Why now both, the father and the mother, have to work to make ends meet?

I agree, really, but I am talking here about the average family in the sixties, and currently, not people like you and I who agree on that , it is all about the AVERAGE family and how they behave, and behaving in the same way, how they managed and manage to make ends meet.

 

The "one earner household" was a temporary blip. The extent of income inequality in capitalism naturally delivers the need for two earners. The only thing we're waiting for is the return of the poor house

 

One reason may be that in the past few decades, there has been a concerted effort to promote the feminist ideals of women being equal to men which has flooded the workforce with many more workers. This influx of available employees has caused more competition for jobs and thus employers can get employees cheaper.

Since affirmative action (with regard to hiring women) it has become fairly typical for both parents to have to work in order to make enough money to be able adequately support their family.

 

Nonsense! Positive discrimination is a simple correction to market inefficiency. It is a standard application of the theory of the second best.

 

That's my point - the 'average' family doesn't budget their money wisely - they mortgage expensive homes they don't need, finance expensive cars they don't need, or have kids despite not having strong enough income to support them, etc

Back in the 50s-60s, people lived much more within their means for 1 thing. There were no credit cards, TIVO, fast food was an occasional treat, not an everyday thing, etc. People today are too concerned with looking wealthy rather than just living within their means - they run up their credit cards and lease expense possessions just for the sake of 'status', but in reality they live like slaves, under constant fear of losing their home, their car, etc if they aren't able to make the payments one month on their mediocre salaries.

Hell, Warren Buffet is one of the richest men in the world, and he lives more modestly than many welfare recipients do - he still drives a Lincoln he bought years ago, even though he could easily drive a Lamborghini, and he still lives in a modest, middle class home, even though he could own several mansions. That's how he got rich - people don't get rich by spending more on toilet paper than they have to.

 

"Layers after layers of false needs..." increasing consumption? Very Marxist!

 

Here is why we need two incomes now (from 8:14 to 9:57):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=DryKwh7a3I4

 

I listened to the entire thing. Troubling to say the least. It really shoots a hole in the argument that we are spending more on frivolous things than we did a generation ago. Families with children are getting screwed harder than anyone else. I would write more but i am on my phone and about to start a 6 hour drive.

 

One thing about the increased cost of housing - that was caused by a few things:

1 - Shift from cash to mortgages for housing. As people stopped saving up to buy a house and started borrowing money for houses, the amount they could afford increased, so housing prices increased.
2 - Easy credit. The market was flooded with buyers for several years, especially first-time buyers that didn't really understand the value of housing. They were willing to pay more than anyone previously would have for the same house, driving up the prices.
3 - The rise of the two-income family meant that people were able to afford more expensive homes. That drove the prices up to the point that a family had to be two-income to afford a home.
4 - Bigger homes. Notice that the woman in the video spoke about a slight increase in the number of rooms, not the increase in square footage. Yes the most common home today is a 3/2 when before it was a 3/1, but today's average family home is around 2400 square feet when it used to be about 1700. This coupled with more elaborate finishes has increased the cost as well.

So to some degree, families need to be two-income because two-income families drove up prices and expectations to the point that every family needs two incomes just to keep up.

 

In my opinion, if you still point out your reason number "3" it is because you didn´t watch the lattest link I passed:

Here is why we need two incomes now (from 8:14 to 9:57):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=DryKwh7a3I4

 

That has nothing to do with the fact that two-income families drove up the price of housing. Mortgages are based on income levels. If both members work, the income is higher, which allows them to buy a bigger house. The builders cater to what will sell. More people with more money means builders will build nicer and bigger, more expensive homes. This drives up the price of housing.

Just look at the housing inventories today. What percentage of homes are under 1,000 square feet or built with basic finishes? What percentage are over 2,000 square feet and built with nice finishes? Most houses are much nicer and larger than they were even a decade ago, much less a generation ago. Many of today's builders have never built a home of under 1500 square feet, nearly all of the small and inexpensive homes are over 20 years old (and usually closer to 50).

 

It has to do with the state of marriage. Women tend to want to have the power that comes with money. Even if a womans income is less then her spouse---there is leverage.

One of the hardest things for me to do was to change my attitude from "me" to "partnership" when I quit my job and stayed home. It was humbling---but frankly with me managing the home and bills and hubby focusing only on work--we had a higher quality of life, had more money for savings and could afford expensive vacations. But we lived in a tiny house, drove cheap cars purchased at car auctions and NEVER ate out at a restaurant unless it was a special occasion.

 

I don´t think I got your point. Do you mean that with you managing the house, with only one income at home, things were much better, or the other way around?.

 

To have your kids go to a decent school you are looking at a minimum of 200,000 to 250,000 for the house. The video is very clear about cars. People pay less for cars than they did in the 1970's, because people keep cars for an average of 2 years longer and the price of repairs has gone down. The uptick comes from previously 1 car households becoming 2 car households. You can't expect someone to work a decent job without transportation.

We are evolutionary driven to have children. Parents today work longer and harder than their parents, for less money.

Housing, healthcare, taxes, and education are the driving forces behind the wholesale debt in America. In the 1950's these were not nearly as expensive. If you watched the video, you would understand that people today spend less on food, clothing, appliances, and cars. Your personal responsibility argument is full of holes. Keep beating the drums.

People today live in much more volatile times.

We aren't talking about becoming rich, although nice straw man. We are talking about the difficulties of simply remaining middle class.

 

With me as the stay at home spouse----it was MUCH better. Right now however---my husband is at home, I work---and I'm not near as thrilled about that arrangement.

 

no credit cards during the "good ole days"????? are you kidding? They were store credit cars, gas credit cards vs the "one cards" like MC/VISA/Discover/AMEX

HFC and Beneficial did a bang up business on unsecured personal loans

homes were far from 2k sq feet and more like 1k sq feet

you had 1 bathroom and maybe 3 bedrooms. The kitchen was also the dining room

you mended your clothes and had your shoes repaired

TV's cost the equivalent of 1 months salary, not 1 day. Furniture was much more expensive as a percentage of income. A bedroom set might well cost 2-3 months salary so you learned to take care of your things because you couldn't afford to replace them and most items were "bought on time" meaning payments to the store. In store financing was the norm. layaways was how you bought xmas presents

You didn't dine out and if you did, it was a huge treat.

Gaming was playing Monopoly, Life, Parcheesi etc etc.

the statements that the wealthy get wealthier is used to portray them as evil. There is not a finite amount of wealth so because one man earns more does not stop another from doing the same.

 

no credit cards during the "good ole days"????? are you kidding? They were store credit cars, gas credit cards vs the "one cards" like MC/VISA/Discover/AMEX

HFC and Beneficial did a bang up business on unsecured personal loans

homes were far from 2k sq feet and more like 1k sq feet

you had 1 bathroom and maybe 3 bedrooms. The kitchen was also the dining room

you mended your clothes and had your shoes repaired

TV's cost the equivalent of 1 months salary, not 1 day. Furniture was much more expensive as a percentage of income. A bedroom set might well cost 2-3 months salary so you learned to take care of your things because you couldn't afford to replace them and most items were "bought on time" meaning payments to the store. In store financing was the norm. layaways was how you bought xmas presents

You didn't dine out and if you did, it was a huge treat.

Gaming was playing Monopoly, Life, Parcheesi etc etc.

the statements that the wealthy get wealthier is used to portray them as evil. There is not a finite amount of wealth so because one man earns more does not stop another from doing the same.

 

Did anyone see the video I linked here, as a reliable source, to clarify, or to try to clarify certain things?

So far, only one person has referred to it, and in my opinion, some people´s view would change, it is a very enriching video.

 

The Fed's "quantitative easing" policies have also been making the price of housing unaffordable for many Americans; when they print all that money they are buying up hundreds of billions in equity on residential mortgages.

 

Because while people will pretend that inflation numbers the government uses are accurate, the reality is that the things we need to live like food, HC, education, housing, energy have all dramatically increased in price. The numbers look good because you can buy a 5$ chair at Wal-mart.

 

cause corps are greedy.... once a family had two incomes it wasn't long before they saw it as one income, inflation happened, but wages have not kept up

the things you bought back then also where built to last.. unlike today...

.

 

You don't need a 'decent school'.

You don't need to finance a car. My previous car cost $1,500 paid in cash, and it lasted me for 3 years. I could easily pay more than that a month in car payments and full coverage insurance for a flashy new car. I had a few repairs and did them myself - I replaced my car's fuel pump by hand and only paid $60 for the part - if I'd taken it to a shop it'd have cost me $500

Not everyone is, and it's moot point. We're evolutionarily driven to want expensive toys too - that doesn't mean financing a new car which costs more per month to drive than my car did paid in cash is a good idea - neither is a young person accidentally having a kid simply because they didn't bother to use a condom, or thinking they can support a kid working part time at Pizza Hut.

My argument's dead on - some things (such as college) are pricer, but people today do not live within their means. People have themselves to blame for living outside their income range, but they don't want to do that and instead just point finger at the "rising prices" to make themselves feel better about not learning to be more thrifty and more responsible, which are not 'necessary expenses' just to survive - a brand new leased car, a $250,000 house, having a kid on part-time only income, etc are not "basic necessities". Read "Total Money Makeover" by Dave Ramsey.

How am I capable of having only $750 per month in necessary expenses, and having as much as $2200 in surplus income a month, making only about $15-16 per hour then?

---

This is a basic necessity:





These are not basic necessities:

 

Bush made it so one can not claim bk on unsecured credit, which meant banks are free to loan money to people they know will never pay it back at high interest rates... Thank Bush for that

 

Well, since many people didn´t watch the video, the two links I left here to help understanding things better, I will put it here myself:

FROM 1950 TO 1980:

-The bottom 90% of the people saw an increase of 75% in income
-The top 1% (wealthies) saw an increase of 77% in income

FROM 1980 TO 2008:
LOOKOUT!!:
-The bottom 90% of the people saw an increase of 1% in income
-The top 1% of the people (wealthy) saw an increase of 433%

This data is in the video I placed here as a link, and it looked interesting.
The video points out also why we need now two incomes rather than one, as we used to.

 

Well, since many people didn´t watch the video, the two links I left here to help understanding things better, I will put it here myself:

FROM 1950 TO 1980:

-The bottom 90% of the people saw an increase of 75% in income
-The top 1% (wealthies) saw an increase of 77% in income

FROM 1980 TO 2008:
LOOKOUT!!:
-The bottom 90% of the people saw an increase of 1% in income
-The top 1% of the people (wealthy) saw an increase of 433%

This is the source:
(from 8:14 to 9:57):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=DryKwh7a3I4

This data is in the video I placed here as a link, and it looked interesting.
The video points out also why we need now two incomes rather than one, as we used to.

-------------------------------------------------------

For those who argue we spend recklessly today:

According to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
(from minute 16:40 to minute 24:43 approximately):

We spend today: (INFLATION ADJUSTED!)
-32% LESS on clothing than a generation ago
-18% LESS on food
-52% LESS on appliances

Here it when the difference comes:

We spend today: (look out: Inflation Adjusted!!)
-76% MORE on mortgage
-74% MORE on health insurance
-52% MORE on cars

So, it is easy to understand than 76% more for a house (inflation adjusted!!) is not a luxury, nor a car, if only a car, costs 52% more than a generation ago.