Help me here, but this makes no sense. DINK households have no children and therefore need less housing and have more flexibility when choosing housing. Perhaps it might impact trendy cities like San Francisco where DINK is not by choice (hence more DINKs) since it costs too much to have kids in a non-kid friendly community.

We have a much greater proportion of couples where both members work than before. This means higher bids, and higher prices. The people that did well out of this were the people who already owned property; they've had a lovely transfer of money from those workers.

I still fail to see a clear causal relationship between increased dual income with no kid couples and increased housing prices. The assumption I guess is that having more money from dual income implies that buyers will pay more, but there are several flaws with this:

1. Many modern couples actually have less income available for savings and housing despite having two earners say compared to single earning couples in the 50’s and 60’s when gas station attendants could afford to buy a home for a wife and several kids 2. Extremely low Interest rates have caused a much higher impact on available funds to buy homes than increases in available funds for housing from wages 3. No kid couples require smaller, cheaper houses without regard to school districts, family friendly environments, etc.