Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
The guy is right but also massively understates the financial climate we live in, in the 50's people lived in a small 2 or 3 bedroom house with 4 or 5 kids, they bunked three kids in one room parents in the main bedroom, they had one second hand car that they kept on the road for years, holidays consisted of driving to relatives who lived somewhere else and sleeping in a tent in the back yard dad worked, mum probably didn't and they spent almost no money beyond rent/mortgage and food.
By todays standards that's utter destitute poverty, by 1950's standards that's a good life.
I always get annoyed at Vancouverites who complain about their inability to buy a house in Vancouver, what they mean is they don't want to buy a ####ty old townhome in Abbotsford and commute like their parents would have done without even thinking about it
|
I think you're missing a generation in your analysis. What you're referring to is true of the parents of the baby boomers.
The issue is with baby boomers, who when they reached adulthood bought nice homes, had good wages, etc...They are continuing to get richer and richer, and the generation below them is suffering from it. I don't see how the standard of living in the 1950s or earlier is relevant to the issues at hand.
As others have stated, wealth is increasingly concentrated in a few hands. Salaries are stagnant. The cost of capital and labour is huge. Yet, if you were lucky enough to buy a home anytime prior to the last 10+ years, you stand to reap a huge winfall. It's a system that has created false wealth that is then used to strangle anyone looking to get into the market, as they will essentially spend their lives as indentured labourers. Housing is a basic need, and it's not something that can be foregone.