5 ms·
Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a family of one.
by cbhl 10y ago
Once upon a time, a family of four had the same number of working adults as a family of one.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lisper 10y agoOnce upon a time a family of four would live in a 1200 square foot house and own one car and one television, would rarely travel, rarely go out to eat. That kind of life style can still be sustained even in the Bay area on $100k/yr.
- throwa38282 10y agoOnce upon a time, the woman stayed at home and didn't need a second car. Televisions were prohibitively priced as to make one even a stretch. And, travel was prohibitively priced so that only the ultra-rich could afford planes. When cars hit the scene en masse, it brought rise to car trips. So, I guess you're saying people aren't living within their means? But they weren't necessarily then either... And boy, I sure miss all of the great stuff from the 50s.
- douche 10y ago> Televisions were prohibitively priced as to make one even a stretch. It's just astounding how cheap televisions have become. A 32" flatscreen is like $150, and weighs ten pounds.
- itomato 10y agoWhereas content is $100/month when it used to be $0.
- throwa38282 10y agoBroadcast TV is still free. Movies always cost a fair amount of money. An internet connection with youtube is $30 which is WAY more variety than "back then".
- itomato 10y agoMmm. Yeah, I get loads of value from Univision and Home Shopping Channels like HSN, QVC and the others. Can't forget Qubo and Me.tv. Good times, for sure.
- throwa38282 10y agoCBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS Also, I'm suspecting you're not a Spanish speaker, so I guess it's okay to discount a channel that over 10% of the US has utility for. Cable TV is a relatively recent invention, has quickly declining subscription rates, and has always been billed as premium.
- geebee 10y agoYou know, maybe not. Even in the excelsior, a 1200sf ft house that is liveable (not remodeled highly, just liveable) will run you $900k. It can go up from there easily. It's possible, I suppose... You'd need to be a one income family at 100k, because there's no way you could cover that and child care. But yeah, a stay at home spouse and a working spouse who brought in 100k might be able to make it work south of 280. EDIT: just realized you said Bay Area, not San Francisco. That changes things.
- Veelox 10y agoEven with your edit I would like to chime in that I got a condo in San Jose that is 3 bed, 2 bath for <500k. It isn't fancy but it is home.
- linkregister 10y agoWhen did you buy this condo? Surely not recently.
- Veelox 10y agoI closed in December of 2016, as I nice side affect I got a rate that was a little lower then they are now.
- jostmey 10y agoGreat point. Let's regress backwards. San Francisco's housing crises and living cost is self inflicted by limiting supply.
- derefr 10y agoKeep in mind that 1. California has high taxes, and 2. those taxes go down as your number of dependents goes up. Your employer has the same number in your salary column either way, but your take-home pay tends to rise to match your needs, up to a point. (It doesn't work out for e.g. n=8, but it tends to take care of n<4.)
- vkou 10y agoYes, but any spare income earned by multiple working adults in a family will eventually be siphoned up by either landlords, or banks.
- unit91 10y agoIf your bank is eating your income, you need a new bank.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoUm what!? My family has two incomes. We save the entire second income (before taxes) and then some. Not to mention interest rates are at historic lows. (PS, people's spending tends to match their income no matter how high the income, it's called lifestyle inflation)
- vkou 10y agoIn hot markets, landlords will charge as much rent as their tenants can bear. If enough people have an entire income available to them, rents will rise.
- bonzini 10y agoThat did not last for long though, maybe forty years from after the second world war till the early 80s. The model that did last for centuries had families of 8-12 people, with men working in the fields and women looking after children and grandchildren.
- danharaj 10y agoThat's inaccurate or incomplete. Women shared a significant portion of agricultural labor throughout history and on top of that maintained the household and performed auxiliary labor.
- bonzini 10y agoYes, I was simplifying a lot. The point still stands, in that except for a short period of time it has never been "one person working", because maintaining the household and looking after all the young in the extended family is a job of its own. It was not at all like having two kids, who spend half the day or more at school.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]