Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll go back to 1957. No terrorism, no gang shootings every day. no AIDS. Nothing is perfect but I like that decade and the simple life that existed back then.
Nope. Back then all you had to worry about was the constant threat of nuclear annihilation thanks to the Cold War and ensuing arms race. Not sure why AIDS would be an issue. Has AIDS really been a big problem since about the early 90s? Magic Johnson seems to be doing okay. Nope, back in the 50's you just had to worry about other diseases that didn't have cures yet, like measles, smallpox, polio, etc. There were also no advanced medical treatments for cancer and no artificial hearts/pacemakers that now can extend people's lives for decades.
I don't quite get this question... would I rather be 18 and living in 1957 with a home I own in Belmont... or 24 working in a sandwich shop in SF for $10 an hour?
It would be nice to be 18 or 24 years old again regardless! There's no amount of money that can buy back your youth! Perma Bear don't waste all your time resenting the present... life will pass you by.
I think it would be great to go back in time knowing what we know now and see what life was like in the 1950s. The 1950s were pretty sweet.... if you were a straight white American male.
Expectations on you at that time would not allow you to be as free as you might at age 24 in 2016. You'd be looking to marry a man/woman of the same race and religion and be tied down with kids and a job by your early 20s. Enjoy traveling the world? You'd be pretty restricted in the 1950s both by cost of flying and countries that you could realistically travel to.
It's easy to nostalgically look back to a period of time with rose-tinted spectacles but I bet there were people in the 1950s looking back to the 1920s and thinking "man I wish I lived in those times". Like the film "Midnight in Paris" - good Woody Allen flick about longing for 1920s Paris.
But wealth is not going to get you to the standard of living enjoyed today. A sandwich shop worker has a higher standard of living than a rich person in 57. AC, color TV, etc etc.
Oh, man, yeah! I'd give up being rich because of my LED TV and my Xbox! What would I do with my life without those things!?!?!?
No tv is worth not being in the top 5% at any time in history.
$74,000 in 1957 is the equivalent of $624,000 today. So not only would I choose the 1957 option, I would quit the sandwich shop.
I'd be able to buy a nice house in a safe area - the median home price in 1960 in California was about $13,000. I could pay cash for a house, splurge for 50% better than median and live in an exclusive neighborhood for $20,000. I'd be able to buy a nice car - a 1957 Ford Thunderbird sold for $3400. If I wanted to save I could buy a Packard or Studebaker sedan for around $2000. I'd be able to afford a 4 year college education at the best schools - about $10-15K total four year cost to go to a college like UC Berkeley back then including housing cost (but I would have save because I already own an upper middle class house free and clear! So my actual cost would probably be like $8K). I would then be able to get a good job and still have more than 30,000 left over. Keep in mind that median income at that time was between 5500 and 7000, so I'd have enough money to live a middle class median lifestyle for 5 years without a job.
Obviously being a white male was preferable - but with $74K in cash even a black person or a woman would be well-off. There would be jobs I could not get, neighborhoods I could not buy into, or clubs, restaurants, movie theaters I could not get into, etc.... but I would still be well off. That kind of money would open up opportunities.
Last edited by redguard57; 03-29-2016 at 01:24 PM..
I have. you're an incurable excuse machine and self-perpetuating victim.
I stated that my standard of living declined because my neighbors became affluent, thereby leading to rents skyrocketing. Is that not an accurate statement? Was I somehow deluded regarding rents? Did i imagine five rent increases in five years? How is that an excuse?
But wealth is not going to get you to the standard of living enjoyed today. A sandwich shop worker has a higher standard of living than a rich person in 57. AC, color TV, etc etc.
My uncle was rich in 1957 and I think he had AC and color TV then. (He definitely had those things in 1962, and the color TV had a remote.)
I stated that my standard of living declined because my neighbors became affluent, thereby leading to rents skyrocketing. Is that not an accurate statement? Was I somehow deluded regarding rents? Did i imagine five rent increases in five years? How is that an excuse?
The fact you write this is proof of why your life will almost certainly never change. I'm sorry.
Problem with 1957 is that you might get drafted off to Vietnam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
