Surely requiring two incomes in a household is extraordinarily problematic?
Before, one partner could sustain the household and the other could stay at home and raise kids.
Now, if both partners are expected to earn and have careers, who looks after the home life? Who looks after the kids? Surely this is really really damaging?
And doesn't that mean that in real terms we're earning half as much?
It is problematic for dual-income households with kids.
In these situations, kids are raised by a combination of:
1) Extended family (typically retired grandparents)
2) Daycare / child-care / "school system"
3) Private child-care (e.g. nannies or babysitters)
#1 is cheapest, but ties the family down to where the grandparents are. Both parent jobs need to be located relatively close by.
#2 typically take a huge chunk out of the 2nd income (which is almost always unfairly compared against the mother's income), at least until a family can survive/pay for such child-care until public schooling becomes an option.
#3 is only really an option for those that earn enough to support a full or part-time babysitter.
Sometimes you'll see a combination of #2 and #3, but that again is only really an option for those with enough cash-flow. Some preschool programs are even more expensive than a decent nanny, although ones loses out on the socialization aspects that come built-in with a daycare program.
Home life (beyond kids) for dual-income households is a shared responsibility. I don't think much changes there whether you're a single income or dual-income household. If you're talking about chores like groceries, cooking dinner and cleaning up, that's what weekends and evenings are for.
In real terms, we may be earning half as much (or even less depending on the combined income), but the marginal incremental value of the career experience and/or additional dollars is usually enough that going dual-income wins out.
EDIT: @humanrebar mentioned the "safety premium". Households that have experienced layoffs in the past (friends/family/themselves) probably take into account that although both adults may be working today, that doesn't mean both adults will be guaranteed jobs X months/years in advance.
Yes, it is a bit of a burden for the grandparents. I hear that this is sometimes alleviated by using grandparents on both sides of the family, health permitting (/anecdata).
So what exactly was the point of the colossal developments in human productivity in the last ten decades?
So we can continue to function as desperately as our ancestors whilst a few people have more money and power than we can possibly imagine? Fucking great.
And doesn't that mean that in real terms we're earning half as much?
Yes. It does. Average earnings per person started to drop once women entered the workforce, presumably since at the beginning it was a big bonanza - "hey look at this! twice as much household income!" Over time the dual income averaged out to what it is today, but now both people have to work.
Two incomes in a home is not required, it is just that our lifestyles have evolved to "require" that. Home prices over last 40 years adjusted for inflation have not changed very much (besides in the bubble in mid 2000's).
Previously on that one income a reasonable 40 years ago family could have a home, a TV, a car, and take inexpensive road trip vacations. Now the typical family has multiple cars, homes much larger than in the past, a vacation could be flying to some destination, $100 cable bill, $150 phone bill...
So if one wanted to live like in the past it is certainly attainable on a single reasonable income. That may mean "only" having a 1700 sf house with one bathroom and one car.
Even since I was a child things have changed a lot. The typical new home today would be something I would have considered luxury as a child. I think that things changed a lot in the dot-com -> Real estate bubble era that gave Americans a taste for luxury that is now the normal.
Home prices over last 40 years adjusted for inflation have not changed very much (besides in the bubble in mid 2000's).
This might be true as a national average, but it is definitely not true in areas where there has been consistent competition for housing. It's that competition which will push housing prices up to levels that require two middle-class incomes.
This includes most major cities. Even excluding bubbles, desirable urban real estate in the US has skyrocketed much faster than inflation. There are a lot of factors in that, but one of them is that the market has now priced in the fact that most homeowners in these areas are now dual income.
So if one wanted to live like in the past it is certainly attainable on a single reasonable income.
I'm not sure that's true. Take Houston, for example. Some of the most expensive neighborhoods were originally suburbs in the 1950s filled with workers who commuted downtown. Now those neighborhoods are considered urban and there is an entirely new ring of suburbs beyond them (in fact two such rings). The homes in these now-urban neighborhoods are now all $1M+.
A family with a reasonable income of $100k will be completely priced out of all those homes. They'll be forced to either live much further out (meaning very long commutes) or to live in an apartment/condo or, maybe, a townhouse. If they had lived in the 50s, they'd have been living in a neighborhood that is now reserved for surgeons, corporate attorneys, and even CEOs.
So if one wanted to live like in the past it is certainly attainable on a single reasonable income... That may mean "only" having a 1700 sf house with one bathroom and one car.
I agree with the attitude here but cultural norms have shifted so much that there isn't nearly enough supply of those sorts of homes. The reality is that people typically "downsize" by moving far outside of town and commuting long distances, which isn't really a solution to the problem.
You also produce more, which means you can export more, thus giving the economy a boost overall which raises standards of living because you can get more foreign goods for your $.
Comments
Surely requiring two incomes in a household is extraordinarily problematic?
Before, one partner could sustain the household and the other could stay at home and raise kids.
Now, if both partners are expected to earn and have careers, who looks after the home life? Who looks after the kids? Surely this is really really damaging?
And doesn't that mean that in real terms we're earning half as much?
It is problematic for dual-income households with kids.
In these situations, kids are raised by a combination of:
1) Extended family (typically retired grandparents) 2) Daycare / child-care / "school system" 3) Private child-care (e.g. nannies or babysitters)
#1 is cheapest, but ties the family down to where the grandparents are. Both parent jobs need to be located relatively close by.
#2 typically take a huge chunk out of the 2nd income (which is almost always unfairly compared against the mother's income), at least until a family can survive/pay for such child-care until public schooling becomes an option.
#3 is only really an option for those that earn enough to support a full or part-time babysitter.
Sometimes you'll see a combination of #2 and #3, but that again is only really an option for those with enough cash-flow. Some preschool programs are even more expensive than a decent nanny, although ones loses out on the socialization aspects that come built-in with a daycare program.
Home life (beyond kids) for dual-income households is a shared responsibility. I don't think much changes there whether you're a single income or dual-income household. If you're talking about chores like groceries, cooking dinner and cleaning up, that's what weekends and evenings are for.
In real terms, we may be earning half as much (or even less depending on the combined income), but the marginal incremental value of the career experience and/or additional dollars is usually enough that going dual-income wins out.
EDIT: @humanrebar mentioned the "safety premium". Households that have experienced layoffs in the past (friends/family/themselves) probably take into account that although both adults may be working today, that doesn't mean both adults will be guaranteed jobs X months/years in advance.
Also, it's kind of shitty to your parents. Is watching your kid from 9-5 on weekdays really what they wanted to retire for?
Yes, it is a bit of a burden for the grandparents. I hear that this is sometimes alleviated by using grandparents on both sides of the family, health permitting (/anecdata).
Um, yes? It is bizarre how unaware some folks are of how human civilization has been organized for centuries.
So what exactly was the point of the colossal developments in human productivity in the last ten decades?
So we can continue to function as desperately as our ancestors whilst a few people have more money and power than we can possibly imagine? Fucking great.
So that's how you want to spend your retirement years, as a babysitter?
Yes. It does. Average earnings per person started to drop once women entered the workforce, presumably since at the beginning it was a big bonanza - "hey look at this! twice as much household income!" Over time the dual income averaged out to what it is today, but now both people have to work.
Two incomes in a home is not required, it is just that our lifestyles have evolved to "require" that. Home prices over last 40 years adjusted for inflation have not changed very much (besides in the bubble in mid 2000's).
Previously on that one income a reasonable 40 years ago family could have a home, a TV, a car, and take inexpensive road trip vacations. Now the typical family has multiple cars, homes much larger than in the past, a vacation could be flying to some destination, $100 cable bill, $150 phone bill...
So if one wanted to live like in the past it is certainly attainable on a single reasonable income. That may mean "only" having a 1700 sf house with one bathroom and one car.
Even since I was a child things have changed a lot. The typical new home today would be something I would have considered luxury as a child. I think that things changed a lot in the dot-com -> Real estate bubble era that gave Americans a taste for luxury that is now the normal.
This might be true as a national average, but it is definitely not true in areas where there has been consistent competition for housing. It's that competition which will push housing prices up to levels that require two middle-class incomes.
This includes most major cities. Even excluding bubbles, desirable urban real estate in the US has skyrocketed much faster than inflation. There are a lot of factors in that, but one of them is that the market has now priced in the fact that most homeowners in these areas are now dual income.
I'm not sure that's true. Take Houston, for example. Some of the most expensive neighborhoods were originally suburbs in the 1950s filled with workers who commuted downtown. Now those neighborhoods are considered urban and there is an entirely new ring of suburbs beyond them (in fact two such rings). The homes in these now-urban neighborhoods are now all $1M+.
A family with a reasonable income of $100k will be completely priced out of all those homes. They'll be forced to either live much further out (meaning very long commutes) or to live in an apartment/condo or, maybe, a townhouse. If they had lived in the 50s, they'd have been living in a neighborhood that is now reserved for surgeons, corporate attorneys, and even CEOs.
I agree with the attitude here but cultural norms have shifted so much that there isn't nearly enough supply of those sorts of homes. The reality is that people typically "downsize" by moving far outside of town and commuting long distances, which isn't really a solution to the problem.
You also produce more, which means you can export more, thus giving the economy a boost overall which raises standards of living because you can get more foreign goods for your $.