Your analysis nailed it.
My Dad was the only one who worked, my Mom either was with the kids or was a volunteer worker for charities.
I never remember my father ever going into work on weekends. He only got two weeks of vacation a year, but he got to take it religiously every year. He started work every day at 8 a.m. and was home for dinner by 5.
His firm gave him a new car every two years.
They lived in a home I and my wife could never hope to afford, and they did it on one income.
In contrast, my wife and I both work 50-60 hours a week. I usually am in 6-7 days a week, my wife works 6 days a week.
Although on paper with my seniority I am entitled to 4 weeks of vacation a year, I haven't taken a vacation in 7 years, largely because the number of workers have been cut back so far there is no one to cover my position if I were out. And I never know whether my job would still be there when I returned from vacation.
There is no way I would send my kids to public school, like my parents' generation was able to do. Instead, to get any sort of decent education, I pay $14,000 a year apiece to send my kids to private school, while still getting taxed up the wazoo to maintain the public teachers' union and retirement fund they jokingly call the public school system.
A couple of months ago I was visiting an elderly aunt of my parents' generation that I don't see very often. Knowing how hard my wife and I have to work to survive, she commented that she worried our younger generation has it much harder than they did and that we may very well be working ourselves to death before we ever get the chance to retire. Her parting comment was to "take it easy and not work so hard."
If this guy really wanted to make a valid comparison, he'd figure a couple of other factors.
Not only do many families have to pay for private schooling for their children in grades K-12, but everyone needs to save for college today. While a college education was becoming crucial in the 60's and 70's, I know many people from that time who've done very well without a college education. Today, very few people will do well without a college education. The family of today must start saving for college before the kids are born. Even with savings, they will often end up needing educational loans, and those loans will be a burden that cuts deeply into that extra money that we are supposedly making.
Another point is that the declining moral fiber of the country puts greater costs on all of us. I used to believe that I didn't need to live in a solidly, middle-class neighborhood to be happy. I believed that I could be happy while surrounded by poorer people. The money isn't an issue, but most less affluent neighborhoods are also places where neither my person or my property is particularly safe. If I live in one of these neighborhoods, I'll end up taking losses from more frequent break-ins. In addition to the financial loss, the loss of peace of mind would be very difficult. The answer is to pay more to live in a nicer area, but paying more usually means borrowing more. Borrowing more means that more of my life's productivity will go into paying interest on a loan and less will go into meeting my needs.
Does this mean that things are horrible today? No, it doesn't. However, it means that this guy's rosy analysis misses the most important points.
Bill
"Her parting comment was to 'take it easy and not work so hard.'"
Geez, talk about twisting the knife. Did she add, "But make sure you don't cut my Social Security, or forget to pick up the tab for my Medicare and free drugs...and while you're on the way out, would you mind sending in my AARP dues check?"