To: Alberta's Child
Thats a valid point, but even if every married woman with kids gave up their job outside the home our standard of living would still be several orders of magnitude higher than it was back in the 1930s. You are doing it again. We were going through a depression back in the 30's. I would venture to say that if all wives left employment today are standard of living would be more like the 50's. How's that?
235 posted on
11/02/2007 9:08:58 AM PDT by
am452
(If you don't stand behind our troops feel free to stand in front of them!!)
To: am452
Still pretty crappy actually. The average house was half the size we have today, most families had one vehicle, TVs and other household devices we take for granted today were luxury items. No thanks.
238 posted on
11/02/2007 9:11:46 AM PDT by
discostu
(a mountain is something you don't want to %^&* with)
To: am452
Why are you assuming that the 1950s would be any more valid than the 1930s in terms of comparing standards of living to 2007?
In the 1950s the U.S. was the only major industrial power whose infrastructure had been unscathed by World War II. The 1950s was the exception -- not the norm -- in terms of measuring the U.S. standard of living historically.
244 posted on
11/02/2007 9:22:26 AM PDT by
Alberta's Child
(I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
To: am452
To me, I knew once when the average American could raise a family on those types of jobs, have medical coverage, and pay for a home. Right. See my last post on this point.
246 posted on
11/02/2007 9:23:32 AM PDT by
Alberta's Child
(I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson