4 ms·

Some might suspect that the proliferation of two-earner couples is an explanation. Surely having a spouse who works can make it more difficult to pursue job opp

by mslate 13y ago

Some might suspect that the proliferation of two-earner couples is an explanation. Surely having a spouse who works can make it more difficult to pursue job opportunities in distant places. Yet the percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years. Instead, the relevant change is that today’s two-paycheck married households are about 46 percent less likely to move across state lines than were their counterparts in the 1980s. From a previous article on the subject: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_2013/features/stay_put_young_man047332.php?page=all http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_...

cperciva 13y ago
the percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years Interesting, but not necessarily enough to rule out a connection -- I would expect a spouse who works part-time in a low-wage would provide less friction than a spouse who works full-time in a professional capacity. Women (let's be honest, that's mostly who we're talking about here) may not have increased their penetration of the job market over the past few decades, but they have certainly moved upwards -- and into jobs which are harder to drop on short notice.
yardie 13y ago
> the percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years. I think the statement just barely covers what 2 incomes mean in the 80s verses now. It's far easier to move if one skilled and one unskilled partner find a new job. A scientist and a secretary for example. It's much more complicated when 2 partners have career and salary parity.
- jzwinck 13y ago
  Strangely, two people who each earn a high income may find it harder to move within the US, yet they may also find it easier to move outside the US, relative to two-income couples with a larger wage gap. This is because many countries offer work visas for "high skilled" or "in demand" jobs and require each person to qualify independently. So while a programmer and a cook may find it relatively easy to move between cities or states, the lower-earning partner would be denied the right to work in some other countries. Whether that makes economic sense for those other countries I am not sure. It does make some political sense: the high-earning locals can find work anywhere, but low-earning ones are more likely going to stay in their own country, where they would prefer not to compete with foreigners. Not every country works this way; the UK for example grants many spouses and partners the right to work (but read about their new "12 month cooling off period" before you apply!).
frobozz 13y ago
Another difference (in addition to the other responses) is that thirty years ago, DINKYs bought houses at prices that a single-income family could afford, then sold them on (or let them out) at prices only DINKYs could afford. A middle-class two-income late-20s couple 30 years ago could still comfortably afford the mortgage or rent on a family home if the lower earner stopped working (as was almost always the case when a baby arrived).

by mslate 13y ago

cperciva 13y ago

the percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years Interesting, but not necessarily enough to rule out a connection -- I would expect a spouse who works part-time in a low-wage would provide less friction than a spouse who works full-time in a professional capacity. Women (let's be honest, that's mostly who we're talking about here) may not have increased their penetration of the job market over the past few decades, but they have certainly moved upwards -- and into jobs which are harder to drop on short notice.

yardie 13y ago

> the percentage of married households with two earners has hardly changed over the last thirty years. I think the statement just barely covers what 2 incomes mean in the 80s verses now. It's far easier to move if one skilled and one unskilled partner find a new job. A scientist and a secretary for example. It's much more complicated when 2 partners have career and salary parity.

jzwinck 13y ago
Strangely, two people who each earn a high income may find it harder to move within the US, yet they may also find it easier to move outside the US, relative to two-income couples with a larger wage gap. This is because many countries offer work visas for "high skilled" or "in demand" jobs and require each person to qualify independently. So while a programmer and a cook may find it relatively easy to move between cities or states, the lower-earning partner would be denied the right to work in some other countries. Whether that makes economic sense for those other countries I am not sure. It does make some political sense: the high-earning locals can find work anywhere, but low-earning ones are more likely going to stay in their own country, where they would prefer not to compete with foreigners. Not every country works this way; the UK for example grants many spouses and partners the right to work (but read about their new "12 month cooling off period" before you apply!).

frobozz 13y ago

Another difference (in addition to the other responses) is that thirty years ago, DINKYs bought houses at prices that a single-income family could afford, then sold them on (or let them out) at prices only DINKYs could afford. A middle-class two-income late-20s couple 30 years ago could still comfortably afford the mortgage or rent on a family home if the lower earner stopped working (as was almost always the case when a baby arrived).