I love Buttigieg's anti-nostalgia message

[Recursion]

In general, "you're better off than you used to be, you're just too ignorant to realize it" is a very hard message to sell. Unfortunately, it's pretty much what we're stuck with; we lose if we accept the "America was once great and needs to be great again" framing. One thing I love about Buttigieg is that he's very matter-of-fact and unapologetic about popping that bubble. He's willing to actually say, "no, the 1950s weren't a great time for most working people. They were poorer than we are now, they had a much lower standard of living, and even that lifestyle was only open to a portion of the population throughout a portion of the country." It was a false prosperity, and he's calling it out. We need to do that.

I also love that he brings an image of rural America that's something other than blight, despair, and fentanyl. I'm home in Mississippi visiting my dad right now and the economic growth over the past 20 years is almost impossible to describe. Yes, the sawmill closed down -- thank God. And now there's a car factory, a tire plant, about a dozen warehouses that serve those two. Plus all the service jobs that come with people having money to spend (a Captain D's finally opened in this three-stoplight town and the local paper used the "WORLD WAR 3" 60-point font to cover it on the front page). In fact it's not the rural areas here that Trump is strongest in, but the miles and miles of identical cardboard-box-strip-mall suburbs, where there's always a WalMart and a Kohls and you can't tell if you're outside of Jackson or Memphis or Vicksburg or Meridian because they all used the same architect.

Anyways: I'm sick of looking to the past for answers for the present, and one thing I love about Buttigieig is how consistently positive and forward-looking he is.

[Honeycombe8]

1. I'm not so sure the 50s provided a lower standard of living than now...

when measured against what a medium or high standard of living was at the time. In other words, the 1950s citizens didn't have internet because there was no internet. They may not have had two cars, unlike now, because they didn't need two cars and that was not part of the middle class "good" standard of living. They didn't buy exotic fruits at the grocery store, because the country didn't have the global trading it does now...buying exotic fruits was not part of a good standard of living then.

But Americans maybe could buy a good car and a house in a middle class neighborhood, buy nutritious food for a family of four, and put the kids through college...all on one middle class average income. Is that true? I'm not sure. I'll have to read up on that.

However, it WAS true that things were tough, if not impossible, for anyone other than a white male. White women did fine, as long as they played the game and "knew their place" as wives of the white males. Things were bad for working white women, black men and women, and I think any other minority...maybe including Italians. Not sure.

I need to read up more on the facts of the standard of living in the 50s. I was born in the 50s; I actually remember some things about that era, and saw the changes, or attempted changes, of the civil rights movement. I remember Kennedy getting elected and that black people had campaign posters or his picture hanging on their doors (my mom took me along to go to the black part of town to visit someone...black people DID in fact live literally across the railroad tracks in my tiny town). I remember the Kennedy signs flapping in the breeze, and asking my mom who that was. Even THEN I had an interest in politics!

[Recursion]

3. An important elision you are making

But Americans maybe could buy a good car and a house in a middle class neighborhood, buy nutritious food for a family of four, and put the kids through college...all on one middle class average income. Is that true? I'm not sure. I'll have to read up on that.

A white male American, in some parts of the country, often could. But it was an 850 square foot house, and those annual vacations were driving to the closest national park to camp.

Your point about standards of living is important: we are so much richer in an absolute sense than our grandparents were, but we focus on relative wealth instead.

[Honeycombe8]

5. That's what I mean by comparing "expectations" then with now.

He avg house was much larger than 850 sq (I should know...we lived in one, in a middle class neighborhood...5 kids). That was considered a good standard of living.

Vacations - were affordable, for the standards of the time. You piled in the car and drove somewhere and stayed at a Holiday Inn. Pretty much like now, unless you charge it. Back then, PEOPLE HAD LITTLE DEBT. They didn't charge things. I don't recall my parents even having charge cards.

Back then, health care was CHEAP. Dental care was CHEAP. Until the ins. cos. became the runaway train it is now. There was no dental insurance, BTW. No need, because it was affordable. Once dental insurance became commonplace, the price of dental care skyrocketed. That is what ins. does.

Just because people work more or both parents work so they can afford vacations to more exotic places, doesn't change the fact that the standard of living in the 50s was higher than now, in real terms. Not accounting for higher expectations.

I think you are also mistaken that a family living on $54k a year (avg middle class income now, I read) takes vacations to Europe and puts the 2 kids through college on that, and funds retirement. The middle class now I do believe has a lower standard of living. But many don't realize what middle class is, any more. It's a family of four living on $54k a year gross.

Currently, a middle class family may choose to have different priorities, but it doesn't change the fact that they are less well off now. They may choose to have several smartphones, but they use the money they would have put into their retirement savings in the old days. Middle class people don't save much, now. So their "higher" standard of living in some showy ways, belies the fact that overall they are worse off....because they are shifting their money from some things to more showy immediate-gratification things.

[Recursion]

6. Except the standard of living was lower, and people were poorer

Wages have been rising very slowly for 40 years, but household incomes have been rising quickly, because women entered the formal workforce. Elizabeth Warren's book "The Two Income Trap" is about that.

But seriously there's just not a measure by which the middle class in the 1950s was anywhere near as rich as the middle class today. People just get rose colored glasses.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Not true.

The standard of living was NOT lower, in accordance with the world at the time and expectations.

The middle class today is a family of four living on $54k/yr. They don't go to exotic places for vacations, if they go on vacations at all. They have DEBT. They don't SAVE. The middle class today just chooses to spend more on immediate-gratification things, using the money they would have put into retirement or college savings in the old days...to spend on smartphones or a new car or have credit card debt.

The middle class then didn't have much debt, except for a mortgage. They had one car..maybe two...which they kept for many years. Their houses were maybe smaller than now, but newer and higher quality. And they lived in them for many years, paying them off. They had SAVINGS and could pay for their kids' college (altho not as many people went to college then).

Healthcare then was affordable. As was dental care (there was no dental ins. because it wasn't needed)

Even in the 70s, it cost about $1,200 to have a baby without insurance....except for the one overnight stay at the hospital.

The standard of living was higher in the 50s, compared to now...not counting advances in technology and such, which were not part of the lifestyle then. People could actually live on their Social Security back then. Not well, but they could provide for themselves. Today, that would be impossible for most middle class people.

What people think of as middle class today is more upper middle class, really. AND the middle class is disappearing. The majority of Americans back the were middle class. Now, it's about half. Many of the people who would have been middle class in the 50s have fallen to the "poor" category.

[Recursion]

8. Forget "in accordance with expectations." That's my point

We're richer, period. We just think we deserve to be even richer than that.

[Honeycombe8]

10. No we're not. Period.

The ones who would have been middle class in the 50s...many of them have fallen into the "poor" category now, and some have risen to upper middle class or wealthy. This is reflective of our system being geared toward make-it-or-you're-lazy-and-don't-deserve-anything mentality these days. Rewards are selectively given to the few, and others are allowed to fall behind. Unions shrinking may be partly to blame.

The middle class is disappearing. In the 50s, most of the income in the country went to the middle class. Now, less than half does.

Most people in the 50s were middle class. Now, it's about half...and shrinking.

So whereas an avg family in the 50s could live a good life, including funding college education for the kids...now those people would be struggling with two incomes,no savings, big debt,and no way to pay for college for the kids.

It WAS a better life for white middle class then.

Today, some middle class CHOOSE to go into debt or spend money on some things that are immediate gratification things (smartphones, more tvs, newer car when it's unnecessary), but will have no savings for emergencies or retirement. THEN...the families chose to save and not go into debt unless necessary. They kept cars and houses after paying them off, because that's the way to stay out of debt.

You can't get ahead financially if you're middle class and heavily in debt. I'm sure you've seen the numerous reports about how Americans aren't saving for their retirement any more. They either don't make enough money to do that, after expenses, or they are choosing to spend that money on more immediate gratification things.

If someone has a newer car but no savings, that does not equate to a higher standard of living vs. someone with savings and an old car that is properly maintained.

[PatSeg]

15. I have to agree with most of what you are saying

I remember the fifties and sixties and most families could live off of one income. Anyone working full time could afford food and shelter, as well as basic medical care. Today, many people are slipping into poverty as housing prices and medical costs skyrocket. How many "middle class" people are actually one job loss or major illness away from destitution? I believe one of the biggest differences would be the loss of good paying union jobs.

In many ways, it would appear that we are better off than we were forty or fifty years ago, but appearances can be very deceiving. For those who think some of us look back at yesterday with rose colored glasses, I would say that many people today look at the world with their blinders on, unable or unwilling to see the growing disparity of wealth, increased homelessness, and the overall decline of our society.

[Recursion]

20. The middle class has been moving up, not down

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-shrinking-middle-class-a-close-look-at-changes-within-metropolitan-areas/

The direction of the movement is up, not down.

[PETRUS]

32. Your thread reminds me...

I've been meaning to listen to this:

Citations Needed Podcast, Episode 58: The Neoliberal Optimism Industry

"We're told the world is getting better all the time. In January, The New York Times' Nick Kristof explained "Why 2017 Was the Best Year in Human History." The same month, Harvard professor and Bill Gates' favorite optimist Steven Pinker lamented (in a special edition of Time magazine guest edited by - who else? - Bill Gates) the “bad habits of media... bring out the worst in human cognition”. By focusing so much on negative things, the theory goes, we are tricked into thinking things are getting worse when, in reality, it's actually the opposite.

For the TEDtalk set, that the world is awesome and still improving is self-evidently true - just look at the data. But how true is this popular axiom? How accurate is the portrayal that the world is improving we so often seen in sexy, hockey stick graphs of upward growth and rapidly declining poverty? And how, exactly, are the powers that be "measuring" improvements in society?

On this episode, we take a look at the ideological project of telling us everything's going swimmingly, how those in power cook the books and spin data to make their case for maintaining the status quo, and how The Neoliberal Optimism Industry is, at its core, an anti-intellectual enterprise designed to lull us into complacency and political impotence.

Our guest is Dr. Jason Hickel."

https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-58-the-neoliberal-optimism-industry

[Recursion]

33. Yeah, who needs to look at data when you have anecdote?

[PETRUS]

34. Are you jumping to conclusions?

I haven't yet listened to that particular podcast (have you?) but I've read a number of the guest's articles and papers and he is very data-driven. Your comment is almost certainly way off base.

[Recursion]

26. You're still forgetting Rawles's Filter

You can be middle class and black now. You can be middle class and a single woman now.

[Honeycombe8]

23. No....real wages, adjusted for inflation, have not increased much since the 1970s....

for the working and lower middle class. I don't know about the middle-middle class.

But income has climbed significantly higher for the upper middle class and the wealthy.

The wealthy people in Rome didn't have as many material goods as the middle class in America now. That doesn't mean their standard of living was lower, because of income. That just means there have been advancements in the world. New materials manufactured, new building & clothing materials, more food because of global trading, new transportation, etc. The way to do it to compare the standard of living based on standards of the time, with the current standard of living based on the current time.

It's like when you say someone made wages of $200/mo. in 1955. That means nothing unless you bring it forward to today's dollars. There's a formula for that. So you can compare that wage with today's value of a dollar. Same thing with standard of living.

The poor are much better off, now. But that's because of govt assistance, which was almost nonexistent in the 50s.

[Tipperary]

21. So you think America WAS greater then?

Is that right?

[Indygram]

37. The economic standard of living was definitely greater

And by a mile. Us old farts remember.

Equality, justice, civil rights, etc...those were far worse.
Technically speaking...you are BOTH right, but in different ways.

The dollar stretched a hell of a lot further back in the day.

In 1960 a new house cost $12,700.00
In 1960 the average income per year was $5,315.00
In 1960 a gallon of gas was 25 cents
In 1960 the average cost of new car was $2,600.00

[Skidmore]

11. Recovery from the Depression and WWII

was not equal for all, despite social programs directed toward rebuilding. Sometimes I think the only attributes to be viewed through rosy glasses were that cars could be easily repaired and people had to read more.

[elfin]

27. Yes, it was better for unionized (mostly white) industrial workers

than now. But horrible for gays and women who needed reproductive choice and on and on and on.

But the availability of well paying and secure jobs for so many did indeed build a strong middle class that was able to provide for a family and send their kids to college in order to do even better.

The ones left behind got even further behind until many sought the next rung on the ladder by enlisting (or heeding the draft) for Korea and then Viet Nam. If they came back, there were some opportunities via the veterans for more education and moving up.

Now the security of pensions is gone or disappearing and the veterans' benefits are becoming sketchier due to budgets, neglected needs and geographic issues among other things.

But overall, the portrait of the USA is that we have unduly idealized the 50's on economic issues.

[paleotn]

2. Reminds me of the lyrics of an old Billy Joel song.

"the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow isn't as bad as it seems"

1950's prosperity was a very distinct anomaly. Our industrial competitors were destroyed or bled dry by WWII. We were the only survivor with an untouched capital base and pent up demand from a decade long depression and 4 years of world war. Couple that with progressive labor laws, a progressive tax system and generous GI benefits and you have the situation that created the wealth we have today. But we still had to fight a war on poverty continues today, as it was a far more serious problem in 1960 than it is today.

So, unless we want to repeat the nightmare and horror that preceded the 1950's, we will never see that kind of economic growth again. I hope I never see a time of mind boggling environmental destruction and basic civil rights extended to only a part of the population.

[Recursion]

4. And even then it was limited to white men

If we kept women and minorities out of the formal labor pool today I'm pretty sure white men's wages would start climbing again. For that matter "wage stagnation" is a white male narrative; women and minorities have seen immense wage gains since the 1970s as the economy opened up to them.

[Honeycombe8]

9. True that it was only white males. But not true about the money...

The middle class got a HUGE portion of all income in the country at the time. So a family didn't need two incomes. The one white male income was enough to stay out debt (except for a mortgage), buy a house, fund kids' college education, buy a car and keep it many years, feed the family well, go on an occasional vacation maybe. It was a good life. Especially for whites, and in particular the white male.

Not good at all for blacks or other minorities, or even white women in some cases (there were no protections for being beaten up by your husband, and women couldn't leave and get a decent paying job; they were dependent on the white male).

So the white males today hear the wonderful tales of life in the 50s, and it sounds great. It was...for white males.

[paleotn]

18. They didn't need two incomes

because standards of living were much lower then than now. The size of an average middle class house then was tiny compared to today.

[Honeycombe8]

19. You don't compare the standard of living for middle class then with now...

you compare it with the standard of living for all the other classes at that time. Otherwise, you are comparing advancement of the country as a whole...not the standard of living for one class 60 years ago with now, because of income. If you see the difference.

The size of the avg house wasn't tiny compared to now, IMO, for the middle class.

I was born in the 50s. Four kids in the 50s. We had an avg 3 bedroom house on an avg middle class street. They added a BR in the early 60s when a 5th was born.

I was househunting for a year in four different cities the last couple of years. I looked at a lot of homes built in various years. I also had moved from a 1953 cottage pier & beam (a gorgeous little cottage...that one WAS small). Although my cottage was small (1600 sf), it was smaller than the others in the neighborhood, which was a nice middle class neighborhood in the 50s.

I looked at houses built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, early 2000s. Nothing later. The 50s & early 60s homes were built better by far. There were rambling ranch homes to 2800sf. There were also smaller homes.

By the early 2000s, building quality was way down, although electrical & plumbing are better because of the improvement of materials and upgrading of code requirements. That's not an increase in standard of living. That's an advancement in the world generally, and specifically our country. It has nothing to do with standard of living pertaining to one's income.

Note: If you pay more for something, that's not an increase in standard of living. It's trading savings in the bank for more sq in a house, or a 2nd car or a smartphone. In the 50s, many middle class people had little debt, and paid off their houses & cars (if they even financed the car in the 1st place). Net worth.

[paleotn]

16. Exactly!

Women and minorities started from marital slavery and Jim Crow. Their gains have been astounding and rightly so. Guess that’s why maga only resonates with white men. What those same white men don’t understand is their fathers and grandfathers did backbreaking jobs for a pittance in the 50s compared to the 80s when their wages stagnated. And it took organized labor decades of struggle to accomplish that. It didn’t magically appear in 1946.

[oldsoftie]

12. Even in the 70s what was considered "living well" was very different than now.

And thats part of the problem of why so many people are in so much debt today. I spend a good bit of my time these days working in real estate. I'm in GA, so values here are not as high as other parts of the country, but bear with me.
In the late 70s a good school friend of mine had a doctor for a dad. Family of 5. To me, they lived in a GREAT house; pool, 2 stories, garage, 2000 sq ft. A judge lived just up the road. But little did i know, THAT wasnt living well at all! Today i see people complaining that they "dont have enough room" in their 3000 sq ft home with a family of 4. They MUST have an office, yet both parents are salaried workers. Kitchens are ridiculously large, as well as master baths. They HAVE to have a large SUV because the kids play soccer (which requires you show up & be clothed & maybe have a BALL) & dad MUST have the huge 4 wheel drive truck.
They'll pay 250k-350k or more for the house that shows their success to everyone else. Its no longer "keeping up with the Joneses", as the old saying was. Now, its keeping up with the Joneses BOSS or more.

That house that i thought was such a great place? Its still here. The tax value is 141k.

People dont need to go into huge debt to live well. They just need to be realistic about money and stop trying to impress everyone ELSE.

[yaesu]

13. As a lover of history & a believer of history repeats itself this is a hard sell for me

and I'm sure there are pockets of upper middle class neighborhoods where he is living but overall America's rural areas are still struggling with blight, despair, homelessness & fentanyl. Many look like ghost towns compared to what they used to be.

[Recursion]

14. My experience is the despair is the pockets

More pockets than we would like, but still. Rural America is much better off now than it was 20 years ago, certainly in the South and Southwest

[Tipperary]

24. Yes, I think it is better in general. I have lived or have friends in many southern states.

I know no one in Mississippi or Alabama, but I think those are the only two.

[David__77]

17. I generally agree things have gotten better.

“Health care” is more expensive, and there are more diagnostic tools and treatments than there were previously- so “health care” is different than before.

Education levels have increased, lifespans gotten longer, and aspects of life like banking and shopping gotten more convenient.

Now, where I live, housing has also become very expensive- I can imagine someone looking at that and concluding that, overall, things have not gotten better. Still, I think the trend is in the right direction.

I do think that there’s a real trade off between more stuff and better experiences. I think it would be reasonable to have an index of happiness to accompany GDP as an indicator of social well-being.

[BannonsLiver]

22. Have you given any thought to why that's all happening in Miss?

If it’s like my equally blood red state, which I’m certain it is, it’s because the far right corporatist nut jobs in the legislature have probably bent over backward to give every tax break and incentive imaginable to lure those businesses there at the expense of public services, which are no doubt cut to the bone there like they are in every blood red state. Not much of a miracle IMO.

Also the point about Donnie not being as popular in rural America as he is in the suburbs is demonstrably false. Was covered ad naseum after the election with actual data.

[Recursion]

25. He is less popular in the more rural parts of the state

And more popular in the suburban parts of the state.

https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/mississippi/

There's not really any room to argue about that.

[dsc]

28. MS is somewhat unique in that there is a substantial rural black population

while probably there is still a limited black suburban population.

[Recursion]

29. Sure, but it's true in, say, New Hampshire too

In general the less rich a voter (of any race) was, the less likely he was to vote for Trump. It's why Clinton won workers from households making $50K or less by about 12 points.

[dsc]

30. there is virtually no black population in NH

so there aren't a ton of black rural voters there.

[Recursion]

31. Which is why I used that as an example

Even among almost entirely white states, he did better in suburbs than in rural areas

[riverwalker]

35. The best stamp of approval

Is the Cassandra Fairbanks article bashing him. It means he is free of Russia/Assange entanglements. It made me like him even more.

[defacto7]

36. Hmm, the olden days....

I could share several comparisons that don't fit the caricatures in the stats presented but I'll stick to one, I think. I can agree with the general idea that we can't look back and say it was better "way back when". It wasn't, necessarily. But I certainly can't say it was worse, necessarily. Those positions are too broad to be compared and I don't want to use a cliché that includes fruit. Statistcs can be correct but they aren't always right.

Everything depends on where in the country you lived. It was never uniform in any way that can be presented in a single drop statement. That's true today as well but probably less so for many reasons. Society has changed drastically and it's not a then and now issue, it was evolution. So the measuring device can't measure any period against another with any sanity.

To even mention square footage as a comparison of standards of living is absurd. The house I grew up in was about 1800sf which was average for where we lived but if you lived in a city neighborhood in Philly 850sf would be just as normal and cost the same $1800 to buy. Both families would have the same expectations and outlook on life and living.

Of course there's the inequality problem. Is it better today than yesteryear? Marginally yes but again where? NYC? Middletown OH? Aspen CO? Neon KY? Corvallis OR? Burley ID? Your pick, and the answers may surprise you. Or we could use stats and just average the whole country, maybe the planet while we're at it, but it won't get you any closer to the truth about the everyday lives of people now compared to.... whenever.

The fact is, all we have is now. Those who look to the good old days are wrong and those who say it's better now are wrong, because those are different worlds in an infinite set. MAGA is no more bull shit than saying we are better off now than we were. We are here now and we have what we have with all its shit and all its promise. No blame, no accolades, just an unkown timeline and we had better make good use of it.

BTW, as you can see I'm a Pete fan but that doesn't mean I go along with every word in a political race.