Yes, there is. Elizabeth Warren, when she was an academic, did a fair amount of work indicating most of the marginal gain from the second earner goes to positional goods (like real estate in "good school districts" (ie areas with good demographics)) to no net gain. It also, as I said above, makes coordination more difficult.

Two-earner households also result in delayed fertility, which has harmful demographic effects and dysgenic effects.

I'll ask without the sarcasm. What's the alternative? Do we discourage people from working? Discourage people from sending their kids to the best schools they can?

I lived that life. My parents payed more for property and commuted farther so I could go to the best schools around and I'm grateful. Yes, there are down sides, but these are the choices people make because it's worth it to them.

Has the bar gone up? http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Real-Media...

I've not seen that series before. Thanks!

I do think the bar has gone up. The price of healthcare, housing, and educating one's children has increased at faster rates than inflation.

Since the base unit is the household, instead of the individual, I suspect it doesn't account for how many women have joined the workforce since 1967. There's a number of interesting factors going on with workforce participation in that time period: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 (can't link directly, but there are chart options on the page).

I can't find a series for changes in hours worked.

I'd also love to discover a measure of job stability, which seems to be part of the "traditional" definition of middle class.