In addition to that being obviously different from the line to “abject poverty”, it’s not at all obvious that a single median income should be able to support a 4-person family in a 2BR apartment or else the system is completely broken…

> it’s not at all obvious that a single median income should be able to support a 4-person family in a 2BR apartment or else the system is completely broken

Either the Western world allows people the financial and real estate resources to have children in the next 5 years or we're all fucked. The tail end of the boomers enters retirement in 10 years and while millennials can take care of the boomers, eventually we will need to be taken care of, and for that millennials need to have children now as long as we still can.

Biology requires two people for the system to work.

Economics could as well and the system would still work.

That's a laudable goal, but hardly "abject poverty"

In the 1950s Americans were doing a good job at replacing themselves in the labor pool, and household size was larger and houses were smaller.

Why is it impossible for Americans to live with 300 sq ft per person like baby boomers did as kids, but now we must live with 600+ sq ft per person?

> Why is it impossible for Americans to live with 300 sq ft per person like baby boomers did as kids, but now we must live with 600+ sq ft per person?

Because the American suburbia developers want some nice chunky profits. It isn't enough any more to sell glorified matchsticks and cardboard.

Because margins on building smaller housing is lower so nobody with capital is investing in it. The same reason the US doesn't build cheap commuter cars, nobody with money to invest is investing their money on such a slim margined product with no windfall conditions.

Someone should inform all of the poor children being born and raised everywhere in USA and earth that they need a 2 bedroom apartment to exist, actually