#post wwii 1950s two and a half kids and a fenced yard propaganda nonsense

[lacewise]

Any understanding of class that derives from mid-20th century Britain, United States, or Canada is probably wrong. And that’s a problem because that’s where most people get their ideas about class.

If you look further back, middle housing (townhomes, condos, apartments, triplexes, quadplexes, etc) are where the middle class historically found themselves living (usually, there are exceptions). Suburbs are mostly new and they are extremely wasteful. The idea that people lived in single family homes or even semi-detached housing with large green outdoor spaces (as opposed to shared courtyards) just strikes me as very, very silly and very, very American.

A better, more honest, more accurate description of the decline of the middle class is not just the disappearance of middle housing—it’s how much middle housing has deteriorated qualitatively. We no longer consider that apartments can be big enough to raise families in. Nor do we consider that they should be well-made enough to hold up to decades of uninterrupted housing.

“Luxury” condos have nothing on early-20th brownstones of the working class. And that’s the problem.

I am having trouble reconciling the same people who rightly said that density over space are now claiming that the birthright of the middle class is the ownership of implied single family homes, presumably with spacious yards. No.

There is no class worth establishing that pines for the trappings of the rich. And there’s no need to establish it anyway, it already exists. That’s the upper middle class.

I cannot believe people are saying that waste is the only sign of being middle class that matters again. But, what’s worse, I can believe people are buying it.

Anyone who says that is no better than the TikTokers who insist that $500 Shein hauls are a necessity and excess clothing (to the point of never wearing the same outfit twice) is a human right.