[ketsu]

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned is two worker households. "Middle class" families *do* have more money these days. But that comes from households where both adults work. Back in the day, being middle class meant dad worked and mom was a housewife. Now being "middle class" means both family members work ridiculous hours and have a long commute.

From a personal perspective my father made around $12000 a year in the 60's. A new car cost $2000, so 1/6th of a years gross wages. A 3 bedroom house in New England cost $16000 or so so 1 and a third times your wages.

Compare that to today. A new car can run you $15,000(1/4 of a 63000 gross 1960's dollars to 2003) an equivalent house in New England will run you at least $200,000 if not more(3.15 times wages).

So if you compare apples to apples(a single earner middle class family) the middle class is *much* worse off in terms of real buying power. Yes the reason article is right that there is more functionality and proportionally higher quality, but would you rather pay a little more than a year's wages for a nice house or *3 times* that for more or less the same thing?

[1rudeboy]

Things were just so much better when the wife stayed at home and washed clothes by hand in a 1000 sq. ft. house with no air-conditioning, and all she had to worry about was whether the kids came down with polio.

[LowCountryJoe]

Both adults working? But how can that be since all of our jobs have been lost to slave labor?

[Red in Blue PA]

Re: “Middle class” families *do* have more money these days. But that comes from households where both adults work.

Two points:

1) That makes for an apples to oranges comparison.

2) Most households would NOT have two inclomes if they were not needed.

Many people on FR are delusional if they they think everything is rosy for the vast portion of people in the USA. Families are hurting.....and I am sure this would be the daily mantra here if a “D” was in office instead of an “R”.

[Publius Valerius]

So if you compare apples to apples

Take your car example. A car today is not the equivalent of a car in the 1960s. I would expect to pay more for a car today because it's better. Cars today will run over 100,000 miles with basically no maintenance, and it's not unusual at all to have a car over 200,000. No tune ups for 100k miles. Oil change every 5000 miles. Air bags. Seat belts. Anti-lock brakes. Front and rear crumple zones. The list goes on.

There is a reason why we pay a little bit more for cars now. They are better. Frankly, the only thing that is remarkable is that we don't pay a whole lot more for them.

[Intimidator]

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned is two worker households. "Middle class" families *do* have more money these days. But that comes from households where both adults work. Back in the day, being middle class meant dad worked and mom was a housewife. Now being "middle class" means both family members work ridiculous hours and have a long commute. From a personal perspective my father made around $12000 a year in the 60's. A new car cost $2000, so 1/6th of a years gross wages. A 3 bedroom house in New England cost $16000 or so so 1 and a third times your wages. Compare that to today. A new car can run you $15,000(1/4 of a 63000 gross 1960's dollars to 2003) an equivalent house in New England will run you at least $200,000 if not more(3.15 times wages). So if you compare apples to apples(a single earner middle class family) the middle class is *much* worse off in terms of real buying power. Yes the reason article is right that there is more functionality and proportionally higher quality, but would you rather pay a little more than a year's wages for a nice house or *3 times* that for more or less the same thing?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner