> Which isn't a lot in the FAANG world, but the point is that a very average not-very-smart person was able to provide for that many people back then

They weren't. The average household income in the 1960s (i.e., from a single breadwinner) was supporting a household of 3-4 people not 6[1][2]. The claim that you could support a family of 6 on a single breadwinner's income in 1960 and achieve anything close to 2024's quality of life is an egregious misrepresentation by the GGP.

[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a...

[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h...

I mean, lower it to 4, the EPI calculator still gives $100k. Are there that many jobs paying that for someone who's pretty average in Cincinnati?

The standard of living today is immensely higher. If you wanted to live at 1960 level you could certainly afford to do so. You’d have 1,000 sq ft of house, a single unreliable car, almost never go out to eat or travel, etc.

Is it? sure we have the Internet and big TVs and fast cars, but how much time do we actually have to enjoy them? quality of life is measured in more than just the things you have. I mean, yeah, if you're getting Doordash every meal and spending all your money that way, that's on you. Trader Joe's is frigging great, imo. but eating at home and having an older car isn't going to get me to a place where one median American salary can comfortably support a meaningful amount of people.

this is after we decry the other ills of there 1960's, of racism and sexism, which hopefully it's obvious I don't want to go back to, but letting both parents work somehow became both parents need to work for middle America and I'm just tired of my friends living at the edge.

Ah, the 1960s. Have you tried living in a jungle, slaughtering villagers in their homes, fighting to overthrow a foreign government in exchange for college tuition? Good times.

Ah, the 1850s when life was good!

The US Post is great and all, but I would gladly trade the US post for a large beaver-hunting territory!

Horses are too fast! Walking is better.

Or whatever... come on!

so the tradeoff, for having to have both parents working for a very average family, is that they can surf the Internet and get Doordash? you come on. I'm not denying that we have a better quality of living today, but how much time do you have outside of weekends to just go fishing or whatever? all these labor saving devices were supposed to give us more leisure time but instead we're worrying harder than ever!

> instead we're worrying harder than ever

I was going to say this typo was accurate, but now I realise I've never actually seen a detailed analysis of how much people worried in the past, just confident claims it was so.

haha good catch. we've only been tracking happiness since 2012, with Finland in the lead, though worry isn't the opposite of happiness, it would be fascinating to be able to have a global tally of how humans are feeling.

I understand, times are hard. Always were.

When was this chill time when we could just take off fishing for a week or two?

Random breakdown of time :) * 1800s * 1900-WW1 * WW1-WW2 * WW2-1980 * 1980-Now

And yeah, single breadwinner households were a thing back in the day it was generally because women didn't have a choice at all.

I'm pretty sure you have more options and choice today as to how you want to live your life, but if you want a family you gotta feed the little bastards one way or another, that has always been a "worry".

I was reading murder Wikipedia the other day and one of the guys got out of prison the second time and was able to pick up a job making 1k/week in the late 70’s (49-50k/year) in SoCal.

That’s what I was making a decade ago in SoCal with a college degree (slightly more with OT).

Ohh to live the life of an uneducated violent offender in the 70’s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Bittaker_and_Roy_No...