5 ms·

Paragraph one is worth an upvote, but I don't think you need go so far as the pop psych of paragraph two. Paragraph one -- indeed, sentence one, which points ou

Paragraph one is worth an upvote, but I don't think you need go so far as the pop psych of paragraph two. Paragraph one -- indeed, sentence one, which points out that marriage and childbearing are delayed in modern technological societies -- explains most everything else. Especially when combined with the key fact that in the USA all incomes except those of the rich have been declining in real terms for over a generation. And independence costs money. Kids stay involved with their parents longer because the marginal cost of the fourth bedroom in a four-bedroom house is a lot smaller than the cost of a one-bedroom apartment. The other thing I'd point out is that the "traditional American way" to run a nuclear family -- the one where kids hit age 18 and then move out on their own, sometimes to other states -- is (was?) actually a very specific pattern of life from a very specific time in a very specific culture. In many cultures, historically and around the world, households traditionally contained grandparents, parents, and children all living together. It would be considered alien for a child to desert the home of their parents unless they were explicitly married out to another family, in which case the child would be expected to live in the home of the spouse's parents. To strike out on your own would be crazy! What would your family say? (And one wonders if the nomads of the Tibetan plateau are sitting around reading Tibetan op-eds bemoaning the decline of the traditional Tibetan family: Some women are taking only one husband! What are his brothers supposed to do for a wife? [1]) Traditions can be pretty ephemeral. One of my favorite things to do is to find "ancient traditions" whose inventors are still living. --- [1] Note: I took Anthropology 101 from a world expert on polyandry -- one of the world's most unusual family patterns -- but I should note that I made up this particular example. I actually have no idea to what extent polyandry is in decline, or whether a family of Tibetan nomadic brothers and their wife are likely to read op-eds.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Especially when combined with the key fact that all incomes except those of the top quintile have been declining in real terms for over a generation. Although I hear this claim made often, I believe it to be untrue. People at all income quintiles have more and better stuff now than people at the same quintile at all periods in the past [1]. That would be impossible if real incomes really went down. [1] I'm assuming comparisons over at least 10 years, to avoid "during recession" vs "peak of bubble" comparisons.
- moultano 16y ago
  I'd compare it to the cost of housing/food, not the cost of stuff for the purposes of this article at least. "Stuff" always gets cheaper and cooler. The fundamental things you need for independence don't necessarily.
- watmough 16y ago
  The claim is correct. The reason that people have more and better stuff is that women in extremely large numbers, have gone out and taken jobs in order to support families. Principally, the increase in costs to raise a family comes from large rises in the cost of housing and healthcare. Quote: "The crisis facing the middle class started more than a generation ago. Even as productivity rose, the wages of the average fully-employed male have been flat since the 1970s. But core expenses kept going up. By the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much (adjusted for inflation) on mortgages than they did a generation ago -- for a house that was, on average, only ten percent bigger and 25 years older. They also had to pay twice as much to hang on to their health insurance." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-witho...
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Do you believe the average fully employed male today has fewer goods/services than in the past? If not, then my point stands. (Regarding Warren, see my other posts in this thread. Her data shows that a two-income couple of 2000 has more income and also consumes considerably more stuff than a single-earner in 1970. E.g., the 2000-era couple spends 55% more on 2 cars than the 1970-era couple spent on 1 car.)
    - usaar333 16y ago
      That is still possible. A lot of the consumption increase is required by both spouses being in the workforce. The second car is not a luxury, but a necessity. Money spend on house-cleaning, eating out, etc. has also perhaps gone up, but due to a time reallocation (away from the 1950s housewife to a 3rd party).
jdc 16y ago
Could you cite a couple examples of "ancient traditions" whose inventors are still living?

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Especially when combined with the key fact that all incomes except those of the top quintile have been declining in real terms for over a generation. Although I hear this claim made often, I believe it to be untrue. People at all income quintiles have more and better stuff now than people at the same quintile at all periods in the past [1]. That would be impossible if real incomes really went down. [1] I'm assuming comparisons over at least 10 years, to avoid "during recession" vs "peak of bubble" comparisons.

moultano 16y ago
I'd compare it to the cost of housing/food, not the cost of stuff for the purposes of this article at least. "Stuff" always gets cheaper and cooler. The fundamental things you need for independence don't necessarily.
watmough 16y ago
The claim is correct. The reason that people have more and better stuff is that women in extremely large numbers, have gone out and taken jobs in order to support families. Principally, the increase in costs to raise a family comes from large rises in the cost of housing and healthcare. Quote: "The crisis facing the middle class started more than a generation ago. Even as productivity rose, the wages of the average fully-employed male have been flat since the 1970s. But core expenses kept going up. By the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much (adjusted for inflation) on mortgages than they did a generation ago -- for a house that was, on average, only ten percent bigger and 25 years older. They also had to pay twice as much to hang on to their health insurance." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-witho...
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Do you believe the average fully employed male today has fewer goods/services than in the past? If not, then my point stands. (Regarding Warren, see my other posts in this thread. Her data shows that a two-income couple of 2000 has more income and also consumes considerably more stuff than a single-earner in 1970. E.g., the 2000-era couple spends 55% more on 2 cars than the 1970-era couple spent on 1 car.)
  - usaar333 16y ago
    That is still possible. A lot of the consumption increase is required by both spouses being in the workforce. The second car is not a luxury, but a necessity. Money spend on house-cleaning, eating out, etc. has also perhaps gone up, but due to a time reallocation (away from the 1950s housewife to a 3rd party).

jdc 16y ago

Could you cite a couple examples of "ancient traditions" whose inventors are still living?