Is this even a question? 40 years ago housing, healthcare and education were vastly more accessible than they are today. Middle class jobs paid wages that could produce a middle class standard of living. The only thing you'd miss out on would be a bunch of hollow digital toys.

Would I trade my iphone to be able to own a house and have my children go to college? Of course! Who wouldn't!?

In 1985, in-state tuition and fees at UC Berkeley cost $1,296/year[0] (inflation-adjusted that would be $3,052 in 2020 dollars) Today, it actually costs $14,000/year[1] (plus an extra $16k room and board, but let's compare apples to apples).

[0] https://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since...

[1] https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/tuition-financi...

> 40 years ago housing, healthcare and education were vastly more accessible than they are today

More people go to college now than 40 years ago; the price is high because of the easy credit that makes it more accessible now, not less.

As for healthcare, I guess you had a higher chance of being able to see a doctor back then, but they wouldn't be able to treat your illness as effectively as today so it's a tossup depending on what ails you.

Housing is totally fucked now, I give you that.

> ... education were vastly more accessible than they are today.

Diplomas were more accessible. Education has never been cheaper.

This isn't an attack on your point, since what people really want are the diplomas (and the comfy middle-class jobs they led to), I'm just pointing out that everything that runs on information transfer[1] is incomparably cheaper in 2020 than in 1980. The college tuition problem isn't an economics of information transfer problem, it's an economics of status transfer problem.

[1] All of which you dismiss as "hollow digital toys" somewhat unfairly I feel, but I don't actually know enough to have an informed opinion on 1980 vs 2020, so I won't get into it.

If you leave many of the big wealthy states, middle class jobs pay wages to support middle class living. All my neighbors and family in Cleveland buy houses/housing and live comfortable, easy lives. Same in Texas.

In the states where the "elites" are, housing and participation in the economy is dramatically limited.

We’re healthcare and education more accessible? Cheaper, certainly. That’s different from accessible.

I was a child then, and I vaguely remember easy access to GPs, but specialists required travel. Long travel.

A smaller portion of the population went to college. Seems more accessible now.

what technology and infrastructure was funded by the rich? I think you mean funded by the tax payer, rich and poor alike, but the poor pay a higher percentage of income in tax.

> the poor pay a higher percentage of income in tax

They certainly don't pay a higher absolute dollar value of the total taxes received by the government though.

and your point is what? paying a higher percentage of their income makes life harder for them, than it does for the rich paying a higher dollar value but lower percentage of total income.

The point is that infrastructure was mainly paid by the rich, not that life is easier for the poor.

the infrastructure was paid for by tax, the rich didn't altruistically pay for it, they paid tax, tax was used to fund it..very different kettle of fish to the rich paying for infrastructure directly.

I never said they altruistically paid it. All I am saying is that without them, we couldn't have paid for it.

that's not necessarily true though is it. first off the government has no issue creating money to bailout corporations, thus the money could be created/borrowed to pay for infrastructure projects and repaid over the long term. Secondly 'without them' would mean without the multi-millionaires and billionaires. Well if we didn't have them it would be because of a more equal sharing of the wealth, thus the same tax revenue could be gained from a wider share of the population. The economy has the same value/size it is just currently concentrated in the hands of a few, there is no reason it could not be more equally spread out, except that those with money, get to buy those in power and lobby for rules that make them richer and make it harder for people to compete with them.

> I think you mean funded by the tax payer, rich and poor alike

The rich pay disproportionately a lot more. Most technology is funded by the rich either directly or through the majority of the taxes they pay.

97% of taxes are paid by the top 50%.

>The rich pay disproportionately a lot more.

And so they should.

the top 50% has a lower band of $41k annual income in the US. they are not rich, in many places they would struggle to support a family on that.

>The top 1 percent of American earners pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes. That’s more than the bottom 90 percent pay combined

that fact should not be celebrated as how generous the top 1% are but rather how unequal the system is that this can be the case.

I'm not arguing that they should or should not. I'm just pointing out that the people that are vilified are contributing a LOT more to keeping this ship we call a country afloat.

Id much rather live in a the world 40 years ago.

It was possible for a family of four to survive on a single income and own a home...