[m23khan]

1990s was a long time ago - economics and demographics around the World have changed a lot since then (in fact, The Simpsons lifestyle - at least in earlier seasons - seems to be more reminiscent of 1980s era). Things like inflation and changing consumer trends have led to what we see now -- don't know about small towns but at least in major North American Cities.

What we have now is either people staying single longer and eventually they end up with Simpsons' style living standard (while staying Single) or they eventually achieve it via DINK lifestyle.

I think a huge part that has played into making this transformation is due to people's increased access to cheap loans (mortgage) and the idea that real-estate is the ultimate ROI game-in-the-town and the new pension fund.

What we see now (compared to say 1980s): almost no major corps offering pension, inflation to the point where both Husband and Wife need to work in order to just afford a property and perhaps a kid, creeping fees/charges (cellphones, internet, netflix, disney+, etc.).

This all leads to people, in my opinion, to look for safety net in order to fend themselves in old age: buy house -- no, make it 2 or 3 houses so you can live off their rent income, delay (or forget about) having kid(s) to achieve that financial goals. Automation and globalization has also caused some pain points: IT jobs are much more competitive than say even 10 years ago and there is always threat of being left out in the cold due to outsourcing.

See, funny thing is, here in Canada, I would always see hardworking immigrant families where the Husband and the Wife would be working in multiple low-income jobs and even their teenage kids would be picking up retail/factory job while studying to balance their family's financial books. To me, it always seemed excessive or even mindboggling - but now, it makes perfect sense...it is the very future for the masses in North America.

And for folks in developing World: Don't worry, your turn will come to experience all this (if you haven't yet) soon enough in your lifetime. I guarantee it.

[md_]

> What we see now (compared to say 1980s): almost no major corps offering pension, inflation to the point where both Husband and Wife need to work in order to just afford a property and perhaps a kid, creeping fees/charges (cellphones, internet, netflix, disney+, etc.).

For the US (and this generally holds true in other western countries to varying degrees), the rise of female workforce participation was (as you imply) a counterbalance to stagnating real wage growth.

But this isn't due to inflation. It's due to changes in income distribution.

While it's true that labor productivity growth has slowed over the last few decades, GDP per capita has continued to grow (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-...). What's changed is that those gains have been overwhelmingly distributed to the rich.

The middle and lower classes have compensated for this by, as you note, increasing workforce participation, increasing reliance on consumer debt, and increasing personal bankruptcy (https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/revie...).

[TeMPOraL]

> For the US (and this generally holds true in other western countries to varying degrees), the rise of female workforce participation was (as you imply) a counterbalance to stagnating real wage growth.

A counterbalance or an unintended cause? From a very high-level viewpoint, the market optimizes to capture disposable income, both through offering new things to buy, and price increases on the old things (the more disposable income you have, the less likely you are to seek out alternatives if something you like becomes more expensive). So, as more and more household became double-income, the market compensated, locking female workforce participation from a choice into a necessity.

[lotsofpulp]

> And for folks in developing World: Don't worry, your turn will come to experience all this (if you haven't yet) soon enough in your lifetime. I guarantee it.

I don’t understand this statement. Is it meant to imply that people in the developing world right now have it better than those in the developed world?

[m23khan]

It's a generalization on my part - countries like India and Pakistan (as I am sure others as well) have a very competitive lifestyle (more so than in North America) if you were to look at their major Cities (Karachi, Mumbai, etc.).

I was pointing more towards relatively wealthy countries where the Governments are still subsidizing various aspects of life AND they are still classified as 'not first world yet'. They definitely have it easy to a large extent (Citizens of GCC for example) -- but even the sands of time are also shifting the tide over there, in socio-economic aspects, that is.