[taurath]

To me the Simpsons and a lot of older shows have been a bellweather for how things used to be and how they’ve changed. As a late millennial who was once Lisa’s age but now more like Marge and Homer, I often think about how much of a given it was that they own a house on a single income. Homer has a stable job, they don’t have a lot of stuff but they have some basic securities that I’ve been trying to work towards my whole life, and still haven’t gotten there - maintaining a 90s style of living is just not realistic in the 2020s, though we have many new distractions and things to engage with to make up for it.

[Aurornis]

> I often think about how much of a given it was that they own a house on a single income. Homer has a stable job, they don’t have a lot of stuff but they have some basic securities that I’ve been trying to work towards my whole life, and still haven’t gotten there

This was a common trope on TV shows of that era: Everyone had a cool house with a lot of space. It wasn't a reflection of reality, it was how sets were designed and shows were drawn.

The Simpsons even made fun of the fact in the famous Frank Grimes episode where they pointed out how absurd it was that Homer was a doofus who had a big house and beautiful family.

Somewhere along the line, we started confusing this TV reality with how families actually lived at the time.

[nabbed]

>they own a house on a single income.

You want aspirational, look to Family Guy. Somehow Peter Griffin can afford a helicopter, a jet pack, and whatever expenses are required to obtain the foot of the statue of liberty.

>maintaining a 90s style of living is just not realistic in the 2020s

I think even in 1989, when the show debuted, two income families were starting to be (or already had been) pretty typical. I think the Simpsons might have been poking fun at the 1960s and 1970s family sitcoms where the dad went to work and the wife stayed home.

Edit: But you're right that in the 80s and 90s you would have a decent chance of buying a house (on those two incomes).

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Agreed. The funny thing about this is that, when I mentioned it to wife's family, they did not think it was particularly representative and was dismissed as faux Americana. I still think about it, because as I re-watched older episodes recently, I can't help, but think that they did not want to acknowledge it being true, while it was just that.

[rcpt]

We're all Frank Grimes

[treis]

A nuclear plant operator can easily afford a smallish home in the suburbs on one salary.

[dfxm12]

Plus, as a union man, he gets better compensation than his non-union counterparts, including a great dental plan.

[staticman2]

> I often think about how much of a given it was that they own a house on a single income

I don't relate to this comment. I was Bart's age and both my parents worked.

My mom and the majority of her woman friends were teachers.

The generation before us, Gen X was the one stereotyped as "latchkey kids" due to stereotypically having two working parents.

[ajxs]

Somewhat related: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ggozng/comme...

[gosub100]

Don't overlook that interest rates were much higher in the early 90s. So lower sticker prices still didn't mean you could afford it.

[alephnerd]

> how much of a given it was that they own a house on a single income. Homer has a stable job

It isn't - especially if you watch the original first season of the Simpsons [0] (Homer's Odyssey - the 3rd episode of the Simpsons written right as the 1990 recession was kicking off) as well as that Frank Grimes episode back in 1997 [1].

The older Simpsons episodes weren't that common on syndication from what I can remember growing up - at most you might see an episode from 1994 in the early 2000s, so I wouldn't be surprised if these episodes may have been forgotten.

Simpsons in it's original iteration during it's golden age (1989-1999) was essentially lampooning the 1960s American dream (which itself was legally unattainable for a large portion of Americans in the 1960s - there's a reason why we had a Civil Rights Movement as well as normalized anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Spanish/Portuguese, and anti-Jewish sentiment until these communities assimilated into being "white" in the 1980s and even heritage Americans in vast swathes of America lacked indoor plumbing, medical care, education beyond the 5th grade, etc) being punctuated by the harsh realities of America at the time [4] (eg. $pringfield (or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling) from 1993).

What I've noticed from the comments on HN (as well as the viciousness of the community when I point this out) is most HNers grew up in middle and upper-middle class households in the 1980s-90s that in most cases weren't representative of the lives the median American would have lived then, and a lot of the rose tinted glasses appear to betray that upbringing.

For example, from 1989 to 1994, household incomes in the US dropped at the same rate as they did during the Great Recession and the COVID Pandemic [2] and didn't recover until 1997, but because most HN users today weren't the head of a household during that period they view the 1990s as a golden age.

It's the same with 1980s nostalgia with everyone ignoring the 1980s recession which is lampooned in Mr Mom [3] - strip the 80s humor and it's basically a story about a single earner household where the primary breadwinner is made structurally unemployed right when the Rust Belt was starting to rust due to Japanese and German automotive exports becoming more competitive than American exports.

[0] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu1W8O-CKNw

[1] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UNj2nlFttCM&t=71s&pp=2AFHkAIB

[2] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[3] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xth2v727PiQ

[4] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuHQxIC7rY

[taurath]

> most HNers grew up in middle and upper-middle class households in the 1980s-90s that in most cases weren't representative of the lives the median American would have lived then, and a lot of the rose tinted glasses appear to betray that upbringing

Guilty as charged! I also do think that there’s an additional sense within those communities of the “normalcy” of homeownership both within the spaces, and reflected back via mass culture. True, nobody in New York has an apartment like they did on Friends, but the shows made to appeal to middle class America, even the ones like Married with Children still held “well there’s a house” even though the main character is a deadbeat - this isn’t played for laughs or out of irony, it’s just the default.

Even in the 50s, 60s, and 70s sitcoms and shows you rarely see people renting - homeownership rates are pretty steady around 62% back to the 60s. Among white Americans it’s like 75% or something. So I don’t think it’s entirely rose tinted glasses, even if there is a point to be made about the biases of the HN crowd.

[acomjean]

Frank Grimes is one of the best characters on TV. "I live in a single room above a bowling alley and bellow another bowling ally"..

Very few shows, show actually living situations (flight of the choncords is the only other I can think of).

[triage8004]

And 235lb was comically obese

[johnnienaked]

Who would have thought the median American life, something havily satirized and made fun of in The Simpsons, would become what people most long for. That, more than anything else I think, is strong evidence of how far we've fallen.

[bamboozled]

It's sounding like the plan is to make all of this even harder to obtain as well. It's a shame we just cannot be nicer to each other, even if just for a decade.