Replies

It is very hard to equate then and now. Here are some of the reasons. 1) The "optimum" family had one breadwinner, not two. The wife/mother stayed home and took care of the kids and did housework. Importantly, when she began to work, the tax rate was doubled. This effectively meant that she was working for the government, not her family, as both her and her husband's "extra" income from her labor was taken from *both* of them. 2) The number of goods available for purchase then were just a fraction of the goods available for purchase today. So after you had what you needed, there was a low curve of what you *could* get, except more of the same. 3) Entertainment was very limited. This explains why so many kids in the 1960s set up "garage bands". There just wasn't a heck of a lot to do, otherwise. It also explains the profusion of music in the 1960s. Here's a nice link for a site that streams a lot of that "also-ran" music: http://www.beyondthebeatgeneration.com/ 4) Entertainment was divided into "adult" and "child", which was why Disneyland was such a hit. It had things that were entertaining for both. If you were a teenager, you didn't want toys, and you couldn't go to adult oriented clubs. 5) The typical man's job was for life, if he was lucky. It paid wages with few other perks except at the upper executive level. Insurance was limited to mostly life and fire as the standard policies. Health costs were in cash or cheque to a doctor, and were much lower per capita. Taking all this into account, there really is no way to compare then and now as far as income vs. quality of life.

The number of goods available for purchase then were just a fraction of the goods available for purchase today.

That's probably the biggest one. People today might feel "poor" if they have only a cell phone and not an iPod, not recognizing that 30 years ago neither was available no matter how rich you were.

Health costs were in cash or cheque to a doctor, and were much lower per capita.

And also much less effective. You didn't spend $100k on cancer treatment; you just died. That's not to say health care today isn't much more expensive than it should be, but returning to 1967 wouldn't be an improvement.

Taking all this into account, there really is no way to compare then and now as far as income vs. quality of life.

One way to put it into perspective is to ask yourself whether you'd prefer to live in 2006 with the median income of 1967, or in 1967 with the median income of 2006. I choose today with 1967's income, and it's not close.