Modern Family's Affluence Problem

When "Modern Family" premiered 11 years ago, it offered a "modern" take on the typical American family: a May-December marriage, two mixed-race families, characters with disabilities (Luke), and characters on the LGBT spectrum. But for all its attention to align with the "modern" family today, "Modern Family" differs from the typical American family because the Pritchett-Dunphy-Delgado-Tucker clan's amount of disposable income isn't so average.

Consider that:
1) The family has taken vacations to Hawaii, Italy  and Australia in between spontaneous trips to Vegas, dude ranches, Florida and the Pacific Northwest

2) Gadget enthusiast Phil tends to buy whatever home improvement devices or toys he wants without a second thought

3) When Jay and Gloria have an accidental pregnancy, they don't consider the economic costs of it because it's presumably something Jay can handle
4) There are few discussions about out-of-state verse in-state college costs with Claire and Phil's kids. The logistical need to keep the show's child actors as main cast members rather than recurring cast members, but the decisions of the children to return home throughout college range from being expelled to not getting into college to getting homesick.
5) Characters like Cameron, Mitchell, and Claire have quit or drifted out of jobs to follow their bliss without considering economic consequences. Granted, they might have nest eggs or savings but these economic considerations aren't necessarily alluded to.

The disconnect between "Modern Family" and its audience on the wealth issue marks a desire to embody both sides of a TV contradiction that has gone on since the beginning of the family sitcom: 1) The need to be both aspirational (to show an upward version of the American family) that TV advertisers prefer and that is alluring to viewers and 2) the need to mirror the American family viewing at home. 

As a result, many shows like I Love Lucy, the Cosby Show, the Brady Bunch and Friends have had disparities between how the characters well off the characters should be verse what we're seeing on screen. So which TV shows have been the biggest sinners?  

The very first shows to attract a following in the late 40s and early 50s were actually focusing on the ethnic and poor. Shows like "Life with Luigi" (Italian-Americans), "Mama" (the Swedish community), "The Goldbergs" (the Jewish community) and "Amos n Andy" (the black community) documented ethnic or racial communities in America and highlighted their struggles (my friend Christine Becker has a useful link). Part of this was that some of these were holdovers from radio and part of this was inertia. 

The biggest show of that decade, "The Honeymooners" , followed in that template and so did "I Love Lucy" but the latter had a flaw: Ricky was somewhat of a B-list celebrity in-universe who casually knew Bob Hope and John Wayne, yet Lucy still had to manage a tight budget in a small apartment with no domestic help. 

When sitcoms focused on the WASP clans like "Leave it to Beaver" and later "Brady Bunch" they generally tilted towards the high life. In the former, the patriarch of the clan belonged to a country club and had his own secretary, and in the latter, the family had their own maid. A factor that was starting to play with TV sitcoms more than other genres is that the family sitcom directly reflected families at home so advertising wanted the shows to depict more inspirational pictures. The "George Burns and Gracie Allen Show" was sponsored by Carnation Milk and they went so far as to constantly remind the audience (with the subtlety of a mallet) in character of how they were having a great time enjoying Carnation Milk.

In the 1970s, social justice started to seep into the picture with "Good Times", "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons" which resonated with an audience that was interested in seeing socio-economically imperfect families. The Jeffersons' theme song "Moving on Up" depicted upward mobility but the show also asked whether they belonged there and explored that class tension. More modern  examples that explore that race and class tension might include "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" and "Black-ish"

In the past twenty years, both formulas have largely worked with a different distinguishing factor of sorts. Family sitcoms generally have become endangered in such a competitive environment for eyeballs. The ones that have evolved are the ones with with strong voices.  In shows like "Raising Hope", "Everybody Hates Chris", and "The Middle", firm choices are made over what kind of universe the characters want to inhabit. 

"Modern Family" largely falls into this category too but because it's not really accounting for its characters wealth and financial privilege, there's something on-the-fence about it's approach to the issue. 

As for whether the show is the biggest sinner?
I would argue yes, because this show 1) exists in a more realistic era of TV or one and  2) This show has run in an era where we have a heightened concern about economic security. It debuted in 2009 at the advent of the housing bubble and restructurings of the economy in this decade have all been things Americans are more conscious of.  

Thanks to Sheri Ciscell for the research assistance