I would argue that GMO feedlot cattle derived burgers, bleached enriched white flour buns, rBST laden cheese slices, corn syrup manufactured beverages and fatty addictive french fries are hardly a panacea... I'm not saying times aren't still better than they have been throughout human history but you are deluding yourself if you think the 21st century U.S. is the superlative expression of society.
		
		
	 
I never said it was or that any of those foods were a panacea. This is an imperfect world and I do not believe any nation in any era has been the "superlative expression of society". Also, since our society still has many shortcomings, I believe it is important to acknowledge them and attempt to fix them- in many cases arguing that things were worse in the past or are worse elsewhere is used as an excuse for things not being better. Still, that doesn't change the fact the life in the modern U.S.A. is better than life in most societies throughout history has been; and the fact that, for most people at least, it is far easier to become obese than to starve to death is a prime example of this.
	
		
	
	
		
		
			I hate to burst your bubble but some estimate the obesity epidemic constitutes 1/4 of all U.S. healthcare costs, that every taxpayer is responsible for , so yes, it does affect me.
		
		
	 
You could make the same argument about anything else taxpayers subsidize, or for things besides obesity that lead to a greater probability of illness or injury. And you will really only be responsible for their healthcare costs if they are poor enough they can't pay themselves. Certainly I have plenty of my income redistributed to others (for instance, to the elderly through Social Security and Medicare and to parents through public schools and dependent child tax credits) but somehow it's only acceptable to point that out if it's obesity that's costing taxpayers money...
Also, since as you point out, poor communities typically do not have access to decent, healthy food, for many people it's not really their fault they are obese.
	
		
	
	
		
		
			Maybe I sound like a broken record , but I would take a 1950's world of a strong middle class, were young men like me could afford a decent house, would likely marry a thin and attractive wife at a young age and then raise a family,
 to the world we have today, where men's wages have been declining steadily 
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2011/03/04/have-earnings-actually-declined/ and women typically party through their teens and twenties, and few millennials can afford to purchase homes in most of the domiciles we are placed in.
		
 
You and I are in agreement here more than you realize. It worries me quite a bit that real earnings for ordinary people are declining, and I have often been ridiculed on this board and in person for taking the looming threat of widespread Technological Unemployment seriously. You are also correct that property prices are out of control compared to the past in much of the country. However, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Flight Attendants who don't meet the appearance requirements of strippers. Your remark about women "partying through their teens and 20s" is a bit odd, too; I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything.
Also, while I was certainly not alive in the 1950s, I suspect that like many people you have an overly idealized view of them. It is easy to see why the 1950s are idealized; it is when the modern first world as we know it really started to emerge and people's standard of living here in the U.S.A. would have markedly better than before. It must have been a truly remarkable time to live through. However, while a young man like you are I may have been able to afford a decent house, there is also a good chance we could have been drafted and killed in the Korean War (people always seem to forget about that war when idealizing the '50s...). And I'm sure I'll be flamed for bringing up racial/ gender issues but most non-white people certainly didn't have much opportunity then, nor did women of any race.
Delta's 1965 Flight Attendant requirements are a prime example of this- flight attendants would have been forced to retire at 32, and then would have had few job opportunities and would quite likely be dependent on a man; and would then have little recourse if she were abused by that man compared to today. Speaking of which, from what I understand, spousal abuse was quite common in the 1950s compared to today. Contributing to that issue was the fact that so many men, through no fault of their own, had PTSD and other psychological issues from their service in World War 2 and the Korean War. There was woefully little help available for them at that time (the term PTSD didn't exist yet, and relatively little was understood about it) 
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/3/12/310930/- , and of course most young/ middle-aged men in those days had fought in at least one of those wars.
	
		
	
	
		
		
			would likely marry a thin and attractive wife at a young age and then raise a family,
		
		
	 
Can't you still do that nowadays if you want to? I know plenty of people who have married young and began raising a family. If you believe women should be forced to retire at 32 and be evaluated by stringent, arbitrary appearance standards that might explain why no attractive women are willing to marry you.
Also, like I said before, if you had to comply with those kind of standards for your job or were forced out of work at 32 you would be howling. Also, while being sexist against women, those standards discriminate against men who want to be Flight Attendants.