4 ms·

I'm kind of surprised the article didn't mention the role of dual-income households. For generations, a single income was the norm and generally able to provid

I'm kind of surprised the article didn't mention the role of dual-income households. For generations, a single income was the norm and generally able to provide a better quality of life (by standards like home size, discretionary spending, etc...) than your parents' generation. Over time, two incomes went from providing far more than a family needed to being a practical necessity in many markets. I can't imagine buying the type of home I'd like to live in on even my relatively high (by national standards) Bay Area salary alone, and yet many families still choose to live here. Once a family relies on two incomes just to pay the rent, it becomes harder to pick up and move to a different part of the country unless both partners can do it at the same time. Even intra-county moves are more difficult when two partners are working full-time and don't want to deal with the stresses of moving on top of their regular jobs. Maybe the pendulum will swing back as a result of changing expectations (about where to live, how much home to buy, what kind of job you need to have), or maybe remote work will save us all and let us move out of the expensive areas where our jobs are. But for now, I think the rise of the dual-income household is among the biggest factors keeping us in place.

sturgill 7y ago
I saw this play out several times when I lived in NYC. Many friends would hit that point where kids were now a consideration and one of the partner’s was ready to transition to a new job. They’d talk about moving, and usually the spouse in a transition phase was ready to go elsewhere. But rarely were both spouses ready to go at the same time. This isn’t a normative statement, but two income families are inherently less mobile (absent one spouse working remotely). It’s a world of trade offs...
mdorazio 7y ago
On top of this, once you're reliant on two incomes to pay the bills and you want to have kids, you're also dependent on your local support network (often parents) to raise your family. I have several friends who can't move because either one of them would have to stop working to take care of the kids or they would have to pay a near equivalent amount for a nanny.
bko 7y ago
> I'm kind of surprised the article didn't mention the role of dual-income households The number of single/no earner households has actually increased since 1980. If you look at Table H-12. Household by Number of Earners by Median and Mean Income [0], you'll see in 1980 the percentage of households that have 2+ earners was ~44%, and now its ~40% and has steadily decreased over that time. I made it into a google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm8d-XTuGu_ilbK0xn_rlyCN151cMmv9YKzp9dHK8s8/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm8d-XTuGu_ilbK0xn_r... [0] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
- drewmate 7y ago
  This is an interesting point and worth looking in to more. Thanks for making it a Google sheet (I don't have Excel.) I'm no demographer, but my intuition is that the shift from 44% to 40% is not likely due to an increase in single-income households that are also buying homes. I think over the last 30 years that number would get squeezed a bit on both ends: * Boomers are retiring causing some dual-income households to become 0-income households. Indeed, the proportion of 0-income households has gone up about 4% over the same period. * Millenials are marrying later, causing them to be reported as "single income households" far later in life than in previous generations. For instance, I'm still single at an age when my father owned a home and had 3 kids (on a single income). As mentioned previously, I'm in no position to buy a home right now. While I constitute a "household" under the census designation, my original comment was more referring to a traditional marriage or domestic partnership that would be in the market to buy a home. If we could normalize the data to such couples (say working-age partners in a relationship) I think we'd see the trend of dual-income households that matches my anecdotal observations.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Sadly I can't hold out much hope for remote work saving us. We've been able to do a whole lot of jobs remotely for over a decade now and companies still demand butts in seats.
tropo 7y ago
Single income: Move to a new job. There is 1 short commute per day. It can be in a small city with little traffic, so the commute time is short and low-stress and there is little fuel burned. Childcare is sort of free, and the house is big, so having a big family is easy. Double income: Stay put, even if the jobs change. There are 2 long commutes per day. In order to find 2 suitable jobs, urban life is required. The commute burns lots of fuel, even if by bus. Childcare is expensive, especially if not of dreadful quality, and the apartment is tiny. Having a family is not really practical.

sturgill 7y ago

I saw this play out several times when I lived in NYC. Many friends would hit that point where kids were now a consideration and one of the partner’s was ready to transition to a new job. They’d talk about moving, and usually the spouse in a transition phase was ready to go elsewhere. But rarely were both spouses ready to go at the same time. This isn’t a normative statement, but two income families are inherently less mobile (absent one spouse working remotely). It’s a world of trade offs...

mdorazio 7y ago

On top of this, once you're reliant on two incomes to pay the bills and you want to have kids, you're also dependent on your local support network (often parents) to raise your family. I have several friends who can't move because either one of them would have to stop working to take care of the kids or they would have to pay a near equivalent amount for a nanny.

bko 7y ago

> I'm kind of surprised the article didn't mention the role of dual-income households The number of single/no earner households has actually increased since 1980. If you look at Table H-12. Household by Number of Earners by Median and Mean Income [0], you'll see in 1980 the percentage of households that have 2+ earners was ~44%, and now its ~40% and has steadily decreased over that time. I made it into a google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm8d-XTuGu_ilbK0xn_rlyCN151cMmv9YKzp9dHK8s8/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vm8d-XTuGu_ilbK0xn_r... [0] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...

drewmate 7y ago
This is an interesting point and worth looking in to more. Thanks for making it a Google sheet (I don't have Excel.) I'm no demographer, but my intuition is that the shift from 44% to 40% is not likely due to an increase in single-income households that are also buying homes. I think over the last 30 years that number would get squeezed a bit on both ends: * Boomers are retiring causing some dual-income households to become 0-income households. Indeed, the proportion of 0-income households has gone up about 4% over the same period. * Millenials are marrying later, causing them to be reported as "single income households" far later in life than in previous generations. For instance, I'm still single at an age when my father owned a home and had 3 kids (on a single income). As mentioned previously, I'm in no position to buy a home right now. While I constitute a "household" under the census designation, my original comment was more referring to a traditional marriage or domestic partnership that would be in the market to buy a home. If we could normalize the data to such couples (say working-age partners in a relationship) I think we'd see the trend of dual-income households that matches my anecdotal observations.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

Sadly I can't hold out much hope for remote work saving us. We've been able to do a whole lot of jobs remotely for over a decade now and companies still demand butts in seats.

tropo 7y ago

Single income: Move to a new job. There is 1 short commute per day. It can be in a small city with little traffic, so the commute time is short and low-stress and there is little fuel burned. Childcare is sort of free, and the house is big, so having a big family is easy. Double income: Stay put, even if the jobs change. There are 2 long commutes per day. In order to find 2 suitable jobs, urban life is required. The commute burns lots of fuel, even if by bus. Childcare is expensive, especially if not of dreadful quality, and the apartment is tiny. Having a family is not really practical.