The problem today is a 2 full-time salaried income is required to be able to afford a decent standard of living for a family, whereas even as late as the 80s it was feasibly to raise a family on a single median income.
Granted, it'd be hard on a single median income today, but if you're making two, three times median - in your 20s - it should be doable. And that's everyone on a six figure tech salary, to start off with.
I think it's more likely to be expectation inflation. People in 2023 just wouldn't be satisfied to live the life people were satisfied to live in 1950.
A thought experiment could be: - There are people that earn 100kpa and people that earn 50kpa - Both kinds of people think they "need two incomes to live these days" - Obviously the 100kpa people could ditch a whole income and live at the level of the two 50kpa people -- but they wouldn't choose to, they'd rather have the lifestyle of a 200kpa household
> Median home prices increased 121% nationwide since 1960, but median household income only increased 29%.[0]
[0] https://listwithclever.com/research/home-price-v-income-hist... (That’s from where I quoted, but there’s plenty of sources. More available upon request)
You don't need to buy a house to be able to live. And no, people are not poorer if you consider all factors. That's a crazy argument to make. No human living in 2023 would want to live with 1950 standards.
Agree.
> No human living in 2023 would want to live by 1950 standards.
Also agree.
But that neither of those things are relevant for the argument.
You don’t need a house to live, but it provides stability, which is a huge part of the decision of having children.
People had nothing after ww2 yet had a lot more kids. We are way richer now in comparison so the cost of kids is really a bad argument to make.