3 ms·

>US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. People did not have trouble supporting families then. If you want to have a very high standard of living b

>US GDP per capita is four times higher than in 1950. People did not have trouble supporting families then. If you want to have a very high standard of living by historical and global[1] standards that is indeed difficult. I may be somewhat biased, as I'm based in Melbourne AU, but I don't think you've given proper credit the explosion in the cost of Real Estate (both rent and mortgage costs; keeping in mind that you cannot lock in a set interest rate for 10+ years in other countries like you can in the US). >That might be true if women couldn’t work but with two income families it certainly isn’t now. You're not wrong there, but I was specifically looking at male incomes, which (at least when looking at localised populations) are strongly correlated with fertility.

barry-cotter 5y ago
My sympathies on your government but that’s democracy. The people get what the people want. If that was viewed as a problem worth solving Melbourne could look to Tokyo with its flat house pieces over 20 years while population increased 50%, or it could enact a land value tax. Either of the Tokyo style sane zoning system or not rewarding being lucky enough to own property where the economy happens to grow works fine.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >My sympathies on your government but that’s democracy. Haha, unfortunately. Too many people riding the gravy train... Economics Explained made a video about it a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw