That latter part sounds like another big part of the puzzle. In the last century, you could assume that a) a family had one breadwinner and b) he would expect to work at a single company his whole career. So it would make sense to tell your employees to move to a suburb that is powered by basically a single employer and buy a home there. They could go to "the city" (whichever city) with a 1+ hour commute on weekends or holidays. And employees wouldn't semi-expect to change jobs every few years, so buying a home made sense.
Now none of those assumptions hold. Even universities, which historically didn't care to be located in big cities or near other universities, are now facing the "two-body problem" - so many candidates are now part of a couple who both want academic jobs.
Even if they don't both want academic jobs, what are the odds that the half of a couple who are both STEM professionals who isn't offered the professorship is going to find the ideal job in a Maine college town? (Of course, perhaps going forward, there may be more possibilities to work remotely much of the time.)
> a) a family had one breadwinner and b) he would expect to work at a single company his whole career.
Not disagreeing here, just spitballing. Back then you were likely to live in a small apartment or a Levittown-type house that was about 850 ft sq, was poorly insulated and had no air conditioning. The family shared a single (comparative deathtrap of a) car, there were no cable bills, phone service was inexpensive, you dried your laundry by hanging it up outside, and there was just one TV. I bet one could still afford that lifestyle on today's average salary, no? It seems to me that we just want more stuff now.
Maybe in your very local calling area--not actually sure what local phone bills were like--but long distance, even to a few towns away in the same state were very expensive. Today, I could probably call London from the US (just using my regular domestic plan) for less than I could have called Boston 40 miles to the east in inflation-adjusted dollars in 1970.
Phone service was expensive. For calls to the neighbor it was okay, but calling that city an hour away quickly cost money. A one hour long distance phone call costs more than a months income.
Agree with all points about long distance. I knew I’d be called out on it but the difference between it and, say, cable was that you could control costs on a per month basis. We literally used mail for most of those purposes before the cost of long distance dropped.
Cheap cars really represent a missed opportunity for me. Imagine how inexpensive and reliable cars could be they could be if that was the prime buyer consideration? But instead, car manufacturers keep adding complexity (and take less risks) to stay competitive. On top of that, regulatory bodies are also demanding higher complexity (sensors and cameras, more airbags). This is not bad onto itself, however it means that the question of cheaper and environmentally friendly car vs luxurious, safe, and roomy car has already been made for us.
That's a part of why I love 90's cars so much. Reliability was paramount (especially in the Japanese brands) and luxury was just for the luxury cars. I will be upset when these cars start to die out.
I really hope that US/Canada's regulations change to allow microcars. We are still allowed motorcycles, so we are left with a fairly large gap between complete death machine and car-sized SUVs. Why not introduce the quadricycles legislation? Japan has KEI cars, Europe has microcars, yet the US and Canada have nothing of the sort. It is unfortunate.
You're right - we could absolutely make some amazing products. I'm not clear on the cause.
>if that was the prime buyer consideration?
Buyers less willing to pay for higher quality up front.
Companies reducing long-term profitability through less replacements/maintenance.
Buyers can be manipulated through advertising, and reliability isn't exciting.
Probably a mixture of human shortsightedness and emotional response, and corporate incentives. There's probably some cultural/social context here as well.
Now none of those assumptions hold. Even universities, which historically didn't care to be located in big cities or near other universities, are now facing the "two-body problem" - so many candidates are now part of a couple who both want academic jobs.