>> The demanding conditions sapped the life from workers. "You don't notice any old men here," said a Homestead laborer in 1894. "The long hours, the strain, and the sudden changes of temperature use a man up." Sociologist John A. Fitch called it "old age at forty."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/carnegi...
Modern times show us the '996 icu' work culture rising: https://github.com/996icu/996.ICU
My greatest fear is that there will not be enough jobs for everyone, and Andrew Yang's proposal for UBI will become even more important, but the 'cult of over-working' will keep it from ever being implemented:
Whenever I try to think about these large scale systems I end up realizing how difficult it is to predict the outcome. Everything people are buying has to be produced. Everything produced needs people (or automation) producing it. Somewhere there is an equilibrium.
What's happening globally has an impact (e.g. we possibly had a better standard of living by taking advantage of places that had a lower standard of living). Competition (and inequality) has an impact because not getting ahead of the game can put you in the bottom rungs where you're really doing badly. In a game where only the top 20% are doing well there is fierce never ending competition to be in that 20%. In a game where everyone has some guaranteed basic standard of living you would expect the competition to be less fierce.
Another note is that people used to work crazy hours during the industrial revolution. Similar story there, you had to get some work if you didn't want to be poor, and it was easy for employers to take advantage of employees.
It was never sustainable, only something possible for a point in time.
The stagnation in standards of living since the 80s is fully engineered - it's a choice. Tax cuts, regulatory changes, disarming the antitrust, union busting, deregulation of finance and similar changes redistributed $47 trillion to the top 10% from 1975 through 2018 (1), enough to give every worker in the bottom 90% a raise of $1140 per month.
(1) https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-ameri...
And how can you, or anyone, guarantee something like that? The standard of living we have, however imbalanced it might be, is a byproduct of fierce competition.
To guarantee any kind of basic standard of living, specially one without even more fierce competition, the only alternatives are: a much much lower standard of living, much lower, or, a much much intense exploitation of natural resources. Pick your poison, as they are both catastrophic, and there is no third option.
Competition does play some role in incentivizing people but I don't think it's the entire story when it comes to progress/improved standard of living. When 8 hour work days were introduced was there some sort of sharp drop in productivity or innovation or standard of living? Or when the work week was shortened to 5 days from 6 days? I don't think so.
Three very resources rich regions. They are exploiting their natural resources to compensate for their (relative) low productivity.
> When 8 hour work days were introduced was there some sort of sharp drop in productivity or innovation or standard of living? Or when the work week was shortened to 5 days from 6 days? I don't think so.
Yes there was a drop, if you consider everything relevant. When the 8 hour work day was introduced new workers were still being added to the workforce. Almost half the population in productive age joined the work force in the later part of the 20th century alone and women were for the most part not working when the 5 day work week became a thing for example. Individually the work hours came down, but as a whole we work much much more today.
But we don't have that luxury now, we don't have an untapped work force to lean against. And of course, the elephant in the room: our declining and aging population. Fewer and fewer working adults will have to provide for an increasingly large number of retirees.
The situation particularly in the west is dire. Pension funds are at very high risk of collapsing almost everywhere and the solution will not be to work less. Maybe, because politicians are politicians, the 4 day work week will be a thing, but retirement will creep into the 70s, it's already being proposed in some countries.
Increases in leisure time will be only on paper, done only in exchange for votes.
This can't be the reason, simply because the relative share of GDP is so small. For Denmark, Sweden and Finland natural resources amount to less than 0.5% of GDP. For Norway it's 7%.
For Australia it's 5.4%, and for Canada 1.9%.
For comparison: In Congo, Lybia and Kuweit natural resources explain nearly 50% of GDP.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.TOTL.RT.ZS?most_...
You are basing this on some research? Or just general experience?
How is that the case? The retirees income is by neccesity balanced by the working population's output.
And also, any inflation graph I look at shows no "doubling in price" at any point. Or anything that looks loosely like it.
And your father was well off compared to what is described in the Parent's comment. Some good evidence of my point is that the average house in 1950 was about 1000 sq ft and had one bathroom.
Today, the average American home is about 2800 sq ft with multiple full bathrooms.
Another example is that in 1950, very few American families owned more than one automotible. Today it is normal to own 2, 3, or 4.
Food is much cheaper as a percentage of income, travel has gotten dramatically cheaper, and of course cheap technology and entertainment is coming out of our ears.
Not to mention modern medicine and creature comforts such as year round air conditioning in the home and auto.
People who think there has been a decline in the average Americans living standard since 1950 are either misinformed or trying to push a sketchy political agenda.
But it did not doubled, because such proposition assumes zero female labor participation in 1950 and that was not actually the case.
Also, the healthcare costs and education costs went up significantly. Yes, there is more space, because space is cheap in suburbs. In a lot of ways, the gains are something I would happily gladly trade for cheap healthcare or college.
Plus again, if you live in suburbs which were build and poplar only after 1950, the two cars are necessity. Because otherwise one partner is stuck at home without even being able to go shopping or take kids to school. In places with good public transport, the second or even first car is luxury. In suburb, you are way more pressured to have it.
And I believe the relevant economic effect was not so much an increase in the price of consumer goods but a suppression of wages, which otherwise might have been expected to grow at a rate closer to that of the GDP.
And this was not long ago. I have likely been around the sun fewer times than you have.
Raising 6-7 kids on less than 100k sounds tough, although I'd guess you're getting towards the upper end of middle class by that point. The median household income in NYC is around $64k according to USCB, which leaves around $52k after taxes and social security. The rent on a three-bed in Brooklyn doesn't seem to go much below $2k per month, which leaves $2.3k per month for bills, groceries etc... .
People will say that you can move out of the cities in the same breath as telling you to get an education in order to get a higher paying white collar job at a big company, so which is it?
It seems no matter the configuration of life the numbers end up weighted in favour of rent-seeking capitalism and even the salaryman following all the society best practices is pinching pennies just to enjoy a coffee.
Even when I earned triple figures I couldn't afford to live in the suburbs. So why play the game at all if the grand prize is just scraping by?
CPI 10x'ed since 1950
With 10-15k saved you can then buy a starter home in a smaller city or maybe outside the metropolitan area of a midsized city.
And then there's the difference of lifestyle: In the 1950s most people did not own a car or a television. A family home would many times be smaller than a present one, even though families had more kids. And finally nowadays it's pretty normal to go on holiday abroad twice a year. In the 1950's this was unheard of.
Gentle reminder that female employment was not 0. Depending on age, it was in between 35% and 39%. While it is significantly lower then male employment, the idea that no woman worked outside of house is a fantasy. They did earned less money then men and faced discrimination. But their salaries were important either to feed themselves, kids or generally add to family income.
Notably, Rosa Parks was employed and her unemployability after bus sit in was a big issue for her.
Yet moreover, issues like domestic violence were really acute for many middle class women too, having good job makes escape so much more easier. Career is not just frivolous thing, it is safety. Yet moreover, middle class men get sick, injured die and career makes you safer.
And second, discrimination on the jobs was as acute. Those women (and their families) needed work, full stop. Them being paid less or having bad working conditions was something that impacted them a lot. It was not just pocket money where the difference does not matter.
In all honesty, most software developers I know could probably sustain a really decent living working 50% of the time they are doing now, if they really wanted to. But for whatever reason, we _don't_ want to. It's almost like our expectations are what have inflated.
[1] Some things have gotten ridiculously expensive, like housing. However, other things have not, we're just buying much, much more of them. It's hard not to draw comparisons between our own children's environment and our own upbringing, as cliche as that might be, but they have a lot more "stuff" than we did, be it phones, tablets, sports classes and coaches, you name it.
This was a unique situation, only in the US, which was a small fraction of the world population. The majority of the world was in poverty. The average human lifestyle has seen drastic improvements since then. This comment seems to suggest that things have been getting worse, but it's the exact opposite at the global level. Things have never been better.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-...