> women joining the workforce in greater numbers since the 60s

In the most literal sense yes, of course the increase in dual income homeowners is because of a greater number of women joining the workforce. But that masks the true reality, which is that those families require two incomes to a lifestyle that used to be achievable with one.

It’s a result of the lack of affordability, not a cause.

I think you have it backwards.

Houses could only be priced such that a single income could buy them when most women did not work. Or nobody could buy them.

Once you have couples competing to buy that same housing stock, it becomes increasingly hard for a single income to compete and the price rises to match what the market can support.

> Houses could only be priced

> the price rises

ah, the swirling anonymity of "market forces"! These are all active decisions made by people, not forces of nature.

You're not wrong, of course, but it's worth looking at it from another angle. A house for a dual income family does not cost more to build than a house for a single income family. In a world where housing is considered more of a human right than an investment vehicle prices could have stayed low, more could be built, faster. Instead we live in a world where everyone must work more in order for their quality of life to stand still. I think it's permissible to be angry about that.

Oh, I completely agree that it's reasonable to be angry we have to pay more for the same or less. And our family is single income so it's been really hard for us.

It doesn't take houses to be considered investment vehicles by anyone though for this to happen (even if some people do). Just more and cheaper money available to throw at the same things.

This is exactly the point I'm making. Home ownership rates are still at about 66% of households in the US but median household income has risen dramatically and interest rates have been very low so there has been a lot of room for home prices to increase. Supply has also lagged and labor costs have also risen.

That assumes that women working weren’t producing anything, and the construction industry didn’t get more workers as women joined the workforce. Neither are true, our society is actually wealthier with more production, but because land is limited (and doesn’t expand with working population growth), we use some of that more wealth to bid up desirable housing.

> That assumes that women working weren’t producing anything, and the construction industry didn’t get more workers as women joined the workforce.

No such assumptions are necessary or intended. It doesn't make sense to assume working women produced nothing. I have no idea whether the construction industry took on more workers or not when women joined the workforce.

Regardless, most couples tend to buy one house, and two people's incomes can outbid one person's. That is all that it is necessary to assume.

Yes, but that income should equal production, so either more housing is produced, or something else more is produced, and either gets cheaper or we have more stuff. I guess it’s a combination of all three, our society is definitely wealthier with more people working, we are better off than we were in the 1950s. So…somehow our increased housing costs either mean we are getting more housing somehow, or we get other things which make up for the more money we have to put toward housing.

I think that sounds about right. We are wealthier than in the 1950s. We have super computers in our pockets and a global information network, for example!

For housing though, the economic unit is the household, not the individual, and land and location are not really affected by how much stuff we can produce. So housing costs will always occupy a large fraction of household wealth, no matter how wealthy we become.

I don't accept that the initial primary motivation behind more women joining the workforce was out of financial necessity. But I can see that once you have a certain critical mass of households with dual incomes then it becomes very difficult for single income households to compete in the same buyers market for housing especially (given its uniquely inelastic supply and it being a fundamental need for all of us), hence essentially forcing them to convert into (or remain as, after having children etc.) dual income households even if they wouldn't otherwise choose to be so.

This is correct. Humans are competitive, and if your peers are competing with two incomes and you are chasing after the same scarce resources they are, then prices will rise accordingly.

Scarce examples would be homes in the best school district you can afford near the best job markets. Or the best doctors, tutors, etc. And if the majority of people opt to be in dual income households, then the price of even average products/services will rise so that single income households will have to settle for less.

This would imply that women work and get paid, but do not contribute. The reality is that woman who work DO contribute. That is, they produce things for all of us, including themselves. Introducing women to the workforce does not mean there is more money chasing "the same scarce resources" - in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services.

> there is more money chasing "the same scarce resources" - in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now

Humans are status seeking, so stuff is not just stuff. People value obtaining products/services that others cannot afford. The most basic example of this is the common advice to “buy the cheapest home in the most expensive neighborhood”.

Meaning, if you want your kids to hang out with kids of parents who earn at least as much or more than you, then you bid up housing prices as much as you can to minimize the number of families under a give income level that can afford the homes in the school district.

> in fact there is much more stuff for us to buy with our money now, and in fact (all else equal) woman working may drive DOWN the price of good and services.

This is also true, and it did drive down the price of many goods and services, including the price of labor itself. But it can also be true that prices for average or below average product/service decline, and above average products/services to increase.

Except prior to women joining the workforce they were providing essential services that they weren't being financially remunerated for.

Goods and services did get cheaper relative to incomes, but there is more money to bid up land prices. I think this aligns with what we have seen happen?

> It’s a result of the lack of affordability, not a cause.

Probably not. If you're familiar at all with the history of women entering the workforce, it was driven largely by women wanting to have careers and professional fulfillment and not financial necessity.

The history, yes. Today’s reality, no. If it were purely about a desire for career we’d see more stay at home dads, for example. In my social circle there are a great many working parents who would like to be full time carers.

Maybe not financial necessity, but certainly economic necessity when the men went off to war.

Rosie the Riveter, etc.

It's a tipping point, isn't it. If enough couples jump to dual-income for reasons of self-actualization, the rest have to follow just to keep up. It's a Red Queen's Race.

Also that the reality of caring for children in our fragmented society without extended family present being so difficult that working and outsourcing childcare to a non-family third party is much easier than caring for the children yourself. I think this one is under appreciated.

Do you have a citation for this? My historical understanding was that throughout the late 18th, 19th and very early 20th centuries the Industrial Revolution and urbanization made it a financial necessity for (non-farming) women to work outside of the home. Then, the enormous wealth gains in the early to mid-20th century made it possible for many to stop working or never join the workforce at all, and they took up that opportunity. I would be interested in reading more.

Looking at the labor force participation rate for women, since 1950 it's gone from 1/3 to 2/3.

It drives the average wage down as well, as now employers have almost twice as many potential candidates and therefore don’t have to offer as competitive pay.

> houses on average are much larger and feature more amenities

A lot of truth in this. I was raised in the 60's in a 3-BR house with 1 bath, a kitchen, and a living room. There were 5 of us including parents, in 850 sq ft, without central air in a climate that definitely needs it. My dad would come home from work and lay under the living room window air conditioner. We had 1 car, mom did odd jobs from home (ironing, cleaning, babysitting) and took care of us, and most other kids were in the same situation. A few moms worked but it was unusual. Quite a different living situation than most families today.

Is it though? Most of the large cities are ... mostly the same, with the same apartments like in 60s. Modern apartments are even smaller than back then. I can't find a quote but square footage per capita has barely moved in last 40 years. Couple of McMansons are not changing the stats that much apparently.