Obviously I’m interested in the modern equivalent of whatever that man had. If those apartments were on the outskirts of the city, then something equivalent today. If society expected the kids to finish no more than high-school then but university today, then university it is.

And I want to understand if there’s any chance to do it the same way with salaried work, not with clever investment over decades, or winning the lottery, or getting an inheritance. Which are all valid ways to have a lot of wealth but don’t tell me the value of salaried work in the US today.

The modern equivalent to what the man had is what the man had. You'd need to be paid maybe a bit less to support a family like he had because everything has gotten slightly more efficient over the years. If you want to define things by means and medians, the median worker had a median lifestyle then and a median lifestyle today.

If you want much more than he had, you're going to need to pay much more for it. Bit of an obvious one.

It really isn’t though. The median person in 1963 didn’t need say internet or computers or smartphones, because no one expected them to have one. Good luck even applying for a job today without at least a computer and internet, and possibly a smartphone capable of running very specific apps.

Don’t get me wrong, I love my computer, but as the GP indicated the rest of society expect very different things from you today – more equipment, more education, etc. Those things aren’t just increased living standards, they are increased job requirements.

Sure. There is no way that old mate in 1960 could have afforded all that stuff and thread ancestor is pointing out that people around today can't afford a 7 person family and have all that stuff in 2026.

So we've moved from a world where it was impossible to afford all that stuff and a 7 person family to a world where ... still can't be done. People have raised their standards to the point where they can't afford 5 children, savings and a lifestyle that they think is reasonable. Not much of a mystery there to interrogate. There has never been a generation that could afford the lifestyle they want and it appears there still isn't.

But that’s not the same world

The current world has different technology and economics

In order to match the same lifestyle of the past you would have to be subject to the economic and technological structure of the past

Which you can emulate and it is objectively cheaper but you choose

This is literally the operational principle of the Amish and mennonite communities

I think you misunderstand my point. The ancestral post to this thread is pointing out that a normal worker in 1963 -- with probably just one income -- could support 5 children while owning 2 houses and 3 apartments. Then someone argues, more or less, that this is not possible only because we prioritize different today -- most likely referring to things like more education, more technology, better healthcare, etc.

My post, and the GP post I'm agreeing with, are saying that most of those aren't optional "lifestyle upgrades" that you choose instead of 5 children and 5 homes. Much of it, like education and technology, are requirements for getting and holding a normal job.

It's true that society has changed, but we are allowed to lament some of those changes without turning Amish. For example, I don't think that our technology and education is the main driver behind not being able to afford children and houses. Part of it is incompetent management of the housing market -- as someone once said, a house can be affordable or a good investment, but not both. Another part is that median income per person has not grown proportionally to GDP per capita since the 1960s, leading to a more extreme accumulation of wealth at the top, which is in turn entirely down to politics (e.g. an overcomplex tax code with plenty of loopholes).

If you're outside the US (like myself), the graphs arguably look a bit better, but there's still a lack of housing due to increased regulations on construction -- how energy efficient new houses should be, where you are allowed to build them, which old houses you are allowed to destroy to make room for new ones (for historical reasons), etc. In addition to the welfare states becoming less efficient over time, leading to less real income with less benefits from the state. (Which are not much better than inefficient monopolies in less socialist countries, to be fair.)

</end of political rant>

I’m aware of your argument and disagree. I know plenty of people who are unhoused and have no intentions on becoming housed anytime soon.

Whether or not you agree with that philosophy or not living by yourself in a tent in the forest is absolutely an option

“My post, and the GP post I'm agreeing with, are saying that most of those aren't optional "lifestyle upgrades"”

My disagreement is that they are optional, like everything else in life

You aren’t willing to take the tradeoff of not having indoor plumbing or whatever but the claim that using modern technologies and living according to capitalism isn’t an option is incorrect

Ultimately that’s a choice among infinite options

Giving up internet and phones still doesn't let me afford 5 houses and 5 kids, not even moving to a tent in the woods offsets that much expense

You can get internet and a phone for < $20/month. It will have all the apps, you don't need a computer.

... You really can't though? My cheapest phone plan ever was $30,15 years ago, and didn't include the phone

My phone plan is $7/month, right now. US Mobile.

Go to the library and use their computer: consider it a parallel to walking into a business with a resume and a firm handshake.

I agree with you and the math checks out

The challenge is that this is a hard argument to make to most people because they aren’t aware of the hedonic treadmill

I could easily afford the life my grandfather had in 1950, but I wouldn’t have a fuel injected motor, vaccines, a laptop or a job in computing.

My air would be full of lead and my drinking water would be cloudy and smell like sulphur.

That life is possible in San Angelo Tx today on ~15,000 a year, the equivalent of his salary in 1950

Who the fuck can afford even one house, let alone several, on $15,000??

Well if you get your friends and family to help to build them (which is what people used to do) and then cut a deal for cheap land in remote Nebraska

Just pretend like it’s 1950 and use the tools and build the community you need to do it like they did back then

No fair using nail guns

I grew up in remote Nebraska. You can't afford it there either, especially on remote Nebraska wages