7 ms·

Counter-point: my anecdotal observations suggest that folks are so intent on competing for housing that in the decades since dual incomes became commonplace the

by nilkn 7y ago

Counter-point: my anecdotal observations suggest that folks are so intent on competing for housing that in the decades since dual incomes became commonplace the main effect has been to simply dramatically inflate the price of housing. In other words, the extra money may not be making it into the general economy much and it may instead just be supporting higher home prices. Of course, home prices are not completely isolated from the rest of the US economy, but I think that's a far cry from the idea that each household just now has twice as much money to spend on goods, entertainment, food, etc.

kelnos 7y ago
I was thinking about this, too. In areas where housing supply is constrained, the increasing prevalence of dual incomes means people can bid higher, more competitive offers on housing. And of course they do, because why wouldn't they? I would even expect this to be true, though on a smaller scale, in areas where housing supply isn't constrained, since, in general, each individual house is unique to some extent; two dual-income families fighting over the same house will have more resources to throw at their bids.
scruple 7y ago
> In other words, the extra money may not be making it into the general economy much and it may instead just be supporting higher home prices. This was the topic of conversation this weekend between my wife and I and 4 other couples that we are friends with, each of us with young children. We live in SoCal. We have young kids. We basically can afford to live here, despite having high-paying, dual-income households. That's it, we can afford living. We can't afford to go to Disney very often. We can't afford to go to the San Diego Zoo very often. We're keeping pace with house and car payments (this was a big one for my wife and I, we no longer have car payments and are doing everything we can to make our situation work with the automobiles that we have), with childcare, and trying to put away money for our kids at the expense of the local economy. I somehow don't feel any more financially secure or independent; I don't feel like I have more discretionary income than when I first moved to California and was making $10/hour. My own conclusion is that it's a feature of our economy, it's by design.
- silveroriole 7y ago
  You have a house and multiple cars but you can’t go to Disneyland as often as you’d like? Such hardship... barely living...
  - jdbernard 7y ago
    This is such a dismissive comment and misses the main point. The main point is that these are presumably upper-middle class families. You would expect that with their higher-than-average incomes they would have greater amounts of discretionary income that they would be spending and that their expenses would be spread out across more of the economy, supporting many other businesses and services. Instead the high salaries are being captured by housing costs. Sure they're not hurting, but it is surprising that dual-income, high-earning families are basically breaking even.
    - throwaway100773 7y ago
      The comment is dismissive, but the point stands. The grandparent comment comes off awfully entitled considering all of life’s basic needs seem to be covered and they outright own multiple vehicles in perhaps the highest cost of living area in the United States. Not to mention, the higher proportion of income going toward housing is likely the consequence of protectionist measures to keep the riff raff out and maintain as much status for their children as their income possibly allows. Move to a worse school district and you’re likely to see your housing cost go down by a factor of 50%. Not to mention, the grandparent freely admits to putting money away for the kids, I assume this means college savings of some sort. I’m making a great deal of assumptions but not being able to go to Disney land at the drop of a hat seems awfully trite.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - nilkn 7y ago
        I think you really are missing the point, though. You may have found the comment entitled, but I don’t think there was anything fundamentally offensive about it, and your reaction reflects more about your discomfort with the existence of the upper middle class than it does about the actual topic under consideration. No one is asking you to feel sorry for them — they’re just illustrating a point about where money gets spent in the US economy. Dual income families are — and for decades have been — spending their extra second income on housing rather than the rest of the economy. The comment you’re referring to is therefore very relevant because it shows that trend in action. Housing — and other opportunities in life it enables, like access to schools, (real life) social networks, safety, etc. — supersedes everything else in importance for many families, so second incomes are just spent on what is ultimately a bidding war over housing.

by nilkn 7y ago

kelnos 7y ago

I was thinking about this, too. In areas where housing supply is constrained, the increasing prevalence of dual incomes means people can bid higher, more competitive offers on housing. And of course they do, because why wouldn't they? I would even expect this to be true, though on a smaller scale, in areas where housing supply isn't constrained, since, in general, each individual house is unique to some extent; two dual-income families fighting over the same house will have more resources to throw at their bids.

scruple 7y ago

> In other words, the extra money may not be making it into the general economy much and it may instead just be supporting higher home prices. This was the topic of conversation this weekend between my wife and I and 4 other couples that we are friends with, each of us with young children. We live in SoCal. We have young kids. We basically can afford to live here, despite having high-paying, dual-income households. That's it, we can afford living. We can't afford to go to Disney very often. We can't afford to go to the San Diego Zoo very often. We're keeping pace with house and car payments (this was a big one for my wife and I, we no longer have car payments and are doing everything we can to make our situation work with the automobiles that we have), with childcare, and trying to put away money for our kids at the expense of the local economy. I somehow don't feel any more financially secure or independent; I don't feel like I have more discretionary income than when I first moved to California and was making $10/hour. My own conclusion is that it's a feature of our economy, it's by design.

silveroriole 7y ago
You have a house and multiple cars but you can’t go to Disneyland as often as you’d like? Such hardship... barely living...
- jdbernard 7y ago
  This is such a dismissive comment and misses the main point. The main point is that these are presumably upper-middle class families. You would expect that with their higher-than-average incomes they would have greater amounts of discretionary income that they would be spending and that their expenses would be spread out across more of the economy, supporting many other businesses and services. Instead the high salaries are being captured by housing costs. Sure they're not hurting, but it is surprising that dual-income, high-earning families are basically breaking even.
  - throwaway100773 7y ago
    The comment is dismissive, but the point stands. The grandparent comment comes off awfully entitled considering all of life’s basic needs seem to be covered and they outright own multiple vehicles in perhaps the highest cost of living area in the United States. Not to mention, the higher proportion of income going toward housing is likely the consequence of protectionist measures to keep the riff raff out and maintain as much status for their children as their income possibly allows. Move to a worse school district and you’re likely to see your housing cost go down by a factor of 50%. Not to mention, the grandparent freely admits to putting money away for the kids, I assume this means college savings of some sort. I’m making a great deal of assumptions but not being able to go to Disney land at the drop of a hat seems awfully trite.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - nilkn 7y ago
      I think you really are missing the point, though. You may have found the comment entitled, but I don’t think there was anything fundamentally offensive about it, and your reaction reflects more about your discomfort with the existence of the upper middle class than it does about the actual topic under consideration. No one is asking you to feel sorry for them — they’re just illustrating a point about where money gets spent in the US economy. Dual income families are — and for decades have been — spending their extra second income on housing rather than the rest of the economy. The comment you’re referring to is therefore very relevant because it shows that trend in action. Housing — and other opportunities in life it enables, like access to schools, (real life) social networks, safety, etc. — supersedes everything else in importance for many families, so second incomes are just spent on what is ultimately a bidding war over housing.