Twitter Moment

Households are not the same as indivduals, $70k sounds really low for a household, that probably maybe less than I make as an individual. An household could have mutliple people earning money and if true with more women joing the workforce, most if not all the gain could be due to more women working. That number make it sound like the normal household in USA is poor or close to it, especially if the median salary in USA should be about $80k today. Also only 20% households making $150k or more, which would be 2*$80k, like my co-workers in USA make that on their own.
 
Last edited:
The 1967 numbers look even worse, if anything households was larger in 1967 than 50+ years later yet even poorer. But it do fit what my relatives have told me about the past.
 
Households are not the same as indivduals, $70k sounds really low for a household, that probably maybe less than I make as an individual. An household could have mutliple people earning money and if true with more women joing the workforce, most if not all the gain could be due to more women working. That number make it sound like the normal household in USA is poor or close to it, especially if the median salary in USA should be about $80k today. Also only 20% households making $150k or more, which would be 2*$80k, like my co-workers in USA make that on their own.
Households are a better reflection of how people live and the resources available. A HH can have one or more people in them and one or more wage earners. The US has 335 million people. Sweden has 10 million and is about the size of NYC. The very different scale of the nations makes comparisons poor at best. The numbers I posted are national averages. We are so large and diverse that one could cherry pick any number of different sections or geographic selections and tell a very different story. I am wondering just what point you are trying to make.
 
Households are a better reflection of how people live and the resources available. A HH can have one or more people in them and one or more wage earners. The US has 335 million people. Sweden has 10 million and is about the size of NYC. The very different scale of the nations makes comparisons poor at best. The numbers I posted are national averages. We are so large and diverse that one could cherry pick any number of different sections or geographic selections and tell a very different story. I am wondering just what point you are trying to make.
The point is american households look to be more towards the poor end compared to what I would expect them to be and that by looking at cost of living in USA. My guess is if you make purchasing power adjustment for each state and look at households in that state, you get the conclusion that many if not most american households would struggle with cost of living. Using purchasing adjustment, I get my starting salary + bonus would be about comparable to like $90k salary in USA on average and that is not an exceptional salary by any means. So the fact the average american household, which may include several working individuals make about $70k sounds really bad to me.
 
Last edited:
The point is american households look to be more towards the poor end compared to what I would expect them to be and that by looking at cost of living in USA. My guess is if you make purchasing power adjustment for each state and look at households in that state, you get the conclusion that many if not most american households would struggle with cost of living. Using purchasing adjustment, I get my starting salary + bonus would be about comparable to like $90k salary in USA on average and that is not an exceptional salary by any means. So the fact the average american household, which may include several working individuals make about $70k sounds really bad to me.
Look here:


Comparing your personal situation to that of a nation is hardly meaningful. If I used my situation and compared it to yours or Sweden's, you might well look impoverished too. There are lots of problems with living in the US, but so what? We live with them, you don't. Keep in mind that Sweden has ~10 million people. The US has over 22 million millionaires. It is very easy to slice and dice data to spin things the way you want.
 
- median income is a reasonably good way to measure well the actual income/prosperity of a country, as in it's a better measure than a "normal" average
- but, but imo, it's only further solidified as an argument if you also look at GINI, where the us perform much, much poorer (median sweden/us: 17k/19k, gini sweden/us: 26/39)
- comparing population sizes isn't productive, because a nation's population pockets don't have to be as damned as the us are
- also i'm unsure whether i still get the relevance to this thread, but i didn't much read the posts. can we wholly demonstrate why the comparison is connected to OP/tradwife stuff? is it because of the different speculations that the nostalgia for 50s commercials also has to do with household income etc? because it kind of misses the point there too; as some noted here, the luxurious and pretty imagescape of the commercial is thoroughly middle class and has very little to do with actual 50s mean incomes (it was aspirational; don't you also want to be like these iconically succesful and happy people? commercials are like that a lot)
 
Last edited:
Putting aside the arbitrary constraints on women and minorities at the time, the analysis of the golden age of America fails to put into context properly the material conditions: a square foot of house in 1950 is, after adjusting for inflation, not that much different from today and you’re getting a better house (who had A/C in the fifties?) A loaf of bread is cheaper. Cars are cheaper, safer, more reliable. Standards of living have gone up, not down, when you look at the whole picture and not isolate it to nostalgia for times you weren’t even around in.
 
Money still went a much longer way than today (housing, school, vehicles were cheaper) but yeah obviously poor people still had it rough (probably most of them rougher than today)
Here's an anecdote from when I was about 5 or 6 from the couple of years when my mother wasn't working as a bookkeeper for a car dealership in town...

The acreage we lived on wasn't far from where Highway 2 bypassed Red Deer on the way to Edmonton, 2A continued on into Red Deer, and the strip of commercial places common to any outskirts of a city that weren't in the city proper were actually close by (a strip of forest separated it from us, thankfully, or I'd probably never have been allowed farther than a fenced-in yard with usually dying grass because my grandfather didn't see the point of wasting water on the lawn when it was bound to rain at some point).

Nowadays Highway 2 is known as QE2 because Premier Klein renamed it after the Queen (dunno what she thought of it).

Anyway, going back to the late '60s... one day my mother loaded some bags and me into her Ranchero, and we spent the afternoon going up and down the ditches alongside the highway for a couple of miles - both side, north and south, and near the overpass, looking for bottles.

Beer bottles mostly, but also pop bottles (no plastic then; everything was glass). People would just throw their bottles out the window into the ditch when finished with them and keep driving.

Bottle pickers did a service back then of helping to clean up this part of the unwanted stuff that litters the highway (I was told NOT to pick up garbage, only bottles), but the motive was that we would get MONEY for the empties. Altruistic environmental motives weren't common at the time.

A whopping 2 cents/item was paid when we brought to the bottle depot.

Still, we'd managed 3 bags full. And the money my mother got from that went toward material to make me some school clothes for Grade 1 (I never did kindergarten; not many kids from the county did).

Choosing one data point to compare life in the 50s with life today is ignoring the hundreds of ways that life has changed between then and now. Housing then was not like housing now and the participation by banks and other lenders was different too. The consumerism we have now was mostly non existent then. Important appliances were a stove, refrig, toaster, vacuum, radio, washing machine. There were no subscription services (other than magazines). One car families dominated those who owned cars.
Lots of door-to-door sales were going on. There were Avon ladies, don't recall when Tupperware started, but my mother got sucked into AmWay for awhile... jewelry, perfume, cosmetics, and a whole lot of stuff got sold at the door or at "parties" (yeah, I've been to a Tupperware party a couple of times).

All these were acceptable ways for a housewife to earn some extra money.

(keep in mind that my recollections are from the mid-late '60s)
 
I think people are sad that you can't buy a house and take care of your wife on one income and now both parents have to work and your kids are raised by strangers and screens.
I oftenly hear stories that you could even get an office job with just a high school diploma, unlike today where you see the minimum job requirement is a four year college degree plus a minumum of a year or two experience (EVEN FOR AN ENTRY LEVEL POSITION!!).

Some of the uglier ones might wish for being able to control a woman financially and feeling like without being able to provide they have no purpose but bringing home the bacon is a bit of shallow purpose, lose your job, lose your wife. I've usually managed to get gfs even being a broke lost soul who can barely manage his own life but then again I'm good looking so I can't really relate.

I find glorification of the past a bit stupid, the past led inevitably to the present so clearly people weren't happy w it
From what I gather, the tradwife phenomenon (Or at least a desire to seek one) is a backlash against the rise of forth wave feminism and the perception that modern feminism of the new millennium is heavily misandrist (Which also caused backlash movements like the Men's Rights Movement, Incel Movement, Men Going Their Own Way, and other manosphere movements and communities). The most that I've heard in the circles that I used to hang out were that users expressed a desire for a girlfriend/wife that won't chirp and nag at them with feminist and woke social justice talking points.
 
Look here:


Comparing your personal situation to that of a nation is hardly meaningful. If I used my situation and compared it to yours or Sweden's, you might well look impoverished too. There are lots of problems with living in the US, but so what? We live with them, you don't. Keep in mind that Sweden has ~10 million people. The US has over 22 million millionaires. It is very easy to slice and dice data to spin things the way you want.
Also worth noting out of that median, Americans have to pay for their own healthcare, which is both cheaper in the aggregate and covered by other means than personal income in most of those other blue countries

From what I gather, the tradwife phenomenon (Or at least a desire to seek one) is a backlash against the rise of forth wave feminism and the perception that modern feminism of the new millennium is heavily misandrist (Which also caused backlash movements like the Men's Rights Movement, Incel Movement, Men Going Their Own Way, and other manosphere movements and communities). The most that I've heard in the circles that I used to hang out were that users expressed a desire for a girlfriend/wife that won't chirp and nag at them with feminist and woke social justice talking points.
It's just misogyny and fetish, which is pretty much what you said.
 
On incomes, the US with its high inequality tends to have high incomes at the top percentiles but lower incomes at the lower percentiles. Put crudely, the top 10% of Americans live like they're the Swiss top 10% but the bottom 10% like they are Slovenian.

That's the result of a very steep income gradient among developed countries, the incomes rise or fall faster across the percentiles.

20230702_122351.jpg
 
It's just misogyny and fetish, which is pretty much what you said.
Are you misinterpreting my post? Because no where in my post did I outlined that the backlash is just "misogyny and fetish". If all you get that my explanation for the tradwife phenomenon is a backlash from the rise of forth wave feminism. Then you're really being disingenuous and acting in bad faith just to win internet points just to "pwn the chads". Have you actually spoken to frustrated young men without dismissing them as alt-right chuds?
 
Yes I'm sure that's not how you/they see it. It can be hard to see a pathology from the inside.
 
Are you misinterpreting my post? Because no where in my post did I outlined that the backlash is just "misogyny and fetish". If all you get that my explanation for the tradwife phenomenon is a backlash from the rise of forth wave feminism. Then you're really being disingenuous and acting in bad faith just to win internet points just to "pwn the chads". Have you actually spoken to frustrated young men without dismissing them as alt-right chuds?
Given that your description of their position involves portraying women as "chirping" and "nagging," and like feminism is a great evil, I don't see a significant distinction between "frustrated young men" and "alt-right chud."
 
Throw in "flaky womanizing douchebag" and you can run the whole spectrum of social competency with no redeeming value.
 
Are you misinterpreting my post? Because no where in my post did I outlined that the backlash is just "misogyny and fetish". If all you get that my explanation for the tradwife phenomenon is a backlash from the rise of forth wave feminism. Then you're really being disingenuous and acting in bad faith just to win internet points just to "pwn the chads". Have you actually spoken to frustrated young men without dismissing them as alt-right chuds?

My guy, if you're going to complain about feminism have you considered:

A. Not referring to a 4th wave that doesn't exist
B. Spelling "fourth" correctly
 
Given that your description of their position involves portraying women as "chirping" and "nagging," and like feminism is a great evil, I don't see a significant distinction between "frustrated young men" and "alt-right chud."
If you cannot tell the difference between frustrated young men and an alt-right chud. Then I cannot help you in that department. At least I see the difference, plus that these frustrated young men are vulnerable to recruitment and influence by the alt-right chuds. If you ever get a chance to, I'd recommend "How to Radicalize a Normie" by Innuendo Studios.

My guy, if you're going to complain about feminism have you considered:
Where in my post have I complained about feminism?
A. Not referring to a 4th wave that doesn't exist
If it doesn't exist, why does it crop up in Wikipedia and google searches?
B. Spelling "fourth" correctly
What did I say about Spelling Policing? :trouble:
 
Back
Top Bottom