Something I think most miss in the comparison from then till now is that the vast majority back then could afford to buy land and build a house,buy a new car and eat and still have money left each month. Today both the husband and wife work and both their checks combined isn't enough to survive. Another is that the things we bought were not disposable like they are today so we didn't have to replace them over and over. I still have a 1971 f100,still runs and cant see me replacing it with a new disposable truck.
I definitely think every generation has its own pros and cons. I used to ask my grandfather about what things were like "in his day" because he remembered the transition from horse-drawn buggies to automobiles, and the first time he saw lights (electricity) in their house as he was walking home from school.
He told me about the times when gas was 5 gallons for a dollar... But when I also asked what wages were like back then, he said that he could remember when a good wage (in the farming community) was about $2 per day -- not per hour, but for a whole day. I'm not sure if that corresponds with the time that gas was 5g/$1, but one thing made me think about is how everything is relative.
I do agree that at least back then, more families could survive with just the husband working. And I remember my grandparents' old washing machine that kicked out after something like 30 years.
I certainly wish that things were built the way I've been told they used to be, but then I also have to wonder what would happen to people's jobs and how they would survive. If companies built products that actually lasted, how many people would then be out of a job because of it? If everyone's washers and dryers lasted 30 years, how will companies make enough money to survive 30 years until their customers come back (or decide to buy from the competition?) Unfortunately, it seems like a neverending vicious cycle.
Disposable products seem unethical, and yet they keep people perpetually employed.
I also often wonder about what kinds of things went on behind closed doors that people chose to deny or cover up more than they do today. Last year I had some conversations with a woman in her late-80's and for her, and she told me, "Don't believe everything you hear, because the good old days were terrible."
This woman had a sister who was known to be extremely beautiful, even from childhood, and a male relative was constantly asking her family to bring her over for the weekend. This woman was telling me that in those days (at least where she grew up in the midwest,) no one believed that anyone could be attracted to children or would cause them harm. But her father suspected this male relative's true intent, and never allowed any of his girls to go over to his house. She said that others in the family criticized her father for his choice, thinking he was crazy or being unreasonable for not trusting "family," but she credited him for saving them from abuse.
And this was in a close-knit town of Christian farming families.
Another man I talked to in his 60's said that as an adult, he realized his family was rampant with sexual abuse and that every female member of his family had been victimized in some way -- but no one ever talked about it and buried themselves in their work instead. When he tried to ask questions about what had happened, he was met with fits of rage and a firm declaration that he was never to bring the subject up again.
I'm certainly not saying this went on in every household, but when people talk about the good old days, I'm always wondering.
Like any time in history, there can be a lot of good -- but also a lot of bad that gets swept under the carpet, but often surfaces decades later.
Hey Everyone,
I was reading a financial advice column in which a female reader presented this scenario:
She went on a first date with a guy, and they had agreed to split the check. But while they both had similarly-priced meals, he also ordered $40 worth of drinks for himself. And when the check came he only paid half, without offering to pay any extra or even for the full tip, even though the majority of the expense was his.
Now please note that I am NOT trying to make this a gender issue at all. It could have easily been reversed, with the woman expecting the man to pay more for the bill.
But I could easily relate to this and I would guess that many people here have been through the same thing.
Several years ago, the daughter of a prominent couple at church had just moved back into the area, and I told her I'd like to take her to lunch sometime as a welcome back. (I am also a gal, so obviously it was just a friend getting together with a friend and not a date.) We went to some kind of Applebee's-type restaurant, and when I told her I would pay, a similar thing happened -- along with her lunch, she started ordering drinks (at around $10 a piece.) She started with one, then ordered another when the food came, and when she started to order her third, I told her that I'd pay for her lunch and the first two but the rest of her drinks were on her. Like the girl in the advice column, I usually drink tap water -- that's not a judgment, that's just saying, if I offer to pay for someone's meal, I'm not figuring in 3 rounds of drinks along with it.
So the issue I am presenting here is NOT about gender, and it's NOT about alcohol (which is of course a whole other topic,) but rather, the issue is about someone trying to take financial advantage of you.
The scenario doesn't have to involve alcohol at all -- what if the other person ordered $50 worth of food and you order $20, and they expect you to split it down the middle? Or how about if you go out with family and they expect you to pay an even portion of the bill, even though your order cost less than what they want you to pay?
What have you done in these kinds of situations, or how would you handle it if you were?
If a woman asks a man out, she should expect to pay it all. I've yet to hear of this happening. Has anyone?
i dont think you can compare different times because firstly, there was no land to be bought and sold in times before that, this is only a 'new world' phenomenon where land is a commoditySomething I think most miss in the comparison from then till now is that the vast majority back then could afford to buy land and build a house,buy a new car and eat and still have money left each month. Today both the husband and wife work and both their checks combined isn't enough to survive. Another is that the things we bought were not disposable like they are today so we didn't have to replace them over and over. I still have a 1971 f100,still runs and cant see me replacing it with a new disposable truck.
Hey Everyone,
I was reading a financial advice column in which a female reader presented this scenario:
She went on a first date with a guy, and they had agreed to split the check. But while they both had similarly-priced meals, he also ordered $40 worth of drinks for himself. And when the check came he only paid half, without offering to pay any extra or even for the full tip, even though the majority of the expense was his.
Now please note that I am NOT trying to make this a gender issue at all. It could have easily been reversed, with the woman expecting the man to pay more for the bill.
But I could easily relate to this and I would guess that many people here have been through the same thing.
Several years ago, the daughter of a prominent couple at church had just moved back into the area, and I told her I'd like to take her to lunch sometime as a welcome back. (I am also a gal, so obviously it was just a friend getting together with a friend and not a date.) We went to some kind of Applebee's-type restaurant, and when I told her I would pay, a similar thing happened -- along with her lunch, she started ordering drinks (at around $10 a piece.) She started with one, then ordered another when the food came, and when she started to order her third, I told her that I'd pay for her lunch and the first two but the rest of her drinks were on her. Like the girl in the advice column, I usually drink tap water -- that's not a judgment, that's just saying, if I offer to pay for someone's meal, I'm not figuring in 3 rounds of drinks along with it.
So the issue I am presenting here is NOT about gender, and it's NOT about alcohol (which is of course a whole other topic,) but rather, the issue is about someone trying to take financial advantage of you.
The scenario doesn't have to involve alcohol at all -- what if the other person ordered $50 worth of food and you order $20, and they expect you to split it down the middle? Or how about if you go out with family and they expect you to pay an even portion of the bill, even though your order cost less than what they want you to pay?
What have you done in these kinds of situations, or how would you handle it if you were?