Carl Reiner is a big name, like Norman Lear, when it comes to TV. His greatest success (not counting his son, Rob) was "The Dick Van Dyke Show" which is enough to preserve a legacy in the medium all on its own. But Reiner was continually coming up with different concepts for programs, and in 1973, he teamed with Bill Persky and Sam Denoff (who worked with Reiner on "Van Dyke"), to collectively give us "Lotsa Luck!"
First it's notable that during this era of TV, there were a couple of programs that Norman Lear had brought over from England and created Americanized versions. One was called "Steptoe and Son" which became "Sanford and Son" and the other was called "Till Death Do Us Part" which became "All in the Family," stateside. Carl Reiner, emulating Mr. Lear, also selected a show which was British import titled "On The Buses" across the pond.
Stanley Belmont (Dom DeLuise) was a full-grown bachelor, who was promoted from driving a bus to the lost and found department for his bus company, living with his mom (Kathleen Freeman), his sister Olive (Beverly Sanders) and Olive's husband Arthur (Wynn Irwin) all under one roof. Stan is covering the cost for all of them as the Brother-in-law is unemployed and spends his days lazing around in his jammies while Stan is at work. I have to note that Stanley and Olive are a play on the first names of one of the greatest comedy teams in Hollywood History: Laurel and Hardy.
Much of the comedy comes from Stan doing insult humor at Arthur for not finding work (more accurately, Arthur actively did everything he could to avoid working), and Ma and/or Olive reacting badly to it. But keep in mind, that was a standard during this era of television. It seems like every sitcom had at least a little insult humor with characters continually making fun (or, more accurately, making mean) of each other. One character directly telling another to "shut up" or "stifle," or nicknaming them "You Big Dummy" or "Meathead" was just the methodology of the day.
But there's another standard TV Trope that I would have guessed that a guy who had been in the business as long as Carl Reiner had, would have known: that is, you gauge comedy, based on economics, in reverse correlation to what is happening in the real world. In other words, if the economy is bad, you don't do a sitcom about a family who is having financial trouble. Audiences aren't going to find that nearly as entertaining, especially if it's a circumstance they're living! In a way, that's why the nighttime soap operas, with their overblown wealth, were so popular in the 1980s.
Let's be clear, though: it wasn't that the Belmonts were having serious problems surviving. They weren't. But some of the difficulties the show displayed were based on the fact that an able bodied guy was just loafing and the Head of Household, who rarely had a chance to go on a date and who lived with his mom, was the one holding the family together, and doesn't he deserve a little better than that?
New York played a part because of the transit authority, the cost of living, the need to have people to support you and the elements of commuting - yes, the people who work for mass transportation also use it to get around and you have to go from the outer boroughs to your place of business as a matter of course.
I think if they hadn't relied so much on the misery of the situation and had more fun with it, "Lotsa Luck!" would have had a little more luck in the ratings.
