3 ms·

> That previous generations could afford a single-family house with 1 person working and with multiple kids. Now, a double income is almost required, even with

by tomp 11y ago

> That previous generations could afford a single-family house with 1 person working and with multiple kids. Now, a double income is almost required, even with renting and not owning, and the rate of couples without children is rising too. I find it highly ironic that while feminists wanted to enable women to have jobs, capitalism intervened and forced women to have jobs. So we have a reserse, but equally bad situation (earlier women had to be home, now they have to work).

dkonofalski 11y ago
I once read on a crazy dude's website that corporations did exactly this to take advantage of feminism. They saw that women wanted to work so they dropped wages for men and then, on top of that, paid women less for the same jobs so that they could further undercut those looking for work. I thought that was crazy talk but maybe it's not too far off. That may not have been their motivation, but that's the situation that's happened anyways.
- wvenable 11y ago
  Wages for men didn't drop but many things (like housing) slowly became twice as expensive. It's not some grand conspiracy; it's supply and demand.
  - dkonofalski 11y ago
    Right. That was the point I was making. The conspiracy stuff was all nonsense, but somehow we still ended up in the same situation where no one can afford anything.
    - wvenable 11y ago
      And we spend more on other things (like child care) because both adults are working.
  - evanmoran 11y ago
    This a great point. It's not a conspiracy. Housing prices trend to match median income in an area. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If your income was significantly higher then current prices of houses you'd immediately buy a house, because why not, it isn't a big percent of your income and therefore isn't a huge risk either way. The moment prices reach what feels uncomfortable you'd think hard about renting vs buying. We are now in the later stage in several tech cities for tech wages.
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  Oh this definitely happened. Of course it did! I had an econ professor that gleefully talked about how he'd hire female architects to get lower wages / better quality at the same wage.
adventured 11y ago
So you're claiming that it wasn't Capitalism that existed from 1950-1980, that enabled families to make it on one income? And further, I can only guess you're implying that Capitalism is a recent phenomenon from the last 30 years, rather than the reason the US was able to become the wealthiest nation with the highest median income and most productive economy by ~1890?
- tomp 11y ago
  Capitalism and culture interact. Before 1860, part of "capitalism" was also slavery. After that, it wasn't. The causes for the US development are many, if I had to guess I would mainly bet on the extensive natural resources they had available.
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    The southern slave economy 1800-1860 performed very poorly, which is one of the underlying causes of the South wanting to secede from the Union. The industrial northern economy, based on free labor, completely overpowered the slave economy. As for natural resources, Asia, Africa, and S. America are loaded with natural resources, yet the booms did not happen there.
    - tomp 11y ago
      > Asia, Africa, and S. America are loaded with natural resources, yet the booms did not happen there They are also loaded with people. America was a free-for-all (except the American Indians, of course, who were overpowered by superior technology).
      - WalterBright 11y ago
        How is N. America different from S. America in the 1800s, in people and resources?
        tomp 11y ago
ako 11y ago
As you say, it's easily explainable by capitalism, supply and demand: * People want the nicest house they can buy, there is a shortage of houses in nice neighborhoods * Women start working, families have more income * supply is still short, demand has more money * price of housing goes up, in addition to the fact that families need child-care * gone is the extra income, cost of housing has increased, no way to turn back. Now everybody needs a double income to afford a nice home.
- trgn 11y ago
  This idea made Elizabeth Warren famous. It was quite a profound finding. Well, I should speak for myself, when I first red the synopsis of the Two Income Trap it really felt like a slap on the head. It felt it was counter-intuitive, yet explains so much shiftily looking at own's family spending habits. I also found the book's message darkly subversive sometimes. For example, all things being equal, it is better to spend more of your income on luxuries than on he biggies (housing, transportation, debt). If you do the former, you can easily roll back. If you do the latter, when times get tough, you're hosed. In yo face papaa!
  - ako 11y ago
    Never heard of her, thanks. Sounds interesting. Seems like a basic rule that has impact on more ideas recently discussed on hacker news: in a market where there is a short supply of high demand items, more money will cause more inflation. This will also impact ideas around basic income.

by tomp 11y ago

dkonofalski 11y ago

I once read on a crazy dude's website that corporations did exactly this to take advantage of feminism. They saw that women wanted to work so they dropped wages for men and then, on top of that, paid women less for the same jobs so that they could further undercut those looking for work. I thought that was crazy talk but maybe it's not too far off. That may not have been their motivation, but that's the situation that's happened anyways.

wvenable 11y ago
Wages for men didn't drop but many things (like housing) slowly became twice as expensive. It's not some grand conspiracy; it's supply and demand.
- dkonofalski 11y ago
  Right. That was the point I was making. The conspiracy stuff was all nonsense, but somehow we still ended up in the same situation where no one can afford anything.
  - wvenable 11y ago
    And we spend more on other things (like child care) because both adults are working.
- evanmoran 11y ago
  This a great point. It's not a conspiracy. Housing prices trend to match median income in an area. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If your income was significantly higher then current prices of houses you'd immediately buy a house, because why not, it isn't a big percent of your income and therefore isn't a huge risk either way. The moment prices reach what feels uncomfortable you'd think hard about renting vs buying. We are now in the later stage in several tech cities for tech wages.
SamReidHughes 11y ago
Oh this definitely happened. Of course it did! I had an econ professor that gleefully talked about how he'd hire female architects to get lower wages / better quality at the same wage.

adventured 11y ago

So you're claiming that it wasn't Capitalism that existed from 1950-1980, that enabled families to make it on one income? And further, I can only guess you're implying that Capitalism is a recent phenomenon from the last 30 years, rather than the reason the US was able to become the wealthiest nation with the highest median income and most productive economy by ~1890?

tomp 11y ago
Capitalism and culture interact. Before 1860, part of "capitalism" was also slavery. After that, it wasn't. The causes for the US development are many, if I had to guess I would mainly bet on the extensive natural resources they had available.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  The southern slave economy 1800-1860 performed very poorly, which is one of the underlying causes of the South wanting to secede from the Union. The industrial northern economy, based on free labor, completely overpowered the slave economy. As for natural resources, Asia, Africa, and S. America are loaded with natural resources, yet the booms did not happen there.
  - tomp 11y ago
    > Asia, Africa, and S. America are loaded with natural resources, yet the booms did not happen there They are also loaded with people. America was a free-for-all (except the American Indians, of course, who were overpowered by superior technology).
    - WalterBright 11y ago
      How is N. America different from S. America in the 1800s, in people and resources?
      - tomp 11y ago

ako 11y ago

As you say, it's easily explainable by capitalism, supply and demand: * People want the nicest house they can buy, there is a shortage of houses in nice neighborhoods * Women start working, families have more income * supply is still short, demand has more money * price of housing goes up, in addition to the fact that families need child-care * gone is the extra income, cost of housing has increased, no way to turn back. Now everybody needs a double income to afford a nice home.

trgn 11y ago
This idea made Elizabeth Warren famous. It was quite a profound finding. Well, I should speak for myself, when I first red the synopsis of the Two Income Trap it really felt like a slap on the head. It felt it was counter-intuitive, yet explains so much shiftily looking at own's family spending habits. I also found the book's message darkly subversive sometimes. For example, all things being equal, it is better to spend more of your income on luxuries than on he biggies (housing, transportation, debt). If you do the former, you can easily roll back. If you do the latter, when times get tough, you're hosed. In yo face papaa!
- ako 11y ago
  Never heard of her, thanks. Sounds interesting. Seems like a basic rule that has impact on more ideas recently discussed on hacker news: in a market where there is a short supply of high demand items, more money will cause more inflation. This will also impact ideas around basic income.