no way to set sensible social policy for the future if we don't look at the data showing where we've already been, and what current trends are.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
What I do know is that the average industrial wage relative to the cost of living has been steadily declining with a marked plunge from the 80s onwards.
I will concede that the 50s is a poor comparison, as much of the western world was in the midst of a post-war economic boom at that time.
I don't know about the average "industrial wage", but that sounds like a bad metric to focus on. Manufacturing in the US has dropped from around 25% during this time down into the single digits, so it's not as common a job as it used to be. If anything I'd expect the wage to have gone up, since those jobs are now more specialized.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? The truth of the matter is most manufacturing companies are facing the same problem tech is right now: a "talent" shortage. The pay hasn't kept up with living costs in most areas. The days of buying a house and raising a family on an "industrial wage" are long gone. The pay is hardly enough to keep one person alive these days. As a result, nobody wants the jobs. The companies can't keep their assembly lines fully staffed, but they don't want to pay more either.
Any parent here who has ever used cloth diapers can tell you: they save money. They should be teaching cloth diapering like they teach breastfeeding to mothers of newborns.
But yes, I'm willing to believe that cloth diapers were cheaper, and still are cheaper. But that's a digression from the main topic at hand, which is the question of whether or not disposable diapers are cheaper than in the 50s when adjusted for inflation.
Here's a document that quotes prices from the 50s in the US[1]:
According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com 10 cents per diaper in Today's money would be $1.03. I don't live in the US (although I do buy diapers), but looking at Amazon for even small packages you've got prices like $15 for a 40-pack of Pampers, which is $0.40 per diaper. It looks like you can easily get that price down to half of that if you buy bigger packages, buy non-brand etc.So I think you can tell your grandparents in the 50s that accounting for the price of soap etc. their grandchildren are going to live in a country where disposable diapers are as cheap as cloth diapers. That doesn't sound so bad.
1. https://www.edana.org/docs/default-source/default-document-l...