I mean I've read this comment about 3-4 times now and I get that you start with "No" in regards to my original comment... but I was super weirded out on the overall direction. I'm talking about median wages and you immediately jump into talking about "mansions"...? As-if the majority of folks today having troubles finding an affordable place are looking for "mansions".........?

> Instead, I think that buying massive mansions (as per how people in the 50s may think of it), could be part of the problem.

You draw this comparison of what people in the 50's would think of our world today when in all reality the cost of everything has skyrocketed since the 50's. The dual-earner expectation is a new thing since then, the post-WW2 credit boom happened, the expectations of higher education to enter careers is different, housing markets are night and day, etc... Anyone who's looking at this modern world through the lens of the 50's ideals must realize that this is an incredibly skewed/distorted way to think about today. Or at least I would hope they realize this.

> And other factors, cell phone, cable, internet, tablet, laptop, gaming system, monthly fees can run hundreds in some households, with hardware costs amortized, even a thousand per month for a family!

> How'd they get those toys?

Much of that isn't a toy in this day in age... I would argue that cell phone and internet are utilities NOT toys. I would argue that a laptop/tablet/phone is a requirement to stay relevant in even entry level positions... and sure - I can understand not subsidizing TV and video games as they're pure entertainment. But, I would very much argue that folks who are worried about improving conditions for wage earners are not advocating for everyone to get a free Xbox and 42" LCD.

> But I agree, then isn't now.

I'm at odds with this too - when you spend so much time drawing comparisons between the 50's and today I am left to wonder, "where does this person draw the line of 'then' and 'now'? Do they believe in 50's ideals being exercised today? And if so, which ones?"

All of these comparisons you've drawn make me feel like I'm suppose to feel guilt for having purchased things with credit as well... admittedly things like TV's, etc. I've never paid "2-3x" for something as I've never fell for that trap... but I have purchased expensive things like computers and used my credit to spread that hurt out over a year...

And... oh god... if I get a house how do I live with myself knowing it's a mansion or not...? I guess I should stay within the arbitrary <= 1499 sqft limit and move away from any population centers or I may accidentally end up with a mansion in the eyes of someone from the 50's!

> I wonder what they'd say [...]

My grandparents and parents are not involved in my finances. They're all dead now, but they lived a life so very different than mine that I really don't care what they'd say... my answer to that is "So what?"

> More than anything, credit is the big problem.

Credit/debt is the basis of any capitalistic society - it's literally in the blueprints. If you truly believe this I would argue you have a fundamental issue with capitalism as well.

Also, hard disagree which is why I asked you the original question. Wage stagnation and commodification of everything we need to live is the "more than anything" problem.

I do not disagree that credit is a problem. But it is not the "more than anything" problem. Actual livable wages for everyone willing to work is the "more than anything" problem.