this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
892 points (99.1% liked)

Tumblr

289 readers
321 users here now

Welcome to /c/Tumblr

All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.

Rule 1: Be Civil, Not CursedThis isn’t your personal call-out post.

  • No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
  • No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
  • Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited

Rule 2: No Forbidden PostsSome things belong in the drafts forever. That means:

  • No spam or scams
  • No porn or sexually explicit content
  • No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
  • NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged

If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Comparing then to now is hard. I don't doubt workers were compensated better when unions were stronger but it's an apples to oranges thing. Off the top of my head: Multiple generations lived in a single house that was much smaller. Households shared a single car. Most had a single television set that picked up 6 channels. One phone per household. Calling a couple towns over was expensive. Family vacations were within driving distance. Photographs were expensive. Video nonexistent. Eating out was a rare treat

[–] groet@feddit.org 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People were so poor in 2025. Most households didnt even have multiple VR headsets. And those most had only remote controled lighting in one room. So poor.

The multi-gen household fact is simply not true for many places, same as the size of the houses. The number of cars and phones and TVs are all a result of the same thing. They never needed a second one. You don't need two cars if only one person is working and is home early enough to finish erands after work. Photographs, travel distance, Videos, that's all technological change. They couldn't afford it because it don't exist in a consumer form.

That doesn't change the fact that the high standard of living of that time was affordable while the high standard of living of today isn't affordable.

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Multi generations in a house was certainly a thing though it varies depending on what decade you're talking about. The houses definitely were smaller as were the yards. Look at the new construction now, there are no modest sized homes being built then drive through an older neighborhood. There is simply no comparison. My aunts and uncles all shared bedrooms.. Rarely did houses have more than one bathroom. Nobody had central air conditioning not homes, not schools. Plenty of teenagers have cars these days though they're still in school. Nobody walks or rides bikes unless they're electric. Most people are overweight and plenty of young folks are diabetic. Those factory jobs that everyone thinks were so great? They were often dangerous before OSHA and unhealthy before the EPA. My older neighbors in Cleveland told me about the soot from the nearby steel mills. BTW those jobs were plentiful until recently where I live. They're miserable places to work still. They'll make you work 6-7 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. My sister just got fired from one making $25 an hour, she lost a similar job year ago. Everyone is doing Adderall to cope, management looks the other way.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Multiple generations lived in a single house that was much smaller.

is there any source on this? Especially it being smaller. Because a lot of single-family houses (especially rural) more than a century ago very really big, because they were essentially small farms.

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Drive through older neighborhoods and look for yourself. Also you can look up real estate property info on most county websites in the US. They'll tell you square feet and also the year built. Builders these days don't build reasonably sized homes unfortunately. I wonder if cities don't want them because it'll attract lower income folks. As for multi generations in the same home, I recently had a subscription to Ancestry.com and could see all the people living in one house as was recorded in the census data. Families had more kids too.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Builders these days don't build reasonably sized homes unfortunately. I wonder if cities don't want them because it'll attract lower income folks.

The economies of scale of setting up a job site, lining up all the contractors' schedules, getting all the materials and equipment in place, plus the paperwork of permitting, inspections, etc., mean that each additional square foot/meter of space is much, much cheaper than the first. That just naturally pushes towards bigger single family homes.

Multifamily is different, though, which is why many multifamily buildings gravitate towards 1- or 2-bedroom units.

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A lot of those rural homes had an addition with each generation. Most families lived in 1200sq ft or less. The average size of a home has risen pretty dramatically.

[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Of course back then home only needed to be a place to sleep and eat and bathe. The rest of your life happened outside the home