1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_dual-income-households-1960-2... 2 - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
That “flat” wage is accounting for inflation according to your own link. So not only would a single earner be doing just as good today as back then, adding a second income means they are raking in twice the spending power as back then.
The only thing that has changed are expectations. People want way bigger houses, nicer cars, computers, smart phones, more meat, dental care, better medical care, etc. Worst of all (from a financial perspective), they want both of their average kids to spend 4 years at an expensive university.
Expensive only because it's been allowed to become expensive. Decades ago it was normal for a good university to be nearly free or at least quite affordably by the student working part time to pay their way.
> dental care, better medical care
People "want" health care. I mean of course, but it's not a whim, it's a basic necessity. Which like the university, was very affordable to nearly everyone decades ago.
Not sure people want bigger houses either, every housing topic on HN is full of desire for smaller apartments to get built.
Here's a few graphs that show this more explicitly: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gregschoofs/how-much-co...
Your data only represents "married couples with children under 18"--a (shrinking) minority of households. By definition it does not account for the dramatic rise in single-adult households.
This belief is oddly common, considering it has no basis in reality. The share of adults living in households with sub-middle-class incomes has only grown by 4% since 1971.[0] The share of adults living in upper-class households grew by more (5%)! And this even as the number of single-adult households has soared[1], reducing the average number of earners per household!
[0]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-america... [1]https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/12/14/barely-...