3 ms·
This is such a stretch. > Families were bigger in the 60s so things had to be cheaper for families to afford it. Consider that perhaps your causality is rever
by nerdponx 4y ago
This is such a stretch.
> Families were bigger in the 60s so things had to be cheaper for families to afford it.
Consider that perhaps your causality is reversed. Families are smaller now because existing is more expensive relative to wages.
- anon291 4y ago> Consider that perhaps your causality is reversed. Families are smaller now because existing is more expensive relative to wages. Perhaps we're both right, and it's a cycle. Smaller families cause these kinds of expenses to grow relative to wages, which cause smaller families. These sorts of things are not unheard of.
- nerdponx 4y agoIt's very very rare that decreasing demand increases the cost of something, unless it's been entirely replaced by something else (e.g. horse carriages vs. cars), which -- when it does happen -- is mostly due to supply side reconfiguration that leads to higher marginal costs. So no, I don't think your causal direction is plausible without strong corroborating evidence.