Hacker News Reader

Comment by learc83 | Hacker News Reader

Repost of something I wrote the other day that I think is relevant:

My very average house today is a huge luxury compared to the very average house my grandparents bought in the 60s. I have a cable bill, an iPhone bill, an internet bill, a netflix bill, and too many various SaaS subscriptions. My grandparents had none of those.

I also have a much higher power bill to pay for all my consumer electronics and air conditioning, a higher health insurance bill to pay for drastically better health care, an extra car insurance policy.

That's in addition to all the extra stuff I have lying around. 2 cars, not one, both of which are vastly superior and more expensive than what my grandparents had. Superior home appliances. And 1 metric tonne of electronics. I have so much more material wealth than all but the very richest did just 50 years ago. How could I complain that I'm not better off?

View on HN

You wrongly equate material possessions with happiness.

I'd easily go back to a 60s quality lifestyle if my wife didn't have to work and I only had to work 40 hours a week to own a nice house.

In the 60s they had most of the same electric appliances that we have today, save the microwave oven, personal computer, and the cellphone.

I'd bet that eating food that can't be heated in a microwave is probably more healthy for you. Losing the PC would be a real loss, especially the Internet. Losing the cellphone is probably worth it, since we'd have landlines and can still call anyone we need to.

You say we have all of these great things, but most of them are not important to living a quality life. Having time to spend with your family without having to have two wage earners working 60-70 hour weeks is worth more than a flat screen TV and a second car will ever be.

Why don't you go back to a 60s lifestyle? It is definitely possible; plenty of people live low impact non material focussed lives.

My point is that there is a reason that it takes 2 incomes to support a household now--All the extra stuff we have. I was refuting the people who keep asking why we have to work so hard just to have a normal life.

I don't share grandparent's views of the 1960s, but the cost of additional material goods are trivial.

The main reason you need 2 incomes to support a household is because you assume you have 2 incomes when building the household. In other words, (if 1 income was desirable), a couple lives in way too nice of a house. They also end up with two nice cars instead of one average one and probably eat out more than they could afford on one income. That's pretty much it; all other costs are trivial.

(Practical example: I'm paying $12,000 a year for a room in San Francisco. Car probably runs around $3,500. In comparison, the price of all my aggregate post-1960 technology -- cell phones, computers, internet, etc. is well below $3,500 -- the price of the car.)

It's not extra stuff, it's the price of housing and education. You might be perfectly fine living in a single room in SF, but what if you have a family and actually care about what school your kids go to? Maybe you don't want to live in a neighborhood where there is crime right out in front of your house all day long.

Totally agree with your point. Look for the stay-at-home dads with working wives and you'll find the people who have more time to spend preparing food and eating together, than money to go to restaurants, or live on take-outs.

>All the extra stuff we have.

It's NOT that stuff though. That stuff is cheap.

It's rent, food, childcare, healthcare, and education. These are not luxuries. Cellphones cost nothing compared to these real costs, which can't be reduced by a "low impact" life.

Food - I read a report recently that said the amount of hours the average person has to work to feed himself has dropped dramatically over the last 100 years.

Rent - accept 60s level housing and you can easily afford it, 1 bathroom each kid doesn't get his own bedroom etc..

Childcare - not applicable if you are living a 60s lifestyle you're wife won't work.

Education - Expensive b/c the govt subsidizes it.

Healthcare - problematic, but only b/c healthcare now is so much better than healthcare then.

Rent -- I've lived in multiple places built in the 1960s and all had enough bedrooms for 2 kids and a separate bathroom for parents and kids. These places were built for middle class families.

This comparison also matters where you are. At least in the SF Bay Area, housing prices have doubled in real terms since the mid 1980s (for the same house!). You aren't getting better housing now.. just more expensive housing. (Note: Such price rises are not the case in areas w/ plenty of land, e.g. outside major coastal metro areas)

> Rent -- I've lived in multiple places built in the 1960s and all had enough bedrooms for 2 kids and a separate bathroom for parents and kids. These places were built for middle class families.

Survivorship bias. The average house has increased in size steadily, just as families have become smaller. People really did have a lot less room then. Houses that end up too small for current tastes tend to get expanded or torn down and replaced.

I'd bet that eating food that can't be heated in a microwave is probably more healthy for you.

Cooking vegetables in a microwave is one of the best ways to keep nutrition locked in.

You ARE better off.

But you are also in the top 20%.

The bottom 80% are not as lucky as you. The bottom 80% cannot afford 2 cars, or a house, or cable, or an iPhone, etc.

Have some fucking perspective. You are doing well; but look around you. The rest of the country is NOT.

A tremendous part of the economy is out of work and cannot even afford to go to the doctor. You're living in a bubble.

I'm firmly in the middle in terms of household income. I was comparing myself to the middle income earner from 2 generations ago.

My point is that the vast majority of Americans have more material wealth than their equivalents did 50 years ago. Everyone has more.,

Also Cable penetration is close to 60% in America, so at least half of the bottom 80% can afford it.

Cable penetration should also be added to satellite penetration, since both serve (almost) the same purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com