> I totally empathize with your situation, but globally the numbers are irrefutable.

Indeed they are. Here are some numbers from NPR (hardly a right-wing thinktank):

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/yo...

In 1960, Americans spent about 18% of their income just for food. Now it's less than 10%.

And, of course, the quality of food available to a typical American is vastly better than it was in 1960.

The quality of food is better? That's hardly believable. Do you have a source? All first person accounts I've ever read from people who lived then and now indicate otherwise.

> The quality of food is better?

The quality of food is immensely better.

For one, you can get actual fresh veggies and fruits year 'round, even in the northern regions.

They didn't have Whole Foods in 1960, dude.

In fact, 1960 was the era of Cheez-Wiz, TV dinners, Tang, Velveeta, and Wonder Bread.

My grandparents didn't have a freezer until the 1950s. They kept a beef in a commercial freezer 15 miles away in town. They grew vegetables that they sold to grocery stores, so I guess they had good access to that sort of thing.

I doubt any of the stores my parents shopped at in the 1960s Midwest particularly had things like avocados.

This is to a large degree explainable by way of "rosy retrospection".

Quality has many facets - for example, I doubt they could tell you how often people in their youth died from salmonella, e. coli, or the like. Food was also significantly more expensive, and in colder regions fruit was nearly impossible to come by in winter months.

Was an apple from 1918 more nutritious than one bought in store today? It's possible, but then again nobody (in the developed world) in the 2008 recession was in danger of starving - a very different proposition than during the Great Depression.