Things weren't better in the 1950s. At least in many ways. However, in some ways, things were better and did make more sense. For instance, it was possible for a family in the US to have a house, car, three kids, and a simply yearly holiday, on a single salary. It was quite normal. Yes, there was a lot of other shit going on that was good to get rid of, like systemic sexism and racism - but here we are 75 years later - still with many of the same issues.
And the average family can barely afford quality food on two salaries.
I have thought about this over the years and how the wealth gap keeps growing and why, considering that technically, more people are working, so it should be shrinking. But that is not how the economy is incentivised. Instead of wealth growing with more people working, what more people working has done has diluted purchasing power. Sure, there were more potential consumers, but the relative needs of those consumers hadn't changed.
A family with a house, car, three kids and a working father, needed much the same when the mother worked too. So while there was a dual income, the needs of the family didn't double respectively. What this meant is that companies could then increase their prices to absorb more of the excess, without offering anything extra in return.
But while nothing really changed consumer-wise, the entire dynamics of communities shifted at a fundamental level. For example, whilst talking with my friend the other day about his partner being stressed at work, we discussed how life has changed in the local neighbourhood. I could visit his neighbourhood today, break into all the houses, and find pretty much no one. However in the distant past, those same houses would have had housewives in them. At least in places like the US. And those housewives would have been interacting with each other, setting up plans for kids and dinners and all kinds of gossip. It held the community together in many ways.
This wasn't ideal in many ways, but it was an ecosystem that leant itself toward community building and continuance. While this has been taken away, there has been very little introduced to supplement for community building, which means that communities have eroded. The women who in the 1950s hypothetical would be the glue of the community, are now modern women working in stressful environments for a salary, and going home worn-out and uninspired in the same way men were earlier.
Everyone is just too tired to socialise.
For every action, there is a reaction. But also, for every opportunity, there is a myriad costs. There have been leaps and bounds made in many respects toward more equitable conditions for everyone, but in so doing, a lot of other problems have arisen in response. This is just the way it goes, because it is impossible to have everything simultaneously. We make a choice to do A, it means we can't do X, Y, and Z. We then choose B, and we might lose U, V, W also.
Every change has a cost.
Sometimes the costs are worth paying, sometimes they are not. And sometimes, the costs aren't truly known until the change has had time to percolate through society and shift behaviours, expectations, and beliefs.
As said, I don't think the world was a better place in many ways in the 1950s, but in many ways it was also a greater place because people interacted more together in a community. People knew their neighbours, talked with strangers, and felt safe leaving their doors open, without worrying about robberies or being kidnapped. Now though, we live in a world where the majority are worried about their financial wellbeing, their career growth, and their economic position.
Very few live a life of community.
In some ways, that life of community is a privileged life. Sure, in 1950s suburbia a generalised woman was doing the housework and looking after the kids the majority of the time, but this was possible because the man was working. Now though, everyone is working and no one has time to be a networked part of the community. Instead, the only value people bring to the community, is monetary value. The value of a person is now down to the value of what they produce, with very, very little thought into the value they bring to society.
Value to society used to be baked into life.
Not that we should go back and reintroduce all the negatives of the past to return to some kind of mistaken glory days, but we should also recognise that some conditions were better. By doing this, we can identify the parts that are missing today and find new ways, given all of what we have available to us now, to recreate a society that is healthier, freer, and more human orientated than the past. A community where everyone has equity beyond their salary.
There is a push for things like Universal Basic Incomes and four day weeks, and I see most of these as control mechanisms that are about maximising profits and wealth for those who already have far, far too much. However, if there was some potential for good, it would be if these mechanisms were used to not only free up people's time, but structured so that there was incentive to rebuild communities again, to expand social networks locally, and interact together as friends, family, and strangers - who all want good conditions in which to thrive.
I don't believe it will happen.
But I try to remain optimistic at times, just as a remainder that no matter how slim, there is a chance that people will wake up and act to improve the conditions for humans on this earth, now, and into the future. The problem for a lot of the things that will make the world a better place though is, it will cut into the profits of those who are becoming wealthy keeping it the way it is.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
1950 seems like yesterday. You know why people and humanity are moving so fast? Because they thought that by putting women to work, everything would be better, and we'd find kids raised by strangers, without values. That's why today's kids aren't what we were.
Back then, Mom was accountable for their behavior, and there was money because they adapted and lived better, healthier. But today, nothing.
That's why so many kids are growing up alone, becoming gang members... and the result isn't good for the community. They didn't see that coming. They thought life would be better, but it actually got worse.
Today, families can't afford a house or healthy food due to lack of time. It's a mess. But that's life, pretty bad. So we should see how to improve it. Mom and Dad did the best they could. Of course, today we should see how things are better than theirs, despite many shortcomings.
But looking back, that life wasn't bad, it was incredible. Look at the modern world, full of zombies behind screens And what memories are they creating? None.
So, I wish we could go back there
Any reason Dad couldn't stay home and look after the kids? That's the flaw surely, no one looking after the kids? Plenty of woman wanted to work but couldn't and were tied to a life unfulfilling for them. That's not 'incredible' for '50's woman, I'd say. Of course, there'd be a contingent who loved it and were born for it - and #tradwives go there because that's what they feel passionate about, but it sure as hell ain't for everyone. I agree with you about the screens though.
In Finland 1950s, women were working, as so many men were killed in the war. They were working through the war too. Finland is known to be pretty antisocial, and have tiny friend groups. Maybe not causation, but definitely a correlation.
Ah yeah interesting but then a lot of countries did same... Women worked whilst men were at war or died at war. I wonder if there are other contributing factors?
Of course, in the 1950 the father will come early to plat with the child, and yes the system do not let daddy could care the child, always dad earn more this is a bad system structure.
Yes, true, it's always the system.
Definitely "unintended consequences" in the empowerment movement circles. I think what is interesting is that a lot of women valued the jobs of men so much, that they devalued the importance of women in the world. Women have been the most valuable of the species, because they raise the children. Children are our future, after all- Now, a screen raises them - worse than strangers, they are raised by corporate messaging.
Screens, screens, and more screens... a generation of lazy, foolish people is being bred. I think the best thing to do is share physical spaces with kids, because that has a thousand times more value than Minecraft or Roblox. I know you know what I'm talking about.
Kids as farmers is the best education because it teaches people values. But right now, nothing is being generated that way. Few are doing it
This is education.
I know exactly what you are talking about.
Abd cute kid!
Thanks it is my little nephew who play with my son but when they play i always try to do some work for teaching them some work, i am sure tomorrow, they remember me.
For example plant a tree, collect some wood, all activities in the land.
I think there should be more of these kinds of lessons. Communities should get together and do stuff.
I couldn't agree more. This is life learning right here ☝🏻
WHY CAN'T MEN RAISE KIDS????????
Men can raise kids, but paternal instincts aren't the same as maternal instincts :)
That's actually a bit of a fallacy and really interesting to look into as one of our inherent biases.
Women get the jump start as they have the pregnancy hormones like oxytocin etc that make them fiercely protective, and they're culturally raised to be nurturing caregivers. Show me a woman who doesn't bond with their child or doesn't act motherly and I'll show you a social outcast or at least a women who has suffered trauma or feels deep guilt about her inability to function as expected as a mother.
However, there's also studies that show men, if exposed to the infant early (I know two men whose wives died in labour and took on the primary caregiving role) have a similar hormonal response eg increased oxy. It's actually the primacy of care - increased and close exposure - that gives the 'maternal' instinct. If culture expected men to be caregivers in the same way as woman, you bet they would and could be.
I think of how many don't like interacting with babies so much until their kids are like, two. It's more because a) Mum is busy with them and is expected to be eg breastfeeding, changing nappies, attentive to every need and b) it takes longer for men to truly bond as they ARENT undertaking primary care.
Sorry for the long response... It's something I thought you might take on board as it's not something we pull apart often as we tend to assume it's woman who are better at caregiving.
Women are very much culturally raised to be attentive to the needs of others. No wonder women who choose to work, and can't, get frustrated.
The truth is that it never really gets better. I was practically talking to an older boss at work asking if there was a slight difference between the quality of life then and now and the difference in salary that I get today. I inquired to further ask if they were satisfied and could get more things with their salary then when they started, but he responded that they couldn't get many things with their salary as his salary for a month couldn't even get a TV for him.
It is just that many of us are driven by material wealth in such a way that it is affecting our social life. Everyone wants to drive an expensive car and live a cool life which is not wrong though but the method is what is not good enough. Then, in a typical African setting, there is what is called communal interest.
As you said, we can only be hopeful about having a shift in focus and think more of our society and stop chasing after the winds.
I get the feeling that in "poorer" communities, the sense of community is stronger in many ways, because people have to rely on each other more to combat lack, crime, and corruption. Do you think that is the case?
Yes, majorly, a typical African setting favours communal living and helping one another. But nowadays, things are changing as we now embrace a Western kind of lifestyle. Here, in Africa, before you hardly saw people erecting a fence to cover their house but now it is the norm.
It's definitely true that many of those issues that we thought should be gone by now are still floating around out there. Alive and well it would seem.
Alive, well , and growing.
It is an extreme reality and a common saying that people of that time could fulfill their needs with their salaries in the 50s, but now the same needs cannot be fulfilled with the salaries that are available today. However, the needs are the same or the expenses are the same, but it is becoming impossible to fulfill such needs with the salaries that are available today. To be honest, I am a teacher and my family can never live on the salary that we are paid here, so I have to think of something else. We have even protested several times for a salary increase because the salary that primary teachers are paid in our country is the lowest in Asia. Also, it is never possible to live with the salary that other government employees receive, due to which many people get stuck in the debt trap and finally many commit suicide in despair, as some people committed suicide a few days ago. Even women enter the job to provide financial support to the family, but this becomes a problem for us here because the women who work cannot take good care of their children, and besides, those children face a lot of disruptions in their education and upbringing.
The structure is broken all over the world today. It is not that women have to stay at home and look after kids, but the system is broken so that the economy takes precedence over society. This means that nothing ends up working for humans, as all humans do is in service to generating wealth for a few individuals.
It's all 'on balance', isn't it? Same with the church - it was a glue that held communities together, where people would gather, support each other and have a moral code to live by. But the church - well, we all know it's flaws.
By the way, have you seen the new Australia lamb ad? It mentions Finland so I thought of you.
Yes, the church is a good example of community glue. We still need that glue, evidenced by all the people jumping on random social movements of one kind or another looking for meaning and somewhere to belong. Unfortunately, they don't actually do anything - just look to feel like they are.
Haven't seen the ad :)
I think what changed is that we added a bunch of technology that costs more than 50's. And insurance is higher because cars are more advanced, we expect more stuff and more advanced stuff and higher quality everything so the costs are higher. And both have to work today to cover all of this.
That is definitely part of the reason, but it might be chicken and egg. Once two salaries came in, there was more disposable income that needed to be soaked up, and needs were replaced by wants. Most technology fills the want categories, not the needs.
That is quite possible as it can be seen when people start earning more money their base spending level goes up.
While the past had its problems, I think the sense of community from the 50s-60s-70s is something people appear to have lost in our fast-changing world today.
I'd go as far as saying that in many ways, local community is close to death.
a person’s value is now tied almost completely to money and output. That’s something we rarely question. In the past, just being present in a community had value, watching kids, helping neighbours, talking, sharing life. Now those things don’t pay,so they’re treated like luxuries. It makes you wonder how many social problems come from this one shift alone.
They do pay - just not in money. Instead, we outsource all of the community tasks to paid jobs, and wonder why no one cares about each other.
My wife hasn't worked for nine years, leaving a good position with a good salary. She doesn't want to go back to work now either; she needs to spend time with the children and their education.
In our circle, all the women work. And when we come to visit, it becomes awkward to hear questions about when my wife will find a job.
Once upon a time there was a general drive from higher up to make work more "professional" and they wanted us to be more "professional" (which we did mostly by just making sure we presented and acted professionally and some of the younger coaches had to be bullied out of wearing the booty shorts they most loved while working) BUT they also wanted us to not "make friends" with our "clients" (the program participants and their families, something about we will obviously start playing favourites or something) and also to under no circumstances give kids hugs/let them hug us and as we unapologetically choose to function as a community hub/excessively sized "family" we decided no bugger you (while keeping most of the sensible and applicable safeguarding rules) and continued to do what we do.
It is a pretty strong community.
That's what learning from the past usually entails. But conflation is a thing.
We're people and that's what we're doing right?
Most people have more than their parents or grandparents. However, that is mostly only true in the physical sense of possesions and material goods. When it comes to happiness, contentness, friendships, connections to land/religion/nature/family/etc I believe we have less.
I'm reminded of John Steinbeck's The Pearl. I'm not sure if you know the novel, it's central theme is that the pursuit of wealth and material gain can corrupt human values and destroy happiness. Through the main character Kino’s discovery of the pearl (a symbol for money and wealth), Steinbeck shows how greed, envy, and ambition slowly replace Kino’s original hopes for a better life. What begins as a symbol of opportunity and security becomes a source of violence, fear, and loss, revealing how material wealth can bring more suffering than fulfillment.
He wrote this in 1947 and basically foresaw what you describe in your post and what others talk about in the comments.
The best things in life are free - family, friends, fresh air, nature, flora and fauna. Beware the marketeers who try to sell you a tomorrow that never comes, whilst one pursues material gains fattening the pockets of the super rich.
Life can be very very simple and meaningful if we allow it to be. Building strong communities again would be a great place to start. Do something nice for somebody this week, just because it's a nice thing to do. If everyone reading this does that, it will be a start and we all know starting anything is the tough part. Or organise an evening at your house where you invite all the neighbours in, even (especially) the ones you don't know. Get everyone to bring a dish or their own drinks. That will help to form some glue in your community again.