Of course the answer is income inequality. Income inequality has grown more substantial since the 50s. Number of complicated reasons beyond corporate greed to be considered, but corporate greed and the perverse effects of WS on businesses are the standouts.
Quality of life has improved, though the required work hrs to pay for it has increased as well.
The standard of living is a rising tide in the States, it benefits everyone and it is rising. Issue being discussed between the left/right is who should benefit the most and what's the cost to society if we don't get the answer correct.
Looking at healthcare/housing/transportation (not public)/food costs, the average worker is unable to pay for these same basic needs to the extent he was in the 1950's (left out she intentionally). As a result we now have families that require two workers to afford the same basic needs (using average income numbers) to pay for what one worker could in the 50's. It is correct to say that the basic needs have improved, but so have their relative costs to the average wage. I'm not convinced with the efficiency improvements to manufacturing that as a society we got this one right over the last 50 years.
It is not too much to expect that quality of life should improve without the need to work 1.5-2x as much today compared to the 50's, to afford the improvement. Ideally as a society we'd work the same as we did in the 50's and benefit from a rising tide, not be out of breath (with a partner) trying to stay afloat.
But looking forward we have a wave of baby boomer retirees, a college age population carrying massive debt w/ lowest job prospects in years, and a precarious national debt resting solely on the FED's ability to artificially lower interest payments (finite solution) to allow us to service that debt. So should be thankful for what we have now, if Obama doesn't get this right and get congress to work with instead of against him, then quality of life for many is not going to improve no matter how hard you work.